Thank God for Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA)

Thank God for Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA), decorated Vietnam Veteran. I mean, without Rep. Murtha, Americans may not have ever learned that there is a full scale investigation into allegations that U.S. Marines may have killed civilians in Haditha, Iraq last November. According to my newspaper of fact, the Boston Globe, "Over the last few weeks, investigators from the US Naval Criminal Investigation Services have done a thorough job of interviewing witnesses and collecting other evidence about what happened last November 19 when Marines swept through a neighborhood in Haditha . . . . "

No, Rep. Murtha thinks it's his job to indict the U.S. Marines on national TV.

What are this man's motives? There is a full scale investigation. The investigation can't go away so the results/findings will ultimately be shared. Rep. Murtha was briefed as a member of his House Committee assignments and the first thing he does is find a TV camera to slam the U.S. Marines (of which he retired from). What's his motive? To further reduce the support for this war that he and Sens. John F. Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voted for? To further reduce the support for this war that he, Sens. John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Edward Kennedy keep voting funding for? To futher reduce the support for this war that he voted against immediately withdrawing the troops from? What is this man's motive?

Again, based on briefings he received in his House capacity, Rep. Murtha sprinted to the TV cameras and booked himself on all the Sunday morning talk shows just to be the first to tell the American people what the Government was doing. Is this supposed to earn him credibility? Who can fall for such garbage? Oh, yes, the liberal media, of course.

My letter to the Globe today:

Editor,

I don't think anyone would argue with these sentences from Wednesday's lead editorial, "If the killings in Haditha were unprovoked . . . the Marines responsible should be prosecuted with the full power of military law. Anyone who tried to cover up a war crime should be held to account as well (Death in Haditha, editorial)." Of course, anyone that committed a crime should be punished.

The presumption of innocence has always been misused in public conversation. The presumption extends as far as the jury box but it certainly ends at the street where the public and the Boston Globe can think whatever they want well before any trial.

The Boston Globe can most definitely end its editorial about Haditha with the following sentence, "Senators need to determine whether the Haditha killings were a shameful anomaly (presumed guilt?), or three years into the occupation, a manifestation of a deep coarsening in the US force (more presumed guilt?)" if that is the position of the newspaper, but I, for one, suggest that this be the one time where the misuse of "presumed innocence" is okay in the public domain and it should extend to the U.S. Marines fighting in Iraq. (End of letter.)

Sen. Barack Obama and Mr. Deval Patrick

About a year ago, Mr. Adrian Walker, a city beat writer for the Boston Globe and an African-American, did a story on a story that Boston Magazine did on the 100 Most Influential People in Boston. The list contained exactly one person of color. Rev. Eugene Rivers placed #97.

I wrote Mr. Walker a little note suggesting, that possibly, the white liberals that dominate the social, economic and political scene in Boston might be racists. I also used an unfortunate characterization about the fortitude of those who covered the story and who did not contemplate my thesis. Mr. Walker used excerpts from my first email in his follow-up story; he received a lot of email, I guess. Mr. Walker and I have exchanged a few very cordial emails on the subject since.

I suggest that if Salt Lake City, UT had a list of the top 100 of similar color, there would most definitely be a story about the white racists in Salt Lake City; please let me know if you disagree.

Anyway, last week, a local white businessman announced he was entering the contest for Governor of Massachusetts as a Democrat. There were already three announced candidates, two white men and an African-American. The African-American, Mr. Deval Patrick (Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Clinton Administration; gee, what else would a Democrat appoint a black man to?; Clinton must take “civil rights” seriously), has been in the race from Day 1. The very early polling upon the entry of the fourth candidate showed Mr. Patrick was within the margin of error of running fourth. Again, I suggest that if the only thing that changed was the party affiliation of these four men then a story would most definitely be written about the racism practiced by those polled. Yet, the idea that some Boston Democrats could practice racism or some Boston Democrats can still hold racist views somehow is beyond consideration for everyone . . . well, except me.

If anyone can explain why the most liberal city in the Country with some of the most loyal, Democratic, African-American voters in the Country can produce just one person of color in its Most Influential Top 100 list and can also see the only African-American candidate for Governor fall to (possibly) last in the early gubernatorial election polls, I’d most definitely love to hear from you. I stand by my assertion that some to many white liberals in the greater Boston area are prepared to speak highly of an African-American (without knowing anything about the person's policy positions!) but they are not so ready to cede any local power to African-Americans.

Next, on the national level, Sen. Barack Obama is “impressive” so say all my white liberal friends (and many, many other people from around the Country). They don’t use any other word! They all got the same script . . . “impressive”. I am curious as to why this sentence is almost always spoken as, “Sen. Barack Obama is impressive for a black man.” Why can’t he just simply be impressive or brilliant? These folks literally go out of their way to bring up the Senator’s name just so they can jump on the “impressive” bandwagon. I’m quite literally under the impression that if a white liberal says, “Obama is impressive” three times at a dinner party they think they get their “I’m not a racist” ticket punched.

I’m also somewhat stunned by the additional impression I’m given by my white liberal friends that they’ve found the only impressive black man (or woman). The over-the-top praise of Sen. Obama is insulting at worst and condescending at best. Professor Mr. Shelby Steele writes an awful lot about “white guilt” and I suspect that that is exactly what is going on here. What a shame. Sen. Obama might have a great message to share and we may never get to hear it because it will be drowned out by the constant recognition of his skin color. If Sen. Obama is brilliant, I say, let’s find out. Let’s let him simply be brilliant. (I subscribe to the Senator’s official web alert page in order to stay informed on the Senator’s positions, by the way.)

Oh, and when Republicans start criticizing the Senator’s policy positions, as they surely will, let’s hope the criticism is not mischaracterized by the agenda pushers . . . I think all those that are familiar with this space know what I mean.

I do suspect that white guilt will push Sen. Obama further up the national power scale than Mr. Patrick has gone here in Boston.

Stay tuned, I'm sure I'll be writing much more about Sen. Obama in the next year or two (Vice Presidential candidate in 2008, anyone?).

Sen. Barack Obama

Ask the next white liberal that says, "Sen. Barack Obama is so impressive," to state just one policy position that they know the Senator to have.

My shortest post ever and I'll definitely come back to this in greater detail in the future, but for today, I simply leave you the above suggestion to ponder.

Presidential Signing Statements and North Korea

Two letters I fired off to the Boston Globe in the last few days:

Editor,

I'm not a constitutional law professor at Harvard and I don't play one in letters to the editor, but I had to laugh at the following sentence in Mr. Lawrence H. Tribe's rant against the President (Bush stomps on Fourth Amendment, May 16, A15), " . . . this President's defiance of statutes by the dozen is constitutionally alarming." Oh, really?

First, thank you to the Boston Globe and Mr. Charlie Savage for the excellent series on the use of signing statements by the last three Administrations.

Second, as I said above, I'm not a constitutional law professor at Harvard but Mr. Tribe certainly was during the Clinton Administration. According to the Boston Globe series, President Clinton challenged ("challenged" is my word; liberal extremists insist on "ignored", but only if the President is a Republican) 140 laws passed by Congress. That is just less than twelve dozen. I simply don't recall Mr. Tribe's concern for the U.S. Constitution during the Clinton years. I don't recall it because it simply wasn't there.

Add Presidential signing statements to the growing list of issues on which liberal newspapers and liberal commentators have no credibility. (End of first letter.)


Editor,

Now you have me more confused than ever.

In "The Khadafy Paradigm (editorial, May 16)", the Boston Globe acknowledges that in the nuclear disarmament negotiations with Libya, Britain "played a key role". Then, not even three sentences later, the editorial continues, "(The President) will have to negotiate directly (with North Korea) and make them offers they should not want to refuse" when addressing nuclear disarmament negotiations with North Korea.

In dealing with North Korea, President Bush has steadfastly insisted on six-nation talks with North Korea. His argument is that China, Japan, Russia and South Korea are neighbors of North Korea and each has a vested interest in the negotiations and may even be able to bear some pressure on North Korea. During the Presidential Debates, the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, chided the President for not going it alone with North Korea.

President Bush built a coalition of 31 countries to combat Iraq. The criticism from the Boston Globe and her sisters in the liberal print media is that the U.S. acted unilaterally in Iraq, though, as we all know, this criticism is a lie. The families of British, Polish and Australian soldiers killed in Iraq certainly don't think the US acted alone. Oops, there I go with the facts again.

Returning to North Korea, is the Boston Globe really arguing that the President should not build a coalition to deal with a rogue country that has nuclear weapons? Does the Boston Globe suggest the President act unilaterally in Iran instead of working through the UN, the EU, and NATO as he has?

Add coalition building and foreign affairs gravitas to the growing list of issues on which liberal newspapers and liberal commentators have no credibility. (End of second letter.)

I can end each letter the way I did because, well, the sentence is accurate and there is no chance both letters get published.

Why we fight? Ask a Democrat!

The letter I submitted to the Boston Globe today:

Editor,

In the May 13 issue a letter writer asked, "why and what are we fighting" in Iraq. The letter writer is obviously not listening to the President of the United States, the leader of the global war on terror, George W. Bush and that's understandable given the liberals who dominate the national media. However, might I suggest the letter writer, or anyone else not listening, simply ask the Democrats in Congress or the former President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton.

Ask any one of the Democrats that voted with the majority of the Senate in the initial authorization to use force in Iraq; I'd suggest asking either Sens. John F. Kerry or Hillary Clinton or former Sen. John Edwards as they were the three most prominent Democrats to support the President.

Staying with the Great Equivocator, Sen. Kerry, ask him why on August 9, 2004 he said that knowing what he knew at that late date (the war already into its seventeenth month!), he would have still voted for the war.

Ask any one of 43 of the 44 Senate Democrats who voted for $50 billion in additional war funding on October 7, 2005.

Ask any one of the 187 House Democrats why they voted against the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in November 2005. I suggest you start with Rep. Jack Murtha (PA) who voted with the President.

Ask any one of 43 of the 44 Senate Democrats that voted for $65.7 billion in additional war funding last Monday, May 8, 2006. Again, may I suggest you start with either of Massachusetts' two Senators who voted for the funding. Or, ask Sen. Clinton who also voted for the funding.

Finally, ask former President Clinton. In a December, 1998 speech announcing air strikes against Iraq and that included at least eight phrases implying Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he said, "They (the strikes) are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . so we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."

Why do we fight? Ask a Democrat in Congress, or the former President, and insist on an answer . . . unless you think their votes are meaningless and they don't take them seriously or the commitment of U.S. troops is not serious. (End of letter.)

Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers.

Musings - The Deficit, Hayden and Other Stuff

Yesterday, Thursday, May 11, Sen. Kent Conrad (D) took to the floor of the United States Senate and with a huge chart, depicting either the annual deficit or the national debt (I just couldn't tell), said something very close to (and I'm doing my best with my recollection . . . from C-SPAN . . . since I can't find a written record of his comments on-line), "The Bush Administration was handed a budget surplus by President Clinton and in one year turned it into a deficit." Well, I run into these kinds of idiots all the time, I shut them up by saying, "In case you forgot, on September 11, 2001, 19 anti-American terrorists hijacked 4 American airliners and used them as missiles to kill almost 3,000 innocent people, about 2,700 of them Americans; again, just in case you forgot, and it sounds like you have, the United States of America is at war." Say this to the next dolt that doesn't understand that we're at war and watch them go apoplectic.

Can someone please let Mr. Sean Penn know that there is still poverty in New Orleans.

No word yet from the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, on the nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to be CIA Director. Recall, about a week ago, Sen. Kerry was making headlines with his "it's OK to dissent" speeches. Well, here we have a General famed for his vocal opposition to SecDef Rumsfeld and SecDef Rumsfeld's ideas of the alignment of certain intelligence agencies and Sen. Kerry is nowhere to be found. General Hayden (there are 4 stars on his epaulets) had the courage to speak out while he was still an active officer. Is this not what the Great Equivocator meant?

Can someone please let Ms. Cindy Sheehan know that on or about May 7, 2006, the United States Senate authorized $65.7 billion more in war funding. The vote was 77 - 21 and 43 of the 44 Democrats in the Senate voted "yes" to the spending. For emphasis, Sens. John F. Kerry, Edward Kennedy and Hillary Clinton voted for this funding. Those darn inconvenient facts; how do the Democrats deal with them?

Finally, and this is an parochial issue, Boston College has extended an invitation to Sec. of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice to deliver this year's commencement address and the invitation is being greeted with some opposition. Apparently, she's previously voiced some pro-choice positions so this has the pro-life crowd (the damx radicals) exercised. But, more prominently, the al Fedaban Americans are protesting her complicity in the war on terror. An English professor at the College resigned in an open letter to the Boston Globe today. This was my letter in response:

Editor,

As a time-worn, University of Notre Dame grad that had to endure the stench of Governor Bill Clinton (September 11, 1992, the "New Covenant") and Governor Mario Cuomo (September 13, 1984; defending abortion of all things!) speak at my university, I believe I'm somewhat qualified to be the first person to publicly laugh at the open letter of Mr. Steve Almond announcing his resignation as an adjunct professor of English at Boston College (Condoleezza Rice at Boston College? I quit, May 12, A17).

First, congratulations to Boston College. As Catholics know from dogmatic teaching, an informed mind will make an informed decision, the right decision. How better to obtain knowledge than to hear all sides of an argument? As distasteful as it was to have Govs. Clinton and Cuomo, and who knows who since, speak at Notre Dame, I know that Notre Dame is a better school for having them there. Teasingly, is that Boston College I see coming on fast in the rear view mirror?

Second, when I say "no" to one of my kids, I hardly ever relent to non-logical pushback or emotional pushback. I challenge them to make an argument. I say "no" to ice cream for breakfast; they convince me, when moms not home (Boston College '85, by the way) that ice cream has milk in it. OK, maybe I'm not fully informed but sometimes I prepare the ice cream. It's the start of building their argument-making skills. And, yes, I'm open to the possibility that their BC genes are simply dominating my ND genes. Anyway, I simply cannot show my kids Mr. Almond's "resignation" letter unless I was going to teach a "what not to do" lesson. Quitting is not making an argument. Though, Boston College will be stronger once the school replaces Mr. Almond with someone that is not a quitter.

Next, I don't cancel my Boston Globe subscription because of its hate-Bush slant. Instead, I try to advance my ideas by submitting letters that make my argument. It's up to the Boston Globe editorial page editor to decide if all sides of an argument are presented or just the liberal or anti-Bush ones. It is absolutely worth noting that Mr. Almond did not share that in December, 1998, President Clinton, in a speech where he mentioned Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction seven times, said of military strikes he was authorizing, "They (the strikes) are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . so we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people."

And, recalling President Clinton's finger-in-the-chest-of-America lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", suppose every member of every institution that had the President speak subsequently applied the Almond Doctrine of Quitting. They'd all be shuttered! No, I prefer spirited debate. (End of Letter.)

Clinton and Bush Got it Right

A couple of days ago, an op-ed piece by Mr. Samuel (Sandy) Berger appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The piece provided guidance to the Bush Administration on dealing with Iran. For those that don't know, Mr. Berger was President Clinton's National Security Advisor from 1997 to 2001, presumably Mr. Berger knows a thing or two about matters of national security. For what could be the third time in just a few months, I'm going to reproduce excerpts from a President Clinton speech from December 1998. I simply will continue to pound home the fact that President Clinton, based on the intelligence he saw and was given by folks like Mr. Berger, thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Also, being the great Kool-Aid consumptor that I am, I do not believe President Clinton timed the military strikes against Iraq to distract the Country's attention from the impending bi-partisan impeachment vote (for the President's unlawful conduct in obstructing a woman's right to pursue sexual harassment charges against him) that occurred about 2 days after the speech was delivered.

Anyway, the letter I submitted to the Wall Street Journal with the speech excerpts (I tried to eliminate as much of the speech as possible but every sentence seemed to mention weapons of mass destruction! . . . Imagine that!):

Editor,

It is absolutely necessary that your readers know that the Mr. Samuel Berger that wrote today's essay, "Talk to Tehran" (A19), offering guidance to the Bush Administration is also the same Mr. Berger that was National Security Advisor for President Clinton in December, 1998 and, therefore, would have signed-off on President Clinton's December, 1998 address from the Oval Office announcing air strikes against Iraq. I include just the most compelling excerpts of that address below; italics and bold are mine for emphasis:

President Clinton said, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq . . . their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs . . . their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons . . . (UN weapons inspectors) are highly professional experts from dozens of countries . . . their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability . . . other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles . . . with Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them; not once, but repeatedly . . . unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war . . . against civilians . . . even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again . . . Saddam's deception has defeated (weapons inspector's) effectiveness . . . this situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere . . . and so we had to act and act now . . . let me explain why . . . first, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake, he will use it again as he has in the past . . . That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security advisor, I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . so we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people . . . first, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq . . . the credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War . . . the best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently . . . the decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties . . . Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors . . . And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them . . . may God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America." (End of letter.)

Yes, may God bless us, Mr. President.

What more needs to be said? What is wrong with the liberal media? Yeah, Saddam Hussein fooled two American administrations. If a thug verbally threatens my family and I had just witnessed the thug using a knife on another family, I'm going to shoot the thug. It will not matter a lick to me if after the thug is shot dead the police arrive and find that the thug had tossed the knife in the woods prior to approaching my family. Do liberal extremists really intend to argue the Democrat families (the US with a Democrat as President) so threatened can shoot such a thug and Republican families (the US with a Republican as President) so threatened cannot?

Saddam Hussein was a thug that threatened the world . . . so said President Clinton. Saddam had every opportunity to show the world (through IAEA inspections) he disposed of his knife (weapons of mass destruction). Instead, he acted as though he still had his knife. There are consequences for such actions as Presidents Clinton and Bush demonstrated.

Addiction to Prescription Pain Medication

I'll let you know when the Boston Globe publishes this letter:

Editor,

I wish Rep. Patrick Kennedy the best with his rehabilitation from addiction to prescription pain medication; here's to hoping the liberal media treats him better than the liberal media treated radio talk show host, Mr. Rush Limbaugh.

The Letters Not Published

Below are the letters submitted to the Boston Globe since about March 30, 2006 that have not been published (the first one submitted today, but I wasn't going to wait to share it with you guys); this is also a cheap way to produce a post without any additional thinking and writing:


Kent State, Iraq parallels? Mr. Michael Corcoran was described as a journalism major.

Editor,

The evidence that Mr. Michael Corcoran is a journalism major and not a journalism graduate of Emerson College was crystal clear from the distortion of context and misinterpretation and mischaracterization of facts in his essay, "Why Kent State is important today (May 4, A11)".

I'm not researching exactly how popular President Richard Nixon was in 1970 to ascertain the meaning of Mr. Corcoran's comment that, "just as today, we had an unpopular President . . . ", but I think it is important for Boston Globe readers and Mr. Corcoran to know that President Nixon was re-elected President in 1972 with 60.67% of the popular vote and 96.65% of the electoral vote. That Mr. Nixon lost only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in 1972 is meaningful as to why the Boston Globe thought Mr. Corcoran's essay bashing President Bush was worthy of publishing.

Continuing, Mr. Corcoran mentions many times in his essay how unpopular the war in Iraq is, how ever he never shares with the readers that 77% of U.S. Senators voted for the war. Mr. Corcoran never shares with the readers that on August 9, 2004, seventeen months after the beginning of ground operations in Iraq, the Democratic Presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry, said that knowing what he knew then, he would have still voted for the war. Mr. Corcoran never shares with the readers that as late as October 7, 2005, that the U.S. Senate voted 97 - 0 for additional funding for the war in Iraq (all 44 Democrats except Sen. Patrick Leahy, VT).

The November 2005 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq failed by 403 - 3! Even Rep. Jack Murtha (D, PA) voted with the President.

Mr. Corcoran makes veiled references to the President's assault on civil liberties but he doesn't mention that the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was passed by the U.S. Senate by a 98 - 1 vote. The vote to cut-off a Democratic filibuster for renewal of the Act was 97 - 3 The vote for renewal was 89 - 10. That's a combined 284 - 14 in support of the "our civil liberties being threatened." Maybe the United States Senate, with 44 Democrats, needs to see the information that Mr. Corcoran has access to.

Mr. Corcoran's anecdotal use of offensive and hateful letters to the parents of the students killed at Kent State is pathetic and obscene. Like the person that Mr. Corcoran holds out for special abuse, Mr. Bill O'Reilly, has never received a death threat?

Finally, the juxtaposition of the sentence, "Today antiwar protesters are unfairly discredited by the administration as they were in 1970," with the name Ms. Cindy Sheehan following in the next sentence is a clever but grotesque insinuation. There is not a single statement by anyone in the Bush Administration about Ms. Cindy Sheehan that says anything other than "we feel for her loss, she's entitled to her opinion, we disagree with her opinion (as does Rep. Jack Murtha as I note above)."


Only Democrats Dissenting is Noble, I guess.

Editor,

On the Sunday after a week-long love-fest between the Boston Globe and the Great Equivocator, Sen. John F. Kerry, and the Senator's promotion of dissent, I was surprised that the headline of the Sunday Boston Globe from April 30 was not "Bush dissents on hundreds of laws" (Bush challenges hundreds of laws, April 30, A1). And, the Boston Globe could not have gotten one quote from the Senator praising the President for his courage?


18/13 is better than 17/12!?

Editor,

I encourage the United Nations Security Counsel to get on with passing a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter demanding Iran suspend with its nuclear weapons program even though Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad scoffs, "The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions (US, allies vow more heat on Iran, April 29, A6)."

Noting that the Hate-America First crowd still thinks 12 years and 17 such resolutions against Iraq was not enough diplomacy, I suspect it will take some time to pass the magic number of 18 resolutions . . . maybe even 13 years! I say, let's at least start the clock.

Of course, Iran's ability to put a nuclear weapon on the head of a delivery vehicle that can reach Berlin, Madrid, and Paris may spur our "friends" in Europe to actually cooperate this time.


Repeating Lies Don't Make Them Facts

Editor,

Obviously, the Boston Globe editorial page fact checker was asleep when he or she allowed the following question to slip through in a letter published on March 30 (2006), "Can it be true that the American President . . . who announced to the Iraqi people, 'bring it on', and to the world, 'mission accomplished' nearly three years ago . . . that we are mired in a war that another President will have to resolve?"

The President of the United States, the global leader of the war on terror, George W. Bush, never said 'bring it on' to the Iraqi people and he most definitely did not ever say 'mission accomplished'.

What's next, a claim that he called Iraq an "imminent threat" (which he also never said)?

I appreciate the left-leaning slant of the editorial page, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we should not confuse what people want to believe with the facts.

The Great Equivocator VII, I was first!

Re-printed below for your enjoyment is my published letter to the Boston Globe dated July 6, 2003:

Great Equivocator will be political footnote (no kidding, this was the huge title over my letter)

First, thanks to the Boston Globe for its weeklong series on the Great Equivocator, Senator John F. Kerry (June 15 - 21).

Those who read the entire series learned what I've been telling my liberal friends for 15 years: Senator Kerry is a political coward who is completely incapable of articulating his position on any substantive issue.

What I learned from the series is that Sen. Kerry's unpatriotic beliefs were established so long ago. I thought his anti-Americanism was a relatively new thing in his life.

Finally, and most disturbing, there was no mention in the series on the Senator's lust for voting tax increases on the "rich". Recall that Senator Kerry voted for President Clinton's tax increases in the 1993 budget, the single largest tax increase on the American taxpayer in the history of our Country. The tax increases were targeted at those making more than $75,000 (the "rich"). At the time, Senator Kerry was making $125,000 per year as a United States Senator and complaining about the high cost of private schools for his two daughters (italics edited out by the Boston Globe).

I'm sure the hard-working, tax-paying residents of the electoral-vote-rich New Jersey and Illinois, and all the points in between, will be impressed by Senator Kerry's leadership on economic and social issues.

I suspect an article called "John F. Kerry: The Making of a Political Footnote" is about 12 to 16 months away. (End of letter.)

I googled "John Kerry Great Equivocator" and I can find no reference made by anyone to "Great Equivocator" earlier than July 6, 2003. Most of the references come in the summer of 2004. If anyone can find a reference earlier than mine, I'll stop using the accurate description. However, I'm pretty sure I was first.

Added at 9:22 am: I just finished reading the Wall Street Journal; if you want to read a great piece on white/western guilt, minimalization/restraint and the stigmatization of things American, check out Mr. Shelby Steele's piece (White Guilt and the Western Past, May 2, A16) in the editorial section of that paper.

The Great Equivocator VI, Going for VII

Ah, True Centrist, you thought I was done with the Senator. Nope, I wrote the following in the fall of 2004 (prior to the election) and submitted it to the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Wall Street Journal. Of course the Globe and Inquirer didn't print it, nor did the WSJ, but I did get an appreciative note from the WSJ:

In Massachusetts, he's known as the Great Equivocator,
To the rest of the Country, the most liberal Senator.

In the salons of Manhattan, your every day elitist,
To fetus-friendly Americans, a left-wing extremist.

He's arrogant, aloof, the grandmaster of the flip-flop,
His answers are nuanced and convoluted, he just can't stop.

He's smart? Brilliant? A 1966 graduate of Yale,
Why does he say such idiotic things on the campaign trail?

A Vietnam vet'ran known for his Senate testimony,
For goodness sakes, he gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

An opportunist living in Boston, Nantucket, Ketchum,
A chameleon masquerading, he's busted! he's a bum!

Don't ask him to state his meandering position on Iraq,
You'll prick his sensitivities then suffer verbal attack.

Come November, as the result of an educated vote,
He'll become an unremarkable political footnote.

His lust for raising taxes - scary.
The scoundrels full name: John Forbes Kerry.


Provided he doesn't say anything stupid (gee, what are the chances?) that isn't also ignored by the liberal media (they're always doing him favors), I should have just one more Kerry post this week. It will be a re-print of my published letter to the Boston Globe from July 6, 2003 that I think proves I coined the phrase "Great Equivocator" and explains why I (over?) use it.