right on present, past leaders
by Mark Taggart,
After the predictable flurry of letters fawning
over our little Emperor's stunt on the USS Lincoln
(that also take cheap shots at our last legally elected president), I need to clear up some misconceptions.
A recent writer, apparently psychic, declared
that President Clinton "detested the military and vice versa."
The Secretary of Defense recently credited Clinton's modernization of the military and upgrading of
smart weapons as one reason for our speedy victory in Iraq.
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense (under Reagan)
Lawrence Korb said, "if this latest military effort
warrants a victory parade, let's insist that Clinton and his secretaries of defense are invited. They deserve it."
Were sailors honored that their commander in chief
paid them "a little homage?" Maybe so. However, when
this commander had the opportunity to serve, he went AWOL from his post for over a year in 1972-73.
A curious way to show respect, is it not? If you or I deserted, it would have ruined our careers and perhaps
landed us in jail. But it apparently doesn't apply if you are the son of someone with connections in Washington;
you could end up having the Supreme Court appoint you as president.
A writer praises this current White House resident
as "standing for something." Apparently, what he stands for
is having Haliburton, Dick Cheney's old company, profiteer by controlling Iraq's oil fields. So much for,
"The oil belongs to the Iraqi people."
In his State of the Union address in January,
our valiant warrior accused Iraq of having enough material "to produce
over 25,000 liters of anthrax ... more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard
and VX nerve agent."
Where are those WMDs, which was given as justification for the invasion of Iraq?
back to bartcop.com