Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Centrifugal Force
I have been spouting off on the dangers Iran poses. Here is an article that chilled this old Sailor's blood. The next Administration, hopefully a Bush second term, will need to deal with these potentially nuclear mullahs. I shudder to think how a poodle administation would deal with this. - Sailor
Centrifugal Force
By Ralph Kinney Bennett Published 07/12/2004
Tech Central Station
Iran is determined to build a nuclear bomb.
At present we must endure the familiar slow dance of warnings, denials, speculations, denials, revelations, denials, etc., etc., until the inevitable day when headlines announce the new member of the nuclear club.
The key is how quickly Iran can acquire or produce the highly enriched fuel necessary to produce effective nuclear weapons. It is buying nuclear power plant fuel (enriched 3 to 5 percent with uranium-235) from Russia, but acquiring weapons grade uranium (enriched 20 to 90 percent) is a little more difficult.
But Iran is also working and spending prodigiously to produce enriched uranium on its own. This enrichment program centers on how quickly Iran can build the tens of thousands of centrifuges necessary to separate the rare U-235 isotope from uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6). These centrifuges are costly, complex, precision-made devices incorporating exotic materials such as super strong maraging steel. It takes years to build them in sufficient numbers, test them adequately and marshal them into the precisely plumbed formations (called cascades) that can safely and efficiently produce significant amounts of enriched uranium.
A typical "cascade hall" is a vast room, its concrete floor filled with what would appear to be thousands of gleaming new stove pipes stacked vertically side-by-side in long rows. Each of these slim metal cylinders, about six-and-a-half feet tall and the approximate girth of a telephone pole, is a vacuum chamber containing within it another cylinder called a rotor tube.
At the bottom of each inner cylinder is an electric motor, which turns the rotor tube at tremendous speeds. This inner rotor tube itself is balanced on a single friction point -- a small lubricated "needle" bearing. A series of ring magnets holds the top of the tube in place. Thus, these ingenious devices rotate in an almost friction-free environment at speeds around 1500 revolutions per second.
They run so fast and create such centrifugal force that they actually flex like bow strings along their axes (special joints or "bellows" on the rotor tubes control this flexing). These centrifuges, using relatively little electrical power, can run continuously for a decade with no maintenance. Vast banks of interconnected centrifuges, tens of thousands of them, run night and day slowly producing small amounts of enriched U-235.
The tremendous centrifugal force pushes heavier gas molecules (U-238) out to the walls of the rotor tube, while the lighter U-235 molecules tend to collect close to the shaft at the center. This lighter stream of U-235 is drawn off, joining the streams from thousands of other centrifuges to slowly build a supply of enriched gas that can eventually be incorporated into nuclear fuel or -- at advanced stages of enrichment -- fissile material for weapons.
At a secret facility near the Iranian city of Natanz, the Tehran government is building a series of vast cascade halls, designed to eventually hold 50,000 or more centrifuges. Iran is going to the trouble of building these cascade halls underground in thickly walled steel reinforced concrete buildings, an attempt to protect them from aerial attack. Even the underground entrance tunnels to these buildings have been designed with a series of baffles to protect against the direct entry of "smart bombs" or cruise missiles.
The "hardening" of the Natanz facility is further evidence that Iran learned long ago the lesson of Osirak. Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor was the heart of that nation's Tuwaitha Nuclear Center, on the outskirts of Baghdad, when the Israeli Air Force destroyed it in a daring raid back in 1981. The raid set back Iraq's nuclear weapons program and forced it to begin dispersing its nuclear assets to sites throughout the country.
In fact, the ambitious building project at Natanz, about 90 miles north of Isfahan, is just the latest known addition to Iran's large and sophisticated nuclear facilities. There is a large underground nuclear facility, including uranium enrichment, hidden deep in the Albroz Mountains just north of Teheran. What was once a backward mountain village, Moallen Kalayeh, near the site, is now home to hundreds of scientists, technical experts and security people.
Some intelligence reports indicate that in addition to centrifuge separation work at Moallen Kalayeh, Iranian scientists are working with a more exotic but potentially safer, faster and more productive method of uranium enrichment involving AVLIS (atomic vapor laser isotope separator). AVLIS equipment was reportedly shipped to Iran by Russia a year ago.
This advanced system, first developed at the U.S. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, uses a precisely tuned laser beam to search out U-235 isotopes in a stream of vaporized uranium passing through a vacuum chamber. The "optically excited" U-235 isotopes are then separated and collected.
After authorizing a plant scale AVLIS system to show sustained performance, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), the government-created but now privatized company that oversees all U.S. uranium enrichment programs, canceled the program for economic reasons in 1999. Russia, however, continued to develop and refine its own AVLIS system -- the one reportedly sent to Iran.
(It is interesting to note that the United States has never used the centrifuge method of uranium enrichment, but has relied on the old, slow, but proven method of gaseous diffusion at two large plants in Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky. However, the U.S. is now planning to build two pilot centrifuge cascade plants at Piketon and at Eunice, New Mexico.)
In addition to the underground cascade halls at Natanz, there are other buildings in more advanced stages of construction where new centrifuges will be assembled and tested using components made at sites scattered throughout Iran. The assembly of centrifuges is an exacting and complicated process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that a pilot plant of 160 centrifuges in a small cascade has been in operation at Natanz for more than a year. IAEA officials reportedly saw the components for 1000 more centrifuges at the same location.
Cascades of the size being built at Natanz are an immense undertaking of a sophistication difficult for the average person to grasp. Only a dozen nations have the wherewithal to undertake such a program. Japan, for instance, continues to have great difficulty in building and operating large-scale centrifuge cascades despite its renowned technological capabilities.
Iran claims that it needs plants the size of Natanz to provide low-enriched fuel for the nuclear reactors it plans to build in order to supply the country with 6,000 megawatts of electricity. If the Natanz plants were operating full out with 50,000 centrifuges, say some experts, they would provide not quite half of the fuel necessary for the contemplated power reactors. Iran is buying low-enriched fuel from Russia to augment its needs, but there may well be other large cascade facilities under construction.
The significance of such large centrifuge plants is this: A relatively small fraction of such a plant's centrifuges, say 5000, could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to build three or four weapons a year. Dr. David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, notes that "if a country can make an enrichment plant of this size, it can make enough machines to outfit another secret enrichment plant" for nuclear weapons. Given the present restrictions Iran has placed on IAEA inspectors, such a plant would be impossible to detect.
Perhaps one is already in operation.
Any expansion of the nuclear club must give one pause. But the fact that the government of Iran is the true center of an anti-Western, Jihadist (if you will) movement of a peculiarly corrosive and hate-filled nature, makes its fixation on the acquisition of nuclear weapons all the more troubling…and dangerous.
Ralph Kinney Bennett is a TCS Contributing Editor. An aging crank, he lives in Ligonier, Pa., and Delray Beach, Fla. He is an avid scholar of military history. He has a passion for automobiles, the Simpsons, English and American classic poetry and long bicycle rides. He is fascinated by technology, but particularly by what he calls "technology that counts - like the paper clip or a garage door opener." He retired from the Washington bureau of The Reader's Digest as an Assistant Managing Editor. For over 30 years he wrote on a wide variety of subjects for the magazine. Prior to joining the Digest, he was a writer for The National Observer, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The New Haven Register. He and his wife, Virginia, a retired CPA, have two children and five grandchildren.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Real Democratic Values? Whoopi!
My friend, Doc Farmer, really tears into those wonderfully tolerant liberals (much better then I did). You know them, the ones held that hate filled, vulgar fund raiser for the poodle and his puppy. The puppy's wife went out of her way to defend old Whoopi, it is on tape. Just a note here, this is one of the reasons the poodle did not have time for that briefing on the latest terror threat. Sort of tells you where his priorities are! I urge all of you to contact Slim Fast to let them know what you think of their spokeswoman. I did. - Sailor
Real Democratic Values? Whoopi!
Written by Doc Farmer
Monday, July 12, 2004
There was a bit of a ''do'' last week. You probably didn’t hear about it, though, if you are a slave to the alphabet news. A party, a fundraiser in Radio City Music Hall, to raise some extra money for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Thursday was the night, and all the stars there just glittered for the paparazzi and the DNC hoi polloi. At least, those with enough dosh to rub shoulders with the high-and-mighty of the lib/dem/soc/commie set. Anti-capitalists at their finest, paying thousands (presumably with non-anti-capitalist earnings) to be entertained by a cavalcade of entertainers.
Well, for those of you who missed it, it was a boffo night for the lib/dem/soc/commies. At the end of the night, presidential-wannabe John Kerry said that every performer ''..conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country.'' He went further and said, ''This campaign will be a celebration of real American values.''
The heart and soul of our country, he said.
Folks, allow me to let you know what the lib/dem/soc/commies feel is the ''heart and soul'' of our country.
It’s Whoopi Goldberg, that famous television and movie-star comedian, coming across a stage with a wine bottle in one hand and a finger pointing toward her ample crotch in the other. She started her show by repeating the oft-said lie about Dubya and a certain blind musician--''Anybody who could wave to Stevie Wonder isn't fully there.'' Of course, that’s completely untrue (see http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/bushwave.htm for evidence) but since when have the lib/dem/soc/commies ever bothered with inconvenient things like the facts? Or honor, decency, and fairness, for that matter....
She went on, comparing the Commander in Chief of all United States Armed Forces to her, um, well, her [i]you know what[/i]. Whoopi apparently thought this comparison to be uproariously funny. So, apparently, did Kerry and his trusty sidekick, Edwards. However, Whoopi didn’t stop there. She chided Kerry's youthful ward, Johnny Edwards, and repeatedly called him ''kid'' even though he’s only nine years younger than his potential boss. Now, I wonder why she just didn’t call him ''boy'' and get really into the spirit of the night.
Whoopi also boasted that she hadn’t cleared her material with the DNC (a mere formality, I’m sure), but instead sent them a photocopy of her derrière with a big kiss mark applied.
There were other luminaries (or at least a bunch of dullards whose hatred of Dubya, of America, and of freedom itself, which counts as ''bright'' amongst most lib/dem/soc/commies) who spent the gala evening dissing the president. Sarah Jessica Parker, John Mellencamp, Chevy Chase, John Leguizamo, Paul Newman, Meryl Streep, Jon Bon Jovi, Mary J. Blige, and Wyclef Jean joined in the hate-fest. They all lent their support to the party, helping to raise a whopping $7.5 million. Or, as Teresa Heinz-Kerry might call it, pocket change. This should be of great assistance to the Chiraq/Raffarin ticket – oops, I mean Kerry/Edwards ticket. Same difference, actually....
Now, I object to the content of their speech. I object to the lies, the slanders, the obvious disrespect, even more so in a time of war. However, I also respect their right to speak, despite the fact that it involves such juvenile or hateful crap. Even so, some lib/dem/soc/commies have berated me by saying that I am somehow infringing on the constitutionally protected freedom of speech of these Hollyweird-types. That questioning these Brahmins of Baloney, merely speaking my own mind, is a part of a greater Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to silence dissent, tear up the Constitution, and create a new Fascist State. Considering that Fascism is actually a political construct of the lib/dem/soc/commies, and NOT the rep/cons, I do rather enjoy the irony of their rhetoric.
We are a nation where freedom still reigns supreme. But freedom is not license. One cannot yell ''Fire'' in a crowded movie house (or ''Movie'' in a crowded fire house) because it endangers lives. You can’t threaten the life of the president or vice president because it endangers lives as well as national security. You cannot openly lie or bear false witness against people because it harms reputations and ruins lives. You cannot undermine the nation or provide aid and comfort to an enemy during a time of war, for very obvious reasons (obvious to most, but not all of us, sadly). The lib/dem/soc/commies haven’t done the first or second. However, they have constantly and consistently lied about the president and this administration. Some have provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Those forms of speech are not constitutionally protected. And yet, the lib/dem/soc/commies act as if they are. That the mere objection to their speech itself is an attack on their rights, indeed all rights. It is the height of hubris.
Oddly enough, the lib/dem/soc/commies are being rather tight-lipped about the Bush-Bashing event of Thursday last. The news media have done little if anything to cover the shindig. In fact, it would appear that it did its best to cover up a number of things regarding the show, including the viewpoint of the running mate’s wife. ''A lot of people are going to be angry [at President Bush]--there's a lot to be angry about,'' she told a reporter in New York. ''It's a free country and people are going to express that anger.'' Somehow it would appear that this uncomfortable little viewpoint wasn’t something the DNC wanted vented far and wide. The story, it would appear, was spiked. So much for their own interpretation of ''freedom of speech,'' I suppose.
''Real American Values,'' John Kerry? Real American Values my foot!
~~~~~oo0oo~~~~~
By the way, you may not be aware that Whoopi Goldberg is actually a paid spokesperson for the folks at SlimFast. If you’d like to tell them your opinion of what you think of Whoopi, and inform them of what actually comprises ''the heart and soul of America'' - Contact Slim Fast. Keep it short and respectful, and let them know if you believe SlimFast should continue to employ Ms. Goldberg as its representative. Here’s what I wrote, as an example –
I've read the transcripts of Ms. Goldberg's standup routine for Messrs. Kerry and Edwards at a fundraiser last week. I am appalled that your company would choose such a spokesperson to represent you or your products. Her statements were crude, vulgar and obscene. Comparing a sitting president to a vagina is not, to many Americans, funny. Imagine if a comedian had made derogatory comments about FDR during World War II. The war we fight today is no less critical.
I am currently on a diet, and had considered investigating your product line to see if it would be compatible with a low-carb lifestyle. However, considering your choice of spokesperson, I will forego that investigation. I plan to tell all my friends and family (several of whom are overweight) to stop purchasing your products forthwith. Unless and until you drop Ms. Goldberg as a spokesperson, your products will not be welcome in my home.
Many thanks.
Respectfully,
Doc Farmer
~~~~~oo0oo~~~~~
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8401
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Edwards's glaring weakness
With all their hugging and such, you would think the poodle and his new puppy were in love. Edwards is a real lightweight, not some one ready to take the reigns of power. Though he, in 4 years in the Senate, Edwards pushed through almost as much legislation as the poodle has in 20 years. The media is licking their chops anticipating an Edwards rout in the VP debates. He may have beem a good ambulence chaser, but he is clueless on international, military and national security issues. Kerry's pick of Edwards really shows Kerry and the dems have no interest in the war on terror. - Sailor
JEFF JACOBY
Edwards's glaring weakness
By Jeff Jacoby | July 8, 2004
Boston Globe
JOHN KERRY'S choice of John Edwards as his running mate was predictable, as was the chorus of acclaim that rose from Democratic throats. But predictable too was the Republican derision of Edwards as inexperienced, weak on defense, and a pet of the contingency fee bar:
"In the Senate four years -- that is the full extent of public life. No international experience, no military experience."
"The American people want an experienced hand. . . . This is not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues."
"If his intent is to remove special interests from Washington, why has he . . . taken more than $11 million from lawyers and law firms?"
No, wait -- those criticisms didn't come from Republicans. They came from John Kerry (or his spokesmen), sometimes repeatedly: The observation that a wartime White House is no place "for on-the-job training" was a particular Kerry favorite. If it was a valid critique of Edwards in the winter and spring, surely it remains a valid critique in the summer and fall. Of course, the animadversions ran in both directions. Edwards hit Kerry on trade, on his ties to Washington lobbyists, and on health care, but particularly noteworthy were his pointed disagreements with Kerry on national security issues.
Thus, while both men voted in favor of authorizing the president to invade Iraq, Edwards -- unlike Kerry -- never tried to wriggle away from his vote by claiming he hadn't really meant to empower Bush to go to war. Nor did he complain that he had been "misled" by the Bush administration.
"The first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote -- period," Edwards averred. "And I did what I did based upon a belief that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. . . . So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled."
Moreover, while the Democratic standard-bearer explicitly disavows the promotion of democracy as a top priority in Iraq and the Muslim world, his running mate embraces it.
In January Edwards proposed a global strategy to promote democracy by establishing a "Freedom List" of imprisoned dissidents, creating institutions to nurture democracy, and cutting aid to nondemocratic regimes. "America will never defeat violent terror," he said, "so long as hundreds of millions of people in the Muslim world and elsewhere are denied the right to express themselves peacefully, openly, and democratically."
So what exactly does the Democratic ticket stand for on Iraq and the broader war against terrorism? Kerry's realpolitik and Chirac-like insistence on American deference to the UN -- or Edwards's Bush-like belief that democratizing the Muslim Middle East is the key to vanquishing terrorism?
Much is being made of Edwards's un-Kerry-like strengths -- he is a gifted communicator, he is likable and upbeat, he speaks Southern, he appeals to women. But not even the blindest Democratic partisan is hailing Edwards for his strong national security profile for the obvious reason that he doesn't have one. His resume boasts no foreign policy credentials. His much-lauded "Two Americas" stump speech said nothing about the war on terrorism. For that matter, neither did Kerry's speech announcing Edwards as his choice for VP. It contained only a single throwaway reference to "bioterrorism" and didn't so much as mention the words "war" or "iraq."
What Kerry's speech did say was that economic inequality, that tired left-wing cliche, is the fundamental issue in his campaign for the White House. "John talked about the great divide in America . . . between those who are doing very well and those who are struggling to make ends meet," Kerry said. "That concern is at the center of this campaign. It is what it is all about."
Can Kerry really mean that? His presidential campaign is "all about" class warfare? He is going to become president by campaigning on a "Two Americas" theme that Edwards rode to victory in precisely one primary?
Well, in politics anything is possible. But I cannot imagine that the 2004 election will not turn on one issue above all: the war. In Sept. 11 and its aftermath, America faces its most urgent national security challenge in a generation. This is not 1992. "It's the economy, stupid" won't win the election. Even more than 1968 was a referendum on Vietnam, 2004 is a referendum on Iraq and the deadly conflict with radical Islam.
As a candidate, Edwards has undeniable strengths -- in many ways, he improves the Democratic ticket. In fact, there is really only one issue on which Kerry's new running mate is glaringly weak. It just happens to be the issue that matters most.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Crude jokes, insults OK with Kerry camp
Once again we see the depths that the poodle will go to. He once again plays the Vietnam card. Let me tell you something johnny boy, I laid my life on the line to defend freedom for 20 years. To use that as an excuse to defend the vile and hateful rhetoric that came out of your fund raiser in NYC, is beneath contempt. Try being a man instead of the wuss you are and stand up for something! - Sailor
Crude jokes, insults OK with Kerry camp
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Saturday, July 10, 2004
When in doubt, play the Vietnam card. That's long been a tactic embraced by Sen. John Kerry and his aides in the face of political trouble.
It's what the Kerry camp resorted to again Thursday to excuse the vile criticism of President Bush by the Democratic nominee's Hollywood backers at a New York fund-raiser.
``Performers have a right to speak their minds even when we don't agree with everything they say. That's the freedom John Kerry put his life on the line to defend,'' Kerry spokesmen David Wade said.
And what was Kerry defending? John Mellencamp singing a song with the lyrics, ``Texas Bandito, how much money did you put in your pocket today?'' And ``He's just another cheap thug who sacrifices our young?''
Then there was Whoopi Goldberg's elongated sexual pun using the president's last name.
And surely Kerry fought valiantly in Vietnam to ensure Chevy Chase could opine: ``Clinton plays the sax, John plays the guitar, and the president's a liar.''
Instead of denouncing the repugnant comments, as Howard Dean [related, bio] did when racial remarks and profanity were used at one of his fundraisers, Kerry simply went on with his stump speech. He only took issue with Goldberg calling running mate John Edwards a ``kid.''
That Kerry, by his silence, tacitly endorsed the content of his supporters' remarks says something troubling about the tone of his campaign. That he allowed his military service to be used once again like some prop in a movie, says something even more troubling about his character.
Who Will Bend?
Lt.Col. Cucullu raises some very interesting points here. Will it be we that bend or will we have the fortitude to see this through and defeat this scum? - Sailor
Who Will Bend?
By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 9, 2004
'Success breeds success.' 'Reinforce success.' 'Try something. If it works,
repeat it.' These are words that guide us. Since these words and more
importantly the concept they promote are so deeply ingrained in our culture
-- and indeed in cultures around the world -- it is difficult to understand
why we seem to forget them in practical application.
Specifically, we seem unable to recall these lessons in international affairs
from one moment of crisis to the next. It has been fashionable for decades
to shake our heads in disgust and frustration at the historical picture of
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returning from negotiating
Czechoslovakia away to Hitler, standing on the airport tarmack waving a
paper and declaring that he had achieved 'peace in our times.' How foolish,
we say, how could he not have seen the obvious?
But here we are again going through the process as if we have learned
nothing. Al Qaeda terrorists kill innocent Spanish citizens in Madrid and
the populace quails in fear, votes in the appeasement party and tries to
seek safety behind the the terrorists' promise not to hit them again.
Until the terrorists are ready, that is. So those of us who see things
though a longer historical lens expect terror attacks in the UK, Italy, Iraq
and America before elections. Why not? It worked well enough in Spain to
merit a reprise. Why can't people understand?
Adding to their repertoire of horror, the terrorists have sunk to abysmal
depths in beheading innocent hostages. They pick the most savage, barbaric
method of killing that they can, making the death as cold and cruel as
possible with the sole intention of inflicting fear and intimidation. If it
works, if we fall into the appeasement trap, then we can expect to see it
over and over again.
The latest victim, a poor young man with big dreams and lots of ambition,
was a South Korean named Kim Sun Il. Kim was 33 years old, a Christian, and
Arabic language speaker. He had been hired to work in Iraq by a South Korean
firm that supplied materials to the US military there. He was shown in a
video kneeling before five masked terrorists. They had stripped Kim and put
him into one of the orange jumpsuits that seem to be the execution garment
the terrorists prefer for their victims. He begged for his life - which must
have thrilled them - while they postured around him, masked cowards, acting
tough and waving weapons. Then they cut the helpless man's head off.
The terrorists had threatened to murder Kim Sun Il unless the government of
South Korea bowed to their demands to remove all troops from Iraq and send no more.
With more backbone than a great many European countries, the Koreans have
remained steadfast. This was not a given. Among many military observers and
not a few civilians who are aware of their reputation, the South Korean
military are regarded as tough, skilled and stalwart. In years past one
could count on South Korea and its military to support American policy even
when -- in joining Carter's 1980 Moscow Olympic Games boycott, for example --
it seemed in contravention to its best interests. Nonetheless, South Korea
has typically stayed the course in rough diplomatic waters.
But the last two presidents, the beleaguered incumbent Roh Moo Hyun and his
predecessor Kim Dae Jung, drifted increasingly to the far left, embracing a
policy of appeasement. Considering that Roh won a narrow victory on an
anti-American platform, asking about the fortitude of South Korea these days
is a legitimate, if embarrassing, question.
However to its credit, the South Korean government has so far vowed to stand
fast against the terrorists. It is keeping its promise to supply 3,000
troops later in the summer (about half construction engineers, to the others
infantry protect them). In reaction, the usual suspects are out on the
streets noisily making their point against deployment: student organizers:
professional dissidents, and proponents of accommodation with the Communist
North Korean government.
Disturbingly, many of these people are part of President Roh's support base.
He is going to be under increasing pressure to give in to them. Roh -- whose
painful inexperience in governing at the national level still hampers him --
may decide to offer an olive branch to the dissidents. If so he could slide
the deployment date of the South Korean force further to the right. He could
also reduce the number of troops deployed. This would give him the dual
advantage of claiming to be supportive of the US and coalition effort while
telling his base that he is intentionally delaying. In his mind this move
might allow him to paint a 'best of both worlds' face on a difficult
situation.
But while Roh is stewing, don't expect North Korea to withhold comment. We
ought to expect it to issue a statement designed to divide the US and South
Korea, probably something on the order of a challenge to the independence of
South Korea. Accusing the South of being a lackey of the US gets a reaction
from some in the South, particularly the ultra-nationalistic parties or the
communist sympathizers. Meanwhile, North Korea drives a wedge between the US
and South Korea, while it continues to court terrorist groups that are
actual or potential customers of the North's illegal weapons and missile
systems.
What ought South Korean President Roh to do? The best thing that the
government of South Korea could do to defy the terrorists and demonstrate
free world solidarity would be to accelerate the deployment and increase the
number of troops. This is not what Roh will probably do, but he should be
encouraged to consider the move. Doing so would send a message of great
import to the terrorists and to those who oppose them that South Korean
recognizes the gravity of the threat and is stepping up to the challenge.
Strength in response to terror galvanizes the population and steels their
will; vacillation erodes it.
Regardless of the outcome, there is a sense of historical irony discussing
Iraq and South Korea at the same time. South Korea had its growing pains
too. It was liberated from brutal Japanese colonial rule in 1945, suffered
through a terrible war, and slogged through a long aftermath of economic and
social recovery. South Korea has become a role model for how a free market
democracy can evolve. But it was not long ago that conventional wisdom
deemed Korean people unable to handle democracy. 'These people have to have
a strong leader,' was both a rationale for accommodating dictators and an
excuse for not pressing harder for reform.
Despite the difficulties, South Korea has made the proper choices: it has
weathered severe economic storms and emerged stronger. It has passed through
the fire of coup d'etat and political controversy and now routinely selects
its own leaders. It is a country that affords basic human freedoms to its
populace even while under hysterical threats of nuclear destruction by an
authoritarian, oppressive neighbor.
South Korea has endured terrorist attacks in the past, such as the downing of
a commercial airliner in 1987 designed to thwart the 1988 Seoul Olympics and
a bomb detonation that barely missed the president and killed most of his
cabinet. But South Koreans, like most of the civilized world, are just
beginning to face the personalized brand of depravity served up by al Qaeda
murderers. The Koreans will need our understanding and assistance to weather
the trauma of vicious terrorist attacks such as the murder of Kim Sun Il. We
must set an example of moral courage and fortitude and help they stay the
course.
Realistically all countries must accept the fact that all foreigners in Arab
countries are targets. The terrorists intend to break the US public and
allied will. The tactic is not so much an attack directed against an
individual for the sake of killing him, as it is a psychological warfare
attack directed against the morale of entire populations. Terrorists are
targeting the US in the midst of a heated election season along with any of
our coalition partners that they can intimidate. We must hold firm together,
refuse to negotiate, and collaborate to hunt down and kill these barbarians.
One final note: it is well past time that we called these murderers what
they are -- terrorists. I for one am sick and tired of the mealy-mouthed press
referring to them as 'militants,' 'insurgents,' or, thanks to Reuters,
'freedom fighters.' Euphemisms do not erase or diminish the horror of their
actions. Calling them the scum that they are is a good first step in
eliminating them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu has been an Army Green Beret lieutenant colonel, as well as a writer, popular speaker, business executive and farmer. His most recent book is Separated at Birth, about North and South Korea.
Friday, July 09, 2004
JERKY JOKESTER WHOOPI IN DIRTY DISS AT DUBYA
Well the liberals have been at it again. Seems some cannot talk to issues so they run a foul mouth. Whoppi Goldberg is the foulest mouth of the bunch. Next time the poodle whines about unfair attacks, some one should shove Whoopi's harangue under his nose. And you can bet he will whine. Then their was this Latino comic claiming there are no Republican Hispanics. What is he smoking? Paul Newman crying about making too much money and not being taxed enough. Hey Paul, write a big check to the IRS if you feel so guilty! Here is the article by Deborah Orin. Now you know what kind of slime the liberals are! - Sailor
JERKY JOKESTER WHOOPI IN DIRTY DISS AT DUBYA
By DEBORAH ORIN
New York Post
July 9, 2004 -- Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendoes against President Bush last night at a Radio City gala that raised $7.5 million for the newly minted Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards.
Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia, and boasted that she'd refused to let Team Kerry clear her material.
"I Xeroxed my behind and I folded it up in an envelope and I sent it back with a big kiss mark on because we're Democrats - we're not afraid to laugh," she said.
She addressed fresh-faced vice-presidential candidate Edwards as "Kid," and "young Mr. Edwards" and cracked, "He looks like he is about 18 "
"I'm going to card his ass tomorrow."
Other celebs also competed to bash Bush. Singer John Mellencamp sang a specially written song that called the president "just another cheap thug" and ridiculed him as the "Texas bambino."
Kerry could be seen laughing uproariously during part of Goldberg's tirade - and neither he nor Edwards voiced a single objection to its tone when they spoke to the crowd.
They hailed the fund-raiser as a great event.
Edwards said it was "a great honor" to be there and insisted, "This campaign will be a celebration of real American values."
Kerry thanked all the performers for "an extraordinary evening," hailed the "great producers" - Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and Jann Wenner - and said "every performer tonight ... conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country."
Last fall, Howard Dean ran into a similar problem when a New York fund-raiser turned into a stream of ugly racist jokes and X-rated Bush-bashing - but Dean instantly came out and said he didn't like the tone of some of the jokes.
Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt noted that Kerry is claiming to share "conservative values" and said, "Sitting there while the vitriol and venom spew forth demonstrates [Kerry's] lack of leadership and how far he is from mainstream America."
Schmidt added, "It's no surprise that a group of Hollywood celebrities would be so excited to support the most out-of-the-mainstream ticket in Democratic Party history."
Also on the Bush-bashing team was comedian Chevy Chase, who claimed the president is dumb as "an egg-timer" and said Edwards will make Vice President Dick Cheney look "as bright as a bundt cake" when they debate next fall.
Latin comedian John Leguizamo said he refuses to believe there are any Hispanic Republicans, claiming that's "an oxymoron," because "Latins for Republicans - it's like roaches for Raid."
Leguizamo added that he made sure to get there early to clear security because "I kind of look Arab - that's why I don't wear underwear anymore, just to make the searches go faster."
Screen legend Paul Newman blasted the Bush tax cuts, saying, "I am a traitor to my class. I think that tax cuts to wealthy thugs like me are borderline criminal - I live very high off the hog."
Actress Jessica Lange dismissed Bush as "our so-called president" to the fat-cat crowd and afterward said, "I'll do everything that I can possibly do, short of selling my children," to beat Bush.
Additional reporting by Jennifer Fermino
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Analysts See Banner Year Ahead for Economy
For months now we have been hearing the poodle and his accomplises, whining about how bad the economy is. That in the face of statistics and information quite to the contrary. Here is another bit of bad news for the poodle and his cohorts. - Sailor
Tue Jul 6, 7:27 PM ET
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON - The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.
In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.
There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton (news - web sites) was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.
But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president — Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) — was running for re-election.
"We are moving into a sweet spot for the economy with interest rates not too high, jobs coming back and business investment providing strength," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One in Chicago, who is predicting GDP (news - web sites) growth of 4.8 percent this year.
President Bush (news - web sites) is highlighting the improving economy at every opportunity while Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) has focused on what he calls a middle class squeeze of rising health and tuition costs and laid-off workers forced to take lower-paying jobs.
Who will win on the all-important pocketbook issues? Economists aren't sure.
"It is unclear whether voters will remember the past year and the better jobs created during that period or the past four years," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com. "It will be a close call and that is one of the reasons the election could be so close."
Assessing the economy at midyear, most private economists are sticking with the optimistic forecasts they had six months ago, even though inflation, driven by surging energy prices, rose higher than expected and the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) started raising interest rates last month.
"We are looking for a darn good year despite the fact that we had a big jump in oil prices and interest rates are going up faster than people thought would occur," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.
Offsetting those drags on the economy has been stronger growth in Japan and China, which helps U.S. exports, better-than-expected consumer spending and much better job growth than analysts were expecting as the year began.
The economy has now created 1.5 million new jobs since last August, compared with a loss of 2.7 million jobs in the previous 29 months, when the country was struggling with a string of blows from a collapsing stock market to a recession and terrorist attacks.
Even with the 10 months of consecutive job gains, Bush is still facing a 1.2 million jobs deficit, from the last peak for employment in March 2001.
However, many analysts anticipate the economy will generate around 200,000 jobs per month over the next six months, a pace that would be enough to erase his deficit figure by the end of the year. That would enable him to escape being the only president since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression to have lost jobs while in office.
Although the economy created only 112,000 jobs in June, after averaging 304,000 jobs for the previous three months, analysts expect strong job growth the rest of this year.
They predict the unemployment rate — stuck at 5.6 percent for most of this year — will improve gradually, to 5.3 percent by December, as a strengthening job market draws people back into the labor force.
Analysts also are optimistic about inflation in the months ahead, noting that oil prices recently retreated from peaks above $42 per barrel in June, and regular gasoline have declined from highs over $2 a gallon in late May. If the trend continues, inflation pressures will be eased.
The Bond Market Association's economic advisory committee, made up of economists from large financial institutions, is predicting that consumer prices will rise 3.1 percent for all of this year, a significant moderation from the 5.1 percent rate of increase through May.
The group projects overall GDP growth will be at a 20-year high of 4.7 percent, based in part on a belief that the Fed will keep to its pledge of moderation in future rate hikes because of the absence of inflation pressures.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
A Solution to the National Debt
This week, Doc takes on the staggering National Debt. Damn Doc, do I really owe that much? - Sailor
A Solution to the National Debt
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
At this writing, the National Debt (a debt so big that it has to be capitalized) stands at $7,259,602,983,923.51.
Seven Trillion Dollars.
Those three little words, and that bloody humongous amount, are enough to strike terror into anyone’s heart. As well it should. Heck, couples file bankruptcy when their credit cards max out. Men and women jump out of buildings when their stock portfolios make a loud flushing noise. Now, imagine a debt where every American child born is automatically $24,651.05 in the red. The slap on the rump from the doctor is a minor inconvenience compared to that.
Well, that’s the theory. That’s the story everybody is told. ''We need more taxes,'' the politicians cry, ''to cover the National Debt!'' ''Our debt will be paid by our children’s children’s children’s children if we don’t raise taxes now.''
Well, politicians love to raise taxes anyway. They’ll raise taxes at the drop of a Spotted Owl. If politicians don’t get enough money in taxes, they just add more money to the National Debt. Then demand more taxes to pay for spendthrift and wasteful habits of those who stack the re-election deck in the favor of the incumbents. These days the only chance of being ousted from the House or Senate is to be caught in bed, on videotape, with three hookers, five rocks of crack cocaine, a Cub Scout troop, a goat with scrofula, Hitler's corpse, and Janet Reno in a thong.
The Washington Wastrels want to make you pay for their greed.
The National Debt is only part of the story, however. The other part of the story, the part the politicians don’t want you to hear, provides the immediate solution to the problem. Sadly, though, the politicians will never allow such a remedy. Because it will show them to be liars. It will take away much, indeed most, of their power. It will get them fired from their soft, cushy jobs, and never allowed to serve in public office again.
Sounds like a good-enough reason right there to tell everybody.
Y’see, debt is only one half of the balance sheet. Now, I’m not an accountant, and I don’t understand macroeconomic theory. But I do know that if you’ve got debts (liabilities) you should also have assets. Cash on hand, property, buildings, cars, investments, money in banks, precious metals, works of art, that sort of thing. And the Federal Government has assets. Just over $17 trillion in assets.
If you have more assets than liabilities, you’re fine. If you have more liabilities than assets, you’re in trouble.
Assets: $17,000,000,000,000
Debt: $ 7,000,000,000,000
Balance $10,000,000,000,000
So, we’re actually $10 trillion ahead of the game, even if all of the National Debt is paid off today. We’re not bankrupt. Not anywhere near it. That’s the dirty little secret of your government.
Here’s the bigger deal. The National Debt has an easy solution. One that most people, most businesses would turn to if they were paying off their fiscal liabilities. You sell off some of your assets, and pay your debts. The same thing can be done here.
The Government of the United States of America is the largest landowner in the country. The government owns all of the national parks, which comprise several million acres. It own tons of buildings, fleets of cars and trucks, fleets of aircraft (non-military ones), plus all the desks, computers, garbage cans, telephones, etc. Plus, there’s all the U.S. money invested in foreign banks all around the world. Then there are all of the unnecessary (from a Constitutional standpoint, anyway) government agencies.
So, it’s time to do some serious debt realignment. Time to sell off stuff that America can no longer afford. Like most of the Federal Government. Don’t believe me? Read the Constitution. In it, the Federal Government was supposed to be of limited size and scope. It only really authorizes the following institutions and agencies (tell me what I’ve missed, and give proof):
* Presidency (and associated support departments)
* Congress (and associated support departments)
* Judiciary (and associated support departments)
* Military/National Defense
* Department of Commerce
* U.S. Mint
* National Institute of Standards and Technology
* Library of Congress
* Post Office
* Copyright Office
* Patent Office
* State Department (Embassy/Consular offices)
* Immigration and Naturalization (or a functional facsimile thereof)
* Federal Prison System
You’ll note that the IRS is absent from the list above. Mostly because the IRS is a product of the 16th Amendment, which was fraudulently added to the U.S. Constitution. But that’s a discussion for another day. So here are some quick things that the Federal Government can do to pay off the National Debt, yet still keep the country functional:
* Closing down all federal agencies not sanctioned by the Constitution, and selling off the assets
* Selling back Federal (non park) land for private ownership
* A REALLY big bake sale at the Pentagon.
* Selling the gold bullion reserves for ready cash
* Buying back the gold bullion reserves when the price of gold crashes
* Returning to the gold standard again, just to honk off all the speculators
Personally, I like the bake sale idea the best!
Now, if you immediately liquidated $7 trillion of assets, especially those in banking institutions across the globe, there’d be financial chaos that would cause hardship throughout the world. It’d come back to bite America on the rump and cause us major problems. So, if you did this in simple stages over a ten year period, you’d liquidate $700 billion every year. As long as you didn’t liquidate any assets belonging to the list of constitutionally authorized departments listed above, no problem. If you want to sell off the assets of the Department of Education, Department of Heath and Human Services, National Endowment for the Arts, etc., be my guest. In fact, I insist!
I can hear all the lib/dem/soc/commies fainting, screaming, and gnashing teeth. Ah, what a glorious noise.
If you’re wondering about all those hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed people fired from the Federal Government, fear not. Those unemployed will find jobs. Why am I so confident? Well, for one thing, the National Debt will be gone. That will free up a lot of the drain on businesses, who have to waste billions of dollars every year filling out idiotic forms, performing unnecessary tasks, or forking over taxes to pay for all those salaries of the people who receive the idiotic forms or demand the unnecessary tasks. That money, now freed up, will not go into the money of fat cat white ''fascists,'' no matter what the lib/dem/soc/commies will shrilly declare. It will go into investment in new factories, new products, research and development. It will create jobs.
At long last, you’ll be able to go to sleep at night and not worry that your great-great-great grandchildren will be up to their umbilical cords in debt.
That’s worth selling off all that unnecessary Federal detritus in the first place.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.
This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8305
It's Edwards
So the poodle has selected an ambulence chaser to be his running mate. Edwards was the person the DNC and the Clintons wanted. This ticket may be even more liberal then the Mondale/Ferraro ticket of 1984. Wall Street is not happy as evidenced by this article posted below. I suspect that rep/con 527s will be seeing a rather large influx of donations forthwith. - Sailor
July 6, 2004
POLITICAL CAPITAL
By ALAN MURRAY
Business Elite Vows
To Take On Kerry
If He Taps Edwards
July 6, 2004; Page A4
Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has made a public vow: If John Edwards is chosen as John Kerry's running mate, the chamber will abandon its traditional stance of neutrality in the presidential race and work feverishly to defeat the Democratic ticket. "We'd get the best people and the greatest assets we can rally" to the cause, he says.
Other business leaders in Washington have been less public and less precise, but no less passionate. Reviewing the candidates in the Democratic primaries earlier this year, a Fortune 100 chief executive who is active in Washington told me that Mr. Edwards, the North Carolina senator, "is the one we fear the most" -- more than John Kerry, more than Dick Gephardt, more than Howard Dean.
None of this is personal. These businessmen barely know Sen. Edwards and would probably find him a far more engaging dinner companion than most of his fellow Democrats -- Sen. Kerry included.
THE VP SWEEPSTAKES
1
Crunch time is approaching for John Kerry to choose his running mate. Oddsmakers and online futures traders2 seem to think that Sen. John Edwards will be Mr. Kerry's choice to fill out the Democratic ticket. Is there a longshot lurking? We take a closer look.
Nor is it completely rational. Mr. Edwards's political and policy views are more moderate -- and more in line with business -- than those of Gov. Dean, Rep. Gephardt or even Sen. Kerry.
But Mr. Edwards is a trial lawyer. His campaign for the presidency was financed by trial lawyers. And there is nothing that makes America's CEOs see red these days like America's trial lawyers. "It's visceral," says one person who works with a group of chief executives. "You can feel it in a room." The nation's top executives view the plaintiff's bar as modern-day mobsters, shaking down corporations by bringing endless lawsuits that are too costly and too dangerous to litigate and that result in settlements costing billions to the corporate bottom line. The antipathy, while not new, has never been greater.
"This is not a personal issue and it is not a party issue," says Mr. Donohue. "It is not about getting Bush or Kerry elected. It is about something so fundamental to what we do here at the chamber that we can't walk away from it."
Should Democrats care? After all, big business is hardly their natural constituency. The Chamber of Commerce will never be a hotbed of Democratic support. And the number of chief executives in the elite Business Roundtable who will vote for Sen. Kerry, regardless of his running mate, can be counted on Fannie Mae CEO Frank Raines's right hand -- with digits to spare.
But party wisdom that's been passed down by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Robert Strauss, and now resides with Democratic economic guru Robert Rubin, is that big business does matter to Democrats. To be successful, a Democratic presidential candidate doesn't need the active support of America's CEOs, but he does need to keep them on the sidelines. Jimmy Carter lost his bid for re-election at least in part because business was determined to dump him. Bill Clinton won election and re-election at least in part because the business community, while not strongly supportive, wasn't threatened by him.
Sen. Kerry has accepted this wisdom and has worked since the end of the primary season to moderate the way he's viewed by business. The harsh talk of "Benedict Arnold corporations and CEOs that send jobs and profits overseas" -- a standard line in his stump speech back in January and February -- is gone. Instead, he talks coolly of eliminating tax breaks that encourage companies to send jobs outside the U.S. With Mr. Rubin at his side, he met with the leaders of the Business Roundtable. While there were no apparent converts, he did put the group at ease.
A decision now by Sen. Kerry to make Sen. Edwards his running mate would end that ease, and Sen. Kerry's advisers know it. If Sen. Edwards doesn't get the nod, concern about business backlash will be one reason. If he does, the campaign will be looking for ways to moderate their vice-presidential candidate's business image.
Mr. Edwards's aides already are pointing out that as a trial lawyer, he never brought the kind of controversial class-action lawsuits that drain millions from a company's coffers but provide only minimal benefits to each member of a large group of plaintiffs. Perhaps as a vice-presidential candidate, Sen. Edwards would take up the cause of class-action reform -- a business-friendly position already staked out by Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.
The Kerry campaign also could try to minimize damage by tying Mr. Donohue closely to the White House. In a news release last Thursday, the campaign attacked the chamber chief for a speech he gave in San Francisco defending outsourcing, and it called on the White House to disavow his comments. The release went on to cite various ties between Mr. Donohue and the Bush White House, including a meeting he had with Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman in April, as well as various visits by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the chamber over the past three years.
ABOUT ALAN MURAY
Alan Murray is Washington bureau chief for CNBC and co-host of Capital Report, which airs Tues.-Fri. at 7 p.m.
Write to Alan Murray at alan.murray@wsj.com3
Monday, July 05, 2004
A Fourth of July Speech by that Sailor in the Desert
Thank you Commander for that warm introduction.
Good morning distinguished guests, friends and families and my fellow veterans.
Today we celebrate the 228th birthday of the United States. Happy birthday, America!
A number of years ago, there was a movie, 'Field of Dreams'. In that movie the recurring phrase was, "If you build it they will come". 228 years ago our forefathers built a Nation concieved in Liberty with the wild eyed notion that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". They built it and they came. They came from all corners of the planet. And still they come, they come to America. That shining light in the darkness. They come for the promise of a better life and to be free. Emma Lazarus' poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty concludes with the following lines:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Indeed it is the Golden Door. But our history has been one frought with challenges. It took some 12 years from the end of the War of Revolution until our Constitution was completed and adopted.
In 1812, we went to war once again with Great Britain, over the impressment of US sailors by the British and other long simmering issues. Our Capital was burned, Fort McHenry besieged and 'The Star Spangled Banner" born. And the Republic endured.
In 1861, we fought a civil war. The Nation was torn apart. Brother against brother, family against family. 3 million fought and 6 hundred thousand died. And yet the Republic endured.
In 1941, we were attacked by the facist power of Japan. Germany and Italy, their facist allies declared war on us. We were fighting for our very existence. Once again, the Republic endured.
On September 11, 2001 once again we were attacked. Now we fight those who wish us dead, simply because we are Americans. The Republic will once again endure.
It has been said that freedom is never free and I will say that freedom cannot be had on the cheap. It has taken the blood of our warriors and even today, our young warriors fight in far off lands to keep us free and to keep us safe. We will be bloodied, but the indomitable spirit of the American people will not be bent or broken and we will see our way to victory.
To those that have lost loved ones who have died defending freedom, I mourn your loss. But know that their sacrafice was not in vain. Because of them, our Republic will endure.
In the words of the late President, Ronald Reagan, "America's best days are ahead of her".
America is truly the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
May Providence bless our Republic.
God bless America!
MS SCPO USN(Ret.)
Good morning distinguished guests, friends and families and my fellow veterans.
Today we celebrate the 228th birthday of the United States. Happy birthday, America!
A number of years ago, there was a movie, 'Field of Dreams'. In that movie the recurring phrase was, "If you build it they will come". 228 years ago our forefathers built a Nation concieved in Liberty with the wild eyed notion that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". They built it and they came. They came from all corners of the planet. And still they come, they come to America. That shining light in the darkness. They come for the promise of a better life and to be free. Emma Lazarus' poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty concludes with the following lines:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Indeed it is the Golden Door. But our history has been one frought with challenges. It took some 12 years from the end of the War of Revolution until our Constitution was completed and adopted.
In 1812, we went to war once again with Great Britain, over the impressment of US sailors by the British and other long simmering issues. Our Capital was burned, Fort McHenry besieged and 'The Star Spangled Banner" born. And the Republic endured.
In 1861, we fought a civil war. The Nation was torn apart. Brother against brother, family against family. 3 million fought and 6 hundred thousand died. And yet the Republic endured.
In 1941, we were attacked by the facist power of Japan. Germany and Italy, their facist allies declared war on us. We were fighting for our very existence. Once again, the Republic endured.
On September 11, 2001 once again we were attacked. Now we fight those who wish us dead, simply because we are Americans. The Republic will once again endure.
It has been said that freedom is never free and I will say that freedom cannot be had on the cheap. It has taken the blood of our warriors and even today, our young warriors fight in far off lands to keep us free and to keep us safe. We will be bloodied, but the indomitable spirit of the American people will not be bent or broken and we will see our way to victory.
To those that have lost loved ones who have died defending freedom, I mourn your loss. But know that their sacrafice was not in vain. Because of them, our Republic will endure.
In the words of the late President, Ronald Reagan, "America's best days are ahead of her".
America is truly the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.
May Providence bless our Republic.
God bless America!
MS SCPO USN(Ret.)
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Put the 'Independence' Back in Independence Day
By Michael Berliner
CNSNews.com Commentary
July 02, 2004
America's cities and towns will soon fill with parades, fireworks, and barbecues. They will be celebrating the Fourth of July, the 228th birthday of America. But one hopes that -- on this third post-September 11 Independence Day -- the speeches will contain fewer bromides and more attention to exactly what is being celebrated.
The Fourth of July is Independence Day, but America's leaders and intellectuals have been trying to move us further and further away from the meaning of Independence Day, away from the philosophy that created this country.
What we hear from politicians, intellectuals, and the media is that independence is passé, that we've reached a new age of "interdependence." We hear demands for mandatory "volunteering" to serve others, for sacrifice to the nation. We hear demands from trust-busters that successful companies be punished for being "greedy" and not serving society. But this is not the message of America.
It is the direct opposite of why America became a beacon of hope for the truly oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they aren't owned by the state, the community, or the tribe.
"Independence Day" is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution -- and a nation -- founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights.
Jefferson at Philadelphia and Washington at Valley Forge pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." For what? Not for mere separation from England, not--like most rebels--for the "freedom" to set up their own tyranny. In fact, Britain's tyranny over the colonists was mild compared to what most current governments do to their citizens.
Jefferson and Washington fought a war for the principle of independence, meaning the moral right of an individual to live his own life as he sees fit. Independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence as the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
What are these rights? The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that one's life belongs to oneself, not to others to use as they see fit. The right to liberty means the right to freedom of action, to act on one's own judgment, the right not to have a gun pointed at one's head and be forced to do what someone else commands.
And the right to the pursuit of happiness means that an individual may properly pursue his own happiness, e.g., his own career, friends, hobbies, and not exist as a mere tool to serve the goals of others.
The Founding Fathers did not proclaim a right to the attainment of happiness, knowing full well that such a policy would carry with it the obligation of others to make one happy and result in the enslavement of all to all.
The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against servitude, not just servitude to the Crown but servitude to anyone. (That some signers still owned slaves does not negate the fact that they established the philosophy that doomed slavery.)
Political independence is not a primary. It rests on a more fundamental type of independence: the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of a human being to think for himself and guide his own life that makes political independence possible and necessary.
The government as envisaged by the Founding Fathers existed to protect the freedom to think and to act on one's thinking. If human beings were unable to reason, to think for themselves, there would be no autonomy or independence for a government to protect. It is this independence that defines the American Revolution and the American spirit.
To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is "the only oracle of man," and Thomas Jefferson advised us to "fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God."
That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors.
Independence is the foundation of America. Independence is what should be celebrated on Independence Day. That is the legacy our Founding Fathers left us. It is a legacy we should keep, not because it is a legacy, but because it is right and just. It has made America the freest and most prosperous country in history.
(Michael Berliner is the former executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.)
CNSNews.com Commentary
July 02, 2004
America's cities and towns will soon fill with parades, fireworks, and barbecues. They will be celebrating the Fourth of July, the 228th birthday of America. But one hopes that -- on this third post-September 11 Independence Day -- the speeches will contain fewer bromides and more attention to exactly what is being celebrated.
The Fourth of July is Independence Day, but America's leaders and intellectuals have been trying to move us further and further away from the meaning of Independence Day, away from the philosophy that created this country.
What we hear from politicians, intellectuals, and the media is that independence is passé, that we've reached a new age of "interdependence." We hear demands for mandatory "volunteering" to serve others, for sacrifice to the nation. We hear demands from trust-busters that successful companies be punished for being "greedy" and not serving society. But this is not the message of America.
It is the direct opposite of why America became a beacon of hope for the truly oppressed throughout the world. They have come here to escape poverty and dictatorship; they have come here to live their own lives, where they aren't owned by the state, the community, or the tribe.
"Independence Day" is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution -- and a nation -- founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights.
Jefferson at Philadelphia and Washington at Valley Forge pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." For what? Not for mere separation from England, not--like most rebels--for the "freedom" to set up their own tyranny. In fact, Britain's tyranny over the colonists was mild compared to what most current governments do to their citizens.
Jefferson and Washington fought a war for the principle of independence, meaning the moral right of an individual to live his own life as he sees fit. Independence was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence as the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
What are these rights? The right to life means that every individual has a right to his own independent life, that one's life belongs to oneself, not to others to use as they see fit. The right to liberty means the right to freedom of action, to act on one's own judgment, the right not to have a gun pointed at one's head and be forced to do what someone else commands.
And the right to the pursuit of happiness means that an individual may properly pursue his own happiness, e.g., his own career, friends, hobbies, and not exist as a mere tool to serve the goals of others.
The Founding Fathers did not proclaim a right to the attainment of happiness, knowing full well that such a policy would carry with it the obligation of others to make one happy and result in the enslavement of all to all.
The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against servitude, not just servitude to the Crown but servitude to anyone. (That some signers still owned slaves does not negate the fact that they established the philosophy that doomed slavery.)
Political independence is not a primary. It rests on a more fundamental type of independence: the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of a human being to think for himself and guide his own life that makes political independence possible and necessary.
The government as envisaged by the Founding Fathers existed to protect the freedom to think and to act on one's thinking. If human beings were unable to reason, to think for themselves, there would be no autonomy or independence for a government to protect. It is this independence that defines the American Revolution and the American spirit.
To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is "the only oracle of man," and Thomas Jefferson advised us to "fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God."
That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors.
Independence is the foundation of America. Independence is what should be celebrated on Independence Day. That is the legacy our Founding Fathers left us. It is a legacy we should keep, not because it is a legacy, but because it is right and just. It has made America the freest and most prosperous country in history.
(Michael Berliner is the former executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.)
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Vietnam Vets Speak Out on John Kerry
The poodle's staffers are begining to call the President a draft dodger once again. The poodle continues to use his Vietnam service as his credentials to be CinC. This is what a few Vietnam vets have to say about him.
Vietnam Vets Speak Out on John Kerry
NewsMax Wires
Monday, July 5, 2004
Although John Kerry accumulated a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts in a relatively brief 4-month tour in Vietnam as a Swift Boat skipper, many of those who served on the combat patrol vessels in that era have come out swinging against the Democratic presidential candidate:
"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.
We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."
– John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."
– Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.
Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"
– Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)
"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."
– Andrew Horne
"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."
– Jeffrey Wainscott
"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.
It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."
– Robert Elder
"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.' They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened.
Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first..."
– Joseph Ponder
"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.
Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."
– Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)
"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command.
Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians."
– Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)
"We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions."
– Barnard Wolff
"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage.
When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities."
– David Wallace
"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.
In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."
– Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)
"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units.
Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..."
– Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)
"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.
This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."
– William Shumadine
"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. "
– Richard O'Meara
"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"
– Steven Gardner
"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.
All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best."
– Robert Brant
"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions.
I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims."
– James Steffes
Friday, July 02, 2004
How the Media Get Iraq Wrong
For weeks now I have been ranting on how the media is nothing more then the propaganda arm of the DNC and the poodle's campaign. Here is an article from some one who was there and tells how the reporting of one Washington Post bureau chief was bullshit or how Eric put it more diplomatically, rubbish. - Sailor
HOW MEDIA GET IRAQ WRONG
By ERIC M. JOHNSON
New York Post
July 2, 2004 -- IRAQ veterans often say they're confused by U.S. news cover age, because their experience differs so greatly from what journalists report. Soldiers and Marines point to the slow, steady progress in almost all areas of Iraqi life and wonder why they don't get much notice — or in many cases, any notice at all.
Part of the explanation is Rajiv Chandrasekaran, the Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post. Chandrasekaran's crew generates a relentlessly negative stream of articles from Iraq. Last week, he had a Pulitzer-bait series called "Promises Unkept: The U.S. Occupation of Iraq."
The grizzled foreign-desk veteran — who until 2000 was covering dot-com companies — now sits in judgment over a world-shaking issue, in a court whose rulings echo throughout the media landscape.
He finds the Bush administration guilty. Such a surprise. Before major combat operations were over, Chandrasekaran was already quoting Iraqis proclaiming the U.S. operation a failure.
Reading his dispatches from April 2003, you can already see his meta-narrative take shape: Basically, that the Americans are clumsy fools who don't know what they're doing, and Iraqis hate them. This meta-narrative informs his coverage and the coverage of the reporters he supervises, who rotate in and out of Iraq.
How do I know this? Because my fellow Marines and I witnessed it with our own eyes. Chandrasekaran showed up in the city of Kut last April, talked to a few of our officers and toured the city for a few hours. He then got back into his air-conditioned car and drove back to Baghdad to write about the local unrest.
"The Untouchable 'Mayor' of Kut," his article's headline blared the next day. It described a local, Iranian-backed troublemaker named Abbas Fadhil, who was squatting in the provincial government headquarters. He had gathered a mob of people with nothing better to do, told them to camp out in the headquarters compound, and there they sat, defying the Marines of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade.
Chandrasekaran was very impressed with the little usurper: " 'We thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddam's regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis,' Fadhil thundered during a meeting today with his supporters in the building's spacious conference room. 'We cannot allow the Americans to rule us from this office' . . . Fadhil has set up shop in an official building and appears to have rallied support across this city of 300,000 people.
"The refusal of Marine commanders to recognize Fadhil's new title has fueled particularly intense anti-American sentiments here," Chandrasekeran continued. "In scenes not seen in other Iraqi cities, U.S. convoys have been loudly jeered. Waving Marines have been greeted with angry glares and thumbs-down signs."
Readers must have concluded that Kut was on the verge of exploding, ready to throw out the despised American infidel invaders and install their new "mayor" as their beloved leader.
What utter rubbish. In our headquarters, we had a small red splotch on a large map of Kut, representing the neighborhood that supported Abbas Fadhil. When asked about him, most citizens of Kut rolled their eyes. His followers were mainly poor, semi-literate and not particularly well-liked. They were marginal in every sense of the word, and they mattered very little in the day-to-day life of a city that was struggling to get back on its feet.
We knew the local sentiment intimately, because as civil affairs Marines, our job was to help restore the province's water, electricity, medical care and other essentials of life. Our detachment had teams constantly coming and going throughout the city, and Chandrasekeran could have easily accompanied at least one of them.
Since he didn't, he couldn't see how the Iraqis outside of the red splotch reacted to us. People of every age waved and smiled as we rumbled past (except male youths, who, like their American counterparts, were too cool for that kind of thing.) Our major security problem was keeping friendly crowds of people away from us so we could spot bad guys.
None of those encouraging things made it into the article. Nor did anything about how we had been helping to fix the city's problems as soon as we arrived. Just a quick-and-dirty sensationalistic piece about a local Islamist thug bravely going toe-to-toe with the legendary U.S. Marines. The general reaction to Chandrasekeran's article was either laughter or dumb bewilderment.
Soon afterwards, a Marine commander met privately with Fadhil and told him he would be forcefully removed if he did not leave the government building. Fadhil, chastened, asked if he could slither into exile without the appearance of coercion, so he could save face. The commander agreed. Suddenly faced with a real confrontation, the "mayor" had backed down, and he left without any riots or bloodshed. The Americans took over the office that Fadhil said we should never occupy.
The Post didn't cover any of that, either.
Don't take my word for it that the Post's reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news. In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation."
Translation: We are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting.
Bennett flatly concedes that they have a "dim picture" of what is happening in Iraq (not that you would know it from the actual news articles he approves for publication). "The people of Iraq . . . are leading their country, and ours, down an uncertain path. This is a story waiting to be told."
Waiting to be told? They have four or five full-time reporters there at any given time. What are they doing, if they're not telling the story of Iraq's new birth?
Bennett might have added that not only are the reporters "distanced" from Iraqis, they're distanced from Iraq itself. Covering it from Baghdad is like covering California from a secure bunker in south-central Los Angeles.
Chandrasekeran's meta-narrative admits of no ambiguity. For him and his reporters, they report in straightforward, declarative sentences, with none of the caveats that Bennett mentions. The Americans are still bumbling, the Iraqis continue to seethe. So it shall be in The Washington Post — until Iraq succeeds and they can no longer deny it, just like journalists were forced to admit reality at the end of the Cold War. Or else their words will have their effect, and Western journalists have to flee the country as it disintegrates.
Since I saw Rajiv Chandrasekaran's integrity up close, I haven't believed a word he writes, or any story coming out of the bureau he runs. You shouldn't, either.
Eric M. Johnson, a writer in Washington, D.C., participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Marine Corps reservist.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Trouble in Paradise or The Failing Campaign of the poodle
Seems the democrats are finally figuring out they have a very poor candidate in the poodle aka Johnny Kerry. Some infighting is coming to the surface. Quite frankly, with all the bad press the President has gotten on Iraq, I am surprised that the poodle does not have a double digit lead at this point. That is bad news for the poodle. With the hand over of governmental control to Iraq, the poodle loses another talking point. Polls are showing that Americans are begining to concentrate on those pocketbook issues and that they are finally realizing that the economy and jobs creation are going ahead full steam.
Let's see what the dems are saying.
"Asked whether Mr. Kerry's patrician - some say French - face and wife worth an estimated $550 million hurts his ability to relate to the working class, [New Jersey Building Trades Union President William T.] Mullen replied, 'Yeah, but he's our rich French guy and we got to stick with him.'" (Charles Hurt, Kerry Tries To Reclaim New Jersey, The Washington Times, 6/16/04
They finally figured out that the poodle has no connection with the regular Joe? What revelation!
They Said It! (England, AR Democrat Mayor James Wallace)
"I'll hold my nose and vote Democrat," [said Democrat] Mayor James Wallace of England, Ark." (Kathy Kiely, "Dems Think Clinton Can Deliver Arkansas And More," USA Today, 6/20/04
I would suggest you invest in a good filtering system if you want to keep from smelling the stink. Holding your nose is not going to cut it, James.
"Mayor [Richard] Daley [D-IL] scolded Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry Tuesday for making a wisecrack about the bicycle accident that scraped the face, hands and knees of President Bush. Daley, who ripped the skin off his kneecap during a bicycle accident a few years ago, said the joke was disrespectful. 'When someone falls … you should not wish ill upon anyone. It’s not right. You just don’t do that. Let’s have some respect for one another.'" (Fran Spielman, Daley Says Kerry Went Too Far With Joke About President’s Fall, Chicago Sun-Times, 5/26/04
So much for the "compassion" and "tolerance" liberals like to claim the moral high ground on.
"I've always thought Kerry was a terrible candidate," [Slate.com Commentator Mickey] Kaus, a Democrat, said in an interview. "I think he is proving that ... now. Democrats are definitely panicking." (Jill Lawrence, Dems Divided Over Kerry's Performance, USA Today, 5/12/04
Looks like some others have figured that one out, Mickey. Nice to know you were ahead of the pack there.
"Detroit [Democrat] Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick said voters in his swing state will be ill-served by Kerry's cancellation. 'I'm extremely disappointed, and I'm leaning toward being angry,' he said. 'It's not a leadership move. Mayors are here from all over the country. If we don't get that message [from Kerry], how are we going to take it back to our constituents? We can't just be anti-Bush. I would hope that he'd reconsider. To mobilize voters in our city, we have to hear directly from Kerry.'" (Donovan Slack and Glen Johnson, Kerry Cancels His Speech To Mayors, The Boston Globe, 6/28/04
Mayor Kilpatrick hits the nail on the head. You have to actually have some sort of plan to present to the people. Just being Anti-Bush will not get the poodle elected. The poodle has to have Michigan to win.
AFL-CIO LOBBYIST: "Gephardt better damn well be the pick ... We've done too much for Kerry to get screwed this way. A governor from Iowa ain't going to cut it for our membership. It's been tough enough selling Kerry to some of our people." (The Prowler, "Kerry Flies The Flag," The American Spectator Website, 6/15/04
Big Labor has never polled their membership on their preference for President. Think they are sweating out having backed the poodle?
Mayor Thomas M. Menino unloaded a searing attack on fellow Democrat John F. Kerry yesterday, calling his presidential campaign ``small-minded'' and ``incompetent'' - laying bare a years-old rift weeks before the city plays host to Kerry's FleetCenter coronation.
6/30/2004
Looks like some of the "home" folks are upset as well with the poodle.
I will have more to say about this in future blogs, especially how "lily white" the top advisors to the poodle are. We always here about how the Republicans are racist, yet the Republicans seem to go for the best people they can find, regardless of race or ethnic origins. Looks like the dems are once again taking minotities for granted. - Sailor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)