Product Description

In War Crimes, Lieutenant Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson (USAF, Ret.) lays bare the Left’s campaign against their own nation’s armed forces—in the media, on campuses, in popular culture, in Washington, and elsewhere, revealing:

·The roots of liberal enmity toward our military
·The five liberal lies about the war on terror
·How the mainstream media, Hollywood, and academia perpetuate these myths
·How liberal politicians engage in seditious acts for political gain, and what the costs of these acts are
·How America can and must defeat the liberal assault on America’s ability to defend itself against its enemies

Interviews with hundreds of soldiers, sailors, and airmen—including many on the ground in Iraq—reveal the alarming degree to which their burden is increased by second-guessing, pessimism, and outright revulsion for their mission on the part of the people they are fighting for. Studded with shocking quotations and astonishing actions from members of the Left, War Crimes is an eye-opening indictment of the true motivations and agenda of the American Left.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #624801 in Books
• Published on: 2007-06-26
• Released on: 2007-06-26
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 288 pages

About the Author
A former military aide to President Clinton, Lt. Col. ROBERT “BUZZ” PATTERSON, U.S. Air Force (Ret.) lives near Atlanta.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
ONE

The Unholy Alliance

Whereof what’s past is prologue, what to come
In yours and my discharge.
—William Shakespeare, The Tempest

On January 30, 2005, the face of the Middle East changed forever. In the cradle of civilization, whose people had never known self- determination, 8.4 million Iraqis braved attacks by Islamofascist terrorists and chose freedom. Sixty percent of eligible Iraqi voters turned out that day, closely approximating participation in the American presidential election three months earlier (where obstacles were significantly more pedestrian). Only through the noble efforts of the U.S. military, not American politicians, did such a moment occur.

U.S. Air Force major Eric Egland was an eyewitness to this birth of independence. A member of the elite U.S. Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Task Force, Egland and his team of soldiers patrolled the many voting sites around Baghdad in anticipation of the first-ever democratic elections in Iraq. At 8 a.m., just as the voting began, Egland’s group heard an explosion in the area of a polling site they’d visited the night before. A suicide bomber had detonated himself, killing two others in the process.

Egland’s unit responded expecting to find that the terrorists had achieved their desired result: potential voters dispersed and retreating to the safety of their homes. As they arrived at the scene, though, the soldiers witnessed the true nature of freedom and democracy.

The lines of Iraqis waiting to cast their first meaningful votes were not at all diminished by the terror; serpentine queues stretched around the block far beyond the soldiers’ field of vision. “The Iraqis were resolute in their will to vote,” Egland recalled when I interviewed him in Iraq a few months later. “And we watched them file past the remains [of the terrorist] toward the polling booths, some even taking time to loudly curse and spit on the murderer.” The significance of the moment was not lost on Egland, who was serving his country thousands of miles removed from his newlywed and his family. “I will put my faith in a people who, when attacked by a suicide bomber, not only do not run away but gather and stand to face the danger in order to have a say in their future,” he concluded.

1
U.S. Army sergeant Joe Skelly of the 411th Civil Affairs Battalion, from Danbury, Connecticut, patrolled the city of Baquba, Iraq, that day. Sergeant Skelly is the American fighting man personified—the citizen soldier that Thomas Jefferson envisioned. He was a professor of history at New York’s College of Mount Saint Vincent, and joined the military after the attacks of 9/11 when he realized his country was at war.

In Baquba, terrorists launched mortars and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) in an attempt to shatter the will of the Iraqi and American people. Skelly noticed, though, that the Iraqi security forces guarding the election sites had assumed a new posture; they were more engaged, con
dent, and alert. They had “ownership,” he realized. They knew “what’s at stake.”

“In a neighborhood called Al-Huwaydir, near the Diyala River,” Skelly told me, “I saw an elderly Iraqi dressed in his finest suit of clothes proudly walking past us to vote. He was strutting, his head held high, he was so proud, he was going to vote. His quiet dignity was moving. That’s what it’s all about. I knew at that moment that’s why I was there.”

2
Fearing democracy and freedom in Iraq, Islamic terrorists from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran targeted the Iraqis’ courage and commitment with the maximum strength they could muster . . . and the Iraqis gave them the finger.

Flashing purple fingers to the world, Iraq’s people joyfully announced their entry into the world of freedom and human dignity— concepts they could hardly have grasped in previous generations. With fallen despot Saddam Hussein incarcerated and awaiting trial, the nation of Iraq rose to celebrate the end of thirty-five years of ruthless oppression.

In the summer of 2005, I visited Iraq to see the truth for myself and to talk with American soldiers, whose stories had not been told in the mainstream media. What I was hearing daily from friends and peers engaged in the fight was not what I was seeing or hearing in big media or Congress. I had served as an Air Force officer and pilot for twenty years and been involved in combat operations in Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, and the Persian Gulf. When I got on the ground, I was overwhelmed with the extremely positive nature of our soldiers’ morale and professionalism. I was equally struck by the emotional commitment of the Iraqi people.

One member of our traveling team, American filmmaker Brad Maaske, was embedded on patrol with the Iraqi Army in a very dangerous former Baathist area of Baghdad’s “Red Zone” when he was approached by a young Iraqi father holding his infant daughter.

“Please bless her,” the Iraqi asked in broken English.

“I don’t know what you mean,” Maaske said.

“Please bless her,” the man repeated and reached for the American’s hands. Placing them on the baby’s forehead, the father continued, “Please bless her with the freedoms that you have . . .
the freedoms of America.” Maaske suspected that he’d walked into an ambush. We had discussed the inherent danger of exactly this sort of scenario on our way to Iraq. Overcome with emotion, though, Maaske knelt over, kissed the child, and blessed her. Her father was beaming. Maaske was too.

On October 15, 2005, the Iraqi people took another dramatic step forward and again thumbed their noses at al Qaeda, as this time 78 percent of the voting-age population walked to the country’s 6,000 polling stations. Where al Qaeda’s soulless butchers had launched 147 attacks to disrupt the January 2005 elections, on this day they were capable of only 14.

Only two months later, in December, 11 million Iraqis elected the most representative Arab government in the Middle East. This was remarkable progress in a nation that had never experienced democracy and had spent nearly a quarter century under the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

But to the American Left, none of this mattered, just as the first democratic elections in Afghanistan the previous year had done nothing to inspire it. The Left’s leaders expressed no appreciation for, or pride in, their nation’s historic efforts in bringing law and elections to a land devoid of civil rights. Once again, they offered only acrimony and defeatism.

On the very day that Saddam was being arraigned in Baghdad, Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean wildly asserted, “The idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.”

3
West Virginia Democratic senator Jay Rockefeller claimed that America and the world would be safer if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

4
Democratic senator John Kerry, who had come close to becoming America’s commander in chief, slurred our soldiers in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation. “There is no reason,” Kerry said, “young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.”

5
Democratic congressman John Murtha, a former Marine, took the opportunity to call for a pullout of troops from Iraq. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Murtha explained his reasoning: “I’m absolutely convinced that we’re making no progress at all, and I’ve been complaining for two years that there’s an overly optimistic—an illusionary process going on here.”

6
On another occasion he said, “We can’t win this militarily,” and added, “The Army is broken, worn-out, and living hand to mouth.”

7
Proving there are no depths to which this lawmaker won’t stoop, he then accused U.S. Marines of “killing innocent civilians in cold blood” before an investigation into the incident at Haditha, Iraq, had been completed.

8
This was an irresponsible and incendiary claim that outraged soldiers from all services who were proudly defending their nation.

Former president Bill Clinton joined in the pile-on. Speaking just miles from the war zone, in Dubai, Clinton told students that the Iraq War “was a big mistake.” The former president, standing on foreign soil, continued to criticize the commander in chief’s decisions by saying, “The American government made several errors, one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country.”

9
Such comments swelled the chorus of defeatism that had been heard since the early days of the war. It didn’t matter that the United States went into Iraq with overwhelming congressional authorization, with the support of 70 percent of the American public, and with the consent of the United Nations (which had failed to enforce seventeen separate resolutions against Saddam’s Iraq). The Left quickly reframed America’s justification for combat to meet their reality, launching a ceaseless campaign of vindictive anti-American, antimilitary rhetoric.

Even when the gruesomely decapitated bodies of Americans were shown on international television swinging from a bridge in Fallujah, the Left could muster no outrage toward the enemy. The incredibly influential leftist blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of Daily Kos wrote of the American civilian contractors, “I feel nothing over the death of merceneries [sic]. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war ...

Customer Reviews

A Reckless Disregard of Patriotism
"America should go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy... She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." John Quincy Adams.

But if you go by this screed, that is essentially what Americans should do. This is the last of three provocative and accusatory titles written by Robert "Buzz" Patterson. This one is even more damning and provocative suggesting war crimes by Americans against Americans, and that there is a conspiracy in our government darker than anything that could have been conjured by Senator Joe McCarthy. However, the inside of the book fails to live up to its billing on a number of levels. Buzz Patterson presents specious and disingenuous arguments. Two, he blames with inflammatory rhetoric, and three, he accuses Americans of treason. Ironically, this contempt for dissent in any form is as antithetical to the words and spirit of our Constitution as anyone can get.

One example of the author's misleading arguments is his accusation that the military and ROTC are under attack from left wing forces across the schools and campuses of America. The example he provides actually happened at the University of North Carolina and North Carolina State University, but the reader should note how he relates it: "Protesters vandalized the ROTC buildings at UNC and N.C. State with red paint and slogans reading `We won't fight your wars,' and 'Army ROTC trains murderers; resist acts of war.'" "Protestors vandalized..." promotes an image of crazies running amuck, but the reader who checks the story on the Internet will discover that by most accounts, it was called an act of vandalism--not a mob. A ROTC cadet at the same school named Dominique McNeill also destroys the author's conclusion. She adds: "Members of the ROTC are known and respected around campus."

In making the argument to support the title, the author suggests that antagonism toward a policy is proof of a lack of support for our troops. The timing of a protest, the place of one, or the lack of an immediate counter opinion or editorial is proof positive of the author's definition of left wing sympathies or bias in the press. The more vocal or universal the protest, the more proof that those people are treasonous in their actions. For the author, mere observation proves conclusion.

When the author isn't generalizing, stereotyping or connecting unconnected events, he blames, using the same tactic of dictators of totalitarian regimes. Throughout this work, he uses the word defeatism. It's not the blunders of a dictator or the miscalculations of an inept administration; it is cowards, students, left-wingers, "limousine liberals" (my personal favorite), college professors and others who are colluding to bring our country to defeat, and waging a campaign to destroy our military. Patterson raises paranoia to an art form.

When it comes to Guantanamo Prison, he asserts erroneously that the detainees are "the `baddest' of the bad," and that they are not being tortured. He ignores the fact that personal threats, stress positions, sleep deprivation, no human contact twenty-two hours a day, and "nutrition management" are violations of the Geneva Convention, which our nation insisted other nations adopt. What is Patterson's response? They don't deserve it because they are committed terrorists, (like the 80 year old deaf man they finally released?) In fact, Gitmo has already set free a number of these "baddest of the bad" because some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Never mind that Human Rights Watch has just condemned the correctional practices there as harsh. As for Abu-Ghraib, he tosses it off as the acts of ten or twelve individuals! And waterboarding? It's not even listed in his index.

If these pronouncements aren't enough to stretch the author's credibility, he sinks to charges of treason against the usual suspects. This includes anyone who disagrees with the war. Patterson pays lip service to dissent and criticism being patriotic and good, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, but he stops there. He writes, "Liberals who speak out against the War on Terror because they oppose America and seek their country's defeat have crossed the line from dissent to betrayal, because their comments are broadcast around the world, encouraging and motivating the enemy." In this one sentence the author makes inflammatory assumptions that are libelous: Liberals oppose America. They seek their country's defeat, and they give aid and comfort to the enemy. For these three opinions, the author provides no evidence except what he thinks constitutes evidence, that being it is dissent if you say it, but it is treason if the wrong people hear it.

If actor Buddy Harrelson or Rosie O'Donnell speak out in protest against our government, the "war on terror" or suggest that George W. Bush is a criminal, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Furthermore, Patterson has the cheek to challenge their "qualifications." He fails to realize that being American is all the qualification one needs. Such a charge is also known as the Tinkerbelle Effect. (If you want Tinkerbelle to live, clap your hands as vigorously as possible. If you don't, she will die. If you want us to win in Iraq and support the War on Terror, support the president and don't criticize our administration, or we will lose, and it will be your fault).

Two other issues the author raises challenge his veracity. Patterson suggests that Code Pink exchanged money through an intermediary in Jordan in which, he claims, the money "may" have ended up in the hands of terrorists. The word "may" doesn't convey fact, it conveys conjecture or gossip. (This next one his publisher should have vigorously discouraged!) He claims to have asked 400 military personnel of all services, in Kuwait, Iraq, and on his radio show in California, what the greatest threat to their mission and security was. Patterson asserts that all four hundred gave him identical, two-part responses, which included the media.

Anyone who has studied probability knows that 400 people giving identical, two-part responses is astronomically impossible. Even ten people giving identical, two-part answers to an open-ended, non-restrictive question is almost two million to one. And if he only spent ten minutes with each of the 400, that comes to 66 hours of nothing but interviews! Patterson is clearly being dishonest here, embellishing his data to fit his conclusions.

The author also expresses grave concern for our military, and what he perceives as the injustice they have endured by democrats and left wing demagogues. Patterson makes it clear that the republicans are the only ones capable of governing and keeping our military strong in spite of the fact that it was the same party that refused liberal Senator Ted Kennedy's request that veterans be exempt from losing their homes under the new bankruptcy law. He has also ignored the mounting scandals that this administration has perpetrated against the same. This raises questions if his concerns are genuine, or selective and opportunistic.

In his last chapter he passes ruins of great civilizations in foreign cities as he ponders the cause of their fate in which he sees the pending destruction of our society based on "the left's campaign." He gives the reader the impression that he carries the weight of our future on his shoulders. It gave me the impression of histrionics and melodrama.

For the more discerning and discriminating reader, Patterson's narrative will read like a diatribe that is visceral, emotional, and hyperbolic. He confuses patriotism with nationalism, and treason with dissent, the last being a completely patriotic act. Like his "400," this author believes that Americans should think as one, and act as one. Now, what does that remind you of?

I borrowed this book from the New York Library System which had a grand total of six copies. This is a testament to the book's lack of popularity and anemic sales.

That alone speaks volumes.

The Facts Speak For Themselves
While I was in Iraq, I routinely saw news coverage and heard statements by celebrities, politicians, intellectuals and activists which were so diametrically opposed to the reality that I saw on the ground that I truly wondered whether we shared the same planet. While terrorists murdered children on the streets of Bahgdad, activists accused us of atrocities. When Americans who had been captured and murdered were recovered, almost invariably after torture, the media barely acknowledged it, while focusing intently on Abu Ghraib. I understood that they opposed the war, but I was not prepared to make the argument that they were committing treason. LTC (R) Patterson has done so. In War Crimes, he sets out to demonstrate that the antiwar left is not simply a "peace" movement, but a group of dangerous radicals who seek to actively destroy the capacity of the United States to defend itself. In this, he breaks very little new ground, in that most of the quotes or stories recounted have been in the media for years. What makes War Crimes valuable is that it is a single source and provides not only a recounting of those stories, but a detailed bibliography and endnotes which allow independent corroboration. The meticulous research alone is worth it. In addition, the appendix provides accounts of every major terrorist action since the fall of the Shah. By combining not only a detailed history of terrorism and documenting the responses by the left, LTC Patterson does the service of providing a context in which the actions of the Michael Moores and Nancy Pelosis can be objectively evaluated. The downside is that there is a great deal of repetition, which could have been solved by a tighter edit.

Those who read this book with an open-mind will be unable to deny the treasonous nature of the antiwar movement. Those who refuse to read it but condemn it out of hand already know the nature of the left, even as they refuse to admit it.

Seething As I Read
Buzz Patterson has totally nailed the Left! He does not mince words, he does not talk in generalities; he calls the Lefties out by name. These hatriots, obstructionists, and blame America first people are why we are losing the War on Terror. The Big Media, the Democratic Party, Hollywood, and Academia are complicit and actually aid and abet the enemy. Buzz can expect all types of hate mail, including scathing reviews here on Amazon. As Buzz says in his book, "the flak is the heaviest when you're directly over the target." Well, tighten up your chinstrap Colonel because incoming is on it's way. Well done Sir!