Ports and such

The Boston Globe is reporting that, "Ted Bilkey, chief operating officer of Dubai Ports World, said the state-owned company was volunteering to exercise no influence for an indefinite period over the six US ports run by a British port company in order to allow the rest of the $6.8 billion acquisition to proceed without the delay urged by many members of Congress."

After some negotiations and possible modifications of this deal I believe it will go through. If proper oversight is applied, coupled with the obvious flexibility that the company itself is exhibiting in order to allay the American population's security concerns, then this economic deal will go forward. (Check the comments section of this post for a more comprehensive overview of the situation which also, is an anaylsis that I agreee with.)

At this point, clear thinking individuals on both sides of the aisle actually agree with the President that this deal should be allowed to go forward. Most of the people against this are revealing that they are against this deal for political reasons not security ones.

Confusion within Idiocy

There seems to be some disagreement within the ranks of Radical Islam as to whether or not to continue rioting over the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Amazingly enough it appears as though some elements of Radical Islam are not on the same page. What a shame.

"We should try to cool down the situation. We do not support any violence," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said during a visit to Brussels today. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, radical Islamic leaders are calling for an increase in the scope and intensity of these "Prophet Drawings" protests.

Apparently at least some, within the command structure of Iran, possess adequate brainpower to realize that encouraging protests, which result in the deaths of their own population, is not a beneficial policy. However, in other Muslim countries the violence and rioting continues with seemingly increased vigor. At this point, the riots have claimed the lives of 45 people, most of which were Muslims, I imagine. And three days ago, a Pakistani cleric announced a $1 million bounty for the killing of the cartoonist who drew the Prophet Muhammad caricatures.

This is pure insanity, and only goes to isolate radical Islam as utterly unreasonable, undeniably violent, and therefore exceedingly dangerous. At this point, it is abundantly clear that the phrase "peaceful coexistence" and "radical Islam" are mutually exclusive terms. Also, as long as these irrational “protests” occur it only lends credence to the theory that we are dealing with a people (in radical Islam) who are profoundly unenlightened and intellectually primitive.

I point this out not to insult, but rather to illuminate, with the earnest hope that the appropriate steps will be taken to combat our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

On The Loose!

Someone has apparently let Al Gore out of whatever cage his handlers keep him in. On Sunday he turned up In Saudi Arabia giving a speech to mainly Arabs at the Jeddah Economic Forum. He spent much of the speech bashing the policies of his own country. So much for the adage that “politics stops at the water’s edge”. My question is: Do we consider Al Gore a domestic enemy or a foreign enemy to the United States? I think a good case could be made that he should be considered a foreign enemy to the US because his rationale and beliefs are so alien to what a reasonable American would think that I find it hard to believe that he hails from our country. During the speech he invented some facts that don’t exactly calm the tensions between Muslims and the West. He contended that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after Sept. 11. To detail this contention he said that Arabs have been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. First of all, the “rounded up” part is pure fantasy and I defy Al Gore to provide evidence to the contrary. The “unforgivable conditions” part sounds like something he stole from Dick Durban’s complaint about the treatment of terror suspects at the Gitmo camps. When Dick Durban outrageously compared American prisons at Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps, Soviet Gulags, and Polpot’s Prisons in Cambodia at least he was referring to reality, you know, as in something that actually occurred. On Sunday Al Gore simply dreamed up some complaints to level against his own country while oversees and his timing couldn’t be worse (or better depending on your perspective). With all of the anger over the “Cartoon Controversy” you’d think he might not seek to further inflame tensions between Arabs and the West. It’s the same old story with Al Gore. In his zeal to be anti-Bush he forgets himself, his country, and any decency and respect that he may have had. Al Gore is so embittered and delusional he’ll still be Bush-bashing long after the man is no longer even President.

Gore went on to compound his idiocy by complaining that the Bush administration has been “routinely blocking Saudi visa applications”. Who knows if this is even true but I hope we are applying considerably more scrutiny to visa applications from citizens of a country from which 15 of the 19 September 11th terrorists came from. Personally, it would be fine with me if all visa applications were denied from the entire Middle East! I’m certainly not concerned with the “routine blocking” of visa applications from Saudi Arabia, if that is even occurring. If Gore is using the same standard of veracity as his other complaints then he’s dreaming up this one as well.

Gore is truly a piece of work. This man was almost our President. I think I’d prefer a John Kerry or even a Howard Dean to be Commander in Chief than the delusional Al Gore, and that’s quite a statement.

Dear Hamas... from Russia with Love?

Vladimir Putin, supreme commander of Russia, has apparently been making overtures to Hamas. At a Kremlin news conference he invited them to Moscow for "talks". Later in the speech he pointed out that, “The Russian Foreign Ministry has never regarded Hamas as a terrorist organization.” If Putin wants to cozy up to an organization that advocates the annihilation of a race of people that’s his business. What I am more disturbed by is his characterization of the Hamas election victory as, “A big blow to American efforts in the Middle East, a very serious blow”. What does he mean when he says “American efforts”? Why does he explicitly say "American" efforts and not "The efforts of the International Community"? Does he not share our goal of bringing peace to the region or is he implying that we have some dastardly ulterior motive? Like many critics of President Bush's Middle Eastern policy, I believe he’s confusing our desire to bring democracy to the Middle East with our appreciation of having “friendly” governments in the region. This comment by Putin is just the latest example of what seems to be a concerted effort by some of our opponents, political and otherwise, to misinterpret our intentions in the Middle East. To start, a distinction has to made between the desire to bring democracy to the middle east and the desire to have a non terrorist (or terrorist friendly) government holding power in the region. Lately, our rhetorical enemies have been trying to muddle the two issues in an attempt to somehow show that America's policy in the region is flawed. For whatever reason, they fail to grasp the fact that, while we are seeking to bring democracy to the Middle East, it does not however mean that we will be hand picking the governments that may come to power. Moreover, it is possible to be in favor of promoting the advancement of democracy in the Middle East while at the same time not being thrilled with the results. Our main goal is: democracy, in and of itself. If the government that the people elect is reasonable (you know, like not having a stated policy promoting genocide) and/or “friendly” to our interests that would be a desirable result for sure. However, it would miss the point of democracy if we were to install the government of our choosing and therefore we would never have any part of it. The Bush doctrine on this is clear and straightforward: For the most part, democratic nations don’t attack each other in anger. Therefore, if we can effect the advancement of democracy in a turbulent region of the world, then the population of that region would be more inclined towards peace. Nowhere in the Bush doctrine does it say, “We will allow the people to vote, but if we don’t like the results than we reserve the right to install who we want.”

This discussion is also very relevant to what is occurring in Iraq. The vultures waiting in the wings, who want to see Bush fail in Iraq are getting ready to use, in their insidious arsenal, the fallacious idea that, if a non secular or “unfriendly” government does come to power in Iraq then Aha…Bush has failed. In reality, one has almost nothing to do with the other. In Fact, if an “undesirable” result does occur in a fledgling democracy it actually lends credence to the Bush Doctrine. It proves that America is genuine in its simple desire to bring democracy to the region, period. We don’t get to determine the results. That we helped bring a degree of democracy to whatever given country is enough.

If a population elects leaders who are corrupt, inept, or war-like then they will have to deal with the ramifications that will inevitably follow. They will have to learn the hard way, through additional years of instability and bloodshed most likely. It’s a form of political “growing pains” because after all, democracy itself is always a work in progress. For example, I don't believe that the people of France enjoyed the "Reign Of Terror" which followed the French Revolution but it was part of their transitional period between absolutism and democracy. The Riegn Of Terror was an awful and bloody period but because it occured does not mean that the people of France, ultimately, are not better served by being able to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society.

Some anti-Bush socio-political ”experts” point to this fact that, in some cases, a country becomes more violent, initially, after democracy is realized and then they conclude, "Aha…Democracy is not desirable." This analysis misses the big picture. That a democracy may be more violent initially than a previous form of government does not overrule the idea that, in the long run, democracy is more beneficial to a population than any other form of government. Hence, the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East is a worthwhile approach and is not rendered invalid or flawed if the results of a given election are not to our liking.

Crouching Dem, Hidden Agenda

At the Coretta Scott King Funeral, did anyone notice Bill Clinton’s giddiness when he tiptoed around the fact that his wife will be running for president? He was about to say; “I’m honored to be here with past presidents, the current president, and our future president, my wife Hilary.” But before he could finish, Hilary shot him a look, as if to say, “Honey, we can’t mention that yet, I’m still in the process of misleading the people of New York State into believing I will serve a full term if re-elected to the senate.” Even though he didn’t explicitly say so, Bill Clinton was shamelessly using the funeral to announce the candidacy of Hilary for president. Yet another painfully inappropriate moment which occurred during the supposed “tribute” of a deceased woman.

Hilary Clinton is so disingenuous it turns my stomach and Bill seems to be getting a little senile or something. Normally he would be deft enough to keep up whatever the Clinton political pretense du jour would be. Yesterday Hilary Clinton accused the president of fear-mongering to gain political ground. We've had to deal with this lame indictment before on countless occasions. Whenever a conservative correctly points to terrorism or national security as one of if not the most important issues on the minds of most Americans and what he or she plans to do about it, like babies, certain lefties accuse them of "fear mongering". To me, this is a tacit acknowledgement that democrats are weak on terror. They know it is not a winning issue for them so they seek to silence any discussion of it. So Hilary, by beating this dead horse of "fear mongering” is prepping us for the fact that she will be weak on terror if elected. Yeah you're right Mrs. Clinton, we should just forget about that whole silly terrorist thing. Oh 9-11, whatever… let it go.

Democracy is Anathema to Islam

It seems that the protests and other ramifications of this “cartoon controversy” have continued and gained intensity across the world. Ironically, it’s the Muslim reaction to this that is more cartoonish that the actual cartoons in question. At this point, unrest has spread to Afghanistan (where the worst violence occurred today) Somalia, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Syria and even India. There has to be more going on here than just offense over a depiction of Allah. It is my understanding that radical groups have been exploiting and encouraging a lot of these “protests”. Could it be that radical Islamists are “getting that sinking feeling” when they look around and see the advance of modernity closing in? Recently, there has been much progress on the advancement of democracy around the Middle East. This must be alarming to the more fundamental elements of Islam who do not benefit from allowing a free society, free expression of ideas, and democracy. It is my theory that this worldwide “protest” over a cartoon is really a negative reaction to the advancement of freedom that is occurring everywhere all over the Muslim world. What we are left with is the exposition of the fact, at least at this point in world history, that Democracy is anathema to Islam.

Spraying down the forces of "Anti-Democracy"

One Sided Arrogance

A great articulation of the "one sided arrogance" of a people who commit violence to protest a disrespectful depiction while constantly countenancing the far more egregious and routine outright hatred levied upon the Jewish people.

The Logic of the Middle East

So let me get this straight. Muslims are angry that a Danish cartoonist depicted them as violent and so in protest, in order to demonstrate that this criticism is baseless and off the mark they react by threatening violence and laying waste to a Danish Embassy in Lebanon. Champions of logical persuasion, these Muslims...



Just look at this to the right. It says it all. From a Muslim protest in England. Real good idea, to allow so many obviously grateful Muslim immigrants into the UK. Extremist Muslims are such lovely people. I'm so glad we share the earth with them.

Then we have the wonderful leadership of Iran, who reacted to being reported to the UN Security Council by openly advancing the weaponization of Nuclear technology. So let me get this straight. Iran is angry because we don't believe that they are only seeking peaceful uses of nuclear capabilities. So to protest and to prove that this is not the case they react by pretty much admitting that they are pursuing nuclear weapons? Has the art of logic not reached the barren wastelands of Iran yet? When they do actually anounce that they have nuclear weapons will they then acknowledge that they had no right to be indignant when the suspicions of the International community had been correct? Right now, they are upset that they are being accused of seeking nuclear weapons and so their response is to continue rapidly down the road towards that end. Why do they persist with this pretense? Ahh... the minds of the modern middle east...such paragons of logic and virtue.