The Army is full of convicted felons. If not felons, then poor people who enlisted as their only hope for an education. Unbelievably, that was not John Kerry or Charles Rangel. It was Round Rosie on ABCs’ The View. Mission accomplished Rosie, Barbara Walters, ABC management, sponsors of The View and even the section of cheering imbeciles in the audience. You did it. With Rosie’s mouth, and its defective operating system, you have accomplished what Rush Limbaugh and every other conservative pundit in the media business has been unable to. You have demonstrated to the world that there is not a dab of difference between the misfiring brain cells in the head of Rosie O’Donnell and those in the heads of many members of the United States Congress. But, be assured, they all support our ignorant, convicted felons who simply have no other choice in life.

How does what Round Rosie offer differ from what Congress offers us each day that United States Troops face an enemy determined to kill them and destroy us? It doesn’t. Is it honest to say you support the troops, but not the mission? No, it isn’t. An overwhelming majority of the United States Congress voted to commit American Military Men and Women to combat. When you commit the troops to combat with your vote, you are duty and honor bound to do everything within your power to ensure they are victorious. Anything less is desertion and dereliction.

Instead of supporting the troops toward victory, Dick Durbin called them Nazis. John Murtha called them cold-blooded murderers. Ted Kennedy announced to the Arab world that Iraq’s torture chambers have reopened under new management. John Kerry said that they are terrorizing Iraqi women and children in their homes. Barrack Obama tells us that lives lost in Iraq were wasted. I only wanted to rehash that to point out that Rosie could easily be mistaken for a member of Congress or vice versa. I often wonder if the applause she gets isn’t coming from some of them.

I haven’t followed the presidential candidate debates, it’s a little too early for me, but I have read some of the transcripts and heard a few snippets. John Edwards is quite apologetic about the mistake he claims to have made voting to send Soldiers to war. He’s a top Democrat contender and a little self-absorbed. If he is elected president, what will his next big mistake be? Will it be not committing Soldiers to our defense when needed because he fears making another mistake? If I cannot trust a man to be well enough informed to make difficult decisions and stand by them, I certainly cannot trust him with the security of my country. I couldn’t trust this one with the security of my tool shed.

Barrack Obama, when answering a question about what we should do if there is a nuclear attack on our cities said we should prepare our first responders. Our first responders? Doesn’t that concede the inevitability of another devastating attack? I suppose putting out the fires and picking up body parts is important. Does this mean that the State Senator from Illinois, if elected President will wait for another attack? A true 9/10 view.

Hillary Clinton said she would retaliate if we were nuked – as soon as she was certain about to whom we should retaliate. This just shows another level of naiveté. Mr. Clinton flung missiles in the general direction of trouble. Do you reckon this is what Mrs. Clinton intends? I am all for retaliation. The problem is this. The United States is not going to get nuked first by a nation state. It will be anywhere from a .5 to a 1.5 Kiloton suitcase sized weapon that may have already crossed one of our unprotected borders. When it happens, it will come at the hands of terrorists. Maybe with state sponsors, but do you think the liberal Democrats and Mrs. Clinton will retaliate with a nuclear weapon when we link Iran to the terrorists? Nor do I. When they hit, and we are on our knees the Chinese and Russians will be happy to launch a couple to finish the job. So, Mrs. Clinton toward whom and how?

I’m not ready to sign up for any Presidential candidate at this point. All of the Democrats want to leave Iraq post haste and go on the defensive or “dialogue.” Some Republicans seem content to bash the President while vowing to get the job done - better. Most of that is poll directed political speak. The only one that appears to have broken the code is the man that endured 9/11 as the Mayor of New York. He saw first hand what waiting for an attack brings. Giuliani believes we need to stay on the offensive. Me too. Whether you like the stated reasons for our being there or not, as General Petraeus reminded us, Iraq is “the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.” Isn’t it better to keep them bottled up there than it is to confront them here? This enemy will never break contact. Either we take it to them or they will bring it to us. Please write that one down where you can see it everyday.

Oh well, what’s the point anyway. Harry said it’s lost. Besides, who can fight a sophisticated war when uneducated felons, Nazis, cold-blooded murderers, torturers… man the military?

I’ll be in the back yard working on the bunker.