Veterans' Day, Or, As Donald Trump Calls It...

The Veterans' Memorial in my hometown,

East Brunswick, New Jersey.

Well, today is November 11, the anniversary of the Armistice that ended World War I, known as Armistice Day. Also, Veterans' Day.

Or, as Donald Trump calls it, "Losers and Suckers Day."

* 1775-83, War of the American Revolution: 217,000 American men served, and 25,000 were killed. The last surviving veteran of the war died in 1866.

* 1812-15, War of 1812: 286K served, 20K killed. Last died in 1905.

* 1846-47, Mexican-American War: 78K served, 13,283 killed. Last died in 1929.

* 1861-65, American Civil War: If we count the side that fought to get out, and stay out, of the United States as "Americans," then, 3.2 million served, 625K killed. Last died in 1956.

* 1898-1902, Spanish-American War & Philippine Campaign (really, one war): 307K served, 6,642 killed. Last died in 1993.

* 1917-18, World War I: 4.7M served, 116,516 killed. Last died in 2011.

* 1941-45, World War II: 16.1M served, 405,399 killed, 119K are believed to still be alive.

* 1950-53, Korean War: 5.7M served, 36,516 killed, about 1M still alive.

* 1954-75, Vietnam War: 8.7M served, 58,220 killed (officially), 6.3M still alive.

* 1990-91, Iraq War I: 2.2M served, 2,094 killed.

* 2001-21, Afghan War: 1.4M served, 7,277 killed (4,281 of them after 9/11).

* 2003-11, Iraq War II: 300K served, 4,431 killed.

Peace is better than war. But justice is more important than peace. The best way to honor those who fight for us is to fight for them -- including after they come home, dead and alive alike.

And, unlike our country's commander-in-chief-elect, Donald Trump, does, to never, ever consider them "losers" and "suckers."

Trump's fans like to believe that they are operating, to borrow the title of a Bob Dylan song, "With God On Our Side." But remember the last line of that song: "If God's on our side, He'll stop the next war."

November 2, 2004: George W. Bush Is Re-Elected President

November 2, 2004, 20 years ago: George W. Bush achieves -- due to the appearance of shenanigans in Ohio, I won't say "wins" -- a 2nd term as President, defeating the Democratic nominee, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. Although Kerry was a rich liberal Catholic from Massachusetts with the initials JFK, and as a young man had met President John F. Kennedy, he was no Jack Kennedy.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney won 62 million popular votes, for 50.7 percent. Kerry and his running mate, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, won 59 million, for 48.3 percent. This remains the only time between 1988 (when Bush's father did it) and 2020 that the Republican nominee for President got a majority of the popular vote.

Bush won 31 States for 286 Electoral Votes. Kerry won 19 States, plus the District of Columbia, for 251 EVs. One "faithless elector" from Minnesota voted for Edwards instead of Kerry.

Kerry got 49.2 percent of the vote in Iowa, and 49.0 percent in New Mexico. Had he won both of those States, that would not have been enough to swing the Electoral Vote in his favor: It would still have been 274-263 Bush.

The key State turned out to be Ohio: Kerry got 48.7 percent there, and it was still not called by 12:00 Noon, Eastern Time, on November 3. Switching its 20 Electoral Votes, and no others, would have given Kerry a 271-266 win. But, despite the various media outlets' refusal to call it for Bush, Bush's lead was such that, at 1:50 PM, Kerry began a press conference, and said, "I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win in Ohio," and announced that he had called Bush, and offered his concession. Bush's final margin in Ohio was 118,601.

Kerry's concession, at Faneuil Hall, Boston

As with Florida in 2000, there were rumors of Republican shenanigans in what turned out to be the decisive State. Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State for Ohio, and a former Mayor of Cincinnati, was accused of manipulating the vote. Blackwell has never won another election: He was the Republican nominee for Governor in 2006, but got clobbered by Democratic Congressman Ted Strickland. As of November 2, 2022, he works for the anti-choice, anti-gay Family Research Council.

During the campaign, Bush ran as the man who was fighting to avenge the 9/11 attacks, while his fellow Republicans mocked Kerry for saying that Democratic leadership could "reduce terrorism to the level of a nuisance."

After 4 more years, the economy was in tatters, and the Iraq War was no closer to being "won" than it was on this day.

By 2016, after 8 years of Barack Obama as President, 4 years of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and 4 years of Kerry himself as Secretary of State, Kerry had been proven correct: They have reduced terrorism, at least against American targets, at home and abroad, to the level of a nuisance.

From January 20, 2021 to March 6, 2024, Kerry served as President Joe Biden's Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. And Bush has gotten a somewhat favorable reassessment: At least he wasn't as bad as Donald Trump.

May 1, 2003: "Mission Accomplished" In Iraq

May 1, 2003, 20 years ago: Just 41 days after sending American troops into Iraq to remove the government of dictator Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush announces, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

At the time, it was a justifiable statement. What was not justified was the hoopla around it.

Bush had flown with the Texas Air National Guard in the closing months of the Vietnam War. On this day, Bush became the 1st sitting President to arrive in an "arrested landing" in a "fixed-wing aircraft" on an aircraft carrier, when he was flown (not as the pilot) onto the USS Abraham Lincoln in a Lockheed S-3 Viking, dubbed Navy One, as the carrier lay just off the coast of San Diego, having returned from combat operations in the Persian Gulf.

(Ordinarily, any plane bearing the President of the United States carries the designation Air Force One, not just the jumbo jet that usually flies him where he needs to go. And any helicopter that carries the President is Marine One. This time, because it was a Navy jet, it got the designation Navy One.)

Bush posed for photographs with pilots and members of the ship's crew, while still wearing a flight suit that was necessary for travel aboard the fighter jet. A few hours later, he gave a speech announcing the end of major combat operations in the Iraq War. Behind and above him hung a banner that said "Mission Accomplished."

Bush was criticized for the historic jet landing on the carrier, as an overly theatrical and expensive stunt. For instance, it was pointed out that the carrier was well within range of Bush's helicopter, and that a jet landing was not needed. Originally, the White House had stated that the carrier was too far off the California coast for a helicopter landing, and a jet would be needed to reach it. On the day of the speech, the Lincoln was only 30 miles from shore, but the Administration still decided to go ahead with the jet landing.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment, which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War, 30 years earlier; and not the war itself. Chun said, "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew."

The White House claimed that the banner was requested by the crew of the ship, who did not have the facilities for producing such a banner. Afterward, the Administration and Navy sources stated that the banner was the Navy's idea, White House staff members made the banner, and it was hung by the U.S. Navy personnel.

Whether meant for the crew or not, the general impression created by the image of Bush under the banner was criticized as premature, especially later as the guerrilla war began. Subsequently, the White House released a statement saying that the sign and Bush's visit referred to the initial invasion of Iraq.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered any mention of "Mission Accomplished" removed from Bush's speech. Later, Rumsfeld told journalist Bob Woodward, "I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said, 'My God, it's too conclusive.' And I fixed it, and sent it back... They fixed the speech, but not the sign."

Bush ran for re-election in 2004, in part, on the Iraq War. He won. The Republican Party went into the 2006 elections, in part, on the Iraq War. They lost both houses of Congress, and Rumsfeld resigned. 

Senator John McCain ran as the Republicans' nominee for President in 2008, with winning the Iraq War as a major part of his platform. He lost, because the American people didn't want to do what it would take to win the war. They just wanted it to be over.

Senator Barack Obama promised voters that, if they elected him, he would end the war, and they elected him. On December 31, 2011, President Barack Obama pulled the last remaining combat troops out of Iraq. A year later, he ran for re-election partly on that basis, and he won.

The "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner is now in the collection of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. It is not on display.

March 20, 2003: The Iraq War Begins

March 20, 2003, 20 years ago: President George W. Bush launches the Iraq War, to topple President Saddam Hussein of Iraq from power.

April 9, 2003: Saddam fled, his regime of nearly 34 years coming to an end.

May 1, 2003: Aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, beneath a huge banner reading "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED," Bush did not use those words himself, but he did say, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

To be fair, he added, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. Our mission continues."

December 13, 2003: Allied forces captured Saddam. But this was not the end of the war, either.

September 30, 2004: With the war still going, with no end in sight, Bush was running for re-election, and debating the Democratic nominee for President, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. Bush was asked why he started the war.

He said, "The enemy attacked us." This was part of his continuing telling of the story that Saddam was involved in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, including the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York.

Kerry responded: "Saddam Hussein did not attack us on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden did."

Kerry was right. Bush was lying. That should have ended Bush's bid for a 2nd term right there.

November 2, 2004: By a margin of one State in the Electoral College -- and we may never know just how much the Republicans cheated in Ohio, possibly in other States -- Bush was re-elected.

May 16, 2006: The 3rd season finale of the military-themed drama NCIS airs. Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs, played by Mark Harmon, was in an explosion, and when he emerges from his coma, he has no memory of anything that happened after a similar thing happened to him while he was serving in the original Iraq War of 1991.

Dr. Donald "Ducky" Mallard (David McCallum) meets with NCIS Director Jenny Shepard (Lauren Holly), who says that Gibbs now knows that 15 years have passed, but, seeing the images of the current war on ZNN, that world's fictionalized version of CNN, he says he wants to know why we're still at war in Iraq. Ducky says, "He's not the only one."

January 20, 2009: Bush left office as one of the most unpopular Presidents ever, and Barack Obama became President. He had been elected partly on a pledge to end the Iraq War, which was still going.

June 1, 2009: Dick Cheney, who from 2001 to 2009 had been Bush's Vice President, finally admitted the truth: "I do not believe and have never seen any evidence to confirm that [Hussein] was involved in 9/11. We had that reporting for a while, [but] eventually it turned out not to be true," Cheney conceded.

December 18, 2011: President Obama withdrew the last U.S. combat forces from Iraq, leaving behind only a token force in a defensive role. There were 4,507 American soldiers killed, among 32,000 wounded. Other countries' forces in support, including the new Iraqi army: 18,000. Pro-Saddam and later ISIS forces killed: Approximately 37,000. Iraqi civilians killed: Officially, over 110,000, but probably far more.

Benefits to Iraq: They traded one corrupt regime for another, with far fewer extrajudicial killings. In other words, things became better, but still not good.

Benefits to America: The Bush-Cheney Administration's friends, especially energy companies and defense contractors, made a lot of money, and... uh... well... America remembered that war is a bad thing, and that just because you spout slogans and wave flags doesn't make you more patriotic than the people who say that war is a bad thing. 

Top 10 Myths About the 2000s

The decade from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009. We still don't really know what to call it. Some call it "The 2000s," pronounced like "The Two Thousands." Some say "The Aughts." Some say "The Aughties." "The Oh-Ohs," as in "00's," never seemed to catch on with anyone.

Time magazine, noting the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, the Crash of 2008 and the ensuing recession, called it "The Decade From Hell." Their editors did not foresee what would happen from 2016 to 2019 -- or, so far, in the 2020s.

I did posts like this for the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1990s. I also did "Top 10 Reasons Why the 1980s Were the Worst Decade," tackling some of that decade's myths. Now, I move on to the 2000s, the name I'm going to use for simplicity's sake. After all, the nostalgia wave for that decade is already underway.

Top 10 Myths About the 2000s

1. George W. Bush Wasn't So Bad. Compared to Donald Trump, sure, anybody wouldn't seem so bad. And, now, Dubya, who served as the 43rd President of the United States from January 20, 2001 to January 20, 2009, has the reputation of being a nice enough guy who wasn't very smart and was in over his head. Well, in this case, two out of three would have been bad enough.

Giving the 2002 State of the Union Address,

in front of Vice President Dick Cheney and

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Now that was an axis of evil.

But he wasn't a nice enough guy. He lied, cheated and stole to gain the Presidency. And he smeared anyone who got in his way, even after he got into office. He was a draft dodger who called people who opposed his war of choice unpatriotic. He presided over the release of the name of an undercover CIA agent, just because her husband had blown the whistle on one of his lies about that war.

2. The Period After the 9/11 Attacks Was a Time of Great National Unity. It was not. Sure, we were all united behind our troops. But there was no great unity behind the President and his team. Yes, Dubya had a 90 percent approval rating. But most Democrats knew that this guy was not going to be able to get the job done, we were just afraid to say so, and hoping we were wrong.

But the Republicans were already saying that former President Bill Clinton had let bin Laden get away, that he "let him slip through his fingers," or even that a foreign government "handed him bin Laden on a silver platter, and he refused it." This was a lie. As is usually the case when Republicans tell lies and get caught, they didn't care, and kept on lying.

Suppose Al Gore had been President at the time, and had been unable to stop the attacks. Think there would have been any national unity? Yeah, surrrre: The Republicans, in control of the House of Representatives, would have impeached him for not stopping them. They wouldn't have been able to get enough votes in the Senate to remove him, but it would have poisoned the rest of his term.

Even if he had gotten Osama bin Laden before Election Day 2002, that election would have been a bloodbath for the Democrats, and he would have been doomed for 2004.

3. Saddam Hussein Had to be Stopped At All Costs. How many dictators have the Republicans refused to stop? And how many of them killed more people in fewer years than Saddam did?

We will never know if the people of Iraq would have toppled him before he died of natural causes, because we'll never know when that would have been. What we do know is that it wasn't worth it for our country to topple him.

4. The Republicans Were Patriotic, the Democrats Were Not. This has been the conservative argument since 1948, and it has been a big fat lie the whole time. This was especially true in the Dubya Years.

Case in point from the decade in question: The U.S. Senate race in Georgia in 2002. Max Cleland came out of the Vietnam War with his left arm, but not his right, and neither of his legs. He was elected to the U.S. Senate from Georgia in 1996. He was defeated for re-election by Saxby Chambliss, a Congressman who hadn't served in Vietnam, and questioned Cleland's patriotism, because Cleland wasn't sufficiently supportive of Bush's proposed war in Iraq.

Bush never wanted to win the war. He only wanted to have the war, to use as a club over his opponents' patriotism. He still believes that his father's biggest mistake in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War was ending it too soon, and not securing the patriotic vote for himself in his bid for re-election. Bush the son didn't just want the threat of war and terrorism for the Republicans to win in 2002, and the actual war and the threat of terrorism to win in 2004. He wanted it for 2006 and 2008, even though he would no longer be on the ballot in those elections.

Give John McCain credit: When he ran in 2008, he did say he wanted to end the war, by winning it. Whether he knew how, we'll never know. But at least he knew that it had to end, one way or another.

And speaking of the 2008 election:

5. Barack Obama Was Under-qualified for the Presidency. That argument has been completely shot to hell by the Republicans falling all over themselves to nominate Donald Trump. Obama also had more years in public service than the man the Republicans nominated to beat him in 2012, Mitt Romney, despite Romney being 14 years older.

Furthermore, length of experience isn't necessarily an indication of a good Presidency. George H.W. Bush probably had the most varied experience of any Presidential nominee ever, and he was not a good President. Better than his son, though. And, given the power of the Governor of Texas compared with most other Governors, George W. was less qualified in 2000 than was Obama in 2008.

When John McCain was the Republican nominee in 2008, he had a big edge over Obama on experience. The problem was, his experience was mostly in foreign policy and national security. He had hoped that those would be the most important issues in that election.

Instead, the economy went into the tank. He had having lived most of his life on the federal government's dime: A son of a naval officer, then a Naval Academy midshipman, then a naval officer himself, then a Congressman, then a Senator. Indeed, the most time he'd ever spent away from the federal government taking care of him was while he was a prisoner of war. His biggest experience in regard to the civilian economy and its difficulties was getting caught as one of the "Keating Five," in a banking scandal.

In contrast, Obama did have experience in dealing with the real civilian economy. He and his wife Michelle were still paying off their student debts in 2008. They understood the struggles of Americans who weren't rich. McCain, whatever his other virtues, didn't understand, because of, yes, his experience. When it came to handling the economy, Obama was qualified, and McCain was not -- and that's before we get into economic ideology.

6. Technological Deprivation. There is a perception that kids who grew up then were deprived when it came to technology. But there were already smartphones and Game Boys. At home, there were already laptops and Xboxes. Social media only started to blossom in 2006, but more than half of the things that kids can do with their phones in 2022, they could do in 2000.

The Xbox, introduced by Microsoft on November 15, 2001

7. It Was a Barren Time for Music. Yes, a lot of it was bad. Some of it was very, very bad. Most of that was the computerized stuff, like the monotonous Sean Paul; or attempts at being soulful that ended up sounding like whining, like James Blunt's "You're Beautiful" and Daniel Powter's "Bad Day." (Sad to say, those 2 songs and Sean Paul's "Temperature" were all big hits at the same time in early 2006. Talk about some bad days.)

But it was also the decade in which Eminem, Jay-Z and his eventual wife Beyoncé, Christina Aguilera, OutKast and Pharrell Williams released their best work. It was the decade when Mariah Carey and Mary J. Blige each fell off both commercially and in their private lives, but each made a fantastic comeback on both fronts

He's rich, he's accomplished, he's immensely respected in his field,

he gets to live in New York, and he gets to sleep with Beyoncé.

So why is it so hard to find a picture of Jay-Z looking happy?

It was the decade when the Dixie Chicks (as The Chicks were then known) pissed off conservatives, faced an ugly backlash, and received awards that proved they won that battle. And it was the decade when Pink, Alicia Keys, Norah Jones, Avril Lavigne, Kelly Clarkson and Amy Winehouse debuted, producing epic albums and stunning performances. So there was plenty of good music to go along with the crap that the music industry threw at us.

8. The Sopranos Was the Greatest TV Show of All Time. The 1990s began the format of "prestige television." The format really took off in the 2000s, led by The Sopranos, which ran from 1999 to 2007.

Look, as much as I would like a show set in my native North Jersey and in nearby New York City to be the greatest TV show of all time, The Sopranos ain't it.

Yes, it was a very well-written drama. Yes, it could also be funny at times. Yes, the acting was great. Yes, it had some classic moments. And, yes, it also made the point, very well, that the kind of lives that these "men of honor" were leading was dishonorable, often horrible, how their real families suffered because of their activities in "the family," and should not be emulated.

So, I'm not saying it was a bad show. Not by a long shot. I am saying that, like all shows in which criminals are the main characters, it was not for everyone. That's a matter of taste. For all the violence and the over-reliance on profanity, there is much to be said in the show's favor. It deserved most of the accolades it got. And I'm not objecting to the ending of the final episode, either. Once the shock wore off, I realized that it was wholly appropriate.

Left to right: Steve Schirippa, Michael Imperioli,

James Gandolfini, Steven Van Zandt and Tony Sirico

But I can name at least one show in every decade of the TV era that did those things better:

* 1950s: Bonanza. (Barely: It premiered on September 12, 1959.)

* 1960s: Star Trek. (The original series.)

* 1970s: M*A*S*H.

* 1980s: Hill Street Blues.

* 1990s: ER.

* 2000s: The West Wing.

* 2010s: Mad Men.

* 2020s: CBS' FBI Franchise.

9. The Kardashian-Jenner Sisters Were Talentless "Heirheads." No. They started out in their father Robert Kardashian's music agency, then built their respective fashion empires. Unlike a lot of rich people who claim it, they actually have been "job creators." Because of her makeup line, youngest sister Kylie Jenner became American's 1st billionaire under the age of 21.

Left to right: Kris, Kylie, Kourtney, Kim, Khloé and Kendall

Are they publicity-hungry? Yes. Are their love-lives complicated? Sure. Do they bring some of the vast criticism they receive on themselves? You bet. And did they have the advantage of starting out rich, making the funding of their "empires" possible? Of course. But they do have talent, and they're far from stupid.

10. The Yankees and Steroids. Yes, I know: I already addressed this one in my 1990s piece. But it gained more traction in the 2000s.

There is a perception that the New York Yankees were as guilty as any other team when it came to performance-enhancing drugs. This accusation is not merely false, it is really, really stupid. The Yankees most often cited are:

* Roger Clemens. Men tried to prove him guilty in court. They couldn't.

* Alex Rodriguez. The evidence that he used them as a Yankee is flimsy.

* Jason Giambi and...

* Gary Sheffield. Neither helped the Yankees win a World Series. Giambi only helped the Yankees win one Pennant, they lost the World Series, to another cheating team no less, and he was hardly among the team's most consequential players.

* Andy Pettitte. He used, one time, to come back from an injury. That's hardly the same as gaining an unfair advantage. And the Yankees didn't win the Pennant that season, so they didn't benefit from it.

In contrast, look at the Yankees' postseason opponents in the years from 1996 to 2007, which corresponds to Joe Torre's seasons as manager and also, roughly, to "The Steroid Era." In chronological order:

* The Texas Rangers, in the 1996, '98 and '99 American League Division Series. Iván Rodríguez. It didn't work.

* The Baltimore Orioles, in the 1996 AL Championship Series. Rafael Palmeiro, Brady Anderson, and possibly others. It didn't work. It did, however, work well enough for the Orioles to beat the Yankees out for the 1997 AL Eastern Division title.

* The Atlanta Braves, in the 1996 and 1999 World Series. As far as I know, they were clean. If they did use, it didn't work.

* The Cleveland Indians, in the 1997 ALDS and the 1998 ALCS. As far as I know, they were clean, although there has always been suspicion, if not evidence, against Jim Thome. If they did use, it worked in '97, but not in '98.

* The San Diego Padres, in the 1998 World Series. Ken Caminiti. Presuming he was their only steroid user, it didn't work, as he went 2-for-14 with 1 RBI.

* The Boston Red Sox, in the 1999 ALCS. as far as I know, this edition of the Sox was clean. The most prominent Sox player of the 1990s who got caught, Mo Vaughn, was already gone by this point. If they did use, it didn't work -- this time.

* The Oakland Athletics, in the 2000 and 2001 ALDS. Both Jason and Jeremy Giambi, and Miguel Tejada. It didn't work.

* The Seattle Mariners, in the 2000 and 2001 ALCS. As far as I know, they were clean, but I'm always going to have doubts about Jay Buhner. He went bald early, and his plate appearances went way down due to injuries after 1997. Suffice it to say, even as good as he was, the production he gave the Mariners at right field from 1988 to his retirement after the 2001 season did not match the production the Yankees got at that position over the same period, first from Jesse Barfield, then, starting in 1993, from Paul O'Neill. So let's stop pretending that trading Buhner away was a mistake. The Yankees were better without him than the Mariners were with him.

* The New York Mets, in the 2000 World Series: Mike Piazza. Come on, admit it: Piazza lost a lot more of his cool than Roger Clemens did. If anybody was in "roid rage," it was Piazza. And it didn't work.

* The Arizona Diamondbacks, in the 2001 World Series: Matt Williams confessed. Luis Gonzalez had a Brady Anderson-type career, with his 2001 season being his version of Anderson's 1996, so don't tell me he wasn't using. And can we really be sure that Curt Schilling wasn't using? He's certainly arrogant enough to believe he could use and get away with it.

* The team now known as the Los Angeles Angels, in the 2002 and 2005 ALDS. As far as I know, they were clean.

* The Minnesota Twins, in the 2003 and 2004 ALDS. As far as I know, they were clean. If they did use, it didn't work.

* The Boston Red Sox, in the 2003 and 2004 ALCS. David Ortiz got caught. Manny Ramirez got caught. Take those two off the Sox, and they don't even make the Playoffs, and they franchise is, most likely, still looking for their 1st World Championship since 1918. And they couldn't have been the only ones. Trot Nixon? Mark Bellhorn? Bill Mueller? Kevin Millar? Kevin Youkilis? And Schilling was on that team. I want the blood on that sock tested!

* The Florida Marlins, in the 2003 World Series. Iván Rodríguez again.

* The Detroit Tigers, in the 2006 ALDS. Iván Rodríguez again.

* The Cleveland Indians, in the 2007 ALDS. As far as I know, they were clean.

So, as you can see, no team has been hurt more by steroid use than the Yankees -- other teams', and, as little as there was, their own. If any team's titles -- Division, Pennant, World Series -- from that period are invalid, the Yankees are far from 1st on that list.

The 2000 to 2009 decade was full of myths, some of them exaggerations of the truth, and some of them outright lies, that have persisted to this day. It is time to accept the truth.