Bin Laden Acknowledges A Protracted War

For those following along, I think this will now be the third reference to the Boston Globe of April 24, 2006.

The page 1 headline from this day was "Bin Laden tells followers to prepare for a long war."

Knowing that I've heard the leader of the global war on terror, President George W. Bush, say the same thing several times, I "googled" several combinations of words and came up with these three extremely high-profile speeches (no, I don't reproduce the entire speeches, just the relevant parts):


September 20, 2001
Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
United States Capitol

. . . This war (the war on terror) will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest . . . .

Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans . . . .

The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments . . . .

I ask for your patience . . . for your patience in what will be a long struggle . . . .

I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. (End of excerpts from first speech.)


October 7, 2001
Address on Initial Operations in Afghanistan
The Treaty Room, White House

Good afternoon. On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime . . . .

Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination, and will, and purpose. Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader . . . We're a peaceful nation. Yet, as we have learned, so suddenly and so tragically, there can be no peace in a world of sudden terror. In the face of today's new threat, the only way to pursue peace is to pursue those who threaten it. We did not ask for this mission, but we will fulfill it . . . .

In the months ahead, our patience will be one of our strengths . . . patience and understanding that it will take time to achieve our goals, patience in all the sacrifices that may come . . . . (End of excerpts from second speech.)


March 19, 2003
Addresses the Nation on Initial Operations in Iraq
The Oval Office, White House

. . . I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict . . . . (End of excerpts from third speech.)


So, who's out of touch with the stakes in this war and just how long it is going to take to win it? If only the liberal media, the national Democrats and the hate-Bush crowd understood any of this.

The Great Equivocator V, Run! Please, Run!

Liberal extremist Ms. Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed piece this week beseeching the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, to not run for his Party's nomination for Presidet of the United States in 2008. You can go find the entire article yourself, provided you also secure a barf bag or bucket, so I only repeat just a few sentences here, "The signs that John Kerry is going to run for president in 2008 are rising faster than the pollen count. There was the requisite New York Times op-ed -- How many days late? How many dollars short? -- on getting out of Iraq. There was the Globe op-ed that preceded the speech supporting war dissenters at Faneuil Hall to an audience of groupies yelling 'Run' and '2008.' There was Ted Kennedy's remark, 'If he runs, I'm supporting him.' And then there was his op-ed in The Manchester Union-Leader defending New Hampshire's place as first-in-the-nation primary. A true profile in courage."

On April 26, in The Great Eqivocator III, I wrote, "Some of you may think three letters in four or five days (see April 22 posting) is overkill except what some of you may not know is that Sen. Kerry has ramped-up his personal appearances and his public (idiotic) statements because he is most definitely running for a post he's not qualified for in 2008 (if he was misled by President Bush, and President Bush, according to the left-wing extremists, isn't qualified because he's dumm, then by the transitive property of stupidity, Sen. Kerry is not qualified).

No confirmation yet on whether Ms. Goodman is reading my blog, "internalizing it" then writing her own piece.

Anyway, my letter to the Boston Globe in response to Ms. Goodman's plea:

Editor,

As a proud Republican that has enjoyed the accomplishments, so many of them bi-partisan, of the Bush Administration and who desires a continuation of the same, I can only hope Sen. John F. Kerry does run for president again in 2008 and that he gets his Party's nomination; I cannot imagine a better way to ensure a Republican victor (Don't run, John Kerry, April 28, A17)!

And for the hate-Bush crowd ignorant of his accomplishments, allow me to list just a few:

The three most important votes in the United States Senate related to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, those for the original Act, the defeat of a filibuster upon renewal, and the renewal itself, were a combined 284 - 14!

The overwhelming authorization to use force in Iraq; the "authorization" was agreed to in the House 296 - 133. Sens. John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, to name just a few Democrats, voted with the majority in a 77 - 23 vote. On October 7, 2005, the Senate voted 97 - 0 to spend another $50 billion on the war on terror in Iraq; forty-three (of 44) Senate Democrats voted in favor (Sen. Patrick Leahy missed the vote).

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA); passed the Senate 62 - 38, twelve (12) Democrats voted in favor. This legislation passed the House 240 - 154 with 28 Democrats voting to give a tax cut to every single American that paid/pays taxes, to eliminate the marriage penalty, and to eliminate the death tax.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act; passed the Senate 54 - 44, eleven (11) 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.

The allocation of $15 Billion in AIDS relief for sub-Saharan Africa. This was approved by a voice vote in the Senate and passed the House 375 - 41.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act; passed in the Senate by a near veto-proof tally of 64 - 34, seventeen (17) Democrats united with all but three (3) Republicans in support. This law passed the House with another near veto-proof tally of 281 - 142.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was passed by both Houses of Congress by a veto-proof 98-0 vote in the Senate and a veto-proof 380-15 vote in the House. This law essentially says that infants born alive are, well, alive. Pro-abortion Senators and Representatives even agreed that infants that survived a failed abortion were worthy of saving. Yes, these chameleons only thought the babies were worth saving after attempts to kill them failed! Anyway, President Bush united 478 members of Congress to support this legislation.

The No Child Left Behind Act; passed the House 381 - 41 and the Senate 87 - 10.

The confirmation of just about everyone! Even two U.S. Supreme Court Justices were confirmed by overwhelming bi-partisan votes.

Finally, I'm certainly not complaining about no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 (see USA PATRIOT Act above), the 4.7% national unemployment rate (it's much lower here in Massachusetts!, also, see EGTRRA above), and the robust GDP numbers signifying a healthy national economy (again, see EGTRRA above).

Please, Sen. Kerry, run! (End of letter.)

The Great Equivocator IV, Win the Peace

Briefly, because this issue has been buggin' me for a long time and since I'm on a Great Equivocator roll I can drop this in here, google "Kerry win the peace" and see how many references come up from the 60 or so days before the 2004 Presidential election.

The Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, was running around the country mocking President Bush because Bush "rushed into war against Iraq without a plan to win the peace." Never did I hear a reporter challenge Sen. Kerry on this comment.

If Sen. Kerry was in the United States Senate on December 8, 1941, would he have needed to see the Marshall Plan before he voted for war on Japan and Germany?

My goodness, the Senator has always talked of the war on terror as though it's the 34th game in a 162-game baseball season. No, you damn idiot, it's a war! We can lose. If we lose the war, is it really necessary to have had a "plan to win the peace"? Time and again, the President has said his plan to win the peace was "victory (google what you need to verify)" in the war. Does anyone really doubt the President is more in command of the stakes of this war than the Great Equivocator?

And, if anyone doesn't believe we are involved in a war, please provide the word you think I and 99% of the country should substitute. Or, if anyone thinks losing is not a possible outcome of this war, please let me know that, too.

The Great Equivocator III, The Country's Strength

Quickly, another letter the Boston Globe received from me this week:

Editor,

On ABC's Sunday morning talk show "This Week", Sen. John F. Kerry said, "This country is strong enough to withstand retired generals, or admirals, or anybody standing up and saying, 'this is how I feel, this is what is going on'" (Kennedy says he'd back '08 Kerry run, April 24, A4).

Not surprisingly, the Senator, renowned for his equivocations and strangely nuanced arguments, still denigrates 255 Swift Boat Veterans who, 35 years ago, carried rifles in a swamp halfway around the world and most certainly earned the right to speak and be heard.

Is the irony and hypocrisy of the Senator's words and actions lost on everyone but me? To beat a cliche, where's the outrage? (End of letter.)

Some of you may think three letters in four or five days (see April 22 posting) is overkill except what some of you may not know is that Sen. Kerry has ramped-up his personal appearances and his public (idiotic) statements because he is most definitely running for a post he's not qualified for in 2008 (if he was misled by President Bush, and President Bush, according to the left-wing extremists, isn't qualified because he's dumm, then by the transitive property of stupidity, Sen. Kerry is not qualified). I hoping against hope that somebody in the liberal media will get around to asking the Senator a tough question, but in the meantime, I'll do what I can here.

Oh, I did write my reporter pals at the Boston Globe and asked if they were ever going to recall why they went to journalism school, but, so far, nobody has gotten back to me. I'm not holding my breath.

One Life or Two II

(See November 5, 2005 for One Life or Two, and def. check the comments from that post; I'm okay with the name-calling.)

From the April 24, 2006 Boston Globe:

Woman, unborn child die in crash
Man arrested on charges of drunken driving
By Adrienne P. Samuels, Globe Staff April 24, 2006

Name Deleted, 21, eight months pregnant, was killed Saturday when she was hit head-on by an alleged drunk driver who crossed the center strip on Route 62 in Lancaster, police said.

The unborn baby, already named James Jr., also died, although paramedics and doctors tried to keep oxygen inside of Name Deleted's body to buy time for doctors to perform an emergency Caesarian section at nearby Clinton Hospital.

By the time family arrived, around 2 a.m. yesterday, someone had cleaned and placed the deceased child in Name Deleted's still arms.

''She just wanted to be a mom," said Name Deleted of Leominster, one of her aunts. ''To see her in that hospital with that baby last night was just unbelievable, and her baby was so beautiful. He was gorgeous. . . . The guy who did this to her will be arraigned, and we're going to go to that courthouse. I want to put a face to who did this."

Police say David E. Zoller (oops!, name not deleted), 33, of Littleton, is responsible for Name Deleted's death.

On Saturday, Zoller was arrested and charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence of alcohol, failure to stay in marked lanes, and failure to keep on the right side of the road. He was being held on a $50,000 bail and is scheduled to be arraigned today at Clinton District Court.

Lancaster Police said Zoller was traveling east on Route 62 around 6:15 p.m. when he crossed the center line, placing him into a nearly head-on collision course with the truck Name Deleted was riding in. (Article truncated; it does continue, but I'll spare you the rest; it's primarily family members describing the impending joy that is now replaced by immeasurable pain.)

Hopefully not lost on the reader is that Zoller is charged with two counts of vehicular manslaughter. Yes, of course, I agree with this, but the second charge for the unborn baby is grotesque pandering given the "abortion on demand" rights that woman have in the state of Massachusetts. Again, if Name Deleted was on her way to the abortorium for a partial-birth abortion, there is no law in Massachusetts to stop her. NARAL, NOW, Planned Childlessness and other pro-abortion supporters would all stand next to Name Deleted and say she had a constitutional right to kill the "fetus" (and those of us that didn't think so would be labeled extremists!).

James Jr. was most definitely innocent human life; he simply is not defined as such only because his mother and father wanted him.

If you didn't go back to my November 5, 2005 post, please do; it is quite short and I cannot add to the argument I made in that post with anything more here.

The Great Equivocator II, Wrong Even w/ Hindsight?

These are the opening paragraphs of just two of the many, many news reports from August 9, 2004 and August 10, 2004 from those covering the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry:

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters, Aug. 9) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority." (End of excerpt from first news story.)


In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
By Jim VandeHei, Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, August 10, 2004

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz., Aug. 9 -- Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction. (End of excerpt from second news story.)

Google "Kerry Grand Canyon 2004" if you want to see a gazillion other news accounts.

So, on April 22, 2006, Sen. John F. Kerry spoke out against the war in Iraq (Kerry takes same stance on different war, Speaks against Iraq conflict, Boston Globe, April 23, B4).

With all of the intelligence he receives as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with all of his foreign affairs gravitas (geesh, this is so laughable), with all of the input from seasoned advisors, with the benefit of 17 months of hindsight, on August 9, 2004, Sen. Kerry said, knowing everything he knew then, he would have still voted for the war in Iraq.

Of course, I think the Senator was right (whether he truly believed in his vote or if he was just too cowardly to stand-up for what he really believed) in October, 2002 and I think he was right (again, if he really believed this or whether he just said it because he was trying to get elected and he thought this was the position to have regardless of what he honestly believed) on August 9, 2004.

And, naturally, the attending liberal media at the April 22, 2006 event didn't ask the Senator to explain his August 9, 2004 statement. They simply allowed him to pander; it is absolutely what the Senator does best.

The Great Equivocator I, Speaking-up

Arguably, the most stupid U.S. Senator of all time, the Great Equivocator, John F. Kerry, was published in the Boston Globe today. You can go to boston.com/today's paper/opinion to read the whole mess, but trust me when I say the gist of it is that military personnel speaking-up (as he did against the Vietnam War and those fighting it) is a patriotic thing to do. Sen. Kerry supports and defends the six retired generals that are now criticizing the President of the United States. The hysterical part of his essay is that he condemns the "swift boat-style attacks" that he claims some have suffered. He uses "swift boat" as a pejorative! Two-hundred and fifty-five Vietnam-era veterans spoke up against Sen. Kerry's fitness to be commander-in-chief and in an essay defending military leaders standing up, he denigrates 255 Vets! And the Boston Globe printed it! And people think this idiot is brilliant.

Sen. Kerry is speaking in Boston today so I know there will be significant coverage by the Boston Globe tomorrow; that's why I can title today's post "I"; I know I'll have a "II" and possibly a "III" over the next few days.

Anyway, the two letters I submitted to the Boston Globe today:

Editor,

I could not agree more with Sen. John F. Kerry who writes, " . . . the most important way to support our troops is to tell the truth (Patriotism is truth, today as in Vietnam, April 22, A13)."

Except, that just above this quote, Sen. Kerry wrote, "In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders have publicly called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And from the ranks of this Administration and conservative surrogates we've heard these calls dismissed as acts of disloyalty or as a threat to civilian control of the armed forces."

This second quote cannot be further from the truth. I have "googled" every combination of "Bush Rumsfeld Generals Criticism" and then some and there are simply no references anywhere of the Administration suggesting what Sen. Kerry claims. My letter is being published today because the letters to the editor fact-checker has also performed an internet search and cannot find any such reference.

On March 27, 1986, Sen. John Kerry issued the following statement on the Senate floor, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared - seared - in me."

And, from another local Boston newspaper in October of 1979, Mr. Kerry wrote, "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

As we all now know, Mr. Kerry's gunboat was 50 miles from the Cambodia border on Christmas Day 1968 and Mr. Nixon was most certainly not President.

Being lectured by Mr. Kerry on "truth" would be laughable if not for so many people believing his lies and distortions. (End of letter.)


Editor,

In the very essay where the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, champions six retired generals that disagree with Presidentnt Bush, he denigrates 255 Vietnam-era servicemen who also chose to speak-up by using "Swift Boat-style attacks" as a pejorative (Patriotism is truth, today as in Vietnam, April 22, A13)!? (End of letter.)

"Slam Dunk!"

I'm in no way suggesting this post is contemporary; rather, I just finished Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, a book on the build-up to the war in Iraq, and I thought I'd share just one passage with you guys.

First, we all know what a huge Republican Mr. Woodward is. Second, he wrote this book by interviewing 75 people including all of the principals in the war planning, including the President of the United States (on two occasions).

Anyway, the passage I excerpt picks up just after Deputy Director CIA John E. McLaughlin has just briefed the President on the WMD evidence against Saddam Hussein; the presentation was made on Saturday, December 21, 2002; at least those present are President Bush, Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Director CIA George Tenet.

From pages 249 - 250:

When McLaughlin concluded, there was this look on the President's face of, What's this? And then a brief moment of silence.

"Nice try," Bush said. I don't think this is quite - it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."

Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop. In terms of marketing, the examples didn't work, the charts didn't work, the photos were not gripping, the intercepts were less than compelling.

Bush turned to Tenet. "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"

From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. "It's a slam dunk case!" the DCI said.

Bush pressed. "George, how confident are you?"

Tenet, a basketball fan who attended as many home games of his alma mater Georgetown as possible, leaned forward and threw his arms up again, "Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"

It was unusual for Tenet to be so certain. From McLaughlin's presentation, Card was worried there might be no "there there," but Tenet's double reassurance on the slam dunk was both memorable and comforting. Cheney could think of no reason to question Tenet's assertion. He was, after all, the head of the CIA and would know the most. The President later recalled that McLaughlin's presentation "wouldn't have stood the test of time," but Tenet's reassurance, "That was very important."

"Needs a lot more work," Bush told Card and Rice. "Let's get some people who've actually put together a case for a jury." He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were going to have to go public with something.

The President told Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case." (End of excerpt.)

Anyway, the President is absolutely responsible for everything that happens in his Administration and he is absolutely responsible for Director Tenet, a hold-over from the Clinton Administration. However, given all the misinformation in the media, I mean, liberal media, about the manipulation of intelligence, I think Mr. Woodward's account of this particular meeting, especially the President's closing caution, is telling.

Declassifying National Intelligence Estimate

Just a reminder to those that may be confused by what they read in the liberal newspapers, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has charged Scooter Libby with perjury and not with disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent. I know this fact bothers the hate-Bush crowd, but it is a fact. Also, the perjury that Mr. Libby is alleged to have committed is that he "lied" about the day he told the truth.

Below I produce excerpts of the May 6, 2003 op-ed piece by New York Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof. Note the date of the piece, May 6, 2003. This is over two months before Robert Novak's July 2003 column that stated Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA analyst. The envoy listed in Kristof's column is Joseph Wilson; I suspect some of what Mr. Wilson shared with Mr. Kristof was classified but let's not concern ourselves with that! Also, Mr. Wilson apparently shared this information with Mr. Kristof over a breakfast attended by just three people: Mr. Kristof, Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Plame Wilson. Do ya think Mr. Kristof didn't know Plame Wilson's job prior to May 6, 2003? If he didn't, he should have his journalism license revoked. Anyway, the excerpted piece (italics mine for emphasis):

Why truth matters, Nicholas D. Kristof, May 6, 2003

When I raised the Mystery of the Missing W.M.D. recently, hawks fired barrages of reproachful e-mail at me. The gist was: "You *&#*! Who cares if we never find weapons of mass destruction, because we've liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant."

But it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."

I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

Let's fervently hope that tomorrow we find an Iraqi superdome filled with 500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax, and proof of close ties with Al Qaeda. Those are the things that President Bush or his aides suggested Iraq might have, and I don't want to believe that top administration officials tried to win support for the war with a campaign of wholesale deceit.

Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong (Blogger's Note: In no report to the CIA does Mr. Wilson use this phrase or anything remotely close; some 7 months after his visit to Niger, Mr. Wilson cautioned in a war with Iraq, Saddam Hussein would "fight dirty") and that the documents had been forged (Blogger's Note: Mr. Wilson is on record as saying he never saw the "forged" documents; Mr. Kristof doesn't bother making this clear; why would he, it harms his and Mr. Wilson's agenda).

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway . . . . (End of excerpt)

So, basically, Mr. Wilson can share whatever he wants with the liberal media and the President of the United States cannot. I guess if critics of President Bush are allowed to cherry-pick information, leak it to the media and shape the spin and the President is not allowed to respond then his poll numbers just might fall.

The Amazing, Brilliant Six!

Six retired generals have recently called for the resignation or firing of Secretary of Defense (SecDef), Donald Rumsfeld.

For those that have the pleasure of subscribing to the Boston Globe, these are the most amazing, brilliant, unblemished generals in the history of the United States military.

Actually, dropping the sarcasm, I'm positive they are each extraordinary soldiers; the most out-spoken is retired General Anthony Zinni who from 1997 to 2000 was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East, the same job once held by General Norman Schwarzkopf and General Tommy Franks. General Zinni is most definitely knowledgeable and his opinion should be respected. But then, I'm on record over the last 8 months of being massively pro-military (give them what they need, listen to what they have to say). I think, as President Bush and the SecDef does, that every serviceperson that wants to be heard should be heard. This puts the three of us opposite the extremely liberal Boston Globe and all those that hate the President; the Globe and all those that hate the President think that only those military personnel that disagree with the President or the SecDef should be heard; clearly, these military personnel are the most qualified, the most brilliant, the most sensible, the list of accolades is endless.

To wit, in today's Boston Globe, Mr. Charlie Savage writes, that Secretary Rumsfeld is "now under fire from many retired generals" (Document's link Rumsfeld to prisoner's interrogation, April 15, A1). Many? It's six! It could be twenty and I wouldn't be moved. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of retired generals in the United States. To find six that disagree with the President or the SecDef is not difficult. That some think six is justification for the SecDef to resign is sheer idiocy.

Well, also in today's Globe, their second editorial calls for exactly that (Revolt Against Rumsfeld, April 15, A10).

I recall during the 2004 Presidential election 255 Swift Boat Veterans of the Vietnam War publicly questioned the fitness of the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, to be President of the United States. These 255 Veterans were denigrated by the liberal media and they most certainly were denigrated by Senator Kerry. Contrast this with President Bush and SecDef Rumsfeld saying that the Amazing 6 are absolutely entitled to their opinion.

I also recall that many senior military personnel questioned a Commander-in-Chief that was also a draft-dodger and that was also impeached for obstructing the investigation of a woman's claim of sexual harassment against him. I recall these military men were reprimanded. I do not recall the liberal media supporting them. I don't recall the liberal media supporting them because the liberal media didn't.

Placeholder

Just a post to let everyone know I'm alive; there just hasn't been anything in the news that has gotten me excited enough to construct an involved post.

Immigration has been in the news alot. To be honest, I don't know what the folks at the "demonstrations" are "demonstrating". When I read the news story explaining a particular gathering, it reads more like a "rally". Also, trying to express an opinion on this issue is not simple. If 20 conservatives and 20 liberals got together to discuss the complete issue, there would be 40 different opinions once everyone expressed an opinion on every aspect of the complete issue: wall versus no wall; focus on protecting the border versus not; amnesty program or not; guest worker visa or not; target businesses hiring illegal immigrants or not; prefer the phrase "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented worker". If I stop here, that's 64 combinations (2 to the 6th) of opinions. I'd much rather try to convince people that a fetus is human life (maybe because this is so easy) than have to convince folks of my particular combination on these immigration questions . . . or, maybe in the future, because the issue isn't going away, I'll take a stab at addressing the questions one at a time.

Duke lacrosse has been in the news alot. I think everybody should just wait for the facts to come in before they say anything on this issue they may regret. This thing can go anywhere from the absolute worst of crimes to Tawana Brawley. Why anyone would touch this issue before more facts are in is beyond me.

Declassifying National Security Estimates, mistakenly referred to as "leaks" by the liberal media, has also been in the news lately; I think everyone knows where I stand based solely on this sentence. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has had the information for months that the liberal media has just received. Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with a crime based on this information (my guess is because he knows the law) yet the liberal media (which obviously doesn't know the law) is having a massive political orgasm. If another picture of Abu Ghraib abuse is uncovered tomorrow, will that also be another huge headline manufactured to harm the President? Oh my gosh, another video tape has surfaced that the President knew before August 29, 2005 that a hurricane was going to hit New Orleans!

And speaking of Katrina, the bird flu has been in the news alot. Just so everyone knows how seriously the Bush Administration takes the flu issue, please remember that Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff was at a flu conference in Atlanta when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans. I'm sure I'll have plenty of opportunity in the future to remind everyone of this fact . . . Heaven knows that the liberal media will forget it when it suits their purpose.

I'm guessing that pollsters releasing polls that the President is unpopular have not worked in any questions about the 4.7% national unemployment rate or the Dow being within easy striking distance of an all-time high.

Rep. McKinney (D, GA) kinda apologizes

Rep. Cynthia McKinney sort of apologized for the altercation she had with a Capitol Police Officer on Wednesday, March 29.

The apology, "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation, and I apologize. There should not have been any physical contact in this incident."

No apology to the Capitol Police Department and no recanting of her "inappropriate touching" charge or her "racial profiling" charge.

And, most glaringly missing, there was no apology to the Capitol Police Officer, who has still yet to be named, but who nonetheless was gravely injured by Rep. McKinney's words from earlier this month.

The reason why I'll stay on this story is because of how vile and reckless Rep. McKinney's comments were. What price is she to pay? Nothing? I don't think so.

Ms. McKinney will most definitely be the victim of racism at some point in the future. Again, she's black and she will definitely come across a non-black that is a racist. What are we to think of the charge when she levels it in a bona fide case of racism? "Oh, that's just Rep. McKinney. She's just crying wolf again."

How has she help the need for honest race-relations dialogue with her irresponsible charges? She hasn't. She's harmed the atmosphere. She should pay a price. A price so specific and severe that anyone that is tempted to make an outrageous charge of racism should think twice, three times, and may be even four.

The embarrassment that Rep. McKinney is suffering right now has not been specifically linked with her comments; I think they should be and that's why I'll continue to write about this.

The Congressional Black Caucus has provided absolutely no support to Rep. McKinney. That is not the same, however, as the Caucus denouncing Rep. McKinney's comments about the Capitol Police Department and one particular Officer. I still think the Caucus should publicly announce their support for the Department by way of explicitly stating the Department does not racially profile black members of Congress. How can that charge by Rep. McKinney be allowed to just simply hang in the air? I don't think it should.

The race-baiters have to be muted, but I'll settle for marginalized, so serious people can have serious conversations about improving race relations in this Country . . . but, I've written this before.

Improvised Racial Device (IRD)

I've thought about the implication of using "IRD" for three days. My choices were to either mean what I write when I write about calling-out the race-baiters and agenda-pushers or simply pack it in and stop writing my blog. I choose the former.

I googled "McKinney, capitol police" and I have since read several news accounts of the March 29, 2006 altercation Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D, GA) had with the U.S. Capitol Police. I read the news accounts by CNN; MSNBC; the NBC affiliate in Atlanta, 11Alive; and Fox News. They all report the same story:

On Wednesday, March 29, mid-afternoon, Rep. McKinney allegedly punched a Capitol Police Officer after the Officer pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector upon entering the Longworth House Office Building. Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors, but they are asked to wear their credentials and an identifying "members" pin worn by all members of the House of Representatives. Rep. McKinney was not wearing any such identification. After Ms. McKinney circumvented the metal detector, the Officer called out to her several times but Rep. McKinney did not stop. The Officer eventually caught Ms. McKinney and grabbed her by the arm or shoulder (news accounts differ on this point). Ms. McKinney then allegedly turned and struck the Officer in the chest.

In a statement issued late Wednesday night, McKinney said, "I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the police officer did not recognize me as a member of Congress and a confrontation ensued. I did not have on my congressional pin but showed the police officer my congressional ID. I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred."

A different news account of the Wednesday night statement had just a slightly different version of the same quote, "I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, and I appreciate the work that they do. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now.

These statements suggest that Ms. McKinney acknowledged she had some responsibility for the incident. She certainly admits to not wearing the proper identification; it is being widely reported that Ms. McKinney routinely does not wear her "members" pin. There is nothing in Ms. McKinney's initial statements, a member of Congress that has put out hundreds of statements, by the way, to suggest she was a victim.

Then, the mood turns. Now, the wheels start spinning for an Improvised Racial Device (IRD).

A few days after the incident, Ms. McKinney holds a new conference where she states, "This whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman ("female" and "congresswoman" makes for redundancy, by the way). I deeply regret that this incident occurred and I am certain that after a full review of the facts, I will be exonerated," McKinney said at a press conference at Howard University. Again, this quote is reported by all the major news outlets. Instigated? Is she serious?

Meanwhile, Ms. McKinney's attorney said, Ms. McKinney was "just a victim of being in Congress while black." Nice. There is apparently a never-before-identified racism that the Capitol Police Department practices against just black members of Congress. Are you kidding me with this brand of racial arson? Her lawyer, Mr. James W. Myart Jr., continued, "Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, like thousands of average Americans across this country, is, too, a victim of the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials because of how she looks and the color of her skin." Excessive use of force? Is he serious?

It is incumbent on the Congressional Black Caucus to address these inflammatory comments. They must either condemn the statements made by Ms. McKinney and her attorney or endorse the sentiment that the Capitol Police Department practices racism on black members of Congress (and, does Team McKinney mean the non-black members of the Department or the whole Department, I wonder?).

This is what I mean about people participating in real discussion about racism. This case, based on the news accounts of all the major news outlets, does not appear to be a racial incident. Even Ms. McKinney's own words immediately after the incident did not suggest racism (or sexism, for that matter). Then, in my opinion, sensing an opportunity to stir racial emotions, she exploded an IRD.

The Officer simply did not have the following thought: A black woman just circumvented the metal detector; if she was white, I'd let her go, but since she's black, I'm going to shout at her to stop three times and if she still doesn't respond, I'm going to put a hand on her . . . just because she's black.

I'll bet the ranch, he most definitely had the following instantaneous thought: Wow, a person just circumvented the metal detector, it's my job to make sure everyone that enters this building either goes through the metal detector or displays a "members" pin indicating they can circumvent; since the person that circumvented did not have a pin, I have an obligation to stop her; hopefully, calling after her three times is enough to get her to stop, but if she doesn't, I'll put my hand on her shoulder.

Yes, there is absolutely racism practiced by some whites on some blacks in the form of presumed guilt. White loss prevention officers, for example, have definitely stopped black customers leaving high-end electronics stores, suspecting shop-lifting, based solely on racism (I, of course, would argue that some black store owners have overtly expressed suspicion toward some Hispanic shoppers based solely on racism, but why introduce logic, statistics and reason into a race conversation?). Every time a false charge of racism is advanced by anyone it simply harms the conversation when a real charge of racism is warranted.

And, cannot we all hear the criticism of the Capitol Police if a black, female terrorist got beyond the security check point and shot a member of Ms. McKinney's staff? Cannot we all hear the laughter when the Capitol Police tried to argue "tolerance" for refusing to pursue the gate-crasher?

I cut and paste below a somewhat edited version (it was just so long!) of the Washington Post's July 25, 1998 story on the shooting that took place at the Capitol the day before; Italics are all mine for emphasis:

By Martin Weil
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 25, 1998; Page A1

A gunman burst through a security checkpoint in the U.S. Capitol yesterday afternoon and killed two Capitol Police officers in a terrifying exchange of fire that sent panicked bystanders diving for cover in the majestic marble building known around the world as a symbol of America and democracy (Blogger's Note: I mean, I guess I could stop here, but I won't).

One woman nearby was also hit in the fusillade, which ended with the wounded gunman captured in the office complex of House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). No motive was known immediately for the assailant's actions, which convulsed the Capitol at a time when tourists were swarming through and Congress was still in session. The shootings were the first in the Capitol in 44 years, and the worst since Congress convened in the building in 1800.

The gunman, who was reported in stable condition last night, was identified as Russell E. Weston Jr., who had an address in Montana.

Top-level federal and District law enforcement officers were meeting late last night on how to proceed in the case. Officials said Weston could be charged with two counts of murder of a federal police officer, which can carry the death penalty.

The slain officers were identified as two 18-year veterans of the force: Jacob J. Chestnut, who friends said was planning to retire within the year, and Special Agent John Gibson, assigned to provide security for DeLay. Both were married and had children. They were believed to be the first Capitol Police officers killed while on duty at the building.

The wounded woman was identified only as Angela Dickerson, 24. She was listed in stable condition early today at George Washington University Medical Center with a gunshot wound in the face and another in the shoulder.

The shooting turned the midsummer peace of the Capitol grounds into pandemonium, prompted many congressional employees to lock themselves inside their offices, and brought a U.S. senator racing through the building to provide first aid.

The anguishing incident stunned Washington last night and raised difficult questions about security, safety and public access to a building emblematic of the nation's representative government.

Officials indicated that the Capitol would be open as usual today, except possibly for the areas where the shootings occurred, as the investigation continued. However, it was not clear whether new security measures would be discussed in the future.

Describing himself and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as "deeply disturbed" by the shootings, (President Clinton) called the Capitol "the people's house, a place where visitors and workers should not have to fear violence."

"Every American appreciates the bravery of the Capitol Police who prevented further injury through their courageous actions," he said in a written statement.

"They gave their lives to protect the lives of hundreds," said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

Based on initial accounts, the entire incident apparently consumed only seconds before reaching a blood-soaked climax inside the majority whip's ground-floor office complex, where staff members moments before had been at work at their desks.

It began at 3:40 p.m., when the gunman attempted, according to an authoritative account, to bypass the metal detector just inside the door where he entered. That point is known as the Document Room Door. It is next to the central stairway at the east front of the building, on the House side.

"It looked like someone was trying to go around or through the metal detector," said Patrick Shall, manager of a Capitol gift shop that is located nearby. "It started some kind of commotion."

Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Administration Committee, said after being briefed by police that the gunman tried to bypass the metal detection equipment at the security point.

"He went around the magnetometer," Thomas said.

Chestnut, who was stationed at the checkpoint, then confronted the gunman, according to the account (Blogger's Note: I wonder if he "inappropriately touch" the gunman on the shoulder.).

An employee at a gift shop located nearby heard what he recalled as "a big boom." Chestnut was apparently fatally wounded by the gunman's first shot.

At that point, a second Capitol Police officer who was also assigned to the Document entrance emerged from where he had gone to get a wheelchair for a tourist. That officer, who was not immediately identified, exchanged shots in the corridor with the gunman. The officer was unhurt, but one or more of his shots are believed to have hit the gunman, possibly in an arm or leg.

Based on the accounts provided last night, it appeared that that burst of gunfire also may have wounded Dickerson.

With events moving with almost bewildering swiftness, and the screams and shouts of tourists mingling with the echoes of the gunshots, the gunman then lunged toward a door on the corridor a few feet from the building entrance.

The door was marked "Private No Admittance." It led to an alcove giving access to an elevator and a stairwell. The gunman passed both and continued to a second door. That one led to the outer part of DeLay's office complex.

Having heard the shots, according to witnesses in the complex, Gibson was rising from his desk as the door swung open. The gunman confronted Gibson as he rose. The gunman fired, mortally wounding Gibson. But Gibson fired at least once, striking the gunman.

DeLay appeared near tears last night. He said in a statement, "I have no doubt that John saved the lives of many people today."

Other officers, drawn by the commotion, then surged into the room, where employees still crouched behind desks. One of the arriving officers apparently fired a single shot, striking the gunman, according to the account.

Meanwhile, tourists, employees and others inside the Capitol reacted in a variety of ways. "I heard a boom and thought something fell," said Linda Addotta, a tourist from Rockford, Ill. "Then I heard a boom, boom," and everyone ran. "We didn't know what to do," she said.

Amid the explosive sounds of the gunfire and the screams of "Gunshots! gunshots!" Ronald Beamish, 69, a visitor from England, saw an officer, apparently Chestnut, crumple to the floor.

In the first, fearful seconds, Beamish darted into an office. Then he came out, walked to where Chestnut lay and felt for his pulse.

It was faint, Beamish said.

The tourist tried to reassure the fallen officer. "You'll be all right," he said. "You'll be all right." But, Beamish said, Chestnut had lost consciousness.

Police later recovered a .38-caliber revolver believed to have been used by the gunman.

Chestnut was described by friends and colleagues as a Vietnam veteran and generous neighbor who lived in Fort Washington with his wife, daughter and granddaughter, and "would do anything for you."

Gibson was described as a particularly devout man who retained a Boston accent and a fondness for Boston's athletic teams.

Gibson was taken by U.S. Park Police helicopter to Washington Hospital Center, where he was pronounced dead. Chestnut died at George Washington University Medical Center.

Immediately after yesterday's shooting, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who is a physician, went to the scene. He apparently helped treat one of the two fatally wounded officers. He also gave cardiopulmonary resuscitation to another wounded man, apparently the gunman. Frist rode with the man to D.C. General Hospital, where the gunman was being treated last night. (End of edited Washington Post news article.)

Assess the agenda of all the parties involved and then decide. Ms. McKinney is a race-baiter and an agenda-pusher and she has contributed absolutely nothing to a positive race-relations discussion and, instead, chose to detonate an IRD.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney is a race-baiter. I'm calling her out.

It's all related! Boston Globe agrees with ZACKlyRight!

On March 29, I wrote, "The economy, jobs, outsourcing, unemployment, home ownership, capital gains taxes, the prison population, teacher unions and beholden Democrats, school vouchers, school choice, dare I say the 2000 Presidential election, two-parent families, race-relations, and abortion, they are all connected to EDUCATION. Good education begins (continues?) a cycle of positive developments. Poor education begins (again, continues?) a cycle of negative developments."

Then, today, the Boston Globe published the following editorial; it's pretty darn good. The italics are mine for emphasis; probably because four days ago I wrote the same thing or I quoted the President from October 13, 2004 saying similar stuff:

Down Too Long, April 3, Boston Globe:

TOO MANY BLACK teenaged boys and young men are flailing. In the worst cases, they detach from or drop out of school. Their lives are cocktails of drugs, crime, and early fatherhood. Unemployment traps black men, especially in the cities. By the time a 30-year-old decides he wants a different life, he's hobbled by a prison record and a lack of job skills.

Damning statistics and recent studies make a grim case. In 2004, only 16.6 percent of black men age 25 or older had a bachelor's degree, according to the US Census. The rest are closed out of a wide range of higher-paying jobs. At the end of 2004, ''more than 40 percent of all sentenced male inmates were black," according to a US Department of Justice report. There were 551,300 black men serving at least a one-year sentence, compared to 449,300 white men and 260,600 Hispanic men. And incarceration hits hard among black men in their twenties, years when they could be building careers. Some 8.4 percent of those aged 25-29 were in prison in 2004.

The Bush administration justly argues that marriage is a good way to ward off poverty and stabilize families. But marriage does best at affording these protections if parents have sufficient earning power. What's really needed is a sophisticated federal and state investment in a two-step process: economic self development and then, when appropriate, marriage.

The facts are discouraging, given the powerful changes over the decades of the civil rights movement, the War on Poverty, and years of policies and programs to strengthen communities and families. Where vision might lead to progress, public fear and surrender fester and grow.

So what should the nation do? Declare a war against failure on three fronts: education, employment, and family.

There should be a public relations battle against the allure of illegal street life. Writing in The New York Times, Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson describes the appeal of being young and black and a source of hip-hop culture that's respected and even idolized by white teenagers and corporate America. But, as with earlier blues and rock and roll musicians, most of these teenagers are not reaping the profits being made by the culture they help to nourish.

In public appearances, Professor Henry Louis Gates, chairman of Harvard's African and African-American Studies department, argues that it's easier for a black youngster to become a brain surgeon than a professional basketball player. Generally speaking, he's right. There are 433 players of all races in the NBA, while more than 20,000 doctors identified themselves as African-American on a 2004 American Medical Association survey. Add other professions and the numbers skew further toward the point: it's smarter to dream in occupational Technicolor. But too many young people either don't hear or don't heed that message. And it's certainly not the storyline being used to sell products to young consumers.

''There are no surprises there," says Randal Rucker, head of Family Service of Greater Boston. He argues that young black men are under the radar.

Rucker calls for a needed shift in policy. After years of programs focusing on women and children -- including welfare reform, which helped many women return to work --men need more attention. Take the young father of a new baby, Rucker says, and often he'll have a lot of motivation to do the right thing for that child. That's a ripe moment to steer a new father toward ways to build his capacity. Take a guy in his forties who can't find work, and then make sure he's not hiding an inability to read or a fear of computers. A guy who says there's not a lot to aspire to clearly could benefit from a road map of options. Rucker says some deadbeat dads turn out to be dead broke; not unwilling to help their families but unable. Family Service runs a program for fathers. And while it once had funding from national foundations it no longer does.

To call attention to fathers and young men, Family Service is holding a meeting later this month, inviting people ''who need to hear the stories of these young men," Rucker says. Invitations have been sent to 500 members of the public and private sector who might volunteer or contribute.

Some things are already clear. It is the age of team players, of forming partnerships to address these issues so that no one person, parent, school, youth worker, church, community organization, or employer has to address these problems alone. In size and personality, Boston is fortunate to have these relationships in place. With funding and a clear agenda they can expand and establish programs and practices that lead to greater success.

Criminal justice reform is needed. There's no need to be soft on crime. But reclassifying certain crimes, such as minor drug possession, as lesser offenses could give some people a better shot at getting a job.

It's time to set aside the claim that affirmative action is an unfair handout to minorities. Helping disconnected black teenagers is a matter of ending the economic and personal stagnation that can harm communities and cities. Encouraging one person's garden-variety success -- a job, a home, a family he can afford to support -- can translate into sweeping social benefits because that person boosts the economy, increases tax revenues, and advances the lives of his children.

Because the nation relies on widespread individual achievement, it is essential to encourage better personal choices and to make sure that the resources are there so that people can follow through on those choices. The country has to stem the tides of lost opportunities, discrimination, and inertia that swirl around the lives of economically dislocated young black men. (End of editorial.)

Kudos to the editorial board of the Boston Globe. Kudos also for almost no gratuitous shots at conservatives and Republicans. I'll respond similarly and save my rhetoric for when the Globe looses its.

Except (because I can't control myself), allow me to just quickly add that I'd prefer to educate everybody properly the first time (and, yes, that's code for all it entails: holding parents, teachers and school administrators accountable) so we don't have to spend so much doing it a second or third time (and, yes, this is code for the programs that the President always mentions and the programs, "investment" and "funding" the Globe speaks of above).

Anyway, there will be many occasions to come back to this editorial; there is so much more of it worthy of comment and discussion.

But, let's end on a positive note of agreement: education is king.