Audacity Of Hope? Or Just Audacity?

This is another in the occasional series from the Airline Industry:

From The Flight Deck

Word of impending layoffs is swirling around the airline industry like contrails in an evening sky, and many of us who work to move millions of passengers throughout our country and overseas each year are facing what at best can be described as an uncertain future.

Every airline is struggling with fuel costs that have eliminated profit margins, some are on the verge of going under, and meanwhile, Congress dithers, twiddles its thumbs, pontificates, in other words "blows smoke." The economy is tanking over oil costs but Congress runs its collective mouth about "Big Oil" and "obscene profits," which somehow are materializing from a roughly 9 percent profit margin.

Oh and let's nail those despicable speculators too, rather than increasing the oil supply which would result in plummeting prices.

We, meaning airline employees, might make it through the summer travel season, but it doesn't look good for the fall. Furlough is the word on the lips of many pilots, first officers, flight crews, ramp workers, and ticket agents.

Furlough. Sounds nice doesn't it? Almost has the ring of 'vacation' to it. But it isn't nice and certainly not a vacation. Furlough means 'let go,' it means 'lay off,' it means 'fire.' Unemployment here we come.

As the number of flight personnel goes down, ticket prices will take off right along with the limited number of flights available, and the economy will take another major blow - all linked to Congress' refusal to allow new drilling or refining.

Congress has decided to make a leap into alternative forms of fuel, with no transition to ease the impact on the economy. It is obvious Congress would rather shut down the airline industry for short term political gain, than use common sense in how we move forward on the energy issue.

I am a proponent of moving away from fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere. But I also understand that it can't happen overnight without an extreme impact on the national economy. So many people are employed in so many jobs relating to the pumping, transporting, refining and delivery of oil in all its myriad uses, that to shut down a huge chunk of the oil industry overnight means to throw millions out of work.

I take personal umbrage at Congress - particularly the Democratic members - putting its own agenda ahead of the welfare of the American worker.

I didn't start out flying for an airline, but that was my dream. I was in another profession for several years, and during that time worked for my private pilot's license, and amassed flight hours in general aviation. When I had sufficient experience to move into commercial aviation I worked hard and scrimped for years so I could take a year off to study and train for my commercial ratings.

I didn't get a break from the government, I wasn't enrolled in a program that paid my living expenses while I had The Audacity of Hope. I actually believed that if I worked hard, used self-discipline, saved my money, and studied my flight manuals and FAA regulations I just might achieve a position with an airline.

In the end my work and study paid off and I was hired by a major carrier. I have steadily moved up in the ranks and have taken on increasing responsibilities as the years pass.

But that is coming to a screeching halt. Thank you ever so much Democratic Congress.

Thank you Barack Obama for conveniently ignoring airlines as you spew this non-stop drivel that America can somehow be altered overnight to travel on batteries or alternative fuels.

Sure, fill the fuel tank of a 757 with corn niblets or soybeans and see how far that gets you.

Do the members of Congress who are known for their long distance junkets and "fact-finding" flights to exotic ports need to be reminded that for their long and mid-distance flights, airlines use JET engines? Jet engines work on jet fuel. Not something else. Jet fuel. Get it? Jet fuel.

Jet fuel comes from crude oil. It will take years of testing to find alternative forms of fuel for jet aircraft, considering how many thousands are flying across the globe every hour of every day, and how much power those alternative fuels must deliver to get an airliner off the ground.

Claiming that commercial aircraft can be converted to untried forms of fuel overnight is not just wrong, it is outright dangerous.

Think about it. Do you want to fly on an aircraft that as a result of a government decree has been converted to a bio fuel for which it isn't designed? Go ahead. This time, I'll let you go right to the head of the line.

As I understand the purpose of government, its number one priority is the security of the nation, which I take to mean both physical and economic security. But Congress has failed to provide for our energy security, which in turn means Congress has failed to provide for our economic security and thus our physical security.

Mr. Obama says he wants to "inspire" America on many fronts including using alternative fuels. But all I see is Congress "inspiring" the airline industry to lay off, fire and cut services. Way to go Barack.

It occurred to me that the entire US House of Representatives is up for election this fall. It further occurred to me that the incumbent in my home district is a Democrat who voted against renewed oil drilling and refining.

I wonder if he has the Audacity of Hope to think there is any possible way I will be voting for him this November?

What - Pray Tell - Is The "White" National Anthem?

Well, here we go again. Out in Denver where the Democratic National Convention will be held in August, a city government meeting was supposed to be opened with the traditional singing of the National Anthem.

However, a vocally talented lady who was chosen to do the honors -she just happened to be dark skinned - instead substituted words that now have been identified in the media as the "Black National Anthem."

I guess I must have missed that particular part of American History because I never knew there was a "black" national anthem that is different from the traditional version, which I was under the impression was for everyone who calls themselves an American.

In fact, I don't know of any words in the National Anthem that could be mistaken for meaning it is only for one race, not all races. Hold it, there is that version that goes along with an old joke about an Hispanic guy who couldn't get a good seat at the ball game and a scalper sells him one on the top of the flag pole and he is overjoyed because the game starts with the crowd singing "Jose, Can You See!?"

Other than that, when I took American History in grade school, high school, and college I thought the whole point of all the words and laws that were written, and let's not forget the worst war ever fought by the US, was to make us ALL EQUAL!

What happened? Who lied to me? Was it my teachers way back when? Was it Abraham Lincoln, the abolitionists, the Black Nationalist movement, Civil Rights legislation, the Emancipation Proclamation? What? Who?

How did this escape my attention? I have lived in mixed neighborhoods nearly my entire life, count a number of black Americans as my friends as well as my neighbors, and yet I have never, ever, heard anyone anywhere sing the Black National Anthem. Until now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html

Check it out yourself. At least as long as that web link lasts.

I didn't make it up, but to hear the news announcers talking about it today you'd think that everyone in America knew about this except me.

Well, here is my response. In the interest of equality I want a White National Anthem.

Wait, wait, we can't do that. It would be seen as racist and bigoted and exclusionary. Right? I mean everyone else can have some sort of song just for them, unless you are white.

But how about if you are an amalgam that just happens to turn out white? Or off white? Or a whiter shade of dark? Like Barack Obama. How about that?

How about if we take these amalgams apart, single them out for their unique characteristics and go from there?

Let's start with me. I am essentially Scots-Irish, with some German and a hint of French way, way back.

So first I would like to request Scotland the Brave as the Scots-American National Anthem. Great song. Very inspiring.

Then let's see, how about the Irish. Something with Whisky in it, or a poem to hit on our most popular urban myth attributes. Oh, I've got it. This is for my late maternal grandmother who came over from Ireland by herself when she was 16 years old and made a good life for her offspring - An Emigrant's Daughter.

Sad, but hauntingly beautiful.

For you grandma. I miss you. We could do Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye since there is an Americanized version of the music with different lyrics but I think it reminds me too much of the present situation.

Now let's see. German. No, not Deutschland uber alles, which isn't really the title, just the first lines. The actual title is Das Deutschlandlied. It actually was written back when the US was young, but today has some bad connotations from WWII movies. How about Ein Prosit? That should keep things on a friendly level.

Now France. La Marseillaise? Nah, too much like something out of Casablanca, besides which it is the French National Anthem. How about J'Attendrai by Jean Sablon from the movie The Good Year? I like the movie, I like the music. Why not? If you aren't happy with that find me a good song that goes with wine and cheese.

Italy. Let's see what will we do for my Italian friends. Que Sera? Maybe. How about Dean Martin "When the Moon Hits Your Eye Like A Big Pizza Pie" etc. etc. Hey, it's a lot less antagonistic than the Theme From the Godfather.

You get my point don't you? This is supposed to be one country with one set of values, and those values are best expressed in our COMMON National Anthem. Where else are we going to find one anthem for people from all the Asian countries who are Americans, or South Americans, Central Americans, and African people from other parts of the continent other than the interior?

Should we really have a different anthem for each of the original Native American tribes, since they sure weren't one big happy family when the Europeans arrived? And I barely got started on western Europe, not mention eastern Europe.

If we go off on tangents then we are not a country, we are just a collection of people hanging around the same geographic area, taking advantage of whatever comes our way, until we decide to just change things around to our liking.

Lots of people did that in the past, in other places. That's why many people came to America in the first place, and why many others stayed even if they came here against their will. I'm not sure my family would be here but for the fact that economic conditions in Ireland and Scotland were terrible when my father was a boy, and my Irish grandmother was a teen.

But once here, they stayed.

So let's just forget these individual anthems shall we? When someone asks you to sing the National Anthem you know just what to sing, and if you want to sing something else later on, be my guest. Other people just might like it if given half a chance.

Just don't call it the National Anthem.

John McCain Never Called Me a Baby Killer. Clark - Apologize!

When retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, on behalf of the Obama campaign, criticized John McCain's qualifications to be Commander in Chief this week - based on McCain's rank in the Navy and command experience - I initially laughed so hard my sides hurt.

The general said in essence that McCain hadn't been high enough up the command ladder to really be a leader, and that being shot down, captured, tortured, and spending five years as a POW in North Vietnam don't really mean he understands war.

Basically, it was a retired military version of one-upmanship. "I have more stars than you do, I have more medals than you do, mine is bigger than yours" - so to speak. Clark's comments should have been ignored as nothing more than sour grapes, an extension of the annual Army-Navy football game, but they weren't.

(And don't tell me Obama didn't know about it, and was merely the unaware recipient of the good general's largesse. Nothing, and I mean nothing, goes on at that level of politics without the campaign knowing about it. Yes, Obama renounced the general's comments, but that is just a tactic to get the negative message out at the same time the candidate appears to remove himself from it. If you really think he wasn't in on this you are either suffering from a 60s counter-culture brain cell loss, or in total denial.)

I wrote about expected attacks on McCain's record during the South Carolina primary campaign earlier this year, and said then that McCain would have to be prepared to deal with them. It comes as no surprise and gives me no comfort to know that I was right, and I am not at all pleased that the Democrats have again used a former military man to attack McCain's qualifications based on his service.

Because after I thought about it for a bit, I realized that once again the Democrats are taking another shot at the military in general, and Vietnam Veterans in particular. Unfortunately they are using a bitter retired general as a dupe to lift his leg on the very troops he once led, and the general went along with it.

The mainstream media was filled with a 'spontaneous' eruption of comparisons to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who exposed John Kerry as a poser and embellisher in the last presidential election. (Once again, if you really think anything about this was spontaneous and unplanned, I have a bridge for sale in downtown Manhattan. Call me. We'll talk price.)

It is unfortunate that any former military leader would be so unaware, so uniformed and so bitter that they would become a willing pawn in an effort to discredit a candidate by attacking what can only be described as honorable service. The end result did not work against McCain in the first place, but does dredge up the old hatreds and animosities of the 60s and 70s spewed by the anti-Vietnam War crowd of that era.

But there is a big difference between John McCain this year and John Kerry four years ago. There were and still are legitimate questions on what Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam, and especially what he did to Vietnam veterans in the early 70s between lying to Congress and holding fake "hearings" that labelled an entire generation as out-of-control mindless serial killers.

Because of his wildly embellished stories about his service, and what he said about me and my fellow Vietnam Veterans afterward, I am not a fan of John Kerry. You can not read this column and mistake anything I say here as support for him. I have good reason.

I spent the early years in my media career at the Hartford Courant listening to colleagues spouting urban myths about Vietnam vets - straight from Kerry's statements - as truth. When I first was shopping the manuscript for Masters of the Art to publishers and agents in the late 80s I ran into a brick wall of opposition because it didn't follow the formulaic anti-war, anti-American diatribes that passed for literature at that time.

I was even called a liar, and a "baby-killer and murderer" by a Manhattan agent who wasn't satisfied with merely sending me a rejection slip. Screw him. The book is still here and the Courant is imploding. Sorry 'bout that.

Unlike McCain, John Kerry's actions both in Vietnam and afterward were fair game for the criticism that he encountered when he ran for president.

On the other hand, John McCain never called me a baby killer. When he came home from Vietnam he worked to regain his physical health, he stayed in the Navy for a time and then returned to civilian life and ultimately entered politics. How that disqualifies him from being president escapes me.

Based on Clark's attack on McCain, how the hell was John Kerry qualified to be president? Was it because he got some medals that were awarded based on questionable accounts of claimed injuries and claimed heroics? Let's not go down that road again here, other than to say that if the officers in my helicopter squadron had done what Kerry did to get a Silver Star, they would have been court martialed and for good reason.

As much as I disagree with Clark's comments or taking the lead in this issue, I realize that he did have a solid military career, was wounded - for real - in Vietnam, and had a mostly distinguished career up until the end when he was removed from command during the Clinton administration. I really don't like the commentary on the news attacking Clark based on his military career any more than Clark's comments about McCain.

It still amounts to bashing the military, again, but using military people to do it.

You can agree with McCain or disagree with McCain, but ultimately you have to decide whether you will vote for him based on what he can bring to the table as chief executive of this country, not on whether he had sufficient rank or command service in the military 30 years ago.

The truth is, Obama is so short on executive qualities that he is desperate to keep the spotlight off of his lack of expertise, and keep it on trumped up issues regarding McCain's qualifications.

Obama has zero military experience, so I guess in Clark's world that should disqualify him entirely. Frankly, I believe any form of honorable military service is a big plus when a person wants to run this country, since the president is the commander-in-chief and may have to send troops to battle. It isn't a deal breaker, but it does matter.

Obama also has no executive level experience, and actually is pretty thin on legislative experience too. Pumping up his resume to claim responsibility for ending welfare, for instance, when he actually opposed President Bill Clinton on that issue, is a prime example.

Obama has been searching the country looking for surrogates and possible running mates to backfill his lack of qualifications, but that in itself bothers me. Vice presidents are supposed to be qualified to step in without missing a beat if the president is incapacitated.

The vice president shouldn't be seen as an extension of the president who can handle the parts of the job that the president can't.

Obama has been interviewing other genuine heroes, such as former Marine officer and Vietnam War veteran Jim Webb, the Democratic Senator from Virginia, as his potential VP running mate. But as much as I like and respect Webb, he had less rank than McCain and, thus, under Clark's reasoning, less capability to be commander in chief.

There is a lot of contradictory information and a lot of hypocrisy running amok here.

What this all comes down to is another tawdry episode in which America's veterans are again being maligned by the Democrats for minimal political gains.

John McCain has nothing to apologize for in terms of his rank or command experience and how it relates to his quest for the presidency.

But Wesley Clark should apologize to every American veteran for bringing this issue up in the first place, and allowing himself to be a pawn of a political candidate who has shown once again that nothing and no one will be spared if he thinks it will earn him a few percentage points in the polls.

Tanking Stocks, Skyrocketing Oil Prices, Obstructionist Congress Require Presidential Emergency Actions

It is high time for President Bush to declare a national emergency, override objections to drilling for additional oil, invoke a workable national energy policy and stop the manipulation of petroleum supplies and prices by the Congressional Democrats.

Precedent for this action comes straight from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Dems number one Icon, who took similar action to put a stop on the market free fall known as the Great Depression. You can also look to Democratic President Harry S. Truman, although he wasn't as successful as his predecessor.

Roosevelt started off by declaring that the US was in a state of emergency under the auspices of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. By virtue of that law which hadn't been used since WWI, Roosevelt then took a series of actions to protect banks and prohibit the flow of gold and silver reserves out of the US.

Although the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 was passed during wartime it worked just fine for Roosevelt in that situation, considering that he believed he needed to make a strong statement and take action to put some form of confidence back in the country.

Granted, there are those who say Roosevelt's later policies actually extended the Great Depression, and that may be so. But this isn't about a long term fiduciary policy, this is about getting control of a runaway Congress that is deliberately damaging the United States' security in pursuit of its own illogical agenda.

Roosevelt's actions were based on emergency decrees enacted by President Abraham Lincoln at the outset of the Civil War - and later upheld by the Supreme Court - when he blockaded southern ports and appropriated funds to purchase war materials without authorization of Congress.

Truman, in his administration, took over control of the nation's steel mills, a move that ultimately was overturned, but had its desired effect, nonetheless. This was obviously a back-handed attempt to nationalize the steel industry and it went way too far.

I am not saying Bush should try to nationalize the oil industry as some Democrats in Congress have recommended. That is socialism, and it is not the oil industry that is deliberately placing restrictions on opening up new oil fields, it is Congress.

What we need now is action that will immediately reverse the soaring price of oil, which is based on the perception that demand is outstripping resources. By increasing the supply President Bush can buy some time to enact dramatic energy initiatives that will wean our country off carbon based fuels in the long term. By long term I am thinking a decade or less.

A reasonable argument could be made that if Roosevelt could put controls on the money supply during a time of severe economic crisis, even though we weren't at war, President Bush should be able to lift restrictions on drilling for oil long enough for the price per barrel to drop significantly and confidence to return to the economic sector.

This is particularly significant because we are at war and the actions of the Democrats in Congress, by restricting drilling for oil offshore, in shale deposits, and in that abysmal slab of barren, infertile wasteland known as the ANWR coastal plain - not the truly pristine sections of the reserve - certainly can be construed as helping our enemies.

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Photos courtesy of my friend Jim Bancroft who sent them to me via the Internet.

Gee, I just don't know how the Arctic tit mice are going to survive with a big oil rig smack in the middle of this pristine wilderness!

Did I mention the reports that say the total area the oil companies want to drill in is 2,000 acres, roughly the same size as Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C.?

This is the layout of the area in question. You'll notice that it isn't far to the long existing Prudhoe Bay oil field. The little tiny dot on the left of the green shaded area is where the drilling would occur. Note also the previously developed areas that aren't mentioned in Congressional speeches.


By artificially driving up the price of oil through artificially controlling the supply, the Democratic Congress is deliberately weakening the US economy, thus aiding our enemies who use the cost of the war as a rallying cry on the floor of the same Congress that is undermining the economy.




Wildlife adversely affected by presence of oil rig and pipeline in wilderness.




If President Bush takes a strong stand on this he does run the risk that his actions might be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, or they might naturally be extinguished in two years by legislative mandates. But I would much rather have him take firm decisive action to open up the oil supply immediately which would lighten the pressure on the futures market, drive down the price per barrel, and give the US breathing room to enact a forward-looking energy policy.

Then he could turn to the myriad alternatives that already are on the table but haven't been fully developed. Using alternative fuels such as hydrogen, natural gas and electricity instead of gasoline would not eliminate our use of petroleum products, but it certainly would put a big dent in the amount we need.

Personally, I favor getting us off of carbon based fuels completely. There are better ways to give us power, heat, and electricity and they don't pollute. But we can't do it overnight due to the massive infrastructure investment in finding, refining and delivering petroleum products. If we eliminate all the jobs associated with the gasoline industry overnight the economy would suffer greatly.

But we can do it in phases with minimal impact to the economy. The benefits would include a cleaner environment, ending our reliance on foreign oil for gasoline and power generation, and the Bush legacy would receive a major boost both immediately, and when historians are writing their analyses of his administration.

Let's Watch Some Live Streaming Pro-troop Video; And Don't Forget To Contribute!

As I wrote yesterday, today from 4 p.m. to midnight my friends Melanie Morgan, Michelle Malkin and everyone at Move America Forward, the country's largest pro-troop organization will host an Internet telethon.



It will be running from 4 p.m. until midnight east coast time and will host dozens of pro-troop Americans doing their part to send the largest number of support packages to the troops overseas ever.

You can watch the event live on your computer here:

Streaming Video by Ustream.TV

Or, if you would like to participate in live Internet chat with Melanie and Michelle you can go to the www.MoveAmericaForward.org and click on the UPSTREAM TV link.

I'll be on board at 7:27 p.m. Eastern time if you care to listen in and do your part to support our military personnel.

Semper Fi

Are Congressional and Media Negativity Fueling PTSD 'Epidemic'?

From the dawn of humanity men have fought other men, either to protect themselves, their families and their homes, or on the other side because they were trying to take someone else's lands and homes.

Some fighters have gloried in war's unrestrained excesses while others are overwhelmed.

In the latter group there are subsets: people who temporarily are disabled by the sights, sounds, smells and mind-numbing violence; and those whose mental processes are permanently impaired.

For those who overcome the impact of the fighting, their lives initially may be dominated by their battle experiences, but ultimately they regain control and are able to function in society with little to mark them as war veterans.

For the more seriously affected, the impact of battle may never depart. They have a condition that has variously been labeled "soldier's heart," "shell shock," "battle fatigue," and since the Vietnam war, "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder."

Whatever the term used to describe it, reaction to battle has been with us forever, but lately it has become the focal point of much of the news reporting on the War on Terror, particularly regarding the fighting in Iraq.

In past generations the veterans who suffered from this malady were either ignored, left to fend for themselves, or on occasion warehoused in veterans' homes. Today the issue is far more in the public eye and both the military and Veterans Administration are applying increasing resources to diagnose and treat warriors who are suffering from the impact of combat.

But headlines carry the alarming news that PTSD cases are increasing dramatically, the military is broken, slowly decaying from within, a generation of Americans is wasting away mentally and physically, and America is doomed. This often accompanies commentary that the war in Iraq is unnecessary, unwinnable, and that members of the armed forces who died fighting terrorists - in Iraq only - lost their lives for obscure political reasons, not defending our country.

Controversy also is brewing within the military as even a hint of temporary PTSD symptoms can be seen as a career ending condition.

But just how bad is PTSD in the long term, for the majority of people, and how much of it is generated or fueled by the non-stop negativity in the media and on the floor of Congress?

Take for instance a recent trip to Iraq by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. While there she saw overwhelming evidence that since the upsurge in personnel last year the fighting has gone all our way. But, rather than admit she was wrong when she was advocating the Choose to Lose policy, Pelosi claimed that we really aren't winning in Iraq, it's just that the terrorists headquartered in Iran next door are allowing us to dominate!

How much impact did that comment have on the mental health of fighters who have been locked in battle for a year, many of them veterans of multiple tours? I bet it at least made them angry, as it well should have.

Now multiply that commentary from one of our country's the top political leaders - a woman lest we forget, who subjugated herself before the ruler of Syria, another country that is bent on destruction of the US - by the myriad congresspeople, newscasters, columnists and commentators who echo her sentiments, and you have the basis for an all-out psychological warfare attack on our military.

With today's instant communications you can be sure the troops are well aware of the incessant news conferences in Congress, in which our so-called leaders badmouth the military - in a roundabout manner to be sure, but that is the end result. The mainstream news media covers each utterance from each politician and the result is an atmosphere of gloom and doom that has permeated the entire country.

I have noticed over many years of watching filmed interviews with veterans of hard fought battles from the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, through Beirut and right up to the present that there are many similarities in the reactions of those who fought and lived.

All have very strong emotions buried inside, sometimes deeply, sometimes nearer the surface. As they recall and relate the loss of friends, the viciousness of the fighting, giving all they had to win and survive, they often are overcome.

But World War II veterans have one significant difference from the veterans of the post-World War II era. Regardless of how horrible the experiences relived by the WWII vets, and how much it impacted them, there is a common conclusion to their interview ... "But we saved the world from the Nazis, (or the Japanese) so it was worth it."

That one line gave so many of those fighters the capability to shoulder the burden of their memories and carry on with their lives, rarely if ever telling those close to them of the horrors they had witnessed. This may not have been the absolute best route for them, and I am sure they had their moments when PTSD reared its head even if it wasn't recognized as such.

Yet they carried on, and were able to function in a normal society without a lifetime of counseling and especially a lifetime of prescription drugs.

But the men and women who served from Korea onward came home to an entirely different country and reception. World War II vets received tremendous support from a home front that was united in its belief that the Germans and Japanese had to be defeated.

War in that era was all out, unlike Vietnam - and the War on Terror - where enemy soldiers deliberately mixed in with the civilian population to cause civilian casualties and bring media scorn down upon our troops. In WWII the huge bomber fleets, massed artillery or naval gunfire could and did eliminate entire cities or island populations without a word of protest back home.

Vietnam vets were falsely labelled baby killers and murderers. If even one civilian dies in a firefight in Iraq, or more to the point, is murdered in the back room of a house temporarily occupied by terrorists, the media will find a way to portray our military as murderers, again, regardless of whether there is scintilla of evidence to prove the claim.

Regardless of how much damage they may be doing to individuals, their families, their military units, or the country overall, news editors and producers will run any story that criticizes our troops, and slough off the potential damage by claiming they will run a "correction" if the allegations prove untrue.

Meanwhile, politicians fall all over each other trying to be the first in front of a camera to make equally unfounded, outrageous statements about the status of the military, and the moral decline in the ranks.

If the facts don't bear out their assumptions they will work day and night to cover their rear ends and try to spin the outcome to make it appear they were simply misinformed, and then change the subject.

But the damage has already been done, and it appears to be getting worse.

Members of the armed forces are being diagnosed with PTSD if they work in the military morgue and see too many bodies, if they work in military hospitals and see too many wounded, if they work as military police officers and see violent collisions caused by roadside bombs.

But Americans work in many of the same occupations back home, and see much of the same carnage - ambulance drivers, Emergency Medical Technicians, police, fire fighters, emergency room nurses and doctors. And let's not forget morgue technicians and undertakers.

Yet, while PTSD certainly must be present in these professions, there is no massive media outcry predicting that our social services infrastructure is about to collapse, or that the nursing profession is over-extended, or nearly broken.

How is it that people can do the same job, one in the military, one in the civilian world, in virtually the same circumstances yet it is only the military that is not capable of adapting to the stress?

My belief here is two-fold. First, I believe that the military personnel can adapt, far better than many in the civilian world, but that their reaction to the stress around them can be and is exacerbated by the negativity in the media and the US Congress.

How different would their reaction to battle be if the news was full of their heroics, and the wonderful statements that Congress was issuing on their behalf back home? How different would their attitude be toward their difficult tasks if school children didn't think the war they are fighting was politically inspired instead of a necessary measure to keep terrorism at bay?

Second I believe that many PTSD symptoms are minor, and can be dealt with through counseling that can be no more than a combined sharing of experiences. But even minor symptoms can take on a larger persona when they are aggravated by a non-stop flood of negative statements and news reports.

Is it always the stress of combat that leads to PTSD symptoms, or is it also the added burden of hearing the media and people in high places repeating the Big Lie of the mentally deficient military?

I suspect that if the armed forces knew without question that our country's leaders were behind them - and not preparing to stab them in the back - the PTSD 'epidemic' would subside, or cases would be reported for what they are, mild to moderate symptoms that could and willingly would be dealt with through counseling, without relying on drugs.

That would lead to a reduced burden on both the military and VA systems to tackle a problem that certainly is a very real issue, but probably no more of an issue in this war than it was for previous generations.

Semper Means Always; And Always Means Forever

I have used that line, the headline for this post, in speeches to veterans, students, community groups, organizations and even incoming Marine recruits for decades now, but it has never held more meaning for me than in the last few days.

One point that needs to be made before I progress: This is not about politics, this is about the heart and soul of being a United States Marine, forever, from the day the term is finally earned and applied to a new class of graduates, until the day a Marine dies; in battle, of other causes, or long, long down the road, way after the wearing of the uniform is no longer required, but the plainclothes Marine continues, down in the heart, down in the soul, always in the spirit.

This week Marine Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani was the seventh of eight Marines who were falsely charged with murdering civilians during a day-long battle in Haditha, Iraq, in late 2005, to be cleared of those charges.

Chessani also is one of eight loyal, patriotic, front-line American military men who was falsely charged by Pennsylvania's Democratic Congressman John Murtha with the "cold blooded" killing of Iraqi civilians. Murtha made that charge on international television, before he had any evidence whatsoever to support his allegation.

Seven of eight Marines have been cleared of any wrongdoing other than fighting a war that the US Congress voted to send them into. They went into battle, standing up for our country, for our rights, our privileges and our freedoms and were falsely charged with being murderers by an organization that itself falsely claims it is a responsible news outlet, but in truth has less credibility than a typical supermarket checkout tabloid.

None of the men and women working for that libelous rag have a right to call themselves journalists.

John Murtha and the American media willfully, negligently, and with malice convicted these men with no evidence. They all should be held accountable.

Seven of the eight have been cleared. I have little doubt that the eighth will also be cleared. But their careers are over and their lives have been changed unalterably, and not for the better.

Meanwhile, John Murtha, who falsely claims he too is a United States Marine, still walks the halls of Congress, still has his position, his salary, his retirement benefits and his bombast. He, like many of his Democratic colleagues, has gone to extremes to undermine the troops who are fighting in Iraq, all for nothing other than political sound bites, in the hopes that the country will continue to elect them to the cushy positions they should have been thrown out of long ago.

Murtha is the point man for a group of liars, some of whom should be investigated for treason. His friends have helped pro-terrorist groups in this country send money and provisions to the very terrorist groups who attacked us in 2001, while our troops were locked in deadly battles against a savage enemy. Others have not hesitated for an instant to discuss strategy, tactics, weaponry and equipment in wide open news conferences that have been broadcast right into the camps of the very barbarians our troops are fighting.

They have provided aid, comfort and inside information during these world-wide broadcasts and have thumbed their noses at the US Constitution in the process. They have been aided and abetted from start to finish by the American media.

Their leader, Nancy Pelosi, was quoted in the news after a recent trip to Iraq, where it was abundantly clear to her and her accompanying minions that we are well on the way to victory, as saying that our troops really aren't winning, it's just that the leader in the terrorist headquarters across the border in Iran has decided to let them win!

But this isn't about her, or any of the other despicable, low, heinous creatures who have the audacity to inhabit the top rungs of our government structure while working to demolish the very liberties that allow such simple minded slugs to exist in this country.

This is about John Murtha having the unmitigated gall to call himself a US Marine. He is NOT. He is a liar.

There is no way he could have said what he said, and done what he did, and ever have truly been a US Marine. If the evidence had shown that our troops really committed crimes in the midst of battle, and they were so convicted, it would have been appropriate for him to comment after they had been sentenced. But not one word before.

But he didn't wait. Murtha anointed himself judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner all on his own, and took his verdict to the world media.

According to the reports I have received from people much closer to this case than I, several of these Marines were held in atrocious conditions that, if they had been replicated in Guantanamo Bay would have brought every human rights organization in the world out to denounce their treatment.

But these are not extremist muslim terrorists. They are US Marines, thus in the view of world "human rights" gas bags, and the extremists' apologists in the mainstream media, they had no rights. According to these geniuses, Marines who have a two-centuries plus history of standing up for America - and doing it successfully - have no rights compared to the scum and litter of modern society.

I have read quotes from Lt. Col. Chessani's lawyer saying his client is considering suing Murtha. I hope he does. The colonel's career has been ruined, his reputation besmirched and our country has lost the services of a man who by all accounts is among the most dedicated and capable of Marines. I hope he takes Murtha for every dime he has, his party has, his neighbors can collect, and his staff can pony up.

But before that happens I have one other suggestion.

After the Colonel body slams that windbag Congressman, I would suggest that he settle, under these conditions: the President of the United States agrees to recall Murtha to active duty for 24 hours; the Commandant of the Marine Corps agrees to hold a Special Court Martial on the spot; a panel of Chessani's peers (commanders with combat experience) hears Murtha's comments to the news media; they give him five minutes to make whatever statement he wants; they find the bastard guilty of conduct unbecoming.

Then the Commandant strips Murtha of his rank, his retirement, the phony combat medals he never deserved in the first place, and drums him out of the Corps in disgrace.

When that phase is settled the defense lawyers for the falsely charged Marines can set their sights on libel suits against the media; slander if they think the malice issue might get in the way, although I believe most American juries would convict the news media on the first ballot.

It won't change a damn thing for the Haditha Marines. But it just might send the right kind of message to propaganda outlets like the one that started all this in the first place.

We Marines are proud of our service and fond of saying "Once A Marine, Always A Marine."

But a person who claims that title when he doesn't believe in it was never a Marine in the first place, and should be prosecuted to the fullest just like any other common, non-serving poser, embellisher, wannabe or valor thief.

See also http://talon.eaglesup.us/