He's not a Terrorist, Just a Lib

Well, It has happened. Boston has fallen victim to the recent outbreak of pro-terrorist organization rallies that have been taking place across America.

As usual, click the above title to link to the related story.

Watch the videos where the protesters attempt to intimidate and eventually attack the “Zionist” taking the footage. Also, it is not illegal to take pictures of people assembling in public.

Deployment

Israeli forces are moving into position on the Israeli Lebanon border, possibly massing for an invasion or incursion into Southern Lebanon. This, as the Lebanese defense minister is declaring that the Lebanese army will meet such a threat with force. "We'll defend our land to the last soldier.” said Lebanese Defense Minister Elias Murr today.

Unfortunately for Murr there are several factors working against him. First of all, his latest call to arms may prove to be only as successful as the last time he did so several days ago when attempting to assemble a force to go in and regulate the Hezbollah militants who control what is now essentially a terrorist zone south of the Litani River in Lebanon. When Murr last issued an order to muster his forces, no one showed up. If only the Lebanese army had gone into to restore order to the country, the Israelis would not be mounting a possible invasion and this current build up of Israeli troops would have perhaps not been necessary.

Also, there is the fact that The Lebanese army is not a significant fighting force capable of doing much damage according to regional experts.

“According to Mustafa Alani, senior security consultant at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, most members of the Lebanese military do police work rather than that of a real army.

“It is not a fighting force,” Alani told AFP. “Hezbollah is far stronger than the Lebanese Army.”

The Military Balance lists the army’s equipment as some 310 main battle tanks, mainly old Soviet-made T-54 and T-55 models, 1,257 armoured personnel carriers and 541 pieces of artillery.

It also has a paramilitary force of 13,000 men, a tiny air force of 1,100 servicemen and a navy numbering 1,000 personnel.”

As it stands now, Israeli forces, with the tacit blessings of President Bush, stand poised to attack Hezbollah and their new apparent, if not virtual, allies the Lebanese army.

Artistic Betrayal

Just look at this photo of a sign a Hezbollah "protester" in NYC was carrying around yesterday. The artistry of this graphic alone would determine which “camp” I would rather be a part of. Let’s see, on the top we have the colorful, multinational look of various nation states and on the bottom we have something resembling two skull and crossbones pirate flags in front of a menacing looking background. Apparently what aesthetically reflects the look of the word “evil” is truly in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it's just my western bias but even a child, without the capacity to read the captions, would be able to point out which side could be considered “evil” simply based on the graphics. Gee…what side seems more evil, the multilateral colors of nation states or the black background crossed pirate flags flanked by scimitars look?

And I’m not sure that France appreciates being lumped in with the rest of us Infidel.

The terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas seek the annihilation of a race of people. And in America, the first amendment dictates that we have to tolerate the intolerance of those who are openly declaring that they are actively seeking to kill us. Gee…I wonder which culture is more enlightened….

WWIII

New Gingrich has declared that America is currently involved in fighting Word War Three. Unfortunately for us all, he is correct. While his detractors accuse him of alarmism or worse, the dreaded “fear mongering” he is, in reality, merely attempting to place things into a historical perspective in order to properly motivate the American people and our leadership. We do need to conceive of our sruggles as a war in order to pay the proper attention to them. The sum total of America and our allies’ current world wide struggles does, it seems to me, rise to the level of being considered World War 3. The struggle is certainly world wide and with the latest open hostilities taking place in Israel and Lebanon, it is certainly now a war.

The Political Spectrum

It has been brought to my attention that some of us may need a refresher course on understanding the political spectrum. While I am aware that there are numerous schools of thought when it comes to charting a political spectrum, I tend to go along with the two dimensional model seen above. I believe it to be a useful tool.

This site gives a quick, free, and objective quiz used to determine how right or left and how authoritarian or libertarian the test taker may be considered to be.

My results come back with a location in the spectrum three out of eight notches to the right and one notch of ten down (to the libertarian side of things).

Churchill Down

It has taken a while, but the wild eyed, ultra liberal University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has officially been canned. The university has just completed its investigation of professor Churchill, who compared some 9-11 victims to Nazis, among many other ridiculous and offensive statements. A panel found Churchill guilty of "falsification, fabrication, plagiarism ... and other serious deviations from accepted practices."

Churchill has also been, for years, fraudulently representing himself as a Native American, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism.

The eradication of Ward Churchill from CU is a victory for the tax payers of Colorado and the students who attend the school.

Now as a private citizen, Churchill is free to proclaim or publish any falsehood that he desires, but the tax payer will not longer be expected to foot the bill for his activities.

Selective Reporting

The lefty "media watchdog" Media Matters seems to spend an awful lot of time watching and deconstructing Fox News. I understand why they spend many hours absorbing the most watched news network out there, but their discussion of what transpires at Fox is routinely disingenuous. Media Matters gleefully points out any mistake or misrepresentation that Fox News may present, but at the same time they misrepresent, by omission, the analysis that takes place on Fox and elsewhere.

In a classic lefty fallacious turning the tables move, where lefties adopt the same rhetoric that is directed against them and direct it back at conservatives, Media Matters accuses conservatives of directing "vitriol" at the New York Times.(because they published of a story which went into detail about a top secret and totally legal program known as the Terrorist Finace Tracking Program.)


Bush-bashing lefty vitriol is a staple of the modern American left, yet here Media Matters claims that conservatives are directing "vitriol" at the New York Times. The video presentation on this particular page of Media Matters shows a series of conservative pudits taking the New York Times to task because of thier arguably treasonous and at the very least unpatriotic, behavior of late, up to and including this latest fiasco. After seeing the clip It is clear that the usage of the term "vitriol" is simply incorrect , not to mention borrowed. A factual analysis of the New York Times' jaw dropping lack of judgment vis a vis revealing the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program does not constitute "vitriol". As usual, when the left tries to simply level the same complaint leveled against them back at their opposition it fails to pass logical muster.

In Media Matters’ discussion of this latest affront perpetrated by the NYT they claim,

"Conservatives have directed their vitriol almost entirely at The New York Times, despite the fact that the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal also posted articles on the subject on their web pages on the same day -- June 22 -- as the New York Times, and both published articles on it in their June 23 print editions."

Here we have a classic example of disingenuous reporting by omission. Media matters fails to anywhere mention the fact the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times chose to run the story on TFTP after they had learned that the NYT was going ahead with publication of said story despite being asked not to do so by many public officials including even Jack Murtha. (Even Murtha knows that the publication of details on this program will harm America.)

When will lefty outfits like Media Matters learn? Anyone in the know is aware that the New York Times lead the charge on reporting this story, which by the way the 'Times' is now claiming is not really news because “terrorists already knew that we were tracking their funds”.

Again I ask, if everyone already knew the intimate details on this program then; how is that news? Unfortunately, applying a logical standard to almost any lefty stance is a fool’s errand, so why bother. (Oops, was that vitriol... or a statement of fact?)

But it is this sanctimonious attitude that Media Matters adopts which really takes the cake for me at the moment. If Media Matters truly wants to be seen as objective like Fox New strives to be, will they ever learn to present the full story and not omit certain key facts that anyone who has looked into anything is aware of?

As long as Media Matters is here to attack Fox News and conservative pundits, bloggers like me will be here to logically refute Media Matters and the legion of other lefty spin merchants.

The Longest Day

"Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation."

Ronald Reagan
June 6, 1984

Haditha

1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in attack on US convoy.
2) US military initially says bomb also killed 15 Iraqi civilians.
3) Eight insurgents killed after attacking convoy. US later says the 15 civilians were not killed by bomb, but shot accidentally in battle.


1) Marine Lance Corp Miguel Terrazas dies in bomb attack on convoy of four Humvees. Troops then "go on rampage".
2) At roadblock, four students and taxi driver killed.
3) Eight people killed in one of three houses.
4) Seven killed in a second house.
5) Four brothers put in wardrobe and shot dead in a third house.


Unlike Jack Murtha, who is gleefully pointing to this incident as evidence that he believes advances his political agenda and who is obviously choosing to believe the worst of our American service personnel, I would rather wait until the investigation is concluded.

Rather than theorize and speculate as to what happened I would just point out that Iraqi insurgents have no problem using civilians as cover and generally involving civilians whenever possible. All it would take to cause civilians causalities if you were an insurgent, would be to fire at American troops and then run into a house or building where civilians were resideing and then hide, or even use civilians as a human shield.

It is very difficult to conduct a war where the enemy is not held to any standards of decency and/or rules of engagement, yet our own forces are constantly placed under the microscope with some of those on the American Left scrambling to find any evidence of wrongdoing to further thier political agenda and thereby, as a by- product of their political posturing, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

In a separate incident, American forces were cleared of any wrong doing when calling in an air strike on a building where insurgents were hiding. “The nighttime raid was conducted in the village of Ishaqi, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, by a ground assault force. After being fired upon from the vicinity of the targeted building, the soldiers called in air strikes by an Air Force AC-130 gunship, which attacked the building, the defense officials said."

"Local Iraqis said there were 11 total dead, and contended that they were killed by U.S. troops before the house was leveled."

In this case, the findings of the investigation seem to contradict the statements of the eyewitnesses. We shall see who is telling the truth in the Haditha “massacre” and if the Marines did blatantly kill civilians, they should be punished. However, the rushing to condemnation that is being offered up by Jack Murtha is utterly shameful and serves to bolster the enemies morale rather than our own. Jack Murtha and others who delight in bad news in Iraq are a disgrace.

Paper Tiger

Let me take this moment to assail Hilary Clinton. I saw a brief clip of Ms. Clinton quickly sniping President Bush regarding the latest round of the NSA wiretapping controversy. I’m trolling the net to find a transcript or at least some reporting on her comments made today in what looked to be some sort of informal press conference. I cannot find a single news story about Hilary’s latest dressing down of the Bush Administration, and I am left with the question: Where is Hilary on these issues of national security? What is her policy on the wiretapping of terrorists for example? Who would Know?

No one knows the answer to these questions. No one on earth can honestly ascertain what this woman’s stance is on almost issue that she routinely snipes at the Bush administration over.

As far as the her position in any kind of political spectrum…again, who knows? Is she a centrist? An independent, a Republican, a Democrat? I don’t think she even knows. Like the most cynical of politicians, rather than having a core set of values that hold true in fair weather or foul, she would rather indulge her own desire for power, and only choose her stance when and if it is politically wise to do so.

"A Day without an immigrant"

Apparently the "immigrant rights" advocates are planning a nation wide work stoppage and boycott of businesses and schools for this coming Monday May 1st, 2006. Perhaps you have not yet heard of this planned “day without and Immigrant” event. As is pointed out on SayNoToP.C.B.S. this planned work stoppage is being kept a secret from those of us evil English speaking Americans: “We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California.” Said Professor Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos… ". Most likely, you will not hear about this boycott in liberal media outlets because they largely share the same contemptuous and secretive agenda with the illegal immigrant rights advocates. Here's a novel idea for liberal "journalists": just objectively report the news to everyone regardless of their agenda. For the liberal MSM that is apparently too much to ask.

I love how the event is being referred to as the “day without an immigrant”. Of course, not all immigrants share the same agenda as the illegal immigrant rights advocates, but the illegal immigrants right advocates have to conflate the concept of “illegal immigration” with all “immigration” in order to advance their agenda by suggesting that being in favor of immigration reform is the same thing as being against all immgration. Then come the tired charges of racism and xenophobia. Of course, the new laws being proposed that are the cause of this illegal immigrant uproar do not effect those people who have legally immigrated to this country, but why let logical distinctions get in the way of this mob rule bum-rushing of the rest of the legal tax paying citizenry?

Here in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, local small businesses are essentially being intimidated into not opening their doors on Monday. Groups have been going around and “recommending” a la Tony Soprano not to do business on Monday in order to “demonstrate their solidarity” with the illegal immigrant population. How a local American citizen owned deli closing demonstrates “a day without an illegal immigrant “ is beyond me and if I owned a local business I would not be intimidated by thugs to not participate in commerce. However, local businesses are citing "repercussions" as the reason that they will comply with the wishes of the illegal immigrant population. It is a sad state of affairs when American businesses are subject to the whims of foreign nationals that find themselves within our borders.

If illegals don't want to attend work or school, not use the internet or cell phones and not make any purchases on Monday May 1st that is absolutely fine with me. My only question is: why stop there? If illegals want to boycott every aspect of American society on Monday why don’t they do us all a favor and boycott America itself by leaving it? Of course, that will not happen because it would require an actual sacrifice as opposed to simply sitting on their duffs for 24 hours and collecting the benefits of the various social programs that they have managed to scam their way into. This situation has gone way past ridiculous a while ago and I hope that there is considerable backlash to the planned "day without an immigrant" work stoppage planned for this coming Monday May 1st.

When It Rains It Snows

This is great news. Tony Snow is articulate and well liked.

The United Conflations

The erstwhile, United Nations, has appointed Iran to vice-chair the “disarmament commission”. I wish I was surprised or shocked, but I've come to expect this sort of thing from the well intentioned, but deeply misguided outfit known as the United Nations.

While Iranian diplomats are busy citing international accords in an effort to defend the “peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology” The Iranian President Aminijijad is busy posturing, excitedly announcing the development new advanced weaponry, and generally sabre rattling. At this point, despite Iran’s diplomatic protestations/delaying tactics, does any serious person imagine that Iran is not actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weaponry?

By appointing Iran to the disarmament commission, The UN has officially abandoned all hope of being taken seriously by any intellectually honest observer.

Spokesman

Which one of these well qualified political figures will make a better White House spokesman?

Backfire

According to the most recent Zogby poll, "...protests across the nation against immigration proposals in Congress – particularly to make it a federal felony to be an undocumented worker in America – have not persuaded a majority of U.S. likely voters across the country. [In Fact], More said they are having a negative reaction to the protests than are having a positive reaction."

More Americans are having a negative reaction to the protests than are having a positive reaction.

If you buy into this Zogby poll, which I do, it appears as though the waving of Mexican flags (along with other adversarial posturing) has been counterproductive for the "Immigration rights" advocates.

The poll went on to say, "A wide majority of those participating in the survey (65%) said they would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for some goods and services should that be the result of tighter control of the southern U.S. border and a resulting lower number of undocumented workers."

Count me in that 65%, and I imagine that we will see less Mexican flags at upcoming various demonstrations.

Go to the Insomnious Politico Vlog to Listen to Newt Gingrich on this flags issue and then watch Neil Cavuto battle an apologist reporter who does his best to white wash what is transpiring.

Insomnious Politico Vlog

I've officially launched the Insomnious Politico Vlog. This will still be my primary blog and all relevant and available video clips can be found at the new vlog.

It was recently brought to my attention by a left leaning friend that, Like Fox News, I am ignoring the so-called leak investigation regarding Scooter Libbey et al. Fox News is hardly ignoring the story and neither am I. Please go to the new vlog for a "damning" clip of the President and my commentary on the matter.

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.