Tribute to America

Read Board 4

Last Updated on November 02, 2007

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements. The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts. In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.

Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands. The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.

The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission. He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"

Misleading Reporting
Friday, June 18, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

Once again we are mislead by some in the press. I know some of you complain about me, but it’s on days like this that you should appreciate the No Spin Zone. The 9/11 Commission (search) has come to some conclusions and Thursday newspapers across the country blared headlines.

• The New York Times wrote: "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq tie."
• The Washington Post put forth: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed."
• The Los Angeles Times opined: "No Signs of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties Found."
• And even the conservative Wall Street Journal trumpeted: "No Iraq-al Qaeda Link."

But if you read below the headlines you see the Commission said something a bit different: That there was no a collaborative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda regarding Sept. 11. That's true, but there were certainly links and ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that's provable.

The smoking gun is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search), an Al Qaeda leader who found his way to Baghdad after being severely wounded fighting against American forces in Afghanistan. Zarqawi arrived in Iraq in May of 2002 and had surgery in an Iraqi hospital, run by -- are you ready -- Uday Hussein. I believe that might be a tie, but there's more.

Next, the Al Qaeda big shot -- who was wanted by the USA -- traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders of Hezbollah. A short time after that meeting, in October of 2002, Lawrence Foley, an American official, was assassinated in Jordan. The arrested killers said Zarqawi was involved in the plot.

Zarqawi wound up back in Iraq after the assassination of Foley and met up with the Ansar al-Islam group, which operated in Northern Iraq and is affiliated with Al Qaeda. In January 2003, several Ansar terrorists were arrested in Britain and charged with planning to put Ricin in the military food supply. Some of those terrorists fingered Zarqawi in the plot.

Right now, Zarqawi is believed to be in Fallujah working with some of Saddam's former generals in planning terror attacks. Just last week he took credit for killing 13 people in a bombing.

I believe that's a lot of links and ties between Saddam, Iraq and Al Qaeda. But again, I believe the Commission when it says Saddam was not directly involved with Sept. 11. That’s true. Faced with the misleading headlines ... President Bush said this Thursday: “The reason that I keep insisting that there’s was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda.”

So, what we have hear is spin. Some in the press used the Commission's report -- which is accurate -- to suggest Bush mislead the public about Saddam and Al Qaeda. I do not believe that is true.
 

The War on Terror Just Got Worse
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

The war on terror just got worse. That's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." Well, it didn't take "The New York Times" long to get back in the swing. The paper took a breather for the Reagan funeral, but today was right back on page one with another Abu Ghraib (search) story. That makes 43 front-page stories on the Iraqi prisoner abuse in the past 47 days. By contrast, the more objective "Chicago Tribune" has run 27 front-page stories.

"The New York Times", of course, is using the prisoner story to hammer the Bush administrationand will continue to do so, but here's the unintended consequence of that. By creating hysteria over Abu Ghraib, the much more important war on terror story has almost vanished from the news pages.

In Iran, thousands of people have signed up for suicide attacks on coalition forces and possibly onthe U.S. mainland, according to the Reuters news agency. A group called the Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign sponsored a conference and signed up the killers, all with the apparent approval of the Iranian government.

"The New York Times" did not cover this story. And most other American news agencies ignored it as well. Last week's unbelievable dog and pony show by Senators Kennedy and Biden once again placed the blame of Abu Ghraib on the Bush administration. And the senators did everything they could to mandate no coercive interrogations of suspected terrorists.

Meantime, foreign governments are encouraging suicide killers, and we are the targets. There's no question that America is not prepared to fight this terror war. We don't have enough troops in Iraq. We don't have the resolve back home. And we have a partisan media that refuses to tell the truth. We Americans are in more danger than at any other time in our history.

Terrorists are trying to take over the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Philippines,Indonesia, and Afghanistan. Terrorists already control Syria and Iran. Both Pakistan and Iran have or willhave nuclear weapon capability. Figure it out.

Yet it's all Abu Ghraib, all the time in much of the American media, politics once again trumping your security. The war against Islamic fascists is a story for our times. This is the big one. This is the one that could end your life and the lives of your children. We need to wise up and toughen up. And President Bush may take a strong leadership role here. If Iran has signed up thousands of suicide killers, then something needs to be said and eventually done, now.

And that's "The Memo."

You can watch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" weeknights at 8 & 11p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com
 

Iraq Key to Arab World Democracy
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
By Ken Adelman

When President Bush and Vice President Cheney appear before the 9/11 Commission (search) Thursday, they can justifiably claim they took prudent measures -- given the flimsy intelligence they’d received on terrorist threats against our homeland. Most importantly, once the attacks occurred, they radically changed their whole way of operating. They -- to use the cliché of the day -- “connected the dots,” as best they could. Their critics did not.

The very phrase “connecting the dots” highlights actions based on less-than-certain information -- on history, hunches, instincts. After all, these are “dots,” not fully filled-in scenes. Take Iraq, the second big issue after 9/11, coming after the expulsion of the Taliban (search) from power. A big “dot” was Saddam’s having -- and probably sharing with Al Qaeda -- weapons of mass destruction. This was clearly the Bush administration’s premise going into Iraq.

But a premise based on history, circumstantial evidence, clear deception and concealment by Saddam. Moreover, the head of U.S. intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet, explicitly told the president that Iraq’s having WMD was a “slam dunk.” That couldn’t be stronger talk. Strong enough to convince a president. Strong enough to convince the most fervent war opponent, like Sen. Ted Kennedy. On Sept. 27, 2002, during the war resolution debate, Kennedy said, “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Now, of course, Kennedy says that the Bush administration “misled Congress and the American people, because the administration knew that it could not obtain the consent of the Congress for the war if all the facts were known.” Well, “facts” were known. It turned out some “facts” were wrong.

Another “dot” connection was the line drawn between Saddam’s henchmen and Usama bin Laden’s fanatics. That, too, was eminently reasonable, as Saddam clearly relished terrorism. He relied on terror with his own people, bankrolled Palestinians who practiced terrorism against Israelis, ran a terrorist attack to assassinate ex-President George H.W. Bush, harbored terrorist kingpins like Abu Nidal (search) and those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. The biggest “dot” of all is so big that it’s missed only by those blinded by their fervent hatred of Bush.

George Orwell (search) once said, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." The titanic battle now underway between the champions of civilization and the forces of barbarism is right in front of our noses. Just as Americans toughed out the dark days of the titanic battles with Nazism, fascism and communism last century, so must we tough out the titanic battle with Islamic fascists this century.

Look at the enemy in Iraq. His savage tactics -- killing civilians and soldiers alike, Iraqis and coalition forces indiscriminately -- indicates what Iraq would be like should we cut and run. The barbarians would again wreck havoc there. Rather than sickening torture and brutality being inflicted by Saddam’s regime, it would now be inflicted by local power brokers. No great improvement for a lot of American prestige, blood and treasure spilled.

The enemy now fights in Iraq with fierce determination. But for what? To end American occupation? That’ll happen in 90 days or so, with Iraqis assuming sovereignty. To restore Saddam? The coward -- who sent millions of young Iraqis to die in battle, and himself meekly surrendered with a rifle in his lap –-- would be torn to sheds were he not incarcerated, and protected, by American troops. To establish a mullah-cracy, as in Iran? Just go next door and ask Iranians how they like life under their corrupt, incompetent and vicious mullahs.

No, the enemy’s purpose is to end any U.S. attempt to spread decency and, yes, democracy in the Arab world. The stakes are high in Iraq. If it goes right there, peaceful transformations can go right in Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf states -- even Saudi Arabia and Iran. If Iraq goes even wrong-er, the more reasonable Arab countries will be on the defensive, getting even worse than now. Our own battles against Islamic fascists (search) will be even more isolated and difficult than now.

Sure, we’re doing all this for Iraq’s future. But we’re doing this for our own future, too. We must stay the course, lest increasingly dark dots paint our future.

Mr. Adelman was a U.N. ambassador and arms-control director in the 1980s, accompanying President Reagan on his superpower summits with Mikhail Gorbachev. He now serves on the Defense Policy Board, and co-hosts www.TechCentralStation.com.

Six Months Later

L. Paul Bremer
Coalition Provisional Authority Administrator
Opening Remarks
Press Conference 9 October 2003

Six months ago today Coalition Forces liberated Baghdad.  I am sure that many of you were as thrilled as I was to see Saddam’s statue and his regime fall. Most, but not all, of what has happened since then is good.

The Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of our strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.  That plan has four elements:

Create a Secure Environment.
Begin Restoration of Essential Services.
Begin to Transform the Economy.
Begin the Transformation to Democracy.

Before taking your questions I would like to review briefly some of the progress in each of these areas.

Create a Secure Environment

Six months ago there were no police on duty in Iraq.

Today there are over 40,000 police on duty, nearly 7,000 here in Baghdad alone.
Last night Coalition Forces and Iraqi police conducted 1,731 joint patrols.

Six months ago those elements of Saddam’s military that had not been destroyed in combat had buried their airplanes and melted away.

Today the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty.
Across the country over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

Six months ago there were no functioning courts in Iraq.

Today nearly all of Iraq’s 400 courts are functioning. 
Today, for the first time in over a generation, the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

Begin Restoration of Essential Services

Six months ago the entire country could generate a bare 300 megawatts of electricity.

On Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts—exceeding the pre-war average.
If we get the funding the President has requested in his emergency budget, we expect to produce enough electricity for all Iraqis to have electrical service 24 hours daily—something essential to their hopes for the future.

Six months ago nearly all of Iraq’s schools were closed.

Today all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.
Many of you know that we announced our plan to rehabilitate one thousand schools by the time school started—well, by October 1 we had actually rehabbed over 1,500.

Six months ago teachers were paid as little as $5.33 per month.
Today teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

Six months ago the public health system was an empty shell.  During the 1990’s Saddam cut spending on public health by over 90 percent with predictable results for the lives of his citizens.

Today we have increased public health spending to over 26 times what it was under Saddam.
Today all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.
Today doctors’ salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.
Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.
Since liberation we have administered over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq’s children.

Six months ago three-quarters of Iraq’s 27,000 kilometers of irrigation canals were weed-choked and barely functional.

Today a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of those canals.  They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms.  This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

Additionally, we have restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

Before the war there were 4,500 Internet connections and important services, such as instant messaging were forbidden.

Today there are 4,900 full-service connections.
We expect 50,000 by January first.

Begin to Transform the Economy

Six months ago Iraq’s economy was flat on its back.

Today anyone walking the streets can see the wheels of commerce turning.  From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

Six months ago all banks were closed.

Today 95 percent of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.
Today Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.
Today the central bank is fully independent.
Today Iraq has one of the world’s most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

Six months ago Iraq had two currencies.

Next week Iraq will get a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

Begin the Transformation to Democracy

Six months ago there was no freedom of expression.  Satellite dishes were illegal.  Foreign journalists came on 10-day visas and paid mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for “minders” and other government spies. 

Today there is no Ministry of Information.
Today there are more than 170 newspapers.
Today you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.
Today foreign journalists and everyone else are free to come and go.

Six months ago Iraq had not one single element—legislative, judicial or executive-- of a representative government.

Today in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils.  Baghdad’s first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.
Today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.
Today 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq’s history, run the day-to-day business of government.
Today the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events.  Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit.  The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.

Six months ago Shia religious festivals were all but banned.

Today, for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

In six short months we have accomplished a lot.

We are also aware that the progress we have made is only a beginning.  A quarter century of negligence, cronyism and war mongering have devastated this country.  Such profound damage cannot be repaired overnight.

Bringing Iraq up to minimum self-sufficiency will require the full $20 billion the President has asked of Congress in his supplemental budget request. 

We are fighting terrorism here and we will continue to fight it until it no longer threatens the hopes of Iraqis, the hopes of the world.

The importance and urgency of this task was underscored for all of us today when terrorists car-bombed a police station and assassinated a Spanish diplomat.

As the President just said, “We will wage the war on terror until it is won.”

Responses from the Democratic presidential contenders to liberation events in Baghdad

“The reason I didn’t support the war -- and I continue to maintain this position -- is because it opens up a new, dangerous pre-emptive doctrine. … We’re going to spend a lot of money in Iraq. … It’s going to be $200 billion. For $200 billion, we could insure every child under the age of 18 in this country, just like we do in the state of Vermont. … We’ve gotten rid of him (Saddam Hussein), I suppose that’s a good thing, but there’s going to be a long period where the United States is going to need to be maintained in Iraq and that’s going to cost the American taxpayers a lot of money that could be spent on schools and kids.”

- Former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont

“Our highest responsibility is to keep our people safe. And the reason I supported this action was that I do not want to have another 9/11. I don’t want weapons of mass destruction used in this society, and I think we have to do what we have to do to defend the security of our people. We also should feel very proud tonight of the young men and woman who are in Iraq putting up their lives and their injuries for us to be safe. … We are going to have more deficits as a result of this war. We have to get rid of almost all of the Bush tax cuts -- the one last year and whatever he tries to put on the books this year.”

- Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri

“I support disarming Saddam Hussein, but I have been very critical of the way this administration went at it because it leaves the American people carrying a greater financial burden and an enormous repair job with NATO, the United Nations, the European community and the rest of world. And now this administration is laying out enormous plans for building roads, schools, hospitals, and providing books in Iraq, and it’s time for us to demand that they lay out a plan that they do the same here in the United States of America.”

- Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts

“I supported the war and I did because I believe one of the first responsibilities of government, as our Constitution says, is to ‘provide for the common defense.’ History teaches us that if you leave a brutal, immoral dictator with weapons of mass destruction, eventually he will use them and all of our liberty and everything else we strive for will be compromised. But the choice between security for our nation and a better life for our children is a false choice. ... If we pull back this outrageously unfair and irresponsible tax cut program of President Bush, we could both protect our security and provide a better life for our children.”

- Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut

“I opposed the war and I’m still saying that I do not see the necessity for the war. I do not see where we’ve seen the nuclear weapons that we were told were there. I do not see the imminent danger. I do not see the necessity for the military action. I’m glad Saddam was toppled, but I also would like to see things toppled in this country, like no health insurance, like illiteracy, like childhood obesity. The real question to me is if we can come up with billions to occupy Iraq, why can’t we come up with money for the budgets of the 50 states we already occupy?”

- Rev. Al Sharpton of New York

“I have always supported the cause in Iraq. I think it is a just cause. I think that what we’re doing there is right. I think it is a fight, among other things, for the liberation of the Iraqi people. We have to now show that we went there for the right reasons: by, as soon as we reasonably can, turning over the governing of the Iraqi people to the Iraqi people, by turning over the oil fields and the revenue from those oil fields to the Iraqi people.”

- Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina

“I voted against the resolution to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. I did so because I thought the war against Iraq would make us less secure, not more secure. Saddam Hussein is an evil person; he lives in a neighborhood with a lot of evil people. The question is where do we put our priorities for the safety of Americans? In my judgment those priorities should be to eliminate the shadowy groups of international terrorist organizations which killed almost 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11. I believe that the war in Iraq has actually reduced our ability to effectively carry out the war against terrorism.”

- Sen. Bob Graham of Florida

“We have to know the difference between defense and offense. I also think this war was about a pretext. It was not about whether they had weapons of mass destruction. Let’s face it: Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction, homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction, lack of adequate education is a weapon of mass destruction, our children not having good neighborhoods is a weapon of mass destruction. We’re blowing up bridges over the Tigris and Euphrates, (but) we’re not building bridges in our own cities.”

- Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio

“If we spent $80 billion to kill Saddam Hussein that’s $79 billion too much. I’d rather see that money spent on providing health care for children, universal health care for our country, to build schools and provide quality education, to deal with domestic concerns of the American people. … Charity begins at home and if we’re going to attend to our priorities we should take care of America first and American children first.”

- Former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois

Vet Makes Boxes and Builds Bridges to Families in Grief
By ROBERT TOMSHO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
 

CAMERON, W.Va. -- Machinist Paul Stern thought his military-memorial project would be a simple matter of making boxes.

The ones he builds are meant to display the folded American flags traditionally given to families following a military funeral. Working in his garage workshop, the 41-year-old Air Force veteran spends about five hours on each of the sleek triangular cases, which have glass fronts and narrow sides made of varnished oak and are just large enough to snugly fit a folded flag. He built his first in 1997 after the funeral of his father, Donald, a truck driver who served during World War II and Korea.

That might have been the end of it except that, after seeing the craftsmanship, a friend from the Cameron American Legion post wanted one for his son's funeral flag. Then, the family of a late uncle asked for one. Soon, strangers were calling and Mr. Stern began thinking he might be able to sell the boxes to supplement his family's income.

Money is dear in this isolated town where men once mined by day and farmed by night. Businesses have closed and the population has dwindled to about 1,100, less than half of what it was when the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad pulled out in the 1970s.

After returning from the service in 1984, Mr. Stern worked for a contractor clearing brush for utility companies in the region. Later, he landed a job at a machine shop in nearby Wheeling. His wife, Karen, worked at home, gluing pictures onto decorative light-switch plates. Eventually, they bought a simple white frame house on the same steep hillside where his ancestors once raised cattle and are now buried in a small family plot.

When the machine shop cut his hours, Mr. Stern began going to weekend craft shows. He sold his flag boxes for $50 although, after travel and material costs, he was lucky to break even most of the time.

After the Sept. 11 terror attacks, he considered donating some of his boxes to a charity in New York but worried they would end up sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Then, while in his workshop one day that October, he heard a radio report about Evander Earl Andrews. Killed in a heavy-equipment accident in Qatar, the 36-year-old Air Force sergeant was the first American military death in the campaign against terror.

As a fellow Air Force veteran, Mr. Stern wanted to donate a flag box to the Andrews family in Idaho. But he worried about intruding and fretted about what to say if he did get through. After several weeks, Mr. Stern finally called an Idaho pastor who had been mentioned in news accounts as a friend of the Andrews family.

Thomas Westall, a retired Air Force chaplain, was struck by the fact that the shy West Virginian seemed to envision doing something far larger than donating a single box to one family. "He was already talking about doing it for everyone," Mr. Westall recalls.

Mr. Stern soon began trying to find contact names and numbers for the survivors of every American military man or woman killed after Sept. 11, hoping to give families a tangible reminder of their sacrifices.

While Mr. Stern was still making the flag box for Sgt. Andrews, two Army Rangers were killed in a helicopter crash in Pakistan. A few weeks later, a U.S. sailor from Illinois was declared dead after falling overboard in the Arabian Sea. Then three soldiers were killed after an American bomb was mistakenly dropped on their position in Afghanistan.

Mr. Stern stayed up late trying to get the names of the dead soldiers' friends and relatives from newspapers, broadcasts and military Web sites. Survivors with unique names were relatively easy to find, but Mr. Stern's directory-assistance bills mounted as he tried to track common surnames through big cities such as Chicago and Philadelphia.

When Mr. Stern did find families, he sent them letters three or four weeks after a funeral identifying himself as a member of the Cameron American Legion honor guard and asking for "permission to have the honor" of building them a box. A few families politely declined the offer and many didn't respond. But others began to connect with this stranger from West Virginia.

When Mary Ellen Bancroft got her letter, she was still in the early stages of grieving for her husband, Matthew. The Marine pilot had died in January 2002, when his air-refueling aircraft crashed into a mountain in Pakistan. At first, the San Diego mother of three dismissed Mr. Stern as someone with too much time on his hands. Rereading his letter later sparked a change of heart. "I kind of told myself that there are people out there who truly care," says Mrs. Bancroft, who ended up calling Mr. Stern and telling him a bit more about her husband. The machinist eventually did make a box for him.

Some survivors invited Mr. Stern to their homes and others regularly phoned or sent e-mail and letters. As the machinist learned more about such people, he discovered he sometimes knew things they didn't. With the permission of the families involved, Mr. Stern began helping them get in touch with one another.

Greg Commons, a teacher from Alexandria, Va., called Mr. Stern hoping merely to thank him for his generosity. Instead, he came away with a phone number for the parents of an Army Ranger from New Mexico who was killed with his own son, Matthew, in a March 2002 battle in Afghanistan.

Getting the connection meant more than anything. "It's hard for me to describe in words," says Mr. Commons who, since contacting the other family, has been tending both soldiers' graves at Arlington National Cemetery. "I know what they are going through because they know what I am going through."

Diana Crose, whose Ranger stepson (Sgt. Bradley Crose) was also killed in Afghanistan a year ago, says the connection with survivors elsewhere has been both meaningful and therapeutic. "This has been the real gift," she explains by e-mail.

Eventually worried that he wouldn't be able to keep the project going out of his own pocket, Mr. Stern sought help. A local engraver now donates bronze plaques for the flag boxes and an area lumber dealer is selling Mr. Stern oak at a deep discount. While business is down at the Cameron True Value Hardware Store, owner Bill Monahan readily agreed to provide glass. "These days, everyone forgets so easily and so soon," he says. "It just makes me feel good that someone is doing something like this."

With 30 flag boxes shipped and dozens of letters still in the mail, Mr. Stern frets about how long he can keep up. These days, as soon as he comes home from work, he scans the paper for the names of men and women killed in Iraq. "I think the numbers are just going to become too big, too fast," he said, while watching war news on TV.

Just then, his wife said there was word of the death of a Marine from West Virginia. With no pencil at hand, Mr. Stern repeated the name to himself again and again.

"He'll keep up one way or another," Karen Stern said. "He'll not quit."

Write to Robert Tomsho at rob.tomsho@wsj.com

Note from Tim: I "met" Paul Stern over the web shortly after September 11, 2001. He had found my Tribute to America site and began using it to find information on Military Families to whom he wanted to donate flag boxes to. In a very short time it was I relying on Paul for information on our fallen heroes. He has been a major contributor to this site but more importantly to the brave Families of our fallen heroes. It has been a pleasure and honor to work with and know this great American. (Bet you thought you'd never hear this Navy Vet say that about an Air Force guy!)  Posting this article on Paul is long overdue.

Tim Jacobs

French Sickos Side With Saddam, Deface War Heroes' Graves
Wednesday, April 2, 2003

Just how sick and twisted are the French? This much: A new poll in Le Monde shows that one third of the Frogs want genocidal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to defeat "les anglo-saxons," and only one third felt they were on the same side as the coalition led by America and Britain.

Some of the most corrupt of this corrupt people have desecrated the graves of American and British heroes of World War I and World War II who saved the cowardly Frenchies from Germany.

Rubbish

At Etaples, where 11,000 Allied liberators from WWI are buried, French degenerates defiled the monument with these slogans in red paint, the London Times and the London Sun reported today: "Dig up your rubbish. It's fouling our soil," "May Saddam prevail and spill your blood," and "Rosbeefs [a French slur at the Brits] go home."

David Uffold, the only surviving relative of Rifleman Frederick Uffold of the London Regiment, who is buried at Etaples, told the Times: "I find it sickening that anyone would vandalize the cemetery. It is the last place they should be protesting about Iraq. These fellows were drafted in to fight for France. I can't see any connection between the men buried at Etaples and the war in Iraq."

Roy Hemmington, spokesman for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, said: "We are deeply offended. This is the strongest language and most vile graffiti I have witnessed at a war graves cemetery.

"The suggestion that the bodies of soldiers who died for France should be dug up is particularly foul."

And what do the U.S. appeasement activists who are so smitten with the French have to say about this?

Perhaps this latest atrocity of the Frogs will add impetus to Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite's effort to let families of war heroes buried in befouled French soil bring the remains back home to clean ground. Related Article Below.

Hero GIs Kill Car Full of Suspected Iraqi Terrorists
April 1, 2003 10:13 a.m. EST

"SLAUGHTER."

That's the front page headline invoked by the New York Daily News today to report that seven suspected Iraqi terrorists were killed Monday at a checkpoint in Najaf, where just three days earlier four GIs died in an Iraqi terrorist car bomb attack.

"Jittery U.S. soldiers mowed down an oncoming van full of women and children," the News helpfully explained, before divulging the key bit of information that renders much of the rest of the paper's report inaccurate: "... when its driver ignored orders to stop."

In fact, though it's still not clear whether the car loaded up with women and children were part of a second terror operation against the same unit that was attacked on Saturday, the U.S. media is replete Tuesday morning with reports that paint the shooting as an atrocity.

"American troops opened fire on a civilian vehicle. ..." [The New York Times]

"U.S forces shot at a van full of women and children. ..." [The Wall Street Journal]

"U.S. troops killed at least seven Iraqi women and children. ..." [CBS News]

"Despite the killing of seven Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops at a checkpoint. ..." [ABC News]

Reporters are certain, of course, that the dead Iraqis were innocents, despite Central Command's account of the incident, which suggests behavior that was highly suspicious and very similar to past terrorist car bomb attacks on U.S. targets.

According to GIs on the scene, "soldiers motioned for the driver to stop but were ignored. The soldiers then fired warning shots, which also were ignored. They then shot into the vehicle's engine, but the van continued moving toward the checkpoint."

Not surprisingly, the Washington Post, which has taken the lead among the prestige press in second-guessing the Pentagon's war strategy, offers a different version of the incident, with one of its embedded reporters quoting Division Capt. Ronnie Johnson. Capt. Johnson, at least initially, believed that no warning shots had been fired.

The Post downplayed the account of the GI who was actually charged with stopping the van, saying that others at the scene "accepted the platoon leader's explanation to Johnson on the military radio that he had, in fact, fired two warning shots."

Warning shots or not, why did the suspected terrorist vehicle, in the Post's own words, come "barreling" toward the Najaf checkpoint in a manner unlike "others who approached the intersection"?

The Post, as well the rest of the "blame America first" press, offers no clue.

But this much is clear. When U.S. soldiers opened fired on that Iraqi van on Monday, its driver and occupants were acting very much like terrorists.

And that makes the GIs who shot in self-defense not killers of innocent civilians - but instead, very much genuine heroes who were acting to thwart another potentially deadly terrorist attack.

Congresswoman: Bring WWII Martyrs Home From Ungrateful France
Thursday, March 13, 2003

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., introduced a bill today to allow families to bring home the remains of fallen World War II soldiers buried in the "Axis of Weasel" nations of France and Belgium.

She has two co-sponsors, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Ill., for her bill, intended as a rebuke to the weasels' obsessive support for genocidal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Families of 81,172 servicemen interred in 14 cemeteries operated by the U.S. military would be affected.

She came up with the idea after talking to Ken Graham of Dade City, Fla., whose father is buried in Alsace-Lorraine, France.

He told her he and other Americans were unhappy with France and would like to bring his father's body home.

"I, along with many other Americans, do not feel that the French government appreciates the sacrifices our men and women in uniform have made to defend the freedom that the French enjoy today," Brown-Waite said.

"The remains of our brave servicemen should be buried in patriotic soil, not in a country that has turned its back on the United States and on the memory of Americans who fought and died there," she said. "It's almost as if the French have forgotten what those thousands of white crosses at Normandy represent."

That's because the Frenchies have forgotten it intentionally. As NewsMax has reported, the cowardly country, obsessed as always with its inferiority complex, has rewritten its history books to minimize all America did <http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/2/26/122442> to free France from its collaboration with Germany's National Socialists.

Natalie Loiseau, a P.R. flack at the French Embassy <http://www.info-france-usa.org/contactus.asp> in Washington, seems to think she has a right to tell America's elected representatives what to do.

"No one having responsibility should do such things," she fumed.

Direct those exact words to Jacques Chirac and his beloved Saddam, you French quisling.

French and German Socialists Threaten European Prosperity
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2003
United Press International

WASHINGTON - Cracks are appearing in the forced structure of the European Union.

In announcing their objections to France and Germany's domineering diktat, eight EU members have signaled their opposition to a more dangerous cultural shift that has taken place over the past 50 years. If not brought under control, this shift will erode performance and stifle ambition to the point where the Continent becomes a permanent second-class society to North America, Japan, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea and, eventually, Russia.

New Europe vs. Old: How True

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recent identification of the "new Europe" brilliantly identified this shift of half of Europe away from the growing control of Brussels bureaucrats. His casual reference may well prove to be one of the brightest foreign policy statements of President Bush's administration. It is noteworthy that it emanated from the Department of Defense, not the State Department.

The progressive centralization and statist control of the "Europeanization" of the continent began after World War II, in the 1950s. As it has gathered followers, it is as if a new race has been forming in much of Europe, a breed different from anything we have seen before.

This new race is not yet in absolute control, but it should be recognized that a majority of Europeans has become accustomed to government guidance, in preference to market motivation.

The appropriate name for this new race is Eurosocialists. Not Euro-Socialists, no hyphens, no beating around the bush. Rather, a clear identification of those who would create a single, pervasively centralized continent from a score of individual nations.

Anathema to the Eurosocialists above all and everything is what they consider excessive motivation, energy and effort by others. These feelings have become so engrained that it will be difficult, perhaps not possible for decades, to re-create a productive, promising climate and attitude capable of competing with the more dynamic countries of the world.

For now, we will have to live with a new race firmly linked to government aid, control and all the other encumberments of a supra-state. Always dedicated to very, very early retirement, the Eurosocialist of course maintains fine decorum in his casual, coddled guitar culture.

Rewarded Just for Existing

The members of this race believe that a comfortable living standard should be guaranteed to them simply for existing. How much each Eurosocialist works or produces with his intellectual contribution plays no role.

Today, a majority of Europeans seem to be part of this belief system. It is particularly disturbing that this should have happened in a continent so full of history, culture, learning, science and remarkably talented people.

Eurosocialism got its big initial boost in the late 1950s and 1960s when the original European Common Market of six countries, avowedly dedicated to centralized political and social "unification," won over the European Free Trade Association of seven states, whose title meant only what it said.

Then, as now, the driving Common Market powers were France and Germany, while Britain attempted to create something less monolithic via the European Free Trade Association. And the French and Germans won.

At the end of World War II, there was a clear opportunity for a new beginning in Germany, France and elsewhere. America's victory over German fascism, then called National Socialism, made possible the introduction of representative forms of government and free enterprise. Unfortunately, we had overlooked one critical point.

Copying Soviet Failures

Socialism in its most comprehensively pure form, communism, lived on in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union. In Germany, France and elsewhere, academics and intellectuals copied the softer elements of this hard-core socialism, firmly establishing this ideology in schools, universities and media throughout virtually all of Europe.

The soft-core socialists have enunciated a successfully evangelized Europeans using this Mercedes-socialism, managing to turn these attractions into a way of life.

Free enterprise exists in form, but is limited in substance. Europe has its stock markets, multinationals, finally even venture capitalized start-ups, all the elements that propelled the United States into the fast lane. But corporate Europe operates in close association bordering on partnership with government.

Slavish Conformity

All this togetherness, at virtually every level has created a slavish social conformity that says: "Do not step out of line or show that you want to work harder in any noticeable way." And be sure not to indicate you are more motivated by your own willpower and energy than your neighbor or co-worker.

Curiously, driving a powerful BMW and your wife wearing ultra-fancy jewelry go well in Germany, which has transformed itself into a world leader in materialism, greater even than the United States with all its advertising and faults of throwaway consumption.

Materialism behind closed doors has become one phenomenon, and if you are one of the 100 most successful Germans you will certainly be envied. However, you had better be careful your name does not appear in the media, or you will not be considered a regular member of the Eurosocialist team, but an outsider.

Today in France, an open shirt is standard Eurosocialist attire, certainly with no tie and best without a jacket. Demonstrable intellectual "finesse" is still in high demand, but showing signs of economic success is quite another matter.

Society has arrived at the point where an entrepreneur, a scientist or a physician openly earning four times the average wage is considered asocial. The French will say, "Monsieur ou Madame est bizarre," that is, something is out of line with that man or woman.

In short, the hardworking have become the exception. They are no longer considered examples to be admired by the young.

Today, the EU, with dual capitals in Brussels and Strasbourg, France, boasts 40,000 bureaucrats in control of domestic life from common labor regulations to production of butter, milk and eggs. The $90 billion budget casts in concrete thousands of laws and regulations, superseding national legislation and customs developed over generations. Fifth layers of government are super-imposed on the citizens.

Stifling statist control has worked better within the EU than internationally. Disagreement over what action to take against Saddam Hussein is an embarrassing example. While individual members act in defiance, diplomatic functionaries rove the world representing "European" policy rejected by fully half EU members.

Taxation Without Representation

Within Europe, however, individuals and communities are effectively coerced into becoming captives of an opaque, immovable, unapproachable system. Although each European pays $250 a year in taxes to Brussels, it has all happened without a vote, neither for the scope and method of government nor for a constitution (which is still far from being agreed). With the exception of three countries where voters were finally asked, the same goes for the euro, the new currency.

What happened to the opportunity offered the newly liberated continent in 1945 and later? Having lost 400,000 lives in World War II, the United States provided $26 billion in Marshall Plan aid to friend and foe in Europe, in 1952 dollars. France benefited by $5.5 billion, Germany by $2.8 billion, equivalent to $32 billion for France and $16 billion for Germany at current values.

This enormous and unprecedented aid was aimed at economic and social recovery, however, with no stipulation as to the form that recovery should take.

Heterodoxy Raises Its Brave Head

Fortunately, some rays of light are beginning to appear on the horizon. Here and there regions are daring to act counter to the EU, openly questioning predominant Eurosocialist solutions. Market forces have motivated companies and municipalities to form economic and trade alliances.

In northern Italy, in sections of Austria and in Germany's Bavaria, zones of cooperation are developing.

In Switzerland, not yet part of the EU, it is the strip between Geneva and Lausanne; in Britain, around Oxford; in Spain, areas in the south.

Moreover, businessmen, companies, and even some politicians have started planning across borders.

In the big triangle between Lyon in France, Turin in Italy and Geneva in Switzerland, one such answer to EU dominance has developed.

Similarly, northern Switzerland is pushing feelers toward neighboring Austria and southern Germany.

Scientists, businessmen and politicians are supporting these new regions. Where it is happening, esprit de corps, increasing productivity and greater overall dedication to one's work follows.

National resistance to EU demands has succeeded in several instances.

Ireland has moved from the lowest to the top layer in productivity, largely because of its resolute refusal to raise tax rates to the EU's strangulating levels, saving the average Irish worker 8 percent in taxes versus his continental counterpart.

Italian centrist politicians, led by businessman turned Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, are beginning to open the shackles of punitive taxation as well as the nation's notorious regulatory morass.

Switzerland's Example

Venture capital start-ups are the order of the day in Switzerland, proceeding at a rate unprecedented elsewhere on the continent. The Swiss social scene remains noteworthy for its family-centered discipline and the country continues to excel in basic and higher education.

Lausanne's IMD-International Business School is on a par with Dartmouth, Michigan and Carnegie Mellon, rated best in the United States by the Wall Street Journal. One can obtain a world-class MBA in 12½ months at IMD, while it takes 20 or more in the United States or at Oxford.

Each of the 27 Swiss cantons controls 40 percent of governing powers, with municipalities holding an additional 30 percent. Only 30 percent is ceded to the federal government, to provide overall national guidance and conduct defense and foreign policy. Politicians in the EU are beginning to take notice of the obvious benefits of the Swiss system.

An estimated 97 percent of Europeans do not know the names of their overseers in Brussels or representatives in Strasbourg, in part owing to the speed with which the supra-state has become operational, overriding the rights and desires of individual citizens and many of their governments.

The Arrogant Chirac and Schroeder

Two self-crowned leaders of the EU supra-state stand out: President Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. Instructive of the pervasive political attitude favoring Eurosocialism, Chirac and Schroeder follow hard on the heels of governments headed by their political opposition, respectively Francois Mitterrand and Helmut Kohl, the two predominant forgers of the EU in its present iron-fisted form.

Chirac plays the pragmatist, pretending to represent a middle-of-the-road conservatism. (Fox News Channel has reported that his "conservatism" is to the left of Al Gore.)

Excelling in typically Gallic flowery promises with very limited follow-through, and cloaked in sassy Italian suits, this 73-year-old likes to blame "l'arrogante Amerique" for Europe's troubles. A salon Leninist is one of his close advisers: his daughter, Claude. Chirac, who has an additional six years of regal rule, has effectively subdued a significant number of talented younger politicians.

Ungrateful for America's Help

French history books mention Omaha Beach in a single paragraph, and the Marshall Plan no longer appears at all. In 10 years, it seems entirely possible that America's pivotal role in liberating France will be unknown to French pupils.

Germany's Schroeder is far distant from the Federal Republic's founding father Konrad Adenauer, or even later Social Democratic Party Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. Striving to maintain his SPD-Green coalition in power through increasingly anti-American actions, he has effectively presided over the regression of Germany to a narcissistic level not seen since the years preceding World War II.

Schroeder and Chirac could easily have changed the dirigiste course of the EU by reverting to national responsibility. Instead, they have chosen the easy downhill slide, giving Eurosocialism the opportunity to take root and flower. The result is that EU economic, foreign and military policies are worlds apart from those of the United States.

Is there light at the end of the tunnel? We must have hope, but with Europe at self-induced half-speed compared to America and Asia, any real change will be incremental, without a radical change in German or French leadership.

Take Note, Blame-America-First Left

Short term, the gulf will surely widen. As they encounter ever greater areas of conflict, Eurosocialist protectionism and America's free-enterprise spirit will have increasing difficulty coexisting. Eurosocialism is on the march, with legions of non-elected bureaucrats committed to solidifying suffocating systems that corrode commerce as well as individual freedoms.

Barring major political upheaval or more major terrorist disasters, there are only a few ways to stop the Eurosocialists from completely homogenizing the continent. Nationally, it is possible that one or more tax rebellions will occur, as governments see their commercial competitiveness steadily erode. More trans-national groupings such as those noted above could also be formed.

Perhaps the most significant development would be development of ad hoc commercial associations among the New Europe nations identified by Rumsfeld. These could include Polish, Czech, and Hungarian members of the former East bloc, plus one or more of Britain, Spain and Italy.

Whatever Europe's eventual course, it is certain the struggle will be long and arduous. However, given one or more of these developments, it is possible to envision the Eurosocialists in Brussels, Strasbourg, Paris and Berlin finally giving way to realism and favoring economic over political union in Europe.

Analysis by international investment banker Niels de Groot, formerly with Bank of America and now based in Switzerland, and by John R. Thomson, an international business development specialist, journalist and former diplomat residing in Florida.

The Plan

1) The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in  their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini and the rest of them good old boys'. We will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No more sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself, don't hide here. Asylum would not ever be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers.

5) No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non polluting sources of energy, but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else.

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere". They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides, most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if any anyway.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an island some place. We don't  need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, it would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!