June 12, 2004


I went to Washington on Thursday night to observe Ronaldus Magnus lying in state. Arriving to the still lively city near midnight, we got on line for a few brief moments with the President.

The line itself was like nothing I'd ever seen. It stretched from the Capitol down the Mall to the National Air and Space Museum, but it was only that short because it snaked in and out of dense cues that extended nearly half the Mall's width. Had it stretched out straight from end to end, I have no doubt that it would have crossed into Virginia and continued for several miles. Tens of thousands of people, from infants to geriatrics, teenagers in little packs or with their parents, military members in full dress uniform, men in suits and ladies in dresses and people in shorts and sandals, and all waiting patiently to pay respects however brief their opportunity. The Red Cross was on hand doling out water bottles at various checkpoints, a welcome relief. At one intersection, a Dominoes pizza truck would drive up and out would come a delivery man with stacks of pizzas in his arms to sell to the tired mass. Ringing the cue area, a city of satellite trucks attended by bored technicians waited for the funeral procession planned for Friday.

We arrived at the Rotunda at 6:26 am, having survived the endless standing punctuated by bursts of motion, and having missed the expected rainfall entirely. As we entered the Rotunda--I for the first time in my entire life--it was time to take in the grandeur of it all. Overhead, the magnificent Apotheosis of George Washington, and all around, the paintings and statues depicting moments and figures in American history lent their splendor. Having noted the time as we entered, it occurred to me that we were just in time to see a changing of the guard, and just after we came into the great room a hush fell over the already sombre crowd. From our left, the incoming guard entered in the near silent march of a military funereal procession. They passed before us and engaged in the ritual we have all come to know from watching on television. But to be there and see the colors and majesty of the moment with your own eyes is to see it anew.

The changing of the guard accomplished, we were allowed to proceed all the way around the room. It was only at this time that I was able to see the flag-draped coffin bearing President Reagan. I had been too young to vote for him, but not to appreciate him. When I was growing up, the old man just seemed to embody America--the sunny smile, the twinkling eyes, the steely determination to win the Cold War and restore America's morale and polish up the shining city on a hill. And here he was, stretched out in his final repose. And all around him, citizens of the nations he kept free had spent a night in privation and without sleep to honor him how we could. For some, it was a teary-eyed gaze, for others, a quick and snappy salute. Whatever the means and however the length of the wait, it was worth every second. It was the least we could do for the Great Liberator.

Godspeed, Ronald Wilson Reagan. Godspeed.

We exited the Capitol through the museum a floor below the Rotunda, and as we walked down the steps to the street, a light rain began to fall. The line to pay respects was much shorter now, as the police had apparently started to turn newcomers away with a word that by now it was impossible to make into the Rotunda by 9 am, when the lying in state would end. I have little doubt that had it been extended, the viewing could have gone on for another day or two.

Posted by B. Preston at 12:24 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

June 08, 2004


She should have stepped down from the 9-11 Commission and testified before it. As a relevant official--Deputy Attorney General in the Janet Reno Justice Department--Jamie Gorelick put policies in place that probably led directly to 9-11.

But she didn't step down, and she never testified. America has been cheated. And now, using her position on the Commission, she is part of the airbrushing of the history that led up to 9-11:

Draft portions of the Sept. 11 commission's final report offer a stinging rebuke of the FBI (news - web sites) and intelligence agencies but refrain from assigning blame to individuals in government to avoid the appearance of partisanship, several commissioners say.

The article goes on to discuss George Tenet and Condi Rice as names the Commission left off, but never quite gets around to mentioning the donkey in the middle of the room, Jamie Gorelick. And while it slips around the issue of cuts and restrictions placed on the FBI, it never quite brings itself to mention how and why those cuts and restrictions happened. They happened because in the wake of Watergate a tide of left-wing zealots got elected to the Congress, and those zealots emasculated both the FBI and the CIA. Here's how the article frames it:

"The restrictions on the FBI after Watergate prohibiting them from modernizing and computerizing their data systems (and) from keeping track of watchlists and investigations" were among the biggest obstacles to terror prevention, Lehman said. "It made it impossible for the FBI to share information even within the bureau."

Put in the mouth of Republican John Lehman, it seems as though those restrictions just happened, ex nihilo. But in fact they came from the work of the Church Committee, led by Democrat Senator Frank Church of Idaho. The Church Committee, a left-wing enterprise, handcuffed the FBI and CIA. Later, in 1977, Jimmy Carter fired between 800 and over 2000 CIA operatives worldwide in what came to be known as the "Halloween Massacre." The operatives he fired were either senior CIA staff stateside or worked in "friendly" states, a group of nations that in those days included both Iraq and Iran. Within two years, Iran flipped from friendly to hostile, and the US government never saw it coming. I wonder why.

Networks of indigenous informants and operatives take years to build even in open societies that share our culture and traditions. In marginal to unfriendly states that do not share our culture or traditions, our intel operations have never recovered from Carter's mistake, which was perhaps the greatest of his presidency. It left us blind to much of what was going on in the Middle East, a blindness that still afflicts us today.

And then in the mid-90s, we get Jamie Gorelick and the Wall. The Wall was a set of procedures that erected a steel barrier between law enforcement and intel. Most likely designed to shield the Clinton administration's sundry illegal campaign cash deals with the Chinese Army, Gorelick's wall also had the effect of keeping the various data from field investigations of terror suspects from reaching the right eyes or being heard by the right ears.

Add all that up, and you get 9-11.

Am I blaming the Democrats? You betcha.

They didn't intend for 9-11 to happen. The Church Committee had nothing to do with terrorism at the time; it was a misguided effort to rein in what many on the left viewed as rogue agencies. The Halloween Massacre had nothing to do with terrorism, either. But it did help the Ayatollahs take over Iran and left us blind to much of what Saddam and his cronies were up to for years afterward. But like I said, though all of these disastrous choices led to 9-11, that wasn't their intention.

The Democrats just have an ideological bent that makes them listen to their left wing more than is reasonable, and as that left wing agitates for things like cuts in defense spending even in the face of a Soviet empire, and as that left wing agitates to gut our intel services and put them about six inches from useless (the CIA didn't even see the end of the USSR coming, fercryinoutloud), the unintended consequence is that we are left more and more vulnerable to unforseen threats.

President Reagan said it best--"Peace through strength." The key to remaining a free people is to remain strong in every area, morally, economically, militarily and in terms of influence. The left has, through some intent on the part of the old Soviet-paid shills and their friends and through ideology on the part of the rest, rendered us weaker by assaulting our traditional moral values, by cutting our military and intel services whenever they have had the chance, and by showing a divided face to the world. We can't even fight a mid-sized war against an obviously evil enemy these days without the likes of Ted Kennedy spewing fumes comparing President Bush to Saddam Hussein, and we can't go more than a week without Howard Dean losing his marbles and screaming that he'd like to "take back the White House" as though a race of insectoid space aliens has set up camp there.

All of the above--the Church Committee, the Halloween Massacre, etc--constitute an angle the 9-11 Commission's final report is sure to leave out, because Gorelick and the rest have seen to it that it doesn't name any names. It's a pity, and a missed opportunity--if you want to know the truth about 9-11. Some will always prefer the whitewash or the lie, though. And in the 9-11 Commission's report, they will apparently find satisfaction.

Which, naturally, leaves us more vulnerable than we should be to the next terrorist strike.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:26 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


The problem with having a long record as a lawmaker, public figure, whatever is that you have to explain a lot of things that may have made sense once but don't make sense today. If the mainstream press ever gets around to examining John Kerry's record in any kind of detail, he'll have a lot of 'splainin' to do. Take his mid-80s stance on terrorism, for instance:

After Reagan ordered airstrikes on Ghadafi's presidential compound as punishment for Lybia's involvement in a Berlin disco bombing that had killed a U.S. soldier, Kerry wrote to the White House complaining that that the response was "disproportional."

"While I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President," Kerry began, "I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the [Gadhafi] regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act."

So based on that thinking, if the terrorists kill 3,000 Americans, we should limit our response to killing just 3,000 terrorists. No more, no less. Don't try and eliminate the terrorist army or leadership, just kill any random 3,000 terrorists. How stupid is that?

Very stupid. Kerry's thinking amounts to feeding the "cycle of violence" rather than actually doing anything useful to end it. You get hit, so you hit the other guy, who hits back, then you hit back, and so forth. No one ever wins out, neither side ultimately feeling the need to stop or being so weakened that it cannot fight any longer. You just have people dying in a kind of ghoulish tit for tat.

That's no way to fight a war. It's a way to lose a war, though, since democracies are inherently unstable platforms from which to fight protracted wars while cabals like al Qaeda are almost ideally suited to fight attritive conflicts that weaken their adversaries by essentially bleeding them to death in fact and in morale.

John Kerry, it should be apparent by now, simply has terrible instincts when it comes to foreign policy. In the 80s he would have had us calibrating our strikes to kill just one terrorist after the Berlin bombing, since it resulted in the death of just one American, rather than punishing the maniac who financed the whole thing in the first place. The 1986 Tripoli airstrike sent a message not only to Gaddafi but to others thinking about hitting Americans around the world: Do it and we'll send in the Air Force. Do you think Gaddafi would have been scared of America had Kerry's idea of a punishing air strike taken place?

Had he been president on 9-11 Kerry would have applied a flyswatter approach--the very approach President Bush overturned even before 9-11--instead of really taking the fight to the enemy with some gusto. The result would likely have been a whole series of bombings on our soil, in malls and train stations and airports and schools, while we chased around individual terrorist operatives and tried to nail them with pea-shooters. It would be silly if it weren't so darned dangerous.

Under Kerry's thinking, it looks like we'd have to wait until a US city went up in a radioactive fireball before he would send in the Marines to wipe out the enemy. I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want to die to satisfy John Kerry's rather naive and ultimately counterproductive idea of how to wage a war.

Posted by B. Preston at 04:13 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


Hmm. Another deal in which the US was offered Osama bin Laden on a silver platter prior to 9-11:

U.S. and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the Sept. 11 attacks to discuss terms for Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.

But no agreement was reached and no further negotiations took place before the suicide hijackings in 2001.

ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the purist Islamic Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.

He quoted the Taliban foreign minister, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him."

A German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, confirmed to Reuters that he had helped Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans.


Brok said he was in no position to judge how credible the offer was, but passed it to the U.S. ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum. He said Mohabbat was then summoned to Washington to be interviewed by U.S. officials.

This led in turn to the German meeting, which ZDF said took place between Taliban ministers and U.S. officials in a Frankfurt hotel in November 2000."

November 2000. Before you lefties get all excited about this, I should point out that in November 2000, your boy Clinton was still President. The nation was embroiled in all that Gore-inspired putsch activity in Florida. And apparently the Clinton administration let Osama get away one more time. Where is "documentary" producer Michael Moore to ask the hard but necessary questions about that, huh?

By my count that's at least three times that somebody stepped forward to offer up Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11, and that's three times the Clinton bunch refused to seriously entertain the offer. That's roughly 1,000 dead for each failure.

And you people want the White House again? Why, so you can open up the gates at Gitmo and flood the world with terrorists anew?

Posted by B. Preston at 08:26 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 07, 2004


It's worth noting a couple of things about President Reagan. First, just from a personal perspective he was only the second president that I really remember. I remember Carter's election--I was 5 at the time--and I remember a few things about his term. I remember Iran, mostly. I remember the Carter years as more or less the period during which my parents' politics changed. My parents are patriotic, conservative folk. I've never asked, but I suspect that they voted for Carter in '76. By 1980, all my Dad could say about the man was "Carter is a joke." For a Southerner raised as a Democrat, that was saying something. I know he voted for Reagan in 1980 and has never looked back, GOP all the way.

It's also worth noting that, though he's less controversial today, Reagan rode into office against a wave of vitriol not unlike that which crashes up against President Bush now. "Dumb," "dangerous," "cowboy," "zealot"--and more--were all regularly deployed against Reagan by the same people who are using such names for President Bush. I don't think they ever actually called Reagan "Hitler," but I do remember hearing Republicans called "Nazis" back then. Back in the Reagan years presidential hopeful John Kerry just about ran his own foreign policy with the Communist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, similar to the gambits he played with the Communists of Vietnam in the 1970s. Ted Kennedy, who on Saturday credited Reagan with winning the Cold War, did everything he could to thwart every single thing Reagan did as President--including trying to win the Cold War.

History has taught us, well most of us anyway, that the name-callers and nay-sayers were wrong back then and Reagan was right. History will probably prove them wrong again, but they won't learn anything this time around either.

Anyway, all of this is an awkward lead-in to a letter from a reader who lived through the Carter and Reagan years from inside the American intelligence establishment. The reader notes that Reagan came in and offered America just what she needed:

After Jimmy Carter's misgovernance, Reagan was a breath of fresh air. In the mid-70s I was a mid-level operator deeply involved in the Cold War. As we sat listening to yet another intelligence-generated threat briefing, it suddenly dawned on me that we didn't actually have to do battle with the Soviet Union; if we could hold them off long enough they would collapse under their own weight. Ultimately, that is what happened -- and sooner than I had expected.

In 1979 I shipped out for England; Maggie Thatcher already was doing some of the things Reagan would do. Reagan's move to put the Pershing II and the GLCM in the UK and Europe was met with vast quantities of venom. In retrospect, it was Soviet-financed venom coming out of the mouths of sympathizers all over Europe. Still, Reagan stood firm. You may or may not recall that Reagan visited Europe in the Spring of 1982. I played a part in the communications support to keep the President in contact with the NMCC. Even though it appeared to me that the visit went well, the curmudgeons on both sides of the Atlantic painted a picture of Reagan as a boob.

Fast forward to 1988, and I'm retired from the AF and happen to be in Budapest in May of that year. The unrest in Hungary was palpable; the American Embassy staff gave us a briefing in which it was broadly hinted that Kadar would be gone within a year. So he was; and the Berlin Wall came down, and we saw images of Czechs, East Germans and others taking trains to the West and throwing their worthless money out the windows as the train passed through stations.

Now, here we are sixteen years later, and the curmudgeons from a quarter century ago are still bitching about nothing in particular. Their gruel is exceeding thin; yet they continue to dish it out. These people are losers, and they are trying to subvert everyone else to their loser perspective. The folks at Silent Running have been doing some alternative news coverage of the D-Day invasion as if the so-called journalists of 2004 had been doing their stuff in 1944. The most recent entry by Tom Paine is the most telling.

Unfortunately, and perhaps most dangerously, in the sixty years since Fortress Europe was breached many of our own institutions have been corrupted from within. After I retired from the AF I spent almost ten years teaching at the university level while working toward a Ph.D. in economics. It was an eye-opener. Our most vulnerable spot is our young people, specifically, the way they have been educated for the past thirty years. The young adults of today are less well prepared to do almost anything than were their predecessors. The ones who join the armed forces certainly get the training and education they need, but the rest are at risk. It is telling that more than half of Americans ages 18-35 don't know who the enemy was in WWII.

We need to take back the education system from the losers.

Indeed. But there is hope. I caught a bit of CSPAN tonight, replaying a visit earlier in the day with William Kristol. One of the last callers he spoke with was a young man who said he was born in 1987. From the word usage, I'd say he was telling the truth--lots of "I mean" and "like" and all that. But the kid talked about how much of a giant Ronald Reagan is to him, how much Reagan did for the country and the world. I'm sure his teachers, if they heard it, were not pleased. If they are anything like the teachers I had, well, let's just say that lot couldn't find a nice word for Reagan in a thousand dictionaries. But in spite of it all, the kid got it. He understood the difference between a real leader--Reagan--and the also-rans. So there is hope.

MORE: On a related note, there was once a teacher who knew too much. She lost her job.

Jennifer was an English teacher who knew too much. She got in trouble for explaining that a line in Merchant of Venice was referring to a Bible verse.
Next day I get called into the principal's office; some parents were FURIOUS that I had told their kids that Jesus said anyone who says 'fool,' will go to Hell.

"But he did," I pointed out.

"It doesn't matter, Jennifer. You can't insult kids' religions."

"Well, the kid asked me what that line from the play meant! What was I supposed to do?"

"Just tell him you don't know."

Jennifer was denied tenure and her teaching contract was not renewed.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Leftists, repugnance is thy politics. Linked copiously elsewhere, take a gander a this theatre review in the Village Voice:

No U.S. president, I expect, will ever appoint a Secretary of the Imagination. But if such a cabinet post ever were created, and Richard Foreman weren't immediately appointed to it, you'd know that the Republicans were in power. Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.

This opinion is presumably not shared by Foreman; you can gauge the breadth of his imaginative compassion from his willingness to extend it even toward George W. Bush, idiot scion of a genetically criminal family that should have been sterilized three generations ago.

Yes, that's from a theatre review, written by another unhinged lefty with a totalitarian bent. Before any of you lefties jump on me for saying that, find and point to me an analog on the right. Find someone--anyone--on the right arguing in favor of forced sterilization of political opponents and extermination of same. Go on. We'll wait.

This weekend the weather was lousy and I was feeling it down to my bones, so I watched a ton of movies. One of those I happened to catch was Judgment at Nuremberg, starring Spencer Tracy. The film chronicled the trial of a handful of German judges whose rulings from the bench made it all possible--Dachau, Buchenwald, sterilization of political opponents, the gas chambers, hanging of children and the enslavement of millions--all of it.

I began watching out of curiosity. I'd never seen the film before, and it seemed at first to be more about the occupation of Germany than about the trials. Made in 1961, it was a little window into what Americans thought of the post-war period, and it was interesting. Army officers complained about the chaos of Germany, how badly the occupation was being managed, and so forth. Quite familiar complaints, actually.

But the majority of the film was about the trial and about the environment that led to the Nazi death camps. One of the points that the film kept driving home was the as evil as Hitler and the rest were, they needed the help of average Germans to carry out their deeds. If the judicial system had rebelled against the Nuremberg Laws--the legal framework of Nazi policy--the holocaust might have been averted. It also might not have, but we'll never know because the average German never rebelled. Some did, but they were few and were exterminated, the Nazi mentality having long since taken hold. The average German acquiesced, either through silence or active support. Those death camps weren't manned by space aliens, and Germany didn't import judges from somewhere else to give Nuremberg the imprimatur of German authority.

One scene concerned the forced sterilization of a day labourer who had run afoul of some Nazi officers before they came to power. He came to their attention after their rise, when he went to a local office to apply for a drivers license of some sort. The officials recognized him and, rather than grant him the license, they forced him into a hospital where doctors sterilized him. The Nazis may have arrested him and planned their revenge, but it took average doctors and nurses to carry out the heinous deed.

Long before coming to power, Hitler pretty much told the world what he wanted to do. Mein Kampf, his horrific screed written from a prison, laid it all out. "Final solutions," purifying the "master race," sterilization programs, it was all there.

And without resorting to hyperbole in any way, it's all right there in that theatre review, too. It's author, Michael Feingold, is apparently a leftist given his venue and his target of choice, but ideologically he is a National Socialist--a Nazi. There's no way around it. What he screams out for is indistinguishable from Nazi policy. As much as leftists like to compare Republicans to Nazis, it is on the left today that we find the language and politics of superiority, of mastery, and of mass murder. The left couches much of its ideology in demagoguery and doublespeak, but it's all there. Persecution of political and religious opponents by dehumanizing them--check. Exterminationism--check. Sterilization--check. Don't take my word for it--just look at the quoted graphs and then go read the whole review, and consider the play being reviewed. It's nothing more than propaganda dressed up as a theatrical production. Then spend a little while trolling the murk of Democratic Underground or even Democrats.com. For that matter, just watch Al Gore's latest MoveOn.org self-immolation, or any of Howard Dean's rants of the past year or two. The left is not just unhinged this year--it's gone over the cliff and landed in Nuremberg circa 1934. They seem to have gone mad.

And keep in mind, the above is from a theatre review that got published in an actual newspaper. Not some fringe radical rag that only exists in a few coffeehouses and on the more radical university campuses. A theatre review in The Village Voice. The Village Voice has now published a piece that would not have been out of place on Hitler's preferred reading list. The Village Voice has given space to a noxious Nazi pushing exterminationist ideas--in a theatre review of all places! You don't suppose Feingold carries those ideas into the voting booth, do you? You don't suppose he's looking for candidates who will carry out his evil little plan?

And as I said before, find me an analog on the right that preaches exterminating or sterilizing one's fellow countrymen in a fairly mainstream publication. You will search in vain for that.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:05 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

June 06, 2004


I was going to refrain from posting anything negative this weekend, out of respect for the momentous events that have happened and are being remembered. Sixty years ago today, Allied forces began the long process of beating back the Nazi darkness that had taken hold of Europe. Sixty years ago courageous men crossed treacherous beaches to push back the armies of Hitler. Sixty years ago Americans knew what it meant and what it took to keep the world safe for democracy, and understood that some things in life are worth fighting for. Sixty years ago Americans understood that freedom is one of those things.

Ronald Reagan understood that, too. When he took office in 1981, America was reeling from Vietnam, from the Iran hostage crisis, from "malaise." OPEC had held us by the throat. Watergate had wrecked our idealism. We needed a fresh leader, and Ronald Reagan was that leader.

As a few of this blog's readers have noted, it wasn't so much that Reagan created anything new, he just reminded us of a few things old. He reminded us that America should be the shining city on a hill, the beacon of freedom to a world that was half engulfed in Communist tyranny. When few Americans believed the Cold War was winnable, he showed us that it was and then he won it. Alone among our leaders, Reagan had the courage to call evil by its name and demand that it tear down its walls.

The quest to destroy Communism and spread liberty was Reagan's lifelong obsession. It was the war he fought from the 1940s to the end of his presidency in 1989, and thankfully he lived to see the win.

Peace through strength. You can run but you can't hide. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Those are among my favorite Reagan one-liners. I bet you can come up with a few yourself.

Ratings of Ronald Reagan's presidency have steadily increased in the years since he left office. Portrayed at the time as a dunce or a dangerous menace by the media and his Democrat opposition, he has come to be seen as a grandfatherly figure who led us in the right ways and in the right direction. His presidency has come to be seen as a time of great expansion of human rights around the world, and a time when the West found its way again.

Now he's gone. Maybe we'll put one of his sayings on a coin--I could see "Peace Through Strength" becoming the Pentagon's motto or showing up on the dollar bill. Maybe we'll put him on Mt. Rushmore if there's a way. Americans today have very little consensus about any major issue or public figure, but a solid majority understands Ronald Reagan's place in our history. It's a place of honor, worthy of a great patriot.

Which brings me to just how hateful some of his critics remain. Ronald Reagan was an American lion. He won the Cold War. He reminded us of who we are. But to the radical leftists at Democrats.com, that's not good enough. Here are a few of their headlines in today's email newsletter:

Planet Reagan

Rating Reagan: A Bogus Legacy

Cold War Ended Despite Reagan's Arms Buildup, Not Because Of It

A Class Act All the Way: Kerry Suspends Overt Politicking for Time to Honor

It's ironic that those last two should be next to each other. Perhaps Democrats.com could take a lesson in class from John Kerry.

The "Planet Reagan" headline leads to a revisionist history that seems to leave out all the good Reagan did and blame him for evils he did not commit. "Bogus Legacy" actually blames Reagan for extending, not winning, the Cold War. The third headline continues that theme, even blaming a "Carter-Reagan military buildup" for prolonging the Cold War. Democrats.com never lets facts get in its way.

So why do I bring all this up? Because it fits a pattern that we've noticed going back a couple of years at least. Whenever some major event happens that could possibly remind Americans of our role in the world or could possibly make the war easier to win, the hard left has to deconstruct it, steal it and spin it around. They have to trash it however they can, so that their politics can win out. It's disgusting and repugnant and wrong. But they do it every single time. If they could find a way to deconstruct D-Day so that it benefits John Kerry or hurts President Bush, they'd do it.

But we can't let them this time. We've been reminded by the 60th anniversary of D-Day and the passing of Ronald Reagan that America is a force for good in the world. We are liberators, not empire builders. Did we ask for anything in return from liberated Europe, other than a place to bury our dead? Did we humiliate the Soviet Union when it collapsed, or force Japan to kneel or give us some tribute? No, because that's not who we are. In those past wars and in our current war, we're the good guys. In spite of what the left tells you, we're the good guys and if there is any justice left in the world we will win. Maybe we should win this one for the Gipper.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:33 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack