The Art of the non-Apology Apology

"She played the race card and failed", Charles Krauthammer said yesterday of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. He’s right, and this story would have been over a while ago if not for Ms. McKinney’s obvious attempt at race baiting and deflection. Also, it appears as though she has attended the Dick Durban School of non-apology apologies. I despise the non-apology. To me, it grates on all precepts of logic. Either apologize or don't apologize. If a person feels that they were in the wrong, then an apology is appropriate. On the flipside, if a person feels that they were the aggrieved party, as McKinney was initially suggesting, then they should not apologize. If only people like McKinney could speak as plainly as I have just indicated. Instead we get this Clintonion doublespeak non-apology/semi apology. On the house floor yesterday McKinney said, “I regret that this incident happened.” Right off the bat, when someone starts off with such a defensive and non-committal statement like that, you can tell that a true apology is not forthcoming. Saying, “I regret that the incident happened“ suggests absolutely no accountability or responsibility of wrongdoing. It is a generic comment, which is equal to saying, “I wish that the incident did not occur”. She went on to say, “There should not have been any physical contact in this incident.” Great…another non-committal remark. Does that mean: I should not have struck the officer? Or does that mean: The officer should not have placed his hand on my shoulder while I was in the process of ignoring security procedures? How can this be even considered anything approaching an apology? Clearly, when she says, "...physical contact should not have occurred” she is referring to the officer's conduct and not her own. Or is she being purposefully vague? What an annoying woman. She concluded with, “I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize." First of all, to whom is she apologizing to at the end of her statement? Certainly, in this final apology she is not apologizing to the officer involved, otherwise she could have apologized to the officer in person, which she has not yet not bothered to do. It is not an apology to essentially suggest the equivalent of, “I’m sorry that you got offended” or "I’m sorry that you took my remarks the wrong way". It would be like using a racial slur against someone, and then pretending to apologize by saying, “I’m sorry that you got offended.” Expressing regret is not the same as apologizing. I've already heard from those on the left protesting any rejection of this so-called apology. They say, "She apologized, what more do you want?" To them I would point out that simply because the word apology is mentioned within a body of speech does not mean that an actual apology was offered. Rather than looking for certain keywords one should look at the sum total of her remarks, which amount to an apology couched within a defense. True contrition should not contain any defensive statements.

Dick Durban would be proud, Cynthia McKinney followed his model of finding contrition only after the public outcry and repercussions drove her to do so, and then offering a cover-all-the-bases apology non-apology. Couple this with her pathetic attempt to inject race into the matter unnecessarily and anyone can agree that she is either a racist or very stupid. Either way, she has demonstrated rank incompetence. This woman is a disgrace to the office that she holds and probably should just resign.

Invasion

Ahhh...such a demonstration of respect for our country. By all means, continue to break our laws by illegally infiltrating into our country.

I've been reluctant to cover this topic becasue I'm not looking forward to being labeled a racist or a xenophobe, but what happened the other day requires my attention. In a public California High School, the Mexican flag was raised in an apparent expression of solidarity with the peoples of the sovereign nation of Mexico. If that was not enough of an insult to the United States, the American flag was raised upside down underneath it. Yes, we get the message. Mexico:good, America:bad. You will not see images like this on MSNBC.com for example. The mainstream media doesn't really want anyone to see this side of the current "immigrant rights" debate. Of course, "immigrant rights" advocates should really be called "illegal immigration” advocates and “undocumented alien” is politically correct code for "illegal alien". Conflating the last two terms is like driving without a license and then being pulled over by a cop and saying” I’m not driving illegally without a license officer, I’m just an ‘undocumented’ driver.” Then the cop would say, "Oh I see, you’re just 'undocumented' not illegal…OK please go about your business, you’re free to go.” And I love the last picture here. Thanks for the history lesson. At least this picture makes it clear that many illegal aliens have no interest in becoming a part of this country and making it better, as the apologists would have you believe. I refer the apologist to the last picture I have here. You cannot tell me that the people depicted here consider themselves to be American in any way. Clearly they see themselves as subjects of the sovereign nation of Mexico. What term describes when peoples from one sovereign state move in and occupy a neighboring sovereign state? I believe the correct term is: Invasion. If illegal aliens want to stick with the argument that America has unjustly occupied parts of Mexico and that they are now redressing the matter, then they are forced to admit that they have no interest in becoming American. That's how logic works people...it's either one or the other stance. Are you a Mexican or are you an American?

In Protest of Progress

Hundreds of thousands of “Students” have been protesting in the streets of France attempting to make sure that the status quo stays firmly in place. They are not advocating some new radical social policy, protesting human rights abuses, or any anything else so lofty. They are protesting new legislation which would make it easier for French employers to fire an employee, which currently is nearly an impossibility. Under the news laws, there is a possibility that a French employee would not have a guaranteed job with the same company for life.

In a country with 10 percent unemployment and a growing and obviously discontented Muslim minority population who essentially are not allowed to participate in the French job market, you would think that the populace would wise up and allow their government to take steps to rectify the situation, as this new legislation is attemping to do. In France, no such luck. Protesting and the flipping of cars seems to be France’s national pastime at this point. The average person on the street seems to be of the mindset, “protest first, ask questions later.” In France, if you are one of the 75% of people with a good job guaranteed for life regardless of your ability to carry out said job, then everything for you is fine. As a result, French employers are actually less likely to even hire new employees, or as many employees because once a person is hired it is nearly impossible to fire them regardless of their job performance, proficiency, or competence. I can see why there is an emotional knee jerk response to want to see that the status quo stays firmly in place because, no one wants to be out of a job. But beyond the surface, eventually there has to be the realization that an open, performance based job market is more beneficial to the French economy because it allows French businesses to be more competitive with businesses overseas who are not hamstrung by and beholden to a paternalistic “cradle to grave” government which makes sure that most of its citizenry has a guaranteed job for life at the expense of its own global economic competitiveness.

For the moment at least, it appears as though the romance of protesting against the French government has won out over logical and prudential policy, which is what happens when a country fails to embrace capitalism and instead clings to the tenets of “cradle to grave” leftist thought and the flawed principles of socialism.

Pounding the Message Home

Today in West Virginia President Bush delivered a speech in which he went into greater detail about the thought process behind our efforts In Iraq. After the speech, he took questions from the audience. This was the third Q & A session in as many days that the President has conducted.


For whatever reason, the American public, almost on a daily basis at this point, needs to have it explained to them; what is going on in Iraq, and why we are doing what we are doing. For better or worse, I actually agree with what an audience member pointed out; that this is what Bush needs to do. He has to continue to pound the message home by explaining the nuts and bolts of what is ocurring in Iraq as well as, and perhaps more importantly, explaining his overall big picture philosophy on achieving our objectives in the war on terror and beyond.

Yesterday we had the Bush and Helen Thomas press conference sparring session and today, a rousing speech. The Anti-Bush forces have their tired, incorrect, talking points such as declaring that Iraq had absolutely no connections to Al Qaeda (which Stephen Hayes has proven is categorically untrue) and to counter this constant pessimistic, doom and gloom drumbeat, Bush will have to constantly present his own talking points, of which there are many. If Bush explains his rationale on a daily basis as he has been doing, support for our efforts in Iraq will increase. Lately, he has been doing a good job on this front. As Bush pointed out, the enemy in Iraq cannot defeat us militarily, thier only hope is either to drive Iraq into civil war or wait for American resolve to crumble. For his part, we at least know that it won't be the President's resolve that will crumble. Today Bush presented his arguments in a clear and logical manner, not leaving any room for ambiquiity. The President's straightforward approach to all of this speaks to his 'transparency'. If Americans take the time to listen to what he is saying, then they will learn exactly what Bush's rationale and thought process is. Bush himself spoke of transparency when addressing why India should be allowed to posses nuclear technology and Iran should not. On this also, he made clear and logical argument. He said:

“My attitude is that over 30 years they [India] have proven themselves to be a non-proliferator, that they're a transparent democracy, that it's in our interest for them to develop nuclear power to help their economy grow. On the other hand, Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Their Government is not transparent and they're certainly not a democracy. They're sponsors of terrorism and they have violated safeguards imposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

He went on:

"They [Iran] have joined the IAEA, and yet we caught them cheating and they weren't upholding their agreements and they started to try to enrich uranium in order to develop a nuclear weapons program.”

In another interesting moment during the Q & A session following the speech, I felt a chill when an audience member said, “I have two sons serving in the military… and I Thank God that you are our commander in chief!” which encouraged a standing ovation. This particular audience member went on to express a sentiment that has been on the minds of many patriotic Americans: that Bush needs to continue to engage the public in a discussion about our efforts in Iraq, like he has been doing recently. Not so much a progress report, but a daily pounding into the stubborn minds of those who fail to understand what we are doing in Iraq; what it is that we are doing, why we are doing it, and that our efforts there represent a just and necessary cause.

War, Civil War, or Neither?

Yesterday, On ABC’s “This Week ” with George Stephanopoulos, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who the Washington Post accurately describes as “A frequent critic of the administration”, said the following:

“I think it's important that we stop this talk about we're not going to leave until we achieve victory. Well, what is victory? We achieved victory, Saddam's gone, the Iraqis have a constitution, they had an election, it's now up to them.”

I’m inclined to agree with this assessment of the conflict in Iraq, which implies that the war in Iraq ended when Saddam was removed. By saying "we achieved victory" Chuck Hagel brings up an interesting point, which is: should we even consider the current conflict as "The War In Iraq"? And moreover, does it even really matter what label is applied to the conflict? And for the record, calling the Iraq conflict a war or not does in no way diminish the efforts of our troopers who are toiling there.

Then there is the matter of “civil war” in Iraq which has been bandied about quite often lately. To start, The Bush Administration is certainly not willing to concede that Iraq is in the grip of civil war. Civil strife perhaps, but not war. On the other hand, Iraq’s interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a man to be respected to be sure, on Sunday’s BBC “AM Programme” suggested that there is no other way to describe the sectarian violence that is going on in Iraq other than calling it a civil war. He said:

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

On the aforementioned ABC Sunday show, Senator Hagel seemed to agree with Allawi’s assertions when he said:

"I think prime minister -- the former prime minister is correct. I think we have had a low-grade civil war going on in Iraq, certainly the last six months, maybe the last year. Our own generals have told me that privately, George [Stephanopoulos]. So that's a fact.”

But what kind of, and how widespread is, this 'civil war' if it does indeed exist? From my understanding, Iraq is a Nation of some 25 million plus persons. Of which, only a small minority are involved in or want to be part of, a civil war. If the millions of persons in Iraq were to want a civil war, then the 135 thousand troops we have there could hardly prevent it. In reality, it is only the terrorists who desire civil war and the recent violence can hardly be desribed as anything approaching a "full scale" civil war. Whatever the case, I don’t think it is fair to say that we are at war with Iraq and that Iraq is involved in a civil war. It seems to me that either one or the other is true. Possibly neither label is truly appropriate.

Perhaps relying on the application of such terms as ‘war’ or ‘civil war’, in order to measure success is not a worthwhile exercise because; how we define what is transpiring in Iraq, in and of itself , does not do anything to advance our overall objectives in the region. For example, those who are opposed to our efforts in Iraq seem to want to say, “Aha, Iraq has devolved into civil war and therefore we should pull out.” Or “…therefore we should have never gone in.” Applying these sorts of artificial and arbitrary benchmarks and labels of “civil war” or “war” are not helpful in our efforts. Even defining a “victory” in the classical sense, seems to me to be painting ourselves into a corner unnecessarily.

In the end, people can go ahead and apply whatever terms they want to the conflict in Iraq, but the fact remains that we are invested in the country and region, and that one way or another we have to see this thing through. If humanitarian concerns are somehow not enough of a reason to see the situation through, then certainly all can agree that stability in Iraq would go a long way towards achieving our overarching objectives in the war on terror. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Americans who would like to see us make progress in the war on terror to support our President and our Nation's efforts to help stabilize, and hopefully one day bring a free society and peace to, the country known as Iraq.

The Perfect Pour

1. Hold glass at a 45 degree angle to the tap.
2. Pull handle to the full horizontal position.
3. Fill glass until 3/4 full. (The Pour.)
4. Allow the Guinness to settle completely. (The Cascade.)
6. The head should rise just proud of the rim. (The Presentation....)

Raise, enjoy, and repeat.
Happy St. Patrick's Day

Reined In

Harry Reid and Dick Durban seen here “conferring” with Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, who on Monday proposed a resolution calling for the censure of President Bush because of his involvement in the NSA wiretapping “controversy”. The measure has yet to even elicit much of a response from Democrats much less anything approaching public support. This whole business is helping to reveal the true colors of most Democrats (in Congress). It seemes very much as if they are ruled strictly by public opinion polling data, not by principle. As was the case with the Dubai Ports Issue, if senators would take a second to convince the American public of the merits of a subject before parroting negative mainstream media reporting and blindly following flash public opinion polls, then it would at least appear as though Congress is the group of decision makers that we pay them to be. Yes, Congress is charged with representing the views of the people, but the average man on the street does not have the time to do all of the intensive research that major policy decisions should involve. I believe that this “reading of the fine print” on an issue, is the job of Congress. Being accountable to the voters and blindly following their uninformed lead are two very different things. Such is the case with Feingold’s proposal. Democrats are looking at polling data which suggests that the majority of Americans are in favor of the President’s wiretapping approval and a conscious decision is made to not to be associated with an effort to censure the President for this matter. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reports brilliantly on just how talkative prominent Democrats were today when asked about Feingold’s resolution. The answer: Not very. John Kerry even had a flip-flop-esque moment when he rushed by reporters claiming not to have the time to address the matter only to be stopped a few footsteps later by a security procedure queue where he had nothing but time, while he waited in line. Chuck Schumer, who has been so talkative lately, also had no comment. Like all other Democrats in Congress (except Feingold) apparently, Schumer's position on the wiretapping issue is contingent on the whimsical results of the latest flash public opinion polls and whatever stance is politically expedient in an election year.

I actually applaud Feingold for taking a principled (albeit wrong) stance on the matter. Will the real liberal please stand up? Finally, a liberal who can stand up and be counted as such. Perhaps Feingold can teach the rest of his Democratic brethren that there is more to public office than political expediency. That means you, Hilary!

Sunk

The Dubai Ports Issue is officially over.

Of course Democrats, lead by Chuck Schumer, will try to beat this dead horse in an effort to prove that somehow they are the true terror warriors. Memo to Chuck: no one's buying it. American voters didn't fall off the goddamn turnip truck yesterday. It is going to take more than slapping a moderate Arab government in the face to prove that it is the Democrats, not Republicans that are strong on defense. How short do they imagine our memory is? The Democratic turn around on national security has been nothing less than amazing. It will be interesting to see how things play out. Will Democrats actually from now on be "tough on terror", or will they default to their natural position of expanding the rights of terrorists and generally hampering America's anti-terror efforts?

Questions like this arise when a political party is governed not by core principles, rather by the tenets of political expediency. For example, are Democrats now fans of wiretapping possible terrorists? Or are they against that anti terror measure? Now that the ports issue is over, we will undoubtedly see Democrats move on to the next issue that they imagine they can bash Bush over the head with, which will probably be the NSA wiretapping “controversy”. I wonder, does anyone on the left care about logical consistency or are they all so single-mindedly aligned to bash Bush and conservatives that logic itself has no bearing on their position? Chuck Schumer thinks he’s so slick, yet in reality he is nothing more than a Sophist. As a competent lawyer with an agenda, he simply advocates whatever position that he imagines is politically expedient. Schumer is the ultimate example of a philosopher-politician. The result: Sophistry. No core principles, no logical consistency. For the rest of us non-sophists, let me get this straight; Democrats are all of sudden averse to doing business with Arabs yet they have been endlessly preaching that Bush should be making allies in the region and not acting unilaterally. Or was that just last week’s battle cry? Again, I can’t help but wonder, why do we even bother even trying to apply logical analysis to Democratic stances on issues? The Democratic party's mentality on issues at this point has become so tedious that I almost wish we could just ignore them and they would go away. And as someone who enjoys logical debate, I actually wish they had a substantive stance on any issue.

Hack

I would love to ask this hack passing himself off as a high school geography teacher, to point out, where in the transcript of The State Of The Union Address does Bush say, "It is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out in the world and make the world like us."

Among other perversions, this is what teacher Jay Bennish is heard relating as fact to his 10th grade geography class on a tape made by an enterprising student.

After “quoting” President Bush, Bennish goes on to say, “Sounds a lot like what Adolph Hitler used to say."

Ahhh… the good old straw man argument. Yes, If Bush had actually said this, then it might have sounded reminiscent of Hitler.

Is this cretin referring to this, particularly stirring, passage of the speech?

“Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.” -President Bush

Yes, very Hitlerish I’m sure. Liberals like this teacher are so blinded by ideology that it appears that they are incapable of comprehending the English language fully. Either that, or this jerk is purposefully misconstruing what our Commander-In-Chief has said in order to prove some sort of Michael Moore-ish political point about how America is the primary force of evil in the world.

Most bloggers, who by nature are not accountable to anyone generally, much less the taxpayer, have a much higher standard of veracity than this twit, who is doing his best to indoctrinate 16 year old kids. What a disgrace.

Complication

There is a new development which results in further complication of the Dubai ports deal. Apparently the UAE is participating in an Arab league Boycott of Israel. The Anti-Defamation League has asked the President to torpedo this deal because of this new development. Also, US law prohibits any American company from "taking action that supports this boycott". This could be the final nail in the proverbial coffin for this deal. The one saving grace is that while the UAE, owners of Dubai ports world, participates in the boycott, the company itself does not. The company itself does business with Israel and the boycott only applies to goods shipped to Dubai.

But hold on a minute. I don't see this development as a bad thing necessarily. This could be just the legitimate reason (that the international community might respect) that we need to back out of this deal. There is a difference, of course, between being in favor of allowing this deal to go forward at this point in time, and being in favor of the deal itself. President Bush, for his part, has made it clear that at least he is not in favor of scuttling the deal based solely on the fact that it is the United Arab Emirates that we are doing business with. But can't he make the case that his hands are tied by current US law? We'll see what happens, but if allowing this deal to go forward violates current US law it seems to me to be an open and shut case, and therefore no deal. Unless The UAE revises or re-evaluates its hateful boycott of Israel there may be no reconciling this new development. I'll be interested to see what Charles Krauthhammer thinks about this new development. I have come out in favor of this deal moving forward because I think that it would be an international relations disaster and would fan the flames of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world to deny a company business basically because they are Arabs but, with this new development, perhaps we have a legitimate way out of this deal that no one seems terribly comfortable with anyway.

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.

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!