If you haven't yet read the Ben Shapiro article chronicling Indymedia's treatment of the Pat Tillman story and the source's of their funding, I urge you to do so immediately.  (www.SenatorFlipFlop.com)  I've been inundated with reader comments which, to a person, have expressed outrage and disbelief.  Perhaps as outrageous as the story itself is why, once again, we are all left wondering why the so-called 'mainstream' press in this country ignores such things.  If Ted Koppel is truly interested in honoring our fallen heroes he'll dedicate an episode of Nightline to this story. 

What strikes me the most is that these are the very same people who are always screaming for a more compassionate world and tolerance of everything under the sun regardless how offensive it might me to 'main street' morality.  Yet, when given an opportunity to show even the tiniest bit of compassion and tolerance themselves, they ridicule and dishonor the memory of a man who sacrificed his life so that they can continue to amuse themselves with pointless rant after pointless rant.

The question that keeps running through my mind when contemplating this is what does this mean for the future of the United States?  Have we grown so cynical and disaffected with the values the country was founded on that we now laugh at someone who is still a believer?  I hope not.  I pray that there are more Pat Tillman's then there are Indymedia conscripts.    

Nearing the end of his life,  Thomas Jefferson wrote an eloquent appeal to end slavery, asking "Can the liberties of a nation, be preserved when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and His justice cannot sleep forever."  

What we, as a nation, are facing today is a crisis of comparable magnitude.  Nothing less than the survival of the republic itself is at stake.  Indeed I tremble, Mr. Jefferson, when I see things like what Indymedia printed this week.  We too, Mr. Jefferson, have forgotten the fact that our liberty is a gift from God.  A gift to be cherished and protected yes, but a gift also to be shared.  

This is our burden.  We can choose to ridicule and laugh at the sacrifice of those who appreciate this gift or we can choose to join the fight.  I dare say Pat Tillman understood this.  Do you?

Buried in a USA Today article

Ambitious self-promoter?

Asmaller number of veterans remember an ambitious self-promoter who left Vietnam after only four months, his ticket out the three Purple Hearts he earned for minor wounds. They recall a budding politician who, at just 25, already had an eye on posterity and would write about his experiences for hours rather than join fellow officers at the beach or for a beer. They say it was no accident that Kerry volunteered for swift boats, the Vietnam equivalent of John Kennedy's PT-109 in World War II.

"John was a master at looking out for John," says Larry Thurlow, a fellow boat commander. "John has never been bashful about saying, 'Man, I'm a war hero.' "

Ever wonder where all the footage of Kerry in the Vietnam jungle came from?  How many heroes have their 'heroism' filmed?

Here are some questions I’ve received since the website went ‘live’ and my responses to them:  (Please keep them coming!)

Bush went to war by using intelligence he knew to be false.  What you term Kerry’s “flipflop” on Iraq was based on old intelligence.  What do you say to that?

(First of all, it is premature to definitively say that the intelligence was in fact flawed…the WMD’s may yet be found.  But, for the sake of argument I’ll buy your premise. )

I would point out that the intelligence was not proven to be inaccurate until we actually had control of Iraq.  We would have no idea...still...if we hadn't acted.  Having WMD in the hands of terrorists is unacceptable.

The intelligence Kerry based his decisions and words on was the exact same

intelligence Bush and Clinton/Gore and France and Germany and Britain and

China and Russia and Turkey and Iran and everyone else accepted as true and

accurate.  (Recall that the pre-war anti-war argument was not that the

weapons didn't exist, it was that inspections should be given more time.)

If the intelligence was false Hussein himself was given 12 years to prove

that the weapons didn't exist and was, in fact, given yet another chance

just prior to the war to come clean.  He didn't take it. Is that Bush's

fault or America's fault?  Hussein shot at US planes nearly every day for 12

years, openly defied UN Inspectors, expelled UN inspectors, violated (many,

many, many times) the terms of the cease-fire from Gulf War I, attempted to

assassinate a US president, funded suicide bombers, etc.  This is not even

mentioning what he did to his own people which would require another lengthy

blog to document.  So Kerry, like he has done on virtually every issue, is

trying to have it both ways.  That is not leadership.

I think Bush's approach was cavalier and has hurt our foreign policy; additionally I'd like him to admit he was wrong (which I don't think he's done yet).

What does Bush have to apologize for?  If Hussein didn't have WMD's he had dozens of opportunities to come clean, including a final opportunity just prior to the start of the war.  Seems blame would be better placed at his feet...not Bush's or America's for believing what every intelligence agency in the world believed.  We know (meaning the entire world) he had WMD's (he used them on his own people and the Iranians), we know (meaning the entire world) he invaded Kuwait, we know (meaning the entire world) that the US led coalition drove him out of Kuwait, we know (meaning the entire world) that the terms of the end of that war dictated that he disarm and that UN inspectors would be allowed to inspect and insure he did that.  We know (meaning the entire world) that he did not let inspectors do their jobs and in fact kicked them out of the country (with no consequence by the way -- see Clinton years).  We know (meaning the entire world) that when we forced the issue and put inspectors back in Iraq, Hussein would still not cooperate or confirm the destruction of the WMD's. 

So, the question is...In a post 9/11 world do we do nothing when a murderous dictator (see 500k to 3million dead Iraqis depending on who's counting) who has (had?) WMD's, defies UN resolutions on a daily basis for the better part of a decade with no consequence, financially supports homicide bombers, has ties to Al Qaeda (yes, contrary to what Dan Rather or Richard Clarke might say, Iraq at the very least harbored Al Qaeda terrorists and it's highly likely they did a whole lot more), etc.?  Or, do our words and the words of the UN (which is a joke of an organization but that's another editorial altogether) finally have some meaning, ensuring that others think twice before doing the same thing (see Gadhafi)? 

So if Kerry is not the best nominee who would you choose for the Democrats? 

Not sure who you lefties should nominate but wouldn't it be refreshing to support a candidate that didn't run from, parse, obfuscate, etc. their own record?  Like Bush or hate him, at least we all know where he stands.  Kerry's positions change depending on audience and political wind. 

I sincerely wish the Dems had chosen someone else, someone with sincerity

and integrity so there could be a real debate.  Someone with true conviction

on anything.  Unfortunately in their haste to nominate someone 'electable'

they chose someone just the opposite.  Kerry won't even stand up and

explain his own voting record.  Frankly, the idea that he thinks he can

become President of the US without answering tough questions and/or explain his own record in a straightforward manner should trouble everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike. 

C-SPAN was rebroadcasting an episode of "The Dick Cavett Show" from 1971. Opposing Kerry was a hard-charging, highly intelligent Vietnam veteran named John O'Neill, who gave the future senator no quarter.

It was just two months after Kerry's pyrotechnic performance before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, in which he had famously declared that American soldiers in Vietnam 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 a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."

I will admit to being a sorehead about Vietnam. I'm one of those people who resents the fact that Kerry's side is so often portrayed as having been right in that terrible argument, when as we know, the fundamental struggle against communism was moral and honorable, whatever may be said about the advisability of putting American troops on the ground in that place (a decision taken not by Nixon, Kerry's nemesis, but by John F. Kennedy, Kerry's hero).

But the producers at C-SPAN doubtless had other reasons for rebroadcasting that 33-year-old program. If offers a rare insight -- 90 minutes worth -- into the thinking of a man who now asks to sit in the Oval Office and who vaulted himself into the national spotlight by slandering 2.5 million of his fellow veterans.

On this subject, O'Neill, who had served in the same unit as Kerry, though not at the same time, was loaded for bear. He noted that he had served in Vietnam for 18 months, in contrast to Kerry's four, and had seen nothing to "shock the conscience." He demanded to know if Kerry had personally committed war crimes. Kerry squirmed. O'Neill persisted.

Kerry elected to say that, well, he had participated in burning the huts of noncombatants, which qualifies as a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

O'Neill replied that when he had been in the region, their unit had received heavy fire from all directions. What O'Neill did not say, but might have, is that it was often difficult in that frustrating and murky war to tell the soldiers from the civilians. That was in large part because the Vietcong dressed as civilians and used civilians as human shields.

Still, burning down someone's straw hut, while not exactly polite, is far from the sort of war crime Kerry had conjured in his Senate testimony.

As for all the soldiers Kerry had quoted, the Naval Investigative Service attempted to interview all 150 of them to get names, dates and places. What they discovered, as B.G. Burkett unveiled in his groundbreaking book "Stolen Valor," is that many of those so-called Vietnam Vets had never even been to Vietnam. Among those who had, many had never seen combat but had technical or service jobs. None was able to sign an affidavit attesting to actual atrocities.