COMPARING THE TWO
From the wife of a friend's nephew serving in the U.S. Army in
comes these pinpoint accurate facts.
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of
That's just one American City, about as
deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq.
When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state
FDR...led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000
lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy...started
the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan
and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has
two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al-Qaida, put
nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing
shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own
The Democrats are complaining about
how long the war is taking,
but...It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take
the Branch Davidian
compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division
and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call
the police after his Oldsmobile
sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts.
Wait, there's more.......................
JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they
do for a living. This
exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator
Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation
of why men and women in the armed services do what they do
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never
served think of the military.
Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when
you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn: "I served
23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I
served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by
fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space
program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line.
was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily
cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with
me ... as I went the
other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men - with their
mangled bodies in the eye,
and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go
with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the
and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and
you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS
hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington
National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to
remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you
think about this nation,
and you tell ME that those people didn't have
a job? I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees
day of your life thanking God that there were some men SOME MEN -
who held REAL jobs!
And they required a dedication
to a purpose and a love of country and a
dedication to duty - that was more important than life itself. And
is what made this country possible. I HAVE held a
job, Howard! What about you?"
For those who don't remember - During
W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
Now he is a Senator!
you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in
English thank a Veteran.
WHO PAYS AND WHO DOESN'T
WASHINGTON, D.C. - John Kerry has repeatedly called for
taxes on the "wealthy" so the affluent "pay their
fair share" for the "common good." Ironically, John and
Heinz Kerry, who comprise one the richest families
in the world, pay relatively little income tax.
year, John Kerry and his wife paid just 12% of their
combined income in income taxes, despite their assertion that
rich should contribute increased amounts to government
coffers. In contrast, President and Mrs. Bush, who had a
lower income than the Kerry's, paid over 28% in
"John Kerry wants other Americans to pay higher taxes
he and his wife manage to pay a rate lower than most of the
middle class," said ATR President Grover Norquist.
"Apparently, the Kerrys think everyone else should pay higher
taxes but them."
In addition to finding
loopholes and write-offs to decrease
his taxes, John Kerry has declined to pay a small, voluntary
tax in his home
state. The Massachusetts state income tax code
contains a provision allowing payers to contribute an extra
their income to benefit the commonwealth. Kerry has
consistently failed to pay the extra money, which would have
to $687 dollars last year.
"John Kerry thinks other hardworking Americans should pay more
taxes while he
and his billionaire wife pay as little as
possible," continued Norquist.
THIS IS THE POINT THAT THEY DON'T GET STILL!
Bring it on, John
Oliver North (archive)
August 27, 2004
"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he
watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam,
here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John Kerry
As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record.
He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably
in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.
I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver
Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines
in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got
more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.
This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every
war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months
in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to
war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."
Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation.
If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night
and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you
could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's
But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home
early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.
When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those
of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused
me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.
On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American
troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned
up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis
Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you
admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."
And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions
... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."
Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to
move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from
what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured
because of you, John:
Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony
by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released
until March 14, 1973.
Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated
incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.
Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason
the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.
John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed
"atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that
mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're
not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.
One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who
I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the
war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want
to apologize to them and their families."
Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?