His article, Cindy and the Pacifrauds makes a compelling parallel between the known pacifists of the past century and the current proponents of “peace” today. He correctly associates Ms. Sheehan and her supporters with the so-called pacifists who are held up as liberal icons for peace. Read the following:

“Honest pacifists are rare. After all, to be an honest pacifist one must be either a saint, or in deep denial of the world as it is. Take the two most celebrated pacifists of the last century, Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi. No doubt Einstein and Gandhi wanted peace. So do we all. But it was Einstein who told FDR about the atom bomb, and thereby set into motion the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki several years later. And it was Gandhi who mobilized Western opinion to throw the British Raj out of India, at the cost of 4 million lives during the chaotic Partition of 1948. As peace makers, Einstein and Gandhi were stupendous failures. If causing four million deaths is not a failure, what is?

Some years after Hiroshima, Albert Einstein wrote to a Japanese physicist that

“I didn’t write that I was an absolute pacifist but that I have always been a convinced pacifist. That means there are circumstances in which in my opinion it is necessary to use force.”

“Such a case would be when I face an opponent whose unconditional aim is to destroy me and my people.”

The fact is that Einstein was simply confronted with a stark reality. He fled Germany in 1933, after seeing the Nazis come to power. He could not longer deny Hitler’s plain intentions. The real world does present painful choices, as it does today. Honestly facing such choices is called “adulthood.” The Pacifraud Left is therefore in endless denial of adulthood and reality.

In Samuel Johnson’s time political demagogues used the rhetoric of patriotism. Today, pacifism attracts scoundrels because they can use the rhetoric of peace to fool the gullible. But Pacifraud is not just a lesson in the gullibility of human beings. It is much more dangerous. The public pretense that any decent person must be a pacifist makes it impossible for us to tell the truth about the world, and about the real choices we face as a country.

In the last hundred years we have always been faced with deadly enemies to our very existence: Nazism, Marxism, and Islamofascism. We are therefore always confronted with Einstein’s choice. Do we tell FDR about the Bomb, or let Hitler win? Do we fight and lose precious American lives in Iraq, or maybe have to battle a stronger Saddam later on?

On this very day we face the question whether the crazies in Iran will get their own Bomb. It is the most urgent questions of our day, but our brain-washed media keep us from even thinking about it.

Adults have to face those questions.

Contrary to the mythagogues of the Left, our dilemma, like Einstein’s, is never “War versus Peace.” It is always “What kind of war?” “What kind of peace?”

Even if we do our utmost to make perfect decisions, our knowledge is always incomplete. FDR made mistakes, Truman did, Gandhi did, Einstein did. They just realized that doing nothing is also a decision. People can die when we do nothing — as in the Holocaust, the Gulag, World War II.

Welcome to the real world, Cindy. Leave the Pacifrauds behind, and, if you are an adult with a conscience, make a heartfelt apology to President Bush and your fellow citizens.” (Read the whole article, it is worth your time.)

As the title says, adults sometimes have to be adults. It is time for the anti-Bush, anti-war, Pacifrauds to recognize that as a reality and act like adults in todays terrorist world.

The full account can be found in this AP story, Bush Backers Amass to Counter ‘Peace Mom’. Here are some of the statements from Bush backing, pro-war parents:

“It’s time to lay down the anger. We need to continue to uphold those people over there, to uphold those men and women with their boots on the ground,” said Deborah Johns of the Northern California Marine Moms, who helped organize the caravan, which is sponsored by Move America Forward, a Bay Area-based group…

In Vacaville, Toni Colip, 50, said her son, David, went to high school with Casey Sheehan and is now in the Marines, although not in Iraq. She said her son opposes Sheehan’s activities and has asked her to support his military service even if he is injured or killed.

“He said, ‘Don’t dishonor me, don’t walk on my grave,’” Colip said…

“This is not the way to honor her son,” said Lori Judy, 49, of Vacaville, whose son, Tim, served in Iraq.”

It will be interesting to see if the Main Stream Media give this caravan as much attention as they have Sheehan’s debacle.

First, from Ann Coulter comes, Cindy Sheehan: Commander In Grief, where Ann makes the following case:

“To expiate the pain of losing her firstborn son in the Iraq war, Cindy Sheehan decided to cheer herself up by engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush’s Crawford ranch. It’s the strangest method of grieving I’ve seen since Paul Wellstone’s funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.

Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn’t have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on “Entertainment Tonight,” you’re no longer a grieving mom; you’re a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.

We’re sorry about Ms. Sheehan’s son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn’t about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It’s not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

Fortunately, the Constitution vests authority to make foreign policy with the president of the United States, not with this week’s sad story. But liberals think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it’s “inhumane” for Bush not “to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”

I’m not sure what “moral authority” is supposed to mean in that sentence, but if it has anything to do with Cindy Sheehan dictating America’s foreign policy, then no, it is not “absolute.” It’s not even conditional, provisional, fleeting, theoretical or ephemeral.

The logical, intellectual and ethical shortcomings of such a statement are staggering. If one dead son means no one can win an argument with you, how about two dead sons? What if the person arguing with you is a mother who also lost a son in Iraq and she’s pro-war? Do we decide the winner with a coin toss? Or do we see if there’s a woman out there who lost two children in Iraq and see what she thinks about the war?

Dowd’s “absolute” moral authority column demonstrates, once again, what can happen when liberals start tossing around terms they don’t understand like “absolute” and “moral.” It seems that the inspiration for Dowd’s column was also absolute. On the rocks.” (Read the whole article)

The second slap comes from Mark Steyn in an article called, Hold Your Tears where he says:

“This year’s performer in residence is Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq last year. Mrs Sheehan is now very anti-war and has pledged to stay camped out in Crawford all August until the President has the guts to come out and see her for a face-to-face meeting. So far he’s sent his national security adviser and deputy chief of staff out to see her, but that’s like Clinton sending Janet Reno and Sidney Blumenthal to Carly Simon’s party. These no-name stand-ins were trying to ‘bullshit us into submission,’ complained Mrs Sheehan.

Her son’s loss — like Max Cleland’s wounds — is supposed to put her beyond reproach. For as the New York Times’s Maureen Dowd informed us, ‘The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.’

Really? Well, what about those other parents who’ve buried children killed in Iraq? Linda Ryan lost her son, Marine Corporal Marc Ryan, to ‘insurgents’ in Ramadi: ‘George Bush didn’t kill her son,’ says Mrs Ryan. ‘Her son made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country…. George Bush was my son’s commander-in-chief. My son, Marc, totally believed in what he was doing.’

There are, sadly, hundreds of Linda Ryans across American: parents who buried children killed in Iraq and who honour their service to the nation. They don’t make the news. There’s one Cindy Sheehan and she’s on TV round the clock. She may not be emblematic of bereaved military families, but she’s certainly symbolic of media-Left desperation.

Still, she’s a mother. And, if you’re as heavily invested as Ms Dowd in the notion that those ‘killed in Iraq’ are ‘children’, then Mrs Sheehan’s status as grieving matriarch is a bonanza. I agree with Mrs Ryan: they’re not children in Iraq; they’re thinking adults who ‘made a decision to join the Armed Forces and defend our country’. Whenever I’m on a radio show these days, someone calls in and demands to know whether my children are in Iraq. Well, not right now. They range in age from five to nine, and though that’s plenty old enough to sign up for the jihad and toddle into an Israeli pizza parlour wearing a suicide-bomb, in most advanced societies’ armed forces they prefer to use grown-ups.

That seems to be difficult for the Left to grasp. Ever since America’s all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterise them as ‘children’. If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that’s her decision and her parents shouldn’t get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the Oval Office shagpile and chow down on Bill Clinton, she’s a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year old is serving his country overseas, he’s a wee ‘child’ who isn’t really old enough to know what he’s doing.

I get many emails from soldiers in Iraq, and they sound a lot more grown-up than most Ivy League professors and certainly than Maureen Dowd, who writes as if she’s auditioning for a minor supporting role in Sex and the City. The infantilisation of the military promoted by the Left is deeply insulting to America’s warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd’s purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that ‘of course’ they ‘support our troops’, because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.

So, when Cindy Sheehan came into view, Bush-disparagers from Washington to Hollywood cried ‘Bingo!’ ‘Cindy Sheehan is my hero,’ says Christine Lahti, former star of TV’s Chicago Hope. ‘You can run, Bush, but you can’t hide. Her courage is waking up America.’ Evidently it woke up motion-picture personality Viggo Mortensen, who flew to Crawford on a pilgrimage to Mrs Sheehan. For the press corps, it’s not exactly the Spielberg/Clinton summer summit in the Hamptons, but it’s as close as they’re going to get.” (HT to Red State Rant, you will want to read the whole article)

The public is getting fed up with the left and their Main Stream Media allies who continue to promote their poster child. There is a light at the end of this tunnel though. Rush Limbaugh says the train is about to derail. Here is his statement:

“My friends, there’s another reason why the Sheehan thing is going to derail, why this train is going to derail, and that’s because look at who her public relations outfit is. It’s the mainstream press. They don’t have universal respect anymore. They don’t even have any concept of how they are harming her cause by championing it, but I want to talk about something larger here with you liberals. I know there are a lot of you here in the audience. We hear from you now and then, and it may be a waste of my time but I’m going to try it anyway. But I think you all need to look at things differently than you do. You need to take your focus off of government. You know how absurd it is for us to hear that a war is ignoble because the president’s kids aren’t there or because congressmen’s kids aren’t there? Do you know how irrelevant that is? Do you know who makes this country work? Can I ask you people on the left if you have the slightest idea who makes this country work? Because I’ll tell you, it’s not the president, I don’t care who he is, and it’s not Congress, and I don’t care who they are. The people who make this country work are the people, and they’re people you’ve never heard of. They are people unlike Cindy Sheehan, who are not seeking publicity, they are not seeking fame. They take life seriously. They try to mix their work and pleasure into a proper balance. They try to raise their kids the right way. They’re doing everything they can to follow the straight-and-narrow. They sometimes slip off, but the people who make this country work, the fabled average American. That’s who you liberals condemn, whether you know it or not. That’s who you impugn. It’s always been the case.”

The “average” American is tired of having their country, their military, their President, and their government besmirched by these wacko leftist parasites. “Average” Americans will hold the MSM responsible, and their credibility will continue to decline along with their readers and viewers.

We think it might be worth standing in the President’s shoes for a while, and look at it through his eyes in this piece from the August 22nd issue of Newsweek. Read for yourself, the President’s side of grieving (HT to Trevino at Red State):

“The grieving room was arranged like a doctor’s office. The families and loved ones of 33 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan were summoned to a large waiting area at Fort Bragg, N.C. For three hours, they were rotated through five private rooms, where they met with President George W. Bush, accompanied by two Secret Service men and a photographer. Because the walls were thin, the families awaiting their turn could hear the crying inside.

President Bush was wearing “a huge smile,” but his eyes were red and he looked drained by the time he got to the last widow, Crystal Owen, a third-grade schoolteacher who had lost her husband in Iraq. “Tell me about Mike,” he said immediately. “I don’t want my husband’s death to be in vain,” she told him. The president apologized repeatedly for her husband’s death. When Owen began to cry, Bush grabbed her hands. “Don’t worry, don’t worry,” he said, though his choking voice suggested that he had worries of his own. The president and the widow hugged. “It felt like he could have been my dad,” Owen recalled to NEWSWEEK. “It was like we were old friends. It almost makes me sad. In a way, I wish he weren’t the president, just so I could talk to him all the time.”

Bush likes to play the resolute War Leader, and he has never been known for admitting mistakes or regret. But that does not mean that he is free of doubt. For the past three years, Bush has been living in two worlds—unwavering and confident in public, but sometimes stricken in private. Bush’s meetings with widows like Crystal Owen offer a rare look inside that inner, private world…

Privately, Bush has met with about 900 family members of some 270 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The conversations are closed to the press, and Bush does not like to talk about what goes on in these grieving sessions, though there have been hints…

…For George W. Bush, these private audiences with the families of dead soldiers and Marines seem to be an outlet of sorts. (They are perhaps harder for Laura, who sometimes accompanies Bush and looks devastated afterward.) Family members interviewed by NEWSWEEK say they have been taken aback by the president’s emotionalism and his sincerity…

…The most telling—and moving—picture of Bush grieving with the families of the dead was provided by Rachel Ascione, who met with him last summer. Her older brother, Ron Payne, was a Marine who had been killed in Afghanistan only a few weeks before Ascione was invited to meet with Bush at MacDill Air Force Base, near Tampa, Fla.

Ascione wasn’t sure she could restrain herself with the president. She was feeling “raw.” “I wanted him to look me in the eye and tell me why my brother was never coming back, and I wanted him to know it was his fault that my heart was broken,” she recalls. The president was coming to Florida, a key swing state, in the middle of his re-election campaign. Ascione was worried that her family would be “exploited” by a “phony effort to make good with people in order to get votes.”

Ascione and her family were gathered with 18 other families in a large room on the air base. The president entered with some Secret Service agents, a military entourage and a White House photographer. “I’m here for you, and I will take as much time as you need,” Bush said. He began moving from family to family. Ascione watched as mothers confronted him: “How could you let this happen? Why is my son gone?” one asked. Ascione couldn’t hear his answer, but soon “she began to sob, and he began crying, too. And then he just hugged her tight, and they cried together for what seemed like forever.”

Ascione’s family was one of the last Bush approached. Ascione still planned to confront him, but Bush disarmed her in an almost uncanny way. Ascione is just over five feet; her late brother was 6 feet 7. “My whole life, he used to put his hand on the top of my head and just hold it there, and it drove me crazy,” she says. When Bush saw that she was crying, he leaned over and put his hand on the top of her head and drew her to him. “It was just like my brother used to do,” she says, beginning to cry at the memory.

Before Bush left the meeting, he paused in the middle of the room and said to the families, “I will never feel the same level of pain and loss you do. I didn’t lose anyone close to me, a member of my family or someone that I love. But I want you to know that I didn’t go into this lightly. This was a decision that I struggle with every day.”

As he spoke, Ascione could see the grief rising through the president’s body. His shoulder slumped and his face turned ashen. He began to cry and his voice choked. He paused, tried to regain his composure and looked around the room. “I am sorry, I’m so sorry,” he said.”

Now we have all heard the President speak at one time or another, and we have watched him on television. It can safely be said that he is not an actor, or a tremendous public speaker. He often mis-speaks, and fumbles his words, but no one can deny that his message comes through loud and clear.

That is the precise reason why the left and the MSM can not defeat him or his ideas. The American people can identify with him and they do. All the activists, and all the media coverage will not darken his convictions, nor dissuade his purpose, and it will have no effect on the public at large.

We were not even going to mention this story, because we believe Cindy Sheehan to have become disingenuous about her son’s death in Iraq. She has become a poster child for the left, and she likes it.

Erick over at Red State sums up our view of this story just about right in his piece, Cindy Sheehan Enters Stage Right. Here is his opening paragraph:

“Cindy Sheehan’s son was killed in Iraq. She’s a grieving mother. Last year, the President met with Mrs. Sheehan, comforted her, and grieved with her. At the time, Mrs. Sheehan thought the President had done well and appreciated him. Enter August, no major news, and a media still smarting over the President’s re-election despite everything they threw at him. Cindy Sheehan returns entering stage right — this time a left wing media whore in the form of a grieving mother.”

We couldn’t have said it better. Read the whole article.

By his actions, Casey Sheehan’s death has spoken volumes more than his Mother will ever say. His dying for the cause of freedom and in the service of his coutry will have an impact long after his Mother’s 15 minutes of fame are forgotten.

This ill begotten story which was perpetrated by the now known liar, former Ambassador Joe Wilson continues to be over blown, as the MSM continues to feed upon itself, and every Democrat who joins with them runs the risk of being associated with “our Titus Oates”.

The following are some of the assertions Michael Barone had to make today:

“Then, as the trials went on, it became clear that Oates’ detailed charges were all lies. His name became a synonym for liar. Lord Justice Scroggs, who had sentenced several of Oates’ targets to death, turned on him: “I wonder at your impudence that you dare to look a court of justice in the face, after having been made to appear so notorious a villain.”

Joseph Wilson is our latest Titus Oates. Wilson is the former diplomat who traveled to Niger to check out whether Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials there and who wrote an article for The New York Times in July 2003 asserting that he had found there were no grounds for believing that. “

Barone asserts the association with this:

“Since 2003, many Democrats have embraced Joseph Wilson — just last week, Sen. Charles Schumer stood up with him at a press conference and demanded that Karl Rove’s security clearance be suspended.”

And he ends his commentary with this statement:

“Shaftesbury’s championing of Titus Oates had grave consequences: He was confined for a time in the Tower of London and later fled to Amsterdam, where he died in exile.

Schumer’s and other Democrats’ championing of Joseph Wilson will not have such dire consequences. But voters may want to hold them accountable for allying themselves with today’s Titus Oates. “

Once one understands who Titus Oates was, and what he did, we can begin to see how this house of cards has to be continued by the MSM or they will suffer additional loss of credibility with the public, which explains their tenacity on this issue. Meanwhile, it has become obvious that the whole sordid affair has been an attempt by the MSM along with high ranking Democrat officials who have corroborated with them to bring down Karl Rove.

When this story is over, all those who willingly or unwillingly championed Joe Wilson’s lie, will be guilty by association of having harbored and promoted an “out and out” liar.

We have heard his book ripped by the left and the right. We should say at the outset, that we have not read the book, and are not necessarily promoting the book, but want to offer some of what others have had to say about it.

The following links are from some of most trusted writers in both old and new media, and they are divided in their reviews.

Captain Ed, said in, Ed Klein Goes Too Far, the following:

“Someone needs to ask Ed Klein why he felt it necessary to include this accusation as part of his biography. It’s hardly germane to her politics, or to her life in politics. It’s the kind of tawdry Weekly World News gossip/hit piece that serves no purpose but character assassination. It also makes Hillary into a victim, this time almost certainly for real — not of this purported rape, but of Klein’s base attack.”

John Podhoretz has written in the New York Post, an editorial, Smear For Profit, where he said this:

“Though Klein suggests in his subtitle that he has written a study of a power-hungry politician — “What She Knew, When She Knew It, And How Far She’ll Go to Become President” — he’s produced something quite different. An unduly celebratory biography is called a “hagiography.” Klein’s book is a “hate-eography.”"

On the other hand, some on the right have had slightly different views.

Kathleen Parker has written in Town Hall an editorial, There’s something (else) about Hillary. In her piece, she said the following:

“That liberals dislike the book comes as no surprise, but that conservatives are distancing themselves from Klein is interesting. As a former New York Times Magazine editor, part of the liberal mainstream media that members of the VRWC (Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) love to hate, he would seem a proper new darling for conservatives.

As an apparent crossover, he might have expected a warm embrace. Instead, he got a Baghdad welcome. Short shrift from the natives, in other words.

This rejection from some (though not all) on the right suggests a couple of things:

One, that Americans of all stripes are tired of nasty, and Klein’s treatment of the Clintons is reminiscent of a time we’re trying to forget. He focuses overmuch on Hillary’s alleged lesbianism, for instance (she didn’t shave her legs and underarms at Wellesley!), and even writes that Chelsea was conceived one night when Bill raped Hillary.

Only the fringiest Clinton-haters could find pleasure with that level of prurient tabloiding of a former U.S. president and a present-day U.S. senator. After a few paragraphs, you find yourself reaching for the Brillo.

Another possible explanation may be that conservatives understand Hillary Clinton is a serious presidential contender in 2008 and that Klein’s book is not helpful. By attacking her in ways that fair-minded Americans find indecent, Klein helps burnish her image as victim.”

Tony Blankley also wrote in Town Hall a column entitled, Inside Hillary’s mind. Mr. Blankley’s article is by far the least scathing. Here is some of what he had to say:

“It was worth my time. This is not a scandal book intended merely to gratify the reader’s salacious interests. Instead, Mr. Klein has written a serious political and psychological biography of the most likely next Democratic nominee for president — and thus, quite plausibly, I fear, the next president of the United States.

Although this is a heavily researched book that includes amongst its sources almost a hundred people who are or were personally close to Mrs. Clinton, this is not a peek through a keyhole. Instead, it is a peek — and more than a peek — into the mind of Hillary. And, whether you like or hate Hillary, the inside of her mind is a fascinating place in which to rove about. Hillary haters will certainly find further evidence to support their sentiment. Principled liberals, I suspect, will be deeply disconcerted by what they will find out about her mind in this book.

But for people who like their presidents ruthless, expedient and very smart (in a dangerous time, those are not all bad features), the portrait Mr. Klein paints may well not be seen as negative. In fact, as the author notes, Mrs. Clinton has more than a little in common with Richard Nixon.”

As you can easily observe from the above comments, there are those who think the book is not worth publishing, let alone worth reading, and those who think it was a worthwhile read. The following two pieces provided a convincing argument as to why the reader should make up their own mind as to whether they should purchase and read this book.

First, in a Newsmax article, Carl Limbacher Jr. has written an article entitled, Hillary Pressures Networks to Cancel Klein. If Senator Clinton’s “machine” has put this much pressure on the MSM, there must be findings which she doesn’t want the public to read. The following are the cancellations:

“Klein’s original schedule had him appearing on several top-rated TV shows. But all of them have cancelled. Among the cancellations: “Extra;” MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews;” and CNN’s Paula Zahn show.

Several shows apparently expressed a keen interest in booking Klein until pressure from the Hillary camp stopped them, among them ABC’s “Good Morning America,” NBC’s “Today” show, and CNN’s “Aaron Brown.”

Still more shows were expected to sign on after the book began hitting the bestseller lists. It has done just that, but Klein’s publicist’s phones are still not ringing.”

Finally, we found this blog today for the first time. The Boot’s Blast, who wrote in, Right vs. Right some pretty compelling reasons why the book should get an airing. He wrote the following yesterday:

” There are also some very courageous conservatives who have had the guts to stand behind the Ed Klein book. Among them:

• Rush Limbaugh, the very first radio host to see that the Hillary Spin Machine was censoring Ed Klein and his book. Rush is a genius at analyzing the motives of the Left.

• Sean Hannity, who had the guts to withstand pressure and put Ed on both his radio show and Fox’s Hannity & Colmes.

• Radio host Mike Gallagher who also withstood tremendous pressure.

• The Washington Times’ Editorial Page Editor Tony Blankley – who actually read the book – and wrote a fair and honest review.

• Laura Ingraham who interviewed Ed Klein and was very supportive.

Thank goodness some people have the intellectual honesty to read a book before commenting on it!

Those on the Right who attacked “The Truth About Hillary” ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are intellectually dishonest with a separate – and selfish – agenda.

This book is exposing the fault lines in American politics. You are either on one side or the other.

As was once said, “All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” By doing “nothing” to take on Hillary, these so-called conservatives are helping the Clintons return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For the sake of this nation’s future, we cannot allow this to happen.

We must have the courage to fight.”

As we stated in the beginning, we have not read the book, “The Truth About Hillary”. But we felt we should allow the reader to make up their own mind. To get the entire flavor for what these journalists have written, we encourage you to read all of their respective articles.

“I worked with people who had worked at Gitmo earlier, I worked with people who worked at the primary detention facility in AFG, and I visited that facility many times. I saw detainees (many times on their prayer rugs, other times reading, other times talking when they were not allowed to). I saw the interrogation rooms. I worked with the soldiers and the leaders who ran this place.

I know those operations fairly well, and I got to know the people who ran those operations — both active duty and reservists. They are normal Americans. They are good decent people who believed in what they were doing. Americans — including Sen. Durbin — can be and should be proud of them.

Be assured the worst of the worst detainees are the ones at Gitmo. It took a lot of effort to get a detainee shipped over … . They are no victims. … Their victims are most often Afghan villagers who have risked their lives simply to vote or are construction and aid workers from around the world who are assisting Afghanistan to modernize and develop. The detainees at Gitmo are the ringleaders and verified trigger-pullers in these incidents.

This is serious business with tens and hundreds of thousands of lives at stake. People have already lost lives because we’ve released Gitmo detainees. I read those reports, when they were captured — a second time. I can’t print the words we used in AFG when we found out a soldier died at the hands of a terrorist released from Gitmo. Gitmo didn’t make them want to kill again. Their release allowed them to kill again.”

The Tennessean further states:

“In the war on terror, information saves more lives than tanks. Krenson said he just helped brief 100 Tennessee Guardsmen who will be advisors and trainers to the Afghan National Army throughout Afghanistan and be a big part of election security for upcoming parliamentary elections.

‘I saw their bus pull out when they left their families behind, and it took me back to that day when I boarded a bus to leave my family. This time, I knew where those guys were going and what they would be doing. I was proud of them. They are us. These men on that bus were local business owners, school teachers, neighbors, you name it.’”

Tom Bevans asks the question in his comment below, “Why didn’t this column get more coverage”?

What with Senator Durbin’s outrageous remarks on the Senate floor last week, the MSM has spent all of it’s time trying to cover Durbin’s “tracks”, they didn’t want a story like this one to even see the light of day. This is the kind of information the American people need. It is the kind of information the world needs to see.

The major players of the Democrat Party, continue to throw fuel on the fires of a burning dungheap which only strengthens the perception abroad which portrays the US as criminals. What this proud soldier has stated above should be running in every outlet in the MSM, but they are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in power, which can best be maintained, by supporting their Democrat allies.

So we thought we would shed some light on this article for the benefit of those who haven’t read it.

Our thanks to Tom Bevan at Real Clear Politics, for his commentary today entitled, THE NASTIEST OF PRISONERS:. where he commented and linked to the above story. His take on this appears at the bottom of his article.

We have read, and been told today how much 0f a hero Mark Felt was, but when you look at what he did in the light of day, there was a much darker, more sinister side to his “leak” to the Washington Post duo. The story made their careers, along with Ben Bradlee, and they have made fortunes from the many books written, while Mark Felt lurked silently, not wanting his shame exposed. Woodward and Bernstein kept their promise for more than thirty years not to reveal the source of the now famous story. What about Mark Felt? What made him finally admit that he was indeed Deep Throat? Why didn’t he release Woodward and Bernstein to finish the story? Because in the end, he is just as shadowy, and conniving today as he was thirty plus years ago. He waited until the right amount of money was offered, and he released the story to Vanity Fair Magazine.

So what to think about someone like Mark Felt? Here is an excerpt from an article entitled, Deep Throat and Genocide, in today’s American Spectator, written by Ben Stein, whose Father was an economic advisor to the Nixon Administration. Here is the quote:

“Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW’s, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel’s life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?

Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.

That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton — a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon’s kharma.”

You will have to jump on over to see Mr. Stein’s conclusion concerning the genocide.

Please understand that we are not writing today to make former President Nixon out to be a saint. We write for the new generation. We want them to have the other side of the story today, to balance out MSM’s vision of Mark Felt.

We also want the new generation to have a glimpse into “Woodward and Bernstein”, and their glorified investigative reporting. Rush Limbaugh today has the transcript of his radio show section entitled, Deep Throat Revelation Fallout: Myth of Investigative Journalist Smashed. Here is just a portion:

“There’s some question here about just how totally valuable understanding all that went on Mark Felt actually was. So there’s a huge myth that has arisen, and it is this: that investigative journalists are vital to the security and safety of a nation. I read the other day that back in 1972 there was a committee of investigative journalists and it had about three members. Today it has 5,000. And Woodward and Bernstein are credited for reviving or even perhaps creating the whole concept of investigative journalism.”

Later in the Limbaugh transcript, he quotes a dialogue between Pat Buchanan and Matt Lauer on the Today Show, where Buchanan states his feelings about “Woodward and Bernstein”. Buchanan says, “I think Woodward and Bernstein were stenographers in the end.”

The transcript is a montage of sound bites by several journalists, and pundits talking about Mark Felt, and Deep Throat, and is worth reading.

In conclusion, Mark Felt was a heinous shadow figure who according to Ben Stein above, “broke the law, broke his code of ethics, broke his oath and was the main source for Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward’s articles…” which reveals just what kind of person Mark Felt really was.

We hope the future writers of history will look back on this event, and give a balanced recitation of what actually happened.

Below are the links to the day’s stories on filibustering judicial nominees.

Here is a Red State article entitled, The Filibuster Fight: Frist vrs. Reid, Schumer, et al, a Confirm Them article entitled, A Decision Possible Within Two Weeks, and finally a Daly Thoughts article with accurate numbers representing Bush’s confirmations, entitled, Judicial Confirmation Statistics.

Delay no further on pushing the Constitutional-Byrd-Nuclear button. We need no further Senate Democrat palavering, and it’s publication in the Main Stream Media.