« 2004 October | Main | 2004 August »

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

The Impression That I Get
My friend, Comet HaleyComet.jpg

Have you ever had the odds stacked up so high
You need a strength most don't possess?
Or has it ever come down to do or die
You've got to rise above the rest?
I've never had to, knock on wood,
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if i could.

"The Impression That I Get"
Mighty Mighty Bosstones

They like to talk, they being that mystical conglomeration of people who are too difficult to name in the particular, about preparing for war, preparing for the worst of the unknown. I used to think that I could rely on my leaders to be unflinching in the face of impending danger, but experience has taught me otherwise.
As a young lieutenant so long ago, all the captains and the field grade officers were granted a level of respect that is difficult to comprehend if you aren't a Marine. Even the other military branches don't lend such esteem to their officers as the Marines do. And I still think that it is deserved. Yes, there are majors that are overweight. There are some who have "dropped their pack" and are taking it easy. But we know that in the heart of every Marine, especially officers, lives the heart of a lion, a bull, and a wolverine all in one.

But I didn't find it to be the case when the balloon went up.

In the First Persian Gulf War my squadron was on the force list to be among the first main forces in country. Special ops guys were there already, but in the first week of August, 1990 immediately after Kuwait was invaded, VMA(AW)-242 and most of MAG-11 were told we were on our way to Iraq.

To put this in context, we had no idea that such a huge army would be amassed in that war. We assumed that we were all that were going because that's all that the initial plans called for. That it grew to such a huge scale wasn't expected at the time. My personal impression is that 7th Marine Expeditionary Brigade were all that were going to face the entire Iraqi army. I assumed we would be a trip wire, if we were wiped out then the President would send in heavier forces. That's how things were done until then, with only small forces committed at first so that the Soviets wouldn't get too alarmed.

My first reaction was excitement of course. Maybe as a Captain I was young enough to not be afraid. My biggest concern was that I had all my stuff in my apartment and a lot of petty personal things to take care of. If I left, would my rent get paid on time? Seems silly to me now, but I was worried about it.

I was never worried about going to war itself, but then I wasn't a pilot. As a maintenance officer, I figured I'd be somewhere at a desert expeditionary airstrip, maybe getting shelled, probably getting gassed (that's was our biggest concern), but unless things went really badly I wouldn't be personally manning the barricades or dodging air defenses. I can't say that I had the same pressure on me that the air crew did, but that doesn't make me respect some of them after seeing their reactions.

All the captains in our squadron were serious, but excited and anxious to go. Almost all the majors and lieutenant colonels were reluctant. One in particular behaved in a particularly craven way, my old boss.

When I first joined the squadron, Major Woods was the aircraft maintenance officer. It's a job normally given to an aircrew and he was a bear-sized man with a deep voice and the ability to get everyone to follow him. He was a fairly good officer, and taught me to never underestimate the power that size and a deep voice have over others. He never made bad decisions and I admired him in many ways. I didn't agree with everything he did, but that would never happen with anyone.

In short, though there were problems in the squadron, there are problems in every squadron, and though he wasn't perfect, he was a good, strong leader. Just what you would expect from a Major in the Marine Corps.

And I'm not trying to single him out as an exception to the rule, my shock is that his reaction wasn't unique. All the majors and lieutenant colonels in the squadron were afraid to go to war.

I was disgusted by them. By this time, Woods was the Executive Officer and a lieutenant colonel. I was the maintenance control officer, directing the effort to get ten 20-year old aircraft ready for war. Several times a day for three days the word would change back and forth, "we're going," "we're staying."

When the word came that we were going, I would get it via rumor control and my direct boss, Comet Haley. When the word came down that we were staying, LtCol Woods would come down to the hangar and tell us all that we should stop work. The look of relief on his face was unmistakable. Once or twice he even made editorial comments about the undesirability of going to do our jobs.

Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Woods was considered a good pilot, an aggressive man, and someone the junior officers looked up to and wanted to follow into battle. But when the visage of battle loomed ahead, he became a different man. And he wasn't alone.

We never got to war, and secretly I've always thought that Woods and the other field grade officers worked it as hard as they could to keep us out of the war. Later, when the air war started and it was clear how lopsided it was, Woods was among those latecomers who went over to get combat time on their record. I wasn't fooled by this newly found courage. That's the Impression that I got.

You can't really tell until the time comes who will face potential danger bravely and who won't. And you probably can't tell how someone will react when danger is no longer a potential.

I never got into that war, not for lack of trying. It's been 14 years now, but I'm finally able to go. I might be in an infantry battalion, I might be at force headquarters, I don't really know yet. But I hope that no young captains or lieutenants or other Marines see in me the craven queasiness I saw in my leaders back then. I want them to see the same resoluteness I saw in Comet Haley.

So is bravery a decision or a reflex? I like to think it's a decision. If it's just a reflex, then there is no merit or blame. But if it's a decision, then I can control it with character and intelligence. I think there is a little of both. Being startled is a reflex. But other times, when there is time to breathe, time to think, time to be a man, there is no excuse for flinching.

And that's the impression that I get.

Monday, September 27, 2004

"Fruitcake in the Pentagon"
I've paraphrased this title from an excellent article in the September 2004 Proceedings. I wish I had written this article. Unfortunately, it's not on line yet. I hope it will be soon because it is brilliant.

The basic premise is to question why we're buying newer fighter aircraft. When was the last time one of our aircraft was shot down? In the Reagan administration an A-6 or two were downed, and in the first Persian Gulf War we lost a few aircraft, mostly the useless AV-8B Harriers, OV-10D Broncos both of which instantly were relegated to severely limited roles, and the OV-10D was blessedly retired. We lost a few other aircraft, but never was our hold on air superiority challenged even remotely.
The author, Captain T. LaMar Willis, USN(Ret), an old A-6 aircrewman which of course puts him in the category of being a good guy, points out that we have smart bullets (or bombs) why do we need a smart gun (or planes)? In fact he points out that one of our best platforms right now is the 50 year old B-52, because it carries a lot of smart bombs.

So why do we need small aircraft, let alone new small aircraft? It's a paradigm shift in thinking that has been in the corners of my brain, but thanks to the good Captain are now illuminated and shining brightly on our mindless pursuit of more and more expensive aircraft.

Don't get me wrong, we need to keep getting better, but this is almost entirely a factor of avionics, not airframes. This is proven by the new lease on life that the B-52 has been given by smart bombs.

For example, the latest air superiority fighter to come our way has been in the works for 15 years and will cost $140,000,000 per copy. Where are the accountants? What can't be done by remotely piloted vehicles can still be done with current airframes, and extending their lives won't cost $140M each.

There is an excellent book, "The Pentagon Paradox" that examines the procurement of the F-16 and the F/A-18 and how the original idea of a simple, low cost, light weight fighter was transformed by the procurement process and misguided staff officers and bureaucrats into an increasingly expensive and bloated platform. I have to say that it looks like we've learned nothing.

The MV-22 has been in the works for even longer. In 1986 the manufacturer toured my power plant site in El Toro telling me that this new aircraft would be in the fleet in a year or two. I think we need the MV-22 for increased troop mobility, but I don't think the procurement process is working.

We take too long to buy things, we make them too big and too expensive, and we get stuck in a mode of buying things that aren't very useful.

But with so much money invested in the new strike fighter aircraft, it will take a big man to cancel it. Cheney cancelled the P-4 and the A-12, both navy platforms that were desperately needed at the time, but no one ever seems to cancel Air Force platforms.

It's frustrating to me to see so many dollars sunk into such an aircraft that gives us no increased capability.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Who's in Charge of the Kerry Campaign?
Democrats are asking who is in charge of the Kerry campaign, saying it is chaotic and careening down fast. They go on and on blaming Kerry's plummeting polls on someone named Shrum, and a fight with new people who worked for Clinton.

They say that Kerry needs a strong leader to take charge of the campaign and get things going.
Well duh. Isn't that Kerry's job? Isn't he the one who wants to be the leader of the free world? How can he possibly be an effective president, leading all of us whether we like him or not if he can't control, inspire and lead a small campaign staff?

This is a fundamental characteristic of the way democrats think. To them, and to some disgusting republicans in name only like Mary Matalin, elections aren't about ideas it's about a way to keep political consultants employed. The candidate isn't the leader, he's the product that they're selling.

In fact this explains why people support pathetic candidates like Kerry. He's not important. What he says or does or intends to do is irrelevent. It only matters that he's the product these consultants are selling. To them, they should be just as able to sell a wino off the street as they are Kerry or anyone else. Failure to get their guy elected has nothing to do with his philosophy or his character and only to do with poor "leadership" on the campaign staff.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't wash. Campaign staffs are just staffs. They aren't the ultimate leader. They must be led by the candidate himself, or else why don't we just elect the consultant?

Monday, September 13, 2004

So-called "Journalists," Cults of Personality and Changing the World
Long ago, when radio and newspapers were still dominant, newspapers put much stock in their reputation for accuracy. Well, that's the myth anyway. Along came the now-deified Edward Murrow, by all accounts a good man, but whose name was used to create a myth of an ethos of "journalism" as though it were a profession that required some sort of ethic and training.

Schools began offering "journalism" degrees, which were eagerly sought by the less intelligent and by the hopelessly misguided who wanted to change the world. There's nothing wrong with being less intelligent, nor is there anything wrong with wanting to change the world. But the thing is that most people won't change the world. It's a big world and it has a lot of inertia, and it frankly won't change based on the romantic visions of the feel-good "journalists" who think the pen is mightier than the sword.

So what happens when a lot of less intelligent, feel-gooders who want to change the world get older and find it harder and harder to think of ways to change the world? Good question.
But first, one more facet of "journalism" must be looked at. As news coverage's reach from the print media waned in impact and television came to dominate, it was natural that two factors influence the news: Advertising got more expensive by far, creating undue influence on the content of the news, and ratings to get those advertising dollars became much more critical. Getting ratings had much more to do with the face and the voice on the screen and less and less to do with the content and reliability of the news.

Thus grew the cult of personality in the field of "journalism." Personalities that aren't very intelligent. Personalities that think that their job is to change the world.

So, let's pretend that you're a not very intelligent guy, say you have a Texas twang that you can exaggerate for that homey effect, and you find as you near the time of retirement and enfeeblement of age that your dream of changing the world isn't coming true.

Well, this is natural, because only a very few people will change the world, either by luck or by brilliance or by extraordinary personality. But you're not very bright and you think just because you have a homey Texas twang and you've managed to hoodwink a network into making you their lead anchor that you should be able to change the world. What do you do?

Well, most people of principle, character and adult maturity would conclude that fate just hasn't made your world changing possible, at least not yet, and continue with your campaign as best you can.

The problem is that some people with homey Texas twangs seem to believe that they should take matters into their own hands to change the world in any way possible.

Thus, the people at CBS seem to be prone to forge documents to throw an upcoming election.

It's not their fault (I'm trying to use the language of the less intelligent world-changer-wannabes), it's the fault of the system. It's the fault of a television broadcast system controlled by the government through the FCC to discourage competition. It's the fault of a cult of personality that magnified the self-perceived power of less intelligent men.

It's not their fault. It's just that they're bad people and they can't help it.

Saturday, September 11, 2004

Moron Dowd
It's strange that even Moron Dowd is calling Kerry a pathetic whimp, while at the same time conforming to the baseless anti-Bush insults.

Moron Dowd is completely unfamiliar with military strategy but that doesn't stop her from pontificating about our strategy.

I'm shocked at the increasing frequency of democrats calling on their candidate to get violent, attack viciously, and to spread malicious lies. Kind of like Dan Rather.

But what really shocks me is that Moron Dowd is now blaming the Beslan massacre on George W. Bush. What will they not stoop to? Chechnya is in Russia, and although we've killed and captured many Chechens who have been warring against us in Afghanistan and Iraq, somehow Moron thinks that Bush failed to stop them from blowing up school children in Russia? Isn't Russia one of the nations that refused to help us in the war?

Moron Dowd has a lot of nerve. But she's just punching Bush in the face like she wants others to do.
Civil discussion is lost on democrats. I'm no republican, but I can at least appreciate that at least the republicans tend to criticize their opponents on facts, not forgeries. The republicans address issues, and personal character, not fictions.

Republicans may have been very effective questioning the character and history of John Kerry's role in Viet Nam and his voting record, but he's running on his role in Viet Nam and challenged republicans to address that part of his life. They've done so and exposed him for the lying, opportunistic do-nothing that he is. They've exposed his traitorous behavior in violent pro-communist movements (even his attendance at meetings where they discussed assassinating US Senators). They've exposed his anti-military voting record. They've exposed his faillure to do anything worth mentioning in 20 years as a Senator, even though no one plotted to assassinate him like he did to others.

Yet the democrats don't understand that the republicans aren't playing dirty. They're just effective. They're effective because the truth of John Kerry is so bad that it's not hard to expose the rot and treason that makes up his past. They're effective because America in our state of war no longer thinks it's cute to have an anti-military President.

But don't expect Moron Dowd to understand the "nuances" of reality. Her only way of thinking includes punching political opponents in the face.

I'm going to take the time to point out another aspect of the CBS forgeries that I think has escaped the notice of most people. The subject line of one is "CYA."

First, I don't remember CYA, for "cover your ass" being a popular acronym until the late 1980's.

But more importantly, why would a man write a memo to himself on a particular subject, a man who knows how filing systems work and how documents are retrieved, and put the subject as "CYA"? If he ever really needed to cover his behind, how would he find this memo, and how would this memo help in the least bit? How would admitting that he succumbed to pressure help him?
Of course the pathetic claim is that these came from the personal files of LtCol Killian. But being personal files, you'd think they'd be in his personal possession. Yet his widow, the presumed keeper of all his paperwork, knows nothing of these personal files and further explains that he could neither type nor did he make personal notes to himself.

So, why would a man who rarely keeps personal records decide to suddenly that this merited a memo to himself? Why would he document in writing that he was a weazel and succumbed to illegal and unethical pressure to give special treatment to the son of an obscure politician? Pressure from a general that retired 18 months previously, no less?

I will never believe any words coming out of the mouth of Dan Rather again. If he tells me the sky is blue, I will seek a second source for his claim. I will never watch CBS news again, and I fully intend to research all their advertisers and tell them that I will curtail buying their products until they pressure CBS to replace Dan Rather.

p.s. I learn that I'm not the first to publicly question the use of "CYA."

More Media Credibility Problems
The Washington Times, normally a very balanced newspaper, is finally reporting about the terror courts set up by Muqtada Al Sadr. I'm glad someone is finally doing it, but I've known about these courts for months now, why is it only now making the news?

The Washington Times, though, is the only mainstream media source that I know of that is making this public. Where is the Post, CBS News, CNN, etc.? What do they pay their reporters to do? How come I know of these things from the internet but these "journalists" don't think it's important to report?

First we should remember that not only are many in the MSM completely corrupt (CNN paid Saddam Hussein and refused to report on known tortures before the war) but that "journalism" is just a euphemism for "people too stupid to get a real degree in college." Honestly, they aren't the bottom of the collegiate intelligence pecking order. They're one step below "political science" and one step above "psychology" where the really true morons go.
We learn today that NRP is repeating another lie about the CBS forgeries. They claim that the original claim by the Freeper "Buckhead" that these documents were forgeries was made before the CBS broadcast, thus it must have been made by the same person giving them to CBS, and therefore it was all a republican conspiracy.

The problem is that the time stamp they were looking at that caused them to make this supposition is from the Pacific time zone. And besides, it was in a thread where people across the country had been discussing the show for a couple hours already. You'd have to be a moron, or really, truly have some kooky belief that all of the Freepers are republican operatives working in concert to make these outrageous assertions that Buckhead was the leader of a conspiracy.

But that is the type of person at NPR. They are poorly educated, wrapping themselves in a mantle of upper crust appreciation of bad art and bad literature.

Yet they accuse bloggers of being merely people sitting around at home in their pajamas. I don't know what that even means. Are they saying that how you dress is a reflection of your knowledge? Perhaps they truly think that because they have expensive suits when they go on camera that not only does it bolster the perception of their credibility, but it actually grants them credibility.

The morons in the "field" of "journalism" seem to have forgotten that the rest of the world is generally more intelligent than them, and that for any particular subject matter the internet can spit out experts that willingly share their expertise with all of us. There is no way, even if "journalists" weren't the bottom of the collegiate ladder, that they can possibly know as much as the millions of people on the internet.

But the MSM does have a few advantages that they're not exploiting. They have cameras, they have a budget, and they have reporters. I would suggest that if the MSM wants to salvage its credibility that it stop creating media personalities like the clearly idiotic and agenda-driven Dan Rather and concentrate on finding the stories and reporting on them with intelligence.

For instance, rather than having the majority of their reporters in Iraq sitting around the same hotel, one or two might have taken the initiative of going into Najaf and reporting on the re-implementation of Sharia and the reign of terror going on. Some did go into Najaf, but their sole purpose appeared to show the brutality of the Americans and the heroic resistance of the terrorists. They can go into Fallujah and report what we already know, that the terrorists there are terrorizing the populations there. We know these things are occurring because we read blogs of people there, but we don't hear it from CBS or CNN, or NPR.

The MSM is dying, needs to die, and information is no longer controlled by them. Some of them are hysterical in reacting to this new reality, but that's their problem. They should have gotten jobs more akin to their intelligence level, like street sweeper or toilet cleaner, so they are a little slow to catch on to their own fate.

Friday, September 10, 2004

A First Admission of Guilt
I have complained frequently that I have yet to hear a prominent Muslim express remorse for terrorism. Well I finally have found one such sentiment from an organization called FreeMuslims.org.

In the interest of fairness I present their purported statement. I will resist comparing them to CBS forgeries and I have yet to understand who these people are, but it is a start.

the end
The end

Word Processors and Media Credibility
Okay, so RatherGate is underway and more and more people are finally, hopefully, recognizing the complete moral depravity of Dan Rather, CBS, and much of the mainstream media.

So we got them. The very amateurish forgeries are exposed and I am waiting for Dan Rather to be forced out of office, err, fired shortly. All is well and good. The foolish effort to smear George Bush with lies and animosity has failed and will likely boost his credibility.

So why am I not happy?
I'm not happy because this is neither the end nor the beginning. I want to see a backwards analysis of what other lies and forgeries have been spread by the democrats, oops, I mean the media.

And now that they've seen that people are watching them, it won't be hard to make better forgeries in the future. If these forgeries weren't so incredibly incompetent, we'd all have been forced to be arguing whether or not it was pertinent if George Bush had complied with his obligations 30 years ago.

This exposure of "journalistic" malfeasance will only embolden them to make better forgeries next time.

Unless we as citizens stop giving the media a pass on their claims of credibility and demand to see full proof at all times, we will be victims again of better forgeries, not to mention continued distortions and lies.

Three cheers for Powerline blog and the others that exposed this criminal fraud. I hope we are never able to be fooled again.

Why I am Against School Vouchers
Sometimes I have supported the school voucher movement, in the same way that one would tolerate the village drunk expounding on the evils of drinking. I agree that drinking is bad, and I'm glad the issue is being addressed, but I don't think the drunkard has the best solution in mind.

Likewise, I despise public schools and think destroying public education to be the most profound and important domestic political movement in our country today. Although vouchers serve to destroy public schools, and weaken the strength of the teacher unions, in the long run vouchers will be even worse. So I've been trying to support the enemy of my enemy in the hope that public schools will be sufficiently weakened without destroying our freedom.

But I was deluding myself. The latest obscenity from congress has made it all too clear. I should have paid more attention to Congressman Dr. Ron Paul on this issue. Now congress has declared that all school children will be screened for "mental health" in an obligatory screening. Of course, we know that this will mean a windfall profit for the drug manufacturers who will continue their frightening insistence on drugging Americans with powerful psychotropic drugs like Ritalin.
If the government can force your children to be screened for "mental health," a fuzzy concept that is interpreted by people in our very poorly advanced understanding of the subject, then we know for a fact that they will take advantage of past court rulings that force parents to medicate their children. And with the amount of money involved no one should be deluded into thinking that this isn't exactly what was in mind.

Right now we have the freedom, provided we can afford to pay for both public schools through taxes and private schools with the money the government allows us to keep after taxing us, to educate our children free from government control and incompetence. But if the voucher system is successful, there will be no private schools that could afford to forego receiving government subsidies from vouchers and thus the government will have absolute control over every child in the country, without exception.

This is truly Orwellian, and frightens me supremely. Added to this they now seek to be judges of what children have proper mental "health" or ideologies and will, we can be sure, forcibly medicate children so that they will conform to government ideals of behavior.

A man's mind is the only bulwark against tyranny. If we can't control our own minds, especially on such a large scale as all school children in the country, then our society, our culture, our freedom are doomed. The road to serfdom is getting shorter and shorter.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Brought to You by the Democratic Party
Just so that everyone is clear. Here are the prominent events that occur when Democrats are in the White House. Note that many involve the killing or terrorizing of American citizens.

Incinerating the parishioners of Waco, Texas

Elian Gonzalez

Communist Sympathizers giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Iranian Hostage Crisis

Operation Eagle Claw, the Iranian Hostage Rescue dabacle at Desert One.

Monica Lewinsky

The corruption of the electoral process in 2000.

Starting the Viet Nam War

And incinerating church members in Waco, Texas.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Al Qaeda's Agenda is Moving Forward
Some of my friends have expressed surprise and wonderment that the animals in Al Qaeda are attacking the French and the Russians because these have been voices calling for moderation in our attempt to exterminate them. Why, they ask, would Al Qaeda want to create more enemies?

The answer is simple and clear.
At the beginning of the last century, the communists believed that the oppressed workers of the world only lacked a spark to make them all be united and rise up against the established powers in the world. Small groups of workers would be crushed, but no force on Earth could stop them if all workers were united in their rage.

So what did the communists do? They agitated, they tried to make the governments look as horrible as possible so that more workers would join their cause. One event, if sufficiently shocking, would be the spark to unite them all and cause a world revolution.

This is similar to Al Qaeda's goal. They believe that they should rule the world, and if they can tap into religious fervor and unite all the Muslim world to their cause, then they will be unstoppable. No matter their backwardsness, the numbers of Muslims would overcome everything and put Al Qaeda into power.

But if there are western voices that call for moderation, then many Muslims will refuse to join them. Only by inflaming all of Western Civilization against them will they be able to say, "see, they all are the enemies of us all, join us in protecting our faith."

So you see, it isn't a mystery at all why they are attacking Russia and France. It is vital to their cause.

Well, that didn't take long
It's been less than a week, and Muqtada Al Sadr's hell spawn are fighting again. This time they aren't using a Mosque to protect themselves. The only reason to hold back from leveling these Citadels of Satan is that it is a shame to ruin such historical and architectural treasures. After Islam is eradicated from the Earth, these will make nice tourist sites. A few bullet holes will make them more interesting though.

Without the sanctuary of historical buildings, we should be unfettered in destroying the enemy. Let's hope the Marines kill them all quickly before Iraqi and American politicians can stop them. Once they're all dead, no one will mourn them.

end entry
that's all

Sunday, September 05, 2004

The Weakness of Democracy
Democratic governments, even democratric constitutional republics such as ours have a major weakness. At times they fail to maintain a rational course and get swayed by demogoguery.

But to merely blame passions would be to oversimplify the problem. It's the precursors to the moment of emotional over reaction that is the problem. As one faction gains in influence, the faction out of power tends to seek a return to power with increasing desperation. This is not an absolute rule, but it is a tendency, one which the founders of our nation recognized and attempted to prevent by establishing various checks and balances to the branches of government, and by divorcing the people from the actual voting, by using representatives and electors.

There are plenty of examples in history of what can happen, but it seems to be in danger of happening to us soon. Let's look at this a little closer.
One great example is again from the Peloponnesian War. In 406BC the Athenians unexpectedly used a tactical innovation and decisively won a great victory over the Spartan fleet. The Spartan navy was almost totally destroyed, and Athens had nearly total control of the seas again. It saved them from certain doom and restored their hope to continue in existence.

Because the battle was in open sea and the pursuit of the enemy after they were routed was far flung, the Athenians were unable to successfully recover all the bodies of their dead, or save survivors of the battle that were left clinging to flotsam. Without a timely rescue the number of dead was untypically high.

But despite this, the Spartan fleet was routed, nearly entirely destroyed, and Athens staved off a huge disastor.

So how did the Athenians reward this success? The executed the winning generals.

The people of Athens were so horrified that the dead weren't recovered that they lost their senses and executed the very men who saved their lives. This is the nature of a pure democracy, easily swayed by events and emotions. That's why our founders provided for a Bill of Rights to protect us from such vicissitudes. But we still have demogogues.

See the Democratic party today. Even though there is no evidence any lies were told, Democrats repeat ad nauseum that Bush is a liar.

Even more irrationally, you will hear democrats accuse the Republicans of wanting to restore the draft. Yet the only people proposing this are democrats.

The examples are numerous, but my point is that although we haven't executed any victorious generals, there is a large contingent among us who don't understand the tremendous successes our policy and war in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. To avoid the curse of democracies, we need a strong leader to explain our successes, to keep us united and focused on what is important to our survival in this war.

If we fail and elect a despicable man like John Kerry, a demogogue who cannot stay in touch with the truth, then we will be in grave danger.