Send As SMS

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

Boy, if ever there was a complete lack of understanding of how the military operates by the press - this latest "news" would be it.

I'm sure everyone has heard of the plan to "notify about 5,600 retired and discharged soldiers who are not members of the National Guard or Reserve that they will be involuntarily recalled to active duty for possible service in Iraq or Afghanistan"

This news is being met with "shock and awe" by the press at the admission by the Bush administration that they finally have realized they need more troops, the fact they're being "involuntarily recalled" and WHAT ABOUT A DRAFT! and THE END IS NIGH! and Holy Crap this is BIG NEWS and the AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED!!!!

Calm down. This is nothing new.

Even my wife (former member of the military) fell for it for a moment...the hype got to her. Until I, NOT a member of the military, explained to her...

THIS IS OLD NEWS! In fact, back in May - the US Army Public Affairs issued a press release announcing that it was a possibility, but at the time they weren't considering any "involuntary recalls."

And let's remember, that the people the evil BUSH ADMINISTRATION are talking about are those "individuals who have had training, served previously in the Active Component or the Selected Reserve (such as a member of an Army Reserve unit), and may have some period of military service obligation remaining. Unlike new recruits, these are seasoned, experienced Soldiers who can contribute significantly to Army readiness." (bold emphasis added)

But of course, if you read the news reports and listen to the talking heads - NONE OF THEM explain that these are military members who have NOT COMPLETED THEIR ENTIRE OBLIGATION to the US Military when they signed up in the first place. I'm sure there's a reason they leave that little part out of their news stories...because if the American people HAD that information, it wouldn't be a big deal...

I'll leave it to you to decide what they're motives are.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

WHAT THE HELL?

Sorry for the language, but every once in a while a little story when looked at in the grand-scheme of things just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I reference a story that most of you probably missed last week. It happened Friday (while I was out for the day - see yesterday's post). It involves the use of bullets in the war on terror. Now, considering we lost a valid NBA mascot name a number of years ago (Washington Bullets to Wizards), I kind of laughed at first, but then I got upset. This political correctness stuff is really getting out of hand:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli-made bullets bought by the U.S. Army to plug a shortfall should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. lawmakers told Army generals on Thursday.

"By no means, under any circumstances, should a round from Israel be utilized" since the Army has stockpiled ammunition, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, the top Democrat on a House Armed Services subcommittee.


The story was published in a number of sources: Reuters, NY Post, and World Net Daily. Even AlJazeerah had a glowing story about the welcome news.

Am I missing something? How is it that someone shot by a Marine cares what kind of bullet it is or where it comes from? It's an inanimate object! It doesn't hava mind of it's own! I mean really, we might as well stop dipping the bullets in pig blood before we load them in the magazines...or we make sure there isn't a K printed on the shell casings for Kosher...or a stamp of the Star of David, for Christ sake! (Sorry for the religious confusion there). Did Fritz Hollings have anything to do with this? He blames Israel for everything else, why shouldn't he be concerned where bullets are made? I can hear it now, "And y'all know that we're using Jew-bullets in this Bush quagmire"

Let's hope that no one uses Israeli donated blood to treat the wounded.

Monday, June 28, 2004

WHEW...WHAT A WEEKEND!

Yowza...the wife is fine, thank you. We had a bit of a scare on Friday with my pregnant wife, but everything is okay. Turns out it was just a bladder infection and possible kidney stone. As concerned as I was, I was actually more worried that when we got to the hospital, she would erupt in a major gas-induced flatulence - because I have heard those horror stories. Everyone gets all worked up and crazy-with-The-Baby-Is-Coming fears, and it turns out to be something simple. Well, there I go again, trying to make light of a serious situation. I shouldn't have told my wife my thoughts - boy, did I get the business.

Went shore-casting fishing this weekend. Didn't "catch" anything, but hooked onto a nice 4-foot Bonnethead Shark...that was interesting. I'm planning on looking into investing in my own shore-casting equipment. So as long as I have golf clubs and fishing, my weekends should be pretty busy.

My birthday was a couple of days ago. I don't know whether or not it was a joke on behalf of my wife, but she got me a book to read over the summer...Bill Clinton's book. 970-pages of Bill Clinton explaining why I'm such a dunce that I don't care for him as much as he wants me to.

It got me to thinking too...about this whole Fahrenheit 911 movie thing. I had an interesting caller on Thursday who wants to see the movie, but can't figure out how to go without paying - because she didn't want to give Michael Moore any money. Based on the weekend receipts from the box office - I'm sure Michael can afford to give you a free ticket or two...after all, he's a socialist, so he should see the good in that kind of a plan. Of course, he won't...

Well, now I have a solution for the woman...ask for a ticket because it's your birthday or something. Get someone to purchase you a ticket. Like the Bill Clinton book my wife got me...you'll feel better about seeing it if you got it as a gift. Of course, one problem with my logic...since my wife doesn't work, didn't I pay for the book anyway?

Another quick Monday thought starter for you too: For those of you who have seen the movie, does Tony Blair show up at all in it as a co-conspirator? I wonder why you don't hear a whole lot about the British Prime Minister and HIS lying to promote the agenda of going to war with Iraq? Why does HE get a free pass and all of the emphasis is on Bush? Is he just some dope who needed to go along with the US for the sake of - well, that's not fully explained ever is it? I think for the intellectual honesty angle, we should start seeing some Blair Is Hitler signs, don't you?

Thursday, June 24, 2004

GETTING PUBLISHED IS GETTING HARDER

For outgoing Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC), it's getting more and more likely his legacy will be one of, "thank God" instead of "thanks Ernest"...

The Charleston Post and Courier didn't see fit to publish the latest loony "editorial" by the Senator known as Foghorn Leghorn. Usually, it would be standard practice. Unfortunately, only The State newspaper in Columbia chose to publish the piece. Once you read it, maybe you can understand why.

Maybe the tide is turning for Senator Hollings. Maybe they are tired of the embarrassment he brings to their use of paper. Maybe they'll publish it this weekend. Maybe they're trying to save any remaining respect people of South Carolina have for this guy. You know...guilt by association worries.

In it, Senator Hollings says some pretty wacky things:

"...Iraq, as a threat to the United States, was all contrived..."

Then why did Senator Hollings vote for the authorized use of force?

"...President Bush must have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We have no al Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorism from Iraq; we were intentionally misled by the Bush administration..."

Then why did Senator Hollings vote for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998?

"...We have proven ourselves 'infidels.'..."

"...Walking guard duty tonight in Baghdad, a G.I. wonders why he should lose his life when his commander says he can't win and the people back home can't make up their mind..."

Then why is Senator Hollings giving our enemies more aid and comfort?

Maybe it's because of his own personal motto from his website, "Performance is better than promise"...and he's trying to perform his best for his party, rather than living up to the promises he made in his votes. Either that, or he has to admit that he's lying...or too stupid to remain a Senator.

He should resign.

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

THERE YOU GO AGAIN

It's over...the Republican primary run-off for the US Senate race in South Carolina. And it's a victory for...

Well, so far, not for those who still want to project the usual stereotypes of the South.

Virtually every news article following the win by Jim DeMint mentioned the same thing...confederate flag and some kind of dig about video gambling. Former Governor David Beasley lost to Jim DeMint because of Christian conservatives, the gambling issue, the "flip-flop" on the flag...or some combination of each - or so the story is being told.

Here are the examples from the three major South Carolina press reports:

Upstate: Greenville - "...Beasley was unable to shake the past in which he was questioned about exaggerations and fluctuating opinions. In 1998, he was ousted from the governor's office after one term during which he changed his mind about the Confederate flag and called for its removal from atop the Statehouse..."

Midlands: Columia - "...In 1996, Beasley argued the Confederate battle flag should not fly from atop the State House, though he once argued it should remain. Later, he dropped the issue. In 1998, he opposed efforts to create a state lottery, then backed a statewide referendum to decide the issue — which he also had earlier fought..."

Lowcountry: Charleston - "...For Beasley, the loss was a stunning rejection of his bid for political redemption after he made history six years ago when fights over the Confederate flag, the lottery and video gambling led him to become South Carolina's first governor voted out of office..."

Okay, am I the only one who remembers the debates? The issues discussed...and the newspaper articles that reminded us of the major disagreement between the two candidates?

It was about FREE TRADE versus PROTECTIONISM. It was Buchanan vs Bush again. It was about welcoming the challenge of trade agreements with foreign countries vs slapping penalties on countries that do things better than us.

Now, to be fair, virtually all of the newspaper articles mentioned a little bit about the trade issue, but compared to the buildup before the vote - the focus on it now is out of order.

Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but it might be time for South Carolina's state media to stop helping outside interests (media and politicos) further the stereotypical view of the South. In the outside reporting, just what issue do you think the media will "key" on because it might sell a few more papers?

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

SOME HOLLYWOOD PREDICTIONS

I'm a big fan of the original 1962 thriller starring Frank Sinatra...The Manchurian Candidate. I'm also a big fan of Denzel Washington and Jonathan Demme. I've seen the trailers of the new version of the movie (based on a 1959 book) and I'm impressed...BUT...I have a couple of predictions to make about the film based on the current atmosphere in Hollywood. Of course, I could be wrong (I haven't seen the film), but my experience suggests the following:

1. Korea vs Gulf War - the original movie and book took place in the context of the Korean War and (without giving away too much of the plot) a soldier returning to collect a Medal of Honor only to find that the others who served with him are brainwashed by the "manchurian" communists. According to the teaser, the remake takes place in the Gulf War. I don't know how you get a manchurian (def. - "of or relating to or characteristic of Manchuria or its people or their culture") from an area of the world that has very few Chinese or Asian citizens. How can they change the race of the "villian" and not change the title of the movie? Why not still keep it based in Korea? North Korea is still full of communists last time I checked. That's Hollywood, I guess.

2. Commies vs Right Wing - my guess is that Hollywood wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they left the original villian a commie plot to assassinate and infiltrate the US Government. Based on past experience with other PC-washed villians, this one won't be ethnic or communist. Most likely, it'll be a white guy either influenced by neo-nazi's or right-wing business or political interests (all part of the same group according to the liberals). Those, it seems, are the only kind of villians Hollywood can accept these days. Anyone remember "The Sum of All Fears" and the PC-washing of the Arabic terrorists in favor of some cultish Nazi group in Germany? That's Hollywood, I guess.

I really hate to see re-makes of already classic films, but I like most Hollywood productions these days because we can update the intensity and ability to bring aspects of the plot we weren't able to portray into the mix...primarily because of the better special effects. No one would doubt, for instance, that the re-make of The Lord Of The Rings shouldn't have been done because it already had a movie to it's name. In some sense, I believe Hollywood has been doing re-makes out of laziness or lack of original writing...but there's a hidden reason or two. Some current directors think they can improve on the original with their "vision" - like "Psycho" or "Oceans 11." There's even a rumor that they're re-making "Flight of the Phoenix" - I think an offensive slap at one of Hollywood's greats, Jimmy Stewart. The other reason is to "update it for our times" which means defend liberalism. And it coming out at the height of the political convention season is no coincidence. Don't forget, the original movie came out in 1962 - and there were some false stories that it was "pulled" from the theatres because Frank Sinatra was so upset by the killing of JFK...(it was never true).

Let's face it, Hollywood is embarrassed by their past nods to patriotism and pride in American virtues and values. Hollywood believes both of past movies and of most current voters, that we are somehow all duped by simple messages and patriotic slug lines...if we only had the "vision" of what things "really are like" after careful studying (with liberal glasses) we would see the light.

Remember I posted this...then see the movie, and tell me I was wrong.

That's Hollywood, I guess.

Monday, June 21, 2004

BEHEADING NOW A NEW WAY TO CAMPAIGN

Despite the lack of success, the terrorist organization Al-Queada continues to capture hostages and threaten them with beheading until they get what they want.

This time, it's South Korea that will be forced to discuss this in a calm and rational manner...which I find hilarious. Not the beheading, mind you, but the political discussion we seem to be having regarding the beheadings. I find it amazing that we have serious policy wonks who are trying to decide "what this all means" for the war in Iraq. It's very simple, people...and the President has been trying to explain this to you since it all began last year. This is not a criminal matter - it's war.

These people are animals and must be killed. No "police action" no "arrests" and no "investigations into their actions"...we KILL THEM BEFORE THEY KILL US.

I'm still amazed, though, by the lack of thought along these lines from your average anti-war liberals. That somehow we need to wring our hands and develop "nicer policies" toward these thugs. And somehow, we can leave their lands and withdraw our troops and everything will be much better. Sadly, I heard a family member of Nick Berg this morning say the US Government needs to find and "arrest" those responsible for Paul Johnson's murder.

Once more, my friends...we don't ARREST terrorists...WE KILL THEM. Perhaps once our politicians get over the fact they have to be careful of what they say for fear of upsetting someone with their use of strong language, we can all get on board and win this thing. Let me give those who may be passing through, and members of the media a hint...

We, the American people:

1. Saw humans jumping out of buildings to avoid dying in fires
2. Heard frantic last minute phone calls to loved ones
3. Celebrated the courage of those who faught back and prevented another plane from crashing
4. Saw the Daniel Pearle video
5. Saw the Nick Berg video
6. Saw the Paul Johnson photos


We can take it. Stop trying to scare us with pictures of prisoners with underwear on their heads...based on the above, we're not impressed.

Friday, June 18, 2004

OKAY, WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS?

American Paul Johnson was beheaded today by Al-Quaeda terrorists...I'm searching for the photos...but haven't found them yet. Strange? Or an agenda?

Happy Father's Day...

Wednesday, June 16, 2004

TRY TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX OF LIBERALISM

Here again, is some healthy correspondence between myself and Karl (Marx?):

Come on Greg, the evidence is mounting that Abu Ghraib was planned and approved at the highest levels. Is this why you are sick of hearing about it? Ashcroft and his ilk could care less about human rights and the proof is coming out in numerous memos, though he's trying to suppress it. Are you trying to suppress it, too? I've linked this story first. Abu Ghraib is not a "bad apple" situation. The next link shows the use of dogs in the interrogations. The one dog handler who refused to participate is a hero if you ask me, his quote is at the bottom. Do you think letting guard dogs attack people is torture? Tell the whole story and stop trying to justify this horrible behavior.

Karl


Karl provides the following clips from the "story":

But the memorandums, by their numbers and their arguments — aimed at justifying the use of interrogation techniques inflicting pain by spelling out instances when this did not legally constitute torture and the inapplicability of international treaties

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/09/politics/09TORT.html

military intelligence interrogator also told investigators that two dog handlers at Abu Ghraib were "having a contest" to see how many detainees they could make involuntarily urinate out of fear of the dogs, according to the previously undisclosed statements obtained by The Washington Post.
The statements by the dog handlers provide the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved in tactics later deemed by a U.S. Army general to be "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses."

Human rights experts said the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib violates longstanding tenets regulating the treatment of prisoners and civilians under the control of an occupying force, including the Army's field manual, which prohibits "acts of violence or intimidation" by American soldiers

They said a non-commissioned officer from military intelligence approached them in mid-December.

"He asked us if we could use our dogs for interrogation purposes," Cardona said in a statement. "They were trying to get it cleared. We went outside and saw Col. Pappas. He told us MI wanted to use the dogs for interrogations and he told us that they had received permission to use dogs in an interview."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32776-2004Jun10.html

I was leaving because this is not what my dog is trained for," Kimbro said in one of three statements he provided to investigators. "We do not use our dogs for interrogation purposes."

Kimbro was singled out for praise in Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba's report about abuse at the prison for refusing "to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib


Then, I finally dispense the truth:

The NY Times? You're serious, right? Instead of relying on their reporting of the memos...you can read the actual memos. Funnily enough, they provide them on their website: (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040608_DOC.pdf)

Pay attention to pages 7, 24, 28-30, 36, and 38....heck, read the whole thing if you want...but I reference much of the information on those pages in my comments below:

I wonder how many readers took the time to read them.

Besides, the memos were about exploring the MAXIMUM scope of Presidential power during war...to analyze the extent of that power in worst-case scenarios. I suspect the NY Times didn't include that info in the story. It's something even Lincoln had to consider when he had to consider his options in a time of war...he ordered a blockade of the south during the Civil War and attempted to suspend habeas corpus. The memos specifically pointed out that "malicious and sadistic use of force always violates contemporary standards of decency and would constitute cruel and unusual punishment." The memos also pointed out that soldiers wouldn't have any defense against unlawful Presidential orders...citing the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 93 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/stApIIch47.html).

Posing detainees in sexual or compromising positions is NOT torture as defined by US and international law...it may be humiliation and a violation of standards, but it ain't torture.(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/113c/sections/section_2340.html)

I'm sure there will be more to dispense tomorrow...but, I have a baby waiting for me at home....

G



Tuesday, June 15, 2004

LIBERAL REWARDS

I guess you need a clearer example of how the left reward the workhorses of the movement.

Today's Post and Courier has it in black and white for you in an article today: Pleased board gives Goodloe vacation gift

I must be in the wrong business, because the station I work for just received more data on how we're doing...and we're doing very well. If I worked as effectively as Dr Goodloe apparently does, I should be getting an extra vacation...but you see...I work in the real world.

Dr Goodloe, having been the superintendent for all of 8 months or so, will be getting an extra 10-days of vacation this year as a reward for doing a good job.

In the same article, the report includes the following:

"...[the board passed] the $276.8 million budget for the coming school year.
Board members Hugh Cannon and Sandi Engelman abstained from the vote adopting the budget, which includes a tax increase of about $29.17 on the average home, valued at $173,673..."


So mission accomplished...they raised taxes. Mission number 2?

"...The budget includes an average 3.9 percent pay increase for district employees..."

Raised salaries...check. And the final mission?

"...the district's more than $60 million shortfall in its building program..."

Fraud. Yep...I could do with a little of the ole liberal performance pay bonuses, you know? That 10-day vacation is about $4800...almost enough to send a child to a decent private school in South Carolina. But don't ask her to give it to some needy child in Charleston...after all the hard work she's been doing, she needs the extra vacation.

Monday, June 14, 2004

ON WITH THE SHOW...

Well, liberals are wiping their brows after the week of festivities honoring Ronald Reagan. A sigh of relief for them, really...so we can get back to the issues of the day. Any reminder of the passion and respect that people had for Reagan and his ideals was tough for them to see.

I've really had it up to here with the disinformation media...and the seeming ease in which liberals and education establishment-types are allowed to get away with what they do. I'm talking about the sheer chutzpa it takes to criticize school choice efforts with a "lack of accountability" angle. Public school advocates are somehow allowed to get away with it in spite of what we know (at least locally) how badly they do with their own accountability.

1. The local school board recently announced they were 61-million dollars short in their building and maintenance fund.

2. A school principal was re-assigned after he was found to be giving students who didn't earn them, diplomas.

3. A charter school principal isn't commenting after the discovery of missing funds that were provided for students she never had.

I suspect these stories aren't too out of the norm in other areas of the country.

Rest assured, when the next plan to implement some common sense choice options in our schools comes...the opponents (usually the same people in charge of the above) will lay claim to the "lack of accountability" argument and oppose any effort to allow parents to tranfer their children to a private school...and they'll be serious about it too. I find it sickening.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We are currently being treated to a well-deserved look back at the Brown vs Board of Education decision 50-years ago. Students of color won the right to remove the chains outside schools that were supposedly off-limits to them. Now, they find the same chains...only, they're on the inside of the doors and they refuse to let them out.

Tuesday, June 08, 2004

I COULDN'T HELP BUT POST THIS...I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ IT

Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States
Commencement Address
McAlister Field House
May 15, 1993

Keepers of the peace

I’m delighted to be here on this glorious day of hope and promise. It is indeed an honor to have the privilege of speaking to you today and to receive an honorary degree from this distinguished institution.
Surely my service record alone can’t explain my presence here. More than half a century ago I was made a 2nd lieutenant in the Horse Cavalry Reserve. That’s hardly enough to warrant the honor you do me today.
But I do have to confess to you that during my presidency, I had an idea that I could never get anyone to support—I wanted to reinstate the Horse Cavalry in the armed services.
Frankly, my being here cannot be based on my academic achievements either. Yes, it’s true that my alma mater—Eureka College—awarded me an honorary degree 25 years after my graduation. That only aggravated a sense of guilt I’d nursed for 25 years. I’ve always suspected the first degree they’d given me was honorary. Truthfully, I am very proud to receive this degree today and my prayer is that I can somehow be deserving of it.
It is a special pleasure to address the graduating class of 1993, as together we mark the culmination of The Citadel’s sesquicentennial year. My goodness—one hundred and fifty years. Has it really been that long? It seems like only yesterday that Colonel Harvey Dick and I were watching the first 20 members of the Corps of Cadets report for duty.
You know, the military college had been created that past December, and we weren’t quite sure how things would turn out. I remember asking him, “Colonel Dick, do you think these original knobs will make the grade?” Well, a week later, 10 of them were serving confinements, the other 10 were finishing up tours, and all 20 had turned in at least one E.R.W. You see, some things never change. Come to think of it, I seem to recall the colonel was even driving the same station wagon around Charleston. The only difference was that back then, that wagon had real horsepower
Seriously, on my way to Charleston I took a peek at “The Guidon” which they tell me is the bible of the knobs. The more I read that little booklet, the better I like it. For example, I learned the three permissible knob answers: "Sir, yes, sir" and "Sir, no, sir” and—I liked this third one best of all—"Sir, no excuse, sir." By golly, I think, we ought to send the entire U.S. Congress down here to learn answer number three.
Then I read this friendly advice in the book: “When you receive an order, carry it out to the best of your ability. Never argue or offer suggestions which you think might be better. This is not in your best interest." Well, it seems to me that The Citadel has a few things to teach the Cabinet and the Executive Branch, too! In fact, maybe we should just put the whole federal government through cadet training!
But then I remembered the last time the Corps of Cadets and good people of Charleston decided the federal government was taking too active an interest in their affairs. Before you knew it, Cadet George Haynsworth and the other boys behind the gun had fired the famous first shot at the Yankee steamer, Star of the West. Well, we all know what happened after that. As I recall, it took a good four years before everything calmed down again. Just think of the E.R.W. those fellas would have had to write!
In fact, of course, the boys behind the gun served valiantly the cause to which they had pledged their devotion. In this, they exemplified a Citadel tradition—a tradition that would transcend the divisions of our nation's bloodiest internal struggle, and inspire generations of future cadets to courageous service to a nation reunited.
The Citadel's roll of honor today stretches unblemished from the Ardannes to the 38th Parallel, from Grenada to the Persian Gulf with name after name of those who have served our country bravely in time of war—names like General Charles Summerall, General Mark Clark, and your current president, General Bud Watts. Yes, countless soldiers have distinguished themselves on fields of valor and are part of the century-and-a-half tradition of duty and honor we celebrate today.
But for me, there is one name that will always come to mind whenever I think of The Citadel and the Corps of Cadets. It is a name that appears in no military histories; its owner won no glory on the field of battle.
No, his moment of truth came not in combat, but on a snow-driven, peacetime day in the nation's capital in January of 1982. That is the day that the civilian airliner, on which he was a passenger, crashed into a Washington bridge, then plunged into the rough waters of the icy Potomac. He survived the impact of the crash and found himself with a small group of other survivors struggling to stay afloat in the near-frozen river. And then, suddenly, there was hope—a park police helicopter appeared overhead, trailing a lifeline to the outstretched hands below, a lifeline that could carry but a few of the victims to the safety of the shore. News cameramen, watching helplessly, recorded the scene as the man in the water repeatedly handed the rope to the others, refusing to save himself until the first one, then two, then three and four, and finally five of his fellow passengers had been rescued.
But when the helicopter returned for one final trip, the trip that would rescue the man who had passed the rope, it was too late. He had slipped at last beneath the waves with the sinking wreckage—the only one of 79 fatalities in the disaster who lost his life after the accident itself.
For months thereafter, we knew him only as the "unknown hero." And then an exhaustive Coast Guard investigation conclusively established his identity. Many of you here today know his name as well as I do, for his portrait now hangs with honor—as it indeed should—on this very campus; the campus where he once walked, as you have, through the Summerall Gate and along the Avenue of Remembrance. He was a young first classman with a crisp uniform and a confident stride on a bright spring morning, full of hopes and plans for the future. He never dreamed that his life's supreme challenge would come in its final moments, some 25 years later, adrift in the bone-chilling waters of an ice-strewn river and surrounded by others who desperately needed help.
But when the challenge came, he was ready. His name was Arland D. Williams, Jr., The Citadel Class of 1957. He brought honor to his alma mater, and honor to his nation. I was never more proud as president than on that day in June 1983 when his parents and his children joined me in the Oval Office—for then I was able, on behalf of the nation, to pay posthumous honor to him. Greater love, as the Bible tells us, hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend.
I have spoken of Arland Williams in part to honor him anew in your presence, here at this special institution that helped mold his character. It is the same institution that has now put its final imprint on you, the graduating seniors of its 150th year. But I have also retold his story because I believe it has something important to teach to you as graduates about the challenges that life inevitably seems to present — and about what it is that prepares us to meet them.
Sometimes, you see, life gives us what we think is fair warning of the choices that will shape our future. On such occasions, we are able to look far along the path, up ahead to that distant point in the woods where the poet's "two roads" diverge. And then, if we are wise, we will take time to think and reflect before choosing which road to take before the junction is reached.
But such occasions, in fact, are rather rare—far rarer, I suspect, than the confident eyes of one's early twenties can quite perceive. Far more often than we can comfortably admit, the most crucial of life's moments come like the scriptural "thief in the night." Suddenly and without notice, the crisis is up on us and the moment of choice is at hand—a moment fraught with import for ourselves, and for all who are depending on the choice we make. We find ourselves, if you will, plunged without warning into the icy water, where the currents of moral consequence run swift and deep, and where our fellow man - and yes, I believe our Maker—are waiting to see whether we will pass the rope.
These are moments when instinct and character take command, as they took command for Arland Williams on the day our Lord would call him home. For there is no time, at such moments, for anything but fortitude and integrity. Debate and reflection and a leisurely weighing of the alternatives are luxuries we do not have. The only question is what kind of responsibility will come to the fore.
And now we come to the heart of the matter, to the core lesson taught by the heroism of Arland Williams on January 13, 1982. For you see, the character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined.
It has been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the little choices of years past—by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation—whispering the lie that it really doesn't matter. It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away—the decisions that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness, habits of self-sacrifice or of self-indulgence, habits of duty and honor and integrity—or dishonor and shame.
Because when life does get tough, and the crisis is undeniably at hand—when we must, in an instant look inward for strength of character to see us through—we will find nothing inside ourselves that we have not already put there.
And you know, it turns out that much the same thing is also true for our country. Indeed, I believe this is especially so in the most crucial area of all—America's ability, when necessary, to defend her citizens and her freedoms, and her vital interests by force of arms. For here, too, the crisis is often upon us in an instant. Here, too, our instincts and character must be equal to challenges we can scarcely predict. But here, even character and instinct will not be enough. We must also have the tools—the military capability—ready in advance of the crisis that may demand their use.
Yes, it's true that today the world is a different, better place than it was a decade ago, but it is not an entirely safe place. A multitude of terrorists and international hoodlums are working night and day to do us harm. U.S. troops have been called into action over a dozen times in the last four years. And dozens of deadly conflicts still plague the globe, from central Europe to the former Soviet Union to the Middle East.
Yet, our nation is calling the watchman down from the tower. There are some who want to send Paul Revere into retirement. And I fear it is much too early for that.
By the mid-1990s, defense spending will be well under four percent of our economy. That's down to pre-Pearl Harbor levels. Some members of the blame-the-military crowd in Washington want to cut defense even faster—almost recklessly. They think military weapons and, yes, military people are somehow akin to warmongers.
But just recently we've seen an incredible example of the great humanitarian duties performed by the U.S. armed forces. You don't hear too much about it from that blame-the-military crowd, but I think history will record it as one of the great humanitarian projects of our era. Not too long ago, our forces went into Somalia, a country suffering from daily violence and intense starvation. I'm sure you remember the horrifying pictures on television of the starving children there. Our country made the bold and difficult decision to take the lead in this effort, and our troops were sent because it was the right thing to do. They performed brilliantly and restored order to that desperate country, and when the mission was successfully completed, they came home. It was a proud moment for our country and I, for one, commend those young heroes for their valor.
Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana has put it simply and put it well, "The role of the United States should be to lead the world. Our country has the wisdom, the political will, the military capability, and the economic strength to perform that role better than any other."
I would add only this: it is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction.
Some continue to think of the world's best military as a laboratory for social experiments. Well, I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. We are at peace today and we have that peace through strength, and you, our military, are the providers of that strength. Most importantly of all, you are not wagers of wars, but keepers of the peace.
I'm tired of listening to those naysayers—I heard them often during my own years as commander-in-chief. Our military buildup, we were told, threatened a dangerous escalation of tensions. Our deploying of Pershings and cruise missiles in Europe would destroy any hope for negotiations with the Soviet Union, they said. Our insistence on S.D.I. would scuttle the I.N.F. Treaty. And what kind of fool would call the Soviet Union an evil empire, and say that communism was destined for the ashheap of history?
You know, I have to wonder, just how many times do some people have to be wrong, on so many crucial points, before they start asking themselves a few questions? But you know what some of those critics are saying today? Some of the same people who said our policies were doomed to failure because the Soviets were supposedly too strong are now trying to argue that our policies made no difference because the evil empire was doomed to collapse no matter what we did! Looks to me like it ought to be time again for knob answer three — "Sir, no excuse, sir."
Today, having achieved the victory over communism that some said we were foolish to even seek, America faces the question of military preparedness in a post-Cold War era. And we are hearing some of the same old voices of the blame-the-military crowd, but they're uttering a slightly different message. Before, their theme was that American military might was too costly and too dangerous. Now, they claim that it is too costly and largely unnecessary—that danger is past and the war is won.
It is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And I'd like to offer several reasons why we must stay strong militarily:
First, despite the spread of democracy and capitalism, human nature has not changed. It is still an unpredictable mixture of good and evil. Our enemies maybe irrational, even outright insane—driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, planes and helicopter gunships.
Second, the Soviet Union may be gone, but even small powers can destroy global peace and security. The modem world is filled with vulnerable choke-points—military, geographic, political and economic. The actual lives at stake may be few in number. But, in an era of mass communications, a well-aimed assault can topple governments, cause economic dislocations and spark international conflict. Iraq came close to taking over two-thirds of the world's oil reserves. Terrorists have attacked airplanes, boats, government buildings, the Olympic games, and even the World Trade Center.
Third, technology—for all its blessings—can enable new enemies to rise up overnight. Scientific information flows to ambitious dictators faster than ever. The research and development cycle for new products has shrunk from ten years to five years to two years or even shorter. Technology turns the world upside down. When I was a boy in Illinois, Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers dominated the global marketplace with their marvelous machines. But I was not long out of college when Adolf Hitler's sophisticated tanks and bombers over-ran Europe. Nazi Germany also built the first jet plane and it became frightfully close to inventing the atomic bomb before we did.
The Soviet Union was devastated by Hitler's invasion in the early 1940s. Yet the communist nation quickly rose from the ashes and developed the hydrogen bomb. And few people expected Iraq to recover so quickly from its horrendous war with Iran in the 1980s.
And who can predict what will be the blitzkriegs of tomorrow? Nearly two dozen nations will be able to produce ballistic missiles by the year 2000. On top of that, thousands of nuclear weapons and poorly paid nuclear technicians float around the former Soviet Union—available to the highest bidder.
Over the past few months, we've heard quite a few odd announcements coming out of Washington. Just this week, the new administration announced plans to slash the Strategic Defense Initiative program. They have been all too eager to denounce this program for years and they have been proven wrong, time and time again. I am quite proud of the S.D.I. program we launched a decade ago. I feel it played an instrumental role in our victory over communism. Now, I may not be a Rhodes Scholar, but I do know this, if we can protect America with a defensive shield from incoming missile attacks, we should by all means do so. And if the new administration in Washington thinks we are no longer at risk, they need to open their eyes and take a long, hard look at the world.
The Romans warned long ago, "Let him who desires peace prepare for war." Washington would echo these words in the very first State of the Union Address, reiterating to his countrymen one of the simple truths of the ages — "to be prepared for war is one of the effectual means of preserving peace." Yet it seems we must re-learn this lesson time and time again, often at terrible cost. I know.
In my eighty-two years, I've seen America drop her guard time and time again — and each time with tragic consequences. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson won the election on a promise that he would keep the nation out of war. Shortly afterwards, an unprepared America was sucked into World War I. In 1940, President Roosevelt won re-election on a peace platform. That peace platform soon crumbled under the bombs of Pearl Harbor. After World War II, we disarmed virtually overnight. Before you knew it, our army was being pushed around by ragtag troops in Korea. And later, the Soviets shocked us by launching Sputnik and by invading Afghanistan. Today, the United States dominates the world arena. Once again, our noble first instinct is to seek peace. And that's why America needs the brave and skilled soldiers of The Citadel more than ever. Just in case.
As General Colin Powell, my former national security advisor and now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted, we need a powerful military that can solve small problems before they become big, bloody ones.
We cannot allow another Saddam Hussein to grab every oil patch in the Middle East.
It would be difficult to sit on the sidelines in Bosnia and watch the slaughter of innocent men, women and children and allow war to spread elsewhere in Europe. For let us not forget that that is the exact place that the first World War began.
When I was about your age, President Roosevelt said we had "nothing to fear but fear itself." Today, in much different times, our prosperous nation has little to fear but complacency itself. We must stay strong and flexible. We must keep our powder dry. And this venerable academic institution has an historic obligation to preserve the liberty of America.
Savor these moments. Keep these memories close to your heart. Cherish your families and friends because we never know what the future will bring. Live each day to the fullest. Because it is you who will lay the solid foundations of a free society.
You are ready to build the homes, the neighborhoods and businesses of the 21st century. A noble defender of freedom. General Douglas MacArthur, knew well the qualities of a soldier patriot. During the desperate early days of World War II, when our victory in the Pacific was by no means assured, he wrote a prayer for someone he loved dearly—his young son. Perhaps it could have been written by any father or mother here today.
Here is part of the general's prayer, "Build me a son, 0 Lord, who will be strong enough to know when he is weak, and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid. One who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory. Build me a son whose wishes will not take the place of deed; a son who will know Thee—and that to know himself is the foundation stone of knowledge.
"Give him humility, so that he may always remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, and the meekness of true strength.
"Then, I, his father, will dare to whisper, 1 have not lived in vain.'"
Cadets, live each day with enthusiasm, optimism, hope and honor. If you do, I am convinced that your contribution to this wonderful experiment we call America will be greater than we ever imagined.
In closing, let me say that nothing made me prouder as president than America's young people in uniform. And no decision was ever more difficult for me to make than the times I ordered our military forces into action. Each time I issued such an order, I reminded myself that it wasn't just a nameless, faceless soldier I was dispatching, but a child of loving parents; the partner of an adoring spouse; or perhaps the parent and provider for some happy children. I reminded myself that if things should go wrong, and casualties did occur, it wouldn't just be a day of flag-draped coffins coming home.
There would permanently be empty chairs at family tables, vacant seats in little league baseball bleachers, and teary-eyed explanations to young children about why their mommy or daddy wouldn't be coming home again.
So I felt then, as I feel now, America owes a special thanks to those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. We must honor them and respect them, not just when they are in battle, but every day they wear the proud uniform of our country.
When I met with each of my successors prior to beginning their presidencies, I strongly offered a bit of personal advice. I told them, even though you don't wear a uniform, as president you are the commander-in-chief. And when you are saluted by a member of the Armed Forces, don't just smile or wave. I said, stop and salute them back. And, from what I've seen, they've followed that advice.
So today, as an old cavalry officer and your former commander-in-chief, I hope you will allow me once again to show you how proud I am.
Thank you, again, for having me here today. Congratulations and God bless you.

Sunday, June 06, 2004

RONALD WILSON REAGAN

I waited until today to express my thoughts about the passing of the greatest President I've known in my lifetime. He was the first President who made me understand why I believed what I believed...and gave me the courage and optimism to express them without fear. He was the first to get me thinking about politics and why they mattered...sadly, I think most of America these days would welcome a return to the kind of politics he practiced.

Ronald Reagan was a radio broadcaster too.

I never knew him personally, of course...but when he left office (I actually got a chance to vote for him in 84) I sat down and wrote him a thank you note. When I read his "goodbye address" though, I realized he was thanking ME and the American people for helping him do what he did. It's an amazing contrast to the self-important "legacy building" we have today with some ex-Presidents (ahem).

Ronald Reagan liked to tell jokes...but those jokes usually meant something. They weren't simply off the cuff laughers, they were to make a point. One of my favorites was about the two boys, Optimist and Pessimist. Scientists were trying to figure out just how much of an optimist and pessimist they were, so they built two rooms. The Pessimist was put into a large room filled with every toy you could imagine. The Pessimist boy cried the whole time because he worried about breaking them and getting in trouble. The Optimist was put into a room filled with manure - floor to ceiling with a few spaces bare for walking. The Pessimist squealed and cried with joy. Scientists were dumbfounded at why he was doing this...thinking him insane, they quickly removed him from the room and asked him why he was so happy. He said, "With all that manure in there...there's got to be a pony somewhere."

Ronald Wilson Reagan will be missed...not just for his sense of optimism, but for the optimism he inspired in a generation. It was the greatest expression of pride for America, patriotism, optimism, a can-do attitude I witnessed in my lifetime. And it all happened because of his leadership...not because some planes hit a few buildings. He inspired me to think beyond myself...to do the right thing even if I met with difficulty in being persuaded to go the easy path.

I hope some of the campaign literature that George W people print up have just a simple tag-line - "George, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, tell them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper."

Let's Roll, George...for Ronny.

Thursday, June 03, 2004

THE SOUND OF SILENCE

I'm sorry my mail was late because of the Monday holiday. I wished I would have had my new issue of National Review before I left for the long weekend on Friday.

I have more than a few complaints about the way the Bush administration is highlighting success in Iraq...telling the TRUE story of the war...having to put up with an overblown story about a few soldiers operating in a prison. And people always ask me why the news is so negative. I answer the same as always...that it's easier to report bad news because it's easier to find and journalists are lazy. I've argued that it would improve the situation if the Bush administration would itself be more forthcoming with several situations...Saddam connection to 9/11, WMD's in Iraq, the economy, a whole host of good news that people aren't hearing about.

After reading THIS excellent article, I still don't get why they make it so difficult. The story is about soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have received recognition for their bravery. Interested by the article, I wanted to see how many South Carolina natives may have received medals for bravery, purple hearts, and other awards. Let me tell you, it ain't easy. First I did a Google search for news stories about awards and South Carolina soldiers. In a regular Google search, I found the site of Congressman John Spratt (D-SC), but had to fish through a list of stories about Abu Graib before I found a speech he made about travel reimbursement to members of the US military returning to Iraq. Still, no mention of South Carolina purple hearts, Silver Stars, or a Navy Cross. Not a word in newsprint as far as I can tell, so maybe there aren't any. But, wouldn't (or shouldn't) it be easy to find it on a military website? Well, it certainly isn't easy...try it yourself: www.defendamerica.mil

Now I understand why the news is so negative...because in the proper context, negative news IS easy to find...not necessarily because it's more prevalent, but because our President isn't making it easy for them. Of course, some people (the very same press) need to explain why he's considered to have too much swagger and arrogance.

Wednesday, June 02, 2004

ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT

That sound you hear? Silence. One of the interesting things that has surprisingly gone un-noticed in the War on Terror...despite the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and our relations around the world...the primary job of our officials is protection of the American people...there has been no further attack from terrorists here in the United States.

Some may pooh-pooh that statement, but these are the same people that complain we are too busy in other countries (Iraq mostly) and we need to be more isolationist in our protection against terror. Strange, isn't it? We need to be more isolationist when it comes to trade, jobs, homeland protection...but we should seek more "internationalization" of the War on Terror. I know, I haven't figured that viewpoint out yet either.

The one thing liberals must understand is the fact we have had not one single further attack on our homeland since September 11th. That comfort level may be the reason most of these weenies want to be more isolationist...they figure we're secure enough to quit being the "policeman of the world" and come home. But it's a stunning achievement when you think about it without partisan glasses...really amazing! What other war started with a defining moment like an attack on our people...and included NO FURTHER attacks?

It's a different kind of war, isn't it? One that THEY started...and we're finishing it.

Tuesday, June 01, 2004

THE VET OFFENSIVE OF 2004

A little birdy told me this weekend that a spokesperson for Senator Fritz Hollings used the occasion of a Memorial Day service in James Island to once again call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and voice opposition to the war in Iraq. I have yet to confirm the report, nor have I seen anything in print about it. If you have details, EMAIL THEM to me...make sure to leave a name, town, and a number I can reach you in order to confirm the info you provide.

It's obviously an inappropriate thing to do at a Memorial Day ceremony, but certainly not beyond the pale for the class that liberals usually display when around anyone in uniform. Let's face it, liberals have always been somewhat uncomfortable around members of the military. Heck, even most of the members of our police force can attest to their past displays of support.

So what is it besides killing and bombing that the military does that the liberals get all squeamish about?

Unions. Think about it...

Liberals don't like the police generally...but always seem ready to attach themselves ONLY to their union representation...and are quite proud of getting their support. Police officers themselves are generally more law and order types and support conservative values more often.

Firefighters are different...they don't kill people on purpose when it may be necessary. Firefighters are generally more supportive of liberal causes because the issues tend to revolve around job protection and funding/pay stuff.

The military? While workers at the Pentagon (federal workers) and bureaucrats are more supportive of liberal causes (including some old-style ex-military types), the military fighting force themselves are not unionized. Although the libs have done their best to mess up the works by trying all kinds of things like socialization, gays in the military, canceling their votes, pay issues, veterans benefits, etc...the military have been steady in their support of conservatives. The latest is the silly idea of instituting the draft again...while liberals claim to do it in support of the military, most members of the military will tell you that it's a bad idea. This frustrates liberals...so I think it's more of a kind of revenge against the military that liberals have in their policy approaches.

But here's John Kerry...DECORATED Viet Nam Veteran...which reminds me, how many NON-DECORATED Viet Nam Veterans are there?...anyway...he's supposed to be getting veterans support no matter what. It isn't happening. John Kerry has been using a photo of his fellow Swift boat buddies in Viet Nam as campaign literature...only 2 of them are supporters of his campaign, 11 are opposed, 2 are dead...and at least 4 don't want to be involved in any political campaign.

The reason I bring this all up? Well, a wire service report about the happenings yesterday with the two candidates went like this:

"...Bush, who avoided combat in Vietnam while serving as a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, calls himself a war president for his re-election campaign against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran..."

Again...an alleged non-biased media news wire. If you can't spot the bias yourself, then you're a liberal.

Believe me...the LAST thing liberals want is a strong military. They've been doing everything they can in the past to bring them more in-line with the "mainstream" of America...they think the military are full of a bunch of testosterone that needs to be corrected...they're too "gung-ho" and quick to violence...violence isn't necessary, etc.

You can't tell me the libs are fooling you with their spot change attempt...