Vietnamese refugees refer to the month that South Vietnam fell to the North as Black April. Today is the 33rd anniversary of the fall of Saigon, now called by its masters Ho Chi Minh City.

Let’s see what 33-years of Northern “liberation” has brought to Vietnamese there. From the first 14-days of April 2008:
 April 2: The UBCV’s International Buddhist Information Bureau (IBIB) denounced Vietnamese communist police who had raided several UBCV temples, namely Giac Hai in Lam Dong province and Phuoc Hue in Quang Tri province, in preparation for the upcoming government-hosted International Vesak Day.

 April 3: Venerable Thich Thien Minh, in Urgent Notice, No. 2 of the Former Political and Religious Prisoners Association, denounced Bac Lieu provincial officials who had used dirty tricks to harass, slander, blemish, and “publicly denounce” him in the mass media.

 April 4: The Viet Tan Party condemned, in its Press Release No. 15, the communist authorities for having illegally arrested its members Nguyen Tan Anh, Mai Huu Bao and Nguyen Thi Xuan Trang on March 4, 2008, when they arrived from the US for a visit to their party comrades, Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan and Mr Somsak Khunmi, and collaborators Nguyen The Vu and Nguyen Viet Trung, who all are currently held at the B34 prison at 237 Nguyen Van Cu Street in the 1st district of Saigon.

 April 4: Mr. Do Nam Hai was again forced to have another interrogation concerning documents promoting democracy, stored in his computer that the police illegally confiscated on March 27, 2008.

 April 5: Viet Tan party members Nguyen Tan Anh, Mai Huu Bao, and Nguyen Thi Xuan Trang, released under international pressure, were immediately expelled from Vietnam.

 April 8: The UBCV’s IBIB denounced the attempt of the [State-sanctioned] Buddhist Church of Vietnam to take over Giac Hai Temple in Lam Dong province by expelling Venerable Thich Tri Khai from the temple. .

 April 9: A massive force of armed personnel and riot police forces was mobilized to ruthlessly quell a demonstration of the Khmer Krom people in An Giang province demanding the return of confiscated land.

 April 10: The Catholics of Thai Ha were threatened and harassed while they were peacefully praying for the return of the Church’s properties, in the wake of the government’s false accusations and propaganda concerning their peaceful demonstrations.

 April 11: Relatives of dissidents Nguyen Ngoc Quang, Pham Ba Hai, and Vu Hoang Hai denounced, in a RFA interview, the communist government which had illegally held these detainees for over 2 years without trial.

 April 13: A large contingent of police was sent to disrupt a meeting of democracy activists in Hanoi by threatening, slandering and assaulting the attendees; Mr. Le Thanh Tung was afterwards taken away together with a number of victims of injustice.

 April 14: Over 300 people of Ja-Rai ethnicity rallied at a demonstration in Lgia to village, Cho Se district, Gia Lai province, displaying the 3-red-stripes-on-a-yellow-field flag (of the former Republic of Vietnam) and demanding for the return of their land. Many were brutally crushed; others had to flee.

Last December, Israel’s President Shimon Peres greeted the Beijing Olympic by saying:

China built the longest wall in history. Now it is building the largest Olympic Games in history. The wall was meant to conceal China from its enemies, while the Olympic Games are destined to reveal the new China to its friends. Whereas the wall shows the greatness of its land, the Olympics will show the greatness of its spirit.

Instead, the Olympics has served to show off the meanness of China’s spirit.

World leaders and multinational corporate sponsors have rejected boycotting the Olympics, out of various great power and trade motivations. Yet, their motivations are transparent and the increased global inspection of China’s deplorable internal and external policies and actions has served exactly the opposite goal of self-promotion that was China’s goal.

Still, U.S. Jews have decided to take a stand on the side of morality. AP reports:

A wide-ranging group of U.S. Jewish leaders plans to release a statement Wednesday urging Jews worldwide to boycott the Summer Olympics in Beijing, citing China's troubling record on human rights and Tibet….

"We are deeply troubled by China's support for the genocidal government of Sudan; its mistreatment of the people of Tibet; its denial of basic rights to its own citizens; and its provision of missiles to Iran and Syria, and friendship for Hamas," the statement reads.

"Having endured the bitter experience of abandonment by our presumed allies during the Holocaust, we feel a particular obligation to speak out against injustice and persecution today."

Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, past chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, said signers are not alleging that the Chinese government is the equivalent of the Nazi regime, but that China, like Germany in 1936, is trying to use the Olympics as a public relations tool to deflect attention from its record.

However, as JTA reports, they draw a line at a complete boycott:

One of the signatories, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, said the call targeted tourists only and that the organizers did not expect Jewish athletes or Israeli officials to boycott the games.

"This is a moral appeal to Jewish individuals around the world," Yoffie told JTA.

Israel’s Olympics head seems to have taken his page from Avery Brundage at the 1936 Olympics:

The Secretary General of Israel's Olympic Committee, Efraim Singer, slammed international attempts to boycott Beijing Olympic Games Tuesday and joined the demand recently made by other countries urging not to "mix politics with sports."…

In a telephone interview with the Argentinean Jewish organization AJN (Agencia Judía de Noticias) from Beijing, Singer said that the demonstrations staged by human rights organizations and pro-Tibetan activists, "shows that there are people who want to take advantage of the mediatic impact of the Games".

"I think there are other forums for one to express oneself, such as the UN, for instance," Singer stated.

The U.N.! No further comment needed.

Israel has strong trade relations with China, is needful of such economic ties for the strength of its economy to withstand its heavy security costs, and by itself hardly would seem to affect the decisions of the world’s powers.

But, Israel and Jews have earned respect in most reputable quarters for taking moral stances and defending them, at great costs.

Thursday is Yom Hashoah, Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust and Heroism. The heroism refers to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which occurred on this day in 1943. If Never Again is to continue to resonate globally, this Friday offers the opportunity for a more determined and less equivocal moral stance.

For me, My Olympic Dream Is Over. The Olympics do not add to world peace, but state and corporate coffers, and may have outlived their benefit, especially if elemental morality be ignored.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer in Hebrew at the University of California, Santa Cruz, sent the emails below to UCSC's chancellor, George Blumenthal. She asks that he act in the face of the anti-Semitic, anti-American graffiti, reproduced below, that she saw yesterday in a campus building. The provost for Oakes College, where the graffiti was drawn, responded, and she wrote him again. As Tammi notes, this is yet another example of anti-Semitic acts carried out within the vast UC system.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Tammi Benjamin [address redacted]
To: chancellor@ucsc.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:18:49 -0700
Subject: anti-Semitic graffiti at Oakes
Dear Chancellor Blumenthal,

Today I witnessed some very disturbing graffiti drawn with permanent marker on the wall in the hallway outside of Oakes 105. It contained a picture of a plane flying into what appear to be the Twin Towers, with a large Jewish star between them. Underneath the towers is the number "666", a well-known allusion to the mark of Satan, the embodiment of pure evil. (See photograph of graffiti).

It seems to me the anti-Semitic nature of this graffiti makes it not only an act of vandalism but a hate crime. University officials should inform the campus community that a morally reprehensible act has been committed, and that this is totally unacceptable behavior according to campus codes of conduct and state law.

Thank you for your attention to this very disturbing matter.

Sincerely,

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin
Lecturer in Hebrew

Pedreo Castillo, provost of Oakes College, responded:

On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:12 AM, Pedro Castillo wrote:

Dear Ms. Rossman-Benjamin,
Oakes College has seen the graffiti and we contacted the university
police and physical plant on Tuesday, April 30. Thanking you for your concern and we agree with you that this is totally unacceptable.
Thanking you for your concern. Best, Pedro

Pedro Castillo
Provost, Oakes College
University of California, Santa Cruz

To which Rossman-Benjamin responded:

CC: chancellor@ucsc.edu, cpevc@ucsc.edu, sja@ucsc.edu, Susan Welte From: Tammi Benjamin Subject: Re: anti-Semitic graffiti at Oakes Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:11:50 -0700 To: Pedro Castillo

Dear Provost Castillo,

Thank you for your response. I'm pleased that you are aware of the problem, have contacted the university policy, and agree that anti-Semitic graffiti is totally unacceptable. However as you must know, this is far from the first anti-Semitic incident of this nature on our campus. It is therefore essential that you and other administrators take a firm and clear stand on this morally repugnant behavior directed squarely at Jews, and publicize it to the entire campus community. I look forward to hearing such a statement soon.

Sincerely,

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin

I have consistently argued that the War in Iraq is a just and necessary war that liberated 25 million and smashed one of the greatest obstacles to international security. I say we should stay the course until the job is done and General Petraeus is the best one to make that assessment. However in our fashionable milieu where perception equals reality, facts on the ground, rational arguments and truth have given way to the charges “that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.” In late 2005, Norman Podhoretz wrote an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal faithfully attempting to overturn the campaign of distortion and set the record straight on exactly who is responsible for the deception.

Then there was the discovery of 500 chemical munitions by coalition forces in Iraq in June 2006, reports on the use of chemical weapons against our troops, as well as the seizure by Jordanian security of 20 tons of WMD stockpiles originating in Iraq to be used by al Qaeda operatives trained in pre-war Iraq in a planned detonation that would have killed an estimated 80,000 people. Not even such facts on the ground made a difference in penetrating the barrage of deception.

Recently David Horowitz and Ben Johnson co-authored the book, The Party of Defeat, which exposes the prime point of deception, which occurred three months after the invasion of Iraq, when the Democrat Party changed their strategy from support of the war having voted to authorize military force, to a propaganda campaign of deceit and lies to undermine the war and President Bush. I wrote a review for FrontPage Magazine adapted from the introduction to the book and the enlightening essay "Hope for Iraq’s Meanest City" by Michael Totten in City Journal. I hope you find these arguments compelling:

********************************************
At no other time in our nation’s history, other than the period of the Civil War when Democrats supported secession and slavery and Republicans championed freedom, have we been so politically divided. Political unity in wartime has always been an article of faith as rival political parties during the Cold War era upheld the axiom “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Bipartisan unity prevailed even during the Vietnam War as both parties supported the war effort for over a decade and were in accord on military withdrawal when victory seemed no longer possible. Whether we are for the war or against it, we can all agree that it should not be used as a political football for the advantage of one political party over another.

Yet for the first time, opposition to the War in Iraq has become an obsessive partisan effort to lose the war and discredit our Commander in Chief. Wartime bipartisanship has been thrown under the bus. The Democratic Party leadership has crossed the line from constitutionally protected dissent and opposition to willful sabotage. The antiwar opposition is not just the radical fringe and loony leftists marching in the streets burning effigies of President Bush, but has now morphed into the Democratic Party in toto. This is the thesis of the new book The Party of Defeat, by David Horowitz and Ben Johnson. Read more...

• Were you in favor of former president Jimmy Carter’s recent trip to visit with Hamas?
• Do you agree with John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of The Israel Lobby?
• Have you spoken out about Reverend Wright’s comments about Jews and Israel?
• Do you favor Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for president?

These aren’t trick questions, but key to understanding concretely what J Street really represents and whether to take its professions seriously. Carter’s trip lent legitimacy to terrorist Hamas, and Carter’s claim of Hamas concessions were immediately contradicted by Hamas. (See post below) Every mainstream scholar has criticized Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. Even Obama has, finally, after defending him, disassociated himself from Wright. The majority of American Jews vote Democrat, and the majority of them choose Clinton. J Street is a fringe group, at best, and a real harm to American Jews, the US and Israel.

The new anti-AIPAC, J Street, says AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is unrepresentative of American Jews and of the best interests of Israel and the United States.

From J Street’s policy statement:

At its core, our policy platform is based on the view that American interests require robust and strong diplomatic engagement to promote the interests of our allies and potential allies and to check and try to alter the unhelpful actions of our adversaries. We firmly believe that engaging with problematic leaders and states is neither an endorsement of their policies nor is it appeasement.

The executive editor of Salon who supports J Street says that AIPAC’s influence on Congress “intimidated by the moral authority (or moral blackmail)”.

Jonathan Tobin, editor of a Jewish newspaper, calls this “J Street jive”:

The reason why the overwhelming majority of Americans back Israel has little to do with AIPAC's lobbying prowess and everything to do with the fact that most of us rightly see Israel as a democratic ally with Western values, assailed by Arab and Muslim authoritarians and Islamists. Oh, yes, then there is the small detail that a huge slice of the US electorate believe that their Christian faith makes it imperative that they support Israel….

And despite the fact that anti-Israel members of Congress are a minority these days, foes of the Jewish state still make themselves heard with ease in Washington and in the academy. They are, after all, funded by a source that actually dwarfs AIPAC's American Jewish donors: the Saudis and the Persian Gulf states.

That Salon executive editor, says of Rev. Wright:

[B]eyond the fake shock and the all-too-familiar racial politics, what the whole episode reveals is how narrow the range of acceptable discourse remains in this country. This is especially true of anything having to do with patriotism or 9/11 -- which have become virtually interchangeable. Wright's unforgivable sin was that he violated our rigid code of national etiquette. Instead of the requisite "God bless America," he said "God damn America." He said 9/11 was a case of chickens coming home to roost. Now we must all furrow our brows and agree that such dreadful words are anathema and that no presidential candidate can ever have been within earshot of them.

Of Christian supporters of Israel, however, he says: “They're not your real allies.”

CAMERA, in 2001, commented on this one-sided salon:

Similar agitated scapegoating of Israel was to be found in a September 17 piece by Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the online magazine, Salon.com. Kamiya insistently demanded that Israel comply with Arab-Islamic demands. “As long as millions of Islamic and Arab people hate America because of its Mideast policies, we will be in danger,” he explained.

Spare America – take Israel is the thrust of Kamiya’s petition in a rambling, contradictory argument about settlements and Camp David. “There will be no peace for the U. S. until we convince Israel to make peace with the Palestinians,” he states, ignoring that at Camp David, despite Israeli concessions and the importuning of President Clinton, it was the Palestinians who refused to make peace.

As Tobin says of those who haven't learned much since 2001:

Diplomatic charlatans, such as the aforementioned Jimmy Carter, may tirelessly promote, as he did just this week, the idea that Hamas wants peace but no one - not even the Palestinians - believe him. Its goal is not a secret: the destruction of the Jewish state and not merely its withdrawal behind the 1949 armistice lines.

On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority - the body that Israel's government and the Bush administration claim is "moderate" - is powerless to make peace, even if they really want it. But given the role that the P.A., and its Fatah and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade components, play in fomenting hate and terror against Jews and Israel, faith in their good intentions requires a substantial suspension of disbelief.

MORE TO the point, in the aftermath of the crackup of Oslo, the second intifada and the rise of Hamas, the whole idea of American Jewry, as well as Israeli voters being split along "right" and "left" fault lines about peace, is an outdated concept.

The vast majority of both Israelis and American Jews no longer support the idea of holding onto most of the territories. But the concept that more Israeli concessions (on top of the enormous sacrifices in terms of land and blood already made by Israel in the name of peace) will transform the Palestinians into peace partners is discredited. The majority of Israelis would gladly make a land for peace deal. But they now understand that there is currently no one to make it with.

The founders of J Street think they’re cute, because K Street is the home of so many Washington lobbies, and there is no J Street in Washington. There is no J Street anywhere else either but in the dangerous ambitions of extremists. Some supporters may be of Jewish background, or such, but their serious delusions are not those of more than a few whose confusions they seek to promulgate. The rest of us, the overwhelming majority of Jews and non-Jewish Americans, will not be fooled.

It's difficult to keep count of the number of thugs and dictators on whom Jimmy Carter has conferred the imprimatur of a former U.S. president. But the latest, Khaled Mash'al (Mashal), has played his hand in a way that isn't surprising, given his position as leader of the terrorist organization Hamas. In fact, it was predictable, and all but the congenitally anti-American and anti-Israeli would have avoided contact with the vile killer. But not Carter, who continues to sully the name of America, not to mention his own reputation, by conferring his blessings on some of the world's worst "leaders."

Today, the Middle East Research Institute (MEMRI), which is consistently one of the best sources of information on the Middle East, released a transcript and a video of Mashal's latest foray into his version of diplomacy. In a word, his promise for calm is merely tactical. No kidding.

Here's the transcript; all emphases are original:

"If The Siege Is Not Lifted... We Will Explode In The Face Of Everybody"

Khaled Mash'al: "Our only real motive for seeking tahdiah ['calm'] and for our willingness to deal with the Egyptian efforts, which were generated in order to achieve a tahdiah, with full knowledge of the Americans, of Rice, and David Welch, and through the efforts Egypt has exerted vis-à-vis the Israeli side, is to put an end to the aggression against our people in Gaza and the West Bank, and to get the siege lifted and the border crossings opened.

"Let me tell you that without all this, all options will be available for us. When the [Egyptian] minister Omar Sleiman comes, he will meet with the other factions, in order to develop a general Palestinian position. Then he will move on to the Israeli occupation, and if they accept [the tahdiah], we are ready, but if the Israelis reject it, then it was not us who offered them this tahdiah to begin with, and the Israeli rejection will be vis-à-vis Egypt.

"Egypt bears the responsibility, and no one in the world will be able to blame us when we take two measures: We will defend our people and our land in the face of the Israeli aggression, and we [will carry out] the explosion in Gaza, of which we have warned. Yes, if the siege is not lifted, the Gaza Strip will explode in the face of all those besieging it."

Interviewer: "Including the Egyptians?"

Khaled Mash'al: "No, we don't blame the Egyptian for this. We will explode in the face of everybody. By 'explosion,' I mean that the Palestinian people will choose its own options." [...]

"The Tahdiah is a Tactical Means; It Is a Step Within the Resistance, And Is Not Detached From It"

"People should not assume that in the management of this conflict, we are moving from a phase of resistance and battles to a phase of calm. No. According to our concept of the management of this conflict, the tahdiah is a tactical means. It is a step within the resistance and is not detached from it.

"It is only natural for any resistance movement, which cares about the interests of its people, to bear in mind the general Palestinian condition. At times, it generates an escalation, and at times, it withdraws a little. It is a process of ebb and flow, going up and down. This is how you run a battle. Hamas is renowned for this.

"In 2003, we began a tahdiah, and later renewed the operations. The same thing happened following 2005. Hamas conducted resistance from within the government, as well as when it was not in the government. This is a method of conflict management.

[...]

"My brother Muhammad, if a tahdiah is achieved - the Gaza Strip was, is, and will continue to be part of this homeland. People in Gaza would be able to recover, and the siege would be over. This would be an accomplishment.

[...]

"They are worried that Hamas and the other resistance factions will use the tahdiah to grow stronger, both in terms of weapons and training, and that the people will recover and prepare for the next round of resistance, because we are talking about a tactical tahdiah, within the constraints I have mentioned. But the resistance, in principle, is not directed against the aggression only. In principle, the resistance is directed against the occupation. As long as there is occupation, there must be resistance."

"In The Face Of Resistance, In The Battlefield, Israel Will Be Forced To [Withdraw]"

Interviewer: "Israel is not so naïve that it would give you what you want, just like that, so that you can recover, and prepare for the next round. What would make Israel do this, notwithstanding all the important things you just said?"

Khaled Mash'al: "Herein lies the important paradox, my brother Muhammad. At the negotiating table, since Israel holds all, or most, of the cards, Israel will not give us anything. It is not naïve, and will not give anything out of generosity. But in the face of resistance, in the battlefield, Israel will be forced to do so. Otherwise, what made Israel reach the April '96 understanding with Hizbullah? What made it leave South Lebanon? What made it leave Gaza? It did not withdraw as a result of any understandings. The balance of power on the ground forces Israel to do so."

[...]

Interviewer: "Carter stated on your behalf - and later you clarified this - that you agree that if President Mahmoud Abbas reaches a settlement, a referendum would be held on it following a national reconciliation. You agree to accept the results of the referendum, even if they do not reflect your views. This was considered a sign of openness and moderation on the part of Hamas.

"However, shortly afterwards, Sami Abu Zuhri said, 'We are not obliged to accept the results of this referendum.' There were contradictory statements within Hamas. We would like a clarification.

"If Mahmoud Abbas reaches a settlement, which he himself accepts, and it is preceded by a national reconciliation, and a referendum is held over it among the Palestinian people - will you accept the results, yes or no?"

"[A] Referendum [Over A Settlement Reached By Abbas] Must Include All Our People, At Home And Abroad - Not Just Within [Palestine]"
Khaled Mash'al: "Look, brother Muhammad, everything you said represents different angles of the same issue, and not different positions within Hamas. First of all, negotiations must be held on the basis of the Palestinian rights. Eventually presenting the results for ratification is not enough. From the very beginning, the Palestinian negotiator must adhere to the [2006] National Agreement Document, and must negotiate on the basis of the rights listed in it. Ignoring these rights is tantamount to violating the documents. This document is a complete package deal, and one cannot deal with only parts of it.

"Secondly, as you have said, this must take place following a reconciliation. Today, the negotiations are held in the shadow of division. Moreover, while all the doors are open for negotiations [with Israel], all the doors for [Palestinian] reconciliation are closed. You saw what happened following the San'a Declaration. When the U.S. and Israel threatened the Palestinian president, the [Fatah] withdrew from what they had signed in San'a.

[...]

"Thirdly, the referendum must include all our people, home and abroad - not just within [Palestine]."

Interviewer: "Or else there should be new election for the Palestinian National Council."

Khaled Mash'al: "Yes. When all these terms are met, nobody in Hamas - or any Palestinian leader - will have any concern. We will have confidence in the choices of the Palestinian people."

Interviewer: "Even if you disagree with them?"

Khaled Mash'al: "Yes. Brother Muhammad, I will accept the will of the Palestinian people, as reflected in free elections to the Palestinian National Council, according to terms on which we will agree, or in a free referendum, home and abroad. I respect and accept the rules of the democratic game."

[...]

Interviewer: "You say: We are ready to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, within a certain settlement, but we will not recognize Israel. To tell you the truth, it is difficult to accept such a formula. Israel is not likely to give you - whether to Hamas or to the Palestinian leadership, since this is the situation right now - a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem at its capital, and allow the return of the refugees, while you say to Israel: Bye-bye, I won't recognize you.

"Why should Israel do this? After all, it is not a charity association. Why should Israel give you all this, and I say 'give you,' because this is the situation right now..."

"The Formula Of Recognizing Israel In Advance, Which Was Adopted By Some Palestinians And Arabs - What Results Did It Yield?"

Khaled Mash'al: "This is a logical question in these difficult times, when things are confused. Brother Muhammad, all the formulas are difficult. The formula of recognizing Israel in advance, which was adopted by some Palestinians and Arabs - what results did it yield? Some people recognized Israel, and discussed normalization of relations, coexistence, and so on. What was the result when we turned to this formula, which seems easier? Did it unravel the secrets of the conflict? Did it drive Israel to respect the Palestinian and Arab will? Did Israel give Yasser Arafat a state, or did it kill him? They killed Yasser Arafat just because he maneuvered between the negotiations game and the game of the Intifada and resistance.

"Now, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas is proceeding along a single highway - negotiations. He recognized Israel and everything, but what was the result? Nothing."

I've been blessed to know Paul McNellis for decades. If you've ever wavered in your faith as a person, as a teacher, as a patriot, as a believer in the divine, you must watch this YouTube video of the tributes paid to Paul McNellis by his students at Boston College, who awarded him the teacher of the year award.

As a combat advisor in Vietnam, AP freelancer there, refugee worker on the Cambodian frontier during the Killing Fields, Jesuit priest, and philosophy professor at Boston College, Paul has been a savior and inspiration.

We at Democracy-Project are, also, fortunate to share his wisdom.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5687537074734006982&hl=en

Some transcribed excerpts from students:
* A model to me of what it means to be a man and priest, and if I can give myself to others half as well I'll be doing pretty good

* You've been an inspiration, incredible mentor and friend to so many students

* There's no one on this campus who gives more of himself. It's because of priests like you that we call priests "father"

* You've excelled at serving your country and G-d

I find this video hard to watch without tearing up. The song "It's a beautiful day" accompanies. It's a beautiful life.

G-d bless Fr. Paul McNellis.

When last I wrote about Bev Perlson, founder of Band of Mothers, moms of servicemembers who defend their children's contributions and sacrifices, she had cops sicced on her by John Murtha’s minions, for daring to demand he meet with pro-Iraq mission vets.

Now, Bev is confronting Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the Code Pink matrons who attack our mission and its members. Not only do they dress themselves funny, but their names are ironicly descriptive.

Bev writes me:

Suzi "Medea" Benjamin does not like this sign. Her court jesters told me this past weekend in New Jersey that Suzi loves children and wants our Soldiers to stop killing them. Medea Suzi herself left her luncheon to came out to see this sign. Did you know, Medea Suzi is "fond" of all of us and wants to have dialog.........

Sociopaths can be very charming and their dialog is their tool of manipulation, remember Ted Bundy!

This sign should become the signature sign for all to carry when confronting Medea Suzi and her Code Pink Panthers. Suzi Benjamin changed her name to "Medea" after the woman in Greek Mythology who got mad at her husband so she murdered her children. Suzi, being the sociopath that she is, liked this story so much she renamed herself "Medea".

Medea Suzi is quite frustrated with this mother as I will not engage in a dialog with her. Always remember: Sociopaths get very frustrated when you do not allow them to manipulate you. They also get highly agitated when you expose them for who they are.

Like I've said before, I raised 3 children myself and nobody ever pushed my kids around. This mother's protective instincts are fully charged and engaged by Medea Suzi, and all mothers Beware: Medea Suzi is pure evil and crazy like a fox.


Beverly Perlson
The Band of Mothers

Bev Perlson writes me: "I have never had the Police called on me until I started standing up to the likes of John Murtha and Medea Suzi!"

Gathering Of Eagles has the story:

Victory in New Jersey April 28, 2008 In solidarity with our friends in Berkeley, on Sunday, April 27th, The Gathering of Eagles told Susie Benjamin and her friends from Code Pink that they were not welcome in New Jersey. What a great day for Eagles!...

Code Pink’s actual feelings about free speech for all except themselves, came within the first 15 minutes of their typically late arrival with a call to the police to remove the Eagles from the PUBLIC street in front of the hotel....

Three police cars arrived and, after confirming that the Eagles were legally entitled to be there and were causing no disruption and merely exercising free speech, the police bid us a friendly good-bye, much to the dismay of the “Peace” advocates.

While the police were initially assessing the situation, Susie Benjamin came down the driveway to chat with the Eagles. While I can not read her twisted little mind, I can only assume she chose that timeframe for one of two reasons (or possibly both) 1) She is so intimidated by us she needs police nearby or she is too chicken to talk 2) She hoped to provoke a situation with the police there to create a problem.

As to the second, she is unable to ruffle Eagle feathers for even a moment. Among the highlights of the day was Susie’s interaction with Bev Perlson. Bev, fluent in Susie doublespeak, did not put up with one moment of her cloying, nauseating hippispeak. We all know the disgusting, tacky and tasteless methods that Code Pink uses to get their message out when the cameras are rolling and they have numbers behind them. In a gaggle of 3 with only one of our cameras rolling, Susie attempts to be a rational, calm and a warm and fuzzy mother earth communicator. What she can not fail to hide, however, is her inherent hatred for our country or her own contempt for any and all who do not agree with her. She can not make any Eagle forget that she and her minions sent $600K to the insurgents to embolden the enemy and harm our men and women in the military.

No Eagle will forget, while she pastes a sickening smile on her face, that she advocates the murder of our soldiers.

Bev, in her usual direct and passionate voice, stood solidly with our troops and did not give Susie one inch of wiggle room. Susie, in contrast, was a bundle of contradicting statements and nauseating “peacespeak” that was heavy on flowery language and light on substance. The baloney detector was in such overload that an 11 year old watching the exchange turned to me and said, “Mom, Susie is trying to pretend like she is a calm nice person…but the words coming out of her mouth are so hateful, she can’t hid who she really is.” That is one smart kid if I do say so myself.

When it was clear to Susie that Bev had her number and was going to stick to facts and use Susie’s own history of heinous and ugly public remarks, Susie slinked down the street in an effort to engage other Eagles. Again, she failed to bait a single Eagle despite her use of made up statistics and truly outrageous accusations. Her frustration level was palpable and she and her minions were clearly losing composure. They finally gave up, consistently drowned out by the steady stream of honks directed at the Eagles, and returned to the lunch to consume tofurkey or some other Vegan delicacy.

Three local papers covered the event and again, to the dismay of those inside, they spent more time outside with us than inside with them.

The most meaningful moment came when a car pulled over onto the shoulder in front of us and rolled down his window. Bracing for a heckling hippie, we were all touched to meet an Iraqi War Veteran, literally just returning home with his sack in the backseat of his car. He drew Bev over to his window and thanked her, and the rest of the Eagles, for coming out to stand against the insurgency at home, and supporting our troops. His thanks made the entire day worth it all.

Video of the day will be forthcoming.

More at Gateway Pundit, with one of the newspaper reports.

Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News anchor, wonders “What Times is it?” as he peruses its Sunday edition and finds “I read that the New York Times Sunday (and weekday) circulation is down…it's tough to figure out exactly what readers the paper is speaking to, or seeking.”

The featured articles are all about various sexual antics and proclivities.

Instead, Williams found mental stimulation preferable from the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan, from watching the race at Talladega, and spending quality time with his family instead of trooping to the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Next, Williams may also figure out what’s causing viewership declines to network news shows. The bell rings loud enough for you, as well.

Universal health care proposals are lemons, that proponents try to turn into “kool-aid” for others to drink. But, the majority isn’t buying it, knowing their health care and pockets are endangered.

Those pushing for government-run universal health care coverage have tasted bitter medicine the past year, as in prior years, and likely for years to come. Although polls frequently show some willingness toward universal care ideas, other polls and voters at the ballot-box consistently have the majority rejecting themselves changing or being charged for others’ insurance, and recognizing universal care proposals are unaffordable further budget-busters that will impact other vital or desirable public services.

California, over 12% of the US population, under a pandering Republican governor and overwhelming majority Democrat legislature was thought to be heading the Massachusetts way, until the inconvenient fact of California’s $10-$14-billion budget deficit intruded, along with Democrat die-hards who felt it didn’t go far enough toward a single-payer government-run system. The Massachusetts experiment is heavily in the red, despite rosier budget predictions in launching it.

Yet, the San Diego Union-Tribune, front-pages the California Field poll as showing “strong support for the defeated proposal. The nonpartisan poll found that California's registered voters are increasingly worried about losing health coverage, having to pay more out-of-pocket costs for health care and losing access to quality doctors.”

That translates, according to the article, into “strong support for the major elements of a plan backed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles.”

The U-T article fails to report the words of the poll itself, that:

Voters skeptical about some elements of the health reform plan
Majorities of voters expressed some concerns with several elements of the health reform plan. For example, two in three voters (67%) agreed that the proposed new tax revenues designed to help the state pay for the costs of covering more people would not be enough to keep up with rising health care costs. In addition, 62% agreed that there were no real guarantees that the insurance policies which uninsured, moderate income people would be required to buy would have been affordable.

Nor does the U-T article report the national Gallup Poll results.

Despite ever-increasing healthcare costs and widespread dissatisfaction with the U.S. healthcare system, a majority of Americans remain satisfied with what they pay for their own healthcare, the quality of the healthcare they receive, and their healthcare coverage.

Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds 57% of Americans saying they are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, while 39% are dissatisfied. These percentages have been quite stable in recent years, after a slight dip in reported satisfaction between 2001 (64%) and 2002 (58%)….

Americans are quite happy with their health plans. Eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. Slightly less, 70%, say their healthcare coverage is excellent or good. These ratings have been fairly stable in the seven years in which Gallup's Healthcare survey has been conducted.

The National Institute For Health Care Management just released an analysis for “Understanding The Uninsured.” Twenty-two percent of the uninsured are non-citizens. Legal immigrants are supposed to be either self or sponsor-supported. Twenty-six percent of the uninsured are already eligible for public programs, but don’t avail themselves of them. Thirty-nine percent earn over 400% of the federal poverty guideline, and another thirty percent earn over 200%. If assets were included, the numbers would likely be larger. They, obviously, have other priorities for personal spending than responsibility for their own health insurance.

The NIHCM report recognizes that expanding government coverage to those above poverty levels displaces existing private insurance coverage for up to 60%. The report also recognizes that one of the major elements of universal care proposals, community rating which levels premiums across age groups, discourages “young adults [31% are uninsured] to purchase coverage without subsidizing costs for older, sicker enrollees.”

Universal health care proponents, even moreso single-payer government program proponents, can’t hide or mask the flavor of their “kool-aid” based on lemons. Most voters know better, even if some newspapers don’t or ignore the bitter taste – for others.

John McCain stands apart from Democrats on health care: No big government approaches.

An international conference on the depletion of rainforests was just held in, of all places, Hanoi:

The loss of these biodiversity hot spots, much of it driven by the illegal timber trade and the growth of oil palm, biofuel and rubber plantations, is worsening global warming, species loss and poverty, they said….

Over-logging in Southeast Asia caused 19 percent of global rainforest loss in 2005, Myers said, compared to cattle ranching -- once a leading cause, mainly in South America -- which now caused five percent of world losses.

The rapid growth of palm oil and other plantations accounted for 22 percent, and slash-and-burn farming, unsustainable as more poor people exploit fast-shrinking forests, caused 54 percent of rainforest destruction, he [Oxford University's Professor Norman Myers, keynote speaker at the Asia-Pacific Forestry Week conference in Hanoi] said….

Ecologists stress that new forests in China, India and Vietnam are man-made plantations lacking high varieties of plant and animal species.

"Many plantations, in terms of biodiversity, are green concrete," said Peter Walpole, head of the non-profit Asia Forest Network….

"The history of logging in Southeast Asia has been under the auspices of the military and of political families," Walpole said. "If you look at how Cambodia has been logged, this cannot happen without military acknowledgement….

Vietnam was named as a major hub for illegally-logged timber from neighbouring Laos in a recent report by Britain's Environmental Investigation Agency and Indonesian group Telapak -- a claim Hanoi has strenuously denied.

The denuding of Laos’ forests is, in fact, financed by Vietnamese officials, and from other countries, profiting from its control of enterprises.

"Vietnam's booming economy and demand for cheap furniture in the West is driving rapid deforestation" in Laos, Julian Newman of the Britain-based Environmental Investigation Agency said at a news conference.

The group showed a video of fleets of trucks laden with logs crossing the border into Vietnam from Laos, which has banned the export of logs and sawn timber.

Every year, an estimated 17.6 million cubic feet of logs are smuggled across the border after false documents are produced and bribes paid, the group said….

Posing as investors, EIA staffers met one Thai businessman who bragged of paying bribes to senior Lao military officials to secure timber potentially worth $500 million, the group said.

To add to the irony of this meeting being held in Hanoi, Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister told the conference, in contradiction to Hanoi’s persecution and uprooting of Montegnards in the Central Highlands, that:

As forests were a major source of income for ethnic minority people and helped eradicate hunger and reduce poverty, the Government had in recent years made important efforts to provide use rights over forest resources for local communities. This had resulted in more jobs and boosted incomes for local people, especially ethnic minorities, Hai said.

Last November:

The region, which includes the Central Highlands coffee belt, has been hit hard by storms and floods since early October, killing nearly 200 people, causing property and crop damage of $300 million and delaying the coffee harvest by two weeks.

However, as an expert in Southeast Asian agriculture wrote me, Vietnam having already denuded its own rainforests:

Some of the floods and deaths in the Central Highlands can probably be attributed to the deforestation. A Vietnamese friend of mine [identity obscured to avoid his ID by Hanoi] and has been able to get into the Central Highlands without permission from the communists. He reports widespread deforestation, flooding, erosion, run-off, pollution of streams, and the drying up of wells and streams due to the deforestation. We (myself included) have offered advice to the Vietnamese on how this damage can be mitigated by planting contour hedgerows Vetiver grass (google it), that has roots that go as deep as 13 ft., but to no avail.

Barack Obama says he will vote in the Senate for General Petraeus’ confirmation as commander for US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia.

"I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq…."I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years," Obama said. "It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say."

Needless to say, those who recall Obama’s opposition to the “surge” and Obama’s continued demand that US forces be quickly withdrawn from Iraq are not befuddled:

"Obama also said it would be 'stupid' to ignore commanders on the ground in Iraq, yet his withdrawal strategy does exactly that," Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant said in an e-mail. "If Obama isn't ready to answer tough questions, how can he be ready to be commander in chief?"

Also, Obama's willingness to abandon Iraq may not sit well with Russia either. The Russian Foreign Minister says, according to Novosti:

There can be no question of foreign troops being withdrawn from Iraq at present, Russia's foreign minister said on Tuesday.

"Iraq's law enforcement structures are not in a position to assume complete responsibility for ensuring security in the country and to effectively counter terrorist groups," Sergei Lavrov told an international conference on Iraq in Kuwait City.

He said that although some successes had been achieved in the security sphere, the situation remained volatile.

"Positive changes are yet to be irreversible. Consider the recent fighting in Basra and Baghdad, the echo of which is still resounding [throughout the country], and the latest bomb attacks in the country's central provinces, which have claimed dozens of lives," he said.

Obama's willingness to surrender to terrorists parallels his willingness to surrender his few remaining crumbs of honesty. Even Russia, not a paradigm of integrity in its governance, recognizes how obtuse Obama may be if elected.

Richard Fernandez, at Belmont Club, adds:

Yes, Petraeus has done a "good tactical job". Now if he would only leave strategy to Barack Obama and work out the logistics of retreat -- he's good tactically, you know -- then all's well.

NOT!

West Point Evening Lecture
U.S. Military Academy - New York
As Prepared for Delivery by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, U.S. Military Academy, New York
Monday, April 21, 2008
[omitted intro paragraphs]
No doubt many of you have studied Eisenhower during your time here. Last year, I read Partners in Command, a book by Mark Perry. It is an account of how the unique relationship between Eisenhower and General George Marshall played a significant role in the American victory in World War II, and laid the foundations for future success in the earliest years of the Cold War.

Eisenhower and Marshall, of course, are legends – icons etched in granite. Their portraits hang in my office. One of the things I found compelling in Partners in Command is how they were both influenced by another senior Army officer who is not nearly as well-known.

His name is Fox Conner – a tutor and mentor to both men. Conner and Marshall first became friends when they served together on the staff of General Blackjack Pershing during World War I. In the 1920s, Eisenhower served as staff assistant under Brigadier General Conner in the Panama Canal Zone. From Conner, Marshall and Eisenhower learned much about leadership and the conduct of war.

Conner had three principles or rules of war for a democracy that he imparted to Eisenhower and Marshall. They were:
Never fight unless you have to;
Never fight alone; and
Never fight for long.

All things being equal, these principles are pretty straightforward and strategically sound. We’ve heard variants of them in the decades since – the Powell Doctrine being the most famous of recent times.
But, of course, all things are not equal, particularly when you think about the range and complexity of the threats facing America today – from the wars we are in to the conflicts we are most likely to fight. So, I’d like to discuss how you should think about applying Fox Conner’s three axioms to the security challenges of the 21st century – challenges where you will be on the front line.

“Never go to war unless you have to.”
That one should only go to war as a last resort has long been a principle of civilized people – we know its horrors and costs. War is by nature unpredictable and uncontrollable. Winston Churchill wrote in January 1942, “Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe that any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter… [O]nce the signal is given, [the statesman] is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.”

In a dictatorship, the government can force the population to fall in behind the war effort, at least for some time. The nature of democracy, however, limits a country’s ability to wage war – and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, with perhaps the exception of World War II, every conflict in America’s history has been divisive and controversial here at home. Contrary to what General Patton said in his pep talks, most real Americans do NOT love to fight.

Consider the conflicts today. Afghanistan is widely viewed as a war of necessity – striking back at the staging ground of the perpetrators of September 11th. The Iraq campaign – while justified, in my view – is seen differently by many people. Two weeks ago, I testified before the Congress on the Iraq war. I observed that we were attacked at home in 2001 from Afghanistan, and we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure because we mistakenly turned our backs on Afghanistan after the Soviet troops left in the late 1980s. We made a strategic mistake in the end game of that war. If we get the end game wrong in Iraq, I told the Congress, the consequences will be far worse.

It is a hard sell to say we must sustain the fight in Iraq right now, and continue to absorb the high financial and human costs of this struggle, in order to avoid an even uglier fight or even greater danger to our country in the future. But we have Afghanistan to remind us that those are not just hypothetical risks.

Conner’s axiom – never fight unless you have to – looms over policy discussions today on rogue nations like Iran that support terrorism, that is a destabilizing force throughout the Middle East and Southwest Asia and, in my judgment, is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need and, in fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels. But the military option must be kept on the table given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat – either directly or through proliferation.

And then there is the threat posed by violent jihadist networks. The doctrine of pre-emption has been criticized in some quarters. But it is an answer to legitimate questions: With the possibility of the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical materials, and the willingness of terrorists to use them without warning, can we wait to respond until after a catastrophic attack is either imminent or has already occurred? Given the importance of public opinion and public support, how does one justify military action to prevent something that might happen tomorrow or several years down the road?

While “never fight unless you have to” does not preclude pre-emption, after our experience with flawed information regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, how high must the threshold of confidence in our intelligence have to be to justify – at home and abroad – a pre-emptive or preventive war?

Conner’s second axiom was, “Never fight alone.”
He recognized from the onset that the way World War I ended – in particular, the terms of the Versailles Treaty – made another major conflict with Germany almost inevitable. Victory would require a strong partnership of the Anglo-American democracies, and the most successful Army officers would have to adapt to working with allies and partners. Eisenhower and Marshall executed this concept brilliantly in World War II – despite the fact that, as one historian wrote about allied generals, Eisenhower had to deal with “as fractious and dysfunctional a group of egomaniacs as any war had even seen.”

Nonetheless, as Perry writes, “Eisenhower was a commander who believed that building and maintaining an international coalition of democracies was not a political nicety…but a matter of national survival.” And he brought this conviction to the founding of NATO.
But what do you do when, as is the case today with NATO in Afghanistan, some of your allies don’t want to fight? Or they impose caveats on where, when, and how their forces may be used? Or their defense budgets are too small as a share of national wealth to provide a substantial contribution? Not counting the United States, NATO has more than two million men and women in uniform, yet we struggle to sustain the deployment of less than 30,000 non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and are forced to scrounge, hat in hand, to replace a few helicopters.

In August 1998, after the terrorist bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, I wrote an op-ed about terrorism and national priorities for the New York Times. I noted that taking a more aggressive approach to terrorism would, in virtually all cases, require America to “act violently and alone.” Even after September 11th, and a string of attacks in Europe and elsewhere, the publics of many of our democratic allies view the terror threat in a fundamentally different way than we do – and this continues to be a real obstacle with regard to Afghanistan and other issues.

But as Churchill said, the only thing worse than having allies is not having them at all. They provide balance, credibility, and legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. In the case of Afghanistan, one should never discount the power of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful democracies coming together – as they did in Bucharest three weeks ago – to reaffirm publicly their commitment to this mission. Nor, above all, should we forget the superb performance in combat and sacrifices of allies like the British, Canadians, Australians, Danes, Dutch, and others.

Indeed, just about every threat to our security in the years ahead will require working with or through other nations. Success in the war on terror will depend less on the fighting we do ourselves, and more on how well we support our allies and partners in the moderate Muslim world and elsewhere. In fact, from the standpoint of America’s national security, the most important assignment in your military career may not necessarily be commanding U.S. soldiers, but advising or mentoring the troops of other nations as they battle forces of terror and instability within their own borders.

Finally, Fox Conner said, “Never fight for long.”
According to Perry, General Conner believed that “American lives were precious, and no democracy, no matter how pressed, could afford to try the patience of its people.” Early on, Conner instilled the idea in both Eisenhower and Marshall of finding the enemy, fighting the enemy, and defeating the enemy, all within a short timeframe.
In World War II, the American people had already begun to lose patience by the fall of 1944, when the lightning dash across the plains of France following D-Day gave way to a soggy, bloody stalemate along Germany’s western border. And that was only two-and-a-half years after Pearl Harbor.

Eisenhower no doubt had this in mind when he became president during the 3rd year of the Korean War. He believed that the United States – and the American people – could not tolerate being bogged down in a bloody, interminable stalemate in northeast Asia while the Soviets menaced elsewhere, particularly in Europe. Eisenhower was even willing to threaten the nuclear option to bring that conflict to a close.

It’s now been six-and-a-half years since the attacks of September 11th, and we just marked the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. For America, this has been the second longest war since the Revolutionary War, and the first since then to be fought throughout with an all-volunteer force. In Iraq and Afghanistan, initial quick military successes have led to protracted stability and reconstruction campaigns against brutal and adaptive insurgencies and terrorists. This has tested the mettle of our military and the patience of our people in ways we haven’t seen in more than a generation.

At the turn of the 21st century, the U.S. armed forces were still organized, trained, and equipped to fight short, large-scale conventional wars, not the long, messy, unconventional operations that proliferated following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The same traditional orientation was true of our procurement procedures, military health care, and more. The current campaign has gone on longer, and has been more difficult, than anyone expected or prepared for at the start. And so we’ve had to scramble to position ourselves for success over the long haul, which I believe we are doing.
A drawdown of U.S. force levels in Iraq is inevitable over time – the debate you hear in Washington is largely about pacing. But the kind of enemy we face today – violent jihadist networks – will not allow us to remain at peace. What has been called the “Long War” is likely to be many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world in differing degrees of size and intensity. This generational challenge cannot be wished away or put on a timetable. There are no exit strategies. To paraphrase the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, we may not be interested in the long war, but the long war is interested in us.
How America’s military and civilian leadership grapples with these transcendent issues and dilemmas will determine how, where, and when you may be sent into battle in the years ahead.

In discussing Fox Conner’s three axioms, I’ve raised questions and provided few, if any, answers. And that is the point. It is important that you think about all this, not just at the Academy, but through your military careers, and come to your own conclusions.

In order to succeed in the asymmetric battlefields of the 21st century – the dominant combat environment in the decades to come, in my view – our Army will require leaders of uncommon agility, resourcefulness, and imagination; leaders willing and able to think and act creatively and decisively in a different kind of world and a different kind of conflict than we have prepared for over the last six decades.

One thing will remain the same. We will still need men and women in uniform to call things as they see them and tell their subordinates and superiors alike what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.

Here, too, Marshall in particular is a worthy role model. In late 1917, during World War I, the U.S. military staff in France was conducting a combat exercise for the American Expeditionary Force commander. General Pershing was in a foul mood. He dismissed critiques from one subordinate officer after another, and stalked off. But then-Captain Marshall took the arm of the four-star general, turned him around, and told him how the problems they were having resulted from not receiving a necessary manual from the American headquarters – Pershing’s headquarters. The commander said, “You know we have our troubles.” Marshall replied, “Yes, I know you do General… But ours are immediate and every day and have to be solved before night.”

After the meeting, Marshall was approached by other officers offering condolences for the fact he was almost sure to be fired and sent off to the front line. Instead, Marshall became a valued advisor to Pershing, and Pershing a valued mentor to Marshall.

Twenty years later, then-General Marshall was sitting in the White House with President Roosevelt and all of his top advisors and Cabinet secretaries. War in Europe was looming, but still a distant possibility for an isolated America. In that meeting, Roosevelt proposed that the U.S. Army – which at that time ranked in size somewhere between that of Switzerland and Portugal – should be of lowest priority for funding and industry. FDR’s advisors nodded. Building an Army could wait.

Then FDR, looking for the military’s imprimatur to his decision, said: “Don’t you think so George?” Marshall, who did not like being called by his first name, said: “I am sorry, Mr. President, but I don’t agree with that at all.” The room went silent. The Treasury Secretary told Marshall afterwards: “Well, it’s been nice knowing you.” It was not too much later that Marshall became Army chief of staff.

There are other more recent examples of senior officers speaking frankly to their civilian leaders. Just before the ground war started against Iraq in February 1991, General Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with the President, the first President Bush. I was there in the Oval Office. Colin looked the President in the eye and said words to this effect: “We are about to go to war. We may suffer thousands of casualties. If we do, are you prepared to drive on to victory? Will you stay the course?” Colin wanted the President to face hard reality. The President gave the right answer.

I should note at this point, that in my 16 months as Secretary of Defense, I have changed several important decisions because of general officers disagreeing with me and persuading me of a better course of action. For example, at one point I had decided to shake up a particular command by appointing commander from a different service than had ever held the post. A senior service chief persuaded me to change my mind.

On trips to the front, I’ve also made it a priority to meet and hear from small groups of soldiers ranging from junior enlisted to field-grade officers. Their input has been invaluable and shaped my thinking and decisions as well. All in senior positions should listen to enlisted soldiers, NCOs, and company and field-grade officers. They are the ones on the front line, and they know the real story.
More broadly, if as an officer you don’t tell blunt truths – or create an environment where candor is encouraged – then you’ve done yourself and the institution a disservice. This admonition goes back beyond the roots of our republic. Sir Francis Bacon was a 17th century jurist and philosopher, as well as a confidante, and senior minister of England’s King James. He gave this advice to a protégé looking to follow in his steps at court: “Remember well the great trust you have undertaken; you are as a continual sentinel, always to stand upon your watch to give [the King] true intelligence. If you flatter him, you betray him.”

In Marshall’s case, he was able to forge a bond of trust with Roosevelt not only because his civilian boss could count on his candor, but also because once a decision was made, FDR could also count on Marshall to do his utmost to carry out a policy – even if he disagreed with it – and make it work. This is important, because the two men clashed time and time again in the years that followed – ranging from yet more matters of war production to whether the allies should defer an invasion onto mainland Europe.

Consider the situation in mid-1940. The Germans had just overrun France and the Battle of Britain was about to begin. FDR believed that rushing arms and equipment to Britain, including half of America’s bomber production, should be the top priority in order to save our ally. Marshall believed rearming the United States should come first. Roosevelt overruled Marshall and others and came down with what most historians consider the correct decision – to do what was necessary to keep England alive.

The significant thing is what did not happen next: there was a powerful domestic constituency for Marshall’s position among a whole host of newspapers, congressmen, and lobbies. Yet Marshall did not exploit and use them. There were no overtures to friendly committee chairmen, no leaks to sympathetic reporters, no ghostwritten editorials in newspapers, no coalition building with advocacy groups. Marshall and his colleagues made the policy work – and kept England alive.

In the ensuing decades, a large, permanent military establishment emerged as a result of the Cold War – an establishment that forged deep ties to the Congress and industry. Over the years, senior officers have, from time to time, been tempted to use these ties to do end runs around the civilian leadership, particularly during disputes over the purchase of major weapons systems. This temptation should and must be resisted.

Marshall has been recognized as the textbook model for the way military officers should handle disagreements with superiors, and in particular the civilians vested with control of the armed forces by our Constitution. Your duties as an officer are:
• To provide blunt, candid advice always;
• To keep disagreements private;
• To implement faithfully decisions that go against you.

As with Fox Conner’s lessons of war, these principles are a solid starting point for dealing with issues of candor, dissent, and duty. But like Conner’s axioms, applying these principles to the situations military leaders face today and in the future is a good deal more complicated.

World War II was America’s last straightforward, conventional conflict that ended in the unconditional surrender of the other side. The military campaigns since – from Korea, to Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq today – have been frustrating, controversial efforts for the American public and for the U.S. armed forces. Each conflict prompted debates over whether senior military officers were being too deferential or not deferential enough to civilians, and whether civilians in turn were either too receptive, or not receptive enough to military advice.

In the absence of clear lines of advance or retreat on the battlefield, each conflict prompted our nation’s senior civilian and military leadership to seek the support of an increasingly skeptical American public using a variety of criteria and metrics – from enemy body counts to voting turnout. Then, as now, the American people relied especially on the candor and credibility of military leaders in order to judge how well a campaign is going, and whether the effort should continue.

Candor and credibility remain indispensable because we will see yet more irregular and difficult conflicts of varying types in the years ahead. Conflicts where the traditional duties of an officer are accompanied by real dilemmas – dilemmas posed by a non-linear environment made up of civilians, detainees, contractors, embedded media, and an adversary that does not wear uniforms or obey the laws of war. An adversary that could be your enemy on one day or, as we’ve seen in Iraq’s Anbar Province, your partner the next.

Many of you have gone over some of these scenarios in ethics classes, or heard the accounts from returning veterans. A situation where, for example, a beloved platoon sergeant is killed by a sniper shot believed fired from a house by the side of the road. When the soldiers arrive, the sniper is gone, but the old lady who lives in the house still remains. The battalion and brigade commands pass down orders to demolish the house – to teach enemy sympathizers a lesson and take away a possible sniper position. The platoon leader conducts an investigation and concludes this course of action is counterproductive. The lieutenant makes the call not to destroy the house, and his C.O. stands by him. This is a true story from Iraq – a campaign that has been dubbed the “captain’s war” because, as in any counterinsurgency, so much of the decisive edge is provided by the initiative and judgment of junior officers.

When you are commissioned, it will all too quickly be your judgment and your leadership that your soldiers will rely on. As you prepare for this awesome responsibility, learn all the lessons you can here from heroes with real world experience and wisdom in and out of the classroom – people like Master Sergeant Reginald Butler.

And speaking of lessons learned, I should note that during my time as Secretary I have been impressed by the way the Army's professional journals allow some of our brightest and most innovative officers to critique – sometimes bluntly – the way the service does business, to include judgments about senior leadership, both military and civilian. I believe this is a sign of institutional strength and vitality. I encourage you to take on the mantle of fearless, thoughtful, but loyal dissent when the situation calls for it. And, agree with the articles or not, senior officers should embrace such dissent as a health dialogue and protect and advance those considerably more junior who are taking on that mantle. I wrote my first – and far from last – critique of CIA in a professional journal four years into my career. Without the support of the several senior agency officers, my career would quickly have been over.
Here at West Point, as at every university and company in America, there is a focus on teamwork, consensus building, and collaboration. Yet, make no mistake, the time will come when you must stand alone in making a difficult, unpopular decision. Or when you must challenge the opinion of superiors or tell them you can’t get the job done with the time and resources available – a difficult charge in an organization built upon a “can do” ethos. Or a time when you know what superiors are telling the press, or the Congress, or the American people is inaccurate. There will be moments when your entire career is at risk. What will you do? What will you do?

These are difficult questions that you should be thinking about both here at West Point and over the course of your career. There are no easy answers.

But if you follow the dictates of your conscience and the courage of your convictions, while being respectfully candid with your superiors while encouraging candor in others, you will be in good stead for the challenges you will face as officers and leaders in the years ahead. Defend your integrity as you would your life. If you do this, I am confident that when you face those tough dilemmas, you will, in fact, know the right thing to do.

I would like to close with some words to all of you, but especially to the Class of 2008. Soon you will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I have taken that oath seven times in the last 42 years – the first when I enlisted in 1966 and the last when I became Secretary of Defense. I want to encourage you always to remember the importance of two pillars of our freedom under the Constitution – the Congress and the press. Both surely try our patience from time to time, but they are the surest guarantees of the liberty of the American people.

The Congress is a co-equal branch of government that under the Constitution raises armies and provides for navies. While you read about the intense debate over Iraq, you need to know that members of both parties now serving in Congress have long been strong supporters of the Department of Defense, and of our men and women in uniform. As officers, you will have a responsibility to communicate to those below you that the American military must be non-political and recognize the obligation we owe the Congress to be honest and true in our reporting to them. Especially when it involves admitting mistakes or problems.

The same is true with the press, in my view a critically important guarantor of our freedom. When the press identifies a problem in the military, our response should be to find out if the allegations are true – and if so, say so, and then act to remedy the problem. If untrue, then be able to document that fact. The press is not the enemy, and to treat it as such is self-defeating.
As the Founding Fathers wisely understood, the Congress and a free press, as with a non-political military, assure a free country. A point underscored by a French observer writing about George Washington in 1782. He wrote: “This is the seventh year that he has commanded the army, and that he has obeyed the Congress. More need not be said.”

Finally, we hear a good deal about men and women who volunteered for military service in the wake of the September 11th attacks. For you Firsties, your admissions applications for the Academy would have come due early in 2004. By that point, it had become clear that Iraq as well as Afghanistan would be long, grinding, and complex campaigns. Your decision to come here, and the decision of all the Academy classes here that followed, was made with the knowledge of almost certain deployment to a distant and dangerous battlefield, with the likelihood of more tours to follow. Each of you – with your talents, intelligence, and record of accomplishments – could have chosen something easier, or safer, and of course, better paid. But you took on the mantle of duty, honor, and country passed down the long gray line. The men and women who walked these halls and strode these grounds before you. For that, you have the profound gratitude and eternal admiration of the American people.

It is undoubtedly politically incorrect for me to say that I feel personally responsible for each and every one of you, as if you were my own sons and daughters. And so my only prayer is that you serve with honor and return home safely. And I personally thank you.

Good luck and Godspeed.

Roger Kimball (whoops, earlier said Roger Simon) lays out the New York Times’ style-book for political attack disguised as news, with regard to McCain’s use of his wife’s jet:

1. Prissy introductory sentence or two noting that Mr. McCain has a reputation [read “unearned reputation”] for taking the ethical high road on issues like campaign finance reform.
2. “The-Times-has-learned” sentence intimating some tort or misbehavior.
3. A paragraph or two of exposition that simultaneously reveals that a) Mr. McCain actually didn’t do anything wrong but b) he would have if only the law had been different and besides everyone knows he is guilty in spirit.
It’s really easy once you get the hang of it. Here’s how it looks in practice: [read the rest]

Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the NYT’s Book Review and Week In Review sections, follows the NYT’s style-book in Tanenhaus’ Week In Review discussion of John McCain’s age:
1. Prissy introductory sentence or two: “Much has been made of Senator John McCain’s advancing years. He is, as everyone knows, the oldest candidate in the field, and if things go his way in November he will take office at age 72, which will make him older than any other new president in history. This fact has provoked merriment, most conspicuously on late-night television, where he is often the butt of codger jokes.” No mention of any older serving president, no mention of McCain hiking across the Grand Canyon and Obama and Clinton not, and late-night comedy as arbiter of merit of whether age is indicator of qualification or capability.

2. “The-Times-has-learned” sentence intimating some tort or misbehavior.”: “Actually, he inhabits a more serious historic role, as the latest — and almost certainly the last — hope for Americans born in the 1930s to send one of their own to the White House. The 1900s, the 1910s, the 1920s and the 1940s have all been represented in the White House. But not the 1930s.

"It is the missing decade. A demographic blip? Perhaps. But it might also be that Americans born in the 1930s lack the particular qualities we look for in our national leaders.” According to what authoritative study? According to what authority, of any type? None mentioned, except that JFK promised “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century.” Comparing himself to Eisenhower. No mention of our adversaries deeming JFK’s inexperience and the temperament of his advisors as encouragement to build the Berlin Wall, place missiles in Cuba, or increase subversion of South Vietnam.

3. A paragraph or two of exposition that simultaneously reveals that a) Mr. McCain actually didn’t do anything wrong but b) he would have if only the law had been different and besides everyone knows he is guilty in spirit.: Read the rest of Tanenhaus’ column.

Sam Tanenhaus is capable of much better. His biography of Whittaker Chambers is exemplary in fact and evoking the conflicting, and very different from now, spirits and intellectual currents of those times. Tanenhaus’ upcoming bio of William Buckley, hopefully, will be as enlightening.

Is the difference between Tananhaus’ absurd column and his superior bio books that in the former Tananhaus follows the NYT’s style-book and in the latter follows the style-book for serious writing? Obviously.

Tanenhaus' ridiculous column is, ironically, titled, "When The Times Makes The Man." Obviously, the (New York) Times makes the style-book that Tanenhaus follows, to his discredit compared to what he is otherwise capable.

I, and then major periodicals, (here and here) have written that donors to foundations of former presidents should be publicly revealed. I, also, believe that large donors to all non-profits should be publicly revealed, as non-profits are so influential on so many public policy issues and in elections.

There’s been a bill passed overwhelmingly (390-34) by the House in 2007, indeed whose primary sponsor was liberal Democrat Howard Berman, that all donors of over $200 to presidential libraries should be publicly revealed, quarterly, in a government internet database.

It was favorably reported out of the Senator Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee, amended to $1250 for donations after a president leaves office, and placed on the Senate’s agenda for action. That Senate action has never occurred. (Go to www.Thomas.loc.gov, enter "presidential library, and click for Senate Reported of HR 1254), and follow links for more info)

It may be tied up by Republicans, leery of its impact on the plans for President Bush’s library. I don’t know. Bill Clinton says he’s only willing to disclose future, not past, contributions. Or, there may be other reasons or excuses for inaction.

In any event, and regardless, will Senator Hillary Clinton see that it quickly reaches a vote of the Senate? Will Senator McCain? Will Senator Obama? That would be nice bipartisanship if all, together, did.

The Senate Report on the bill says:

Fund-raising for Presidential libraries can begin well before a President leaves office. Under current law, there are no limits on the amount of money Presidents and their associates may raise for a Presidential library, no constraints on when fund-raising may begin, and no limits on the size of donations. Foreign governments, foreign individuals, and foreign corporations are not prohibited from making donations to Presidential libraries. Unlike the disclosure of contributions to federal campaigns under the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. Sec. 431 et seq.) or the disclosure of the amounts of interested parties spend to lobby Congress and the federal government under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), there is no requirement that Presidential libraries disclose donations. Under the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81), registered lobbyists will be required, beginning in 2008, to disclose on a semiannual basis contributions equal to or exceeding $200 made to Presidential library foundations. Building on this first step toward disclosure, H.R. 1254 will create a comprehensive reporting system.

Witnesses at a March 1, 2007 hearing conducted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform supported the need for disclosure of presidential library donations. They argued that undisclosed contributions create a perception of impropriety and noted the benefits of disclosure to public confidence in the political process. Sheila Krumholz, the Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics testified:
Herein lies the central concern: that those who donate money to presidential libraries will in return receive special access to, and favors from, the president and the federal government. To minimize the potential for that sort of payback, and to build trust among a citizenry that already questions the ethics of elected officials, public disclosure of contributions to presidential library projects seems both appropriate and wise.

There’s also concern whether presidential libraries are places to learn about history or just “promotional venues.” This article in the Dallas News does a good job of tracing the matter from Truman to today. For example:

University of Arkansas historian Randall Woods said his department wasn't consulted on Bill Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock, which covers Monica Lewinsky and other White House scandals in a single display titled "Fight for Power."

In contrast, scholars were brought onboard at the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum in Independence, Mo., to ensure balance in its exhibits, such as his decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan in World War II.

Even LBJ wanted an even-handed portrait, Mr. Middleton said, recalling that the president told him: "I don't want another damn credibility gap. ... I got a lot of mean letters and we ought to put the meanest letter I ever got in this exhibit."

Back when we had more respect for the ordinary citizen politician, with better reason to, and Harry Truman’s retirement near penury became known, a generous pension and expenses were established for former presidents. Back then, by the way, ex-presidents did not engage in their own foreign policy in opposition to national policies.

Jimmy Carter broke the mold, and his Carter Center has over $200-million of investments and takes in well over $100-million a year. Much of those funds come from Middle East donors. The Investors Business Daily summarized:

The ex-president's irritating opinions on Mideast matters are one thing. But the funding of his Atlanta think tank by big-money, state-linked Arab sources is quite another — and points to a conflict of interest….

It may be easy to dismiss Carter's nutty statements about Israel as the ranting of a bitter man in his twilight years. But it's not so easy to look the other way as Arab cash flows into the Carter Center from people known to demand something in return. It is worth noting that the center's anticipated contributions receivable and Carter's anti-Israeli diatribes have both increased dramatically.

Today’s Wall Street Journal weighs in on the William J. Clinton Foundation:

Bill Clinton established that body in 1997 while still President. It has since raised half-a-billion dollars, which has been spent on Mr. Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas and global philanthropic initiatives. The mystery remains its donors, and whether these contributors might one day seek to call in their chits with a President Hillary Clinton….

Presidential candidates also aren't allowed to accept campaign checks from foreigners, but, again, no such restrictions apply to foundations. We know that donations to the Clinton Foundation have come from the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, and the governments of Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Brunei. Wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen have also given big.

Mr. Clinton has also accepted money from a Chinese Internet company, Alibaba, which aids the Beijing government in censoring the Web. Most recently, one of Alibaba's Chinese homepages posted a "most wanted" list of Tibetan rioters, with pictures and a phone number for informants to call. Mrs. Clinton has condemned the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, but her husband notably hasn't returned the Alibaba money….

How many favors has Mr. Clinton done for foreign donors? There's no way of knowing. The former President insists he's aware of no conflicts. Notably, however, donations to the Clinton Foundation soared as Mrs. Clinton neared a presidential run – to $135 million in 2006, 70% more than the year before. Somebody seems to think there is value in being generous to the Clintons.

Mrs. Clinton says the foundation is her husband's business, not hers. But as she has said in the past, a Clinton Presidency is two for the price of one. Americans deserve to know who has been donating to the Clinton Foundation.

As I wrote in “Hidden Foreign Contributions Affect US Elections”: “There’s a huge loophole – or, more correctly shroud – over contributions by foreigners to US non-profits, who heavily shape public discussion affecting our elections – and other policies.” They are not required to be publicly revealed. The Examiner took up the need for transparency: “[T]he solution is full disclosure of all donations to any entity in which a former president or other federal officeholder is an officer, advisor or consultant.” With the revolving door among politically active non-profits and federal jobs, that ought to bring similar transparency to the untaxed non-profits (what Democrats usually refer to as a tax-subsidy or tax-expenditure) affecting our elections.

As the Wall Street Journal says, “Transparency is a popular word in this presidential election” for all three leading prospectives. Let’s demand their position on transparency of donations to former presidents’ foundations and former officials’ non-profit employers, where they are usually very well-paid. Don’t we deserve to know who is influencing our policies and elections?

Even more than Democrats like the idea of soaking the rich, they like to politic. Even in the face of the soon impending bankruptcy of Medicare and explosion of the federal budget. And, more politics now by the Democrats means even more taxes, or more drastic restrictions on benefits, later, which will impact all including the less affluent.

President Bush, as required by Congress, proposed a premium increase last February for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage, due to the impending budget-busting bankruptcy of Medicare. Of the president’s proposal, according to the New York Times, “The Democratic-controlled Congress is unlikely to approve Mr. Bush’s legislation.” The president’s proposal:

As for the prescription drug proposal, it would create an income-linked system of premiums similar to the one already in effect in Medicare Part B, which covers doctor visits and outpatient services. Prescription drug premiums would increase for any individual with income over $82,000 and any couple with income exceeding $164,000. Premiums would more than triple for many individuals with incomes over $205,000 and for many couples with incomes over $410,000….

Initially, fewer than 5 percent of people with Medicare drug coverage would have to pay the higher premiums. But this proportion would grow because the income thresholds would remain the same, with no allowance for inflation….

John McCain also proposes that those with higher incomes in retirement should pay more for their Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. And, Democrats continue their opposition, preferring to wedge for the 2008 elections rather than responsibly hedge the impending Medicare funding disaster. As today’s New York Sun reports,

But Democrats aren't biting, and instead they plan to argue that Mr. McCain's call for wealthier Americans to pay higher drug premiums undercuts his chief criticism of his possible opponents this fall: their support for higher taxes on people in the top income brackets.

The overall cash-flow of Medicare starts running in the red in the next decade. To slightly delay that day, starting in 2007 the premiums are higher for Part B (physician) coverage by those retirees with incomes above $80,000 for singles, $160,000 for married – mostly derived from the lifetime responsibility of savings. In 2008, the premium is 27% higher up to $102,000/$204,000; 67% higher up to $153,000/$306,000; 107% higher up to $205,000/$410,000; 147% higher above that. The increase in premium for Part D coverage is parallel.

The March 2008 Medicare Trustees’ report says the Part A, hospitalization, benefits already exceed the payroll tax income by $342-billion. The Trustees say,

These projections demonstrate the need for timely and effective action to address Medicare’s financial challenges. Consideration of such reforms should occur in the relatively near future. The sooner the solutions are enacted, the more flexible and gradual they can be.

Congressman Broun is agitated that “Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” so he wants them off the shelves at PX’s.

The Corner notes this anecdote:

Here, meanwhile, is a brief discussion of a memoir of the siege of Khe Sanh written by a Marine who was there. I wonder what Rep, Broun would make of this passage:

Aircrews tried on one occasion to get in several gallons of ice cream. It took awhile and Marines waited until dark because of enemy fire to retrieve the supplies from the landing zones. By then most of the ice cream had melted and the containers were punctured with shrapnel, indicating the aircrews took fire trying to deliver their gift. Although Dabney's Marines didn't get to enjoy the treat, they appreciated the thought. "More than once we watched a crewman lean out a window to toss a bundle of magazines into the zone. We loved them, especially Playboy.

Here’s a photo of my cot in my hootch in Vietnam, at 1st Marine Division HQ’s.

I may not have physically been at Khe Sanh but was there in spirit.

Congressman Broun served in the military (“Paul served in the military as a jet engine mechanic in the U. S. Marine Corps Reserves and later received a commission as a medical officer in the U. S. Navy.”) and I’m sure is a good man, but his spirit is not one that I ever encountered in Vietnam.

Hmmm: Would less porn have won that war? ROFL

OH! We did manage to win this war, despite public porn. This B-25 must have distracted the Japanese Zeros.

Not content just to “Hijack Human Rights” in the so-called U.N. Human Rights Council, now it’s proposed to hijack anti-semitism.

Diplomats preparing for a U.N. conference on racism sparred over definitions of anti-Semitism.

The 2001 U.N. World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, was marred by vehement anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Jewish groups are concerned that organizers of the 2009 conference in Durban again will use the parley to demonize Israel.

On the third day of a two-week preparatory forum this week in Geneva, Algerian diplomat Idriss Jazairy said the definition of anti-Semitism should include bias toward Arabs because they are a Semitic people. Jewish groups see such statements as attempts to cover up hatred of Jews.

[T]he 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic States are mindful of the tarnished 2001 event and now are “feigning an interest in anti-Semitism only to pervert and emasculate the meaning, which is why they have no problem condemning it.”

Welcome to Newspeak at the U.N., “whose aim is to make any alternative thinking ("thoughtcrime") or speech impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: ‘It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.’ “

According to critics of wind farms off the coast of Cape Cod, proposed clean windpower should be secondary to migratory birds. According to Ted Kennedy,NIMBY. According to opponents of solar power generated in California’s Mojave Desert, transmission towers to urban centers should not cross the desert. According to opponents of Alaskan oil production, some moose may be inconvenienced. Chinese investment has Cuba drilling for oil off our Gulf Coast and 50 miles from Key West, but US firms are prohibited from drilling within our waters.

The list could go on, and on.

John Coyne reminds us that the quest for “energy independence” was launched by Richard Nixon, and that his program, including heavy reliance on nuclear, is still the clearest and most productive path. Otherwise, others since have paid lip-service to "energy independence” without the commitment Even if it is not feasible in entirety, much dependence could be reduced. Hopes are rising, also, for nanosolar.

The Democrat and Republican candidates for office need to be questioned more closely as to specifically what they propose, and to stop flapping their wings and mouths.

Investors Business Daily reflects the Democrats have brought us back to the '70's, but not Nixon's, for the worse.

Last week I wrote in “Hidden Foreign Contributions Affect US Elections” about the lack of transparency to foreign donations to political campaigns and to non-profits that influence US political campaigns.

Today, the Examiner’s editorial takes up the need:

Whatever else might be said about federal campaign finance regulation, it’s impossible to argue against the positive effects of the increased transparency resulting from disclosure of the names and amounts of donors and recipients. But two yawning loopholes remain in the rules governing contributions to incumbents and challengers. Recipients are only required to disclose donations of $200 or more, and money given to tax-exempt foundations established by former officeholders does not have to be disclosed.

A draft has been released of a revised IRS Form 990. It increases exposure on governance issues, but retains the shroud over contributors to non-profits. At the very least, foreign contributors should be revealed publicly, at least for amounts over the $200 of election laws.

You can send your comments to the IRS during the comment period. It’s as simple as an email to Form990Revision@irs.gov

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne’s hallucinatory column today inquires, “The result of the 2008 election may come down to how voters decide to define Barack Obama. Is he Adlai Stevenson or John F. Kennedy?”

Without further self-evident comment, let’s rephrase: Is he George McGovern or John Kerry?

OK, one comment: Barack Obama doesn’t even have the life experience or credentials of McGovern or Kerry, not to mention JFK or Stevenson.

Ed Morrissey adds his more than two-cents.

I replied to Ed Morrissey: Truth often comes in brevity.

(I remember Adlai, and he's no Adlai. I remember George, and he's no George. I remember JFK, and he's no JFK. I remember Kerry, and he's no Kerry. Unfortunately, Henry Wallace precedes me.)

British cinema verite director Nick Broomfield’s film “Battle For Haditha” is joining the rest of the wannabe Iraq-exploitation movie failures at reaching audiences with anything resembling truth or interest.

Flacks for the film or anti-Iraq war causes treat the film as a docudrama, or even a sequel to Battle For Algiers(!), and current Hollywood denizens interviewed by Variety trot out excuses for the crop of Iraq war bashing films’ box-office non-appeal as due to war weariness. At least one Hollywood pro gets closer to a deeper truth, audiences don’t go for America and military-bashing films:

Producer James Jacks ("The Mummy" series) thinks audiences might go for war movies that presented soldiers as more heroic. From a military family, Jacks knows many veterans. In Hollywood's Iraq films, he says, "either the soldiers are victims or criminals doing something terrible like 'Redacted' or victims like 'Home of the Brave' or 'Stop-Loss.' But for most soldiers, it's about making sure their teammates get out alive. The best movies are about a single unit on a single mission. Otherwise movies get too big, into sweeping issues of politics and morality."

The liberal British film award panel for the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards decided to eliminate “Battle for Haditha” because of the inconvenient truth that it is a lie that the Haditha Marines were guilty of an atrocity. As reported by one of the judges in the Guardian:

But a judge enlightens us that charges against some of the soldiers have recently been dropped. With a QC [Queens Counsel: “Barristers of at least ten years standing may apply to become queens counsel. QCs undertake work of an important nature”) on the judging panel this became a vote-changing issue.

Another Varietyreview
comments: “Given their awareness of Broomfield's track record as a maker of lurid docus, some auds [that’s audiences, for us non-Hollywood types] might even momentarily confuse "Battle" with a docu, and the actors play a major role in creating this illusion.”

David Allender interviews the lead actor, chosen by Broomfield because he is a former Marine who fought in Iraq so as to lend credence to the film. The lead actor claims, “The film is definitely a fictional portrayal.” Allender follows up: “I can’t speak for the Wuterich family, obviously, but I think they’d probably appreciate it if you stressed to the media that this is not a true story.”

Variety reportsthat as of last Friday, “"Battle for Haditha," has bookings at New York's Film Forum but is still looking for a domestic distrib.” [that’s distributor, for us non-Hollywood types]

As my Southern friends would say, that America-bashing dog of a film won’t hunt.

The New York Times reports on the extraordinary efforts the Department of Veterans Affairs is making to offer hotline help to distressed veterans, some of whom may be contemplating suicide.

Midway through the article, the reporter asserts, “Experts agree that veterans are more likely, perhaps twice as much, to commit suicide as people who have never served in the military.” The reporter, within 1458 words, couldn’t cite any expert or source.

Curious, I searched for a source. CBS did a research project, of which CBS said