Who's Delusional?

I can only imagine the horror contained in National Intelligence Estimates and other such national security reports that compel a President to take a course of action that brings such a steady, hate-filled, stream of criticism.

The following is found on the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation website under "Award Criteria" for the Profile in Courage Award: "Today, elected officials are too often captives of opinion polls, reluctant to act in the broader public interest by taking unpopular courses of action or offending powerful groups. The Profile in Courage Award honors modern-day elected officials who stand up for the public interest, even when it is not in their own interest to do so. The award celebrates individuals who choose principles over partisanship - who do what is right, rather than what is expedient."

Based on the description above, who but President George W. Bush, for his stand against tremendous political and editorial pressure in satisfaction of his first priority as President of the United States - to protect Americans, should receive the next Profile in Courage Award?

I close with words from the President (all italics my for emphasis), " . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons . . . with Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them; not once, but repeatedly . . . I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again . . . 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 adviser, I have ordered . . . strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction . . . 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 . . . 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 . . . 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 . . . the decision to use force is never cost-free . . . 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 . . . ."

Yes, of course, the President is President Clinton and the comments above are from a December 16, 1998 address to the Nation.

Are people seriously insisting that the next President's national security team is not going to project disaster for the United States if we surrender to the terrorists in Iraq?

If so, who's delusional?

The Great Equivocator Bows Out

Sen. John F. Kerry: I decided not to run, after deciding to run, for how do I ask a man to be the first man to get stuck in my mistake (my campaign)?

There was one article, two columns and one editorial on The Great Equivocator, the denigrator of active swift-boat servicemen and women, the political coward, Sen. John F. Kerry, bowing out of the 2008 Presidential contest in the Boston Globe of January 25, 2007. In all of them, the writers are absolutely delusional about the talent, character and courage of this pathetic, opportunist; the writers also displayed a remarkable unacquaintance with fact.

From the article, Charting a future as Senator Kerry, “With Democrats now controlling Congress (Blogger’s Note: on the strength of re-electing a former KKK Kleagle, Sen. Robert C. Byrd), Kerry decided he can best serve the causes he believes in by not running for President, because that frees him to pursue legislative solutions without regard for national political consequences . . . “

First, there simply are NO causes that the Senator “believes in” other than the enrichment of Sen. John F. Kerry. To suggest otherwise is to deny the Senator’s every action. Every utterance. Every writing.

“They’re not my SUVs, they’re my wife’s.”

“Though I believe life begins at conception, I will not impose my will on others.”

Second, even when the Senator cared about “national political consequences” there is NO modest legislation, let alone significant legislation, with his name on it. He’s been able to exist in the United States Senate for over 20 years without accomplishing or contributing ANYTHING.

From the column, Kerry finds clarity, “While Kerry appeared out of step with much of the electorate on the war in 2004, much of the country now joins him in scorning it.”

Wow! What a bunch of garbage. The second half of the sentence implies Sen. Kerry was against the war in 2004. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have written so many times in this space, in August 2004, from the rim of the Grand Canyon, Sen. Kerry made his famous “if I knew then what I know now, I still would have voted for the war” speech.

And, the second half of the sentence implies people joined a position that Sen. Kerry led them to. My goodness, to imply Sen. Kerry is a leader of men and women is laughable. He’s never, ever led anything (except maybe his own cheerleading). He is doing exactly as I said (I’m ZACKlyRight, after all) someone in the Democrat Party would:

On August 23, 2005, in this space, go look it up, I wrote, “If the "position" of the Democrat Party is withdrawal, then shouldn't someone in the Party be saying that right now? Even Sen. Russ Feingold (D, Minnesota), arguably the most vocal Senator against the war on terror, doesn't even call for an immediate pull-out. If the position of the Democrat Party is not pull-out, is one of these Senators going to try to "time" their flip-flop just as the Party's hatred for all things George W. Bush reaches a critical mass? Will the Party really nominate the person that tries to steal the drum major's staff?”

From the second column, For Kerry, a new mission, “ . . . he can become a senator who tells the hard truths this nation needs to hear. And if we ever needed an uncowed truth-teller on the international scene, the time is now.”

First, I have no clue what the columnist means by “hard truths this nation needs to hear.” If anyone can help me, please let me know.

Second, it will be interesting to see how the liberal media discerns “uncowed truth-telling” when Vietnam war hero and Vietnam POW, Sen. John McCain makes statements contrary to anything the Great Equivocator says.

Finally, from the editorial, Kerry keeps his hat on, writing of the Senator’s failed 2004 Presidential bid, “Vocal Vietnam veterans opposed him because he had spoken against their war.” NO! Vocal Vietnam veterans opposed him because he had spoken against THEM!

I regret that Sen. John F. Kerry will be one of my United States Senators for a very long time to come.

The Boston Globe had the opening line of this post as a letter to the editor very early yesterday afternoon; it was not published today.

Hillary . . . bigot? racist? or both?

Two letters I sent this week; I'll have a comment on the Great Equivocator tomorrow.

Editor,

Imagine my complete lack of surprise that the article covering Sen. Hillary Clinton's announcement that she has formed a presidential exploratory committee failed to mention Sen. Clinton's bigoted, knee-jerk reaction to Dubai Ports World's proposed October 2005 purchase of just port operations of six U.S. seaports (Clinton gives her answer to voters: I'm in, January 21, A1). Recall, Dubai Ports World is a state-owned company of the United Arab Emirates.

And while I'm discussing the Senator's tolerance, or blatant apparent lack of, also missing from the article was any mention of how Sen. Clinton voted in last year's Senate Democratic Caucus vote for President Pro Tempore of the Senate. I can find no record of the vote on any web site; only that Senate Democrats elected former Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, as President Pro Tempore thus making him third in Presidential succession.

Hopefully a responsible media will ask the necessary questions over the next 22 months to resolve, one way or another, if Sen. Clinton is a bigot and/or a racist. (End of first letter.)

Boy, everyone is "against the war in Iraq" but even Sen. Clinton can't stop supporting it!

Editor,

Ms. Susan Milligan had it exactly right when she wrote, " . . . (Sen. Hillary) Clinton . . . voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq . . . she (Clinton) said she supports phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but without a specific deadline (Clinton toughens stance on Bush war plan, January 18, A2)."

Coupled with the fact that Sen. Clinton voted for war funding every single time she had an opportunity, it's hard to see any difference between Sen. Clinton's position on the war against terrorists and President Bush's. And, just for those scoring at home, Sen. Clinton's two most significant votes for war funding were for $60 billion on October 7, 2005 and for $70 billion on September 7, 2006.

Given that Sen. Clinton won re-election by 1.5 million votes, no she didn't get 1.5 million votes, she won by 1.5 million votes, I do struggle to see how the 2006 elections were a repudiation of the Bush/Clinton war against terrorists when the only one of the two that was on a ballot in 2006 won in a super-landslide.

Anyway, I just thought the readers of the Boston Globe would appreciate some facts appearing on the editorial pages for a change. (End of second letter.)

Mustering the courage to fight the war

For loyal readers of this space, I do not apologize for the repetition of facts in this post or any other post I publish. Some may feel I'm beating a dead horse by hammering away on such a short list of topics recently, but it is precisely because the horse isn't dead . . . it's very much alive . . . that I do so. The liberals fantastic distortion of facts on race relations and the war against terrorists needs to be confronted. This blog is one man's attempt to combat the distortion.

To wit, I encourage anyone serious about improving race relations in this Country that gets into a race relations conversation with a liberal extremist to use any of the Sen. Byrd stuff I've written over the life of this blog to expose how disingenuous the Democrats are about improving race relations.

Anyway, moving on, if the Boston Globe was ever interested in firing up their hugely liberal readership, the first letter certainly would be the one to publish.

Editor,

Mr. Robert Mann started his cheerleading of those promoting surrender in Iraq with, "Senator Edward M. Kennedy's proposal last week to withhold funds for escalating the war in Iraq is a bold effort to stop what many Americans perceive as a lost cause. While the President's veto power makes it unlikely that Kennedy and his allies will succeed, history suggest the tactic may ultimately be an effective way to end the war - but only if its supporters are willing to endure short-term political setback (Mustering the courage to end war, January 15, A11)." That 70% of American respondents answered "no" to every single major poll that asked "Do you support the President's plan to send more troops to Iraq" pretty much quashes Mr. Mann's ridiculous column before he can even get to the third sentence.

Taken from the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation Profile in Courage website, "The (Profile in Courage) Award is named for President Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer prize-winning book, Profiles in Courage, which recounts the stories of eight U.S. Senators who risked their careers by taking principled stands for unpopular positions." How ironic it is going to be when Sen. Kennedy presents the Profile in Courage Award to President George W. Bush in about 2012 for the President's courageous 2007 - 2008 stand against terrorists and opportunistic politicians back-dropped by far too many drive-thru-minded Americans. (End of first letter.)

Of course, I'd concede that Sen. Kennedy would be deserving of the Award himself if he ever made the presentation.

Next, Ms. Milligan, a Boston Globe writer, is usually pretty good about writing me right back when I respond to one of her stories and I blind-copy her. So far, I haven't heard from her on the letter below.

Editor,

Ms. Susan Milligan had it exactly right when she wrote, " . . . (Sen. Hillary) Clinton . . . voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq . . . she (Clinton) said she supports phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but without a specific deadline (Clinton toughens stance on Bush war plan, January 18, A2)."

Coupled with the fact that Sen. Clinton voted for war funding every single time she had an opportunity, it's hard to see any difference between Sen. Clinton's position on the war against terrorists and President Bush's. And, just for those scoring at home, Sen. Clinton's two most significant votes for war funding were for $60 billion on October 7, 2005 and for $70 billion on September 7, 2006.

Given that Sen. Clinton won re-election by 1.5 million votes, no she didn't get 1.5 million votes, she won by 1.5 million votes, I do struggle to see how the 2006 elections were a repudiation of the Bush/Clinton war against terrorists when the only one of the two that was on a ballot in 2006 won in a super-landslide.

Anyway, I just thought the readers of the Boston Globe would appreciate some facts appearing on the editorial pages for a change. (End of second letter.)

I gave myself 10 hours to write this post; it only took me 15 minutes. I'm nine hours and 45 minutes ahead of schedule. Maybe I can have a significant role in the Democrat-controlled House, no? Oh, and my clock was running the whole time.

How did Sen. Barack Hussein Obama vote?

Yesterday, when Sen. Obama emailed me (recall, long ago I registered for his email list so I would know what his policy positions were rather than getting caught up in his skin color like so many guilty, white, liberals) his intention to create a presidential exploratory committee, I sent the following letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

On one of the first two pages of this morning's paper, there is no doubt an article announcing that Sen. Barack Obama has announced the formulation of a presidential exploratory committee.

In order to know more about the man, this is a public request to all of the correspondents and writers of the Boston Globe who may one day interview the Senator to ask him if he voted for former Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert Byrd for President Pro Tempore of the Senate when the Senate Democrats elected Sen. Byrd to that position late last year. I also request that the correspondents or writers ask the appropriate follow-up questions to Sen. Barack's "yes" or "no" answer. (End of first letter.)

Naturally, the Globe didn't print the letter.

I'll forward the letter to the correspondent that did the story and let you know how she responds; she has answered all of my emails in great detail in the past, she will not pass up the chance to address this issue.

In yesterday's Boston Globe, their was a column on the prospects of Vice President Al Gore entering the 2008 Presidential contest. I wrote the following letter in response (I blind-copied the author and he sent me a nice thank you note):

(Super-novelty: short version or long version at the discretion of the Letters Editor. My creativity knows no bounds (yes, I actually wrote this as an introduction to my letter)!

Editor,

Since those that hate Gov. Mitt Romney always dismiss the outstanding job he did organizing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games, I'm sure Gov. Romney is hoping like the dickens that Vice President Al Gore gives it another go for the Oval Office (Another chance for Gore?, January 16, A9).

Recall, Vice President Al Gore had responsibility for just security at the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic Games and he failed miserably. (End Short Version)

But, given how our profoundly liberal media convinced so many that Rep. Mark Foley's (R, FL) sexually explicit emails to a 17 year-old page were worse than Rep. Gerry Studds (D, MA) actually having sex with a 17 year-old page, or how the same liberal media convinced so many that Sen. Robert Packwood's trading of sloppy kisses with a female subordinate was worse than President Clinton receiving oral sex from a female subordinate, or how the same liberal media gave Sen. John F. Kerry a pass on calling our troops stupid but did not give Sen. George Allen a pass for his "bad joke" then maybe Gov. Romney is not in such a hurry to see how the liberal media will twist the facts about providing Olympic Game security. (End Long Version)

Title if Long Version is chosen: Romney: Run, Gore, Run! Not! (End of second letter.)

Of course, I could have added something about Sen. Trent Lott saying something nice to Sen. Strom Thurmond on Thurmond's 100th birthday and former KKK member Sen. Byrd being elected President Pro Tempore of the Senate by Senate Democrats to the second letter but I don't want people to know how much I just love typing President Pro Tempore.

Pursuing al Qaeda

Though I think I have original thoughts on "troop surge", I'll leave it alone, for now, because everyone must be simply sick of the topic given the hysterical negativism and criticism offered by the usual liberal extremists who prove daily that they are capable of nothing more and the non-liberal extremists who seem to be trying to grab a headline.

Instead, just a few words on another, related, matter from earlier this week that is getting very little press. On Monday, U.S. war planes apparently supported by U.S. Special Forces on the ground, killed eight to ten al Qaeda terrorists in Somalia. The target of the air strike were three al Qaeda leaders that are thought to be the masterminds behind the two U.S. Embassy bombings in 1998. The bombings killed 225 people.

For those scoring at home, these bombings occurred on President Clinton's watch; I don't point this out because I "blame" him for the bombings; I point it out primarily to illustrate to the idiots that "they" didn't start hating us on September 11, 2001.

Of course, I do blame the Clinton Administration for the complete lack of effort expended in trying to bring the terrorists that planned the bombings to justice. It certainly was a pattern of conduct for the former Administration as President Clinton also failed to pursue the al Qaeda terrorists that killed 19 U.S. servicemen (and many more innocent Saudis) in the Khobar Tower bombings of 1996 (Khobar Towers, The Clinton administration left many stones unturned; by Louis J. Freeh, Wall Street Journal, June 2006).

Anyway, though the Somalia strike early this week seems to have missed killing the three targeted leaders, I think it is meaningful that the U.S. is pursuing terrorists no matter where they try to hide.

The President has told us time and again that the war against terrorists will be a long one, possibly one without end. I'm sleeping better at night knowing the intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA, Defense and others) are actively tracking and monitoring terrorists and that the U.S. military is poised to strike when targets present themselves.

"They" didn't start hating us on September 11, 2001 and "they" won't stop hating us if we surrender in Iraq.

Would Sen. Byrd Have Used the Mendi Bible?

On Thursday, January 4, 2007, Mr. Deval Patrick was sworn in as the 71st governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He placed his hand on the Mendi Bible as he took his oath of office. Mr. Patrick is an African-American.

Close to the same time, maybe 500 miles south, in Washington, D.C., former Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D, WV) was being sworn in as President Pro Tempore of the Senate thus making him third in the line of succession for the Presidency after the Vice President and Speaker of the House.

Oh, the Mendi Bible was formerly owned by Africans sold as slaves in the mid 1800s. John Quincy Adams won the freedom of the slaves in a case argued before the United States Supreme Court. The freed Africans gave Mr. Adams the Bible as thanks.

Double oh, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate is elected in a vote by members of his own party.

The letter:

Editor,

In no article or column of the January 5 edition of the Boston Globe that covered the transfer of power from Republicans to Democrats in the United States Senate did the Boston Globe report that Senate Democrats elected former Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert Byrd as President Pro Tempore making him third in the line of succession to the Presidency.

The omission of this fact in the same issue of a liberal newspaper that trumpeted the gubernatorial inauguration of a Democrat African-American is outrageous yet not surprising at all.

No doubt Sen. Byrd was relieved the Mendi Bible was in Boston on Thursday and not at the U.S. Capitol where he took his oath of office. (End of letter.)