Which is why libs hate it. They don't want the truth to be told because if it ever was (which is to say if CNN and other lib talkers told the whole story), nobody would even think about voting for them.

Bush is the right president because unlike Bill, George doesn't just shake his finger at enemies while getting off on interns. He actually sees a war when its right under his nose, and doesn't ignore it. Clinton spread out our military while cutting their numbers back drastically. Thus, he proved that, just like other Liberals like Carter, he is ignorant to the ways of war. Then again what do you expect from a draft dodger who protested Vietnam in the UK while our actual patriotic americans (something that NO liberal will ever be) were dying in Vietnam?

Key facts here
* In the 45 years prior to the Clinton years, we deployed armed forces beyond our borders 8 times. In Clinton's 8 years in office, he deployed our forces 44 times. So we went from one deployment ever 5.6 years to 5.5 deployments a year. Why? Clinton used the armed forces as a peace keeping force in any and every area he could. To him, our men and woman in uniform could be sent in very small groups all over the world to be international police. He was ignorant to the job of being Commander In Chief. Maybe if he handn't been a traitor to the US in the 60's and actually served his time via his draft notice, then he might understand what honor and duty meant. Instead he he focused on "on her" and "booty."

* Clintons inaction during all the terrorist attacks we had in the 90's made us look weak. Afterall, if an enemy never fights back are you going to surrender or are you going to cheer in victory and fight more? Like Patterson says in this book "Pacifism never won wars, soldiers did."

I'm proud to be an American because of what our constitution and those who protect it stand for. From time to time we find those that live up to it, such as Reagan and Bush. Luckily enough Americans agree, as the red and blue election map of 2004 showed. As for those that want to point to our problems and try to find a better way, that is what needs to be done. Yet for those like Clinton, Kerry, Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and anyone who follows them and is ignorant enough to believe the war and Bush are wrong, I say to you "read this book" so that you might actually be able to learn from history. Then again, you liberals make it and art at ignoring history. In the end your beliefs and cries of protest are backed only by socialists, communists and extremists. Thus you are they, they are you. You have no home here, you are not Americans. To be an American requires more than just living here. You need to support the Americn ideals, which you do not. A die hard anti-war on terrorism liberal is basically saying "I don't believe we should be free, its ok for terrorists to attack us, leave them alone." Thus you are nothing more than an athiest who says he is a Christian.

Do us Americans all a favor you socialist libs - if you hate America so much, then move somewhere that you think is better. Like Alec Baldwin, you won't though because you know no other country is going to put thier butts on the line to save yours. People like Mr. Patterson here are the ones carrying on the American ideals, you libs are the ones who do all you can to destroy them.

This is not a work of scholarship, not a work that examines its sources or parses ideologies for truth. This book certainly does not focus on truth.

For example, the author considers the "disastrous" presidency of Jimmy Carter to have fostered Islamic militantism. This position is unalloyed by any truth of the US-driven 1953 coup that installed the Shah, destroyed democracy in Iran and established all the groundwork for the 1979 crisis.

Nor is there any mention of the fact that Al Qaeda was created out of thin air by Ronald Reagan - who proceeded to fund and arm our future enemies.

Sadly, no, this is not a work of scholarship.