If he gave that speech now he would have to stand down for sensitivity training.

The Greatest Generation endured the Depression,defeated the Nazis, socialists, communists, Imperial Japan, rebuilt Europe and Japan, found a cure for polio, invented open heart surgery, put a man on the moon and the Baby Boomers have come up with MTV and 12 million illegal invaders. God bless "The Greatest Generation". They must be turning over in their graves seeing what Boomers have done to the country they sacrificed to defend.

Sensitivity training, hell! He would be labeled and extremist by some career Pentagon bureacrat, marched out to a podium to apologize for his "insensitive" remarks, and unceremoniuosly shown the door. Just like a an Admiral I served under in the mid 90's! Welcome to the "United States fo the Offended"

If all of our politicans had this mentality America would be such a better place and we would not be dealing with islamic terrorist, liberals, commie's or socialist. Maybe this "War on Terror" will produce a another great leader, maybe we should just clone Patton and let the fun begin!

I am a 'Boomer' and I must take exception to Jeff 1's analysis of all the Baby Boom Generation. I volunteered for the military and combat duty in Viet Nam (as did many 'Boomers') and it was Baby Boomers who elected Ronald Reagan who ended the Cold War. I could give more examples. We 'Boomers' do have our useless scumbums for sure, but remember, it was the 'Greatest Generation' that raised the Boomer scum, gave us the no win war in Viet Nam etc. Apparently there were alot of rear echelon yellow bellies who procreated after "The Big One-WW II" but didn't heed the words of General Patton. MY father, a WW II Marine veteran of three island campaigns taught me right along with many other Boomer parents. So let's not tar all Boomers. I don't appreciate being lumped with the likes of Bill and Hillary et al.

Thanks so much for posting that CY, I'm teary. The greatest generation indeed. You never know what you've got until it's gone.

Jim P. you stole the words right out of my mouth. I'll add that Jeff didn't get here spontaneously, there had to be a boomer in there somewhere, so he's unhappy with his parents. I'm sure that they find that interesting.

Thanks so much for posting that CY, I'm teary. The greatest generation indeed. You never know what you've got until it's gone.

Gone, Hell. They're being reinforced.

The Old Guard is dead or dying, but a new Greatest Generation is being formed as we speak in the deserts of al Anbar, the jagged mountains of Afghanistan, and in the steamy jungles of the Philippines and a thousand other places we may never hear of.

Today’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are as brave, as noble, and as heroic as their grandfathers—no more, no less, and they are doing the same deadly work of destroying another guise of fascism.

It would be nice, perhaps, to have all Americans understand the stakes of this war and why we must win, but you go to war with the media that you have, not the media that you would like to have.

The media and the left refuse to confront the realities of Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam, and so this Next Great Generation fights under-supported and under-appreciated.

Our Greatest Generation continues to be made, insuring that as the elder Generation passes, it does so knowing that essential Liberty stands well-protected.

Ironic that in this day and age of incredible communications technology, no one communicates as clearly as one who no such advantages, but had to rely on gut feelings and simple phrases to change the world.

CY -- Wow. I really was moved by the post, and I was trying to show you what it is I like about your blog and that I appreciate you hosting comments from someone you disagree with. I'm disappointed that you took it as an opportunity to snipe. Would you rather that I went away? That's not a rhetorical question. I've been polite and tried my best to present my viewpoint clearly, but if you just want an echo chamber then I don't see the point anymore.

--Cyrus

Cyrus, I was pointing out that we are creating a new Greatest Generation that is being under-recognized as heroes because politics have become more important to some than either human liberty or patriotism.

If you find that my stating what I hold to be a self-evident fact as "sniping" then it is indeed your right as an American to be offended and go elsewhere if you so desire. I welcome people of other viewpoints to debate but beg no one to stay or go.

If I sound a bit snippy, it's because I just had my lunchbreak and made the mistake of scanning through a comment thread at the Democratic Underground.

It's enough to sicken anyone.

CY -- I read too much into your reply to me then. I was thin skinned there.

First let me point something out to you Boomers who resent being lumped in with other Boomers. You can talk about women, blacks, Jews, Boomers, or anyone else as a group. There's nothing wrong with this if you treat members of that group as individuals, right? What you are asking for is political correctness.

The right has lost its way. The greatness of the Republican party is in personal responsibility; a man should be judged by his accomplishments, not his birth, and the cream should rise to the top. Look at Bush: his character was never tested. He never learned a trade. He was a playboy for most of his life. He'd be nobody now except for his birth. On this very day he is pushing for legislation that will allow him, Paris Hilton, Mary Cheney, etc to inherit millions of dollars that they didn't earn tax free. These people don't want the cream to rise, they want aristocracy. As an American nothing gripes my ass like an aristocrat.

Bush wanted war but didn't have the guts to do it right: a draft and a wartime tax. It's a bedrock conservative principle that you don't pay for wars on credit. How long will these guys get away with the crazy notion that you lower taxes to raise revenue? How many times has he raised the debt ceiling now? Would you let your children do that with their credit cards? Shinseki was absolutely right about too few troops. Bush Sr was a war hero and an amazingly accomplished person; he knew that the aftermath of toppling Saddam would be a nightmare. Bush Jr. thought he was done in 2003. He'll be Mr. Mission Accomplished for the duration of recorded history.

The right is eager to attack Clinton and Gore and Kerry as losers. However each of them worked hard all their lives. Clinton has not much backbone, but he is a self-made man, and as president he was an effective administrator and diplomat; Bush is neither of these things.

You want to think that Bush's "principles" or "moral compass" is his saving grace. Here's his principles: yesterday he denounced gay marriage to try and score some points with religious groups. Here's his "instincts": he attacks a secular country in a war on Islamic fascism, while Iran really is building WMD and Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone in the world.

You all can complain that I'm not supporting the troops, but this isn't true. I don't know what it means for them to win at this point. I don't see much indication of the Iraqis pursuing democracy, especially compared to the enthusiasm they have in killing eachother. All we can do now is stay in control so that Shia don't take over. Wouldn't be better off now if we could engage Iran millitarily?

We're constructing permanents bases in Iraq. How do you square this with building a democracy? The administration clearly doesn't intend to leave.

As usual thanks for hosting and considering my opinions CY.

Best,
Cyrus

We're constructing permanents bases in Iraq. How do you square this with building a democracy? The administration clearly doesn't intend to leave.

Cyrus- I don't resent Jeff 1's lumping me with the Boomers who gave us MTV and the illegal immigrant flood. I wanted him to know that not all of us Boomers are of that stripe and to know that it was the WW II generation parents that are at least partly responsible for those Boomers being the way they are. I should have put a smiley face at the end of my sentence about not appreciating being lumped with Bill and Hillary, so everyone would understand that I am not resentful or brooding, but merely don't want Jeff and his generation to think all Boomers are like them- ie: Viet Nam Vets, and Reagan voters don't appreciate being thought of that way :-) Bill and Hillary are, in my opinion, self serving narcissists and not the kind of people I was raised to respect, admire or emmulate. I couldn't follow the rest of your post, it didn't seem to logically follow my earlier post.

Respectfully,

Jim P

What are you talking about? Patton DIDN'T INVADE NORMANDY. He invaded North Africa, Siciliy and came into Europe well after D-Day, but on D-Day he was in Britian as part of a ruse to make the Nazis think he was going to lead a bigger invasion at Calais.

Jeff is RIGHT. The Baby Boomers aren't worth the crap that came out of the ass-holes of those men who died. So that you could lament about your present day problems and woes. Patton would have been cashiered out of the service by the likes of KERRY, CLINTON, KENNEDY, DURBON, etc, etc..

I'd like to kick the ass of the journalist who made it known that Marines killed civilians in Iraq. We had the same moaning during the Vietnam War. Who cares that a few civilian Iraqis died because of combat. Who cares? I DON'T...Cry babies. That's all you are. That's all you'll be. I was born during that "Depression".

Radcliffe, I'm not sure what point your comment has.

At this moment in history, Patton commanded both the First and Third U.S. Armies in England.

The First Army was entirely fictional, but the Germans didn't know this. The threat of Patton invading France at Calais froze 18 German divisions in the region for almost two months. At this moment in time, deception was his primary mission.

He also had the very secret, very real command of the Third Army, which broke out of the Normandy hedgerows on August 1 as part of Operation Cobra.
Patton did give this speech, his most famous, prior to the invasion of Normandy. I'm not quite sure of your point.

Folks, I'd like to remind you that this is a "G-rated" blog, despite this rather rare entry where the profanity in the main post was a matter of historical record.

Please refrain from language that would keep posts and comments from being "work-safe."

Thank you.

IF OLD 'BLOOD & GUTS' WERE ALIVE TODAY, THE CONFLICT IN AFGHANISTAN & IRAQ WOULD BE OVER.

With the exception of LT.General Mattis,most of the military has way too many perfumed princes and princes who fit Patton's description of weenification right now,we have em' in Congress,Both parties,and all of our government entities,and they have too much influence inside our schools as well,as some have posted they would've tried to force him out,anyway,for saying words such as this,too bad we don't have anybody saying that to those dingies in Washington because they need to hear these comments too.

CY, thanks for posting this. =) I had read it once before and almost forgot how good it was. It must have been amazing to hear it.

Cyrus-

I think you must be talking about a Kerry and Gore from an alternate dimension.

Kerry married two wealthy women; it's debatable that he's ever worked at anything, except marrying money.

Gore's father was a well known political figure (and bigot), and certainly had many of the same advantages that you ascribe to President Bush.

As for Bill Clinton, he may have come from a somewhat 'broken' home, but making an insane ROI in futures and the whole Madison Guaranty/ fundraising/Whitewater property buy-in smacks a bit of elitism, don't you think?

As for your statement that people like the President want an aristocracy, that's just plain silly. The top 50% or so of wage earners pay a whopping 95%+ of the taxes. Something like 83 or 84% of all taxes are paid by the top 25%. You know those top 50% of all wage earners include middle America as well as well as small business owners, right? Good GOD the wealthy get reamed with taxes and funny enough, they take the LEAST from the government; gripe at Congress because it spends money as if it grows on trees.

As for the President being a diplomat and leader, if the people I have to play footsie with are Putin and Chirac, pardon me if I pass on the 'diplomat' part of the job description. Being a 'diplomat' doesn't necessary mean being effective.

Funny thing about Iraq, too... they manage to keep making milestones toward democracy. Shaky ground sometimes, but it's progress. This is a perfect example of why I get frustrated with libs; they have short attention spans. When the next new shiny object comes in to view, you turn your attention there and eschew the previous shiny object and say it was rusty, inferior and generally defective; they expect everything to be quick and perfect. How do you take decades of tyranny and dysfunction and turn a country around on a dime? It's not possible; the former Soviet satellite states are still battling with separatists, corruption and scandals and it's been 15 years.

Your tantalizing comment hinting that libs see Iran as a threat to be dealt with is a red herring; if that is the case, why aren't they all lined up saying we should carpet bomb Iran's enrichment facilities to the stone age? If 'dealing with Iran' is the right thing to do, then we should do something, shouldn't we?

As for Iraq not being a threat to anyone in the world, you forgot the millions of Iraqis... or don't they count? Didn't Saddam gas his own people? Didn't he host a terrorist camp near Salman Pak? Wasn't Zarqawi enjoying the Iraqi weather for a while? I try to not wait to be swarmed with bees before I destroy the nest. Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.

My respect for Patton.

He recognized the Soviet menace, then made the mistake of LETTING IT BE KNOWN publicly that he was willing, nay EAGER, to stop that menace NOW!

They pulled him out of the war.

We let USSR fester for another 40 years, meanwhile killing another 10-20 million of its own (and other) citizens...

My respect for Patton!

I agree with most everything that I've read here, except the part about the killing of civilians in Iraq. Who cares if a few civilians get killed? I do. Or should I say 'murdered'? I'm not talking about the little shavers in that other town where there had also been reports of a massacre, but where in fact some loving Iraqi moms and dads thought it prudent to have their kids in the same house where an Al-Qaida puke was being harbored-- and Puff the Magic Dragon got called in to entertain. No. That stuff happens.

But to shoot a little kid in cold blood, anywhere? If any of our guys did that, I say volunteer 'em to be beheaded. Do Americans do such things? Hell, yes. William Calley should have been executed for what he did in Viet Nam. Did it happen in WWII and we just didn't read about it? Yep. Pops was a grunt in the 9th Infantry...humped N. Africa, Sicily, France, The Hurtgen...and he tells of a guy they found was volunteering all the time for prisoner escort...but the Germans weren't showing up in the rear.

So, are some of us like the murdering terrorist scum that seem to be running 98% of the "cradle of civilization"? Yes. But damn few, and the fewer, the better. You shoot a child in cold blood around me, brother, there'd better be someone in between us who thinks you deserve a fair trial.

Linlithgow -- Kerry married two wealthy women

So?

it's debatable that he's ever worked at anything, except marrying money.

Not so! He went to Nam, was an activist, then passed the bar and worked for years as a humble prosecutor, then senator.

Gore's father was a well known political figure (and bigot), and certainly had many of the same advantages that you ascribe to President Bush.

Sure, Kerry was born rich too. Gore is working hard now on global warming, because he feels that is the highest use of his life. My point was that Bush's resume is pathetic in comparison to these other men.

As for Bill Clinton, he may have come from a somewhat 'broken' home, but making an insane ROI in futures and the whole Madison Guaranty/ fundraising/Whitewater property buy-in smacks a bit of elitism, don't you think?

Look I don't feel strongly about Clinton. He was a Rhodes Scholar, probably the highest academic honor. He lost money in Whitewater I thought? Anyway to this day I don't understand what he did there. He was never charged with anything, and it sure wasn't for lack of trying. He is much closer to the American idea of the ambitious man rising to the top than Bush is.

As for your statement that people like the President want an aristocracy, that's just plain silly. The top 50% or so of wage earners pay a whopping 95%+ of the taxes.

I don't understand your point, not at all.

Good GOD the wealthy get reamed with taxes and funny enough, they take the LEAST from the government

No they don't. They pay 20% by and large, that's what cap gains and dividends and interest are now. Warren Buffet complains that his secretary has a higher tax bracket than he does. You appear to be grossly misinformed. Do you like having a higher tax rate than Paris Hilton? It gripes my... hindquarters.

Being a 'diplomat' doesn't necessary mean being effective.

Okay...

Funny thing about Iraq, too... they manage to keep making milestones toward democracy. Shaky ground sometimes, but it's progress.

The elections are encouraging, but as I said I'm convinced that the Shias and Sunnis are so inimical to eachother that I can't see them trusting eachother enough to have effective leadership.

This is a perfect example of why I get frustrated with libs; they have short attention spans. When the next new shiny object comes in to view, you turn your attention there and eschew the previous shiny object and say it was rusty, inferior and generally defective; they expect everything to be quick and perfect.

I'm not a liberal, but your characterization of liberals is puerile. It's no less tiresome than when liberals say "conservatives are heartless".

How do you take decades of tyranny and dysfunction and turn a country around on a dime? It's not possible; the former Soviet satellite states are still battling with separatists, corruption and scandals and it's been 15 years.

You're right. However, the administration told us that we were invading Iraq because they had WMD and were willing to use them on us. I'm fine to with asking our soldiers to fight under those conditions. If they had said, we need to sacrifice our youth and untold billions to bring democracry to Iraq, I would have said, take a hike. I wish the people of Iraq well, but I couldn't look into the eyes of a young soldier and say, go risk your life to help these people. This is especially tragic now IMO, as I can't envision what success would look like there. The problems in Saddam's Iraq were not our fault.

Your tantalizing comment hinting that libs see Iran as a threat to be dealt with is a red herring; if that is the case, why aren't they all lined up saying we should carpet bomb Iran's enrichment facilities to the stone age? If 'dealing with Iran' is the right thing to do, then we should do something, shouldn't we?

Again I don't generally speak for liberals. I do think we should do something about Iran. I guess I'm not following you here.

As for Iraq not being a threat to anyone in the world, you forgot the millions of Iraqis... or don't they count? Didn't Saddam gas his own people? Didn't he host a terrorist camp near Salman Pak? Wasn't Zarqawi enjoying the Iraqi weather for a while? I try to not wait to be swarmed with bees before I destroy the nest. Taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.

Sure, Saddam is the worst manifestation of humanity, sure. But he WASN'T a threat to anyone when we attacked. Charles Duelfer, Bush's man to run the WMD investigation, said, "We were all wrong." You guys seem to think it's okay that Bush made a mistake. It's not, he screwed up tremendously. Bin Laden wants to force moderate Muslims pick sides, and that's exactly what the invasion of Iraq is forcing.

Marc -- Kind of like those permanant bases that we still have in Germany and Japan, where democracy clearly never took root...

That is an interesting point. However there wasn't an insurgency in either of those cases. There are lots of people in Iraq who view our troops as religiously unclean and so forth. It is not at all obvious that the eventual government of Iraq will in fact want our troops to stay on. Clearly this isn't something the administration is planning on. The figure I heard was 14 permanent bases.

Cyrus,
Some interesting points, but you're wrong on the last post.
There was an insurgency in Germany that lasted quite a while and actually caused some real problems. Good ol' History Channel.

As for the next "Greatest Generation". I couldn't agree more. The men and women I served with were some of the bravest, most honorable people I will ever have the privilage of knowing. Not perfect mind you, as noone is, but truly Great all the same. I have complete faith in our future if people of this caliber still volunteer.

Just my 2 cents...

Last, first. No, there wasn't a real insurgency in Germany, though there had been plans for one. From what I last read about it, a total of either one or zero people were killed by it, the the one possible was a German Mayor. I forget the name of the operation.

But now on to real meat. Cyrus, Cyrus, Cyrus. Bush had no resume? Governor of the second biggest state in the country (I bet he'd governed more "constituent hours" than Clinton had when he went to DC)? Yale grad? Prosperous business leader? (I know, the left sees business as a necessary evil to support the government, but most of us out here know that it's business and not Uncle Sugar that creates wealth.)

No, his IQ isn't up there with, say, Ann Coulter's (and I dare you to read her rez and tell me she ain't wicked smahhhht) and as an Engrishi teacher I can't condone his massacre of my mother tongue, but, hey, who's perfect?

Clinton is a bright fellow, but he's nobody's genius. Jimmy Carter was probably the smartest of our recent presidents, and look what he did to us! Check that--look what he's still doing to us! His greatest legacy will be having bought North Korea the time to get nuke weapons. In spite of having been privy to what a LA-LA-land NK really is (as was I, during and after the Carter admin) and the fact that they had adhered to no agreement of substance EVER, he stuck his beak in in the name of peace just as Clinton was finally going to lay the hammer down on their nuke program, and got them TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT! Which they broke, and when the jig was up said, "Oops. We lied. So spank us." So when airy-fairy Seattle goes up in smoke some day, thank that very intelligent man for it. I'll take Reagan and common sense to a Rhodes Scholar or a Naval Academy/GaTech/Union College grad and leftist government any day.

You're right...Saddam wasn't a real threat when we attacked...and he could have proved it by letting the inspectors do their jobs. Of course, when a tape of one of his cabinet meetings--during which he admitted the plan was to just wait the inspectors out and start up when they leave--surfaced last year, it got very little play in your side's media. Of course, given Saddam's unblemished past (hmmm...not many infidels were among the million-plus who died during the Iran-Iraq war, nor were many infidels gassed in Kurdistan, nor were any infidel women raped or kidnapped from Kuwait)we should have known that he would allow his country to go to war with a country that had, a decade earlier (i.e., back when we actually believed a Soviet-equipped army was worth a crap) beaten him in a hundred hours...just to prove how misunderstood he was!

That said, I say screw it, let the United Nations take Iraq over...they wanted it so badly. I b'lieve we can get our troops out of there pretty quickly. Have them face north, do a right face, and march.

And Gore...a hard-oh-so-hardworking man. He's hard at work on his 2008 campaign. Or save the world...from all of those evil Republicans who think there should be actual debate on the subject of global warming, rather than Michael Moore...I mean, Al Gore just telling us that he has researched it and no real scientists disagree (if they were real scientists, after all, they would agree), telling us all we've got to do is screw up our economy while allowing China, Korea and India to keep pumping crap into the air...and it'll be Peace Train time, baby.

SgtRock -- Dangit I'm a conservative. I'll play "token liberal" for today only.

Bush had no resume? Governor of the second biggest state in the country (I bet he'd governed more "constituent hours" than Clinton had when he went to DC)? Yale grad? Prosperous business leader?

My point was that his resume doesn't display personal initiative, and in that sense it is weak. He became Governor because of his birth. He went to Yale because of his birth. He wasn't a prosperous business leader. He failed trying to lead two oil companies and got bailed out by his daddy's friends. He made his fortune by selling the Rangers after the taxpayers built them a new stadium under his watch. Loverly.

Clinton is a bright fellow, but he's nobody's genius. Jimmy Carter was probably the smartest of our recent presidents, and look what he did to us!

My point about Clinton was that he demonstrated far more personal initiative than Bush did, I mentioned the Rhodes Scholar thing as a way that he worked hard to distinguish himself. I agree about Carter.

it got very little play in your side's media.

IMO the biggest problem with the media is that it's owned by people like Rupert Murdoch and Sun Myung Moon. I grant there are lots of liberal elitists working in the media, but as a problem they are a distant second. There's an element of city mouse/country mouse here too.

let the United Nations take Iraq over

I don't think any of the UN members are eager to send in troops, for Kofi Annan or George W. Bush.

And Gore...a hard-oh-so-hardworking man. He's hard at work on his 2008 campaign. Or save the world...from all of those evil Republicans who think there should be actual debate on the subject of global warming, rather than Michael Moore...I mean, Al Gore just telling us that he has researched it and no real scientists disagree (if they were real scientists, after all, they would agree), telling us all we've got to do is screw up our economy while allowing China, Korea and India to keep pumping crap into the air...and it'll be Peace Train time, baby.

Why do you hate Gore so much? I don't want him as my president but I believe he's a good man, and he does work hard.

I grew up around a university and could tell you stories about liberalism that would have you rolling on the floor. Not once did I ever hear anyone wanting to ban Christmas or cripple the economy or etc etc. People like Limbaugh and Coulter say these things to get people excited.

There isn't a debate about global warming. This is not a media elitist thing, or an Al Gore wants to ruin the economy thing. There is a terrific preponderence of scientists who haven't any doubt that it's real. It seems the ultimate in liberal mushy thinking simply to ignore the problem.

Best,
Cyrus

Good GOD the wealthy get reamed with taxes and funny enough, they take the LEAST from the government

No they don't. They pay 20% by and large, that's what cap gains and dividends and interest are now. Warren Buffet complains that his secretary has a higher tax bracket than he does. You appear to be grossly misinformed. Do you like having a higher tax rate than Paris Hilton? It gripes my... hindquarters.

Ask Governor Corzine of NJ how he kept all his money while working for the stock firm..Also the new Secretary of the Tresaury. How did he make all that money and kept it. They pay nothing thats close to what you pay.