SOME GOOD NEWS ON THE HOME FRONT

 As the year of our Lord, 2001, draws to a close, aside from our impressive successes in Afghanistan, there’s some good news to report for those of us who believe that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense according to the U.S. Constitution.

          First of all, the 2002 defense spending bill passed by Congress matches the $343 billion requested by President Bush.  That is $33 billion or 10.6 percent more than last year’s defense budget and will go a long way toward redressing the funding shortfalls that occurred during the Clinton administration.  The bill also includes the president’s requested 8.3 billion (a $3 billion increase) for his plan to test and build a national missile defense.  Furthermore, the bill makes a significant effort to improve the quality of life for those who serve and their families.  In addition to calling for a major boost in construction spending including much-needed improvements in family housing and more assistance with housing costs, the new budget, according to Rep. Bob Stump (R-AZ), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, provides “the most generous pay raise in 20 years,” a 5 to 10 percent across-the-board increase, effective January 1.

          Secondly, the new intelligence spending bill sent to the President calls for an eight percent increase over last year’s budget (believed to be around $30 billion) and places a greater emphasis on human intelligence–gathering capabilities as well as raw data analysis.  Many intelligence experts believe that the U.S. has relied too heavily in the recent past on technology (satellites, electronic/signals-gathering facilities, etc.) for its spying activities.

          And finally, President Bush announced in a Rose Garden ceremony that the U.S. is exercising its option to legally withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty since it “hinders our government’s ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks.”  The Treaty, which was signed almost 30 years ago with a country that no longer exists (i.e., the Soviet Union), prohibited the U.S. from testing and deploying a nation-wide anti-missile defensive shield and was viewed by many (myself included) as not only a relic of the Cold War, but also a morally indefensible and downright dangerous agreement that kept America and Americans defenseless in a world where ballistic missiles are proliferating in an uninhibited manner.

As this year draws to a close, we should be glad that after too many years of neglect the U.S. government is once again on its way to performing its Constitutional mandate of providing for the common defense.

           On October 5, two days before the U.S. launched its initial air strikes against targets in Afghanistan, President Bush sent a memo to the heads of six government agencies ordering them not to provide classified information to any members of Congress who were not part of Capitol Hill’s leadership.

The memo was addressed to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA Director George J. Tenet and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and was issued after a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released top-secret information to the Washington Post that he had obtained from a CIA briefing.

According to the various press reports, Mr. Bush told the department heads that the only members of Congress who could be briefed on such secretive matters were the House speaker, House majority and minority leaders, Senate majority and minority leaders, and the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees.

Mr. Bush closed the memo by writing that “this approach will best serve our shared goals of protecting American lives, maintaining the proper level of confidentiality for the success of our military, intelligence and law enforcement operations, and keeping the leadership of the Congress appropriately informed about important developments."   

In reading about the memo (which the President rescinded several days later in response to Capitol Hill protest) I recalled an incident from our past in which the disclosure of classified information by a member of Congress had some very deadly consequences.

During WWII, U.S. submarines played a vital role in defeating the Japanese by cutting their supply lines in the Pacific.  In a four-year period, American submariners were responsible for sinking over five million tons of Japanese shipping including 1178 merchant ships and 214 warships.   

While the Americans lost 49 submarines in the Pacific theatre, there is little doubt their losses would have been substantially less had it not been for a serious operational security lapse on the part of a U.S. congressman. 

In his excellent book, Senseless Secrets, historian Michael Lanning points out that while visiting U.S. forces in the Pacific, Rep. Andrew Jackson May was given a briefing in which he was told that the American submarines were mostly invulnerable to the Japanese navy since their warships’ depth charges were fused to explode at too shallow a depth. 

After returning home to the states, May promptly held a press conference where he repeated the information he had learned from his Navy hosts.  Not long after his public revelations, the Japanese started to sink our submarines with their (no doubt) newly fused depth charges. 

According to Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood, the commander of our submarine forces in the Pacific at the time, as many as 10 submarines and 800 crewmembers were lost because of the congressman’s thoughtless words.  Let’s hope that in this war, the careless words of some politician will not cost the lives of those who are fighting it.

VOTING FOR A CHANGE

During the presidential election campaign, both Messrs. Gore and Lieberman repeated the outlandish assertion that the U.S. military was “stronger than at any time in history.”  Furthermore, both men said that any previously existing  “morale problems” experienced by the members of our armed forces were corrected and now things of the past.

Well, if things are so great in the military, why did our military personnel stationed abroad decide to cast their ballots so overwhelming for the Bush/Cheney team? 

It’s an established fact that men and women in the military cast the overwhelming majority of overseas absentee ballots.  According to initial election accounts, of the overseas ballots that were not thrown out by Democratic election officials in Florida (over 1,400 were invalidated), the GOP candidates garnered almost twice as many votes as did their opponents.  Of the 2,130 ballots counted in the Sunshine State, 1,380 (65%) went for Bush/Cheney while just 750 (35%) went for Gore/Lieberman.

While Republican tickets have historically outpolled their Democrat counterparts among members of our military, the Wall Street Journal recently pointed out that the gap has narrowed during the past two presidential elections.  In 1992, George Bush got only 15% more of the military vote than did Bill Clinton; while in 1996, Bob Dole had a 14% advantage over the incumbent.  This time around, however, if the numbers in Florida are representative of our total military, which most believe they are, the Republicans had a 30-percentage point advantage.  Why would there be such a large margin this time around? 

Could it be because of the fact that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are tired of being asked by a Democratic administration to do more with less?  After all, over the last eight years, the number of our military personnel has been cut by more than a third (from 2.1 million to less than 1.4 million) while the number of peacekeeping missions has increased threefold.

Could it be because that under a Democratic administration they have been repeatedly sent away from their families NOT to defend our nation from its enemies but to perform those meals-on-wheels peacekeeping missions?

Could it be because under a Democratic administration they have seen their hallowed institution turned into a laboratory for social experimentation and political correctness (women in combat and homosexuals in the ranks)?

Or could it be because that under a Democratic administration they have learned they can neither trust their civilian nor their uniformed leaders to look after their interests or to tell the truth about what’s going on in the military today?

Whatever the reason, it’s obvious that most members of the military voted for a change.  Maybe things in the military are not as great as the Democratic candidates would have us believe.

THE OCTOBER SURPRISE

There are more than a few people (myself included) who believe that the Clinton administration will manufacture some foreign policy “crisis” this October to enhance Al Gore’s presidential election bid.  After all, history has shown that most Americans will initially rally their support around the current occupants of the White House when our troops are engaged in action abroad.  It now appears almost certain that this new “crisis” could very well occur in the Middle East.

According to CNN, the U.S. is prepared to launch air strikes against Iraq if the Iraqis move against their minority Kurdish population in the northern part of the country.  CNN quoted Pentagon sources as saying that the fairly intense aerial bombing campaign would last for at least three days.  The likelihood of such an operation is evidenced by the fact that a Patriot missile battery in Germany has been placed on a “heightened state of readiness” for possible deployment to Israel out of concern that Saddam Hussein might fire Scud missiles against Israel as a response to U.S. military action.

The only problem with the premise of this whole scenario is that, again, according to CNN, U.S. officials monitoring Iraqi troop movements say that they have not detected any unusual activity indicating that a move against the Kurds is in the offing.  But who cares about such a minor detail?  After all, we’re talking about winning an election here…

 If you’ve seen the new and outstanding Mel Gibson movie, THE PATRIOT, you’re well aware that Gibson’s main antagonist was “Colonel Tavington,” the commander of the British Army’s Green Dragoons. The following article is a historical account about the man who the Tavington character was based on, Lt. Col. Banaster Tarleton.

HOW DECEPTION HELPED DEFEAT TARLETON AT COWPENS

by Scott Lofman

During the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) one of the most feared and hated British officers was Sir Banaster Tarleton.  Lt. Col. Tarleton came to America during the first year of the war and participated in numerous campaigns ranging from the capture of New York in 1776, to the capture of Charleston in 1780.

As a commander of a British cavalry and light infantry legion (approximately 1100 men), he had the reputation as a hard charging and aggressive officer who appeared to be invincible on the field of battle.  His unit had defeated opposing American forces on four separate occasions during the summer of 1780.  In addition to his fighting prowess, Tarleton was also known for his merciless treatment of “rebel” soldiers and had earned the nickname, “the Butcher” after his unit slaughtered the surrendering survivors of a Virginia regiment he had defeated on May 27, 1780, at Waxham Creek, South Carolina.

In January, 1781, upon learning that the American Southern Army had split its forces in two, the British commander, General Cornwallis, sent Tarleton and his men to track down and destroy the detachment led by American General Daniel Morgan.

Rather than running from the approaching and seemingly unbeatable Tarleton, Morgan, whose force equaled the Brits in numbers, decided to fight “the Butcher” by laying a trap for him at Cowpens, South Carolina.  Morgan believed he could take advantage of his adversary’s aggressiveness and use it against him by employing the operations security (OPSEC) element of deception to feign a retreat and lure Tarleton into a situation where his advancing forces could be enveloped and attacked from both sides and from behind.  

In an effort to carry out his plan, on January 17, Morgan aligned his army in defensive positions across an open field that appeared ideal for the type of horse-mounted charge that Tarleton liked to launch.  The American general instructed the soldiers deployed in the middle of his front-line formations to retreat to the rear after briefly engaging the enemy in order to draw the attacking Brits in.  The plan worked to perfection.  Tarleton ordered his troops to advance into the area vacated by the “retreating” Americans and before long found himself in a situation where he was completed surrounded..  The line in front of him had become a circle around him.

When the battle ended not long after it had began, Morgan had scored a smashing victory over one of the best legions in the army of King George III.  While suffering only 73 casualties (12 killed and 61 wounded), the Americans decimated Tarleton’s unit by inflicting 930 casualties (110 killed, 830 wounded and/or captured) on the British force.  The once invincible “Butcher”, who along with a handful of his men managed to flee the fight to avoid death or capture, had lost 90% of the soldiers under his command.

Postscript:  Tarleton retreated to Yorktown with Cornwallis, where he was taken prisoner.  He returned to England in 1781 where he went on to become a member of Parliament and, in 1812, a general.  Morgan, whose victory at Cowpens is considered one of the most brilliant tactical feats of the war, went on to become a member of Congress.

SPEAK OUT AND GET INVESTIGATED

Last month, I had the opportunity to sit in on the new, Pentagon-mandated "homosexual sensitivity training."  According to the JAG, who was given the unenviable task of teaching the course, if someone in uniform were to make an "offensive" remark about homosexuals, and the person who was offended by that remark complained to the unit's commander, the commander (CO) would have to launch an investigation to determine if disciplinary action was necessary.  That's right!  The CO's hands are tied.  He has NO choice in the matter.  What constitutes an "offensive" remark?  Virtually anything.  It depends totally on the person filing the complaint.  For example, if a serviceman was overheard saying that he did not believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military (even if that objection was based on religious grounds), and someone complained to the commander about his remark, that serviceman would have to be investigated (even if he were a chaplain!).  While they're apt to deny it in public, one of the long-term goals of homosexual activists has been to silence any dissenting opinions on their perverted lifestyle.  Thanks to Messrs. Clinton and Cohen, they have now achieved that goal in the military (and they wonder why officers are leaving the military in droves).

 IT’S NOT THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

The administration and their sycophantic generals say the booming economy is the main reason why so many mid-level officers are leaving the military.  According to a poll by the Center for International and Strategic Studies, however, it’s NOT the economy that’s causing the exodus.  The Center’s survey found that there are three primary reasons why the percentage of Captains and Lieutenants turning in the gold and silver bars is at a historically high level:  First of all, the poll showed they are fed up with the mandatory, politically correct, diversity training.  Secondly, they joined the military to be soldiers, not policemen or social workers constantly deployed on “peacekeeping” missions.  And thirdly, they’re disillusioned with and do not trust their higher ranking superiors.

Footnote:  The military didn’t have any problems retaining or recruiting people during the economic boom of the 80s.

LOVE LETTERS IN BOOT CAMP

One of Pat Boone’s biggest hits was “Love Letters in the Sand.”  Well, if someone wants to do a remake of the classic song, he or she might want to consider changing the title to “Love Letters in Boot Camp.”  After all, according to hundreds of disciplinary reports compiled by a congressional committee studying the issue of mixed-gender training, today’s basic military training instructors are spending just as much time keeping the sexes apart as they are molding their young trainees into disciplined soldiers.  Some of the most common offenses listed in the report are such things as “passing love notes in class, holding hands, giving foot messages, smiling suggestively and uttering sexually tinged language.”  I’ve always disputed Bill Clinton’s claim that (under his administration) our military is “more prepared than ever.”  On second thought, however, considering that he and his ilk protested in the 60s under the motto of, “make love, not war,” maybe his claim was not that far off.

WHAT ABOUT THE WIVES?

In their quest to appease the feminists, Clinton’s civilian appointees at the Pentagon are seriously considering lifting the ban on women on submarines.  Before they move ahead with this mindless policy, however, they should consider the views of another group of women who are adamantly opposed to lifting the ban – the wives of those serving on the submarines.  According to the Christian Science Monitor, many of the wives fear the close quarters and the long time away from home could encourage promiscuity.  It seems to me that the opinions of military wives should be taken into account far more than the views of those feminists who are willing to sacrifice our national security to advance the careers of women in the military.  After all, it’s the military wives who are the ones making the many sacrifices so their husbands can do their jobs and defend our freedoms.

Personal Perspectives

 MORE THAN A DIME’S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE

      The other evening I was having a political discussion about presidential politics with a conservative friend of mine.  During the course of the phone call, the other party (who’ll remain anonymous) made the widely repeated comment that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.”  While there’s no question that many of us have been disappointed more than a few times by our Republican legislators in D.C., there are some very significant differences between the two parties.  Aside from domestic and social issues like tax cuts and abortion, consider the chasm that exists between the Republicans’ and Democrats’ presidential candidates when it comes to our government’s most important Constitutional responsibility to “provide for the common defense.” 

      Take the areas of missile defense and homosexuals in the military.  As you know, today, America is totally defenseless against ballistic missile attack.  If just one missile were to be launched at the U.S., whether by accident or intent, there is absolutely nothing in place to stop it.  All of the GOP’s candidates have pledged to end this vulnerability by deploying a missile defense as soon as possible, while the two Democratic candidates, in their opposition to the deployment of such defenses, have made no such commitment.

      Furthermore, while all the Republicans are opposed to allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, both Al Gore and Bill Bradley have publicly promised to allow them to serve.  In fact, Mr. Gore even has gone so far to suggest in a New Hampshire debate that he would, in effect, impose a pro-gay litmus test on any officer he’d appoint to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

      Yes, there are differences between the parties.  And there is no question in my mind, comparing the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, that a Republican president would be far better in restoring and maintaining the strength of our military and thus providing for the common defense.

 BACKPEDALING AS FAST AS HE CAN

      With the overwhelmingly negative response to his statement about only appointing officers to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who agree with his policy of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, Al Gore is backpedaling from his statement as fast as he possibly can.  While he now says he didn’t mean to imply that he would impose a “litmus test” on his appointees and misunderstood the question that was posed to him, according to the less-than-conservative New York Times, Gore’s aides were crowing right after the debate that their candidate had upstaged Bradley in the battle for support from gays and liberal Democrats with his litmus test remarks.  Gore knew exactly what he was saying and despite the “spin” that he and his aides are now putting on his statement, the damage (at least with millions of veterans) has already been done to him and his presidential campaign.  As it says in the book of Proverbs, 18:7, “A fool’s mouth is his ruin.”

The Clinton administration has on numerous occasions referred to communist China as a “strategic partner.”  Well, I always thought that partners cooperated with each other.  It appears more and more, however, that this “partnership” is a one-way street.  According to a report recently released by General Accounting Office, China is blocking the Commerce Department from carrying out its Congressionally-mandated task of inspecting how all but one of the 191 supercomputers sold to China last year are being used.  Supercomputers, the sale of which was strictly regulated before the current occupants of the White House arrived on the scene, are essential for the development of nuclear weapons.  It seems to me it would have been reasonable to request that the Chinese allow the Commerce Dept. inspectors in to see those 190 other computers before we signed an agreement with the communist giant for their entrance to the World Trade Organization or resumed military to military exchanges.  However, I don’t believe that we should be selling them supercomputers in the first place. 

Easy drill instructors (DI's), a fun boot camp…what’s going on here? There was a time when Army boot camp was a living hell. Well, all that started to change in 1994. We now have a kinder and gentler environment where DI's can no longer yell at recruits to motivate them, grab them to get their attention, or even discipline them when they step out of line. In fact, in today’s politically-correct boot camps, the DI's fear the recruits (and how their complaints may end their careers) more than the recruits fear the DI's.

A recent article in The Washington Post further confirms our fears that the Pentagon has become more politicized under this administration than at any other time since the days of LBJ and Robert Strange McNamara.

The messages we sent…There are some who believe that one of the messages that our recent bombing campaign against Yugoslavia sent to our adversaries around the world was "DON’T MESS WITH THE U.S." or we’ll do to you what we did to Slobo. At the risk of being a "party pooper," let me mention two other messages we sent to our adversaries abroad:

A victory for Slobo? When I heard that Slobodan Milosevic was claiming victory in his recent conflict against NATO, my first thought was that this guy was "out to lunch." Upon examining the details of the peace agreement, I must admit there is some validity to his claim. If he had accepted demands put on him by NATO at the Rambouillet conference in France before the bombs fell on Belgrade, he would have been forced to allow foreign troops into Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia. He also would have had to withdraw all his troops from Kosovo, and the people of Kosovo would have been able to vote in three years to secede from Yugoslavia. Now, with the new agreement, there will be no foreign troops in Montenegro and Serbia, he can keep some of his troops in Kosovo, and there is no provision for a vote on independence for the province.

An offer they knew he’d refuse…In its desire to go to war against Sobodan Milosevic, did the Clinton Administration make him an offer they knew he’d refuse? I believe the answer is a resounding, "YES." Think about it. As a result of the Rambouillet conference, he was told that NATO’s bombs would rain down on him if he didn’t, among other things, allow the deployment of armed, foreign troops on his native soil. The Administration (Clinton, Albright, Berger, Cohen, and Gen. Clarke) had to have known that Slobo, as a devout nationalist, would never agree to such a blatant violation of his beloved Serbia’s national sovereignty. And if the truth be told, it was this refusal, not the ethnic cleansing campaign (which hadn’t yet begun) that triggered the bombing. What people will do in an attempt to restore their sullied reputations and rebuild their legacies…

Was NATO lying? Toward the latter days of NATO’s bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, the organization’s spokesmen were claiming that the air strikes were taking a terrible toll on Slobo’s troops in Kosovo. Therefore, I was quite surprised to see the condition of the Serbian soldiers retreating back into Yugoslavia. Rather than seeing news clips of a ragtag, beaten down and shell-shocked army on the run, the soldiers I saw were wearing like-new uniforms, clean shaven, and appeared to be in generally good spirits. Furthermore, the tanks and vehicles they were riding out on seemed to be in pretty good shape. What’s going on here? Did NATO erroneously overestimate the effectiveness of it relatively high altitude bombing campaign? Or did it deliberately mislead the public to buttress support for the aerial assault that was increasingly causing the deaths of innocent civilians?

Our new allies…Last month the FBI put Islamic terrorist Osama Bin Laden on it’s "10 Most Wanted" list for his participation in the double embassy bombing in Africa last year and for his threats to Americans abroad. Isn’t it ironic that in the recent "non-war," we became the air force for the KLA - an organization that not only used money from drugs sold in both western Europe and the U.S. to finance its weapons purchases but also has elements in its army trained by Bin Laden? Will those elements heed the call of their Islamic benefactor and kill American soldiers who, as part of their peace-keeping mission, are attempting to take their weapons away? I thank God that we did not lose any more Americans than we did (2 Apache helicopter pilots died on a training mission) in a civil war in which we never should have been involved. Unfortunately, I fear our good fortune may soon run out. When all is said and done, I predict that the organization we sided with in the Balkan conflict, the KLA, will be more responsible for American casualties than the forces under the command of Slobodan Milosevic.

 Personal Perspectives

Despite being bombarded by their "colleagues" on the other side of the isle in the House and from Bill Clinton’s numerous defenders in the media and press, the Republicans in Congress stood their ground and did their constitutional duty by impeaching William Jefferson Clinton for perjuring himself in front of a federal grand jury and for obstructing justice.

I must admit, up until the last week before the vote, I thought that enough "moderates" would break ranks with their fellow Republicans to vote with the all but a few Democrats who were willing to stand by their perjuring, lying, philandering and sexually perverted leader in the White House. Thankfully, I was wrong!

When the founding fathers of our great country wrote the Constitution setting forth the laws of this land, it was understood that for our republic to survive, the rule of law had to be based on the premise that we are all equal and that no one was above the law…no matter how popular, no matter how powerful, and no matter how important.

In the movie "Patton," it showed a scene in which George C. Scott (who portrayed the title character) upon observing his troops marching through the snow to engage the German Wermacht said, "Damn, I’m proud of these guys." Well, I’m damn proud of the men and women in the U.S. House of Representatives who had the courage to stand up and to vote for the Constitution of the United States of America. They deserve our thanks.

 

WEREN’T THESE THE SAME GUYS ?

I had to shake my head in disbelief after watching many of the Democrats criticize the Republicans for being unconcerned about our men and women in harms way in the Persian Gulf during the impeachment debate.

Weren’t these the same guys who never met a defense budget they didn’t want to slash?

Weren’t these the same guys who never met a weapons system (unless it was to be built in their district) they didn’t want to curtail or cancel?

Weren’t these the same guys who helped the White House destroy morale by turning the military into a playground for social experimentation and sexual tensions?

And weren’t these the same guys who refused to support our efforts during Desert Shield and Desert Storm?

By golly, I believe they were.

Personal Perspectives

Over the next several weeks the U.S. Congress is going to consider whether or not to impeach Bill Clinton for perjury, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and witnesses tampering. As our elected representatives debate the issue, they would do well to read the following article written by a major in the Marines Corps Reserves which first appeared in the November 9^th edition of The Washington Times :

PLEASE, IMPEACH MY COMMANDER IN CHIEF

By Major Daniel J. Rabil, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.

The American military is subject to civilian control, and we deeply believe in that principle. We also believe, as affirmed in the Nuremberg Trials, that servicemen are not bound to obey illegal orders. But what about orders given by a known criminal? Should we trust in the integrity of directives given by a president who violates the same basic oath we take? Should we be asked to follow a morally defective leader with a demonstrated disregard for his troops? The answer is no, for implicit in the voluntary oath that all servicemen take is the promise that they will receive honorable civilian leadership. Bill Clinton has violated that covenant. It is therefore Congress' duty to remove him from office.

I do not claim to speak for all service members, but certainly Bill Clinton has never been the military's favorite president. Long before the Starr report, there was plenty of anecdotal evidence of this administration's contempt for the armed forces. Yes, Mr. Clinton was a lying draft dodger, yes his staffers have been anti-military, and yes, he breezily ruins the careers of senior officers who speak up or say politically incorrect things. Meanwhile, servicemen are now in jail for sex crimes less egregious than those Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey say Mr. Clinton committed.

Mr. Clinton and his supporters do not care in the least about the health of our armed forces. Hateful of a traditional military culture they never deigned to study, Mr. Clinton's disingenuous feminist, homosexual and racial activist friends regard the services as mere political props, useful only for showcasing petty identity group grievances. It is no coincidence that the media have played up one military scandal after another during the Clinton years. This politically-driven shift of focus, from the military mission to the therapeutic wants of fringe groups, has taken its toll: Partly because of Mr. Clinton's impos-sibly Orwellian directives, Chief of Naval Operations Jay Boorda committed suicide.

So Clinton has weakened the services and fostered a corrosive anti-military culture. This may be loathsome, but it is not impeachable, particularly if an attentive Congress can limit the extent of Clinton-induced damage. As officers and gentlemen, we have therefore continued to march, pretending to respect our hypocrite-in-chief.

Then came the Paula Jones perjury and the ensuing Starr Report. I have always known that Clinton was integrity-impaired, but I never thought even he could be so depraved, so contemptuous, as to conduct military affairs as was described in the special prosecutor's report to Congress. In that report, we learn of a telephone conversation between Mr. Clinton and a congressman in which the two men discussed our Bosnian deployment. During that telephone discussion, the Commander-in-Chief's pants were unzipped, and Monica Lewinsky was busy saving him the cost of a prostitute. This is the president of the United States of America? Should soldiers not feel belittled and worried by this? We deserve better.

When Ronald Reagan's ill-fated Beirut mission led to the careless loss of 241 Marines in a single bombing, few questioned his love of country and his overriding concern for American interests. But should Mr. Clinton lead us into military conflict, he would do so, incredibly, without any such trust. After the recent American missile attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan, my instant reaction was outrage, for I instinctively presumed that Mr. Clinton was trying to knock Miss Lewinsky's concurrent grand jury testimony out of the headlines. The alternative, that this president --who ignores national security interests, who appeases Iraq and North Korea, and who fights like a leftover Soviet the idea of an American missile defense -- actually believed in the need for immediate military strikes, was simply implausible. And no amount of scripted finger wagging, lip biting, or mention of The Children by this highly skilled perjurer can convince me otherwise.

In other words, Mr. Clinton has demonstrated that he will risk war, terrorist attacks, and our lives just to save his dysfunctional administration. What might his motives be in some future conflict? Blackmail? Cheap political payoffs? Or -- dare I say it -- simply the lazy blundering of an instinctively anti-American man? It is immoral to impose such untrustworthy leadership on a fighting force.

It will no doubt be considered extreme to raise the question of whether this president is a national security risk, but I must. I do not believe presidential candidates should be required to undergo background investigations, as is normal for service members. I do know, however, that Bill Clinton would not pass such a screening. Recently, I received a phone call from a military investigator, who asked me a variety of character-related questions about a fellow Marine reservist. The Marine, who is also a friend, needed to update his top-secret clearance. After-ward, I called him. We marveled how lowly reservists like us must pass complete background checks before routine deployments, yet the guardian of our nation's nuclear button would raise a huge red flag on any such security report. We joked that my friend's security clearance would have been permanently canceled if I had said to the investigator, "Well, Rick spent the Vietnam years smoking pot and leading protests against his country in Britain. His hobbies are lying and adultery. His brother's a cocaine dealer, and oh, yeah -- he visited the Soviet Union for unknown reasons, while his countrymen were getting killed in Vietnam."

Do I show disrespect for this president? Perhaps it depends on the meaning of the word "this." If Clinton were merely a spoiled leftist taking advantage of our free society, a la Jane Fonda, that would be one thing. But you don't make an atheist pope, and you don't keep a corrupt security risk as commander- in-chief.

The enduring goodness of the American military character over the past two centuries does not automatically derive from our nation's nutritional habits or from a good job benefits package. This character must be developed and supported, or it will die. Already we are seeing declining enlistment and a 1970s-style disdain for military service, squandering the real progress made during the purposeful 1980s. Our military's heart and soul can survive lean budgets, but they cannot long survive in an America that would tolerate such a character as now occupies the Oval Office. We are entitled to a leader who at least respects us -- not one who cannot be bothered to remove his penis from a subordinate's mouth long enough to discuss our deployment to a combat zone. To subject our services to such debased leadership is nothing less than the collective spit of the entire nation upon our faces.

Bill Clinton has always been a moral coward. He has always had contempt for the American military. He has always had a questionable security background. Since taking office, he has ignored defense issues, except as serves the destructive goals of his extremist supporters. His behavior with Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey was bizarre and deranged -- try keeping a straight face while watching mandated Navy sexual harassment videos, knowing that the president's own conduct violates historic service rules to the point of absurdity.

For a while, it was almost possible to laugh off Mr. Clinton's hedonistic, "college protester" values. But now that we have clear evidence that he perjured himself and corrupted others to cover up his lies, Bill Clinton is no longer funny. He is dangerous.

William J. Clinton, perhaps the most selfish man ever to disgrace our presidency, will not resign. I therefore risk my commission, as our generals will not, to urge this of Congress: Remove this stain from our White House. Banish him from further office. For God's sake, do your duty.

Footnote: Maj. Rabil is now under investigation for advocating the impeachment of President Clinton in this article.

Fact. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves. A simple reading of the document shows that President Lincoln’s declaration only applied to slaves in territories held by the rebellious Confederates -- areas that ignored Lincoln’s dictates. It did not apply to the slaves held in the four slave states that sided with the Union: Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, & Missouri. Nor did it free the slaves in the areas of the South under federal control (New Orleans, parts of Tennessee, northern Virginia, the South Carolina coast, etc.).