World Debate

Response on Terry Schiavo

2005-03-28T18:11:00.000-08:00

I think this is a subject upon which reasonable and wholly rational people may disagree. The most important thing I can add to this debate is that I am saddened that an intensely personal and difficult family matter has become fodder for a national media circus. Even the Shindler family has had to ask the protesters to tone it down, reminding them that the family can and does speak for itself, and that the protestors do not. This is an area into which politicians don't normally venture, and yet it appears that many have become involved for their own gain (or to prevent "political loss of face") .

I believe that both parties are disgustingly using the Schiavo issue for partisan hacking and or gain. And I am sickened by it on both sides of the aisle. The Democrats indicated their willingness to take action by unanimous consent, many of them refusing to vote or speak about their respective consciences. Yet we are all aware that some of them believed that this was a prime example of a Republican government deeply overreaching into private lives. These are people (Senators and Representatives) who are stridently opposed to the regulation of "marriage," or in matters regarding sexuality, believing them to be private things out of which the government should stay. Yet they are apparently comfortable hopping in bed with those who would deem to make legislative life and death decisions that are clearly private family matters. And it appears that a recent alleged "Republican Talking Points Memo," is in fact a fake, perhaps planted by Democratic operatives.

Just in case you think I believe the Republicans fare better on this issue, let me make clear that I do not. The Republicans, like a freight train speeding out of control in reverse towards the inevitable cliff of insanity, are reaching deep into the alleged sanctity of the private family, and legislating completely private matters on behalf of a single individual! Meanwhile, the cry of "small government" lies squealing for mercy, tied to the tracks of the GOP, completely aware of it's rapidly approaching demise. Oh where, oh where have "conservatives" gone?

As for the President's record on the pro-choice / right to life issue, I think you may be correct. This is just an opinion, but perhaps he's not as strident as everyone made him out to be. Remember, personal beliefs on single issues do not mean that those will be central policy pieces of any Administration.

For example, I do believe that President Clinton intended to remove all policies against homosexuality in the military upon taking office. However, faced with the actual political reality of doing so, Clinton did an about face, and left the gay community out to dry. Further, under political pressure, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I have heard this referred to as the most openly anti-gay act in American history. Yet, I still think President Clinton believed in what he planned to do. But the military and political realities of the time prevented him from doing so.

And congratulations, while this has long been a bone of contention in the "far right" of the Republican Party, you are the first Democrat I have run across who understands that President Bush, intentionally or not, has been the best friend the pro-choice movement has ever had. During a time when Roe v. Wade is the most vulnerable to being overturned as anytime in its history, and when the public climate has most supported it, President Bush has not pushed the issue as many Democrats feared he would. The fundamental "right to choose" has been safe from all but rhetoric during President Bush's term. Agree with the rhetoric or not, factually it's true.

Out of each of life's seemingly insane situations, some good must arise. This is no exception. Out of the Schiavo / Shindler family public spectacle comes awareness of an important issue. We are a society that does not believe in facing death. We let it come, and we are unprepared for it's vagaries. It's almost as if we didn't know it was coming. But in the last two weeks, the Shindlers and Schiavos have given us the gift of awareness. It's hard to imagine being unaware of the potential consequences of lack of planning.

If you are an adult in the United States, the odds are that you are now aware of your responsibility to plan for all eventualities and to have a "health directive" on file so that your family and loved ones know your wishes. It's called "personal responsibility," and though it now seems somewhat out of style, it's the bedrock upon which this nation was built.

The American Bar Association offers free forms and provides online resources available at their website. It's a good starting place. Be responsible. There are people who love you that might appreciate it someday.

I hope your Easter (however you celebrate, or even if you don't) was as filled with love and joy, as mine was.

What we can learn from Terri Schaivo

2005-03-24T09:12:00.000-08:00

It's been way too long since anything's been posted by either of us, so I thought I would take a stab at something that has been given entirely too much thought and attention lately: Terri Schaivo. Recent actions in the Senate, by President Bush, and his brother Jeb, leave me scratching my head. I was hoping that my favorite band of conservatives could help to provide an explanation about what the hell is going on here.

I've seen the discussions, the debates, the protests, the people being arrested for attempting to bring Schaivo water, and I feel like I have a pretty decent grasp on what the issue is here. For a large number of religious people in our country, Schaivo's situation represents protecting life, which all of the sudden has become very important. The sad irony here is that many of these people are the same ones who supported bombing Iraq into the stone age. What's even more sick and sad is the fact that thousands of Americans suffer similar fates each year as the result of persistent vegetative conditions, and no one shows up in their honor.

The political three-ring circus that has resulted from this situation is even more disgusting. While the President, his brother and Congress sit by every year and let thousands of Americans with similar conditions die without even choking on a pretzel, the Terri Schaivo case apparently warrants it's own laws and judicial consideration. What is so special about this situation that it differs from the thousands of other Americans who live in this condition?

It's certainly not Terri's hope for recovery. An entire team of nationally-respected neurologists have evaluated Terri previously and determined that her condition is permanent and terminal. The definition of a persistent vegetative state is based on those two features. Jeb Bush in the last two days has made claims that Terri may have been misdiagnosed. He even has a neurologist who is apparently willing to back him up. Does Jeb tell us what the neurologist thinks Terri's actual diagnosis is? Of course not. It's a disgusting abuse of medical opinion for political gain.

Congress and the President saw the Terri Schaivo case as a publicized opportunity to appear to care about a "Culture of Life". The President hasn't seemed to concerned with life lately. As the Governor of Texas, he was our country's most experienced practitioner of the death penalty, executing more prisoners than any other STATE has since the death penalty was reauthorized in 1977. All of this during a time when other states, including Illinois, elected to commute death sentences to life in prison because the death penalty is fraught with injustice.

The President and his friends in Congress NEEDED to do something to support a culture of life. After all, abortion is still legal, even after all that talk during the campaign about a culture of life and support from the religious right. How would you like to be the religious right these days? No abortion ban, no constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Even Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act while President. Wasn't Bush supposed to be more conservative? We all know from our previous discussions that his spending habits haven't been, but now it also appears that he's selling out his religious base as well.

I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. I just want someone from the right to explain to me why Terri Schaivo is more important than the thousands of Americans who die as the result of being denied nutrition during a persistent vegetative state? Why does Bush talk about a culture of life, and despite all his political capitol, not do anything to back it up? I'm beginning to wonder if maybe I should have voted for Bush, since he's protected a women's right to choose for over 5 years now, despite having the Congress and Supreme Court that would be needed to get things done. Or maybe the President really is Pro Choice? I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

A few points of clarification

2005-03-10T20:08:00.000-08:00

Before we start all this talk about house training and calling people dishonest, let's be straight about a few things here. Not one single thing that was written in my previous post was dishonest. From reading OtM's last post, you'd think that I said Bush was aborting fetae or some nonsense like that. Since this is a debate, let's actually look at what OtM addressed of my previous comments.

OtM spends as much time as Shakespeare took writing Henry V (which for those of you from Alabama or Utah was a LONG time) hammering on me for claiming to be an arrogant bastard. I figured I was just pointing out the obvious. I think that's one thing we can all agree on. He tries to use it to harm the credibility of my previous post, but that's why I put links in what I write, so that regardless of what type of bastard I happen to be, you, as the reader, can explore things and make up your mind on your own. It's not just my opinion. I'm giving you links to look at things for yourself, so that if you disagree with me, we can discuss it. I guess if providing links to the Congressional Record so that we can all read the bills that we're discussing represents a lack of research, as OtM said, I'm not sure what the standard of proof is here.

OtM goes on to say that he did address my previous comments on Social Security with this statement:
"I'll concede Ottl's point in a previous post that some powerless Democratic Senators have proposed alternatives (in part), but not one has been so much as even mentioned by the Democratic leadership in a press conference, let alone championed as an alternative plan. In fact, the Democrats are in all out attack and defeat mode instead of championing any alternative ideas. But that is standard fare for the Democrats." OTM
If you go back and read the original post, you will see that it's not just the Democrat's proposals, but also bipartisan proposals that are being offered as alternatives to the President's plans for Social Security. I wanted to have a discussion comparing some of the alternatives that are out there to the President's plan.

One of the reasons that Democrats are in attack mode is that, as OtM pointed out, in may cases they are politically helpless without bipartisanship. If they don't work with Republicans, they may not be able to pass ANY legislation. This is one of the reasons why many of the proposals I outlined for Social Security and the Budget Deficit are bipartisan plans. The Democrats know they have no choice but to cooperate with Republicans on key issues, or risk losing complete control in Congress.

OtM has not taken the opportunity to discuss any of the alternative, bipartisan legislation that's out there, despite the fact that in all my "poor" research, I provided links to the actual legislation so that people could make up their own minds, and maybe we could have a discussion that didn't involve OtM accusing Democrats of playing politics. The ignoring that I was talking about is OtM's denial that the Democrats, despite their politically helpless situation in Congress, have continued to propose alternative solutions. Because the MSM isn't discussing them, I figured this might be a good place to have that discussion. Apparently not.

OtM goes on to cite numerous examples of those who question the President's spending habits, which is EXACTLY what I wanted him to show us, since I was unable to find examples myself. I do enjoy searching the internet, but I am not the expert that OtM is, particularly when it comes to Conservatives Blogs. I knew if I asked, he would provide the evidence, so that we could have a discussion about it. Hence, the reason that I included this in my last post:
I'm certain that there are conservatives out there who, like OtM and Mountain Man, are calling the President out on this, but it's simply not happening in the established conservative media, including blogs. It's not even happening in the traditionally liberal MSM.
I'm glad that he provided some evidence in this area, because I find it quite fascinating that there is evidence that conservatives actually don't think the President is the second coming of Jesus Christ.

My point was simply that for an average person looking at a good sample of conservative media and websites, you wouldn't see the outrage about the President's spending, unless you looked very closely. I wasn't accusing OtM of lying about the conservative media. Such a statement, even given my own arrogance, would be beyond ridiculous, since I would be claiming to know the conservative media far better than someone who actually has extensive knowledge on the subject. I'm not THAT unreasonable.

All I'm asking for is to have a discussion that doesn't involve statements such as: The Democrats are Devoid of Ideas, when it is apparent that despite their obvious political disadvantage in Congress, many of them have crossed over the aisle to work with Republicans on alternatives to the President's proposals. Not because the Democrats are better or smarter people, or because they care about America, but because their political lives depend on it. I provided examples so that we could discuss those policies.

How have the Democrats in the Senate been rewarded for their attempts at bipartisanship? As this article points out, despite the fact that Democrats allowed 219 of Bush's 229 judicial nominees during his first term (and filibustered only 10), the Republicans might invoke "the nuclear option" and attempt to eliminate the filibuster, to push through all of Bush's judicial nominees, including a replacement for ailing Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. All they need to do this is a simple majority vote.

OtM has taken numerous posts to hammer home the point that Democrats are not supportive of bipartisanship, despite my numerous examples provided in the last few posts in Social Security reform and Resolving the Budget Deficit. Despite that fact and the Republicans significant resistance to Clinton's judicial nominees (which if you need a refresher, check this link out), they seem to have a short memory when it comes to what bipartisanship really means.

True Bipartisanship - Rebuttal - Absolute Lies and a Total Lack of Real Research

2005-03-10T11:36:00.000-08:00

Well, once again, I find myself in agreement with something said by OttL in his post on Bipartisanship. Here's the quote:

"Pattern #1 is that I'm an arrogant bastard." OttL

Unfortunately, I am going to have to agree with at least part of that one. Dictionary.com defines arrogant as follows:

"1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others"

I guess there's no need for me to actually demonstrate the fact that OttL is arrogant. For some reason, he's proudly claimed the title for himself. And while many liberals act in this manner (and yes, many don't), I know few who will gladly take the title. Even those who are, often deny it. Bravo to OttL for admitting it. And a caution to all of you who read his posts; you now must understand that they derive, at least in part, from his self proclaimed arrogance. He apparently thinks he's pretty darn important and far superior to those of you who read this blog.

As for the second part of the quote, wherein OttL calls himself a "bastard" I suppose we need a bit of clarification. Dictionary.com defines "bastard" in the following manner:

"1. A child born out of wedlock.
2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.
3. Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable."

In regard to #1, I can't speak about OttL's parentage. Unlike OttL, I won't speak about things that I can't or don't adequately research. In regard to definition number two, well, if he's not #1, and he chose the term of "bastard" to refer to himself, let the chips fall where they may. He's either "irregular, inferior, or of dubious origin," or perhaps only #3 fits. As to #3, clearly he's made that one fit by stating that he's an "arrogant bastard" and that

"The only reason I draw so much satisfaction from it is that it pisses those of you who disagree with me off." OttL

Enough said there. I don't get it, but it's apparently what he was looking for.

Now on to my disagreement and rebuttal. First of all, OttL says that he's not "changing anyone's mind" regardless of the quality of his arguments or supporting evidence. Let's start with the fact that he's certainly not going to score any points, intellectually or otherwise by claiming he is an "arrogant bastard" who is intellectually superior. Perhaps a few lessons in social etiquette, and he might find himself more able to muster a convincing argument, rather than simply insulting those who read this blog. How could one get past his opening about being such an arrogant bastard and then take anything he writes seriously?

Now a big surprise for OttL. He occasionally changes my mind and teaches me things. And I'm the chief conservative here. I invited him on board here at World Debate because though we might disagree, he occasionally changes my perspective or enriches my knowledge base through his thorough research and sharp prose. So, OttL, contrary to your thoughts, you do make a difference in the dialogue if you can contain your belief in your personal superiority long enough to get your point across. Unfortunately, in the present post you have failed miserably in every regard.

So disagreement aside, and a lesson in etiquette given, let's go to the rebuttal. Here's another great yet completely factually inaccurate quote from OttL which is an outright lie simply intended to make me look bad.

"Recall during our Social Security discussion, however, that after OtM's tirade about how little Democrats had contributed to solutions for the Social Security system and bipartisan dialogue in Congress, I gave multiple actual examples of bills that had been introduced either by Democrats and Republicans or Democrats alone, that were fundamentally different than the President's plan. The conservative response: Nill. If you don't believe me, go back and read it for yourself. No discussion of the actual proposals, just outright ignoring." OttL

That is a very interesting and inaccurate memory. Perhaps OttL doesn't know how to scroll down a page. The following is my response to OttL revealing that there were in fact, proposed Democratic alternatives to President Bush's Social Security Plan:

"I'll concede Ottl's point in a previous post that some powerless Democratic Senators have proposed alternatives (in part), but not one has been so much as even mentioned by the Democratic leadership in a press conference, let alone championed as an alternative plan. In fact, the Democrats are in all out attack and defeat mode instead of championing any alternative ideas. But that is standard fare for the Democrats." OTM

Now remember, he said that my response was "Nil" and "just outright ignoring." That's pretty clear. Not that he disagreed with me, or that my response was in a post on our next subject, or that it was inadequate. He said that I completely failed to respond. But, as Ottl so arrogantly said to you, "go read it for yourself." And unlike OttL, I mean that with the utmost humility. I'm just trying to create some decorum here, and stick to the truth, as it is in print here. Bottom line, he's simply making this up. I responded, and even gave him credit for showing me something that I didn't know existed (yes, he taught me something). Yet he somehow thinks it's a good idea to pretend that I ignored him.

Now to slice and dice OttL's contention that fiscal conservatives aren't attacking the President's lack of fiscal discipline. Here's what he said:

"Did I find a single blog, website, news organization that wrote something critical of the President's spending? No, and OtM has done an excellent job of getting a good sample of excellent conservative websites over there." OttL

Previously, OttL had shown tremendous tenacity and skill as a web researcher. Here, simple research would have shown that my contention was true and that there is a conservative backlash which has been consistent for years against this President's big spending policies. Apparently he is too "arrogant" to bother with the research, so now I am forced to do it for him.

Now those who read them (and OttL is among us) know that blogs are creatures of the moment. Whatever is in the news that day or that week will be written about extensively in the blogs of the moment. This week we are reading about Iraq suicide bombings, the nomination of new U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., daily developments from Lebanon, the killing of the family of a prominent Federal Court Judge, etc. etc. etc. The Federal Budget is absent from the current news. Yet somehow, OttL has decided by clicking on the links to conservative blogs on World Debate, if what I am saying is true, then he should find rancor and revolt about the debate on those blogs. I had to laugh when I read that.

If he wanted to know if what I was saying was true, he could have searched the archives of the blogs, or even easier, done a simple Google search like I did. I simply typed in "Bush budget not conservative." Below are just a few of the dozens upon dozens of links I found with content that supports my position.

IndyStar.com - Online Version of the Indianapolis Star - TODAY - Alan Framm- AP

"Reflecting the House's more conservative tenor, its budget seeks $69 billion in such savings, cutting almost $20 billion deeper than the president suggested.That will set the stage for months of partisan battling. "Personally, I -- and I know many of my colleagues -- would like to have gone even further" in restraining spending, said House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa."

From Powerlineblog.com -
Bush Pledges Spending Limit
The biggest complaint of conservatives like us about the Bush administration has been its apparent lack of interest in reining in spending. (link)

CPAC Meeting Shows Frustration of Fiscal Conservatives - Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- has become over the last three decades, the premier annual gathering of conservatives and one of the most important political events in the nation. If the representatives of the nations CONSERVATIVE Political Action Committees don't represent overall conservative political opinion (love 'em or hate 'em), I have no idea who might.

[February 21, 2005 evote.com] "Fiscal conservatism is on life-support!"(link)

Victor Davis Hanson (Highly Respected Conservative Historian) - Jan. 28, 2005 - Questioning why fiscal conservatives are no longer fiscally conservative, and complaining about it. (link)

"Shrink Government, the Right Tells the Right" - NYT

Reform revolt spreads from RSC to centrists - The Hill, The Newspaper For and About the U.S. Congress. Conservative lawmakers also agreed to demand that the Republican House budget include greater discretionary and mandatory spending cuts than President Bush's budget.

I could spend many hours doing this, but I think I've proven my point. OttL didn't even have the common decency to do a quick Google search to determine if there was any truth to my statements. Instead, he simply played the 'I couldn't find it on the blogs' card. He may be an arrogant bastard, but we aren't stupid enough to fall for that.

And last but not least on OttL's dishonesty here, in my post I said that the conservative base was following the lead of the "talking heads" like Limbaugh, Savage and Hewitt. And notice that he couldn't and didn't try to refute that. Yet ALL liberals I have ever spoken to acknowledge that the most prolific and strongest of the conservative voices are mostly on talk radio. Now I understand and acknowledge that OttL couldn't (and shouldn't have to stomach) days upon days of conservative talk radio. But he could have at least acknowledged that he didn't have a clue what was going on there, so he couldn't comment. Unfortunately, he simply chose to reinforce the stereotype that most conservatives have of liberals, which is that they think they know everything. Wait, maybe he does. He has told us he is an "arrogant bastard" right?

I have to be honest, I'm burnt out on this subject, and a bit disappointed. Because OttL chose to take the "arrogant bastard" route, and because he had to accuse me of lying about the conservative movement against the President's fiscal policies, I had to waste an immeasurable amount of time and keystrokes simply showing that in the case of this posting, OttL is indeed, an "arrogant" fraud.

And to take my honesty one step further, I simply can't answer everything else in OttLs post. This answer, required to defend my honesty and integrity, has already taken far too much of your time. I know there are other things in there, and perhaps he will be "arrogantly" angry that I haven't responded to them, but it appears that we're just about out of keystrokes here, and have to be trying your patience by now. I hope you'll forgive us this indiscretion, and perhaps we can all convince OttL to be a bit more polite, do a little research and stick to the facts from now on.

In closing let me say that personally, I'm surprised. We finally had an agreement between a conservative and a liberal about the President's unsound fiscal policy, and instead of moving forward with that, and seeing if we could talk solution, and really build consensus on the rare occasion on which we agree, he chose to attack, and did it with lies backed by an inexcusable lack of simple research. (Heavy sigh.) And all this in his post about "bipartisanship." Well, let's hope for better behavior in the future, shall we? Don't be too harsh on him. We'll house train the liberal yet.

True Bipartisanship: Blame the Other Guy

2005-03-09T17:49:00.000-08:00

For those of you who have been following On the Mark (OtM) and my recent discussions, you're probably beginning to see some patterns. I know I am. Pattern #1 is that I'm an arrogant bastard. Get used to it. The only reason I draw so much satisfaction from it is that it pisses those of you who disagree with me off. I realized a long time ago that I'm not changing anyone's mind, regardless of how excellent my arguments and the supporting evidence are. If someone aside from OtM, and on occasion, Mountain Man, would actually post something of substance, we might actually have a discussion here.

Pattern #2 is that both times (see our previous discussion on Social Security and the current one about the Federal Budget Deficit) I have built an argument indicting conservatives for their idol worship of our President, OtM and several others have responded that all the Democrats want to do is tear the President down and insult his policies. Democrats never have anything productive to contribute, except criticism.

Recall during our Social Security discussion, however, that after OtM's tirade about how little Democrats had contributed to solutions for the Social Security system and bipartisan dialogue in Congress, I gave multiple actual examples of bills that had been introduced either by Democrats and Republicans or Democrats alone, that were fundamentally different than the President's plan. The conservative response: Nill. If you don't believe me, go back and read it for yourself. No discussion of the actual proposals, just outright ignoring.

The Federal Budget deficit is really no different. All one has to do is go to The US Congress website and enter "budget" as a search term under legislation. Here are a couple examples of numerous bipartisan and Democratic solutions to the growing problem of the Federal Budget Deficit:
-Rush Holt (D - New Jersey) HR 116 Social Security and Medicare Lock-Box Act of 2005. Addresses Social Security and budget concerns.
- Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future Act S 19:: (14 Bipartisan Sponsors)

This article shows that a bipartisan group of 55 Senators is opposed to key provisions of Bush's budget. Once again, OtM wants you to believe the Democrats are part of the problem, not the solution, but he doesn't want to discuss the Democratic or even bipartisan proposals that are out there. He just wants to pretend, as he did during our Social Security discussion, that the Democrats have nothing constructive to add. This is obviously not the case.

OtM goes on the summarize unified budgetary theory, the process of putting all your bills together to create imaginary surpluses. The excellent point he makes here is that ALL administrations do this. This makes comparison's between Clinton's "surplus" and Bush's current budget meaningful. Despite the fact that Clinton's "surplus" may have been a numbers game, the Bush Administration can't even attempt to hide these sorts of numbers:

"the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) estimated Friday that Bush's policies as outlined in his 2006 budget would add $1.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years." (source)

My point was simply that Clinton, love him or loathe him, obviously did a much better job restraining spending than Bush has. Clinton may not have had $1 in actual surplus during his presidency, but I can tell you that the CBO never projected adding $1.6 trillion to the deficit during his time as President.

OtM goes on to explain that the right, particularly bloggers and those in the right-wing media, are critical of Bush's spending. I was curious what they were saying, so I clicked on EVERY link on the right margin of this website. Did I find a single blog, website, news organization that wrote something critical of the President's spending? No, and OtM has done an excellent job of getting a good sample of excellent conservative websites over there.

How about Rush Limbaugh? Powerline Blog? Hugh Hewitt? Michael Savage? Democracy parties? Yes. Hillary Clinton burning in Effigy? You better believe it. Support the Troops Banners? Hundreds. Criticism of President Bush's spending? Like Santa Claus, Bigfoot, and Jimmy Hoffa's corpse, there is no evidence to support its existence. The mainstream conservative outrage that OtM cites remains to be seen.

I'm certain that there are conservatives out there who, like OtM and Mountain Man, are calling the President out on this, but it's simply not happening in the established conservative media, including blogs. It's not even happening in the traditionally liberal MSM.

Once again, I would be happy to discuss the merits and limitations of Democratic or Bipartisan solutions to budgetary matters, particularly compared to the President's budget. Instead, we've digressed into baseless partisan bickering. The Democrats are proposing solutions, both alone and with Republicans, but denying their existence does little to further discussion on the issue.

Answer on the Budget - I Agree - From a "Caring Conservative" - When Will Democrats Propose an Alternative, to Anything?

2005-03-08T17:28:00.000-08:00

Once again OttL makes himself feel good (along with all Liberals) by painting himself as far too "caring and intelligent" to be a "conservative." Productive discourse from the left? No. But I've come to expect nothing more. Now that we have the obligatory and unproductive generalizations out of the way, let's talk reality.

OttL and I completely agree on the absolute lack of fiscal conservatism shown by this administration. It is horrifying to witness the bloated deficit, especially when you understand the long term implications. But OttL attempting to paint the Democrats as the fiscal conservatives of this country is absolutely ludicrous, and totally unsupported by the facts.

The reality is, there NEVER was any budget "surplus." The "surplus" was created through false manipulation and semantics. Here is an excellent example (from the Washington Post in Feb. 1998) of the falsehoods peddled during the Clinton years:

It's easy to determine the truth. All one needs to do is determine how much more one spends than is earned in a year, as every family does. Accordingly, one should ask: Does the president's budget receive more than it will spend, or does it spend more than it receives? Once again, as it has for the past 30 years, the government will spend more. In fact, the president's budget projects more spending than income each year for the next five years. Instead of surpluses "as far as the eye can see," deficits will be the order of the day -- Washington will continue to borrow and spend.
While the president talks about reserving 100 percent of every surplus, his budget borrows the pension fund surpluses in order to report a budget surplus. These pension funds are then spent on food stamps or foreign aid or some program other than Social Security. The same is true of the gasoline tax, which is intended for highways. In reality, the deficit is not eliminated; the deficit is merely moved from the general fund into the Social Security trust fund or the highway trust fund.

This gimmick is called "unified budgeting" with a "unified" deficit or surplus. It's a fraud. With the present surplus fever, the people think the government is finally on a pay-as-you-go basis. But in reality, the politicians continue to spend, running huge deficits in the trust funds. The following trust funds are in deficit for the following amounts as of FY 1999: Social Security, $845 billion; Medicare $148 billion; Military Retirement, $140 billion; Civilian Retirement, $490 billion; Unemployment Compensation, $81 billion; Highways, $35 billion; Airports, $15 billion; Railroad Retirement, $21 billion, and all others, $58 billion.

One can see that instead of making the airports safe with modern radar, we have spent $7 billion of airport travelers' money on everything but airports. No wonder the highways are crumbling, the bridges falling. We have spent $22 billion of the gas tax on everything but highways and bridges.

At the beginning of the fiscal year we owed the Social Security trust fund $631 billion, and are scheduled to owe $732 billion by the end of September this year, and under President Clinton's "unified" budget, we will owe Social Security $845 billion. As he loots another $113 billion from the Social Security trust funds, the president cries, "Save Social Security first." Obviously, the first way to save Social Security is to stop looting it." (link)

So as you can see, the budget "surplus" during the Clinton years was all a big lie. To be fair, Presidents have done this for a long, long time. And while he initiated many new sorts of malfeasance in office (including oral sex in the Oval office, and a conviction and Arkansas disbarment for perjury), Clinton can't take credit for this particluar shell game.

Here's the major difference, not between the parties, but between the constituenties. Unfortunately, the parties are very similar in this regard. Their respective constituencies are not. Current day, grass roots conservatives are frothing at the President's lack of fiscal restraint. You will find it in the blogs, in the news, and even within the political establishment. People are quite simply pissed off at the President's lack of fiscal conservatism.

Am I really saying that Republicans at large aren't a bunch of mindless, numb, Rush Limbaugh ditto heads. Nope. I'm not saying that at all. Why? Because if you bother to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Hugh Hewitt, or any other of the plethora of conservative talking heads out there, they are ALL attacking the President on this issue. So the majority of the conservative constituency is not happy about this. Maybe they aren't mindless, numb ditto heads, but they are following the lead of the talking heads on this one.

So, when Democrats flail, where is the Democratic constituency? Where is the outrage when the "leaders" of the Democratic party fail to put forth, or support alternatives to the President's plan for Social Security reform. I'll concede Ottl's point in a previous post that some powerless Democratic Senators have proposed alternatives (in part), but not one has been so much as even mentioned by the Democratic leadership in a press conference, let alone championed as an alternative plan. In fact, the Democrats are in all out attack and defeat mode instead of championing any alternative ideas. But that is standard fare for the Democrats. They have become the party of "no." "No" to everything proposed by Republicans. No to almost everyone nominated by Republicans. And most importantly, "no" to coming up with any full fledged policy proposals of their own.

When Democrats put forth no policy alternatives to the President's State of the Union address, where is the outspoken constituency, demanding that their party come up with legitimate, concrete alternatives? Find them for me. Find the blogs, websites, or newspapers articles demanding that the Democrats actually "do" something other than whine. Find me the rumblings of the masses expressing their discontent with anything Democratic. Such criticism doesn't exist on any sort of comparable scale within the party's constituency at large.

Perhaps the Democratic failure to propose alternative budgets, solutions to the Social Security debacle, or to our current foreign policy simply doesn't concern the Democrat's constituency at large. I hope this isn't correct, because the Democratic party is due for some serious criticism and reformation by the folks it claims to represent. Such a reform could challenge the Republicans. And as I've expressed over and over, such a challenge is healthy for our country. The current Democratic lack of ideas is not.

The Democratic party needs the same sort of criticism from "real" Democrats, that this Administration is dealing with from their conservative base regarding all matters fiscal. The conservative base is demanding accountability from it's leaders. When will the liberal base demand the same of theirs?

George W. Bush: Fiscal Conservative as Dick Cheney: Kind, Lovable Young Man

2005-03-08T16:42:00.000-08:00

If I were conservative, which I am far too caring and intelligent to be, I would be downright flabbergasted with the spending going on in the Bush Administration. The Congressional Budget office is a good place to start, if you want to talk about the President's budget and what the impact will be in the coming years. The CBO is a great source of information because unlike the Administration's budget estimates, they're non-partisan and excellent at math. If you find the CBO report too ambiguous or boring, check out this article, in which analysts determine that the President's budget proposals will continue to cause ballooning deficits.

What's particularly sickening about the current budget situation is that under Clinton, the budget was balanced and there was actually a multi-billion dollar surplus. Weren't we liberals supposed to be the ones who lacked fiscal responsibility? Empirical evidence is making us look pretty good when it comes to spending and containing the deficit.

Why should we care about the deficit? Deficits are bad, not just because Republicans claimed to be against big government and the spending that comes along with it, but because they can have significant negative effects on the economy in the long term. Fed Chairman Allan Greenspan has even been quoted as saying that budget deficits pose a long-term threat to the stability of our economy. It looks like the economic uncertainty of supply side economics continues, as it did during the Reagan Administration.

What do all you fiscal conservatives who support the President have to say for yourselves?

Surprise! Republican Egocentrism: Bush's Social Security Reform Proposal Not the Only Plan on the Table!

2005-03-03T18:07:00.000-08:00

On the Mark got so carried away in his dream for bipartisanship, that he forgot the first step in being bipartisan: look at what the other side has proposed. On the Mark claims that the Democrats are just tearing the President's reform plan down, without suggesting an alternative. If you look at the bills that have been filed in the actual Congress, you get a much different picture than the one On the Mark has painted for you.

On the Mark and the conservative party loyalists don't want you to know that, in fact, Democrats and Republicans have made several proposed plans that differ significantly from the President's plan. You can view all of the comprehensive Social Security reform proposals before Congress here, Democratic and Republican, including the bipartisan HR 1793 21st Century Retirement Act, sponsored in the House by Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) and Rep. Charles Stenholm (D-TX) and the aptly named S. 1383 Bipartisan Social Security Reform Act, sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Sen. John Breaux (D-LA). The Democrats also have two additional comprehensive reform plans that are on the table that are not bipartisan.

I guess that means that the Democrats aren't just whining and crying about the President's plan. They're working with Republicans to propose other solutions because like On the Mark (OtM), they have reservations about the President's plan for reforms. And they absolutely should. If you want to debate the advantages and limitations of the proposals that have been suggested, I'm game. However, I will not stand around and let you say that the Democrats haven't tried to be a constructive part of what is definitely a bipartisan process.

If the President is so willing to work with Democrats as OtM suggesting in his rebuttal, why hasn't the President mentioned the Democratic proposals publicly as well? Why hasn't he attempted to work on a compromise? Why is he still only promoting his own plan which includes private accounts and includes no mandates for benefits provided to orphaned children and the disabled?

OtM says that the jury is still out on private accounts. Actually, if you look at compelling evidence from seven states in the US that have already tried private accounts, they have empirically been shown to be grossly ineffective compared to traditional Social Security. Take my current state of residence, Nebraska, as an example:

"But when Nebraska's state and county workers were given do-it-yourself accounts, they made so many investment errors that they ended up making less than colleagues with fixed-benefit pensions and less than what analysts have said is needed for old age. Their poor performance led the Nebraska Legislature two years ago to junk the accounts for new employees."

"If people have private accounts in Social Security and they're left to make the decisions themselves, the results likely will not be positive," said Anna Sullivan, executive director of the Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems, which replaced its private account system with a centrally managed plan in 2003.

That's a pretty powerful statement coming from a state official in Nebraska, where President Bush could have run with David Duke and still carried the state. The fact is that while private accounts would benefit rich, educated people, who understand how to weigh the risks of investing, the vast majority of the American public would not fare well, as Nebraska and a number of other states have demonstrated empirically. Not only do you have to worry about the costs, as Greenspan has mentioned, but also the increased risks of economic volatility when people's retirement benefits are a stake.

To review, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been cooperating to propose viable alternatives to the President's plan. I would much rather discuss the merits and limitations of proposals than have OtM mislead you into thinking that we liberals are just complaining. The President's plan is terrible to be sure, but his proposal is not the only one on the table, as OtM and most of the conservative establishment would like you to think.

The President wants you to believe that his plan is our only hope to save an ailing program. But as the polls I listed in my original post on this topic indicate, the American people are not fools. Additionally, private accounts have been empirically shown to be an abysmal failure for the vast majority of participants. Liberals and conservatives alike should be looking at what other options we have, because the President's plan is certainly losing steam across the country and in Congress. The issue of Social Security will be a true test of the bipartisanship in the Republican party, since Republican cooperation is required given the current party configuration in Congress.

Social Security - Rebuttal - Sort Of - The Democrats are Devoid of Ideas

2005-03-03T10:27:00.000-08:00

For once it appears that OttL and I might actually agree upon something. I too wonder at the wisdom of this President spending his political capital on the reform of a system that won't really even show it's first signs of being broke until 2042. I really don't have an answer for "why Social Security now?" There are surely programs which are in more desperate straits, such as Medicare.

As for private accounts, I'm not sure the jury is back on that one. For some reason the U.S. Congress has such accounts for themselves. And Alan Greenspan has backed such accounts, though definitely with reservations regarding the costs of establishing them. So, I'll reserve judgment on whether that is part of a prudent plan.

Finally, and most importantly, OttL and most other liberals agree that the program needs a fix. Unfortunately, the Democrats are once again the party of the "empty attack" and devoid of real solutions to real problems. Conservatives understand that simply attacking the proposals of Democrats doesn't lead to a stronger country, or better governance. If they don't like what the Democrats propose, they are notorious for coming up with proposals of their own. Having a clearly stated and easily articulated agenda is what has brought Republicans to power. The Democrats need to get their own.

I am a fervent believer in a strong two party system. And while I am absolutely a Republican and a conservative, I sincerely wish to see a strong and vibrant Democratic Party challenging the Republicans with concrete ideas and proposals that reflect their core beliefs. Such challenges will allow real plans to be debated in the marketplace of ideas, which is good for all. However, by all accounts, the Democratic party is currently struggling to determine if it even has "core beliefs."

Throughout this discussion, while acknowledging that there is a problem, the Democrats have put forth no plan of their own on Social Security. President Bush has repeatedly asked the Democrats to put a plan on the table and indicated he's willing to talk. And to the horror of many conservatives, Bush has even indicated a willingness to raise the ceiling above the current $90K in annual income upon which people pay Social Security taxes. Contrary to his promises to his fiscally conservative base, this would constitute a tax hike. But he's willing to talk about it. Which you think would please the Democrats immensely if they were genuinely interested in compromise, bipartisanship and fixing the system. Yet Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said his party would be attacked for advocating tax increases if it embraced the idea. "We're not going to fall for that," he said. (link)

This is the ultimate in absurdity. The Democratic Party has said repeatedly that we should look at raising taxes to fix the system. Yet when the President says, contrary to his own political interests, he's actually willing to look at it, Reid says, "We're not going to fall for that." What sort of insane Orwellian double-speak is that?

This country needs genuine interest in a bipartisan fix for the Social Security problem. Right now the only thing the Democrats have shown is that they are excellent naysayers. Well, for the health of the country, and the health of the Democratic Party, it's time they stepped up to the table, presented their own plan, and engaged in some real discussion.

Bush's Social Security Reforms Out of Step with American Public

2005-03-03T05:01:00.000-08:00

"When President Bush said during the 2000 Presidential campaign that he wouldn't participate in nation building, I didn't know he was talking about his own country." - Al Franken

The more we learn about the President's and other Republicans' plans to restructure Social Security, the scarier the situation becomes. A poll conducted this week, indicates that a majority of the American people believe that allowing citizens to invest their Social Security taxes in private accounts is "a bad idea." It's tragic that the only domestic issue the President has had on the agenda for his entire presidency is one that will likely put the average American in poverty for retirement.

No one doubts that Social Security needs to be reconsidered. Anyone who can do basic math can tell you that we're headed for a time, because our grandparents were completely horny after World War II, where there will be substantially more retirees drawing from the system than workers paying in. Most realistic estimates indicate that Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits by 2042.

The problem with the President's plan, or anyone's plan who wants to divert Social Security taxes into private accounts, is that it's ill conceived. Diverting money away from Social Security will speed up the demise of the program significantly. Under many of the reform plans under consideration, anyone over 55 would still be supported by Social Security as it exists today. Bush has not suggested how the program would be solvent to support these retirees or orphaned children and the disabled, who also receive benefits through the Social Security program.

Even Bush's closest allies, like Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee are in doubt (source):

"Maybe we ought to focus on the solvency and bring people to the table just over what do you do for the solvency for the next 75 years," Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday. Grassley said "personal accounts don't have a lot to do with solvency," a distinction that Bush glosses over but that his advisers concede."

He goes on to suggest a more realistic fix to the problem:

"The program's problems could be fixed, he suggested, with a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases."

A GOP leader in the Senate conceding that the President's plan does little to address the solvency of the Social Security program? It's not just the Democrats on Capitol Hill who are having doubts in the President's plan these days.

Republicans in Congress realize that because of their strong numbers in the House and the Senate, they won't be able to pin policy failures on the Democrats, as both parties have a tendency to do in more politically balanced Congressional Delegations.

The number of domestic issues that need to be addressed in this country is staggering. Health care, education, homeland security, energy, and environment are just a few of the areas that should have been addressed during the Clinton administration. But, isn't Bush supposed to be a better President than Clinton? I won't make excuses for Clinton, but President Bush has the opportunity to prove me and the rest of the critics out there wrong by addressing even a few of these pressing issues. We know from his first term that he's not afraid to spend money.

Instead, he has chosen to spend his "political capital" and the tax payers actual financial capital to wreck our Social Security program, and even GOP loyalists are questioning if the President's would do anything to help Social Security. Social Security needs to be fixed, but the President's plan brings us no closer to a solution.

Standards of Evidence - Rebuttal

2005-03-02T09:19:00.000-08:00

OttL accuses me of not citing sources in the Lebanese press. I have to admit. He's right on this. The reality is that I never said that I was, and never intended to. I didn't quote the Iraqi press during the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. either. In fact, I generally don't quote the press of any country that gets violently and physically attacked for telling the truth. Never have, and never will. I guess conservatives just have higher standards for "journalism" than that. I don't know what else to say on that count.

Secondly, OttL says that we shouldn't trust the words of the leader of the Lebanese intifada, Walid Jumblatt. He says that because Jumblatt has been such a consistent hater of the U.S. in the past, we shouldn't trust his words now. I believe that is PRECISELY the reason that we should listen to his words. He's not one to say anything even remotely positive about the U.S. And you'll note from his words...he's still consistent in that. No compliments to the U.S., a simple acknowledgement of the fact that the Lebanese intifada is a natural outgrowth of the Lebanese people hearing and seeing what has happened in Iraq. Seeing the Iraqis vote has made a huge difference in entire the region.

Do the Lebanese people know about or understand the "Bush Doctrine?" OttL thinks not, and on this point I agree. The majority of them, not being exposed to a free media, have probably never heard of the "Bush Doctrine." As Walid Jumblatt indicated, they are simply looking to their near neighbors over in Iraq, see and hear that 8 million voted, and say, "why not us?" I am not alone in this analysis. It's all across all forms of media, from liberal to conservative, from the U.K. to the U.S. If OttL wants to stand alone in the hinterlands of liberal thought, with arms crossed and a sour look on his face, reassuring himself that our invasion of Iraq can't possibly be producing the desired results in the region, and refusing to see what the entire world is now beginning to see, so be it. I cannot remove the liberal blinders. And in the end, reality will triumph anyway.

OttL demanded a credible source of information. I must admit, he has me stumped. I can provide no more credible source than the man leading the intifada himself, Walid Jumblatt, who speaks against his own past when he says that the uprising was made possible by the U.S. invasion. That source has been vetted and confirmed by the liberal mainstream media (starting with the Washington Post), many of whom are now chiming in to say the "Bush Doctrine" may actually be working. I suggest that Ottl open his eyes and take a look at what the rest of the world apparently finds self evident.

Standards of Evidence

2005-03-02T05:51:00.000-08:00

In the process of disregarding a good portion of my posting, On the Mark created a dangerous double standard that is going to make it difficult to have any discussion about this issue. I'm sure many of you will be disappointed to learn that I am going to try anyway.

On the Mark has conceded that his only source of information about the Bush Doctrine's impact on Lebanon is Walid Jumblatt, a Lebanese Political leader. But, can we really trust what this guy says? Before you answer that question, you should read this. On the Mark's sole source of information has also been quoted as saying that the US invented Osama Bin Laden to launch a war against Arab Nations. He's also a racist and anti-Semite. Jumblatt's credibility and sudden reversal of opinion are highly suspicious. And so far, Jumblatt's comments in the Washington Post editorial are the only piece of evidence that On the Mark has for the Bush Doctrine's impact on Lebanon. Jumblatt's opinions might not be so suspicious, if they weren't required to stand on their own, with no additional corroboration.

On the Mark goes on to say that my sources weren't actually Lebanese media anyway, but neither were any of his. Most of the bloggers in Lebanon that he cited in his original posting mentioned nothing about the Bush Doctrine. The few that did, cited the same Washington Post editorial that we've been subjected to consistently. My point stands that if the Bush Doctrine is so influential, why aren't we reading about it anywhere except the Op Ed page of the Washington Post from a guy who is obviously not credible?

On the Mark contradicts himself in the process of trying to refute my Lebanese news sources. He claims that on one hand, the government controls the media and what the Lebanese people have access to in terms of information, but his entire argument that the Bush Administration's policies have influenced the people of Lebanon to rise up and overthrow the government would require that the Lebanese people have some knowledge of the Bush Doctrine. Wouldn't you have to have knowledge of something to be inspired by it? He can't have it both ways.

Except for the incredibly educated people, most Lebanese wouldn't have access to the Washington Post Editorial in Arabic or English. Additionally, in the event that the Lebanese people did have widespread access to the only media source in the entire world that says anything about the Bush Doctrine's impact in Lebanon, it highly unlikely that most Lebanese people, as I cited yesterday, have a very high opinion of the US foreign policy anyway.

The fact remains that 99.9% of the articles that you read in any media outlet in any country will tell you that the people of Lebanon are rising up because of the assassination of Al-Hariri. I'm not being unreasonable here. I simply want a source of credible information that describes the Bush Administration's impact on the situation in Lebanon. Given the widespread coverage of the issue, it shouldn't be this difficult.

Lebanese Media Accuracy and Freedom - NOT

2005-03-01T15:20:00.000-08:00

Off to the Left attempts to say that the opinion of the acknowledged LEADER of the current intifada is irrelevant in regard to what gave the Lebanese people the courage to rise up against their government and demand real democracy. If you've been following this debate, you are aware that Jumblatt specifically and unequivocally stated, as the leader of the intifada:

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Unfortunately, like most liberals, Off to the Left (OttL) believes HE knows better than one of the main leaders of the revolt. Liberals always know better. Instead of relying upon the man leading the event, he says we should look to the Lebanese press for our information. I might be mistaken, but it seems he's referring to the same press that is either run by, or censored by the Lebanese Government (read "Syria"). Their methods for press control are often brutally violent, but apparently OttL thinks this makes for quality reporting.

According to the International Press Institute's latest report on press freedom in Lebanon: 2003

Press freedom in Lebanon weakened in comparison to the previous year. This year was marked by rocket and police attacks on media outlets. It was a year of pressure and attacks on the media sources and journalists, by the Lebanese government itself, as well as by foreign governments. The Lebanese media also faced attacks from non-governmental bodies. (link)

Okay, so we have the choice of trusting a media that gets attacked by rockets and police when they say anything the government doesn't like, or we can take the word of the man credited with being the "leader of the intifada in Lebanon," as reported by a liberal democratic journalist who met with him. While I often don't trust the liberal media in this country, I think circumstances warrant taking their word for it on this one. I think most rational folks would agree with me. Then again...we're dealing with the liberal propensity to refuse to validate anything that comes from President Bush, so we're out of the realm of rational here.

OttL also has the following inaccuracy in his posting: "In fact, if you look specifically at an editorial in Dar Al-Hayat, you get a different picture of how the general public in Lebanon views the US invasion of Iraq and the overall US foreign policy in the region.."

Unfortunately, if you read the article which OttL cites as an example of the Lebanese press, you must first note that it is a guest editorial written not by someone from Beirut, or even Lebanon, but a foreign peace worker and the President of Seeds of Peace, Aaron David Miller. While Miller has the credentials to talk about the Middle East (having advised multiple U.S. Administrations on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process), he is NOT Lebanese, and NOT part of the Lebanese press. Further, in the cited article, he never even mentions the current situation in Lebanon, nor the emerging democratic movements across the region. He makes some great points about working to win the hearts and minds of the majority of people in the region, but this article has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation in Lebanon.

OttL's citation of this article as an example that the Lebanese press, representing the Lebanese people, doesn't believe U.S. policy in the region had anything to do with the current events in Lebanon, is unsupportable by any standard. It's the usual liberal ploy. When you can't find anything to support your "theory," just throw out something general as a decoy. Well, it's not going to work here. Plain and simple, this article absolutely NEVER mentions Lebanon, and only has a small passing reference to the U.S. invasion of or presence in Iraq.

That being said, I appreciated OttL's citation to this article. Miller has some great points in there about the battle for the hearts and minds of the majority in the middle east. It's worth reading, and important to note, as OttL did, that military action alone is not the path to permanent and sustainable security for the U.S. We must continue to work to do a much better job disseminating information and programs that support a pro-Western vision which the average person in the Middle East can embrace. But first, freedom of the press and democracy must come so that such information will be available to the average person.

OttL also cites the Daily Star as a good example of the 'Lebanese Press.' Unfortunately, the Daily Star is NOT a Lebanese paper. It was founded decades ago, by a Lebanese man, long since deceased, and is now a regional, middle eastern paper, distributed by the International Herald Tribune. It does carry plenty of Lebanese news, and as such, I'd be shocked if they admitted that the current revolt was "inspired" by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Even Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the intifada admitted that though it was certainly the case, he felt weird saying it. This is a country, media, and people that are not used to being inspired by the U.S. They get bombed when they say things that the government disagrees with. And you'll note, if you choose to read the Daily Star, that they even fail to carry Jumblatt's quote regarding the role the U.S. has played in Iraq.

Interestingly, after reading and reading the Lebanese press reference by OttL, I simply cannot find ANY reference to the U.S. After years and years and years of slandering our country, they are suddenly silent on the issue of the U.S. So I hardly think that this supports OttLs theory that the U.S. invasion had almost nothing to do with the events in Lebanon. They simply can't bring themselves to say "thanks" quite yet. That's okay...we'll leave the light on. And when they join the brotherhood of democratic nations, we'll be there to welcome them, as we always have been. Oh yeah, I almost forgot; we'll be serving up a nice slice of apple pie when they arrive.

Republican Hubris:Failure to Appreciate the Larger Context of Democratization in the World

2005-03-01T13:47:00.000-08:00

On the Mark makes a valiant effort to denounce my challenge from last night, but unfortunately, like most Bush supporters during these critical times for Democracy, On the Mark fails to see the development of democratic governments around the world in its larger context. It's like giving my third grade teacher credit for the Human Genome Project, because she taught me about genetics when I was a kid. Sure, democracy is happening all over the world, but invading Iraq has not had the cascade effect that conservatives would like to believe.

If you read the Lebanese media, which I would remind you is likely the information that the Lebanese people have access to, it says nothing about the Bush Doctrine or the invasion of Iraq. Here is a link to the Lebanon Daily star. No where in the in depth analysis and coverage of the breaking events in Lebanon does it indicate that the Bush Administration's foreign policy had any influence whatsoever. Here's another link from Lebanese newspaper Dar Al-Hayat. If you look through the comprehensive and detailed analysis of the events unfolding as a type this from a Lebanese perspective, and not just the view of one leader, you see that the US Foreign Policy has had little influence in Lebanon.

In fact, if you look specifically at an editorial in Dar Al-Hayat, you get a different picture of how the general public in Lebanon views the US invasion of Iraq and the overall US foreign policy in the region (link). Aaron David Miller has this to say about the impact of the Bush Doctrine on the attitude of Arabs and Muslims:

"A disturbingly large minority of Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East and South Asia will likely remain opposed to the United States regardless of what we do; but the majority of hearts and minds there are still very much in play. Devising a strategy that stands a better chance of influencing them ought to be a key priority for the second Bush administration. Frankly, it wasn't much of a priority for the first."

Hmmm... doesn't seem like this guy share's Jumblatt's opinion about the US influence on the situation in Lebanon. More from Miller:

"Finally, we need to refocus our policies in a way that responds to the sensitivities that resonate in these regions: Two problems shape the Middle East's view of the U.S. these days. A major U.S. course correction on Iraq (very much a work in progress) is unlikely any time soon. But on the Israeli-Palestinian problem, a change in U.S. policy is not only necessary, but possible now. No other action we could take right now would do more to enhance U.S. credibility, improve our image, and advance our regional interests, including the war on terror, than a serious American effort to diffuse the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
One thing is clear. Continuing not to take a serious approach on hearts and minds and to hang a "Closed for the season sign" on our policy toward Arab-Israeli peace, will win us no new friends, influence no new people, and virtually guarantee another very bad season."

If you read this analysis, you can see that the US foreign policy and specifically the US action in Iraq has actually been quite unpopular among Arabs and Muslims throughout the region. A change in US foreign policy is the fix recommended in Miller's opinion.

My final point on this issue is that the emergence of democracy around the globe in never completely attributable to one single factor or action. In his initial post, On the Mark claimed that what was happening in Lebanon is "because of the Bush Doctrine." The only person that shares On the Mark's view is Jumblatt. If you read the Lebanese media, you see that most Arabs and Muslims have a negative attitude towards Bush's foreign policy, and are not encouraged by it and that the US foreign policy is receiving very little attention during this exciting time, except obviously from Jumblatt, and conservatives who want to promote the President's imperialistic policies. If the President's policies were so influential, why is Jumblatt the only one talking about them?

If anything, I would argue that the President's invasion in Iraq has increased resentment of US policies across the Middle East and has provided substantial opportunities for recruitment for terrorists. I'm not the only one who holds this view as you can see here or here or here. The fact is that our invasion of Iraq, despite achieving one goal in the removal of Saddam Hussein, had a number of undesirable and unintended effects.

The emergence of democracy is a combination of economic, political, and social factors. An excellent analysis of the complexity of emerging democracy around the world can be found in this National Geographic article from November 2004. If you're interested in how democracy actually arises, it's a great resource. It doesn't oversimplify the process. I think it makes a great point that simply having a democracy is not sufficient, and that democracies vary widely, and encompass everything from what we know and love in the US to countries where voting is practiced, but voters only have one party they are allowed to vote for.

Update on Lebanon - CNN's Wolf Blitzer Believed Democracy in the Middle East Was "Impossible"

2005-03-01T10:09:00.000-08:00

This morning I was on the bike at the gym, listening to some great music and working up a sweat. Unfortunately, by no choice of my own, CNN (the Communist News Network) was playing on the TV in front of me, and I was forced to look at Wolf Blitzer. Suddenly, I saw that he was interviewing David Ignatius of the Washington Post (and subject of my post below) about the current situation in Lebanon, and the democratic changes that appear to rolling across the Middle East with increasing momentum. I switched to FM and listened in.

David Ignatius mainly restated what he had said in his article (quoted extensively in the post below). However, the most revealing, and actually stunning moment in the interview came from Wolf Blitzer. I was so shocked by what I thought he said, that after the interview I got off the bike, packed my bag and headed for home. I needed to see a transcript.

When I got home, I went to CNN's website and obtained the transcript, and he really did say exactly what I thought he said. Revealing his unbelievable bias, and the kind of deep cynicism that can only be held by a liberal Democrat who desperately disagrees with the policies being pursued by our country, he said,

"Is there a potential right now for some sort of speedy development along those lines, setting the stage for real democracy in a part of the world that many of us thought would never see real democracy? " Wolf Blitzer

Many of "who" thought the Middle East "would NEVER see real democracy?" I certainly never thought that. Did you? Who does he speak for? Surely not the soldiers giving their lives in Iraq to make democracy a reality. Surely not our President, who has had a clear vision from the start and who has never wavered. Surely not the brilliant strategist, Paul Wolfowitz, who has seen the outcome of this card game since before the first hand was dealt. Surely he isn't pretending to be speaking for the "majority" in this country who believed in what President Bush was doing enough to reelect him. So when he says "many of us," who does Wolf Blitzer presume to be speaking for?

It is my opinion that he was speaking, as do so many in the main stream media, for the liberal elite, who simply find it impossible to believe that when you provide human beings with the opportunity for, and the possibility of freedom (yes, sometimes through the use of military force) they will take it. History is replete with examples.

Unfortunately, Wolf Blitzer and his clique find this sort of thinking beyond their limited imaginations. He and those he claims to speak for are apparently content to sit back and comfortably prognosticate that the Arab world must live under tyranny and repression forever. Luckily, President Bush wasn't buying the Blitzer line, and the repressed peoples of the Middle East aren't buying his line any longer either. They smell freedom, and they are going to take it for themselves, now that they know it's possible.

Thank goodness for the wise, visionary and brave souls in our government who believe in freedom for all people. Freedom is on the march in the Middle East my friends. And tyranny everywhere is trembling in its collective boots. Perhaps the tyrants and despots can offer Wolf Blitzer a government media job promoting the thought that freedom isn't possible for their people. He's pretty good at it, but he's certainly not convincing the Arabs in the Middle East anymore.

Walid Jumblatt, Leader of Lebanese Intifada - "This Process of Change has Started Because of the American Invasion of Iraq"

2005-02-28T22:02:00.000-08:00

Well, the liberal gauntlet has been wildly thrown once again, and I'd be remiss if I didn't grab the easy pickings on this one and bring it home for those who actually grasp the situation in the Middle East. Everything isn't always the fault of the U.S. and our hideous misguided policies. And we can and will take credit where it's due. Let's go directly to the case in point.

Here's a quote from Off to the Left's post below:

"What On the Mark and even President Bush have failed to do is to show us specifically how the Bush Doctrine has had any influence on what's occurring right now in Beruit, Lebanon."

I'd like a serious challenge, but this one won't qualify. You see, according to a Feb. 23rd article in the Washington Post, "The leader of this Lebanese intifada is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation."

During the interview by David Ignatius, Mr. Jumblatt, the "leader of this Lebanese intifada" had this to say about the impetus for the change in Lebanese politics.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

I'd say that qualifies for a major and direct hit. Don't you think so? Off to the Left wanted to be shown "how the Bush Doctrine has had any influence on what's occurring right now in Beirut, Lebanon." In case you didn't catch what Jumblatt, "the leader of the Lebanese intifada" said (maybe you're a liberal practicing cognitive dissonance), he said that 'THIS PROCESS OF CHANGE HAS STARTED BECAUSE OF THE AMERICAN INVASION OF IRAQ." I'm not sure one could be more clear. And Jumblatt goes even further to say that the Syrians and the Egyptians also all say something is changing. The Bush Doctrine IS moving all of the Middle East towards democracy. The facts are undeniable.

Making the article and its contents even more significant is that the Washington Post usually goes well out of its way to trash the right, and our country in general. It's a well known extension of the Democratic party. Unfortunately for them, the quote came straight from "the leader of this Lebanese intifada." Hard to argue with that. And Jumblatt isn't one who is normally full of praise for the U.S. Again from the Washington Post interview with Jumblatt, David Ignatius reports:

"Over the years, I've often heard him [Jumblatt] denouncing the United States and Israel, but these days, in the aftermath of Hariri's death, he's sounding almost like a neoconservative. "

Of course, our friend on the left is correct that the assassination of a popular opposition leader gave current and immediate impetus to the historic events now taking place in Lebanon. But when the anti-American leader of the very movement in question states openly that this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq, and gives credit where it is due, surely the left wing in our own country can be reasonable enough to do the same. Then again, maybe not. It seems that liberals would prefer to express their disdain for our President and his policies, regardless of the reality on the ground.

The Bush Doctrine: Examining the Web of Lies

2005-02-28T19:04:00.000-08:00

Great things are happening right now in Lebanon, as On the Mark pointed out in his last post. People are taking to the streets in protest, and there is some wonderful coverage on different blogs. The problem is that On the Mark attributes the entire situation to "The Bush Doctrine", which is a complete overstatement and gives the President way too much credit for doing absolutely nothing. It's safe to say that the Bush Doctrine, whatever it really is, has had little tangible effect on the current situation in Lebanon.

If you're interested in reading more about the Bush Doctrine, you can read the Administration's version of things here. Basically, President Bush wants to promote democracy all over the world. It sounds wonderful, and if it were truly being implemented, I would absolutely support it. How can one who believes in democracy not support it?

What On the Mark and even President Bush have failed to do is to show us specifically how the Bush Doctrine has had any influence on what's occurring right now in Beruit, Lebanon. He provides 5 websites for your consideration. Three of those websites (Caveman in Beirut, Digital Revelations, and Syria Comment) say nothing about the Bush Doctrine leading to democracy in Lebanon.

Publius Pundit refers to the Bush Doctrine, but pulls an internet sleight of hand trick by saying in this post that a NY Times Editorial supports the Bush Doctrine. Further investigation, however, reveals that if you actually try to find said editorial, it was published in 1988 in reference to the end of the Cold War. Wasn't 1988 the year W. got his DUI? I think his only doctrine at that point was running several companies into the ground and drinking whiskey. If you don't believe me, click through yourself.

That leaves us with the only website that On the Mark included that says ANYTHING about the Bush Administration being linked to what is happening in Lebanon, Across the Bay. Across the Bay refers to this post from Michael Young. The keystone of Across the Bay and Young's case for the Bush Administration's influence on the events in Lebanon is this editorial from the Washington Post.

In that editorial, author Michael Ignatius correctly identifies the antecedent event in Lebanon as the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafiq Hariri, and not the Bush Doctrine. Young and Across the Bay try rather pathetically to make the case that US actions in Iraq and Bush's recent statements in Brussels are what inspired the Lebanese people to take to the streets in powerful protest.

The Bush Doctrine cannot be shown empirically to have any influence on what is happening in Lebanon. You will certainly find numerous opinions, particularly of Bush supporters like On the Mark, who want so badly for it to be true. The Bush Doctrine, however, is essentially a history book-friendly way of disguising the fact that the entirety of the Bush Administration's foreign policy is the threat of sanctions and eventual military action to force regime change.

My challenge to all you conservatives out there and On the Mark, if you're going to make statements about the effectiveness of the Bush Doctrine as a foreign policy, is to provide an example of a Bush Administration Policy, that has fostered democracy in Lebanon. And not simply some conservative pundit's opinion, but a tangible action.

The real truth is that the people of Lebanon took to the streets because one of their formers leaders was assassinated. Bush's comments, probably not even available to most Lebanese citizens without passing through the filter of an oppressive regime, had nothing to do with it. Let's give credit where it is due: The Lebanese people, and not our foolish President.

People Power in Lebanon - The Rapidly Chaning Middle East

2005-02-28T14:17:00.000-08:00

Today in the news we are treated to a spectacle that is becoming more and more common in the Middle East, as a result of the Bush Doctrine; ordinary citizens turning out to push real democracy on their despotic governments.

The people of Lebanon, after the assasination of popular businessman Hariri, have taken to the streets, demanding and obtaining the resignation of the Syrian puppet government. Not content with this victory, apparently hundreds of thousands of peaceful demonstrators (ala Kiev) are now demanding the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. It is incredible to witness.

There are some blogs covering it live. Here's the best list I've been able to put together so far:

Caveman in Beirut - The best I've seen. Postings by a foreign linguist living in Beirut. Also has postings from others living there.

Syria Comment - A Fulbright Scholar on leave from Oklahoma and living in Syria.

Digital Revelations - An American living and teaching in Lebanon.

Across the Bay - Good summary and compilation of sources...direct from Beirut.

Publius Pundit - Great compilation of sources on the current situation in Beirut.

I'll continue to research, and if I find more, especially from sources on the ground in Lebanon, we'll be adding it.

Warning: Security Breach in Progress - Liberal in Residence

2005-02-27T22:16:00.000-08:00

'Tis the wee hours of the morning, and much to my delight, there is change in progress and controversy afoot. As many of you know, since the inception of this blog I have sought a left leaning voice, a counterpart from deep in the hinterlands of liberal insanity, who might wield their keyboard gallantly, and blog to the "other side" of the issues. After all, I named the site "World Debate" for a reason. And finally, the day of reason has arrived.

Today, I'm pleased to introduce you to Off to the Left, who will do his best to poke holes in the views that we as conservatives cherish so deeply. He'll be challenged to keep his arguments sane and supportable, and generally free of highbrow rhetoric. (Ouch...that hurts.) And we on the right will face the same rigors.

Now those of you who consider yourselves as aligned with or leaning to the right, I'll need you to back my play. You know who you are. If you listen to the lefties tell it, you're the redneck, beer drinking, illiterate religious fanatics. Remember, this is just a debate here, so no pinching, biting, kicking, swearing or calling names (forget that last one; we'll make an exception for calling names). But I do need you to jump in and comment, both on my posts, and those from the new guy over there on the left.

A warm welcome to our new found left wing friends who are following Off to the Left to his new home here on World Debate. We appreciate having you here. Please consider our home, your home. Just promise that you won't wear your tinfoil hats on this blog. We do have to draw some lines about who we can be seen with. And remember, you're the folks who are going to make it or break it on the left. You need to jump in and support the posts that reflect your views, feel free to add your own, or let me know when my membership card in the "vast right wing conspiracy" is showing.

What do we expect of you, our loyal readers? We expect that you'll participate. Really, you'll be the judge, jury and part of the team on the playing field, all at the same time. You'll be right there in the fray with us, whether you're backing the posts from the conservatives rallying the troops in the red states, or the liberals in the blue attacking the unguarded flank of the conservative argument.

Will it be dangerous? Only to half baked ideas, and factually unsupportable arguments. Will it be fun? Only if you're interested in the issues of the day, and like to hear at least two sides to an argument. We do, and that's why we got together to blog here.

Both Off to the Left and I were tired of reading blogs that just reinforced what other blogs had to say when they themselves were restating only what other bloggers had to say. We called it the "echo chamber." We grew weary of conservatives writing for conservatives, and liberals writing to liberals. We felt that a good, open, honest debate of the issues of the world was in order. We believe that to express our ideas, and then be challenged to support them, was a great way to learn. Perhaps even a way to be convinced by a more "liberal" or "conservative" position than we had previously held (gasp). I encourage you to visit daily, because we'll be posting!

Just to level the playing field and to follow Off to the Left in his first posting, I'll end mine with one of my favorite quotes: "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. " Winston Churchill

Who let this clown in here?

2005-02-27T18:36:00.000-08:00

Attention all World Debate devotees: A liberal has breached this website's security. Many of you are accustomed to dropping in, basking in the bright red sunshine of On the Mark's political commentaries, and maybe even taking part in some good, old fashioned, right-wing liberal bashing.

The good news is that you'll still be doing a lot of that. The difference is that me and my left-wing, commie, pinko-liberal friends are not going to let you get away with saying that Howard Dean is the next human incarnation of Satan, and you're no longer going to let me get away with referring to President Bush as Jed, at least not without some serious discussion and analysis.

On the Mark and I are in agreement that in order to be a debate, more than one viewpoint should be at the forefront of the discussion. On the Mark has done a beautiful job of creating an environment where that type of discussion can take place. The internet is literally soiled with political blogs framing the key political issues of our day from one perspective. We figured it was time for a more dynamic discussion, and we hope that regardless of your viewpoint, you'll join in the debate.

To start things off on the left foot, here's one of my favorite quotes from Philosopher John Stuart Mill: "While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is fact that most stupid people are conservative."

Another Misleading Story by the Main Stream Media - Plot to Assassinate President Arises from Saudi Islamic School in Virginia

2005-02-23T07:53:00.000-08:00

Mainstream media has now repeatedly identified Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the US citizen charged with planning and conspiring to assassinate President Bush, as a former Virginia high school valedictorian. That evokes pretty pictures of middle America and an outstanding American student gone bad, doesn't it? That would make it an incredibly surprising story.

Unfortunately, what most of the MSM hasn't revealed is the name of the school that Mr. Ali, the esteemed valedictorian attended. The reality is that he was valedictorian of the American madrassa, the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA), which is entirely funded by the Saudi government, and operates under it's auspices. His father apparently works in a technical capacity at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, DC. Rusty Shackleford has details: Terrorist Son of Saudi Embassy Worker Attended Saudi Run School.

There is ample proof, on the Jawa Report, that the ISA is teaching hatred of other religions and cultures, including direct teachings on the value of Jihad and the killing of Jews. You can read much of the detail at the Jawa Report , including direct quotations from materials that these students are being taught, right here in America. More is being discovered and posted by the minute, and thanks to the blogosphere, this story is moving into the mainstream.

While government officials like Congressman Rangel continue to attempt to convince us that there is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist, mosques and schools such as the ISA, continue to indoctrinate, educate, and train them, right here on our own soil. Rangel stated, "We just take for granted that there is an Islamic terror movement because we do have some fanatic people who come from Islamic countries." Could he, as a government official, be more out of touch with reality? He may be, but luckily, you and I are not.

Islamic terrorism is real. It's hateful and murderous doctrines are preached in many, many mosques and schools right here in the United States. Isn't it time that we did something about it? Or do we need to wait until we are hit again, and again, and again? The choice is ours to be vigilant and loud, or to be like the ostrich Rangel, bury our heads in the sand, and hope that the problem just "goes away."

Hollywood's Top Gun in Washington Woos the GOP - Hillary Gets Religion - The Democratic Party Drops Ideals and Goes "Pragmatic"

2005-02-21T09:05:00.000-08:00

There are rumblings in the Democratic Party, and they are not good news for those that believe the party is already on the right path. In an article on MSNBC today, Tamara Lipper reports that the new head of the Motion Picture Association of America, Dan Glickman, is doing his best to woo the GOP. At a time when the industry at large is about as anti-GOP as it gets, such a move is pragmatic on the part of Glickman. According to the MSNBC article, "Glickman generally tries to avoid plunging into the culture wars, but admits that last year's Bush-bashing by Hollywood celebs made him "cringe." He's clearly out of political step with his constituency within the MPAA, but pragmatism is forcing his approach.

The motion picture industry is currently struggling with the issues of illegal downloads and swapping of copyrighted materials. With the Republicans firmly in control of Washington, Glickman knows he must deal with the party currently in power to deal with these issues.

"Now Tinseltown must come to terms with the new political landscape: Republicans have tightened their grip on Washington just as Hollywood's need for help in fighting illegal movie downloads is rising. "I've got some bridge building to do," Glickman, a lifelong Democrat, admits. "

And it appears that there are many more such "pragmatists" appearing across the Democratic Party these days. At the top of the list, and another great case in point is Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton has traditionally spoken to the far left of her party. However, lately, in obvious moves designed to appeal to more conservative Democrats, and possibly to moderate Republicans, Clinton has begun to publicly speak about her "deeply held" religious beliefs.
She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square." (Boston Globe - Jan. 20, 2005)

This is new territory for Senator Clinton. Apparently she has conveniently forgotten even her own quite public history. In an editorial on the subject on January 21, 2005 at Newsmax.com (an avowedly right wing news source on the web), the following could be found:

"Though she was raised as a Methodist, Clinton's open embrace of God, along with her insistence that she's "always been a praying person," has to come as a shock to those who remember her college days.

Back then, Clinton was far more likely to be seen reading not the Bible but the writings of Marx and Mao - and had close associations with unabashed Communists, to whom the mere mention of religion was heresy.

One was Robert Treuhaft, who, as noted in the late Barbara Olson's Hillary biography, "Hell to Pay," had "dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party." In 1972 Treuhaft offered the future senator a summer internship at the Universiy of California's Berkeley campus. Clinton accepted, immersing herself in Truehaft's brand of radical Stalinism. When she returned, she was, according to Olson, "a budding Leninist."

If Sen. Clinton was "a praying person" back then, she must have kept it well concealed from her radical mentors."

I'm not trying to say that there's anything wrong with a little political pragmatism. However, let's all do our best to be fully aware of the political games being played here. We are watching the makeover of a party, after all. And let's keep our eye on the ball as we watch the dramatic changes in the public persona of an already legendary political figure, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, as she "remakes" herself in a bid to become the first female President of the United States.

For a great parody of Senator Clinton's in process transformation from left wing liberal stalwart of the Democratic Party, to whatever she will eventually become in her bid for the Presidency, see Gerard Baker's piece in the UK's Timesonline. Baker follows Senator Clinton's fictitious move from liberal to conservative in the near future in hilarious fashion. And as you read it and laugh, remember that the UK press in general is no fan of Bush. So this piece of hilarity cannot be wired into some vast right wing conspiracy, try as we might. There is a trend here, and across the "pond" it has been duly noted.

Where are the "Moderate" Muslims?

2005-02-18T12:50:00.000-08:00

Everyday around the world Muslims inflict terror and violence on innocent civilians. Call them "insurgents," "terrorists," "freedom fighters," or whatever you will. The moniker matters not. From Beslan to Bangkok, from Baghdad to Beirut, there are those who call themselves Muslims and engage in violence too horrible to imagine. In Iraq, a primarily Sunni Muslim "insurgency" slaughters thousands of innocent fellow Muslims and Iraqis, ostensibly to protect the country from the "evils of democracy." These are people who claim to kill in the name of God. What could be more outrageous?

The indiscriminate, escalating killing of innocent civilians around the world in the name of Islam is beyond comprehension. It is the "dark ages" revisited. It is a slice of hell on earth. The huge majority of the planet's population is horrified by this growing phenomenon. And yet, among the minority who are apparently not horrified, are the literally hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not claim allegiance to fundamental Islam, yet who do not condemn the violence as a stain against what Muslims so often try to characterize as a "religion of peace." They are the quiet millions. And day by day, week by week, year by year, they are making themselves into the willing accomplices to the murderers.

Where is the hue and cry from the masses of Muslim "moderates"? Where are the Islamic leaders willing to step up and issue condemnations in the mosques? Where are the Imams and the sheikh, the Mullahs and the politicians who will step forward and say, "Enough is enough"? Where are they? Their silence is deafening in its intensity.

Today, the Muslim leaders who fail to speak against these unthinkable atrocities are paving the way for the armageddon that must and will surely come against their people. By their inaction, by their silence, they give their implicit blessing to horrors that most people cannot even think of without becoming sick. And by their silence, they lead the rest of us to believe, perhaps correctly, that they support the death, destruction and terror.

The world is awakening to a threat more severe than any that has ever been seen. It is a threat that crosses borders, ignores cultural differences, and laughs at every plea of reason thrown against it. It is a threat from people who desire, and are happy to give their lives for the achievement of a dream. It is the dream of a planet enslaved under Islamic (sharia) law. It is the dream of a planet where women are routinely stoned to death for social transgressions. It is the dream of a planet where those who are not "believers" in Allah, are infidels. And as infidels, at best they are to be treated as second class citizens. At worst, they are simply to be destroyed.

In short, the world is currently plagued by people with a dream that for the great majority of us is a nightmare. And yet I hear constantly in the media that this is a movement of "radical fundamentalists" and that all Muslims should not be condemned along with them. Yet search as I might, I find few Muslim voices willing to speak out against their religious brethren. They do exist. Sites such as Free Muslims Against Terrorism, and Islam Denounces Terrorism, express their ideas eloquently and are much appreciated. Yet it leaves me wondering, where is the leadership? Why are these apparently moderate individuals left to stand alone, shouting into the the wilderness of fundamental and militant Islam?

Where are the major figures in the Muslim world who are speaking out against the terror? Where are the leaders of the movement that must happen if Islam is to be reformed as a positive force in the world? The sad and apparent fact is that they do not exist. Those who do not speak out against terror, condone it. Those who speak out against terror and follow their pronunciations with tirades against the Jews, Israel and the U.S. as the cause of the terror, are simply hiding their implied support for terror. They are attempting to "ride the fence" between sanity and hell. They try to walk the line between two worlds.

One is a world in which people believe that peace is possible, and that people are created equal and should live under free democracies. The other is hell on earth. It is a vision of the world under sharia law, where infidels are punished or killed, women are property, and government is religion and religion is government, and both rule with an iron fist of totalitarianism. There is no "walking the line" or "riding the fence" between those worlds.

The line is clear. One can step over the line to the side of freedom and democracy, and stand with those who believe in justice and peace for all. Or one can try to ride the fence, but the slide into hell for those is rapidly gaining speed. The tide is turning in the world, and those who ply the trade of violence, terrorism and oppression are on the run. The world is more democratic today than it has ever been before. And freedom is on the march.

As the tide turns, the question remains...where are the "moderate" Muslims? Do they exist on a large scale? And if they do, will they slide into a hellish oblivion with the fundamentalists driving the public face of Islam today? Or will they stand up en masse, and make a stand against the drive to make Islam into a dirty word around the modern world?

Democratic Leadership Threatening Democrats Who Cooperate With Republicans on Social Security Reform?

2005-02-10T13:41:00.000-08:00

In what could prove to be an explosive and damaging situation for the Democrats, Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis) alleges that he has been told by his friends across the aisle that though some of them like his proposed approach to Social Security reform, they won't be supporting him.

" Under his legislation (HR 4851), no new taxes would be needed to pay for "transition costs," participation in the new system would be voluntary and individuals would be allowed to divert a portion of their payroll tax into a mutual fund." (Human Events Online)

Unfortunately, he alleges that the Democrats to whom he has been speaking have been told that they will face serious retribution from the Democratic leadership if they cooperate with the Republicans.

According to an article today in Human Events Online ,

"We were in planning stages [with friendly Democrats]," said Ryan. But each essentially told him: "I like what you're doing. I like this bill. I think it's the right way to go. But my party leadership will break my back. The retribution that they are promising us is as great as I have ever seen. We can't do it."

If this proves to be true, it is another example of the absolute arrogance of the Democratic Party. They move further and further away from any connection with the American people, and deeper and deeper into partisanship that isn't good for the country.

Ryan said that he believes the only way to counter the back room partisanship from the Democrats is an outpouring of public support for some sort of Social Security reform. Hopefully, he'll get his wish.

Palestinians and Israelis Announce Historic Cease Fire - Again...and again...and again

2005-02-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

Yet another "historic" cease fire has been announced in the interminable Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While I'd like to be excited about this development, unfortunately I am a student of history. And anyone who is a student of history will note that "cease fire" has always represented Palestinian for "regroup and prepare for more violence and senseless civilian death."

The Israelis and Palestinians have been down this very road many times before. That's not to say that it can't succeed, and at very least there is some additional hope without hate monger, and megalomaniac Yasser Arafat at the helm of the PLO. Perhaps Mahmud Abbas can motivate the varied and violent factions within the West Bank and Gaza to lay down arms in favor of negotiation and peaceful resolution. I will pin my small hope here.

Unfortunately, based upon statements from the terrorist organization Hamas, that piece appears unlikely. According to the AFP, "Palestinian Islamist militant movement Hamas said that it was not bound by the ceasefire announced by Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas at a Middle East peace summit in Egypt." As Hamas has been responsible for many of the most violent attacks, and many of them during "cease-fires" (see history below), this doesn't look good for the potential of the current situation to result in any sustained peace for the parties.

Back in 2003, AJN reported that "A cease-fire could be an intermediary step toward conflict resolution, accommodation and peace, or it could be only a lull in violence. It all depends on the intentions and plans of the parties seeking a cease-fire. From the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict Israel has always perceived a cease-fire as an intermediary step towards conflict resolution, while the Arabs perceived it as an interlude between rounds of warfare." (AJN.com.au) If this is the case again, then the recent Israeli release of prisoners, and the declared "cease-fire" will prove to be another useless, and probably dangerous move which only repeats historical mistakes.

The following is a historical review of the "cease-fires" and their surrounding events and collapses from 2000-2004. This list has been collated from several sources on the web as indicated. Hopefully it is a helpful overview of the "history" of the cease-fires between the parties, and the results thereof. It is not intended as a complete historical review, and my apologies in advance for any holes you might find in this timeline. However, I think it's important that we at least take a look back at history as we consider the current situation.

The Fate of Past Cease-Fire Efforts (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

October 4, 2000 -- Barak-Arafat meeting in Paris with U.S. Secretary of State Albright and French President Chirac. "Points of Understanding" document concluded, but Arafat refused to sign.

October 16-17, 2000 -- At the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, Arafat agrees in front of President Clinton to issue a public statement unequivocally calling for an end to violence. In exchange, Israel agrees to Fact-Finding Commission that becomes the Mitchell Committee. Arafat does not issue the cease-fire statement, nonetheless the Mitchell Committee is formed and begins its work.

November 1, 2000 -- Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat meet. As a result, Barak and Arafat conclude a "Joint Statement on the Cessation of Violence." Car bomb explodes in Jerusalem. Cease-fire is not implemented.

November 17, 2000 -- After a November 9 meeting with President Clinton, Arafat declares a cease-fire in Area A. Shooting incidents drop from 53 per day to 34, then rise again to 53.

June 2, 2001 -- Arafat declares in public that he is ready to issue a cease-fire after Dolphinarium Disco attack in Tel Aviv. Incidents of mortar shelling increase from one attack on June 1 to 3 attacks on June 4 to 4 attacks on June 10. Attacks using explosives return to highpoint of 12 per day.

June 13, 2001 -- Arafat agrees to Tenet Work Plan. Mortar attacks drop from 4 per day on June 13 to 2 attacks per day on June 18. Shooting and other attacks continue.

June 4, 2003 Aqaba Summit - Abu Mazen and Ariel Sharon vow to stop violence, end occupation according to the road map. Hamas and Islamic Jihad vow to continue violence. Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad joined in killing four Israeli soldiers in Gaza (June 8) despite the call to end violence from Fatah leaders.

June 10-11, 2003 Failed Israeli assassination attempt on Hamas leader Ahmed Rantissi (June 10) and Hamas suicide attack that kills 15 in Jerusalem (June 11) jeopardize the future of the road map.

Aug 20, 2003 Hamas suicide bombing in a Jerusalem bus claims 21 lives August 21, 2003 Israel, vowing that all Hamas leaders were now targets, assassinates Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab. Others killed in widespread operations in the West bank; Arafat moves to replace Abbas appointee Mohamed Dahlan as security chief in Gaza and to weaken Abbas.

Nov 12, 2003 Palestinian PM Ahmed Qurei forms a government after a long period of negotiations, pledging to end terror and chaos in the Palestine Authority

Nov 19, 2003 UN Security Council passes resolution 1515 in support of the roadmap for peace.

Nov 24, 2003 Israeli PM Sharon announces Disengagement Plan for unilateral withdrawal of Israeli forces if the roadmap fails to produce an end to terrorism. (Source: MidEast Web)

So, while I will pray for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there has yet to emerge a Palestinian leader who has the authority within the terrorist organizations to quell the violence that separates the parties with a river of blood. I will also be praying that I am wrong and that history is not doomed to repeat itself in the Middle East.

Columbia History Professor Massad - Anti Semitism in the News...AGAIN

2005-02-07T11:42:00.000-08:00

Professor Joseph Massad is in the news again. The embattled history professor at the prestigious Columbia University, who has a long and published history of anti-Semitism, and anti-Israel teachings, is at the center of controversy once again. (tip: LittleGreenFootballs)

He's been in the news for his anti-Semitism, and anti-Israel teachings before. In fact, Campus Watch has some great information on Massad, including comments from students and some serious questions which Massad has long refused to answer. If you wish to learn for yourself what Professor Massad stands for, you can review his articles through this link list at Campus Watch. Don't believe me, or anyone else. You'll be stunned by what you read if you take the time. For those who really want to go deep on this issue, here's a link to a complete search on Professor Massad. If you're scared by what you see, then go support Campus Watch in their mission of exposing this sort of bias on our campuses nation wide.

Massad is not alone in his anti-Semetic and anti-Israel teachings. There are unfortunately many others around the country who teach this sort of bias and hatred in our universities. Our children are being educated by these people, and it's a serious problem, that requires some serious thought and ultimately action to correct.

Today in the New York Sun there was an article about the bias of Massad and his teachings. You can read about the current issues at the Sun, or read some of the pertient pieces of the article:

In my opinion, Professor Massad and his ilk should be chased from our universities. This is not education, but instead would qualify as "indoctrination." Free thought and speech should be encouraged at our universities, and that clearly is NOT the mission of Professor Massad. If you care about this issue, check out Campus Watch. They are doing a great job on a difficult task.

Mood Shifts in Iraq - Kerry and Kennedy Miss It

2005-02-07T10:16:00.000-08:00

Today in the Washington post, correspondent Doug Struck reports on the fundamental shift in the attitudes of the Iraqi people since the elections. According to the article, "the public mood appears to be moving more clearly against the insurgency in Iraq."

The only ones who seem to be missing the shift are the dishonorable and drunken Senior Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, and his Junior crusader in senseless liberal rhetoric, John Kerry.

In a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of International Studies on January 27th, Kennedy made the following statements, among others,

"We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe. The war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation."

Once again, and not unusual, Senator Kennedy was wrong. The Iraqi people have hope, things are moving forward, and the war in Iraq is being won. War is ugly, slow and full of death and destruction. These are not pleasant things. But millions have now been liberated from tyranny in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the future is growing brighter because of it. This is a fact that Kennedy and his cronies simply refuse to acknowledge. It pains them that we are succeeding in Iraq.

It was best said in The Chicago-Sun Times in an editorial by avowed Democrat and opponent of the war in Iraq, Mark Brown.

"...after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong? It's hard to swallow, isn't it? "

As if that weren't enough insanity coming out of the great state of Massachusetts, Senator Kerry had to open his mouth and express his personal "whine" on the subject. He appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, and exhorted his fellow Americans not to "overhype" the success of the Iraqi elections.

"No one in the United States should try to overhype this election," Kerry told NBC's "Meet the Press." The failed presidential candidate questioned the historic referendum's legitimacy, saying, "It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote."

Kerry also pooh-poohed reports of a surprisingly high 72 percent turnout by Iraqi voters, insisting instead that the election has "gone as expected."

Asked if he thought Iraq was now less of a terrorist threat, Kerry at first said, "No, it's more. And, in fact, I believe the world is less safe today than it was two and a half years ago."

But he changed his answer moments later, after "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert pressed him on the bizarre claim.

"I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone, and I've said that a hundred times," he insisted. (link)

That sounds dangerously close to "I voted for the $87 Billion before I voted against it," doesn't it? Good thing he never waffles on his positions. I think when he heard that that the Presidential race was about character, he thought people were saying "caricature." Both of the Senators from Massachusetts have become nothing but useless, ineffective caricatures of themselves. Reality is more bizarre than fiction, isn't it?

Maybe there's something in the drinking water in Massachusetts that causes the politicians to lose their minds and speak utter nonsense. This theory is futhered by the fact that the people of Massachusetts keep voting for them. I can't explain it any other way. Massachusetts seems like such a nice, sane place.

Unfortunately for Kennedy, Kerry and the other liberals who seem to start every day with a prayer for the victory of the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, as Mark Brown says, it may be time they "start swallowing" hard. And maybe they should switch to "bottled" water.

Israeli Bus Blown Up by Suicide Bomber Tours U.S. - Palestinians Protest

2005-02-01T22:48:00.000-08:00

In a striking statement intended to reveal the horrific face of terrorism, Christians for Israel have arranged for Jerusalem's Bus 19, destroyed by a Palestinaian suicide bomber, to tour the U.S.

On January 29, 2004, a Palestinian suicide bomber boarded the bus and detonated, killing 11 innocent civilians, and wounding dozens more. The homicide bomber packed his explosives with metal shards, to make sure that he inflicted maximum damage on his victims. This marked the 140th terrorist bombing in Israel, in which 577 people have been killed, and 3543 more injured.

According to Christians for Israel, the tour of Bus 19 is intended to heighten the awareness of Americans to the real threat of terror in all it's brutality that the Israelis face every day. They want Americans to look inside that destroyed bus and understand that the threat of terrorism is real and evil, and is possible not only in Israel, but here in the U.S.

It is hard to imagine that a bus, traveling in order to make people aware of the horror of terrorism could stir up controversy. But in fact, it's done just that. In various communities to which the bus has been shipped, Palestinians and their supporters have turned out to protest the display. It's hard to believe that people could be "against" a display that is against terrorism, but it's true. Check out this protest.

The fact that this bus tour is being protested tells me that the folks behind the tour need and deserve our support even more than I originally thought. If you'd like to know more about the bus and it's U.S. tour, you can obtain more information at the Bus 19 website.

A Reasonable Liberal Perspective on Iraq - Believe it or Not

2005-02-01T19:44:00.000-08:00

The Chicago-Sun Times has run an editorial by avowed Democrat and opponent of the war in Iraq, Mark Brown. It's the first honest, thinking piece I've seen by a Democrat on the elections in Iraq and their aftermath. It's relatively short, so I've included the entire piece for you here.

"Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood. You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home mmediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval. But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders). I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing: Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment. Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world. Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out. Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people. And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

Penance could be required

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them. Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region. So is the rest of the world. For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008."

So this is my call to all the whining, self serving, arrogant Democrats who refuse to let the Iraqis revel in this one small victory. Have a heart. Listen to Mark Brown. Maybe it won't all work out in the end. But then again, maybe it will. Hope and optimism are very powerful forces. Just ask the majority of Iraqi people today.

(Thanks to "Bubba" for the tip on this editorial)

The Ugly Face of Terror in Iraq - Using the Handicapped as Human Bombs

2005-01-31T17:07:00.000-08:00

Just when you believed that the depravity of the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq couldn't get any worse, it actually has. Just when you believed that there was nothing lower than getting healthy young men to blow themselves up and kill their fellow Iraqis in the process was the worst thing you have ever heard, along comes something more horrible from these scum.

It's true...the insurgent scum are now using mentally handicapped children as suicide bombers. I am sickened. Here's the story from This is London, a website out of the U.K. According to the report,

"Terrorists used a disabled child as a suicide bomber on election day, Iraqi interior minister Falah al-Naqib said today. In all, 44 people were killed in a total of 38 bomb attacks on polling stations. Police at the scene of one the Baghdad blasts said the bomber appeared to have Down's syndrome. "

I am honestly at a loss for what to say. The depravity of "suicide bombing" is beyond anything I can imagine. But using a Down Syndrome child, is far beyond even that. It makes me angry. It makes me sick. It makes me personally feel violent. It makes me want to face these people myself. I realize those are irrational thoughts, and with time they will fade. But then, that's one of the differences between people with humanity, and people with none. Those with any humanity actually don't act on our darker sides.

For those of you who have never dealt with a Down Syndrome child, understand that like any human being, their capabilities and understanding of any given situation vary dramatically. But my friend Amy runs a site for Parents of Down Syndrome Kids, and her comment upon seeing this was, "if someone who they trust told a Down Syndrome kid, even my 18 year old daughter, that this was good and right and true, they'd do it without question. But why would anyone ever do such a thing?"

I don't have an answer for Amy, or anyone who sees this and is repulsed. I can only tell you that it will only strengthen the resolve of those who cannot, and will not tolerate such barbary. It has strengthened my personal resolve, and will only serve to further strengthen the resolve of many. And tonight, I and many others will pray for the poor handicapped child who gave their life in Iraq yesterday, for absolutely no reason.

Howard Dean - Will He, or Better Yet, Can He Lead the DNC?

2005-01-31T09:21:00.000-08:00

According to the Salt Lake Tribune (via the Washington Post), Howard Dean appears poised to become the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Others are not so sure, as you can seen by the headline at Newsday.com which reads, "Races for DNC posts wide openParty insiders say there is no single force among candidates, though there is single vision for future path."

In any event, watching the DNC choose it's new Chairperson is an interesting exercise, and allows us to get a glimpse into the current state of confusion reigning in the Democratic Party. According to the Newsday report,

"Republican dominance at the polls last November has prompted a frank and often soul-searching discussion among Democrats about the party's future..."

This is what any intelligent person or organization does after years of sliding results in which they have fallen from complete dominance to "minority" status. But wait...while Newsday reports that there is a "soul searching" discussion going on, apparently Dean thinks that is unnecessary, and that the only changes needed are "mechanical."

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Dean doesn't believe that any rethinking of the party message is necessary. And apparently, that sort of shallow analysis appeals to the Democratic Party faithful. Setting forth his position, the Trib says,

"Dean's prescription for the party - that its problem is mechanical, not ideological - may or may not be true, but it is certainly the message the party faithful in New York want to hear. "

For the good of the Republican Party and its continuing dominance in the U.S. political scene, I sincerely hope that the Tribune is correct, and that Dean is chosen as the head of the DNC. He'll doom them to obscurity for at least four more years. And this is the chance for Republicans to consolidate their gains, so a misstep here by the Democrats could relegate them to obscurity for a long time to come.

For a Vermont GOP perspective on Howard Dean (and they should know him), check out this analysis from John McClaughry, who served with Dean in the Senate, and ran against him for Governor in 1992. He's a long time Dean watcher, and he wrote this in '03 as Dean was running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. According to McClaughry Dean suffers from

"his autocratic style, his lack of ability to deal with bureaucratic management and his overwhelming commitment to his own political ambitions rather than to any recognizable principle."

Again, this bodes well for a Republican leadership which is holding "principle" front and center as its guiding mantra. A man running the DNC solely on his own political ambitions, and lacking in solid "principles" from which he can lead, is the perfect person to steer the DNC during these troubled times. Perfect if you wish to see the continued dominance of the GOP.

If you are a Democrat, and you hope for a better future based upon the leadership of the party, you'd better quickly join the "anyone but Dean" camp. Check out this Newsweek article (via MSNBC), with the headline,

" Now Playing: 'Anybody But Dean, Part 2' - While the GOP danced, the Dems once again found themselves looking for a leader who's not from Vermont."

Best of luck.

Direct from Iraq to World Debate

2005-01-30T13:29:00.000-08:00

I have been emailing some of my friends at the Iraqi blogs congratulating them for their historic efforts to move Iraq towards democracy and freedom despite the obstacles which they face. Today I received this reply. The spirit of the Iraqi people, and their desire for freedom and democracy are inspirational. It reminds me of how much we take for granted.

"Hi friend Thanks alot for mailing meToday is something special to me - I went to a building to vote for Iraq - I'll tell U what I saw in my eyes - I see castle and musketeers voting and dancing - they handle wine cup they got from the king - they all laughing - they all made fun of the other peaples (Arab peaple) that hiding in their houses afraid of the musketeers (Iraqi peaples). believe me friend , me and the other Iraqi peaples that standing waiting to vote are happy , we didn't afraid of terrorists - That is the original Iraq.Yours' Ali Mohamed "

Please visit Ali and the other bloggers listed in the post below, and congratulate them upon the day of their greatest historical victory to date. To be sure, they are not done with their difficulties, but the flame of democracy is burning brightly in Iraq, and the future looks much brighter for all Iraqi citizens.

Iraqi Election Blog Watch List

2005-01-29T13:52:00.000-08:00

For a broad selection of Iraqi election coverage in the blogs, you can use this list as a starting point. Each site has it's own list of links...so you can go on and on if you like. The initial list was put together by the gentleman behind BuzzMachine. You should check out his site for the full list. I have cut it down and edited the list so that it's not as overwhelming (there's a lot out there). You'll find many perspectives here.

IRAQI BLOGGERS
Friends of Democracy has ordinary Iraqis in each of 12 provinces sending reports in Arabic. Those reports are then translated and posted both in English and Arabic. Michael J. Totten, who normally posts on his own blog is a volunteer acting as the editor for the election comverage here. They will also have a webcast show about this starting at 2p ET Sunday and it will also be aired on C-SPAN. Founded by Omar and Mohammed of Iraq the Model.

IraqTheModel. Great, popular blog straight from Iraq. As always, they'll be covering the scene in their country from their own perspective. Their brother, Ali, is covering things from here.

Hammorabi is often critical of the poor security situation and the current government but seems to be excited about the election in spite of difficulties (a great post).

Democracy in Iraq The writer describes himeself: "I am a supporter of democracy in Iraq, and I am writing in a time of great excitement and importance in the history of Iraq, one where a new Iraq is being built with a functioning democracy leading it into the future."

Kurdo is blogging life events and the election from Kurdistan.

Kurdistan Blog. Kurdish group blog.

Kurd in London covered absentee voting there, complete with pictures of electioneering by the poll.

A Family in Baghdad (in Arabic and English) by Iraqi brothers. It is generally anti-occupation and recent posts include letters from the mothers of American soldiers killed there.

Riverbend's latest post is about getting water (life's basics) not the election.

Live from Baghad by an Iraqi formerly living in Cleveland, but now back in Iraq.

Neurotic Iraqi Wife is a newlywed living in Iraq. She gets the feeling voter registration is weak.

Rose is a regular mom in Baghad, writing about daily life. She may not have any election coverage

Sun of Iraq believes the elections are a great victory against the terrorists.

Iraqi Thoughts ExPat Iraqi covering events from Canada, including overseas voting.

Baghdad Dweller is doing a good job covering the election, complete with pre-election polls.

Citizen of Mosul is a doctor who writes about life in his city.

Iraqi Comments is from a 25-year-old Iraqi ex-pat living in Belgium.

Iraq Election blog with links to the parties.

Iraqi Enterprise is a company offering news links.

IRAQI YOUTH
Aunt Najma is 16 and gives us the perspective from a high school student in Mosul.

Nabil, a teenage guy, talks about the election in his school.

Baghdad Girl, This is from a 13-year-old girl who writes about living in fear and puts up pictures of her cats, like any self-respecting (teen) blogger.

HNK gives you the perspective from a young girl who wants the Americans out of Mosul.

Then Some is written by an Iraqi college student already cynical about elected politicians.

A Prayer for the Iraqi People on Election Eve

2005-01-28T22:38:00.000-08:00

To you the Iraqi people, whatever your race, your faith or your political beliefs, tonight I offer a prayer for you.

I pray that you vote. Your vote counts and is the gateway to the future of your choice. Choose wisely.

I pray that you will not be afraid. You deserve to live free from fear and intimidation. But know that others have voted even when they were afraid, and have created a better future for their children and grandchildren in the process.

I pray that you will be safe from harm. Know that many of us, of many faiths all around the world, will have you in our prayers and thoughts as you go to your polling places.

I pray that your children and grandchildren will have a better future. That is the promise of democracy. You will be able to move your country to the future of your choosing.

I pray that we will be friends in the spirit of democracy. We may not always agree, but I trust that the common bond of freedom and democracy will build a friendship between our countries and our people that cannot be broken.

Finally, I pray that your dreams of peace, tranquility, prosperity and happiness for you and your loved ones all come true. Democracy is big enough to hold that promise for each and every citizen of your great nation.

Know that you are in our thoughts and prayers on the momentous occasion of your first truly democratic election.

The Continuing Democratic Misunderstanding of Their Own Failures

2005-01-28T11:23:00.000-08:00

Ever since their losses in the 2004 Presidential / Congressional elections, the Democrats have been searching for a single, solid "why." Unwilling to look deeply at their own policies and beliefs, and their apparent lack of resonance with the majority of the American public, they search for reasons tied to the stupidity of the American public, a Democratic lack of organizational sophistication in comparison to Republicans, "stolen" votes, etc.

In a continuation on this theme, there is a new man in the running for the Chairmanship of the DNC; Simon Rosenberg. There is a thorough examination of Mr. Rosenberg and his thinking at the Belmont Club blog.

It begins through the eyes of a venture capitalist, Andy Rapaport, who thinks he knows how to fix the Democratic Party. Rappaport was surprisingly downcast about the party's prospects, which, he said, would not be improved simply by winning back the White House. ... ''There is a growing realization among people who take very seriously the importance of progressive politics that the Democratic Party has kind of failed to create a vision for the country that is strongly resonant,'' he said. ''And our numbers'' -- meaning Democrats as a whole -- ''are decreasing. Our political power has been diminishing, and it's become common knowledge that the conservative movement has established a very strong, long-term foundation, whereas we've basically allowed our foundation, if not to crumble, to at least fall into a state of disrepair. So there are a lotof people thinking, What can we do about this?'' ...
Actually, Rappaport says he may be on to an answer. Last summer, he got a call from Simon Rosenberg, president of the New Democrat Network, a fund-raising and advocacy group in Washington. Would Rappaport mind sitting down for a confidential meeting with a veteran Democratic operative named Rob Stein? Sure, Rappaport replied. What Stein showed him when they met was a PowerPoint presentation that laid out step by step, in a series of diagrams a ninth-grader could understand, how
conservatives, over a period of 30 years, had managed to build a ''message machine'' that today spends more than $300 million annually to promote its agenda. Rappaport was blown away by the half-hour-long presentation. ''Man,'' he said, ''that's all it took to buy the country?''

This is a posting exceptionally balanced in its presentation. If you want to gain a greater understanding of the current balance of political power in this country, and what may be happening, it's a great read. I highly suggest it, along with almost everything else that gets posted at the Belmont Club.

The posting concludes with the idea that the Democrats may be way off track here. They are concentrating on methods, and clearly promoting whatever their message might be. What they continually fail to acknowledge or examine, is the possibility that their message may simply not resonate with the majority of the American public any longer. They had decades in power to prove that they had the right message to guide the country. It appears that the majority simply no longer believe them.

Barbara Boxer - Beyond Liberal

2005-01-28T07:38:00.000-08:00

Senator Barbara Boxer (Dem., CA) stepped into the national spotlight in the last week or so through her aggressive questioning of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, turning the confirmation hearings into hearings on the entire war in Iraq. Since she has chosen to step forward and lead the attack, I thought it appropriate instead of slinging mud back and forth, that we take a serious look at her voting record to determine exactly who she is, and what she stands for.

MEET THE NEW FACE
OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA): Star Of The New Democrat Party
_________________________________________________________________________

CNN’S BILL SCHNEIDER: “And Privately, Another Democratic Senator Told Me, A Lot Of Her Democratic Colleagues Were Saying, You Go, Girl.” (CNN’s “Inside Politics,” 1/24/05)

BOXER ATTACKS CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Boxer’s Questioning Of Rice Described As “The Most Aggressive…” (Barbara Slavin, “Both Parties Press Rice For Answers,” USA Today, 1/19/05)

Boxer’s Staff: “‘This Is Just Boxer Being Boxer,’ Said David Sandretti, The Senator’s Communications Director.” (Zachary Coile, “Where Feinstein Woos, Boxer Wallops,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1/24/05)

The [Riverside, CA] Press-Enterprise: “This Week’s Biggest Grandstander Was Sen. Barbara Boxer …. Chairman Richard Lugar … Didn’t Step In Until Boxer Had Far Exceeded Her Allotted 10 Minutes. … Lively Debate Is Essential To Any Deliberative Process, Of Course, But ‘Advise And Consent’ Shouldn’t Be Confused With ‘Scold And Berate.’” (Editorial, “‘Scold And Berate’?” The [Riverside, CA] Press-Enterprise, 1/21/05)

Boxer Even Got Off Jury Duty “To Prepare For … Hearings Of Condoleezza Rice.” “When Sen. Barbara Boxer showed up for hometown jury duty in Marin County a little while back, she gave the judge a unique excuse for why she couldn’t serve: ‘I need to prepare for the confirmation hearings of Condoleezza Rice.’” (Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, “Battling Boxer Just Doin’ What Comes Naturally,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1/23/05)

BOXER CHALLENGES OHIO RESULTS

Boxer Was The Only U.S. Senator To Challenge The Results Of The Presidential Election In Ohio. “When House Democrats needed just one senator to sign a challenge to Ohio’s electoral votes, they knew who to ask - California’s Barbara Boxer, among the fieriest liberals in a state full of them.” (Erica Werner, “‘Making Waves’ Nothing New For Fiery California Democrat,” The Associated Press, 1/7/05)

The Columbus Dispatch Called Boxer’s Ohio Effort “Childish,” “Tantrum,” And “An Embarrassment…” “Thursday’s tantrum by a handful of Democratic members of Congress who refuse to accept the outcome of the vote was an embarrassment to the Democratic Party. … In the Senate, where California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer led the protest, the vote went 74-1 against her, with 25 senators not voting.” (Editorial, “Throwing A Fit; Effort To Block Electoral College Tally Was Childish,” The Columbus Dispatch, 1/8/05)

BOXER’S LEFT OF LIBERAL VOTING RECORD

“Boxer’s Voting Record Has Been Strongly Liberal, The Most Liberal In The Senate In 1999, 2000 And Second Only To Paul Wellstone In 2001 And 2002 In National Journal’s Ratings.” (Almanac Of American Politics, http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/almanac/2004/people/ca/cas2.htm#ratings, Accessed 1/24/05)

Boxer Has A 96 Lifetime Rating From The Liberal Group Americans For Democratic Action. (Americans For Democratic Action, http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesencalifornia.html, Accessed 1/24/05)

League Of Conservation Voters Rated Boxer At 92% In 108th Congress And 96% In 107th Congress. (The League Of Conservation Voters Website, www.lcv.org, Accessed 1/24/05)

NARAL Gave Boxer A Grade Of 100 For the 108th And 107th Sessions. (NARAL Website, http://www.prochoiceamerica.org, Accessed 1/24/05)

NARAL Promoted Boxer’s Co-Sponsoring Of Legislation That Keep Abortions Legal Even If Roe Was Overturned. (“Pro-Choice Leaders Introduce Freedom Of Choice Act,” U.S. Newswire, 1/22/04)

AFL-CIO Gives Boxer A 94% Lifetime Rating. (AFL-CIO Website, http://www.aflcio.org, Accessed 1/24/05)

Boxer Is The Top Senate Recipient Of Big Labor Money Since Her Election In 1992. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, http://www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/24/05)

National Taxpayers Union Has Given Boxer A Grade Of F In Every Session Since She Has Been In The Senate. (National Taxpayer’s Union, http://www.ntu.org, Accessed 1/24/05)

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Rated Boxer With A Cumulative Score Of 28% Since 1997. (U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Website, http://www.uschamber.com, Accessed 1/24/05)

National Federation Of Independent Businesses (NFIB) Said, “Boxer Has Not Been A Strong Voice For Small Business In The U.S. Senate. In The Current 108th Congress, She Has Failed To Supported NFIB And Its Members On Any Of The Six NFIB Key Votes.” (National Federation Of Independent Businesses Website, http://capwiz.com, Accessed 1/24/05)

BOXER AND MICHAEL MOORE

“Mrs. Boxer Attended The ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ Premiere In Washington In The Summer With Other Top Democrats, Including Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe And South Dakota’s Tom Daschle, Who At The Time Was Senate Minority Leader.” (Jennifer Harper, “‘Fahrenheit’ Inspired, But ‘Didn’t Influence’“ The Washington Times, 1/7/05)

Boxer Said “Fahrenheit 9/11” “Gave Her Guilt Feelings” And Made Her Rethink Her Inaction On The Floor In 2000. “But “Mrs. Boxer said ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ gave her guilt feelings about her deference to Vice President Al Gore’s request that his Democratic colleagues not contest the Electoral College count over the disputed 2000 race in Florida. ‘It did make me, again, think about the fact that I didn’t stand up those years ago, because I was relying on Vice President Gore, and I felt I should have stepped back and looked at the bigger picture in retrospect.’ ‘Looking back on it, I wish I had,’ she said.” (Jennifer Harper, “‘Fahrenheit’ Inspired, But ‘Didn’t Influence’“ The Washington Times, 1/7/05)

BOXER’S HOLLYWOOD FRIENDS AND ALLIES

Boxer Has Received Contributions From Such Celebrities As Cameron Crowe, Tom Cruise, Ted Danson, Larry David, Michael Douglas, David Geffen, Don Henley, Robert Reiner, Paul Reiser, Steven Spielberg, Sharon Stone, Barbara Streisand And Rita Wilson. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/24/05)

Boxer Received Contributions From Hollywood Mega-Donors Stephen Bing And Haim Saban. (Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/24/05)

Bing Contributed “A Total Of More Than $16 Million Of His Money To Democratic Candidates And The Supposedly Independent Groups That Support Them.” (Brian Ross, “Fattest Cat,” www.abcnews.com, Accessed 7/28/04)
Saban “One Of The Largest Individual Donors In The Country To The Democratic Party And Its Candidates…” Hosted Kerry In Beverly Hills And Vacationed With Bill Clinton. (Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Schlepping To Moguldom,” The New York Times, 9/5/04)

Boxer Received Contributions From Activist/Obstructionist Norman Lear.

Lear Is Hollywood Producer Who Founded Ultra-Liberal Group “People For The American Way,” Which “Worked To Block Several Of Bush’s Appointments To The Courts…” (Ann Gerhart, “Norman Lear, Hoping Youth Will Tune In To Vote,” The Washington Post, 11/14/03; Deb Riechmann, “Bush To Renominate 20 Individuals For Federal Judgeships,” The Associated Press, 12/23/04)

Dutch Report on Terrorist Recruiting in Europe Provides Ominous Warning to U.S.

2005-01-26T17:24:00.000-08:00

In response to the brutal slaying of film director, Theo van Gogh, the Danish Ministry of Justice commissioned a short term study "to shed much-needed light on the little-known process of recruitment to currently operating Islamist terrorist networks within Europe." Because of the urgency of the study, and the short time given for it's preparation, the study focused only "on the recruitment practices of the global Jihad as they play out in Europe."

The report contains some terrifying revelations. "Europe is gradually, but surely, rivaling the Middle East and Afghanistan as a recruiting tub of Islamist terrorists. Terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda and the GSPC are very well entrenched in Western Europe, where they have established clandestine networks and terrorist cells."

In regard to the current situation in Iraq, it "is likely to provide a pull identical to that seen in the conflicts in Afghanistan or Bosnia in the 1990's. The conflict is seen in a much wider scope than that offered by Western governments. Essentially, Iraq has become a land of symbolic value which must be liberated at all costs from foreign aggression. A successful outcome is equally important to the militant Islamists and the Western world alike. Whatever direction the situation in Iraq takes it will become a defining moment for both parties, as neither will accept a loss."

It appears that despite many warning signs, Europe wasn't paying attention while the terrorists set up within their borders. In "1995... an Egyptian government official issued a prophetic warning in accusing Europe of establishing a dangerous precedent by granting asylum to wanted Egyptian militant Islamists: [he said]....these groups are operating on a worldwide scale, using places like Afghanistan and Bosnia to form their fighters who come back to the Middle East...European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, England and others, which give sanctuary to these terrorists, should now understand it will come back to haunt them where they live."

This is an amazing prophecy coming from a country in the Middle East (Egypt) that has clearly understood the phenomenon far better, and far longer than anyone in Europe. Much to the chagrin of those in the Middle East who cared, European governments and their liberal immigration policies welcomed the terrorists into the bosoms of their countries with open arms and closed eyes. One certainly can't say they weren't warned.

According to the report, the threat to the U.S. is still primarily external, while Europe's has become completely internalized. Most of the current threat here at home is from foreign hit teams sent to inflict damage upon us. In Europe, they must now deal with the much more difficult issue of their societies to generating "home grown" Jihadists. While neither situation is good, that in the U.S is more palatable than Europe's. However, we should consider ourselves aptly forewarned.

Our policy makers should read the Dutch report, and study the recent history of the global Jihadist movement. There is much to be learned. The primary lesson that I learned from reading this report is that "tolerance" for the expression of radical Islam is freedom which cannot be granted here in the U.S. That path has been trod all across Europe and it has been shown to be a colossal failure.

One of the final conclusions of the Dutch report is that it is imperative that governments and security agencies maintain constant pressure on, and control over groups who espouse radical Islamic ideologies. And while clamping down hard on the expression of radical Islamic ideas may not sit well with those who will cry "free speech" and "tolerance," they would do well to read this report themselves and heed it's well founded historical warnings.

(The full text of the study may be found by clicking here.)

"Jihad" Recruiting on the Rise All Over the World

2005-01-26T08:49:00.000-08:00

Today at LittleGreenFootballs.com (one of my favorite blogs) it was reported "Eurabian Jihadis on the Rise." There, you'll find quotes from an MSNBC article, which reports on a bust at a mosque in French which is "suspected of helping funnel Islamic militants into Iraq."

The article goes on to give examples of similar things happening all over Europe. But there is far more than is indicated in that single article. The following links will provide you with more information on the recruiting of people willing to commit "jihad," or "holy war" in the most violent sense of the word, all around the world.

1. International Herald Tribune. Europe getting aggressive with jihad 'recruiters'
2. NY Times - Militant Imams Under Scrutiny Across Europe
3. Report Funded by Danish Ministry of Justice - Recruitment of Islamist Terrorists in Europe. (This is a very thorough and current report submitted January 14, 2005)

We must disrupt the terrorist networks who are recruiting jihadi looking to destroy all we value and hold dear. The first step is to educate ourselves as to the real threat. This is a good start. But if you are interested in further reading, you might want to click over to JihadWatch (also in my links), which provides up to the minute information on the global jihad, starting right here at home in the U.S.

"Knowledge" alone isn't power. Knowledge + Action = Power. If we educate ourselves as to the threat, then we'll be able to take the appropriate actions to protect ourselves. It starts with us...the regular folks. With knowledge, we can pressure our elected officials to make the difficult decisions necessary to protect our way of life.

'60 Minutes' Document Expert Slams CBS Report, Demands Corrections

2005-01-26T08:06:00.000-08:00

CBS' own hired document expert is claiming that the "independent" Thornburgh Report is so horribly inaccurate in regard to his work on the documents, that he is being forced request changes to the report to protect his professional reputation.

In Editor and Publisher (a publication covering the newspaper industry), in an article entitled '60 Minutes' Document Expert Slams CBS Report, Demands Corrections , Marcel Matley claims that the report on his examination is so seriously flawed that it rises to the level of defamation and does serious damage to his professional reputation. According to the article in E&P:

"In his e-mail, Matley said there were some "excellent qualities" in Thornburgh and Boccardi's report, but he also cited 18 separate examples of alleged inaccurate or defamatory statements in the 234-page document, which the panel released on Jan. 5.

He claims he asked the review panel to tape-record its interview with him, which he says the investigators declined to do. "The panel bears the burden for all lapses in accuracy due to lack of a verbatim record," his e-mail states. He also complains that several findings in the report were based on unnamed sources, which he would like revealed."

To do your own research on Marcel Matley, first read the Editor and Publisher article cited above and then check out the following links.

1. Curriculum Vitae (resume) of Marcel Matley
2. Powerlineblog reference to Matley.
3. MSNBC Article with paragraph referencing Matley's concern with analyzing photocopies.
4. BeldarBlog, Sept. 10 posting his research on Matley and his qualifications (complete links).

While this research is by no means the definitive profile of Mr. Matley, it should allow you to draw your own conclusions. To me, it's simply one more unsurprising episode in CBS' lame attempts to whitewash the whole affair.

The Mainstream Media continues its slide into the abyss of history as a once relevant and reliable source of information

Black Republican Blog's Perspective on Rice Hearings

2005-01-25T14:30:00.000-08:00

At the Black Republican's blog today you'll find his unique perspective on the confirmation hearings taking place today in regard to the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, for Secretary of State. He's writing about the fact that the Republican Party gets rid of folks in leadership positions like Trent Lott, for far more minor racist transgressions than those committed by Sen. Byrd. The level of hypocrasy runs deep in the Democratic party on this issue. According to our new friend at the Black Republican, the Democrats are the party of institutionalized racism. Check him out...I think you'll like what you read!

Former KKK Recruiter, Sen. Byrd Holds Up Condoleezza Rice Confirmation

2005-01-24T19:21:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow we will be treated to a not so rare, complete and total waste of time. Everyone knows that Dr. Condoleezza Rice is about to be confirmed as our next Secretary of State. However, California's own hot air balloon, Sen. Barbara Boxer is convinced that she hasn't made enough of an idiot of herself already in these confirmation hearings. She's booked a full hour tomorrow for her "remarks."

Even more amazing than the fact that Sen. Boxer isn't scared of putting her foot in her mouth again, is the fact that her partner in booking a solid hour for himself to hold up Dr. Rice, is none other than former Klan recruiter, Senator Robert Byrd.

There's something a bit eerie about that scene isn't there? Former Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd (even temporarily) obstructing the confirmation of a highly educated and accomplished African American woman? I don't like the look or smell of that one bit.

Now I realize that Senator Byrd has said his time with the Klan was a "mistake," but let's take a look at what he actually said. According to Wikipedia,

"Byrd was a local leader of the Ku Klux Klan for a period of time in the early 1940s, holding the title Kleagle; Klan recruiter. In a 1946 letter, he wrote, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." However, when running for Congress in 1952, he announced, "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." "

Notice that he doesn't disavow Klan activities or philosophies in that statement. He merely says he quit paying his dues, and is "uninterested" in the Klan. Ouch. That's a pretty weak denial. It turns out, even this is untrue.

In 1952 Byrd ran for Congress from West Virginia's 6th District. When
Republican candidate Latelle M. LaFollette made Byrd's Klan membership an
issue, Byrd claimed to have left the Klan in 1943 (when he was 26, and had
been married for eight years). In his explanations he stated that: "during the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Byrd was lying,
however, as he engaged in correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after
he claims to have ended his ties with the hate group. In a letter to the Klan leadership in 1946, 3 years after he claimed to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote "I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." (Quotes taken from website of New Mexico
State Senator, Rod Adair.)

...

And Byrd's continuing involvement with racism didn't end back in the 1950's. On the morning of June 10, 1964, Sen. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes then required to end debate. Byrd, one of the leading opponents of civil rights, finally gave up his filibuster. Adair website.

In 2001, Byrd conducted another very public demonstration of the depth at which he carries racist concepts and language even now.

On March 4, 2001, an interview with FOX News Sunday host Tony Snow was aired. In the interview Byrd was asked about race relations: "They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said. "I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that." Then Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

"We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Byrd's office later issued an apology.

"I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race." Wikipedia

So tomorrow, history will replay itself. A veteran of the Klan will do his very best to convince his fellow Senators that the very qualified, dignified, intelligent and accomplished African American woman who sits before them is not suited for the job to which she has been nominated.

Unfortunately for Sen. Byrd, Dr. Rice will be confirmed as the next secretary of State. And as the aging Sen. Byrd slides into the twilight of his career, it is only apt that he makes one last feeble objection to the ascendancy to equality of those whom he has so long sought to keep down.

Hillary Clinton says "The Sky is Falling!" - The Republicans' Best Hope in 2008

2005-01-24T07:48:00.000-08:00

Today, in the Palm Beach Post was a headline I couldn't resist: "Sen. Clinton decries leadership lacking resolve, inspiration."

I knew this would be an article sure to make me laugh. And as all the experts agree that laughter is good, I decided to start my day with this article, instead of the usual terrible news from the main stream media. As usual, Hillary didn't disappoint.

The article opens with this broad prophecy of doom: " America's leaders don't have a vision, and the economy may be on the brink of collapse, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday. "

Let's dissect that, just for grins. "America's leaders don't have a vision," she said. Yet by all accounts, love it or hate it, the inaugural speech by President Bush painted an incredibly large, even "world wide" vision. It was a vision of "freedom for all" and "tyranny for none." It was a vision of an "ownership society" and the reformation of long-standing institutions of social support.

President Bush has set the stage for an ambitious agenda internationally and domestically, and the Republican party (love it or hate it) currently has a strong majority in both houses, and is looking forward to an active year working towards the accomplishment of this agenda. The eradication of tyranny in the world, Social Security reform, legal system (tort) reform; these things can hardly be said to lack a "vision." While you can disagree with the agenda (and some on the left call it a "nightmare" instead of a vision), clearly "lacking in vision" is not something of which the current leadership can rationally be accused. Then again, rational discourse is not something we've come to expect from Senator Clinton.

Next, the good Senator from New York states that, "the economy may be on the brink of collapse." Unfortunately, it appears that she has little support in the world of economic indicators or professional analysis. This is Hillary in fantasy land (isn't that the issuing country of her passport?) As if she hasn't dug a deep enough fantasy hole, she continues to prognosticate on the economy. "I think the economy is standing on a trap door, and I don't know that we necessarily hold the levers," she said..." If she is sincere in these statements, then she clearly lacks even a basic understanding of economic indicators.

Here is the reality from the Associated Press, as reported on January 20, 2005.

"NEW YORK - A closely watched measure of future economic activity rose for a
second consecutive month in December, pointing to sustained, gradual growth.

The Conference Board (news - web sites), a private research group, said Thursday that its Index of Leading Economic Indicators (news - web sites) rose 0.2 percent last month, following a revised gain of 0.3 percent in November. The increase, which was in line with economists' forecasts, pushed the index to 115.4, still below its high of 116.5 in May.

The gains in the index followed five months of declines. The index is intended to
predict economic activity over the coming three to six months.

"There had been some concern earlier in the year after five month-over-month declines that there could be signs of significant weakening economically moving forward," said Jason Schenker, an economist with Wachovia Corp. "But now, after two month-over-month increases, we continue to find justification for our own forecasts of growth going forward."

"Basically, this tells us that the economy is experiencing very
broad-based growth," he said."

Okay, so contrary to Sen. Clinton's obviously ridiculous statements, the leadership has outlined a clear vision and an agenda for the next four years (we'll get more detail in the State of the Union Address). According to the experts, the economy appears to be humming along, and (agree with the "vision" or not), we are being led by a government with a clear vision of where it wants the nation to be, not only four years from now, but four decades
from now.

In a telling twist, the article in the Palm Beach Post concludes with an exchange between Sen. Clinton and a member of the audience. " When a member of the audience asked Clinton what her role in the 2008 election would be, she didn't answer, but remarked that the Democratic Party has a lot of work to do."

This is a "leader" who chides the current leadership for not having a "vision," yet is unable or unwilling to paint a "vision" for her own career a mere 24-36 months into the future.

As Hillary continues to spew her nonsense, she fans the flames of my sincere hope that the Democrats nominate her to be the "savior" as their candidate for President in 2008. The only thing better would be if they also appoint Howard Dean as the new Chairman of the DNC.

A man needs a dream, doesn't he?

Interesting Post from Arthur Chrenkoff on Iraq Reporting

2005-01-21T17:20:00.000-08:00

Here's an intersting piece from Chrenkoff, compiling the "negative" and "positive" stories coming out of Iraq. While the bias towards the former might not surprise you, the sheer numbers will.

Republican Realignment - Thoughtful Statistical Analysis of the Presidential Election Results

2005-01-21T11:33:00.000-08:00

The forlorn Democratic party continues to lick it's wounds and try to figure out "what went wrong" in the Presidential election. They continue to blame everything from the "stupidity" of the American public, to their candidates themselves, while doing no "deep" analysis. That sort of thinking is being left to the conservatives, who hopefully are not content to rest on their laurels.

In a stunningly insightful article posted yesterday at the Claremont Institute, Andrew Busch addresses the potential historical significance of the Bush victory, and the increasing Republican dominance of all branches of government. While pointing out through deep historical comparison the apparent "Republican Realignment" taking place, he is also careful to note that the biggest danger to the continuance of this shift is the potential for conservative "hubris."

Just to give you a taste of the article, I have included several of the most poignant paragraphs below.

"First, as many commentators pointed out, Bush's 51% was not an inconsiderable achievement in a country that had failed to produce a popular presidential majority for any candidate since 1988. Furthermore, the president had modest coattails in the House and more substantial coattails in the Senate. Given its lack of competitive districts, a small gain in the House is all that most presidential winners can now expect. By way of comparison, Bush lost 2 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate in 2000 (including seats in Missouri and Georgia); Clinton gained back only 9 House seats in 1996 (after losing 53 in 1994) and lost 2 Senate seats; in 1992, Clinton's Democrats actually lost 10 House seats; and George H.W. Bush lost 3 House seats when he was elected in 1988. Even Ronald Reagan, when he won 49 states in his 1984 landslide, gained only 14 House seats while losing 2 in the Senate. The numbers were not big, but 2004 was a comprehensive party victory of the sort we have not seen since 1980.

Perhaps more importantly, a closer examination of the voting data shows decreased, not increased, polarization. If 2004 had been a really polarizing election, one would expect that Bush's vote percentages would go up in the red states compared with 2000, but that they would go down in the blue states. But this is not what happened. A comparison of the Bush vote in 2000 with his vote in 2004 shows that in the 29 red states, he gained an average of 3.3 percentage points. In the 19 blue states, he gained an average of 3.0 percentage points. (In the three switchers, he gained an average of 1.7%.)

Bush gained big in reliably liberal bastions like Hawaii (+8 percentage points), Rhode Island (+7), Connecticut and New Jersey (+6), New York (+5), and Massachusetts (+4). Altogether, he improved his vote proportion in 48 states—of which only 5 improved by less than 1%. His vote share dipped in only two states, one very blue (Vermont, where he fell from 40.7 to 38.9%) and one very red (South Dakota, from 60.3 to 59.9%). An examination of voters by type of community shows that Bush's biggest gain by far was among big-city dwellers (+13 percentage points), while his suburban and rural support remained stable. He made bigger gains among women than among men, bigger gains among Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites, bigger gains among Jews and Catholics than among Protestants, bigger gains among rare church-goers than frequent church-goers, bigger gains among non-gun owners than among gun owners. In short, Bush did extraordinarily well in his base, but his gains came primarily from the Democratic base and those in the middle. The only reason he did not win more blue states was that he started off in them so far behind.These observations open up a new possibility, one so contrary to the conventional wisdom that it might be pronounced heretical by the high priests of the New York Times. Perhaps the polarization that grew through the 1990s peaked in 2000—and actually began to recede in 2004. At the very least, it must be acknowledged that George W. Bush gained across the board, in virtually every region and every demographic group."

This is heady stuff for conservatives, and those these are undeniable statistics, but I doubt you'll see them reported in the main stream media. It simply doesn't fit their liberal bias. So I recommend that you read the entire piece. Knowledge is the key to continuing the conservative, "Republican Realignment" now taking place in our nation.

Reuters Panders to Palestinians Again

2005-01-20T08:26:00.000-08:00

Once again Reuters is pandering to the Palestinian terrorists by actually writing an entire story about the sharp drop in violence in the Gaza Strip. While that might seem like a great story, the drop in violence was for a SINGLE day. That's "news?"

In a blatant display of how to create a false impression by material omission, Nidal al-Mughrabi writes, "In what could be an initial sign of progress in Abbas's efforts to achieve calm, there have been no launchings since Tuesday of mortar bombs and rockets that have rained down daily on Jewish settlements in Gaza and frequently on southern Israel. "

This is the worst sort of creating misinformation by material omission. Mughrabi fails to note that on Tuesday night the Israeli Defense Forces reported that " A member of the General Security Services was killed, an IDF officer seriously wounded, four IDF soldiers and three members of the General Security Services were lightly wounded in a suicide bombing attack at the Gush Katif junction in the central Gaza Strip, yesterday evening (Tuesday January 18th, 2005). "

That's an interesting omission, especially when one notes that Mughrabi somehow doesn't "forget" to state later in the article that " In fresh violence in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers killed a 14-year-old Palestinian who witnesses said had joined other youths in throwing stones at the troops. " This event is apparently "newsworthy to Mughrabi, but the Israeli dead and wounded in Tuesdays attack are not. That is an interesting approach.

Does Mughrabi have a particular perspective that might not be entirely neutral? Is this really journalism, or are we dealing simply with propaganda from Reuters, as usual? The AP (Associated Press) and AFP (Agence France Presse) have both been nailed for hiring Palestinian reporters who are actually ON the Palestinian Authority payroll as well. Are we dealing with the same thing here?

If you are interested in accurate daily reporting of the terror and violence perpetrated (and that prevented) against Israelis by Palestinians, you can visit the daily statistics and stories at the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) website.

New Poll Shows Majority of World Feels Good About the U.S. - Reuters and BBC Show Their Anti-U.S. Bias Again

2005-01-19T08:05:00.000-08:00

Chalk another one up for anti-U.S. media consistency. While it may dismay those of us looking for a more balanced picture of the world, and believing that such balance is imperative for the peace and stability of the planet, at least we can rest calmly in the knowledge that each day will begin consistently with more anti-U.S. blather from the mainstream media.

Today it started early with an article from Reuters, by Timothy Heritage, entitled " Four More Years of Bush Makes the World Anxious." In the article, Mr. Heritage begins with the broad brush conclusion that "[t]he rest of the world will be watching with anxiety when President Bush is inaugurated Thursday for a second time, fearing the most powerful man on the planet may do more harm than good." While this statement makes for great theatre, it is not even accurate based upon the reporting in the rest of the article. Apparently, Mr. Heritage's intent is that we will believe that the "rest of the world" is unhappy about our leadership.

Al Jazeera has picked this up and is of course running an article under the headline Poll: World More Dangerous With Bush , and using it as propaganda to continue to inflame hatred against the U.S. Reuters, the BBC and other major media outlets, continue their self appointed role as the instigators of international anti-U.S. sentiment.

The apparent source article for Mr. Heritage's piece about world dismay is found at the BBC online. It's interesting to note that while BBC's unnamed writer of that article goes on attack against the U.S. in his own opening paragraph, he can't help but start with the most important piece of evidence from the survey, stating that " The survey found that 62% of Indians thought his re-election as US president was positive for global security."

Significantly, India is the world's most populous democracy, with a total current population of approximately 1.1 billion people. All of Europe contains a mere 730 million, and the whole of Europe was not even included in the survey. Of course, the BBC, America's foremost enemy in Great Britain, places no significance in this fact, and instead attempts to fabricate reasons why the polling must be skewed in India. The BBC article states that "[o]ur correspondent says Mr. Bush's popularity in India seems to be borne primarily of economic necessity."

Does that actually pass for "journalism" at the BBC? An unnamed correspondent, doing no actual polling and citing absolutely nothing to back him / her up, has concluded that the PIPA poll is not really valid in world's largest democracy due to "economic necessity." Someone please send kudos to the BBC for expanding the definition of professional journalism to include complete unsubstantiated nonsense.

Contrary to what you would be led to believe by the article in Reuters, the poll was not actually conducted by the BBC. At least the BBC itself acknowledges this. You will note that the Reuters article contains no reference to the organization who conducted the polls, nor any way that you could see the results of the entire poll if you so desired. This is indicative of further bias on behalf of Reuters and Mr. Heritage. They clearly don't want you actually reading the poll or it's results. You may ask, "why would I want to read the entire poll?" Simply because the actual results are profoundly different than what is being reported, and are in fact, very encouraging for the U.S.

The poll was overseen by PIPA, which is the Program on International Policy attitudes. The full poll is available on their website, www.pipa.org. In it's article on the poll, the BBC quotes Steven Kull, Director of PIPA as stating "This is quite a grim picture for the U.S." However, the most important quote from Mr. Kull is conspicuously missing. As I understand it, the importance of a poll is to determine what the majority of people think. Though I have been unable to find it reported by a single media outlet, Mr. Kull begrudgingly states as follows: "However, those saying the U.S. itself is having a clearly negative influence in the world still do not constitute a definitive world-wide majority..."

In fact, the poll found that only "47% of the 21,953 people questioned now see US influence in the world as largely negative, and view Americans negatively as well." So, overall, the rest of the world views us as either a positive or neutral influence in the world. That's some great news! And of course it's completely unreported by the mainstream media who would rather manipulate the numbers to make the United States appear distrusted and disliked by the "rest of the world."

So this is where I struggle with the media. The overall findings of the poll by shear numbers, even by the admission of Mr. Kull, the Director of PIPA, indicate that the world wide majority do NOT believe that the U.S. is a negative influence. This is contradictory to what every major media piece since the Iraq war began would have us believe. The headline clearly should have read, "New Poll Definitively Shows That the Majority of the World's Population Has a Favorable, or neutral Position Towards the U.S." This is the undeniable fact based upon the PIPA poll, and is admitted by the Director of PIPA himself, in the poll. Don't believe me; here's a direct link to the quote in the poll itself on PIPA's website (the reference quotes from Mr. Kull are directly under the second chart).

Where is the "truth" in the mainstream media? Clearly, based upon these reports, it doesn't reside at either Reuters or the BBC. Unfortunately, no surprises there. Thank goodness for the blogosphere, which continues to poke it's unruly head into the dark recesses of reality where the truth is to be found, and where many in the mainstream media fear to tread.

Extra, Extra!!!! Neutral Press from UK for President Bush

2005-01-17T13:24:00.000-08:00

In an article extraordinary for it's British neutrality, TimesOnline's UK edition carries a piece by Tim Haimes on President Bush's prospects for a productive and historically successful second term.

In this article Haimes has an excellent historical analysis of U.S. Presidents' second terms, and demonstrates that Bush is a position of power, prominence and potency not enjoyed by any President in U.S. history.

Certainly, Mr. Haimes comes across as neither a detractor or supporter of President Bush in this piece. But then, isn't that one of the marks of excellence that we expect from "unbiased" journalists? Hats off to Tim Haimes.

2005-01-13T10:44:00.001-08:00

Israeli soldiers rescuing Palestinian smugglers from collapsed tunnel.

Israel - An Outstanding Example of Military Humanity

2005-01-13T10:44:00.000-08:00

The photos you see below were taken in November 2004 when a tunnel collapsed on Palestinian weapons smugglers near Rafah in the southern Gaza strip. When the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) were called in to assist, they entered the hostile territory where they are routinely fired upon, and provided humanitarian aid to their sworn enemies. They completed the rescue from the tunnel, and provided medical aid and comfort as documented by the photos below.

I challenge anyone to show the world evidence of similar humanity anywhere in Gaza, the West Bank, or in Israel, of Palestinians towards their Israeli "enemies." In fact, I challenge you to show it in any country dominated by Islam. It cannot be done. In Islam, the demonstration of such humanity towards one's enemies is considered "weakness," and is frowned upon. In the Western world, it is standard operating procedure, and a deeply rooted part of our culture. Israel should be celebrated for continuing to live by this culture of kindness, even while under unrelenting military and terrorist assault.

The world needs to understand that in Israel today, the very definition of "humanity" is under attack. Palestinians express no desire to live side by side in peace with their Israeli neighbors, and this fact alone is responsible for all the bloodshed in the region. In fact, the rhetoric from the Palestinian leadership continues to be filled with hate, and clearly expressed desire for the death of all Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state.

The day that the Palestinians swear off violence, the road to statehood can begin in earnest, and the region will experience true and lasting peace.

Israeli soldiers rescuing Palestinian smugglers from collapsed tunnel.

2005-01-13T10:43:00.000-08:00

Israeli medic assists Palestinian rescued by Israeli Army from collapsed smuggling tunnel.

2005-01-13T10:42:00.000-08:00

Palestinians receiving medical aid after being rescued by Israeli Army from collapsed arms smuggling tunnel.

2005-01-13T10:41:00.000-08:00

Palestinians rescued by Israeli Army from collapsed tunned are provided medical assistance.

Indonesia Eager to Kick Out Foreign Military Providing Tsunami Aid

2005-01-13T07:40:00.000-08:00

Indonesia's Government is moving towards the rapid removal of the foreign military presence on its soil in the devastated Aceh province. Many believe that the Government is sensitive that the claims of years of human rights abuses and corruption in its conflict with separatist rebels will be confirmed if the foreigners remain. The Government has a long history of preventing foreigners from visiting the province.

I find it interesting that U.S. Marines who were sent to rebuild roads and clear rubble will not be able to provide such relief to the local populace. Clearly, the Indonesian Government acting alone will not be able to provide the relief in the same time. Where is the humanity?

The following are excerpts from a current AP article.

"The government's moves highlight its sensitivities over a foreign military operation in this country — albeit a humanitarian one — and underscore its efforts to regain control of Aceh province, the scene of a decades-old conflict between separatist rebels and federal troops accused of human rights abuses.

The latest restrictions placed on the international presence came as the aircraft carrier leading the U.S. military's tsunami relief effort steamed out of Indonesian waters Wednesday after the government declined to let the ship's fighter pilots use its airspace for training missions. The USS Abraham Lincoln's diversion was not expected to affect aid flights, however.
U.S. Marines have also scaled back their plans to send hundreds of troops ashore to build roads and clear rubble. The two sides reached a compromise in which the Americans agreed not to set up a base camp on Indonesia or carry weapons.

Instead, the Marines — some 2,000 of whom were diverted to tsunami relief from duty in Iraq (news - web sites) — will keep a "minimal footprint" in the country, with most returning to ships at night, said Col. Tom Greenwood, commander of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit.
In Washington, the White House asked the Indonesian government to explain why it was demanding that the U.S. military and other foreign troops providing disaster relief leave the country by March 31.

"We've seen the reports. ... We'll seek further clarification from Indonesia about what this means," said Scott McClellan, press secretary to President Bush (news - web sites). "We hope that the government of Indonesia and the military in Indonesia will continue the strong support they have provided to the international relief efforts so far."

In announcing the decision, Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla said Tuesday that "a three-month period is enough, even sooner the better." ...

The Indonesian government has traditionally barred foreigners from visiting Aceh, relenting after the tsunami struck and no other option existed but to invite foreign troops to deliver aid and set up field hospitals.

Indonesian authorities are now moving reassert control. On Wednesday, they ordered aid workers to declare travel plans or face expulsion from Aceh, saying it was for their safety.
The statement from Indonesia's relief chief also said that if groups head to regions considered dangerous, "then their safety will be organized by the national security authority." It was not known if that meant aid organizations may get military escorts.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard described the demand as "a good idea."
But Australian National University defense expert Clive Williams said the Indonesians want to keep close tabs on foreigners to conceal corruption. "The big problem with dealing with (the military) in Aceh is that they're involved in a lot of corruption there and the reason I think they don't want people to go to some areas is because they're involved in human rights abuses," Williams said.

U.N. officials worried the new rules might delay the delivery of supplies. "Any requirements that would create any additional bottlenecks or delays or otherwise adversely affect our operations need to be reviewed very carefully," said Kevin Kennedy at the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. ...."

Dan Rather...A State of Grand Delusion According to Left Wing Principles

2005-01-11T18:12:00.000-08:00

Dan Rather has issued his official and quite delusional response to the report on the fake memos that he used in a broadcast to attempt to unseat a President. It's actually far more ludicrous than I ever expected.

The ability of Left Wingers to become seriously involved in scandal, contritely apologize, and then be elevated even higher in the eyes of their fellow Lefties has always impressed me. Unlike the normal truism "the higher they climb, the farther they fall," Lefties seem to live by the credo, "the harder they fall, the higher they will rise." There's something sickly impressive about it.

The examples are numerous, from Presidential admissions of oral "not sex" in the Oval Office, to the toe licking prostitution escapades of Dick Morris, when Democrats get nailed for whatever indiscretion, it seems their stature rises in the Democratic Party. I expect Rather's to do the same...and maybe more. However, he's also unique, because unlike "gentlemen" such as Bill Clinton and Dick Morris, Rather has chosen to take absolutely NO responsibility for any of his actions (another Liberal credo), and has issued a statement which contains not a scintilla of regret, nor even a hint of apology. You really have to read it here at the Drudge Report to believe it.

He actually says in the statement "My strongest reaction is one of sadness and concern for those individuals whom I know and with whom I have worked.

Now that really is interesting. His strongest reaction is his concern for the people with whom he worked who helped him to perpetrate this scam, and who have been publicly and sacrificially slaughtered to protect him from having to face any consequences whatsoever for his actions. I'm sure he's as devastated to see them go, as he is relieved to know that CBS company gave him complete and total cover.

To anyone who has read the report, or even excerpts of it, the fact that Dan couldn't so much as acknowledge any flaws in the process should be a grave warning that this is a man who is so enamored with himself that he has completely lost touch with reality. Instead of the evening News at CBS, I think we can all agree that we are now witnessing the birth of the Evening Funnies. How could anyone take him seriously ever again? Even funnier than what he calls the "news" at CBS is the fact that he will rise in rank and stature among the Democratic elite, because even though he failed, he truly did his best in attempting to destroy a sitting Republican President. Even better in the eyes of the Lefties is the fact that this isn't his first attempt.

In closing, I have a wake up call for Dan. We're watching, and we know what you did, whether you admit anything or not. Wait a minute...nevermind. I don't think any of us are "watching" anymore. At least we're not watching CBS.

The Silent but Deadly Muslims

2005-01-10T14:43:00.000-08:00

In an insightful piece written for FrontPage Mag, Nonnie Darwish has hit the mark regarding the danger and despicability of Muslims in the United States who profess nothing but disdain and hatred for their "adopted" country. Here are a couple of excellent quotes to entice you into reading the entire piece.

Don't forget, often the most dangerous enemy is the one within...

"The Muslim majority here in the US remains silent seeing the outrageous brutal medieval-style and inhumane punishments practiced in many parts of the Muslim world. Americans, who are puzzled by the silence of the so called “moderate” Arab-Americans after 9/11, do not understand that Arabs learned to be silent and indifferent to terror before even coming to America. Generations after generations of Muslims lived under dictatorships and were trained to look the other way when Muslims tortured and terrorized other Muslims. The result is a population de-sensitized to seeing brutality and horror. Too many of them see cruel punishment as normal. Their silence over the killing was not just an insult to America after 9/11, but is aiding and abetting the cruel culture of hate, terror, torture and beheadings."

"Most Islamic studies professors and Islamist groups in America exercise their freedom of speech given to them by America, but only when speaking against America, Judaism, Christianity, President Bush and Pat Robertson. However, they never dare to criticize their culture of origin and some even still have respect for the tyranny of the old country. They leave the job of ridding the Muslim world of terror to the victims of terror, namely America and Israel. Whenever they criticize the Muslim world it is in the context of blaming America for supporting dictatorships. However, when America attempts to bring democracy and get rid of Arab dictators they turn around and accuse America of occupation or empire building. No matter what America does, they voice criticism. That can only mean they do not seem to be serious about reformation in Muslim countries. They are, however, very serious about embarrassing, criticizing and hurting America."

This is Considered Torture by the U.S. Media?

2005-01-09T15:09:00.000-08:00

In a just released article in Newsweek, staff writer Michael Isikoff reports on the latest "forms of humiliation and abuse by U.S. military inquisitors." According to Isikoff, recently released documents confirm the allegations of Al Qosi, a Sudanese accountant apprehended after 9/11 on suspicions of ties to Al Qaeda. Al Qosi has alleged in a lawsuit that he and other detainees "were strapped to the floor in an interrogations center known as the Hell Room, wrapped in Israeli flags, taunted by female interrogators who rubbed their bodies against them in sexually suggestive ways, and left alone in refrigerated cells for hours with deafening music blaring in their ears."

Isikoff repeatedly refers to this as a "scandal" and says that much of the new material comes from "conscience-stricken agents troubled by what they had witnessed." Isikoff says that one agent even witnessed the horror of "...seeing a detainee sitting on the floor of an interrogation cell with an Israeli flag draped around him while he was bombarded by loud music and a strobe light." And as if it couldn't get any worse, "In one account that seemed to parallel the sickening scenes from Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, an FBI agent reported the way in which a female U.S. Army sergeant sexually humiliated a shackled male prisoner during Ramadan and even "grabbed his genitals.""

At this point, I personally don't know whether to laugh or cry. We are facing an enemy that summarily beheads anyone they capture, blows up innocent men, women and children with impugnity (including their own), and doesn't even know what the Geneva Conventions are, let alone have any thoughts of abiding by them. As we moved into Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently into the city of Fallujah, we have found dozens upon dozens of "torture houses" and prisons containing evidence of unspeakable horror and human suffering.

With full knowledge of the enemy we are facing, and they way they treat anyone they kidnap or capture (civilian or military alike) is it Isikoff's suggestion that we should actually be upset that accused terrorists were "draped in Israeli flags"? Are we supposed to shudder in disgust at the thought of the "sexual humiliation" of someone who desires the complete destruction of everything we hold dear? Are we supposed to rise up in outrage because a female soldier who was interrogating a prisoner "grabbed his genitals"?

Let's swap treatment methods of prisoners, okay? Let's agree that Iraqi insurgents, Al Qaeda terrorists, etc. can wrap our soldiers and / or civilian prisoners in any flag they like. Let them play loud Arabic music, use strobe lights and make sexual suggestions. Please pardon my insensitivity, but I have to say it: let's even agree to let them grab a few genitals here and there. But we should only agree to such outrageous behavior if they will then stop their barbarous beheadings, severe torture, suicide bombings of innocent men, women and children, and other "scandalous" behavior.

The only scandal that I see here is that these reports of "torture" aren't greeted in the media by the bland indifference and lack of judgement that they seem to have for the Islamic murderers who engage in horrific crimes against humanity.

Northeastern University - Islamic Anti-Americanism Under the Name "Free Exchange of Ideas

2005-01-08T08:40:00.000-08:00

I apologize in advance for the length of this posting, but I feel a need to bring you up to speed on this issue.

Shortly before year end, Islamic apologist Professor Shahid Alam at Northeastern University in Boston published an article which favorably compared modern fundamentalist Islamic terrorists with the "minutemen" who fought for the independence and freedom of the United States. The article prompted much controversy. For the full discourse on this issue from my initial source please see the excellent blog Little Green Footballs. This is the link to the actual thread on that site (though I also recommend visiting in general as it is an excellent source of information and discourse - there is a link on the right hand side of this blog).

As you read and attempt to control your anger, you will note that in Mr. Alam's only direct response to the email criticism he received, he makes clearly anti-Semetic remarks about the "names'" of the people from whom he received complaints, stating "Why is it that the only hateful mail I have received is signed by Levitt, Hoch or Freedman?"

The noble Professor has responded to the avalanche of mail that he and the university received in response to his intellectual dishonesty by writing a tirade sliming Little Green Footballs and another great site called Jihad Watch, which had exposed his writings to a broader audience. Apparently he is not comfortable with his writings standing on their own.

On December 30, 2004, I wrote the following letter to Professor Alam, and a similar one to the President of Northeastern University, Mr. Freeland:

"Professor Alam,

You are an embarrassment to this great country in which you live. You, here in the U.S., living fat upon the very society which you denigrate, and attacking it from within via your ignorant, hate filled writing are an example of the lack of leadership that is taking the Muslim world towards mass suicide.

There is no justification for the murder of thousands of innocents, and your attempt to do so is nothing short of despicable. Contrary to your attempts to denigrate our forefathers, they did NOT slaughter thousands of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of their rights as a sovereign nation. However crude and unacceptable your position is, everyday I am thankful for your ability to express such drivel. Your ability to do so is unique because you live in the U.S. (a western secular country). If you lived in any country with a Muslim (non-secular) government, and took a position justifying violence against the citizens / government of that country, you would most likely be imprisoned, tortured and probably put to death. Welcome to America, where such a situation will not be so, and you will instead be free to speak your mind.

I will continue to support your right to speak your mind, as protected in the U.S. Constitution. However, I and many others will not stand idly by, listening to you issue these outrageous and offensive missives from a U.S. institution of higher learning. And we will exercise OUR right to free speech in the call for you to step down from your professorship at the University.

Sincerely,

Today, I recieved the following reply:

"Thank you for your recent e-message regarding Professor Alam. It is important to be clear that on this matter--and all matters in which our faculty publish materials or speak to the media--the positions and opinions expressed are solely their own. Thus, Professor Alam's views are not those of the university, but rather his personally.

It is also important to note that the free flow of ideas and exchange of viewpoints is an essential cornerstone of higher education just as freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. Northeastern prides itself on fostering the exchange of ideas, controversial or otherwise, in a public forum and on protecting and promoting the value of free speech. We realize that some may find those ideas and opinions to be offensive, but we believe the open exchange is of great importance in promoting tolerance and understanding.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. We appreciate your taking the time to contact us on this issue."

It is amazing to me that Professor Alam and President Freeland are incapable of responding for themselves. It is also arrogant and unacceptable to hide intellectual laziness behind the ivory tower concept of the "free exchange of ideas." I'd like to see Professor Alam, and President Freeland "freely exchange ideas" with their critics instead of hiding behind some unnamed individual in the office of the Vice President for Marketing and Communication.

I have responded with the following email:

Dear Mr. Kenny,

This canned response, no doubt drafted by your legal counsel, and circulated far after the fact by an untitled individual in the Office of the Vice President (for "Marketing and Communication") is not satisfactory. The United States of America is at war, and is currently being attacked from within and without. This attack is taking place by means of direct violence, and also according to the doctrines of Islam, intellectually by such people as Professor Alam, who, writing between the lines is justifying the actions of murderers and criminals, and people who cravenly desire the entire destruction of the United States, our citizens and our way of life.

Putting aside the fact that I and many others strongly disagree with his premise, Prof. Alam's position is intellectually unjustifiable. Equating the "minutemen" fighting for the freedom of our country at it's birth, with the murderous terrorists who desire and enjoy the death of innocent women and children and believe that such acts will take them to "heaven," is quite simply factually incorrect if one looks at history. Neither Professor Alam's view of the forces who fought for the independence of this country, nor his view of the barbarous Islamic murderers fighting for martyrdom through terrorism are factually correct.

Such intellectual laziness, and more disturbing, such dishonesty, should not be allowed to pass itself off as the "free exchange of ideas." That is a vanilla catch phrase that university professors and administrations tend to use when they attempt to justify why they should not be held to the same intellectual standards as others. Simply because Professor Alam teaches at a University, he should actually be held to a higher intellectual standard.

I (and many others more qualified) would be happy to openly debate Prof. Alam, either here on the web or in person. Unfortunately, it appears that neither he, nor the President of your esteemed institution are actually interested in a "free exchange of ideas." The apparent truth is that they are more interested in isolating themselves in the "ivory tower," and hiding behind poorly drafted missives (no doubt reviewed by lawyers) and sent forth by someone assigned to this task in the Office of the Vice President for Marketing and Communications. It certainly shows that lack of importance that your institution places upon this subject.

Many of us are now waiting for a real response by President Freeland. Is he able to actually stand and lead, or is he too isolated in his personal ivory tower? It appears that the latter is true. And in regard to Professor Alam himself, we still await the real "free exchange of ideas." Those of us with interest in this issue are not placated by bland statements from your PR Department.

Sincerely,

If you wish to send your own letters to appropriate people at Northeastern University, President Freeland can be reached at r.freeland@neu.edu. Professor Alam can be reached at m.alam@neu.edu. It is my suggestion that if this issue interests you, that you write to the involved parties to express your opinion.

Debate is a good thing, but individual actions by citizen activists is better. So if this issue interests you, then take action. Don't just debate...this is truly the democratizing power of the internet.

Senate Dems Attack Atty General Nominee Gonzales

2005-01-06T13:43:00.000-08:00

The first ever Hispanic nominee for Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, is currently under scathing attack by Senate Democrats as part of their confirmation hearings. Their approach seems politically dangerous. They are attacking a Hispanic man who has risen from poverty to the highest echelons of government, because they believe that he "may" have been behind policies which they believe allowed our government to treat Taliban and al-Qaeda members "too harshly."

The attack is made even more interesting by the fact that President Bush has assembled the most diverse Cabinet in the history of the U.S. Government. This amazing development has been largely ignored by the mainstream media which constantly and consistently whines about the lack of "diversity" in the Republican Party. The only solid exception to which I can point is Time Magazine's issue naming President Bush, "Person of the Year" in which they had an excellent article on the amazing and real diversity that the President has brought to the White House.

More on Richard Gere's Palestinian Buddies

2005-01-05T19:20:00.000-08:00

Here's more from Debbie Schlussel regarding Richard Gere’s Palestinian Buddies. I think you'll be appalled.

Richard Gere and His Hate Promoting Co-Stars

2005-01-05T13:42:00.000-08:00

In a new development from the world of Hollywood actors who believe that their stardom in a world built completely around fantasy, somehow gives them special qualities of insight regarding world politics, we have a newly recorded commercial from famous actor and Buddhist, Richard Gere.

It appears that Mr. Gere has now appointed himself spokesman for the entire world, and in that capacity he’s urging Palestinians to get out the vote.

"A pro-peace group is hoping that a potent mix of Hollywood glamour and religion will motivate Palestinians to vote in next week’s presidential elections — and their star attraction is actor Richard Gere.

Gere, together with an Islamic cleric and a Greek Orthodox Church official, recorded a public service announcement calling on the Palestinians to vote in the Jan. 9 election to replace their esteemed (by virtually no one except the media) Yasser Arafat.

“Hi, I’m Richard Gere and I’m speaking for the entire world. We’re with you during this election time. It’s really important: Get out and vote,” Gere said, according to a transcript of the announcement obtained by The Associated Press.

Gere ended the 80-second announcement produced by the pro-peace group, “One Voice,” with an appeal in Arabic: “Take part in the elections.'"

While certainly arrogant in attempting to speak for "the entire world" the message sounds innocuous enough. Urging the Palestinian people to participant in the democratic process seems a noble enough goal. However, if you are willing to look just behind the scene, you might be interested to note that Gere’s co-stars in this public service announcement, presumably also speaking for the entire world, have previously urged Palestinians to wipe out Israel and the Jews by finishing the good work of Adolf Hitler:

Along with Gere, the commercial features Sheik Taissir Tamimi, the head of the Islamic court in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Atallah Hanna, the spokesman of the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem. In a transcript of the recording Tamimi said, “To the Palestinian people, it is a vital process, national necessity and religious obligation.“ Atallah Hanna states, "We want democracy in our country, a place with freedom, and freedom of speech.” Again, this all sounds well and good, but we must look a bit deeper and determine who these people actually are.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Hanna has been quoted praising the suicide bombers who are regularly sent to kill innocent women and children in Israel; "These martyrdom freedom fighters are the heroes of the people and we are proud of them. We categorically reject suspicious attempts to cast suspicion on their deeds. They are not suicidal, as some are claiming. Nor are they terrorists, as others are claiming. They are resisting the occupation." (Interesting how people who commit suicide can be "not suicidal.") According to the report, he also called for the liberation of Palestine ‘from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river.’ Many are unaware of the specific geography of the region, but this "liberation" would require the destruction of the entire State of Israel. And this actually comes from the religious leader of a large Christian church in Jerusalem. I was unaware that Christian doctrine supported the concept of "jihad," but apparently the concept has now crossed religious borders and is being promoted and supported by an official of the Greek Orthodox Christian Church. Apparently he is unaware of non-violent methods for resisting that which he considers to be unjust.

Gere's other co-star in the piece, Sheikh Tamimi, was quoted in 1994 as saying: “the Jews are destined to be persecuted, humiliated and tortured forever, and it is a Muslim duty to see to it that they reap their due. No petty arguments must be allowed to divide us. Where Hitler failed, we must succeed.” Now, what can one possibly say in defense of a statement like that? Certainly nothing rational.

Even with Gere's consistent position in favor of the Palestinians, I struggle to understand how he can associate himself with people who openly call for genocide against another people? How can he openly associate himself with someone who claims that they are carrying on the work of Hitler? This is not part of any "Buddhist" philosophy of which I am aware. In his conversations with the Dalai Lama, I wonder if Mr. Gere has discussed his personal association with, and promotion of these hate filled individuals?

Terrorism, intolerance, hatred and religious discrimination are alive and well, and being supported here at home by famous United States citizens. While Richard Gere makes his millions from the citizens (including Jews) of this nation (and others, including those in Israel who view his films) he is standing side by side with those who advocate a return to the policies of Adolf Hitler. Meanwhile, his films are banned in any Muslim nation living under Sharia law. He must be a very confused and conflicted individual.