Did Hillary Pay for the Editorial?

Below is the lead editorial from what is supposed to be a reputable national (news)paper. The following editorial, uh, advertisement, appeared the Boston Sunday Globe this morning. My goodness, did Sen. Clinton have to pay for this? Surely a presidential campaign finance law was broken if no fee was paid for this advertisement.

Also, please note that the advertisement clarifies a quote from the staged "interview" Sen. Clinton allowed the Boston Globe editorial board that I wrote so prophetically about on October 3, 2007. Not only no piercing questions, but now a clarification! Sen. Clinton doesn't even need a communications team to clarify her remarks, the national media does it for her.

What Hillary Said

Boston Sunday Globe, Ideas, October 28, 2007, F8

In an interview with The Boston Globe editorial board on Oct. 10, Senator Hillary Clinton made a remark that has been so badly twisted by her opponents that we feel it necessary to reprint the interview transcript that contains the remark.

The quote that was lifted from the interview and magnified by Clinton's opponents is this: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all." Within hours of the Globe's news report on Clinton's visit, the Republican National Committee sent out an e-mail alert claiming the remark showed how expensive a Clinton presidency would be for the taxpayers. It launched a "Clinton Spend-o-meter" on its website, tracking the potential cost of Clinton's campaign proposals.

A week later at the Republican presidential debate in Orlando, Fla., Rudy Giuliani played the remark for laughs, quoting her and adding the zinger: "No kidding Hillary, America can't afford you!"

All in good fun, perhaps, until you learn that Clinton was saying she opposes big government spending, not the other way around.

At the Globe meeting, Clinton was asked why she had turned cool on a proposal for so-called baby bonds that she has spoken favorably about just the week before. Baby bonds - sometimes called Individual Development Accounts - are small nest eggs government sets aside for each American child, which would build until adulthood when they could be used for college tuition or a down payment on a house. Though ridiculed when Clinton mentioned them, baby bonds have bipartisan support and can be an effective way to fight poverty. Clinton was asked whether dropping a good, new, bold idea like this was a symptom of what some critics have called a too-cautious campaign.

Here is Clinton's full answer: "Well, I have a lot of good, new, bold ideas, and I have to make some choices among them." She explained that baby bonds didn't have the level of political support of other proposals she had to help people pay for college. "I have a million ideas. I can't do all of them. I happen to think in running a disciplined campaign - especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which is what I'm trying to do - everything I propose I have to pay for. You know, you go to my website, you'll see what I would use to pay for what I've proposed. So I've got a lot of ideas, I just obviously can't propose them all. I can't afford them all. The country can't afford them all."

Clinton has adopted a pay-as-you-go rule for new spending, much like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's rules for the Democratic Congress. In order to avoid ballooning the deficit, the pay-go rules require a funding source be attached to any new spending. The 60-cent hike in the cigarette tax that would have paid for the expansion of children's healthcare is one example.

What Americans really can't afford are cheap political distortions. (End of Boston Globe press release on behalf of Senator Clinton.)

The letter:

Editor,

That the Boston Globe is in the tank for Sen. Hillary Clinton is now proved beyond any doubt by your lead editorial clarifying the Senator's "the Country can't afford all my ideas" quote (What Hillary Said, Ideas, Boston Sunday Globe, October 28, F8).

As we know, the Globe never published clarifying editorials letting your readers know that President Bush never said "mission accomplished", "Iraq is an iminent threat", or that he or anyone in his Administration ever questioned the military service of Sen. John F. Kerry.

And to the contrary on the latter, the Boston Globe continues to allow articles, columns, editorials, letters and political cartoons that suggest the President did.

The last sentence of your editorial, "What Americans really can't afford are cheap political distortions," is the ultimate in chutzpah. (End of letter.)

ZACKlyRight Mentioned on Rush Limbaugh Radio Program

Please remember the 241 U.S. Marines murdered by terrorists on this date 24 years ago.

This is a rushed post as I'm just finding out that this site was mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh show today.

For those looking for a post defending the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, here's a re-print of my November 20, 2006 post. References to similar posts will be forthcoming.

Support ALL U.S. Veterans!

Mr. Alex Beam of the Boson Globe interviewed me last week for a story that was published in the Boston Globe today. The story was on people who write letters to the editor. I think I qualify.

As this may be my single most viewed post to-date, of all the issues I've written (Sen. Kerry, especially on 5/1/05 and 5/2/05; improving race-relations, especially on 12/14/05 and 8/6/06; the slaughter of innocent human life, especially on 11/05/05; 4/25/06 and 7/30/06; or the war, as I did so prophetically, on 8/23/05, and 4/30/06), I choose to write a post today on a topic very important to me; but just a brief post so the message is not lost.

Sen. John F. Kerry, Rep. Jack Murtha and every other disgusting politician that uses the term "swift boating" as a negative must stop doing so.

I have written this so many times in this space, I know the regular readers are tired of reading it, but the denigration of 294 brave men who have won so many decorations for valor and service to Our Country MUST stop; these men deserve better from Sen. Kerry, Rep. Murtha, and, quite honestly, the liberal media.

ALL veterans that want to be heard deserve to be heard without being so nastily ridiculed.

That Rep. Murtha used the phrase just last week to describe Democrats that subverted his effort to be elected House Majority Leader was simply vile.

Do Sen. Kerry and Rep. Murtha know, or even care, that brave woman and men still operate swift boats in the U.S. Navy? Why have national Democrats so perverted the service these sailors perform today?

For other posts on the military and veterans, please see 12/1/05; 2/12/06; 2/14/06; 2/28/06; 4/15/06 and 4/22/06. (End of November 20, 2006 post.)

I just did a quick review of all my posts and I think the list immediately above covers the meaningful ones where the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth are defended. April 22, 2006 is a very good post. Also, a post not listed but worth reading since it's so close to two others is February 10, 2006.

What Happened at Haditha

The lead editorial from the Wall Street Journal on October 19, 2007, page A18:

What Happened at Haditha

The incident at Haditha -- or the massacre, as it is often called -- is due for a wholesale rethinking. The allegations are that in 2005 U.S. Marines went on a killing spree and deliberately executed 24 Iraqi civilians. The casualties have drawn an extraordinary amount of political attention, becoming an emblem for everything critics say is wrong with the Iraq war -- in the common telling, another My Lai.

Thus Congressman Jack Murtha (Blogger's Note: Democrat, PA), a decorated combat veteran, made accusations of war crimes and said the Marines had killed "in cold blood." These are serious charges; and military justice continues to deal with them seriously, though thankfully at a slower pace than politics. Now the prosecutions have mostly unraveled. It seems Haditha, though tragic, was exploited politically, and the allegations were exaggerated, if not unfounded.

Here is what we know. On November 17, 2005, Kilo Company of the First Marine Regiment's Third Battalion was returning from a routine logistics mission in Haditha, a town 140 miles northwest of Baghdad. Haditha is in Anbar province, a heart of the Sunni insurgency with one of the highest U.S. casualty rates in Iraq. The security situation at the time was treacherous.

Shortly after 7 a.m., an improvised explosive device detonated under the last vehicle in Company K's four-Humvee convoy. It instantly killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas and wounded two others. Windows were shattered for 150 yards, and smoke and debris were everywhere.

An oncoming white sedan had been waved over near the stalled convoy. Five military-age occupants exited and disobeyed orders in Arabic to halt; at least one began to run. Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the squad commander, and Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz opened fire, killing all of them. The men were suspected of being spotters for, or remotely detonating, the IED.

As a quick reaction force arrived, headed by First Lieutenant William Kallop, Company K began taking small arms fire from several locations on either side of the convoy. While taking cover, they identified at least one shooter in the vicinity of a nearby "trigger house." Lt. Kallop ordered SSgt. Wuterich and a makeshift team to treat the building as hostile and "clear" it.

They forced entry and shot a man on a flight of stairs, then another when he made a movement toward a closet. The Marines say they heard the sound of an AK-47 being racked, so threw grenades into a nearby room and fired; they killed five occupants, with two others wounded by grenade fragments and bullets.

SSgt. Wuterich and his men pursued a runner into an adjacent house. They led the assault with grenades and gunfire, in the process killing another man. Unknown to the Marines, two women and six children were in a back room. Seven were killed. It was chaotic and fast-moving in the dark, close-range quarters, and accounts diverge on the chronology and offensive actions.

After the firefight ended, around 9:30, the Marines noted men suspected of scouting for another attack "turkey peeking" behind the wall of a third house. A team followed to find women and children inside (who were not harmed). They moved to a fourth house off a courtyard and killed inside two men wielding AK-47s and two others.

In March 2006, Time magazine broke the story, which erupted in the press. The accounts relied on a narrative that the Marines had gone berserk after the killing of Cpl. Terrazas and murdered Iraqis in retaliation. "Eyewitnesses" reported that the riders in the car had been lined up and executed, and that there had been a rampage through the houses targeting women and children. A coverup by the top brass was also asserted.

After the incident became public, the military was unusually aggressive. It launched at least two exhaustive, months-long inquiries. Four of the enlisted men from Company K were charged with unpremeditated murder -- essentially, killings without sanction. Four Marine officers who were not on the scene were charged with dereliction of duty for improperly reporting and investigating.

Before courts martial, all charges are referred to Article 32 hearings, the military equivalent of a grand jury. The senior investigating officer for the infantrymen, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Ware, had a chance to look at all the evidence, not just that selectively leaked or filtered. The result is that the charges are being reduced or dismissed altogether.

In separate Article 32 proceedings, two of the officers have been exonerated; one, the highest ranking, has been recommended for a court martial, and the other case remains pending. Of the four infantrymen, two have seen their charges dismissed (one in exchange for testimony); and charges against a third have been recommended to be dismissed. Ten of SSgt. Wuterich's indictments have been recommended for dismissal, and the seven others reduced to negligent homicide, essentially, accidental or negligent killings. Why?

The first imperative is to understand the complex, asymmetrical combat conditions in Iraq. The Marines were (and are) facing a determined enemy who dress as civilians and use homes, schools, hospitals and mosques as their bases of operation. They try to goad killings among the civilian population because it foments domestic opposition against U.S. troops while undermining them with elite international opinion.

In this environment, accusations of U.S. atrocities against civilians occur after almost every military operation. That partly explains why the Marines did not immediately investigate the Haditha killings. They viewed some Iraqi claims as part of insurgent "information operations" and did not suspect any misconduct. That day also saw citywide violence and multiple combat actions, and the killings seemed, regrettably but realistically, routine.

Perhaps, ex post facto, the officers might have erred on the side of scrutiny, though it is more exactly the duty of commanders to report accurately up the chain of command. Aside from some glitches, such as an erroneous public affairs statement that some of the civilians had been killed by the roadside bomb, they seem to have done so. There are also accusations that the delay in the full probe compromised the case. One indication of affairs in Haditha is that the heavily guarded investigators came under a coordinated insurgent attack.

Still, negligence, if proved, does not constitute a cover-up. Even the most fault-finding Haditha inquiry, conducted by Army Major General Eldon Bargewell, rejected the idea of some upper-level conspiracy. As for the infantrymen at Haditha, Lt. Col. Ware's investigation concluded, in a representative statement, that "No trier of fact can conclude SSgt Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill." The allegations of a deliberate massacre are entirely unfounded. They are contradicted by credible testimony, and remain a "story unsupported by evidence."

If any of the reduced cases do move to courts martial, as some likely will, they will turn on the rules of engagement. Decisions made in the heat of battle are hard to judge from the outside. At the critical moment, hesitation can result in a soldier or his unit getting killed. Thus military justice usually presumes a benefit of the doubt if decisions that were reasonable in the line of fire appear wrong in hindsight. A bad result does not imply a bad decision.

At Haditha, did the Marines act reasonably and appropriately based on their training? They were in a hostile combat situation where deadly force was authorized against suspected triggermen for the IED, and were ordered to assault a suspected insurgent hideout. In retrospect, the men in the car had no weapons or explosives; in retrospect, the people in the house were not insurgents. No one knew at the time.

Innocents were killed at Haditha, as they inevitably are in all wars -- though that does not excuse or justify wrongdoing. Yet neither was Haditha the atrocity or "massacre" that many assumed -- though errors in judgment may well have been committed. And while some violent crimes have been visited on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, overall the highly disciplined U.S. military has conducted itself in an exemplary fashion. When there have been aberrations, the services have typically held themselves accountable.

The same cannot be said of the political and media classes. Many, including Members of Congress, were looking for another moral bonfire to discredit the cause in Iraq, and they found a pretext in Haditha. The critics rushed to judgment; facts and evidence were discarded to fit the antiwar template.

Most despicably, they created and stoked a political atmosphere that exposes American soldiers in the line of duty, risking and often losing their lives, to criminal liability for the chaos of war. This is the deepest shame of Haditha, and the one for which apologies ought to be made. (End of Wall Street Journal editorial.)

Administrative Post

I've scanned my (news)paper over the last couple of days and the news websites and I don't have anything better than my last post. If you have not read all the material I referenced in that post, please treat yourself.

Also, back on August 27, 2007, I made a comment about politicians use of the phrase "blood and treasure" as it relates to the cost of the war against terrorists.

I'm a dope. I thought "treasure" meant the lives of the young women and men fighting the war. The meaning of the word in the expression is actually closer to the word's real meaning; it actually means the dollars and cents cost of the war.

However, now having clarified the meaning of the word, I'm more offended by it!

Freedom has its cost but please let's not trivialize freedom by saying there is a price tag on it.

I've written it a hundred times, I simply believe more innocent Americans would be killed globally and here in the United States if we were not engaging the enemy in Iraq at this time. I cannot prove this but nor can anyone prove fewer than 4,000 innocent Americans would have been killed since March 2003 if we were not engaged with the enemy since.

Rape: Now the Boston Globe thinks it's a Crime

Folks, never have I asked you to read so much as I'm going to ask you to read with this post; do yourself the favor and read all the suggested material, it will perfectly define who I am and the motivation for writing this Blog. But, if you can only read this post, make sure you get to end, the second letter ties it all together. All of this material graphically demonstrates the hypocrisy, selective sensationalism, and political opportunism of liberal extremists on the most sensitive of issues.

Today, the Boston Sunday Globe published a ridiculous story by liberal extremist, Ms. Susan Milligan, claiming the story of a convicted rapist who was paroled while Mike Huckabee was governor of Arkansas and who murdered a woman subsequent to being paroled, may hurt Gov. Huckabee's chances to win the Republican presidential nomination. The link to complete story is (yes, it runs into the margin, but click it and it will take you there):
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/14/huckabee_could_face_hurdles_from_the_past/

For background, please read my posts of October 8, 16, 19 and 25, 2006. All of the posts deal with the Boston Globe's indifference to the crime of rape; they're concurrent so if you click on "October 2006" in the archives they'll all be together. All four posts deal with the Boston Globe and the liberal media dismissing gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick's extraordinary attempts to gain parole for a brutal rapist, Mr. Benjamin LaGuer.

Additionally, please read my post of July 23, 2007; this post deals with the home invasion by furloughed, convicted murderer, Mr. William Horton where he brutalized, terrorized, and twice raped Ms. Angela Miller. Oh, during the home invasion, Mr. Horton also bound and beat Ms. Miller's finance, Mr. Cliff Barnes, and stabbed him 22! times!

Finally, please read my post of June 14, 2007 titled, "Crime and Punishment". In this post I highlight numerous instances where a lesser crime, because liberal extremists are expert in squeezing fantastic umbrage from the mildest offense, is made to be more severe than a greater crime.

My two letters to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

The Boston Globe's new-found "concern" for a rape victim and the brutal crime of rape is a little late for Ms. Kerry Healy and the rest of us who thought Gov. Deval Patrick's extraordinary efforts to gain parole for rapist Mr. Benjamin LaGuer should have been a 2006 campaign issue (Huckabee could face hurdles from the past, Boston Sunday Globe, October 14, A1). (End of first letter.)

Editor,

I appreciate that the Boston Globe's attempt to smear another Republican Presidential candidate, Gov. Mike Huckabee, but the comparison of furloughed, convicted murderer Mr. William Horton to paroled, convicted rapist Mr. Wayne Dumond is no comparison at all (Huckabee could face hurdles from the past, Boston Sunday Globe, October 14, A1).

Ms. Susan Milligan writes that, "Bloggers have already dubbed the matter "Huckabee's Willie Horton," referring to the case of a Massachusetts man who was paroled during Michael Dukakis's tenure as Massachusetts governor, and then raped a Maryland woman and terrorized her fiancé. The episode tainted the onetime Democratic presidential nominee's campaign even though Dukakis had not personally intervened on Horton's behalf." Ms. Milligan's description is a journalistic embarrassment for its gross distortion of fact and glaring omissions.

Ms. Milligan failed to mention that Mr. Horton is a convicted murderer. Prior to raping and terrorizing, Mr. Horton stabbed a 19 year-old convenience store clerk more than 15 times and then dumped the clerk's not-quite-lifeless body in a dumpster where he died in filth. Mr. Horton was furloughed, not paroled. In other words, Mr. Horton was simply allowed to walk out of jail . . . unsupervised. Mr. Horton traveled to Maryland where during a savage home invasion he terrorized Mr. Cliff Barnes and Ms. Angela Miller, beating them both, stabbing Mr. Barnes repeatedly and raping Ms. Miller twice.

In addition to Ms. Milligan's journalistic malpractice, it's important to note Mr. Dumond was a convicted rapist; rape is a violent and heinous crime but it is not cold-blooded murder. Mr. Dumond was paroled after serving 11 years for his crime. The vote by the Arkansas parole board was 4 - 1. Two of the votes supporting parole were from Democrats originally appointed by Gov. William Jefferson Clinton and re-appointed by Gov. Huckabee. Shortly after being paroled, Mr. Dumond committed murder, was arrested, and convicted. He died in prison.

Next, Mr. Horton is serving a life sentence in a Maryland prison. The liberal state of Maryland's refusal to send him back to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts speaks volumes.

Finally, prior to Mr. Dumond being paroled, Gov. Huckabee met with Mr. Dumond's rape victim, who has since promised to be more vocal against Mr. Huckabee should his quest for the Republican presidential nomination continue. Gov. Dukakis and his Lt. Gov. at the time, Sen. John F. Kerry, refused to ever meet with Mr. Barnes or Ms. Miller. (End of second letter.)

A Grotesque Willful Suspension of Disbelief

Referencing the prior post, this was a letter I sent to the Boston Globe earlier this week:

Editor,

Anyone who believes Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has craved power her entire life and who has destroyed so many people's lives trying to grab it, when she insists, if elected, she will "roll back President Bush's expansion of executive authority" is guilty of a grotesque willful suspension of disbelief (Clinton vows to check executive power, October 11, A18). (End of letter.)

ZACKlyRight! Boston Globe in tank for Hillary Clinton

My October 3, 2007 post was brilliant for my omniscience.

This is the Boston Globe's pathetic article on the "interview" it conducted with Sen. Hillary Clinton on October 10; please read my October 3 post for a list of questions the Boston Globe could have asked:

Clinton vows to check executive power, Would curb use of signing statements
By Marcella Bombardieri, Globe Staff
October 11, 2007

Senator Hillary Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she intends to roll back President Bush's expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.

"I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency," Clinton told the Boston Globe's editorial board.

Although Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements, declarations that accompany his signature on bills approved by Congress, Clinton said she would use the statements only to clarify bills that might be confusing or contradictory. She also said she did not subscribe to the "unitary executive" theory that argues the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws limiting the president's power over executive branch operations. Adherents to the theory say any president who refuses to obey such laws is not really breaking the law.

"It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people," she said.

In the wide-ranging interview, the senator, a Democrat of New York, also said her policy on Russia would focus on influencing that nation's role in the world rather than trying to halt its internal move away from democracy. She would seek Russia's help negotiating with Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, she said, and try to prevent Russia from "being a problem in the Middle East" or bullying its neighbors.

"I'm interested in what Russia does outside its borders first," she said. "I don't think I can, as the president of the United States, wave my hand and tell the Russian people they should have a different government."

Clinton decried what she called Bush's "incoherent" policy on Russia, saying the president was "naive" to rely so strongly on his personal relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Clinton was asked about a statement she made on Tuesday when criticizing the Bush administration's conduct in Iraq. She said she hadn't known that Blackwater USA, the military contractor accused of killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last month, had immunity from prosecution in Iraq because of an exemption approved soon after the US invasion.

"Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it," she said yesterday.

Asked if that suggested she, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was not sufficiently vigilant on the contractors issue, she said she has been raising questions about contractors for several years and opposed the government's use of them.

On domestic priorities, Clinton pitched her proposals on Medicare reform and scientific research and said she would unveil a plan today to make college more affordable.

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

Responding to statements by some Democratic rivals that she is not electable because her negative ratings are too high, she pointed to her increasing lead in national polls. "I am winning," she said. "That's a good place to start."

She sketched out a road to victory in the general election, if she becomes the Democratic nominee, saying she expected to win every state that Senator John F. Kerry won in 2004, plus Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, and probably Louisiana, New Mexico, and Nevada.

"I believe," she said, "that both my theory and my strategy, and my track record and how I'm doing right now, really adds up to a very compelling argument that I will actually win." (End of Boston Globe article.)

The Boston Globe editorial board and "news" staff did as they were expected to do; Zackly as I suggested they would on October 3.

The Truth in an Asinine CEO Directive

The following is the link to the editorial by a guilty, white, liberal who thinks he has the answer to increasing African-American representation on the payrolls of American corporations:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/

I quoted the relevant paragraph in my letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

Former CEO of John Hancock Financial Services, Mr. David D’Alessandro, wrote the following about filling the upper-ranks of corporate America with African-Americans, “Whenever a job opening occurs and the company is short on African-American employees, the manager is given the following directive: ‘You will find and hire a qualified black person. I don't care how long it takes. They are out there and you will find one. And by the way, do not hire one who is destined to fail just to fill the slot. I am holding you personally responsible for that individual's success. Your job is on the line if that person doesn't make it.’ Amazing how quickly managers miraculously accomplish this task. I have tried it many times. Never fails. (The great lie in African-American hiring, October 8, A11)”. Wow!

What guilty, liberal, white CEOs like Mr. D’Alessandro do not understand is that, duh!, the African-American new hire of course “succeeded” under the CEO's asinine “directive”. The hiring Manager who ever had the courage to tell “truth to power” and said a hiring mistake was made, if made, should have been rewarded not held “personally responsible”. Hiring Managers make poor hiring decisions all the time, why should they be held to an infallible standard when hiring an African-American?

Further, Mr. D’Alessandro has written the prescription for catastrophic failure in the workplace for far too many cowards exist at levels of management between hiring Managers and CEOs; I suggest “senior management” does not have the collective courage to tell “truth to power”. An under-performing African-American will surely get “promoted” (think the grade-school term of “passed through") because the CEO said the African-American cannot fail. How can this not have a downward spiraling effect on Company morale?

And, what of the African-American’s workplace peers? Given the intense pressure of the CEO’s directive, how can the hiring Manager possibly “develop” any non-African-American peers? Who will get the choicest projects and assignments? I wonder. White hiring Managers have families, mortgages and college tuition bills, too.

Finally, everyone, black and white, wants to get promoted because they deserved it. What African-American should have to announce a promotion at the family dinner table under the cloud she or he benefited from a racial preference? Well, Mr. D’Alessandro has just reinforced that that cloud exists and he’s robbed African-Americans of the complete joy that should come with achieving a well-earned promotion.

Every African-American that has ever “succeeded” under Mr. D’Alessandro or CEOs that “lead” like he led, now has to ask whether they actually succeeded. Mr. D’Alessandro claims he "never" failed after all. Think about that. (Enf of letter.)

On December 10, 2006, I wrote, "We will never be a color-blind society until we are a color-blind society."

On or about June 28, 2007, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, paid me the ultimate compliment by immortalizing my words when he wrote into a U.S. Supreme Court decision, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

On October 8, 2007 I repeat, yet again, my call to denounce the racism of the skin-color obsessed.

Yellow-Belly Cowards: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama

On October 1, 2007, at 5:59 pm, the United States Senate voted on a bill to fund the U.S. troops fighting the wars against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan (senate.gov, votes, vote no. 359) . The funding was $150 billion.

The vote was 92 “yeas” to just 3 “nays”; the “mandate” from the 2006 November elections be damned, I guess. My two Senators, Kennedy and Kerry, voted "yea" to fund the war. Hmmmm.

There were 5 U.S. Senators not voting. They were Sens. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain and Obama. Obviously, Sen. McCain’s excuse that he was “campaigning” for President and “had” to be in Iowa is believable.

The same excuse by the four, yellow-belly, Democrats is not believable.

If there was a “mandate” to end this war, then what better “propaganda” for a Democrat than a vote against funding it? My goodness, fly from Iowa, sprint through Ronald Reagan National Airport, police escort it to the U.S. Senate chamber and cast a courageous vote. Film at 11!

Nope, not these four yellow-bellies.

Back on May 26, 2007, in response to a question on what I would do if I thought the war in Iraq was a mistake (which I don’t), I wrote, “ . . . if I were a delusional, in-denial, Congressperson that believed the war IS a mistake, because I wasn’t reading National Intelligence Estimates, I’d do everything and anything to get our troops out of Iraq. I’d submit amendment after amendment to every single bill that came up to vote but, in time, I’d alienate myself in my own Party. I’d make a spectacle of myself at the gates of the White House . . . further alienating myself within my own Party. I’d make speeches from the steps of the Capitol but eventually the press would stop attending . . . would they even show up for the first speech? Wouldn't they cover Sens. Clinton and Obama instead? I’d write fiery op-ed pieces to any major newspaper that would publish them. One would get published and the rest would die in the email in-box, no? If I were a Senator, I’d put a “hold” on ANYTHING I could that came out of the White House; my own Party would reconsider the deference given to Senatorial Holds. My goodness, innocent members of the U.S. Armed Forces are being slaughtered for no reason, WHAT WOULDN’T I DO? Yet, nobody in Congress is doing anything close to “what wouldn’t I do”. Isn't that telling?”

Well, out-spoken critics of the war against terrorists, four United States Senators running for the Presidency of the United States of America chose to hide. Four, yellow-belly, cowards hid.

Leaders lead.

I cannot say it more plainly.

Leaders lead.

Questions for Sen. Hillary Clinton

Every now and then, a national Democrat slinks into the Boston Globe offices for an interview with the Boston Globe editorial board and selected reporters and columists. The readers never know about the interviews in advance. We get word after the fact, as we did on September 25, when the Boston Globe reported that Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat for an hourlong interview the day before (Blogger's Note: Madame Speaker was widely-quoted from this interview; I'll address the primary quote in a later blog post).

Well, a few days ago I read someplace, it must have been in a story about Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu and all the illegal campaign contributions he's been funneling to Democrats, that Sen. Clinton had a fund-raiser scheduled for Boston on October 10. Thinking the Senator might manipulate the (news)paper into conducting what they think is an interview but what she really knows is free advertising, I thought I'd try to remind my friends at the Boston Globe why they went to journalism school in the first place (anyway, more evidence of how clearly I can see future events). The email below was originally addressed to all the politcal correspondents and editorial writers at the Boston Globe. The entire email bounced back to me. Apparently, the Boston Globe has had enough of me. Well, I asked a confederate to send the email along for me. My confederate assisted beautifully. The email my cowardly friends at the Boston Globe received:

Friends,

I recently read that Sen. Hillary Clinton has a fund-raising event planned for Boston on or about October 10. On the chance she uses the Boston Globe for a scripted, propaganda event and any one of you are cleared by her over-protective staff to sit-in on an interview because you're deemed "safe" and will not ask any tough questions, how about you mix it up a little bit and ask questions along any of the following themes (Mr. Jacoby, I just cc'ed you for obvious reasons. Blogger's Note: Mr. Jeff Jacoby is the only conservative voice at the Boston Globe; obviously Sen. Clinton would never allow Mr. Jacoby to ask her a question.):

1. Assume she's President Bush. Then, ask her any question you would ask President Bush if he said at a debate on June 3 (as she did), "we are safer than we were" on September 11, 2001.

2. If she backtracks from her statement that we are safer, why has she never said we are not? What legislation has she written to make us safer? Leaders lead; how has she demonstrated leadership on homeland security?

3. Assume she's President Bush. Then, ask her any question you would ask President Bush if he said on or about June 21 at a Take Back America conference that our "military has succeeded" in Iraq (recall, President Bush gave an entire speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln talking about how long the war against terrorists was going to wage and all the dopes could focus on was a sign and two words President Bush never spoke).

4. "If elected, will you fire Gen. David Petraeus?" I think you all know the appropriate follow-ups if she has the courage to answer "yes" or "no".

5. Assume she's any Republican. Then, ask her exactly what vetting procedures were used to make sure her #1 bundler, Norman Hsu, was legit. The #1 fund-raiser slipped through the cracks? You have to be smoking crack to believe that. Will U.S. Supreme Court nominees be properly vetted? How can we trust her they will be?

6. In the hugely ignored speech by her husband on December 16, 1998 when he referenced Saddam's WMD about 8 times and twice said "mark my words, he'll use them again", ask Sen. Clinton if her husband lied about Iraq's threat. Ash her if President Clinton hyped the evidence in order to justify attacking Iraq. If she defends her husband, ask her when Saddam proved he disposed of his WMD prior to her vote for war in October 2001. "Senator Clinton, did your husband cherry-pick and then hype Saddam's WMD capabilities in order to justify a massive cruise missle attack that also killed innocent Iraqis?"

7. She admits she didn't read the last NIE published prior to her vote for war. She now says she was "misled" by President Bush. If she didn't read what the smart people wrote and was convinced by "stupid" President Bush, get around to asking her who is smarter, her or the guy that convinced her of something she didn't want to believe. Or, who willfully suspended disbelief?

8. "Was your knee-jerk reaction to Dubai Ports World purchasing port operation rights at six U.S. ports an anti-Muslim, bigoted reaction, a reaction that should offend Muslims everywhere?"

9. "Who is the Prime Minister of Uzbekistan (Shavkat Mirziyayev)?". Recalling the hit-job John Hiller did on Bush; obviously, if Sen. Clinton knows, then don't publicize she knew. As with Hiller, only publish the Q&A if she doesn't know. (Blogger's Note: Mr. John Hiller, a local political TV personality, sat with then-Gov. George Bush prior to the 2000 Presidential election. Mr. Hiller asked Gov. Bush who the Prime Minister or President of Pakistan was. Gov. Bush didn't know. It was a 43 day story here in Boston.)

10. Be creative with how you compare and contrast Chelsea and the Bush daughters (you know, being photographed, mocked about enlisting in the military, etc.). You might want to put on protective head gear when asking these questions.

Or, you can do exactly what you are expected to do. (End of email to my friends at the Boston Globe.)

ZACKlyWrong! Don't Partition Iraq!

On May 26, 2007, in response to a challenge from my Conscience (go check it out if you don't believe me), I wrote, "I cannot believe I'm writing this, but I like the "partition (Iraq) into thirds and come up with a revenue sharing plan for the oil proceeds" plan. This is championed by one of the Democratic candidates but I'm not going to share the person's name because I don't like the idea that this logical, sensible, reasonable, common-sensical, plan could be labeled "so-and-so's" plan. I'm sure this person was not the first person to think of it; I think a group of second-graders could have come up with it. I don't know the arguments against this plan but I'm sure Dr. Rice could make a compelling argument against."

Well, in today's Boston Globe it was reported that in response to a United States Senate plan sponsored by Sen. Joseph Biden (D, DE) to do exactly as proposed above and partition Iraq into thirds, " . . . at least nine Iraqi political parties and party blocs - both Shi'ite and Sunni - said the Senate resolution would diminish Iraq's sovereignty and said they would try to pass a law to ban any division of the country."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said dividing Iraq "would be a catastrophe."

I'll give credit to Sen. Biden for getting Shi'ites and Sunnis to agree on something (they are embroiled in a civil war, after all, if you believe the doomsayers) . . . disagreeing with him . . . and, well, in this case, an under-informed ZACKlyRight.

Thank goodness Sen. Biden, second-graders, nor I, are not responsible for international policy for the United States of America.

A big shout-out to Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State.