As OJ notes the amazing string continues. And Reagan's action can be viewed in same manner as the current WOT so the letter is germaine to current events.
I wonder where/how Hannity got the letter - from Reagan sources?

I wonder if the McAuliffe/Begala/Carville/Lewis spin machine will smear Hannity about this?

The problem is the theory of using "proportionality" as the guideline in decisions concerning acts of war. What's truly astonishing is that the main proponents of the theory are those who were against the Vietnam War which became a crisis precisely because peopel like Robert McNamara used the idea of proportionality in dictating US strategy and diplomacy.

Had the LBJ governemnt adopted a strategy designed achieving military victory instead of proportional response, Vietnam might never have become the crisis it did.

Proportionality is all fine before the shooting starts, but once it does the only thing that matters is victory. And if that means using bigger guns than the other guy does not even have, well I guess the other guy shouldn't have picked the fight in the first place.

Chris:

Precisely. The point is to make the survivors rue the day they decided to take on the US.

I believe in proportional response. Retaliation=1000xAttack, where 1000 is the constant of proportionality. Although bigger would be better.

Jeff,

You are 1000% right. I cannot imagine what the good Senator even meant. I guess he could have strapped a vest on and exploded himself at a restaurant in Libya.

Kerry is out of control. He lost the military's respect so many times. The intern might be out but the sword of Hanoi Jane is getting bigger and bigger over Kerry's head. Read this blog and newspaper articles about veterans callling Kerry a traitor.
http://hughhewitt.com/

It also has a link to transcripts of what Kerry told the senate commission about "raping, murdering" American soldiers in Vietnam in the early 70's.

Ricky -

The transcripts are one thing.... I read on another blog (can't keep track, yeah, I sleep around ;-) that some radio stations are PLAYING the tapes of that testimony, and their phones are blasting off the hook. I can believe it, as actually hearing it would I think have far more impact than just reading the transcripts.

Enough so that I really wish they decided to play those tapes.... in September.

Rickey,

I heard the complete audio transcript of Kerry's "Winter Soldier" speech in front of the Senate in 1971 that Hewitt found and played yesterday.

If Kerry does become the Democrats' nominee, that recording will get a lot of airtime. It's staggering to actually hear Kerry's Brahmin voice firing off every possible Vietnam-era baby-killer cliche in front of the Senate.

Ed

I found the delayed broadcast of Hugh's show on a webcast from WNIV-AM Atlanta after I heard the initial buzz about it on the internet last night. Hugh has done everyone a big favor by finding this recording. Hearing Kerry testify before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations was very powerful, much more so than just reading the transcript. When the general election voters start hearing some of these snippets, Kerry will be on the defensive for the rest of the campaign. Kerry demonstrates why he's unelectable, and does so in his own words. His testimony might play well in Berkley, Cambridge, Tehran, or Damascus, but it will enrage or just terrify the majority. What the Democrats are thinking by rushing to nominate him is beyond me.

RNC ad: Kerry testifying before the Senate, cut to Kerry speaking in the Senate. Title: No Difference.

Hey, remember this: 9/11 changed everything, which I suspect means that all these dredged-up skeletons in Kerry's closet will amount to approximately zero. This election = what have you done for me lately? (To quote Ms. Jackson, if you're nasty.)

9/11 changed everything in that being the "education" or "environment" president means a lot less and being the "national security" president means a lot more. The old items on Kerry speak directly to this issue. If he can prove he's changed fine but if he can't then he has a problem.

I'm with Charles--9-11 doesn't matter anymore. All that matters is the economy and incumbency which is why Bush will be re-elected despite his radicalism.

Charlie says: "Hey, remember this: 9/11 changed everything, which I suspect means that all these dredged-up skeletons in Kerry's closet will amount to approximately zero. This election = what have you done for me lately? (To quote Ms. Jackson, if you're nasty.)"

A reasonable person, oj, could say that the election is no longer about 9/11 (though I am not sure whether he is serious about this), and then state that Kerry's Viet-Nam era confessions do not matter. Only Charlie can state that the election will be about 9/11, but dismiss them as irrelevant skeletons. How can anyone not believe that this speech explained as it foreshadow the man's views on National Security? Who is the enemy? American Soldiers; How do we know so? Ask ANSWER, believe Moore; What are the root causes of terrorism? All that pillaging we have been doing since 1971 (but only under GOP Presidencies); How do you fight it? You turn the other cheek until you have solved every social problem in America first.

MG:

America's natural posture is isolationist and we always return to it as quickly as possible. As the absence of WMD in Iraq shows, it was possible on 9-12.

OJ, you are usually very perceptive when it comes to politics. But if you do not think this election, when people are standing there behind the cutain getting ready to pull the lever, is not about 9/11 makes you totally wrong. The midterms last election should have showed you that.

BJW:

The midterm had nothing to do with 9-11 and everything to do with partisan/demographic/geographic shifts, which likewise make the presidency unwinnable for Democrats:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/006028.html