It was September 11. It was the Commander in Chief speaking to the nation about the real threat that continues to this day. It was the facts, presented in straight forward talk without name calling or insinuations on a day that touched us all. It was the Commander in Chief's duty. It was a call for unity in a time of war. It was the country's voice speaking for the people. It is the way our Republican form of government works.

But not to Harry Reid.

"The president spoke for his administration, not for the nation. This was a political move, designed to tap the overwhelming public sentiment to destroy al-Qaeda as a way to bolster sagging public support for the war in Iraq."

And the real problem? This is a Republican form of government and it is driving Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi nuts. Well, more nuts.

When the President speaks about established policy of the country he speaks for America.

Harry Reid speaks for the powerless. Reid speaks for the disgruntled, who cannot understand how someone could receive less than the popular vote majority and still become President (ignore the Constitution to do that). Reid speaks for the dissidents who have always tried to rid the nation of a form of government they cannot comprehend and replace it with the true form of 'loudest voice wins' democracy.

It is also why they cannot comprehend the importance of Iraq in the war on terror.

For those conceptually challenged politicians: get a map of the Middle East. If you cannot get a map, see a map in your head. If that doesn't work: a map is a piece of paper with nice pretty colors on it and lines and stuff and it shows a bird's eye view (from the sky looking down like you were really there except everything is in pen and ink and crayon and the moon mission was a fake and aliens populated the planet and the sun revolves around the earth, oh never mind.)

But first, a question. What country poses the greatest risk to our security and the security of the whole world, right now? (And no fair saying the United States, we'd just have to ignore you for the rest of the lesson.)

Iran? Right...Of course North Korea is in the hot list but they are so isolated right now and quite jealous of Iran, they won't be much of a problem for a little while longer. SO... the answer is, Iran. It always has been. (Well, it was Lybia but one look at Iraq and that problem ended).

So, let's say as you gaze at the pretty map that you wanted to deal with Iran at some point in the future because you just knew there is no negotiating with thugs. (OK, you may not agree with that. If you think not standing up to a bully is the best way to stop them, you've never been hit by a bully or you ARE one.) Let's just say that in order to plan ahead (you know, the dreaded 'plan' Reid and Kerry and Kennedy and their disgruntled sand-box friends keep saying no one has), you need to place your military in the most effective position, long before a battle.

Would you; (remember, you're looking at the map still):

• a: stay home behind the protection of two oceans and continue to fool yourself that the big lake fences mattered?
• b: put some troops and materiel in oh, say, Belgium or perhaps Germany (ignore that little problem of no flying over Turkey)
• c: deploy the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines in some remote wasteland of the Pacific Ocean (ask Murtha to explain that one)
• or
• d: circle the wagons and build the camp fires and invade Afghanistan, as the home of the military arm of Bin Laden (on one side of Iran) and Iraq, as a large financier of terror (on the other side of Iran), do in months what Russia could not do in Afghanistan and do in days what Iran could not do in years in Iraq. While you're at it, replace the governments of those countries with elected democratic ones and watch the local vermin sour over not having their free reign to kill and maim with impunity. Ignorant political opportunists will call it 'insurgency' when we all know it is 'invasion' with inside help.

Your choice. Which is it going to be? One more "no fair": you cannot pretend to be an ostrich (they don't even do this) and put your head in the metaphorical sand and pretend you are safe because you cannot see your enemies. Rabbits do that in the shadows of the night. And they are coyote fodder. (You may have to live in Arizona to get that.)

So, let's see how you scored.

If you said 'a': stay home behind the protection of two oceans and continue to fool yourself that the water mattered, you are officially living in a pre 9/11 reality. Prognosis: ignorantly suicidal.

If you said 'b': put some troops and materiel in oh, say, Belgium or perhaps Germany, you are officially living in a pre 9/11 reality. Prognosis: ignorantly suicidal.

If you said 'c': deploy the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines in some remote wasteland of the Pacific Ocean, you are delusional. Prognosis: ignorantly suicidal.

If you said 'd': circle the wagons and build the camp fires, you would be a military tactician, a strong leader, a determined defender of the Constitution and a leader, ridiculed by the lunatics of the first three answers.

You would also be a thinking person who does not react like a cat to the first new noise or motion; does not react like a scared dog at the first potential showdown with an unknown problem and does not pretend to make up reality to fit the emotional condition of the moment, can actually hold a conversation with another human without simply continuing on your own reactionary thought pattern (others, erroneously call it spin.) You would be sane.

Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, in response to the country's Commander in Chief's word on the war we were forced into, said: "Rather than try to defend their own failed record, Republicans have resorted to the desperation politics of fear. It is long past time for Republicans to be honest with American people and stop questioning the patriotism of those who recognize that the president's Iraq policy has not worked, is making us less safe and must be changed."

No, no Nancy.

"We" are not questioning your patriotism. "You" are. The President called for unity. "You" take that as an attack on your patriotism. The President called for strength and resolve in defeating those who will kill us all and you take that as a 'desperation politics of fear'. The President tried to explain the importance of Iraq without giving away the battle plan and you call that not being 'honest with the American people'. You declare the Iraq 'policy' is failed and there is no plan, but a policy is a plan and you simply do not understand that. The country is much safer than it was when your party was playing government but since you were, we now must fight a war you could have ended with one Hellfire missile.

"You" defend your refusal to unite behind the safety of the country as patriotism and your right to dissent. In any other war it would be seditious.

And that goes for you too, Harry.