First Lady Cindy McCain

Folks, please forgive me as I try to catch up from two hectic weeks. I was in Las Vegas from April 16 to April 20. I live one mile from the starting line of the Boston Marathon and we host an annual Boston Marathon Day party (april 21); for those who do not know me, I do not drink Pepsi at parties I host. I worked a few days and then was off to Washington as described in fairly decent detail below. And, now, I just worked a few more days.

While in Las Vegas, though, I read a Wall Street Journal article on Cindy McCain. I saved the page as a reminder that I would one day use the contents in a post. Well, needing a few more days catching up time, I give you the link to the whole article as my post for today.

For those who read it, please let me know your thoughts about the next First Lady of the United States of America.

I produce the link in two pieces; please cut and paste both into your browser. This is my cute way of trying to stay clear of any copyright infringements.

http://online.wsj.com/public/

article_print/SB120839617218221679.html

If the cut and paste job doesn't work, google "Cindy McCain Wall Street Journal Limelight".

The White House II

On Thursday, April 24 and Friday, April 25, members of the ZACKlyRight family were hosted at the White House by the Assistant to the President of the United States and Staff Secretary. The Staff Secretary is a childhood friend of yours truly; we go back to 1974.

The Staff Secretary is responsible for the paper flow into and out of the Oval Office. The position reports directly to the President just as the Cabinet Secretaries, the Chief of Staff and the Vice President do. The Staff Secretary sits in on all meetings where prepared comments of the President are discussed. The Staff Secretary, or his Deputy, always accompanies the President if he is away from the White House for more than a day.

On Thursday morning, April 24, we were greeted at the Northwest Gate of the White House by the Staff Secretary and his Administrative Assistant (security/background checks having been previously conducted by the FBI). We were immediately escorted to the White House Mess, a formal dining room staffed by the United States Navy. As there is a Ward Room on a ship, a small dining room off the main dining room for the Captain’s use, so, too, there is a small dining room in the White House Mess. We lunched in the Ward Room with the Staff Secretary.

Concurrent with our lunch, Palestinian Authority President Abbas was meeting with President Bush in the Oval Office. As we dined, we were no more than 100 feet from this historic meeting (any “google” search will have news accounts of the meeting or please visit www.whitehouse.gov for the official account). Our lunch and the President’s meeting ended within 5 – 10 minutes of each other. As we were being escorted out of the White House, we were held up just before entering a reception area in the West Wing because President Abbas was also preparing to leave via the same door. US Marines, in dress blues, filled the reception area. We were waved through first.

Outside the White House a 10+ vehicle motorcade awaited President Abbas. We were escorted off the White House property but waited to see President Abbas’s motorcade leave. The security of this motorcade was impressive; there were no fewer than 4 Chevy Surburbans, each filled with security personnel toting machine guns held just below the window; two security personnel in jump seats in the back of each Suburban. Communictaion head-sets and sunglasses on everyone. Police cruisers and other sedans completed the motorcade. The motorcade whisked President Abbas away in a blur.

We were invited back to the White House at 6:45 pm for a private tour of the West Wing. The tour included a view of the Oval Office from two doorways. We met the President’s two Administrative Assistants and his “body man”, a 28 year-old young man who is the President’s personal aide.

We were allowed inside the Situation Room.

The West Wing tour ended in the Press Room, the only room in the West Wing where we were allowed to take pictures. There are pictures of me sitting in the assigned seats of the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal's correspondents.

We returned to the White House at 8:30 Friday morning. As we learned from the night before, if a US Marine guard, in dress blues, is stationed outside the West Wing, it is a sign the President is in the Oval. A US Marine was stationed outside the West Wing; we entered though the door the Marine was manning and he crisply opened the door for us. We were immediately led to the South Lawn of the White House to view the President’s brief comments regarding the forthcoming stimulus checks (again, a google search will provide for the news accounts of the event or www.whitehouse.gov). The Staff Secretary did not meet us upon our arrival because he was with the President in the Oval Office assisting with the President signing a proclamation recognizing Malaria Awareness Day and putting the finishing touches on his stimulus check remarks.

We were standing in the press area; the only “civilians” in the area (other guests were a good 30 yards behind us). We were 15 feet from the President when he made his remarks. Upon completion of his speech, the President made his way to Marine One, the Marine helicopter that ferries him to and from Andrews Air Force Base among other places.

Prior to the speech, we saw Marine One land on the South Lawn. It blows like a hurricane. Very exciting for kids (big and small!). When the President finished his speech and walked toward Marine One, he was joined by the First Lady, Laura Bush (I have great pictures of all of this). We saw Marine One depart with the President, the First Lady, a Marine carrying the “football” and other support personnel.

Making our way to enjoy the last event of our visit, a private tour of the East Wing, we saw the Vice President leave the White House (we were 20 feet away). As scary looking as the Abbas motorcade was, the Vice President’s was even scarier. The security was considerably more. The precision with which he is put into the car is something to behold. Those assigned to protect him, protect him. Those assigned to counter any assault are poised to do just that. He smiled at us and gave us a friendly wave . . . and he was gone.

It’s unbelievable, but a private East Wing tour that immediately followed was anti-climatic.

I learned many tidbits in over the course of my 24 hour visit but this is my favorite: the President and Lance Armstrong have a bet on who will achieve the lowest resting heart rate. I do not know the date of measurement nor the stakes, however.

The White House

Today, I'll be having lunch in the White House.

Later tonight I'll be getting a private tour of the West Wing which will include 6 sq. ft. of the Oval Office.

If I get a chance to thank President Bush, who is not my host, for keeping us safe for the last seven years, I'll let everyone know.

Lance Armstrong, Cancer and the Boston Marathon

I’m still trying to recover from Las Vegas so I’m going to simply re-produce a column that appeared in the Boston Globe today by Mr. Lance Armstrong. (Blogger's Note: Las Vegas is NOT a family vacation town; sure, go with your friends but do not take your kids.)

Mr. Armstrong is one of my heroes and I think he is a bona fide American hero. Actually, I think Mr. Armstrong is a world hero regardless of what the American-hating French, who spit in his face as he was climbing murderous mountains during the Tour de France, and the French press think.

From the Boston Globe, April 20, 2008, by Mr. Lance Armstrong:

Renewing the War on Cancer

The 112th Boston Marathon is a grand tradition I am proud to take part in for the first time this year. I'm running with 50 LIVE-STRONG team members to raise funds for the fight against cancer, another grand tradition that has strong roots in Boston.

While Americans have grown used to seeing the definition of progress in Iraq debated daily on a glaring national stage, few of our leaders seek to shine a spotlight on the war against the number-one killer of Americans under the age of 85. It is an old, forgotten fight and we're rarely told about the toll it takes on our nation.

But cancer now affects the life of every single person in this country. Who among us hasn't either personally battled this disease or supported a loved one through their fight?

Cancer will take nearly 600,000 American lives in 2008, and 1.4 million will get the dreaded diagnosis from their doctor. Deaths are shamefully high among minorities and the poor. They die because of lack of access to the most fundamental human necessity - healthcare. One of the leading cancer specialists in America, Dr. Harold Freeman, says there's a disconnect between what we know and what we do. We know how to defeat the enemy. We just don't do it.

So what is the situation report from the front lines? Twelve million of us - including Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston - have been touched by the enemy and bear the scars to prove it. In the early days of the current struggle in Iraq, many of us were shocked by reports that soldiers lacked the basic body armor and vehicles necessary for the theater in which they fought. Back home, we have the equipment and treatment to save lives but, outrageously, they usually don't make it to the people who need them.

Now, what is our government's victory plan?

After six years on the President's Cancer Panel, I can say with reasonable certainty that there isn't one. Few of our leaders, with the exception of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, are still devoted to this fight. And to be fair, cancer is one of many causes competing for resources and attention in Washington.

Still, you'd expect the number one killer of Americans under 85 to merit more outrage, more opposition, more resources. But funding for the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health is static or declining in recent years. There is no central command, no general who looks over the broad spectrum of this disease and is able to deploy resources where they will save lives and advance this fight. A pessimist would say that cancer is winning. Luckily, I'm not one.

The good news is, now more than ever, we have an opportunity to change things. We are about to elect a new president, and now - before the election, while the candidates are still making promises to win our vote - is the time when we can hold them accountable for the war on cancer. Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain have all been affected by this disease, either personally or through the death of a loved one. Let's ask them how they intend to defeat the enemy, what steps they'll take against tobacco, the number-one cause of cancer, and how they'll ensure all of us - not just star athletes and politicians - have a healthcare system that rolls out the red carpet when we need it.

While I am merely a humble guest in your city, I have seen how the fight goes here in Boston. On Friday, I was honored to be invited to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and the Lance Armstrong Foundation Adult Survivorship Clinic there. Dana Farber has been serving this community's cancer survivors for more than 60 years and, like the Boston Marathon, is a proud institution that helps make this city a beacon for the rest of the nation. They know what works and they do it for more than 200,000 cancer survivors every year. If Boston can do it, why not the rest of this nation?

Lance Armstrong is founder and chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a seven-time Tour de France champion, and a cancer survivor. (End of column by Mr. Armstrong.)

Two Letters and a Recommendation

Since the only place to read my work is on-line, then everyone who reads my work can also get to wsj.com. I recommend that everyone go there every morning right after reading ZACKlyRight.blogspot.com and read the editorials at wsj.com (News/Opinion). While there, you would also do yourself a huge favor if you read Mr. James Taranto’s “Best of the Web”.

The liberal extremists that dominate the media won’t stop so I can’t stop. Though we just recently covered this, and I’m sure we will cover it again, this was the beginning of a sentence in a Boston Globe column yesterday, “Up until the point of his "Mission Accomplished" celebration on that aircraft carrier, . . . “

My letter in reply:

Editor,

In what will be news to the hate-Bush extremists who didn't listen to or read the actual words of President Bush's speech, but instead who demagogue a sign hung by sailors, the day the President flew a jet, a jet that he also commands, to the USS Abraham Lincoln, I provide the key quotes, " . . . We have difficult work to do in Iraq . . . The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time . . . The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror . . . and still goes on . . . Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. Our mission continues . . . The war on terror is not over . . . ." (America's whipping boy for 9/11, April 14, A13). (End of first letter.)

The second letter needs no introduction:

Editor,

A more accurate title for Mr. Peter Canellos' column about current national Democrats' disdain for the working class and the same Democrats' masterful manipulation of economic woes would have been "Democrats must renew con on working class" (Democrats must renew bond with working class, April 15, A2). (End of second letter.)

“. . . Fragile and Reversible”

A few posts back I committed to finding Gen. David Petraeus quotes that cautioned on the “success” of the surge. Well, I’m only going to produce excerpts from the General’s congressional testimony on April 8, 2008 and September 10, 2007 to support my claim.

First, from just last week:

“Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago, there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, Al Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security. Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible. Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq.” (End of excerpt from April 8 testimony.)

As I recalled it to be, Gen Petraeus also claimed it be, “as I have repeatedly cautioned.” The General would never have said this if it were not true. And, if it were not true, the extremists that dominate the liberal media would have certainly exposed the General on the claim. There has been no challenge by anyone to what can now be considered fact.

But, I provide the excerpts from September, 10, 2007 nonetheless; my emphasis in bold:

“Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve . . .

“I would also like to discuss the period beyond next summer. Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid-July 2008; however, in my professional judgment, it would be premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions at this time. In fact, our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous. The events of the past six months underscore that point. When I testified in January, for example, no one would have dared to forecast that Anbar Province would have been transformed the way it has in the past 6 months. Nor would anyone have predicted that volunteers in one-time Al Qaeda strongholds like Ghazaliyah in western Baghdad or in Adamiya in eastern Baghdad would seek to join the fight against Al Qaeda. Nor would we have anticipated that a Shia-led government would accept significant numbers of Sunni volunteers into the ranks of the local police force in Abu Ghraib. Beyond that, on a less encouraging note, none of us earlier this year appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern . . .

“In view of this, I do not believe it is reasonable to have an adequate appreciation for the pace of further reductions and mission adjustments beyond the summer of 2008 until about mid-March of next year. We will, no later than that time, consider factors similar to those on which I based the current recommendations, having by then, of course, a better feel for the security situation, the improvements in the capabilities of our Iraqi counterparts, and the enemy situation. I will then, as I did in developing the recommendations I have explained here today, also take into consideration the demands on our Nation’s ground forces, although I believe that that consideration should once again inform, not drive, the recommendations I make . . .

“In describing the recommendations I have made, I should note again that, like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq’s problems will require a long-term effort. There are no easy answers or quick solutions. And though we both believe this effort can succeed, it will take time. Our assessments underscore, in fact, the importance of recognizing that a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences . . . .” (End of September 10, 2007 excerpts.)

Michael A. Monsoor, U.S. Navy

President Bush’s Remark at the Presentation Ceremony of the Medal of Honor for Petty Officer Michael A. Monsoor, U.S. Navy

(Courtesy of www.whitehouse.gov)

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, and welcome.

The Medal of Honor is America's highest decoration for military valor. Over the years, many who have received the medal have given their lives in the action that earned it. The name of Petty Officer Michael Anthony Monsoor will now be among them.

In September 2006, Michael laid down his life for his brothers in arms. Today, we remember the life of this faithful Navy SEAL. And on behalf of a grateful nation, we will present Michael Monsoor's family with the Medal of Honor that he earned.

I welcome the Vice President. Secretary of Defense Gates, thank you for coming. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Peake; Secretary Don Winter of the Navy; Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and wife, Deborah; General James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Annette; Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, and wife, Ellen; Senator John McCain; Congressman Ed Royce; Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.

Previous Medal of Honor recipients, thank you for joining us.

I appreciate Chaplain Burt; Navy SEALS -- the finest warriors on the face of the Earth; the Monsoor family, and everybody else.

The Medal of Honor is awarded for an act of such courage that no one could rightly be expected to undertake it. Yet those who knew Michael Monsoor were not surprised when he did. This son of Orange County, California, grew up in a family where helping others was a way of life. Mike's father was a Marine; his mother a social worker. Together, they raised their four children to understand the meaning of service and sacrifice.

From a very early age, Mike showed the strength of his own convictions. Apparently going to kindergarten wasn't one of them. Mike had no complaints after the first week of school -- until someone broke the news to him that he had to go back the next week.

Many mornings, Mike refused to put on the nice clothes for school. Instead, he insisted on wearing mismatched outfits. Mike's mother soon discovered there was no stopping the determined young boy from mixing plaids and stripes. And years later, there would be no stopping an even more determined young man from donning a uniform of Navy Blue.

In some ways, Mike was an unlikely candidate for the Navy. He suffered from terrible asthma as a child. On some nights, his coughing fits would land him in the hospital. But Mike would not lie low for long. He strengthened his lungs by racing his siblings in the swimming pool. He worked to wean himself off his inhaler. He built himself into a superb athlete -- excelling from sports like football to snowboarding.

After enlisting in the Navy, he began preparing for the ultimate test of physical endurance: SEAL training. Less than a third of those who begin this training become SEALs. But Mike would not be denied a spot. In September 2004, he earned the right to wear the Navy SEAL trident.

The newly minted frogman became a beloved member of the SEAL team community. His teammates liked to laugh about the way his shiny Corvette would leave everybody in the dust. But deep down, they always knew Mike would never leave anybody behind when it counted. He earned their confidence with his attention to detail and quiet work ethic. One of Mike's officers remembers an instructor once asking after an intense training session, "What's the deal with the Monsoor guy? He just says, 'Roger that,' to everything."

When Mike deployed with his team to Ramadi in the spring of 2006, he brought that attitude with him. Because he served as both a heavy machine gunner and a communications operator, he often had a double load of equipment -- sometimes more than a hundred pounds worth. But under the glare of the hot desert sun, he never lost his cool.

At the time, Ramadi was in the clutches of al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents. Together, the SEALs and the Army 1st Battalion of the 506 Infantry Regiment took the offense against the enemy. The SEALs carried out a broad range of special operations -- including providing sniper cover in tough urban conditions, and conducting raids against terrorists and insurgents. Overall, Mike's platoon came under enemy attack during 75 percent of their missions. And in most of these engagements, Mike was out front defending his brothers.

In May 2006, Mike and another SEAL ran into the line of fire to save a wounded teammate. With bullets flying all around them, Mike returned fire with one hand while helping pull the injured man to safety with the other. In a dream about the incident months later, the wounded SEAL envisioned Mike coming to the rescue with wings on his shoulders.

On Saint Michael's Day -- September 29, 2006 -- Michael Monsoor would make the ultimate sacrifice. Mike and two teammates had taken position on the outcropping of a rooftop when an insurgent grenade bounced off Mike's chest and landed on the roof. Mike had a clear chance to escape, but he realized that the other two SEALs did not. In that terrible moment, he had two options -- to save himself, or to save his friends. For Mike, this was no choice at all. He threw himself onto the grenade, and absorbed the blast with his body. One of the survivors puts it this way: "Mikey looked death in the face that day and said, 'You cannot take my brothers. I will go in their stead.'"

Perhaps the greatest tribute to Mike's life is the way different service members all across the world responded to his death. Army soldiers in Ramadi hosted a memorial service for the valiant man who had fought beside them. Iraqi Army scouts -- whom Mike helped train -- lowered their flag, and sent it to his parents. Nearly every SEAL on the West Coast turned out for Mike's funeral in California. As the SEALs filed past the casket, they removed their golden tridents from their uniforms, pressed them onto the walls of the coffin. The procession went on nearly half an hour. And when it was all over, the simple wooden coffin had become a gold-plated memorial to a hero who will never be forgotten.

For his valor, Michael Monsoor becomes the fourth Medal of Honor recipient in the war on terror. Like the three men who came before him, Mike left us far too early. But time will not diminish his legacy. We see his legacy in the SEALs whose lives he saved. We see his legacy in the city of Ramadi, which has gone from one of the most dangerous places in Iraq to one of the most safest. We see his legacy in the family that stands before us filled with grief, but also with everlasting pride.

Mr. and Mrs. Monsoor: America owes you a debt that can never be repaid. This nation will always cherish the memory of your son. We will not let his life go in vain. And this nation will always honor the sacrifice he made. May God comfort you. May God bless America. (End of President Bush’s remarks in posthumously awarding the Medal of Honor to Michael A. Monsoor.)

Made It to Washington to Grandstand, Though

It's been 293 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared U.S. victory in Iraq; more than 428 US military personnel have been killed in Iraq since Sen. Clinton's declaration of victory.

Also, it's been 310 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. mainland safe from terrorists.

I'm just getting home from work so I have not heard any audio of Senators Clinton or Obama questioning General David Petraeus, though the news web sites are all reporting that both will/did. It is remarkable that these two cowards, who would be President, have not been able to make it to Washington to vote on a war funding bill since September 7, 2006 yet they can make it to Washington today (as we all know, Sen. McCain has been able to get to Washington rather recently to vote on war funding; he thinking it important and all). I have no doubt there will be few questions for the General. I have no doubt there will be much speech making.

I think it is unlikely either Sen. Clinton or Obama will insult the General as Sen. Clinton did the last time Gen. Petraeus reported to the Senate. But, I do think they will try to cast him in a negative light. Accordingly, it would be helpful to the American people if anyone in the liberal media could ask either Clinton or Obama, if elected, will you fire Gen. Petraeus?

I also know I have a huge research task before me. I made mental note of every quote from President Bush and Gen. Petraeus over the last nine months of every time they talked of the "surge" that they always qualified any suggested success, usually in the form of a question from a member of the liberal media, with how precarious it was. I've already seen one quote today from Sen. Carl Levin giving the impression that the Bush Administration hyped the success of the surge. He will not be the last. However, Sen. Levin is simply wrong and so will be everyone else who trys to suggest the same. I'm on it and I'll find the quotes; please give me a few days.

A letter regarding U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's investigation of President Clinton; it needs no further introduction:

Editor,

For at least the fifth time in the last 2 1/2 years, the (Boston Globe) editorial page has sought to perpetuate the liberally extreme misbelief that the investigation of President Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice in his sexual harassment case, which led to his bi-partisan impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives, was the result of something other than U.S. Attorney Janet Reno’s request to expand an independent counsel’s investigation of the Predator (letters, April 6, 2008; December 9, 2005; November 1, 2005; and early October 2005; commentary, Kuttner, March 24, 2007).

The following are excerpts from General Reno’s January 16, 1998 petition to the Court requesting the expansion:

"In accordance with the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994, I hereby notify in writing the special division of the court that I have commenced a preliminary investigation . . . As a result of my inquiry into this matter, I request expansion of the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel . . . to further investigate and determine whether prosecution is warranted. The court has already been informed of this matter and my request orally . . . It would be appropriate for Independent Counsel . . . to handle this matter because (counsel) is currently investigating similar allegations involving possible efforts to influence witnesses . . . ." (End of letter regarding U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno's investigation of President Clinton.)

Sen. Obama's Abysmal Leadership and Judgment

It's been 290 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared U.S. victory in Iraq; more than 425 US military personnel have been killed in Iraq since Sen. Clinton's declaration of victory.

Also, it's been 307 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. mainland safe from terrorists.

Next, this sentence appeared in the Boston Globe in a news account of Sen. Clinton pandering to the black community on the anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Clinton recalled that as a 14 year-old living in a nearly all-white Chicago suburb, her youth minister (always with the religion with these Democrats, can't stop rubbing their religion in our face!) took her to hear (Dr.) King speak, and she stood in line to shake his hand." The reader is given the impression that Sen. Clinton did shake his hand but note the reporter couldn't report she did because I'm positive Sen. Clinton didn't say she did. Duck! Incoming sniper fire!

After I posted at 9:00 am this morning, I wrote the following letter to the Boston Globe; this letter was added to this post at 10:00 am:

Editor,

I noticed how carefully the Boston Globe reported Sen. Clinton's claim that her "youth minister (always rubbing their religion in our face are these Democrats!) took her to hear (Dr.) King speak, and she stood in line to shake his hand (Candidates pay tribute on King anniversary, April 5, A8)."

The reader is given the impression that the Senator heard Dr. King speak and she shook his hand but that cannot be concluded as the sentence is written; so very Clintonian.

Anyway, given the liberal media's feeding frenzy in investigating a misrecollection of Gov. Romney and Dr. King, I hope the liberal media is half as industrious in finding out where and when a 14 year-old Sen. Clinton did nothing, apparently, than go someplace to stand in a line. (End of letter.)

Finally, below is the link, in two parts, again, my attempt to stay clear of any copyright infringements with the Wall Street Journal, of a column, Obama and King, by NPR political analyst, Juan Williams, from the April 4, 2008 Wall Street Journal. As readers of this space know, I've quoted extensively from Mr. Williams' books on race and race relations in prior posts.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print

/SB120726732176388295.html

Please do yourself a favor and read the whole column. If you choose not to cut and past twice, it can't really get much easier than that!, I give you some excerpts:

(Begin excerpts from Williams column.) While speaking to black people, King never condescended to offer Rev. Wright-style diatribes or conspiracy theories. He did not paint black people as victims. To the contrary, he spoke about black people as American patriots who believed in the democratic ideals of the country, in nonviolence and the Judeo-Christian ethic, even as they overcame slavery, discrimination and disadvantage. King challenged white America to do the same, to live up to their ideals and create racial unity. He challenged white Christians, asking them how they could treat their fellow black Christians as anything but brothers in Christ.

When King spoke about the racist past, he gloried in black people beating the odds to win equal rights by arming "ourselves with dignity and self-respect." He expressed regret that some black leaders reveled in grievance, malice and self-indulgent anger in place of a focus on strong families, education and love of God. Even in the days before Congress passed civil rights laws, King spoke to black Americans about the pride that comes from "assuming primary responsibility" for achieving "first class citizenship" . . . .

. . . Instead (Sen. Obama), in a full political pander, is busy excusing Rev. Wright's racial attacks as the right of the Rev.-Wright generation of black Americans to define the nation's future by their past. He stretches compassion to the breaking point by equating his white grandmother's private concerns about black men on the street with Rev. Wright's public stirring of racial division. (End of excerpts from Williams column.)

"Implacable" Stupidity

286 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared U.S. victory in Iraq

303 days since Sen. Hillary Clinton declared the U.S. mainland safe from terrorists

Today's letter to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

A recent letter that claimed neo-conservative “implacable hostility toward the Palestinians and the millions of Muslims who identify with them has brought our country to the brink of a global religious war” is quite possibly the most ridiculous letter the Boston Globe has ever published . . . and that's saying something (Letters, March 31).

First, it is beyond absurd to argue America’s sixty year history of supporting the democratic State of Israel is the equivalent of “implacable hostility” toward Palestinians.

Second, long before a neo-con got anywhere near the Oval Office, the United States of America was repeat victim of a global religious war. Below is just a partial list of recent events that liberal extremists seem to deny:

February, 1993 – World Trade Center bombing kills 6 and wounds 1,042.

November, 1995 – Saudi Arabian car bombing kills 7, including 5 US military personnel.

June, 1996 – Dhahran, Saudi Arabia fuel truck bombing targeting a US military installation kills 19 US military personnel and wounds another 515 people, including 240 Americans.

August, 1998 – US Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania kills 301, including 12 Americans, and wounds another 5,100.

October, 2000 – USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors and wounds another 39.

Non-"neo-con" William Jefferson Clinton was President of the United States of America for all of the events listed. (End of letter.)

For those that won't go to a dictionary, "implacable" means unable to be placated or pacified. Yes, a Hate-America-Firster thinks the United States' position regarding Palestinians is "implacable hostility". I'm not an expert on the Middle East but I'm almost positive the United States has never directed a military weapon, pistol to warhead, at any Palestinians (well, unless the Palestinian traveled to stand in front of such a weapon in Afghanistan, for example). Yet, not only is the claim that we are hostile to Palestinians but the hostility in incapable of being pacified.
And, the Boston Globe was all to pleased to publish the letter.