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.

Suicide Pact

Recently I have been probing the liberal bloggers as to what the argument could possibly be as to why it is a bad thing that President Bush has in the past and will continue to in the future authorize the NSA to wiretap suspected terrorists calling from outside the country into this country or vice versa. On one of the better liberal blogs namely 2PoliticalJunkies I was accused of "hating" the constitution. Here's how I responded:

I don’t hate the Constitution. Robert H. Jackson, a former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and also the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials coined the phrase "'The Constitution is not a suicide pact". I think this concept is appropriate here. Essentially the constitution is to be respected and followed; however blindly adhering to it should not override common sense and practicality. Justice Jackson was dealing with a freedom of speech issue in this case. Basically, he was making the point that, although the constitution provides for free speech, if that free speech will most likely result in bloodshed than it is not necessarily allowed under law despite that fact that is explicitly provided for under the first amendment.

"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." -Associate Supreme Court Justice (1941-1954) Robert H. Jackson


Although he had no idea that his phrase would be used years later in regard to fighting the war on terror, the idea is that, under certain circumstances involving issues of life and death, a strict interpretation of the constitution that may result in bloodshed should not be the law of the land. After all, what use is the constitution if we're not here to enjoy its benefits?

That was met with the following by Maria (one of the blog's co-authors):

"Please explain why Bush had to break the law. The FISA law gave him the ability to get a warrant retroactively -- he has 72 hours. And, if he thought that was still not enough, why didn't he ask Congress to change the law? Why has he still not asked Congress to change the law?"

At which point someone else (braden) with sense weighed in:

"Maria, you'd complain if Bush didn't do anything to fight terrorism and as a result, this country were to get attacked by terrorists. When he does do something to fight terrorism from showing it's ugly face in this country, you still whine. The man can't win. Why? Because you and people like you have so much hatred toward him...so much hatred in fact, that you're willing to put this country's own security at risk in order to satisfy your thirst for political gain.

Breaking the law? It's a weak argument and you know it. Whine, whine, whine is all you and those like you know how to do. In fact, the only thing that you and those like you are doing is giving the terrorists more "power" to accomplish what they want to do. I'd hate to see this country get hit by another terrorist attack, and judging by you and those like you, I question whether or not you and those like you feel the same way at times. I hope it never happens, but if it were to happen, I cannot help but wonder what you and your liberal friends would have to say for yourselves to your fellow Americans, because it would be the left's fault for keeping Bush from doing his job to fight terrorism on our own soil.

As far as I am concerned, you're just a ticked off, sniveling little liberal who's throwing temper tantrums via this blog. When I read your whining about the White House explaining the differences between "domestic" and "international," that's about enough for me. Again, it's because this world today has to "spoon feed" information to those like you because you're all too idiotic to figure it out on your own - the same way a freaking' cup of coffee from Starbucks says "warning, contents hot!" Your arrogance is most unbecoming. Then again, you and those like you will continue to sit back, scratch your heads, and claim stolen elections when you yourselves are the reasons why you continue to lose them. Pretty amusing. What's not amusing is that you people continue to make the terrorist's job easier and easier every day."

A little angrier than I would have liked but Maria soldiered on nonetheless responding with:

"The Presidential Oath of Office is not long, so I'll repeat it here: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." In his arrogant and overreaching grab for power Bush has done his best to subvert the Constitution of the United States. Bush did not need to run around the low hurdle of the FISA Law, yet he did. If it was truly too burdensome, he could have asked Congress to amend it, yet he didn't. He could have supported Republican Senator DeWine's proposed bill in 2002 to lower the FISA standards, yet he didn't. He just does what he wants when he wants, laws and Constitution be damned. "What's not amusing is that you people continue to make the terrorist's job easier and easier every day." I thought according to Bush the terrorist hate us for our freedom. So is that why Bush wants to end it? It is Bush and people like you who defend Bush's trampling of our laws, our Constitution and our freedoms who do the work of the terrorists as defined by Bush."

At which point I hopefully put an end to this by saying the following:

Yeah, we're doing the work of the terrorists... that's so twisted my head hurts. You’re taking a lot of concepts far to literally. As a liberal you should understand Nuance. Not everything's as clear-cut as you present it. The freedom to which President Bush refers that the terrorists hate is not necessarily the freedom for terrorists to roam around and operate freely in our country. I don't believe the terrorists despise the ability to operate more easily within our country. Furthermore, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was penned in 1978 and the constitutionality of it is still is in question as is the Patriot Act. Matters that fall under either act are not legally a slam-dunk in either direction. So you should stop saying declaratively that the President "broke the law" because that has yet to be determined. Interestingly, FISA was enhanced by the Patriot act in 2001 to help try to bring a degree of modernity to a 28-year-old law. So, on the one hand you wonder why Bush hasn't amended FISA (something that any Democrat could propose if they were so inclined, but of course then they would actually be helping the situation) and on the other hand I guarantee you that you were one of those who cheered on Harry Reid when he giddily proclaimed, "We killed the Patriot Act." The bottom line is like "braden" said, Bush can't win for losing. The Left wants to make it as hard as possible for America (Bush) to effectively fight the war on terror so when an attack happens they can finger point and blame game.

It is disheartening sometimes when it becomes so apparent that many liberals care more about petty partisan politics than protecting the lives of American citizens. Coming from Boston I used to be sort of be liberal or at least a centrist but it's this exact type of morally bankrupt pettiness that drives independents and centrists to the right which seems to have a more sane and sober assessment as to what should be done to see to the continued existence of the greatest country in the history of man. The US of A.

Canadians move to the right, Palestinians to the wrong

With conservatives winning power recently it could be that Canada is ahead of the curve in regards to realizing that a party should offer more to voters than Bush-bashing and general negativity. This could signal a beginning of a shift in liberal thought. Surely, the Canadian left right now is rethinking their game plan. The American left would be well advised to do the same. Moving into the second year of Bush's Presidency it slowly perhaps is dawning on liberals that, first of all, the 2004 elections are a matter of history, and also that it will take more than just Bush-bashing to win elections. Really, it seems pathetic to Bush bash at this point. He's not running again and Americans will not necessarily hold all conservatives to blame for any mistakes President Bush has been perceived to have made.

Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala have a new book out entitled "Take it back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future". First of all, I wonder to whom do they refer taking back the party from, far left ideologue nut jobs? If that's true then I salute them for at least trying to resurrect the Democratic Party and attempting to make democrats palatable to American voters. Two strong parties and intelligent debate makes for a better country. Anyway, these two strategists were on O'Reilly the other day and it was very telling that their prescribed strategy seemed to amount to a repackaged version of Bush-bashing. James Carville seems like an intelligent and interesting guy, but it seemed a little desperate that he and his colleague kept going back to "Tora Bora" as a main talking point. Carville mentioned that Kerry was right to go straight after Bush and blame him for letting Bin Laden slip through our fingers in the Tora Bora mountain region of Pakistan/Afghanistan. Not to re-fight this argument but somehow I don't see a Democrat pressing further than Bush would militarily in any regard let a lone a circumstance where the American military commanders themselves recommended not letting the Tora Bora mountain region swallow up our entire military in a logistical and strategic nightmare. But besides that, as O'Reilly correctly pointed out to Carville and Begala, it would be more interesting and productive to have a forward looking strategy in regards to what should be done in the future. The American left seems to have a sort of "Remember the Alamo" mentality in reference to the 2000 and 2004 elections. There is a feeling amongst many liberals that Bush "stole" both elections. People are still driving around with bumper stickers proclaiming "Re-defeat Bush in '04". The folks at move-on .org should follow thier own namesake's advice and get over it. Referencing the past as a battle cry does not give any indication as to what voters can expect in the future except perhaps more bitterness.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians, god bless them, have elected Terrorists to lead them. I don't see this as a bad thing necessarily. There has been carping recently in the media decrying the implications of bringing democracy to the Middle East. Chants of "Be careful what you wish for" and sentiments suggesting that democracy is not desirable are hogwash. Under a democracy people are allowed to vote for whomever they want. That's how it works. Like a child allowed to think for itself for the first time it is not a surprise that mistakes are bound to be made. If Palestinians believe that they are best represented by killers than so be it. Perhaps someday they will become responsible "adults", to continue the analogy. It's very simple: if Hamas continues its blatant anti-Israel policies American will marshal the international community to not subsidize the Palestinian people. In a way it's better now. At least we now know what we're dealing with. By doing this The Palestinians just abandoned any international credibility. Also, interestingly, perhaps with the added responsibilities of actually running a government rather than simply throwing stones from the outside, Hamas will become more moderate. In a sick way it's not as romantic to be building infrastructure rather than suicide bombs so I won't be surprised to hear that Hamas has modified some of their policies.

Where's the toughness?

Toughness... as in standing up for yourself against overwhelming odds... as in standing your ground and fighting rather than running and hiding. I'd like to think toughness is a quintessential quality of Americans. Throughout history he have had a pretty damn good track record on this front. From taming the American frontier and wild west to kicking ass in two world wars we seem to be pretty good at standing up for ourselves and not rolling over. Problem is, we're losing our edge. Between the feminization of American men to an over-all touchy feely political correctness we are slowly becoming a nation of pussies. Thank god John Kerry is not president. There still is hope.



I bring this all up because, once again, we as Americans have to dig down and be tough in the face of the burgeoning mega-threat known as Iran. Iran is a country whose stated policy is the destruction of Israel. Therfore if Iran is allowed to create or posess nuclear weapons we can assume that a nuclear war will start. Let's imagine, for a moment how such a war would go. Here's the hypothetical scenerio: Iran has just nuked part of Israel. (They don't yet have the delivery systems to hit America in this hypothetical) So let's say 30 percent of Israel has just been annihilated and the rest is facing deadly fallout. Here's where the toughness comes in. I would love to probe the average bush-bashing anti-war leftie as to how America should proceed. I believe that if such a scenerio occured tomorrow, with our ally Israel essentially being blown off the map, President Bush would take decisive nuclear action against Iran. This would be the only appropriate response. This would be an "American" response. Because America is tough... or are we not. I would ask the anti-war left what they believe would be an appropriate course of action in such a scenerio. Since most liberals are hard to pin down on any given actual stance on an issue (other than abortion of course) asking this hypothetical question would be a difficult proposition. If you were to ask this question you would get a lot of hemming and hawwing and if you were lucky you would get a genuine response. The true inclination of a leftie in such a scenenio as presented above would be to "go to the United nations" or "seek a diplomatic solution".

It would be genuinely scary to me if a nuclear war started and someone like John Kerry were in charge. (and I'm not specifically picking on Kerry, its just that he was the latest offering to be commander-in-chief by the left) If Iran were to start a war by nuking Israel the time for diplomacy is officially over. Decisive brutal action has to be taken in a timely (read immediate) manner. The vascilating and consulting that a John Kerry would go through before doing anything meaningful would waste critical time and any kind of initiative would be squandered. I shudder to think what would happen next.

This is the world we live in. It requires toughness. To quote "Full Metal Jacket": It's a hard-ball world. At the moment, Europe is attempting to use diplomatic solutions to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities. They will fail. Iran has no intention of pursuing diplomacy. They have no intention of using nuclear capabilities in a peaceful manner. In one regard, the Europeans have succeeded. They have succeeded in delaying and allowing Iran even more time to develop nuclear capabilities. This situation is a disaster. I just pray that if war starts a conservative is in charge of our country so that our response may be characterized as "expedient decisive action" rather than "diplomacy and negotiations".

CNN article

5 days later the brilliant syndicated columnist Charles Krauthhamer gives his acerbic take on this catastrophe in the Washington post.
The Iran Charade Part 2

The New Year, The New Media

The New Year Is here and so is a brand new line up of personalities to be found manning the airwaves of the "Flagship" of talk radio here in Boston, WTKK 96.9 FM. Notably, Jay Severin is back and is now syndicated nationally. During his absence, his replacement, a genius of talk radio by the name of Michael Graham, remains in the same time slot of 3-7 pm. Severin is good and I'm glad he's back but Graham is far superior. Being right leaning, and from out of town, Graham is routinely butting heads with locals over various issues (and exposing the sheer idiocy of many of us). Out of towner or not, Graham has never come close to being proven wrong by a caller so far. Other highlights of the station include the hilarious Laura Ingraham, and the two Fox News all-stars, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, (each with their own syndicated radio programs).


Talk radio is part of the triumvirate of "new media" which includes Fox News, talk radio, and of course, blogs/Web based news. Those who seek a dramatically higher level of insight and commentary turn to these sources rather than the traditional 6:00 o'clock network news, the New York Times or CNN for example. The Triumvirate of "new media" thrives because of the very fact that all sides of a given issue are discussed. The days of a monolithic press are long gone. One who consumes the new media as voraciously as I, for example, cannot be cloistered in their thinking... it's impossible. Just on Fox News alone I get to hear the best and brightest heroes and strategists that the left has to offer. I probably listen carefully to more lefty pundits than many lefties themselves do. I am familiar with their talking points before they are even trotted out in a given discussion. Here's just a few of the names of left leaning heroes and strategists that I listen to on a regular basis, First the strategists: the thoughtful Bob Beckel, former Clintonite Lanny Davis, the wild eyed Susan Estrich, the shrill Mary Anne Marsh, NPR's Juan Williams and Mara Liason, The Boston Globe's Nina Easton, The Washington Post's Cece Connolly, Louisiana's James Carville and Senator Carl Levin are just a few names which spring to mind of lefties I can respect. I also am familiar with what the dopier category of lefties, I'll call the "heroes" of the left, have to say about the issues. Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry "we killed the Patriot Act" Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Barbara Boxer are just a few "heroes" of the left that I am very familiar with. My aim here is not to bore you with lists rather than to dispel the notion that "If only someone like me took the time to listen carefully to the best and brightest that the left have to offer" than I'd be more anti-Bush for example. Well I've listened and I'm not convinced, but I thoroughly enjoy the discourse and debate. That is of course, I enjoy it when lefties choose to debate, persuade and convince rather than to insult, shout down, or silence.

Stop The Nonsense !

Yesterday Democratic senator Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which was a brilliant summary of American progress in Iraq. Senator Lieberman's main point being "America cannot abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists." Thank God for Mr. Lieberman for bringing a degree of clarity to what seems to be a very confusing and confounding issue for most democrats. After watching President Bush's speech today on Iraq I am not sure what the anti-war left is unable to comprehend about America's strategy for victory in Iraq. In fact, as of now any American who is unclear on what the strategy is can download a 35 page PDF file, which details the exact strategy that is being pursued. This file is an unclassified version of the very same strategy that has been pursued for the last three years. There is no clearer way to present what our plan is. Perhaps now Democratic senators such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy will finally stop claiming things like "The president has no plan for victory in Iraq" or "There is no exit strategy in Iraq". Unfortunately, the carping continues on the left and makes an intellectually honest observer ask: what is it they still don't understand?

Last week or so a democratic congressman and former marine by the name of John Murtha, who had been a proponent of the war, called for the immediate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Murtha's proposal dovetailed nicely with a common theme that has been pounded so often lately by the anti-war left. The theme of Bush lied people died/ let's cut and run has been heralded so often lately that the American people have started to believe there is some merit to this position. Recent polling on Iraq has been negative which must excite the anti-war left. And true to form past presidential hopefuls like John Kerry and John Edwards have altered thier idealogy to conform with the latest polling data. Kerry is just as confusing as usual whereas in June of this year he was calling for more troops to be brought into Iraq and now he is calling for less, claiming that our presence there is inciting the terrorists. Which is it Mr. Kerry more troops or less? Here's a novel idea senator why not let conditions on the ground and the the military commanders on the scene decide those questions shall we? Kerry's campaign buddy John Edwards recently wrote and op-ed in The Washington Post in which he plays the game of "if I had known now what I had not known then I would have not supported the war". Not to state the obvious Mr. Edwards but: No one knew then what we know now. President Bush is a powerful man but he does not possess a time machine. In his remarks Edwards echoes other Democrats in congress who have been wanting to re-fight the political battle of going to war in the first place. Let me try to shed some light on this situation: For the record, all of the senators who voted for the war had access to the same intelligence report on the potential threat that Iraq posed to our security that the President had read, yet no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary. After reviewing some of this material I concur with what the President must have been thinking at the time. The President was told "... if attacked and "if sufficiently desperate" – Saddam might turn to al Qaeda to carry out an attack against the US with chemical or biological weapons. "He might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorist in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him," the report stated. The report did assign "low confidence" to this finding, however, it also assigned "high confidence" to the findings that Iraq had active chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and "moderate confidence" that Iraq could have a nuclear weapon as early as 2007 to 2009." * This intelligence was available to Congress when the House passed the Iraq resolution on Oct. 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133. The Senate passed it on Oct. 11, by a vote of 77-23. A total of 81 Democrats in the House and 29 Democrats in the Senate supported the resolution, including some who now are saying Bush misled them. All of this information is a matter of public record and can be verified at Fact Check.org. Having been presented with this information in a post 9-11 world I, like many senators and congressman at the time, would tend to agree with the President who must have concluded that even a possiblity of of a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack could not be tolerated. This information coupled with all of the other legitimate reasons to go to war, such as violating the the cease fire of 1991 by shooting at our planes, untold human rights abuses, and resistance to weapons inspectors just to name a few, is more than enough justification to go to war with Iraq. These are the, far to often overlooked, facts of the situation which are inconvienient for the anti-war left.

*From fact check.org


In a brilliant move Republican senators proposed to put John Murtha's plan to get out out of Iraq to a vote, forcing Democrats in congress to put there money where there mouth is so to speak. The measure was resoundingly defeated 403 votes to 3. So, Democrats are decrying the war and calling for troop withdrawal yet when asked to vote they act in opposition of what thier rhetoric would tend to suggest. In Murtha's defense, by the way, he later stated that he was merely attempting to start a dialogue on the topic which seems fair enough but where does this leave us? The reality is the anti-war left does not want a strategy for victory in Iraq. The inexcapable truth is that what they really want is America to be defeated in Iraq. As Mort Kondrake, one of my favorite centrist commentators, recently stated, "Senators like Nancy Pelosi are invested in America losing the war." Thier Bush-Bashing and general opposition would be vindicated if America loses the war. This state of affairs is absurd: to have some members of one of the political parties be more interested in being able to say I told you so than they are interested in the very survival of thier own country.

[the following is a sidebar]
The level of rhetoric put forward by the anti-war left would be laughable if it were not regarding such a serious subject. Some of the Democrats in congress have become so blindly partisan now that they seem like caricatures of themselves. Harry Reid is like a cartoon character in some dark politcal comedy. Recently Reid, like other democrats in the past, adopted a rhetorical theme/turn of phrase that he must have noticed was used successfully and effectively on the right. This phenomenon is a political copy-catting of sorts. It is a childish ploy that makes the party doing the copying look very foolish. It happened alot during the last presidential campaign but here's the latest example: In the first volley of counter-attacks, that was long overdue, from the White House regarding this latest struggle over Iraq, Dick Cheney said the following: "The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone. But we are not going to let them sit by and rewrite history." The childish Reid must have noticed how effective that rhetoric was when Cheney used it but rather than respond with an original thought that could have possibly advanced the discussion he simply adopted almost the very same charge and simply levied it back at Cheney. In a speech Reid gave a few days later on the senate floor he accused Cheney of making a "spineless" attack. Notice how he tried to disguise his copy-catting by changing "losing their backbone" to "spineless" He wanted to use the same rhetorical and conceptual theme as Cheney did so badly that he didn't even use it effectively. It does't even work rhetorically to charactaize an agressive action such as an attack as "spineless". Using the description "spineless" in this case doesn't even make sense within its own framework as set forth by Reid. Typical of this debate, again it is the adults vs. the children.
[end of sidebar]

While we're on the subject of Iraq let me de-bunk two other favorite talking points often used by the ant-war left. First is what I call the chicken-hawk argument. And I'm being generous by calling it an argument. There is this idea that unless you have served or are currently serving in the armed services you are essentially un-qualified to comment on Iraq. Dick Cheney is a favoritie target of the chicken hawk argument. Dick Cheney is part of the civilain leadership that is leading the war. He has devoted his life to public service and is offering up ideas on how to defeat our enemies. It is absurd to suggest that only a warrior has license to comment on matters of war. I would assert that even the opposite is true. Meaning: civillians are serving the troops by being part of the discussion about what the troops are doing. I reject the notion that only those who have served are allowed to comment. The chicken-hawk argument is not even an argument really. It is simply a personal attack that the anti-war left uses to distract from actually having a factual discussion on the merits of the subject. As we all know, the personal or ad hominem attack, a favorite tactic of the left, is the lowest form of debate. It is used by those who are losing the argument. Therfore, I hope we can all agree that the chicken-hawk argument is for the birds.

Another anti-war talking point is the notion that Iraq is a Vietnam-like quagmire. If democrats want to compare Iraq to Vietnam I wish they would examine the one noticable simialrity that is: As was the case in Vietnam, the oppostion forces have no chance of acheiving a military victory, but if they follow the Vietnam archetype they can hope that the American Left at home undermines support to the war to the point where troops are drawn down prematurely based on some arbitrary political time table which would amount to a kind of victory for the terrorists. That is, however, where the similarities to Vietnam end. The main difference being that the the enemy in Vietnam had a political ideology (namely communism) whereas the Iraqi insurgent's agenda and philosophy boils down to: Kill and Cause Chaos. As Jon Stewart recently quipped "The terrorist's strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the arab people by killing them doesn't seem to be working." (He said this while watching footage of arab students marching in protest of the insurgency leader Zarqawi after a recent Amman, Jordan hotel wedding bombing that killed primarily arabs.)

In the end, Democratic critics of the war and the Cindy Sheehan anti-war far left are just going to have to reconcile the fact that America will see this cause through to it's conclusion. No amount of dredging up or re-writing the past will change the course laid out by President Bush and it kills them. The fact that we may be successful in Iraq terrrifies them. The anti-war left is livid because they realize that, as the President said in his speech today, "... America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief." and it kills them that history will view the war in Iraq as a worthwhile enterprise.

Triangulation Revisited

The Governor-Elect of Virginia, Tim Kaine, is part of a new breed of Democrats. Even in a "red state" a Democratic Candidate, who posseses the optimum blend of centrism and common sense practicality, can be elected. Add in a healthy sprinkling of religious references and expression and the candidate becomes very palatable indeed to the average American voter.

This observation is either alarming or refreshing ...it's hard to know which. I believe that the man is genuinely religious. He is religious without be a zealot. Also, importantly, he got elected by moving to the center, AKA moving to the right (in his case). As an optimist, I choose to believe that Governor-Elect Kaine representend himself genuinely as religious man who is opposed to abortion. A cynic would say that he simply adopted some conservative principles that which he strategised would get him elected. Whatever the case may be, it would seem prudent if some of the more far-left Democrats were to adopt the Tim Kaine playbook of moving to the center if they want to get elected. I believe that we will start to see more and more Democrats abandoning the far-left Michael Moore conspiracy theory brand of rhetoric in lieu of a much more practical and agreeable brand of centrism.

If my prediction comes true a new paradigm of political positioning will emerge onto the American political landscape. It is Clinton-era triangulation* re-invented. The ingredients of this new type of triangulation seems to be: Tough, centrist, Democrats claiming the political territory of religion, and hawk-ishness usually reserved for Republicans. What will be the next ingredient? Democrats getting elected by promising to cut taxes? It's almost a "if ya can't beat 'em join 'em" mentality or perhaps more cynically a "if ya can't beat 'em then simply adopt their policies and platforms".

*The main principle behind the political strategy of triangulation is that if a candidiate assumes the same or similar positions of thier opponent then the line that differenciates the two candidates is blurred thus increasing the chance of success for the chameleon-like candidate.

My prediction is that we will see a new wave of centrist Democrats attaining success by adopting this latest incarnation of Triangulation... Did someone say Hilary?

We shall see.

In Defense of the Religious

The following has been transcribed from a friend's blog on which I made a lengthy comment which decontructs a "joke" forwarded by a M.I.T. professor: (to see the original post click here.)


Forwarded from a Professor at M.I.T.

Dear President Bush:

Congratulations on your victory over all us non-evangelicals. Actually, we're a bit ticked off here in California, so we're leaving. California will now be its own country, and we're taking all the Blue States with us. In case you are not aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and all of the Northeast. We spoke to God, and God agrees that this split will be beneficial to almost everybody, and especially to us in the new country of California. In fact, he's so excited, God is going to shift the whole country at 4:30 pm EST this Friday. Therefore, please let everyone know they need to be back in their states by then.

So you get Texas and all the former slave states. We get the Governator, stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get all the technological innovation in Alabama. We get about two-thirds of the tax revenue, and you get to make the red states pay their fair share. Since our divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms to support, and we know how much you like that. Did I mention we produce about 70% of the nation's veggies? But heck, the only greens the Bible-thumpers eat are the pickles on their Big Macs. Oh yeah, another thing, don't plan on serving California wine at your state dinners. From now on it's imported French wine for you. (Ouch, bet that hurts!)

Just so we're clear, the country of California will be pro-choice and anti-war. Speaking of war, we're going to want all Blue States' citizens back from Iraq. If you need people to fight, just ask your evangelicals. They have tons of kids they're willing to send to their deaths for absolutely no purpose. And they don't care if you don't show pictures of their kids' caskets coming home. Anyway, we wish you all the best in the next four years and we hope, really hope, you find those missing weapons of mass destruction. Seriously. Soon.

With the Blue States in hand, the Democrats have firm control of 80% of the country's fresh water, over 90% of our pineapple and lettuce, 92% of all fresh fruit production, 93% of the artichoke production, 95% of America's export quality wines, 90% of all cheese production, 90% of the high tech industry, most of the US low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Amherst, Stanford, Berkeley, CalTech and MIT. We can live simply but well.

The Red States, on the other hand, now have to cope with 88% of all obese Americans (and their projected health care cost spike), 92% of all US mosquitoes, nearly 100% of all tornadoes, 90% of all hurricanes, 99% of all Southern Baptists, 100% of all Televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia...a high price to pay for controlling the presidency. Additionally, 38% of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually eaten by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44% believe that evolution is just a theory, 53% that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 and - most hard to grasp - 61% that Bush is a person of moral conviction.

Sincerely,
California

Who knows if any of the stats are accurate. I love the facetious delivery, though...
posted by fhold @ 12:18:00 PM

At 7:53 PM, JMars said...
Rather than facetious I would use fallacious to describe this bitter rant disguised as humor. Allow me to deconstruct this affront to reason being passed off as some kind of argument.

The first paragraph starts out innocently enough and in good humor except for the advancement of the fallacious idea that all bush voters are “evangelicals”. The Left loves to pit all religious people against those of us who are not exceedingly religious. Lefties love to point out how “divided” the country is as if to say that it is Bush’s fault. Now if pitting religious people against non-religious (a.k.a. secular) people is not divisive rhetoric I don’t know what is. So, it is fallacious to presume that all Bush voters are heavily religious. The thinking man’s leftie should not advance this idea as the backbone of their argument. Also I do find it offensive that the supposedly tolerant, non-judgmental Left constantly levies judgments on religious people as being somehow idiotic and void of rational thought. I’m not religious at all and in fact find religion a bit silly at times but I would never presume to know better and/or make a judgment on those of us who practice religion. This is an example of how the left preaches tolerance but will only tolerate you if you agree with them.

The second paragraph is a seemingly arbitrary and rather childish listing of good things in America and how they all occur in blue states and bad things in America and how they occur in red states. Perhaps the most egregious fallacy is that he supposes that the democrats are the party of “America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs”. Wait a minute I thought that the big bad Republicans are the party of corporate America, wall street and venture capitalist businessmen. Every small business owner I know is a republican because they prefer a more hands off government and a decrease in the scope and influence of government. The fact is that Wall Street, Corporate America, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and small businessmen are not in favor of expanding government and increasing taxes for social programs like the Left is. Democrats so often try to run away from what they actually are. So much so that they don’t even call themselves liberals any more. They use the euphemism of “progressives” now. The word liberal itself has become a pejorative term. Why don’t lefties revel in what they are rather than run away from the fact that they are for raising taxes and expanding government? They should be proud socialists rather than pretending to be pro-business and pro-growth. Later in the second paragraph the true liberal venom and vitriol comes out when he advances the idea that only “bible thumpers” eat at McDonalds. In this case his anger overwhelms any concerns he may have had to be accurate. You’re telling me that none of the stoners in California nor at Northeast college campuses eat at McDonalds. Comments like this betray the liberal's elitism, as if to say “only us non-religious enlightened people should have a say about public policy because we at the New York Times editorial room and Ivy league College campuses know what is right for America. Again, as long as you agree with the elites they will allow endless discussion. They react with cartoon-like anger to any one who dares to call in to question their progressive secular agenda.

The third paragraph in this opus (how’s that for facetious?) addresses the war in Iraq. Apparently his position is that the war in Iraq has “absolutely no purpose”. In the post “The Siege Of London” on my blog I attempt to explain to anyone who still doesn’t understand what the war on terror entails. In simple terms: The terrorists are against Human Freedom. The only way to beat the terrorists is to advance the banner of human freedom and democracy into their homelands. For better or worse, the Bush administration chose to clean up the Iraq situation first. Now we have a base of operations in the Middle East in case we need to clean up any other nearby festering cesspools of irrational hatred and/or fascist regimes. I suppose this M.I.T. professor has his own vision on how to conduct a pro-active war on terror. I wonder, does he propose we do nothing and hope the terrorists lose interest and go away? Whatever the case, his position, if you can call it that, is untenable. Either he believes we should not be conducting a pro-active war on terror, which is idiotic, or he has other ideas about how to conduct such a war. Any responsible rhetoritician should have an alternative proposal to an idea that they call into question or shoot down. On this question and many others all we get from the left is negativity and Monday morning quarterbacking. The closest thing that I have heard presented as an alternative vision on the war on terror is the old tired idea that “we need to get other countries involved” or “go after Osama Bin Laden more”. First of all, it is other countries that need to realize that they have to get themselves involved. No amount of sweet-talking or diplomacy can get a country to do something that they themselves don’t believe is a problem for them.


On the matter of going after Osama Bin Laden more I would ask left-leaning rhetoriticians to cease and desist using that argument because they are embarrassing themselves when they betray their lack of understanding of the military situation on the ground as well as implying that if we were to get Osama then the concern of Islamic Fundamentalist terror would no longer be an issue. Bin Laden is a small piece of the puzzle. Anti-Western Islamic terrorism goes much deeper and is broader in scope than Bin Laden or even Al Quaeda. We will be battling terrorism for many generations after Bin Laden dies. Our only hope is to advance democracy in these countries that spawn such hatred of the West. As far as the tactical situation regarding the going after Bin laden in the caves of Afghanistan; I have heard from military strategists that even if we were to put every soldier in the whole United States Army into the mountains we would most likely fail to find him and incur unacceptable casualties. The reality is that the terrain of this trackless mountain landscape is such that when combined with weather situations (which do not allow helicopters in at all) our entire army would be essentially swallowed up. The only other military option vís-a-vís Osama is to nuke the entire area. Just imagine the collateral damage that lefties would point to as evidence of America’s heavy handedness if we were to take such a course of action, not to mention the geo-political fallout that would occur when a massive nuclear cloud floats over India, Iran or China. Getting Bin Laden is too politically and logistically costly as well as being practically irrelevant to solving the overall problem of Islamic terrorism. We’re probably better off letting him die of natural causes anyway due to the fact that killing him would just be a rallying cry to future generations of terrorists pointing to The Martyr, Osama Bin Laden.

The end of this diatribe that I am deconstructing is a little too silly to even comment on. Wow, blue states control 93 percent of artichoke production, how telling.

In conclusion, I hope that the left can come up with some more compelling arguments other than religious people are stupid and that the war in Iraq is bad even though we have yet to hear an alternative approach to conducting a pro-active war on terror. I pray that this M.I.T. professor is not in the political science department, otherwise college campuses have become even more elitist, anti-religion, anti-war, and out of touch with the common man (A.K.A. the average voter) than I had known about.

The Siege Of London

Since England was hit 3 days ago other European nations have stepped up security and anti-terrorist efforts. Today it was reported that Italy arrested 142 people in a major anti-terrorist sweep just in the city of Milan alone. I believe that (Western) Europe is beginning to realize that they have a big fat target on their forehead regardless as to if they help us with the war on terror or not. Granted, An attack on England might as well be an attack on America in terms of long time allies and all that. However, an attack in England is also an attack on Europe. Frankly, I'd be terrified if 10 percent of the population I was residing in was Muslim (such as France). Some of these countries should take a long hard look at their liberal immigration policies that allow whole neighborhoods of terrorist petty thugs to crop up. Also, I don't buy that these barbarians are strictly against America because of some imagined "American Imperialism". That argument is simply a convenient excuse to mask their true hatred (whether used by them or someone attempting to minimize their impact). Truly, Simply, the terrorists are against Freedom. Human Freedom is the antithesis of what the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists stand for. Any trappings of western culture, with all of its free marketplace and un-paralleled individual freedom make their skin crawl. For my part I can say that the feeling is mutual. Our only hope is to advance the banner of human freedom into their wasteland. Reactive, law-enforcement type measures will not cut it. Furthermore, this problem was not caused only by America nor is it only America's problem to deal with. Conceivably, any freedom loving democracy is the enemy of these thugs and killers. Perhaps, the rest of Europe will begin to realize they're not going to get a pass just by being anti-American!

CNN SUX

I am watching live coverage of the Iraqi election right now. It started at 11 pm (Eastern standard time) earlier tonight and is now into its fourth hour or so. As Usual with big news events I switch from the two major cable news channels. The one with ratings and the other one. It's time's like this I am reminded why I don't watch CNN too much (like many others apparently). I just saw a series of reports meant to focus on the negative. I could tell that the anchors (who had been hyping up the violence factor) were stunned and dissapointed to hear a rather candid Christiane Amanpour delivering a downright positive and upbeat report implying that the overall story is not the moderate violence but the elation and excitement of the Iraqi people. After getting shot down by a very professorial Iraqi cabinet advisor, whose intensity dwarfed the foolish desire to focus on the violence, the two obviously agenda driven, news anchors finnally found what they wanted; a sort of exaggerated and alarmist reporter practically trying to terrorize voters himself with his report of, considering the importance of this day, minor incidents thus far. That same reporter right now is interviewing a random passer-by Iraqi voter and asking; "Aren't you scared that you'll be killed because someone will see the ink on your index finger signifying that you voted?". I could tell that he was dissapointed when he was met with yet another excuberant and defiant Iraqi saying that he is not scared and saying several times passionately "We want to get rid of every sign of the Saddam Government!" And for those who might imagine that Fox News does not somehow tell the whole story I can tell you categorically that every piece of newsworthy information is presented there. Everyone knows that there will be viloence, but CNN's rather obvoious desire to focus in on that as the main story is disgusting and reminds me why CNN SUX.

The Eve Of Elections

American forces are digging in. Sniper teams are in place. Surveillance cameras are monitoring and recording. A night time curfew and a ban all driving has been enacted. Elite Iraqi Forces are digging in. Many of their brethren have already been gunned down in a most cowardly manner and they're making this thier fight, equipped with the latest armaments, tactics, and body armor that America has to offer. Polling places have become veritable fortresses. Three Top Enemy Lieutenants have been quietly captured. Refugee and immigrated Iraqi's have already voted across the World.

I Can't imagine the mentality of someone willing to give thier life to vote. There are many Iraqi's who feel that way. I also can't imagine the mentality of someone who would wish that these elections do not go well. I Know that there are those here in this country, forget foriegn terrorists, who secretly hope that these elections do not go well. I Suppose, the reasoning being (if you can call it reasoning): "I dislike this administration/Bush so much that I hope the violence continues and that the elections in Iraq don't go well". Ted Kennedy, for example, secretly hopes the elections go horribly and, in which case, his argument that Iraq "Is a quagmire" and "Is George Bush's Vietnam" will be vindicated. This mentality is unacceptable. Just look at the lead story on (the left leaning) New York Times.com. "Shi'ite Faction Ready to Shun Sunday's Elections In Iraq" Wow, what a surprise, more doom and gloom from the left. Focus on and accentuate the negative. I find this, as their lead story, deeply offensive. It's this sort of rank partisanship that turns centrists like me off to the Democratic party, and it's the reason they lost the race for the oval office. Not Iraq, not 9/11, not the Swift-boat vets, but this transparent and self-serving mentality of hoping things don't go well for America because their guy is not in office. Their obstructionism in congress and a demonstrable paucity of ideas to replace the ones they shoot down are not becoming.

Anyone reading this better hope that the Iraqi elections go well. Do not do so would be Un-American. You can join the ranks of the blame-America first crowd. And perhaps worse, you are allowing vanity or pride to get in the way of what is the best for America, Iraq, and The World.

Attitudes

In the latest Featured Survey offered up by the Pew Research Center(A left-leaning organization, if anything) It is revealed that only 17 percent of Kerry voters believe that "Military Force is the best way to defeat terrorism". I'm not sure what measures the majority of Kerry voters would recommend (or at least approve of) for dealing with the bullies, thugs, and murderers that comprise the enemy. On the question of: Should America "be active in world affairs" or should "we concentrate on problems at home" the results of Bush voters vs. Kerry voters are inversly proportional. Most Bush voters want to be active in world affairs as opposed to concentrating on problems at home. And for Kerry voters, the reverse is true. This brings to mind, what has almost become almost a cliche by now, "Having a pre-9/11 mentality". No wonder Liberals have had such adverse reactions to The President's ambitious and bold vision of the world presented in the Inaugural Address. Most people wish we could "concentrate on problems at home", but guess what. We tried that. In the Clinton 90's we tried to leave the world to their own devices and ignored certain festering problems and looming international crises. After 9/11, I thought at least, We all had realized America needed to adopt a more pro-active role on the International scene, but if you believe this Pew Survey (Which I do) an alarming amount of us still believe we can go on sticking our heads in the proverbial sand.

Top 3 Fantasy Movies '04

#1 Lord of the Rings Trilogy
#2 The Butterfly Effect
#3 Farenheit 9-11

A Strategy for Howard Dean

Howard Dean has officially thrown his hat into the ring in the race for Chairman Of the Democratic Party. News Link This is an important position, especially now. I admire Dean's passion and gusto. So far he seems like the most interesting choice for DNC chair. Now he needs a strategy. Not only a strategy to win this particular position, but a strategy for the Democratic Party as a whole. The strategy he should use is called "Triangulation". Triangulation is a brilliant, perhaps ethically challenged political strategy designed to appeal to the maximum amount of voters. I believe this strategy was first observed in action/invented by former Clinton Advisor now turned right wing pundit, the brilliant Dick Morris. Clinton used the strategy of triangulation to great effect. In simple terms: Triangulation is simply adopting some if not all of your opponent’s platforms and positions, thereby taking away glaring differences and, in turn appealing to the maximum possible number of voters. It is, essentially, being all things to all voters. But there are problems with this. Democrats and Republicans represent values at either end of the political spectrum. One party feels that their policies would benefit the country and that the other party's ideas would be detrimental and vice versa. Triangulation, I suppose, relies on the "grey area" between strict party lines. This strategy was a big part of the reason Clinton served for eight years.

There is another president that won eight years in the white house due to his team's use of Triangulation. His name is George W. Bush. Karl Rove Brilliantly used triangulation to get Bush re-elected in what seemed to be an impossible situation (for them). As a result of this "being all things to all voters" approach what we have is a supposedly conservative administration that has increased the size of government and spent its way into a deficit. We are prosecuting a war while spending mucho cash on social programs. We are ramping up homeland security efforts while at the same time allowing mass unchecked immigration. Triangulation begets contradictions. But it also begets results. And it's results that Howard Dean needs. As governor of Vermont he was a reasonably conservative democrat. Then, in his presidential bid he became very liberal. If he could possibly tone down some of his liberal/Bush-bashing rhetoric he might be able to slowly morph into a more viable candidate by using Triangulation (or at least a form of it). If, on the other hand, he and his party remain on the far left (ideologically) or continue focusing on demonizing the other party and its candidates as a primary strategy they will continue to lose elections I'm afraid.

A Wave of Anti-Americanism

I'm afraid that this Tsunami business has given the forces of anti-Americanism grist for the proverbial mill. The latest round of Bush bashing revolves around the president's reaction (of lack therof) to the Tsunami effected countries needs. First of all, everyone has to calm down. A well planned relief effort surely will be more effective than a rushed one. America will do what is needed to get the world back on its feet. We always do. America is and has been the largest source of humanitarian aid in the world. Last year alone, American aid in dollars represented 40 percent of all aid given. We come up with almost half the money and all we ask is that every other country in world kick in the other half. There should be no complaints about our generosity. And for those still whining that 35 million isn't enough money for Tsunami victims, you may want to be aware that: President Bush just authorized a 350 million dollar aid package for tsunami victims. I imagine we will be giving more in the end which, along with the current level of aid puts and end to the latest round of Bush bashing. Next.

Terminal Kickassity

The assault rife meant to replace the M-16 currently used by American Forces is close to coming on-line. Meet the XM8. Among its many other bad-ass features, it's actually four types of weapons in one. With a few modifications, the XM8 can be used as a sniper rifle, a light squad support machine gun, an assault rifle with grenade launcher, and a close quarters compact carbine.

The future of weaponry is almost here.

What is Kerik thinking?

On the heels of President Bush demonstrating support for Koffi Annan to remain Head of the UN comes an equally puzzling development. Bernard Kerik, one of the heroes of 9-11, has rescinded his acceptance of the position of secretary of Homie Boy Security (read homeland security). WTF... This guy would have been perfect. A welcome departure from the semi-milktoast and undeniably bland former office holder, Tom Ridge. Kerik is Rudolph Guiliani's right hand man and a true bad ass. After being the NYC police commisioner under Guiliani he went to Iraq to oversee/consult with, the newly founded (and now floundering) Iraqi security forces. A brave and forceful man to say the least. Now it appears that he has encountered "personal issues" that would "interfere with" his ability to "fully perform his duties..." Whatever.. I have some theories of my own as to why Kerik is doing this: 1. Perhaps he has been recently enlightened as to the political expediency of his acceptance of this position. Meaning: if he has any other future political aspirations than perhaps accepting this nomination would be a detriment. (Apparently the position of homeland security is a loser because either you're seen as a nazi-like totalitarian law-enforcement type who tramples on civil liberties or as the guy who allowed an attack to occur. If an attack occurs on the SecHS's watch, it appears to be due to his/her incompetence.) 2. Perhaps he really has some kind of personal crap to deal with. Who knows... His daugher has cancer.. whatever. And Number 3 theory is left... to the lefties.... I'm sure the left (and leftie bloggers) have some sort of conspiracy-ish theory as to why Kerik stepped down. Something like: Secretly he works for Haliburton and/or was one of the nine gunmen who killed Kennedy from the grassy knoll. Anyway, That's at least 3(ish) theories as to why this dude stepped down. Who Knows.... It may be convienient for Kerik to be available in say ... four years. Right around the time that Rudolph Guiliani runs for president. Hmmm... Wonder who He'll pick as a runnning mate.

In Memory Of Dimebag/ Bar Wars II

One of the dopest guitarists in all of heavy music was shot in the face and killed last night in Ohio. MTV News Link Police have identified 25 year old Nathan Gale as the shooter. He was apparently disgruntled over the break up of Dime Bag Darrell's former band, Pantera. The new band was called Damageplan and featured other former members of Pantera including the drummer and Dimbag's brother Vinnie Paul who was shot as well . From what I can gather, here's what went down: The shooter mounted the stage at some point during Damageplan's first song of the night. He must've gotten the band to stop playing before pulling out the gun because witnesses report he was shouting at the band regarding Pantera'a break up, saying among other things, "What About Phil!", Refering to Phil Anselmo (Pantera'a former frontman). He then proceeded to empty his automatic handgun into Dimbag Darrell's face at first then his upper body as he went down. Some fan reported thinking that this was somehow part of the show. Then, after changing clips, the gunmen shot at other bandmembers and then into the fleeing crowd. Finally at this point part of the crowd (probably led by bouncers) tried to rush the gunman and disarm him. Being a former marine the gunman was no slouch (in terms of interpersonal combat) and was able to dispatch the first incoming would-be-heros. Details are vague but at somepoint during this struggle a cop, who had heard the gunshots initially, gained access to the club through a rear door. When the cop came upon the scene from behind he saw the shooter holding a hostage in front of him and was targeting others, possibly bouncers. The desicion must have been a simple one for the cop who had the tactical advantage of approaching the shooters from a blind spot (not to mention being armed with a shot gun). The cop targeted the back of the man's head and opened fire possibly striking the hostage as well as dropping the maniac shooter. At this moment im watching a police press conference in Ohio and the spokesman refered to the manner of the cops actions as "strategic". This cop, named James Neigermeyer, probably prevented many more deaths and is a hero. And Dimebag Darrell, creator of many glorious heavy riffs, great songs, and blazin' guitar solos will be missed.

Dominance

This photo was taken on Sunday April 22, 2007. A Red Sox game I was at where the Red Sox, specifically Manny Ramirez, JD Drew, Mike Lowell, and Jason Varitek, hit 4 back to back home runs to go on to defeat The Yankees and complete a three game sweep. Dice K was the starting pitcher, but the highlight for me was seeing my favorite pitcher in baseball, Jonathan Papelbon, dominate A-rod and the Yankees. The pic below was taken from my seats on the first base side.

Music review: Testify

The Christian rock, nu-metal, post-grunge band by the name of P.O.D. has a new album out entitled; "Testify". The album is …Luminous, as is the band P.O.D. I'm realizing. Testify is the fourth album by P.O.D. who came on the scene back in 1999 with “The Fundamental Elements of Southtown”. By now they have clearly mastered their form of swirling layers of guitars over a tight rhythm section laced with tasteful rap and reggae style singing. With the appearance of Hasidic reggae rapper Matisyahu on the Very first track, “Roots In Stereo” the best rock reggae metal combo is realized since 311 Grassroots. Track 11 “Strength of My Life” also features Matisyahu as well as a poignant feeling hook interwoven into an edgier more interesting version of one of the best Sublime tracks. “Mark my Words”, track thirteen, is just phat. In a hip hop meets power chord sort of way. It’s easily one of the best songs on the album, or any album released this year for that matter. When I purchased the album at the Imusic store it came with mucho bonus material including a fifty minute discussion of the album by the band with the album playing in the background and several Itunes compatible music video movies. The mood of P.O.D. is pensive and reflective while also being triumphantly jubilant at times. The duality of mood that Metal meeting Reggae accomplishes allows for transitions and sections in the song structures that tell more of a story than any single genre band is capable of. This album represents Reggae Metal at its best.

Bar Wars

Wow I've never seen so many cops, bouncers and patrons fighting at one time in the same melee as the other night. Cops fighting bouncers, bouncers bottling club-goers .... I guess that's par for the course in Providence at this place I was at, the other night: Jovan's. What a scene. Hip hop brawl anyone?

Limo Times

I have done away with my Limotimes blog. From now on everything will appear on this blog. For now here's a highlight from the now defunct Limotimes blog:


Christmas Surprise!

On Christmas Eve we had a break in here at Shady Limo Inc. Someone smashed a window in every limo in order to swipe the stereos and some TV's out of the back of each car. Merry F'in Christmas... Now its into January and our company has still not recovered. Both of our Excursions are still off line. (Which screwed us on New Year's eve) I was pretty pissed at who did this. They abused my beautiful Excursion. Dope stereo gone. The silver lining is that now we (hopefully) will get top of the line multi-media presentations re-installed into every car. I will settle for nothing less in my excursion than a kick ass mp3/CD playing stereo with mega bass and a some sort of DVD presentation. Maybe some flip down DVD screens from the roof or, at the very least some screens that actually work in an all weather environment. The two crappy LCD flat screens that the thieves labored to extract from my excursion are worth about 15 bux each and don't even work. There are multiple Soprano-esque theories as to the why/how this incident occured. Druggies looking for a quick score, a former disgruntled employee or employees seeking revenge, a rival limo company seeking to cripple us for new year's, and perhaps the most intriguing theory; that the theft was carried out by my boss himself. Gee, come to think of it, the only car that was untouched was the brand new 2005 sedan, the same car my boss likes to tool around in. -Tuesday January 4, 2005

Assault into the Triangle of Death

Now that the election is behind us our forces in Iraq can take the (politically correct) gloves off without fear of the negative-story centric liberal media being squeamish or the likes of John Kerry grabbing the latest headline and somehow making it the foundation of his campaign. On the heals of a successful Falluja campaign; American and British Forces, flanked by newly trained Iraqi commandos, are sweeping into what is being called the "Triangle of Death" This is an area south of Bagdhad where terrorists have been generally menacing the countryside and having thier way with the more peaceful inhabitants of Iraq. The gloves are off finally and we can kick some arse. Go get 'em boys.

"Do you hear that, do you hear that?"

Dan Rather has announced his resignation and thus a pillar of the mainstream media has been removed. Lets hope the whole house collapses. I’m sure it will one day, as more and more people turn to sources like Fox News, talk radio, and enterprising bloggers for their source of aggressive investigation and insightful commentary. Now it makes sense why Dan Rather was sprinkling so many Texas down home style phrases into his election coverage. He knew that these were his final days and he had so many great phrases that no one had heard yet. I’d like to hear a medley of all of his hokey and folksy phrases that he used on election night. “George W Bush is cutting a swath through the south like a ferris wheel through a field of cotton” and so on. At one point, I remember tuning in to Rather and there was a bizarre silence and then in a kind of trippy moment when he gave an odd look to the camera after a long pause and said quietly “do you hear that, do you hear that?” At first I thought he was talking to his producer or someone off camera, then he suddenly blurted: Knock, knock, knock….. George W Bush’s Presidency is knocking on the door.” Well, he was at least factually accurate this time unlike his and his networks attempt to foil the Bush candidacy with an asinine, un fact-checked, attempt of a story that even if it were true wouldn’t really matter/move votes. Of course I'm refering to when Rather and CBS broke the story that they had documents proving that GW was awol or whatever.
Oops, it only took bloggers about five minutes to find out that the documents, that supposedly were authored 30 years ago were created using Microsoft word! As Homer (Simpson) would say: D’ohhh! Goodbye to “the dull witted advocate” as a Boston radio show host just called him.

Everything is Everything

Left: Right
Emotion: Logic
Subjective: Objective
The Water: The Rock (Taoism)
Female: Male
The Arts: Math & Science
Liberal: Conservative

Marine Shooting!

You heard it here first! In the marine shooting incident that is all over the news lately: The terrorist who gets shot in the incident is not the person who the edited for TV clip leads you to believe it is! The unedited video shows another scene playing out on the other side of the room at the moment of the gunshot sound. And one can quite clearly see that a different enemy trooper is being shot. This seems significant becuase im sure when most of America sees the edited footage they are basing whatever desision vis-a-vis the soldiers guilt on a misleading piece of footage. I do find it odd that the pundits have yet to notice this. Bill O'Reilly, for example, claims to have seen the unedited footage but fails to correct everybody's assumption. If you dont believe me then find the unedited footage online and see for yourself.

Concession

I's Nov 3rd and I'm watching John Kerry’s concession speech at Fanuiel Hall. As one Bush voter visiting Boston from Florida stated about Kerry when interviewed: "This Is The Classiest thing John Kerry has done." I tend to agree. This, believe it or not, is John Kerry’s finest hour.

This Is The Classiest thing John Kerry has done.

Clearly he's struck the correct tone and in doing so he's departed from the kicking and screaming, by any means necessary, style of democratic rhetoric, a-la Al Gore and others. He is on the verge of tears and this time I believe the words he is saying. He is giving the best speech of his life, conciliatory and at times moving. It is a sad day in Boston, I’m afraid, but a great day for America.

Now I’m watching the Bush acceptance speech. Well, actually Cheney is on first now and apparently George W Bush won the highest popular vote count in American history. And there was a record voter turnout. Amazing. The message America is sending to the world is clear. The rest of the world now has proof of our resolve and our support for our president, even in the face of his detractors best, and at times underhanded efforts. Our Allies overseas have been heartened and those countries that have been troublesome will be forced to reevaluate their dislike of our President.

Spasms

The Republican National Convention just finished and as a result John Kerry too, is finished. He’s now undergoing the spasms and convulsions of dying. As evidence I offer the remarks he made in a special emergency press conference that was held at midnight immediately following the President’s impressive convention speech. This Presidential Address served as the finale of pretty stellar week of memorable performances by Arnold Swartzeneger, John McCain, Zell Miller, Mitt Romney, and Rudolph Guiliani just name a few. Kerry's lame response consisted of blatant misinterpretations of what was said at the RNC followed up by petty, childish comments and hypocritical whining about “meanness”. The rhetoric of the left has officially become laughable and John Kerry will lose this election.

Kerry's Latest Nonsense

In a recent interview Kerry accuses the Bush campaign of getting very “angry” in regards to the Vietnam era. First of all, this “anger” is purely imagined. I believe it is the dems who are more known for their anger in the recent months. How often does one see Bush or Rumsfeld or Condoleezza Rice foaming at the mouth ala Al Gore or Howard Dean? He’s trying to spin. The Kerry campaign is aware that Mr. Kerry’s actual voting record indicates that he is extremely weak on defense and more or less anti-military. Democrats are trying to switch the debate to the Vietnam era. Kerry himself is, like so many Dems did previously, whining about being called unpatriotic somehow.

As was the case before, right after 9-11, the Dems are imagining that someone is questioning their patriotism, when in reality it is their policies and voting records/tendencies that are being called into question. Kerry will continue to try to talk about 30 years ago in an effort to avoid the much more relevant issue of how strong he is on defense based on his voting record. Moreover, the fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry has no proactive vision of the war on terror. He, if anything, (because after all it is rare to hear him o pine about truly relevant defense issues) leans towards a more law enforcement based answer to terror which is reactive rather than proactive. Kerry would never seek to find these terrorists were they live and route them out, he would rather wait until we get hit, then find those responsible and then wait until the next attack.

This issue of the prosecution of the war on terror is the most important issue of our time and Kerry can continue to smokescreen and bring up almost any other, less pressing, issue but eventually the American people will see which candidate is a stronger wartime president.

Careful Now

John Kerry has to be careful not to lose himself in the glee and enthusiasm of being anti-Bush because he may, unintentionally be interpreted as anti-American. On NPR (of course) the other day in his zeal and single-mindedness to be anti-Bush, he first laughed innapropriately and then made absurd commentary vis-à-vis the recent uprisings in Iraq. Kerry referred to the terrorist newspaper, which serves as a propaganda machine, published by this rebel cleric, Al Satar, as a “legitimate voice”. But even Kerry knew rhetoric like that was too over the top and so he then flip flopped mid-sentence when he artfully omitted the term “legitimate” the next time he mentioned the subject. Nonetheless he persisted in siding with Al Sater on this matter, lost in the excuberance of jumping all over any source of any possible Anti-Bush sentiment. The sheer idiocy of aligning yourself with a foaming at the mouth anti-American terrorist is beyond me. The only conclusion is that Kerry’s zeal to be anti-Bush blinds him to what the actual correct stance is. Kerry will continue to align himself with the terrorists, The French, The corrupt UN, and other “unnamed foreign leaders*” and, in turn, will not win the election.

*Kerry had claimed to have met with various vague foreign heads of state casually in New York coffee shops. Yeah Right.