2006 Predctions and Medicare Modernization Act

A few letters submitted to the Boston Globe over the weekend; any one of which would add at least a day's balance to the liberally extreme slant of the editorial pages:

Editor,

In Hedgehogs and Foxes (op-ed, December 30, A19), Ms. Ellen Goodman asks, "Anyone ready to make the first predictions on" the first predictions of 2006?

This Fox predicts that as long as George W. Bush is President, the liberal predictors that dominate the media will continue to predict doom and gloom for the United States. Even in the face of continued success in the war on terror (on the battlefield, at the ballot box and on the home front), the return of U.S. troops from Iraq, the continuation of historically low unemployment rates, the continuation of historically high home ownership rates, the continuation of robust GDP numbers and low inflation numbers, the left-wing predictors, most definitely Hedgehogs, will not only predict doom and gloom; it might even sound like they're hoping for it.

This Fox will be absolutely right . . . and I take no joy in it. (End of letter.)


Editor,

As usual, Mr. Robert Kuttner is making up history for the purpose of writing an anti-Bush screed (Dollars to doughnuts, Bush's drug benefit is no bargain, op-ed, December 31, A11).

Mr. Kuttner writes, " . . . when the Bush Administration rammed this bill (the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003) through the Republican Congress . . . ."

The facts are that the bill passed the U.S. Senate 54 - 44 with Sens. John F. Kerry and Joseph Lieberman not voting. I don't know why Sen. Lieberman didn't vote, but I'd bet the ranch the Great Equivocator, Sen. Kerry, was positioning to, well, equivocate . . . great leadership that! Eleven Democrats voted in support of the bill including liberal stalwart Ms. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA). The legislation was endorsed by the AARP, a fantastically liberal lobbying group. Of course, if anyone wants to argue the eleven Democrats were "misled", I'll then acknowledge the eleven Democrats, and their entire staffs, are demonstrably dumb.

Next, I'll concede, like most legislation passed by bi-partisan votes, this legislation can be improved. But, it is hoping against hope for Mr. Kuttner to suggest a Democrat might lead! Mr. Kuttner suggests a Democrat should have the "moxie and the wit" to propose a "straight-forward fix" and "take it to the country in the 2006 elections." Does Mr. Kuttner know the Democrats of which he speaks? They don't propose anything! No plan on national security. No plan on the economy. No plan on income tax reform. No plan on race relations. No plan on education. No plan on Social Security reform. DNC chairman Howard Dean is actually running around the Country saying the Democrats aren't the Party in power so Democrats don't need to have a plan . . . for anything. A fix? That's rich. Thanks for the huge laugh, Mr. Kuttner. (End of letter.)


Editor,

It is sheer idiocy to write, as Mr. Jonathan Powers does in "Behind veil of Iraq war, winds of peace (op-ed, December 31, A11)", that, "The war in Iraq has become a living example of how not to use the blunt instrument of armed might. At the same time, its fire and smoke are obscuring many positive trends all over the world. For the 10th successive year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has reported that the number of wars has fallen over the last 12 years. The New York-based Freedom House reported this month that the spread of democracy and the respect for human rights continues on its upward trajectory. This year was one of the most successful years for freedom since 1972."

The 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are participating in "one of the most successful years for freedom since 1972" in spite of the war on terror? You've got to be kidding me. Who could possibly believe this lunacy?

Usually, I'd be very suspicious of a London-based writer citing organizations that begin with the words "Stockholm" or "New York". But, in this case, I'll accept, as fact, Mr. Powers' statements above; clearly, though, he forgot what he was arguing. Anyway, if Freedom House has an annual award for promoting freedom, they should certainly present this year's award to President George W. Bush, the global leader in the war on terror. Heck, they should even consider naming the award after him. (End of letter.)

Facts on TRMPAC

Because the facts would tend to support Rep. Tom DeLay, the Boston Globe chooses to perpetuate the smear against him by incorporating the claims of DeLay's critics in news articles and dress the claims up as fact. No wonder so many unintelligent and uninformed people are running around the greater Boston area.

Again, for those that might be first time readers of ZACKlyRight, Travis County (TX) prosecutor, Democrat Ronnie Earle, thinks if A gives money to B so B can give money to C so C can give money to D all because A can't give money directly to D based on a law that was passed AFTER all the "giving" was completed, the only person to have committed a crime is E. I know, it's pretty unbelievable, huh? Well, that's a partisan prosecutor. And, that's a liberal media that should be laughing at this persecution instead of treating it like a serious crime, which it most certainly is not (but I'll wait for the trial just like I think the liberal media should).

Anyway, the letter:

Editor,

In "Court to consider faster DeLay trial (December 29, A3)", Mr. Bryan Bender writes, "(DeLay's) critics say that he overreached when in 2002 he and two associates . . . allegedly collected almost $200,000 in corporate donations intended for candidates running for the Texas Legislature. Such donations are illegal and the three are accused of sending the money to the Republican National Committee (RNC) in Washington, which in turn gave the exact amount to seven GOP candidates for the Texas House."

The facts laid out in the indictment are that six corporations donated $155,000 to a political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), which then contributed $190,000 to the Republican National State Elections Committee (RNSEC), a branch of the RNC. The RNSEC then contributed $190,000 to seven candidates for the Texas House of Representatives. Rep. DeLay helped organize TRMPAC but it is a gross distortion of fact to imply DeLay ever took possession of any contributions and no one can seriously argue that $155,000 is "exactly" $190,000.

Why camouflage as fact what critics say when the actual facts are so readily available?

Of course, running into Democrats and liberals that get their "facts" from Boston Globe stories like this one continues to be extremely fun for me. (End of letter.)

I copied Mr. Bender; I'll let you know if he responds.

To the liberal extremists that think Rep. DeLay committed a crime, please let me know when and where I can exchange my $155,000 for your $190,000.

Response to Left's Christmas Eve Attack

Even on Christmas Eve, the Left attacks with vigor. No surprise, really. Anyway, the letter:

Editor,

(Submitted early for consideration of being published on Christmas Day!)

In perfect secular, hate-Bush form, Mr. Robert Kuttner was published on Christmas Eve propagating a message of hate disguised as tolerance (What Bush could learn from Lincoln, December 24, A15).

Mr. Kuttner bemoans, incorrectly by the way, but we'll get to that in a moment, that the United States is culturally warring "red" versus "blue" yet he cannot prevent himself from dropping in these beauties, in perfect secular recognition of the goodwill Christmas season, "Bush's entire presidency is about eking out narrow victories, not about building national consensus. Even when he prevails, Bush wins by manipulation and stealth . . . his tiny inner circle protects him from realities that might upset him or challenge his dimly informed certitudes . . . does anyone think Bush is wiser now than in 2001 . . . (Bush) blathers when wandering off script . . . one has to believe that our nation, in a new birth of freedom, will survive even George W. Bush."

Thanks for the healing contribution, Mr. Kuttner! To the hate-Bush-all-the-time crowd, yes, if you want to hate Bush you can selectively choose events and define them such that they "support" your predisposition to hate. Or, for those serious about discussing what does bind us, especially at this Christmas time, we can examine the facts.

First, President Bush has "eked out" the following victories: The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) passed the Senate 62 - 38, twelve Democrats voting in favor. A senate confirmation for the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court of 78 - 22, twenty-two Democrats voting for confirmation. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act that the AARP endorsed. Fifteen billion dollars in AIDS relief for sub-Saharan Africa that passed the House 375 - 41. The No Child Left Behind Act was passed by the House 381 - 41 and by the Senate 87 - 10. The vote to Authorize the Use of Force in Iraq was agreed to in the House by 296 - 133 and in the Senate by 77 - 23. The PATRIOT Act was passed by the Senate 98 - 1. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed the Senate with a near veto-proof tally of 64 - 34; seventeen Democrats united with all but three Republicans in support. This law passed the House with another near veto-proof tally of 281 - 142. Finally, The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was unanimously passed in the Senate, 98-0, and by a veto-proof 380-15 (I don't know where the other 40 members were hiding) vote in the House. Eked out? Are you kidding me?

Second, I appreciate Mr. Kuttners jab about the "tiny inner circle" that insulates the President, but let's examine that circle. An African-American woman, Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. A Hispanic-American, Judge Alberto Gonzalez, as U.S. Attorney General. And, most definitely, Ms. Karen Hughes, who is now working at the State Department but that we all know is the President's closest personal advisor, certainly the person he trusts the most. I can absolutely imagine the over-the-top "healing" (insulting as they are to all of us) editorials that would be written about a Democrat that had such "diverse", close advisors. No, for this President, they're just a "tiny inner circle."

Third, I don't know if President Bush is any wiser than he was in 2001, but if Sens. Harry Reid and John F. Kerry keep running around saying that the President is "misleading" them, then I can only conclude the President is wiser, the Senators are dumber or both.

Next, during this Christmas season, how about a recognition that almost 5 million jobs have been added since May, 2003 and that the unemployment rate is at historical lows? How about the recognition that more Americans (white, Hispanic and African-American) have mortgages on their own homes than ever before? How about the recognition that there have been no terrorists attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001? For those serious about healing, there is much to celebrate.

Finally, to the brave women and men of the United States Armed Forces, thank you and God bless you.

Merry Christmas to all. (End of letter.)

NSA Surveillance of Terrorists

Given even the Left has to acknowledge abuses by President Clinton while in Office, I guess I can see how they might be alarmed at the tactics any President might use to keep us safe.

Let's recall: President Clinton politicized the U.S. Justice Department like no one before him ever had. Upon taking Office, he summarily fired all 50 U.S. Attorneys. President Clinton politicized the IRS. He absolutely used the IRS to harass and attack his conservative opponents by going after many of their tax-exempt statuses.

But, let's also recall that President Clinton was SUPPORTED by a Republican Congress when it actually came to governing. Republicans gave the President the power to fast-track foreign trade agreements and the line-item veto.

Today's impeachment calls by the hyper-hate-Bush crowd are hysterical.

You know what, if such silliness was seriously considered, it would all be over in a week. The President has admitted to the "act". He's signed documents; I'm sure they are immediately available. He took legal counsel; I'm sure the summaries of the counsel given are immediately available. The "targets" are named. I'm sure the evidence supports that these "targets" are really bad people and the evidence is readily available. To suggest the President used the NSA as Clinton used the IRS is preposterous. Does anyone really believe the U.S. Attorney General submitted some forms to be signed with the names of suspected terrorists and on other forms the names of political enemies? This "investigation" would not be anything like trying to get information from the Clinton White House. The stonewalling. The lying. The perjury. The obstruction of justice. Did I say the stonewalling? The legal challenges. The legal motions. On and on the delay tactics went. Here, there are no denials. The President is saying, "I did this and I'm going to continue to do this."

As we all know, impeachment is not criminal. It's political. Let the political opportunists have their silly hearings and let's see if they really think terrorists shouldn't be monitored. If political opportunists think terrorists should be monitored, they should have the decency to apologize to the President with at least half the enthusiasm that they attacked him. The cowards will scurry off the scene; we know who they will be.

Actually, here's my prediction: The hate-Bush-all-the-time crowd will write letters to the editor every day seeking impeachment. The liberal media will print them all; how else to keep the hate-Bush-all-the-time crowd ginned up? U.S. Representatives and Senators wanting to tap into the hatred, will play to those hyperventilating, all for the purpose of looking like they're "leading". But, no one will file any "articles of impeachment" in the House; they know they'll look silly. Again, the elected liberal extremists will do what they do best: demagogue. They'll play politics but they won't act and they certainly won't lead.

Romney; Murtha and 402 other U.S. Reps.

Today's lead editorial in the Boston Globe bashed Gov. Mitt Romney; gee, what a surprise. Countering Gov. Romney's claim that he closed a large budget deficit without raising taxes, the Boston Globe says, "the facts are that the economic recovery was largely national." Huh? Does the Boston Globe mean the nation led by President George W. Bush?

The letter I submitted:

Editor,

When the Boston Globe dismissed Gov. Romney's claim for reducing the State's budget deficit without raising taxes because "the facts are that the economic recovery was largely national", did the Boston Globe mean the nation that is led by President George W. Bush (Editorial, December 15, A20)? During all of the gubernatorial elections next year, will the Boston Globe let us know about any Democrat campaigning for re-election based on her/his state's economic recovery that was "in fact" due to President Bush's economic policies? I very much doubt it. (End of letter.)

Elsewhere on the editorial pages, the liberally extreme Bush-hater, Mr. Thomas Oliphant, wrote, "The President has also continued to be dishonest about what is about to happen in Iraq in terms of the American armed forces. The truth is that after a brief interval, the more than 20,000 extra troops brought in for the run-up to the elections will be withdrawn. Shortly after the first of the year, the force level will be reduced still further because people returning to this country as part of regularly, already scheduled rotations in the combat zone will not be replaced. That will have the effect of cutting the force level still more - probably to about 120,000. In other words, though Bush would insist that everything depends on how the war is going, the United States has plans to remove about one-third of its forces over the next three or four months. Just for the record, that is not any different from what supposedly antiwar Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania has said should happen over the same period." Are you kidding me with this garbage? Oliphant is trying to argue that Rep. Murtha is getting a bum wrap yet he basically agrees with the President? That's unbelievable! The President has been called ever vile name the liberal extremists and Bush-haters can think of and, YES, he and the Patron Saint of Left-Wing War Thinking, Jack Murtha, agree. Murtha says it and he's great. The President says it and he's vilified in the liberal media. How does an idiot like Oliphant hold a job as a serious political writer? My goodness, he's such an idiot. The knife cuts both ways, you idiot.

Go back and read my earlier posts, I say it over and over and over again, I agree with Hillary and the President. I agree with Sen. John F. Kerry. I agree with former Senator John Edwards. They all agree with the President yet they're all great and the President is vilified. Love that liberal media. Four hundred and three Congresspeople, including 187 Democrats and Jack Murtha, voted against the immediate withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. The Democrats are great and the Republicans are vilified. Love that liberal media; now there is no greater proof of their hate-Bush hysteria. The exact same sentiment and Bush is worthy of hate and Murtha is worthy of praise? I say they're both worthy of praise for agreeing on the proper rate to draw down US troops in Iraq.

Anyway, the letter:

Editor,

After walking us through President Bush's planned draw-down of US troops in Iraq, Mr. Thomas Oliphant writes, "Just for the record, (this) is not any different from what the supposedly antiwar Democratic congressman, Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, has said should happen over bascially the same period." Okay, if President Bush and Rep. Murtha are saying the same thing, why is the liberal media vilifying the President and praising Rep. Murtha? The hate-Bush hysteria on the Left is proved beyond any doubt. (End of letter.)

Racial Profiling and Racism

I know this may shock some of you, but there are Asian racists. There are Native American racists. There are Latino racists. There are African-American racists. And, yes, there most certainly are white racists.

Just about three years ago (January 2003), the Boston Globe did a study on racial profiling, "racial profiling" being code for "white police officer harassing black motorist". Be honest, how many of you that read the first reference to racial profiling above immediately visualized the white police officer and the black motorist? How could you not? Anyway, no surprise, the results of the study showed that minorities received more tickets per stop than whites.

So, I wrote a letter to the author of the article asking what was the race of the police officer in the traffic stops upon which all of the findings were based. He responded that the race of the police officer was not recorded.

Six months pass and out of the blue I get an email from the Globe reporter telling me that the next Boston Sunday Globe (July 2003) will have a follow-up to the earlier study and that it will include data based on the race of the police officer. Yes, I'm impacting the discussion!

Lo and behold, the data suggests, just as I started this post, all races of police officers have a tendency to ticket some motorists of a different race more frequently than they do motorists of their own race. The worst "offenders" were African-American police officers that ticketed Latino motorists at the highest rate of all police officer/motorist combinations.

I did not write this post to agitate the African-American community. I write it in hopes of moving the "racial profiling" discussion where it belongs. Simply, all racial profiling that is nothing but harassment is wrong. Everybody needs to recognize this so we can have a real discussion about reducing the frequency of racial harassment. Police officers of all races commit this harassment and all races are victims of this harassment. The discussion of "racial profiling" should not only be centered on black victimization (requiring damages) and white guilt (requiring punishment) or white shame (requiring accommodations).

Anyway, the letter I wrote based on yet another Boston Globe article that appeared this week:

Editor,

I'm sure all of us not pursuing an iniquitous agenda would agree that the following passage on racial profiling (Union lawyer urges court to halt officer ID rule, December 10), "Officers who stop a disproportionate number of minorities won't necessarily be punished", should have read, "Officers who stop a disproportionate number of motorists that don't look like themselves won't necessarily be punished."

As a recent Boston Globe study (July 2003) showed, minority police officers have a tendency to racially profile as well; African-American police officers, according to the Globe study, ticketed Latino motorists at a greater rate than any other police officer/motorist combination.

Racial profiling manifested as harassment is always wrong. This form of harassment will best be reduced when those serious about fixing the problem reclaim the discussion from the agenda-pushers and those intellectually bullied by agenda-pushers. (End of letter.)

All racial harassment is wrong; if you disagree with me, I'd love to hear from you. All police officers need to be reminded, trained, coached, and every other verb that applies, that they cannot harass motorists based on race.

Sex. Sex. Sex!

Liberal extremists permanently bitter over the bi-partisan impeachment of President Bill Clinton seem to be obsessed with sex.

A letter writer in today's Boston Globe goes through the standard "I hate George Bush" litany of complaints. You know the headliners: the President caused three hurricanes to flood New Orleans (huh?) and he's leading the global war on terror (huh?). The letter writer then adds a list of other "crimes", DeLay (huh?), Frist (huh?), Abu Ghraib (huh?), Libby (huh?), for example, and then suggests "the same Republican Party that zealously pursued President Clinton for a 20 year-old land deal and a sexual peccadillo . . . is too partisan . . . to investigate, much less impeach, one of its own." But before we get to the Left's obsession with sex, what high crime or misdemeanor did the President commit that is impeachable? He caused a hurricane? He's executing a war on terror that Sens. John F. Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, among many others, voted for? Do stupid Senators really want to argue that a "dumb" President "misled" them in executing a war on terror that Sen. Joe Lieberman says we are winning? Do stupid Senators really want to argue a "dumb" President "misled" every single senior staffer of all the stupid Senators?

Now back to the Left's obsession with sex, as I wrote back on November 1, 2005, the radical Left just doesn't get it. I wrote then, "Again, today, for about the 50th time since the indictments (Earle's) last Friday, the Boston Globe is printing letters to the editor and allowing columnists to suggest the Clinton scandals were about his sexual relationship with an intern. Well, yes, to the extent we were trying to have a serious conversation about sexual harassment in this Country, I guess it was." Please go back and read the entire post and you'll get the play-by-play of President Clinton's unlawful behavior (perjury and obstruction of justice, nothing about sex acts).

Anyway, we all know President Clinton's impeachment had nothing to do with his consensual sexual relationship with a 20 year-old intern. The folks at the Boston Globe all know this. Yet, they allow gross factual errors to be published in letters. You know what happens then? I bump into someone at a dinner party or work that gets his information from the Globe and he ends up looking, and sounding, ridiculous. I love it, of course. But, it's hardly sporting anymore.

Anyway, my letter:

Editor,

I don't know what is more hysterically funny, that a letter writer actually wrote, " . . . the . . . Republican Party that zealously pursued President Clinton for a 20-year-old land deal and a sexual peccadillo . . . " or that a Boston Globe Letters Editor was asleep at the wheel and actually allowed the factual error to be published (Letters, December 9).

As all of us that live in the real world know, and I'm sure the Letters Editor knows, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno asked for the Special Prosecutor to investigate President Clinton's land deal. We also know that General Reno expanded the investigation to include President Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice in a woman's sexual harassment lawsuit against him.

What was also very funny, unintentionally so by the letter writer I'm sure, is that the letter writer chose "20" as the number of years that described the land deal. The same number could have been used in the sexual harassment reference (the age of the intern)! (End of letter)

In other news, Sen. John F. Kerry is now calling for 30,000 to 40,000 troops in Iraq into 2007 (Boston Globe, December 9). I don't know if President Bush is calling for that many, but I'm sure the President is pleased to know the most liberal member of the Senate is now on record as wanting so many. My goodness, the President is announcing that troops are going to begin coming home and Sen. Kerry is stating that troops should stay into 2007 and the liberal media is questioning and criticizing the President?

Coffee, Gasoline; Clinton on Yemen

I continue to pay the equivalent of $12.27 for a gallon of coffee. The extremists on Capitol Hill have yet to call the CEOs of Dunkin' Donuts, Starbucks and other national coffee retailers to the carpet. But, then again, can you gain politically from berating coffee executives on national television?

A gallon of milk is 50% more expensive than a gallon of gasoline. The dairy farmers and the Senators and Representatives from dairy states sure must hate children.

I paid $1.89 for a gallon of gasoline last week. Thank you, Mr. President, for orchestrating a precipitous drop in gasoline prices. The liberal media blamed the President for the impact three hurricanes had on rising prices so I'm assuming the President gets the credit for the decline in prices. Gee, I wonder if the liberal media will give him credit?

In other economic news, unemployment continues to stay at historic lows (5%). Since no one in the liberal media will give President Bush credit, let me do it here; thank you Mr. President (get those income protection extensions passed!).

The Boston Sunday Globe reported today that the American people, President George W. Bush, and Dr. Condoleezza Rice won another round for democracy this weekend; my thoughts for the Editor of the Boston Globe:

Editor,

"In a dramatic turnaround, Sunni Arab leaders are exhorting their followers to vote in this month's elections (in Iraq) . . . (Sunnis seek seats, voice via ballots, December 4, A1)."

exhort - v. urge or advise strongly or earnestly.

In the coming days, the radical Left will diminish the significance of this "dramatic turnaround" because this decision by Sunnis to participate in the democratic process is not consistent with the radical Left's inexplicable desire for American failure in Iraq. (End of letter)

Maybe short and sweet is all that the extremists at the Globe can handle.

I was preparing some commentary on former President Clinton's dire warning should a cease-fire fail in Yemen (endorsed by the Globe, December 4), but then decided to not continue because we all know how the liberal world reacted to President Clinton's dire warnings about Saddam Hussein's reconstitution of his nuclear weapons program and the grief president Bush has endured for doing something to prevent that reconstitution. In other words, why give weight to a new dire warning from a President who's last dire warning was so summarily dismissed by the liberal media?

Lieberman on War in Iraq

Senator Joseph Lieberman's comments from the Wall Street Journal earlier this week:

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there . . . Progress is visible and practical . . . It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists . . . If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority . . . every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given a chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them . . . None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. and I am convinced almost all the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country . . . I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war . . . than they are concerned about how we continue the progress . . . What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to chose this moment in history to lose its will . . . to seize defeat from the jaws of victory . . . Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? . . . Yes we do . . . The Administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold, and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week . . . After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fullajah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive, and inspirational: "I guess that if the opposition and division at home gone on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

I'm sure you can "google" Lieberman and find the complete article but I'm also sure I got the most relevant stuff.

So now President Bush, at least 403 Representatives in the House including Rep. Jack Murtha, Sen. Clinton, and now the Vice Presidential candidate from the Democrat's ticket in 2000, Sen. Lieberman, all agree. The bus is getting crowded. The liberal media must be apoplectic.

War in Iraq

As long as there are liberal extremists making decisions at the Boston Globe there will never be a dearth of material to draw from for my posts.

The Boston Sunday Globe had an entire section of letters devoted to the war in Iraq on Sunday, November 27. There were six letters hostile to the President of the United States and one letter from a widow of a hero killed in Iraq that was asking for support for the troops.

I simply don't understand the position of the Boston Globe, the letter-writers and the liberal chameleons in the United States Senate. Literally, folks, their position seems to be we hate Bush . . . and that's it. They rail against the President but he's supported by every vote in the Senate and the House. Then, those that oppose him politically in the Senate and the House come out onto the steps of the Capitol and speak as though they disagree with the President in hopes of appealing to the liberal media . . . and the liberal media buys it.

The Administration simply did not impugn the character of Rep. John Murtha. There are simply no quotes from anyone in the Administration that could possibly be construed in that manner. Yet, the liberal media fuels an environment where liberal extremists can lie to themselves and now, with over-the-top indignation, accuse the President of insulting a war hero. Sen. Hillary Clinton rebuked Rep. Murtha by saying that withdrawing from Iraq now would "be a big mistake." Did she insult him? Of course, not.

Two hundred and fifty-five war veterans that served in Vietnam earned enough medals to armor-plate a Humvee in Iraq that Sen. Kerry voted against armor-plating (recall his vote against $85 billion in support after he voted to send the troops to Iraq). Whether you agree with these men or not, they absolutely earned their right to speak without their character being impugned by the liberal extremists. These 255 men, of course, are the self-named Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth. That the left, and especially Sen. Kerry, has morphed their name into a pejorative verb is disgusting. Where's the outrage? Rep. Murtha should speak. He has every right to say whatever he wants without being called a name. But 255 men that also carried a rifle in a swamp are vilified because they don't support Sen. Kerry? ALL veterans should be treated with respect; it would be nice if the liberal media showed some toward these men or any other veteran that supports Sen. Hillary Clinton and the President.

Recently, the House of Representatives voted to not withdraw from Iraq by a 403 - 3 vote. Are the 187 Democrats that voted to support the President STILL being "misled" by the Administration? C'mon? Plan and simple, folks, you are due for a check-up you think "brilliant" Sen. John F. Kerry was duped by "dumb" President George W. Bush. I cannot underscore this enough . . . if you believe a veteran and former prosecutor with 20 years of experience in the Senate that sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was fooled by Bush on a matter of national security and the military, you need help. Cannot a single Democrat in the Senate or House hire a staffer that has more intelligence than anyone the President hired? No? Really?

The letter I wrote to the Globe Monday, November 28 (go to samjohnson.house.gov for the full text of this war hero's comments on the war on terror):

Edtor,

Wow, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted 403 - 3 to not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq and the folks at the Boston Sunday Globe can only find letters that are hostile to the President to publish (America at War, November 27, K12)! Five to nothing; now that's an honest debate!

I could write pages and pages of rebuttal to the intellectual dishonesty that the Globe decided to print, but I'll simply try to make just two points:

First, as I wrote above, the vote in the House was 403 - 3. Notables voting with the President and voting to not immediately withdrawal the troops were Reps. John Murtha (D, PA), a 73-year old Marine veteran decorated for combat service in Vietnam, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), house minority leader, Charles Rangel (D, NY), also a veteran, and nine of the ten Representatives from the State of Massachusetts (Rep. Michael Capuano voted "present"). Maybe the Boston Globe can send a reporter to ask my Congressman, Rep. James McGovern, why he agrees with the President and supports leaving our troops in Iraq. Please let us all know so maybe the next pro-withdrawal letter published can be one critical of Rep. McGovern.

Second, the day after Rep. Murtha argued for withdrawal (but, later voted against withdrawal), another Representative addressed the House in support of the war on terror. His name is Sam Johnson. Mr. Johnson served in the United States Air Force for 29 years. He was a prisoner of war in Vietnam for seven years and he served more than three and a half of those years in solitary confinement. The day Mr. Johnson was returned to the general prisoner population from solitary confinement, he presented himself to the assembled American officers and said, "Lieutenant Colonel Sam Johnson reporting for duty, sir." Mr. Johnson's decorations include two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, one Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Hearts, four Air Medals and three Outstanding Unit Awards. Mr. Johnson, certainly, has earned the right to speak . . . and be heard. Why weren't his comments covered in the Globe? It's outrageous that the liberal media is "cherry-picking" comments of veterans to attack the President. ALL of the veterans deserve to be heard. It is absolutely chilling that the hate-Bush crowd believes that only veterans that are critical of President Bush have any credibility. The denigration of 255 swift boat veterans that questioned Sen. Kerry's fitness for Commander-in-Chief has to stop. (End of letter)

There are 44 Democrats in the United States Senate; not one, according to them, has hired a staffer that is more intelligent than President Bush and anyone on the the President's staff that is responsible for crafting the Country's position on the war on terror.