Back in the Saddle ... Again

Okie Dokie, I'm finally back after a 4+ month hiatus.  Work, work, and more work just got in the way of too many things.  And there is no truth to the rumor that I was taken out by 9/11 consiracy theorists.  I have lots of catching up to do.  Its amazing what can happen in 140 days.

I Just Couldn't Pass this One Up...

Can Dialogue with Islamists Succeed?

I've heard the following argument so many times I was actually starting to believe some of it.  You know the one I'm talking about.  The one that proclaims that what the West  needs to do is open a dialogue with the Islamic world.  And with that dialogue we could explain to the radicals, the jihadists, the terrorists (you know, the guys blowing up and beheading non-muslims) that we really don't hate them, and that we are sorry for all the horrible things we did to them over the past 1500 years or so starting with the Crusades.  Of course all the while we would be sharing ideas and culture with our new friends and in the end, we would all sit down and sip Turkish coffee together and realize what fools we in the West have been and then our differences would simply fade away like smoke from a peace pipe. 

There's just one problem with this.  Even IF the half truths above were true, it simply would not make a difference.  Not one iota.  Now don't get me wrong.  I'm all about peace and playing nice in the sandbox but the truth is our values in the West differ fundamentally from the Islamic world.  Most Americans assume that those we negotiate with will hold the same values in those negotiations.  They don't.  For instance just because we might show respect and acceptance of their religion and their culture, that respect and acceptance would not be reciprocated.   The following excerpt is from the German Magazine Der Welt, published a few years ago.  And although this is a single event, it is instructive in that it shows a fundamental difference in our value system. 

"The bishop of Hildesheim in Germany paid an imam a courtesy visit in his mosque. The imam handed the Catholic prelate a Koran, which he joyfully accepted. But when the bishop tried to present the imam with a Bible, the Muslim cleric just stared at him in horror and refused to even touch Christianity's holy book.

"The bishop was irritated because he perceived this behavior as a gross discourtesy," wrote Tibi, "but the imam had only acted according to his faith. For if an imam gives a bishop a Koran, he considers this a Da'Wa, or call to Islam."

And let us not forget.   The quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview.  The term 'peace,' implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam  or 'House of Islam' to the entire world which is completely different from the concept of peace that dominates Western thought.  So, the very idea of talking peace as defined in the Western mindset holds a completely different meaning to Muslims. 

I'm not suggesting we not enter into a general dialogue, what I am suggesting is that we do so with our eyes very widely open and with a full understanding of what peace really means.

Update on Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 08:48PM by JDickson

Did I mention that our openness as a society and our very form of government is blantently used against us by those who wish ill on our Nation?

Russian Isolation Dangerous to U.S. Interests

by JDICKSON

Coming on the heels of a report by the Russian News & Information Agency (RIA) that the Ukraine is set to sign deals with U.S. firms on supplies of nuclear fuel and equipment , Moscow is no doubt less than pleased that Poland is eliciting support from Germany for Kiev's attempt to join NATO.    The former Soviet Republic of Georgia is also making it known, it's desires for NATO membership.  This news, although not exactly on the front page of world news organizations, is significant in that this action will continue Russia's isolation from the West.  Russia largely stood idly by as it watched its former Warsaw Pact allies such as Poland, Hungary, and Romania were accepted into the NATO fold a few years ago.  We can't expect the same casual response if Moscow is forced to watch as its former Soviet States emerge as major players in this military alliance.   An emerging list of possible scenarios resulting from this isolation are frightening enough for the U.S. and its Western allies that most NATO countries are reticent in offering even tacit support for the plan. 

Make no mistake about it.  The further Moscow is pushed away, the closer their ties with China and more importantly, rogue terrorist sponsoring countries such as Iran and Syria will become.  What the U.S. and its allies do not need is an isolated Russia.  We have already wasted a great opportunity to welcome Russia as true ally.  Instead of treating our former foes as equals on the world stage after the demise of the USSR, we pushed, prodded, and humiliated them as we made it clear that our support was suddenly conditional.  Glasnost and Peristroika was replaced with McDonald's and good old American arrogance.  And if we have learned anything about Russia from its history, it is this: They are rabid about defending their motherland.  Results of invasions by the French and later the Germans are well imbeded in the national psyche.  Russia will react.  They will defend themselves.  Maybe not with force, but with its influence in other, much more terrifying and destructive ways.  

Attorney General Surprised at Level of Terrorism Threat?!

Ummm.  Why on earth would he or anyone else be shocked?  Radical Islam is an entirely different threat from any the West has faced in the past.  Oh, I've seen the arguments that the threats from Hitler and later, the Soviets were more menacing, but this is a completely different dynamic;  And one that requires a level of dedication from the West that we simply do not currently possess.  How do the threats differ?  The following is a short list.

1. Radicals WANT to die.  Killing non-believers, especially through sacrificing oneself, is a guarantee to heaven.  The more killings, the higher the status.  "...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them" (Koran 2:191).    *A little side note:   Compare this to the Bible which states "Thou shall not kill".  It doesn't state, "Thou shalt not kill, unless they are infedels, in which case you can blow them up...oh yeah, and their children too".
2. The war against Hitler and the cold war against the Soviets were "traditional".  You knew who the enemy was.  Against Germany, we defeated them on the field of battle.  Against the Soviets, we defeated them (or have we?) through economic means.  With the growing Radical Islamic threat, we often have no idea who, or where they are.  This is an ideology we face.  It doesn't have borders, it can't be located on a map.  The threat we face doesn't come in the form of State Terrorism such as from Nazi Germany, but instead is both State Sponsored, such as Iran and Syria, and from terrorist groups like Al Qaida who's support is largely not State Sponsored and is instead funded by other means, such as through threats, kidnappings, wealthy benefactors, and as in the case of Al Qaida, the sale of illegal drugs (think of the heroin trade from Afghanistan).
3. We provide monetary support to the terrorists.  During WWII as in all wars, trade blockades were the inevitable result which kept Japan and Germany from the badly needed resources to fight a long term war.  With Radical Islam, through oil purchases and other trade, we are funding the battle against us which we are trying to win.  We pay billions every month to Iran.  And lest we think that  our largest supplier of oil, Saudi Arabia, is an ally, let us not forget who flew the planes on 9/11 nor forget how our "ally" supports the teaching of Radical Islam in its schools and  supports Mosques world wide which promote extremism and calls for jihad.  What the heck.  At least they can say they smiled at us while they stuck the knife in.
4. We are politically fractured in the West.  The threat from terror is very real but we as a society are unwilling to fight effectively with one voice and one purpose.  Against the Nazi's we mobilized.  We sacrificed.  We understood the threat.  Today, we don't have a clue.  Republicans mobilize; Democrats mobilize...against each other.  The enmity and polarization, not just ideologically but emotionally, pushes each further in opposite directions.  As a result we have no resolve.  NONE.
5. We are apathetic.  Our success against terrorism....or better put, the terrorists' failure to succeed in attacking this country since 9/11 has given strength to those who doubt the threat exists at all.  It's easy to throw flowers when you aren't being blown up.  We are reactionary.  We respond well, but we don't plan.  We won't spend the resources necessary to win.  To be sure, we would ... for a time if we were to be attacked.  Remember how Americans, and entire West came together after 9/11?  Remember the standing ovations Bush received?  Or remember when he and the democaratic leaders held those series of love fests where kumbaya was the order of the day?  In fact, Bush was, for a time, the most popular President in our history.  But then something curious happened.  Time.

Well, it's time to WAKE UP AMERICA.  We need to act, not react. The battle is being waged now.  The time for bitter party politics is over, the time for action is past.  If we don't get this figured out, the effects of our inaction due to our own stupidity will be profound and it will be irreversable. 

Let Obama Off the Hook?

Don't look now but it appears Obama's lack of experience in national politics is starting to shine through.  Yes, he's a powerful and inspirational speaker who very well may win the election on the power of his gifted speech...alone.  Given his inability to answer specific policy questions beyond his mindnumbing Iraqi policy, he may well have to.   But now, questions are being raised beyond whether he has the experience necessary to be our next Chief Executive.   His Iraq policy is so pervasive that it blights out almost entirely, his stance on the issues.  I find it difficult beyond the old, tried and true Democratic platform, to name a single policy, outside of Iraq, that he has adequately answered.  And that is why so much has been made of statements made by those around Obama, instead of by Obama himself.  I think its instructive to look at those (people and institutions) with whom you have relationships with.

I remember thinking when Obama's wife Michelle made her now famous remark that, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country..."  Now, could she have simply mispoke?  The answer is, not likely.  She has been described as a "fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman" so it's hard to imagine that she would not have noticed the remark or the effect it might have during a review of the speech.  This was not an off the cuff comment.

Ok.  So we moved forward quickly from all that.  Now we have another invective, this time from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who was and is, Obama's Pastor.  Granted, Obama quickly denounced the most controversial statements made by the Rev. Wright, but why did he wait until the statements became front page news to condemn those statements?  It just leave a bad taste in my mouth.  It reminds me of the criminal, who while standing before the judge, professes his profound sorrow for his actions.  Was he sorry BEFORE he was caught?  Probably not.  Was Obama sorry?  Not, apparently, before it bacame news. 

Can Democracy Survive in Iraq?

Politicians on both sides of the isle must be asking this basic question.  It is, after all, one of the oft stated desired outcomes in Iraq.   Now that the U.S. has been on the ground there for five years, the time for asking this question should have been settled long ago. 

Its time to add a bit of common sense to the mix.   Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all about democracy as an institution and all, but how can we as a nation hope to force our form of government and our values on another country and try to do so when we have lost much or most of our credibility in the eyes of the world?  And what exactly are we offering?  A splintered and fractured political landscape where the major political parties are themselves split into factions and sub factions; A populace with so many different goals and dreams that its impossible to recognize any form of direction as a country; Religious intolerance and in some cases, forced tolerance; An economy which by most accounts is on a precipice….Based on all that, one wouldn’t know if I was writing about Iraq…..or the U.S.

But I digress.  The question is not whether our form of democracy should be instituted in Iraq but whether democracy, as an institution, can take root, grow, and hold up in Iraq over the long term.  For that we must look back at a bit of history as.  Unfortunately, we ventured into Iraq knowing (basically) how to win the war but knowing nothing of winning the peace.  A simple bit of high school research might have suggested to the policy makers that this would be, at best, an unlikely and costly outcome.  A basic question would have been, is there a BASIS for democracy in Iraqi history; something in its past that would in some way give us an idea as to the viability of our efforts?  The answer is yes, BUT, and the outcome should have been a window to our efforts.  From 1921 until 1958, Iraq adopted a parliamentary system modeled on that of its colonial master, the United Kingdom. Political parties existed, even in the opposition, and dissent and disagreement were generally tolerated. Debates in parliament occurred without the fear of retribution. Although the palace and the cabinet set the agenda, parliament often managed to influence policy. And there was a free press with dozens of independent newspapers.
But British meddling and Iraqi political corruption (sound familiar) discredited democracy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Iraq's army eventually terminated this democratic experiment with several coups and in 1968 Saddam Hussein seized power.

Democracy works, but it needs the tools in a stable environment in order for it to take root and grow.  When democracy was introduced to Yugoslavia in the 1990’s longstanding ethnic and religious tensions resulted in an explosion of violence just as it has in Iraq.  Yugoslavia didn’t have the stability and neither does Iraq, even after five years of occupation.  

Finally, Iraq’s middle class, which would be a base of support for democracy, has been severely reduced by the economic realities of the war and is now unable and now, unwilling to pressure its government to embrace the democratic changes the U.S. so desperately wants…and needs.  After all we are betting on that change…to the tune of several trillions of dollars.  The poorer the Iraqis get, the less support democracy recieves and consequently the more support the radicals recieve.  If paying homage to the local radicals is the price of putting food on your family's table, democracy WILL lose.  History is a great teacher…for those who listen to it.  Our leaders didn’t learn from the history of the French prior to our entry into Vietnam, and our leaders haven’t learned from the history of Iraq.

Good News on the Iraqi Front!

The Iraqi's have just met thier fourth benchmark!

Iraqi Governement Report Card 2008 OMG!

 The Center for American Progress issued the following report that showed the Iraqi government (loose term) met only THREE of the EIGHTEEN mandated benchmarks for contined U.S. Support:

Government Benchmarks:
Perform constitutional review. - Unmet
Enact de-Ba'athification reform. - Partial
Form semi-autonomous regions. - Unmet
Hold provincial elections. - Unmet
Address amnesty. - Unmet
Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. - Met
Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. - Met
Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. - Unmet

Security Benchmarks:
Disarm militias. - Unmet
Provide military support in Baghdad. - Partial
Empower Iraqi Security Forces. - Partial
Ensure impartial law enforcement. - Unmet
Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. - Unmet
Reduce sectarian violence. - Partial
Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. - Met
Increase independent Iraqi Security Forces. - Unmet

Economic Benchmarks:
Implement oil legislation. - Unmet
Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. - Partial

Now, I understand that Iraqi culture is different from ours and that its THEIR country not ours...I get all that.  But their failures to meet the majority of the benchmarks means one of two things.  Either they can't or they won't.  Its really that simple.  Either way, how can we continue doing business this way with the Iraqi government.  Understandably, they have problems that are well documented as it applies to building a stable, democratic government.  But the lack of effort as evidenced by the (in)famous recess by their government while OUR troops are dying in the field, is enough to make even the most conservative of politicians throw their hands up in disgust.  As momentous a mistake of invading Iraq was, the Iraqi government knows our threats of pulling out funding OR troops is as hollow as Rumsfeld's skull.  And like it or not, irrespective of which political party is in power next year and irrespective of the Democrat's wailing to the contrary, we are there for the foreseeable future.  And it appears that the U.S., instead of making more threats, have instead adopted a new course, one of lowering the expectations.  U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, but they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been.

 I guess the old saying is true.  "If ya can't beat em....then lower your expectations to such a point that the new stated expectations are completely unrecognizeable to the original expectations - and if that still doesn't work, repeat the process until you can claim victory".

How the US Can Save Tax Dollars (Continued)

Here are the other top 9  ways the US can save tax dollars.  Of course no list would be complete without including the number 1 way to save tax dollars - that is to not start a war that costs $275 Million per day.  Anyhoo, here's the list.

Studies published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

1. The Missing $25 Billion
The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately.
The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.

2. Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million
A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. Auditors also found 27,000 transactions totaling $8 billion between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account).
This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

3. Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture
A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees’ purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.

4. Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense
The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used government-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes

5. Medicare Overspending
For example, Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies. Medicare also overpays for drugs. In 2000, Medicare’s payments for 24 leading drugs were $1.9 billion higher than they would have been under the prices paid by the VA or other federal agencies. Basic payment errors—the results of deliberate fraud and administrative errors—cost $12.3 billion annually. As much as $7 billion owed to the program has gone uncollected or has been written off. Finally, while Medicare contracts claims processing and administration to several private companies, 19 cases of contractor fraud have been settled in recent years, with a maximum settlement of $76 million.

6. Funding Fictitious Colleges and Students
In 2002, the Department of Education received an application to certify the student loan participation of the Y’Hica Institute in London, England. After approving the certification, the department received and approved student loan applications from three Y’Hica students and disbursed $55,000.
The Education Department administrators overlooked one problem: Neither the Y’Hica Institute nor the three students who received the $55,000 existed. The fictitious college and students were created (on paper) by congressional investigators to test the Department of Education’s verification procedures.

7. Manipulating Data to Encourage Spending
Investigations by the GAO, The Washington Post, and several private organizations have found that The Army Corps of Engineers studies routinely contain dozens of basic arithmetic errors, computer errors, and ridiculous economic assumptions that artificially inflate the benefits of water projects by as much as 300 percent. These errors appear to reflect more deception than sloppiness. A Washington Post investigation uncovered managers ordering analysts to “get creative,” to “look for ways to get to yes as fast as possible,” and “not to take no for an answer.” After a public outcry, in 2002, the Corps suspended work on 150 projects to review the economics used to justify them.

8. State Abuse of Medicaid Funding Formulas
The GAO and the HHS Inspector General have also uncovered some states’ practice of recovering improper payments, retaining the funds, and then spending them on unrelated programs—a practice that costs the federal government well over $2 billion per year. Congress could enact legislation to prohibit these actions more effectively.
Minor reforms enacted by HHS in 2001 and 2002 are expected to save Medicaid $70 billion over the next decade. A small sample of financing schemes uncovered in a few states suggests that, if Congress acts, even larger savings are available.

9. Redundancy Piled on Redundancy
Government’s layering of new programs on top of old ones inherently creates duplication. Having several agencies perform similar duties is wasteful and confuses program beneficiaries who must navigate each program’s distinct rules and requirements.
342 economic development programs;
130 programs serving the disabled;
130 programs serving at-risk youth;
90 early childhood development programs;
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities;
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;
50 homeless assistance programs;
45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations;
40 separate employment and training programs;
28 rural development programs;
27 teen pregnancy programs;
26 small, extraneous K–12 school grant programs;
23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics;
19 programs fighting substance abuse;
17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies;
17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements;
12 food safety agencies;
11 principal statistics agencies; and
Four overlapping land management agencies.

How the US Can Save Tax Dollars

Now that its generally recognized that  the US is, A. Broke or B. Quickly getting there.  I have looked into the GAO budget and found some areas were we can save a bit o' cash.  Let's call it my Top Ten List of Cost Saving Measures the US can Institute before we Become a Frickin' Third World Country and have to to Start Digging in our Own Backyards to Find Oil to Sell at Rediculously Inflated Prices Simply to Keep a Few Billionaires....Billionaires.

Today I'll start at number 10:

10.  Stop giving billions of dollars in aid to people who want to kill us. 

See picture in previous post of Pasestinians literally dancing in the streets.  They aren't smiling and laughing or shooting their Russian made rifles in the air because of the latest deliveries of much needed head scarfs for their women folk.  They hate us!  And we should not be fooled into believing that "humanitarian aid" can't and  isn't being used for weapons or for bombings or for planning attacks against western targets.  The money the Palestinians receive from other sources that would be used for the basic needs of their people that WE have been providing IS being used for those purposes.  We may as well be providing direct military support.  But wait!  There is good news in all this.  The weak dollar means that the 320 million dollars in aid the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provided the Palestinians in 2006 is now only worth about 240 million dollars!  HA! Take THAT!

Obama Clarifies his Stance on Iraq

There! Now we know where he stands.

Former Obama Aide: Obama Committed to Troop Pullout...Kinda Sorta

Democratic frontrunner Baraq Obama has used the Iraq war as an important cornerstone of his campaign for President.  In his speaches, debates, and on his website he has made it "perfectly clear" (sorry Mr. Nixon) that his plan includes an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq.  His plan as posted on his website is as follows:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Then comes this from a former campaign adviser. Samantha Power, who resigned last week after calling Hillary Clinton a monster, had this to say about Obama’s plan to pull out of Iraq:

“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator,” she said. “He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.”

Its not that these comments are unreasonable -- or all that surprising. In fact I would be worried about any President who makes blanket statements and then acts on those statements without consulting the experts.  What bothers me is that he has and continues to campaign on exactly the premise that he is committed to an immediate pullout.  His comments above taken directly from his website leaves no wiggle room on this issue.  Let's remember that his jumpstart on the National political stage and his meteoric rise to frontrunner has been due in no small part to his anti war stance early on.  (On a side note and for the record, he didn't vote against the war, its funding, anything else as a US Senator before the war as most people may believe.  He was simply a CANDIDATE for the US Senate in 2002.)  Of course Hillary is no stranger to this kind of politcal wavering.  A retired general responsible for co-authoring the "surge" plan for Iraq, who has previously advised Hillary Clinton, recently made similar comments about Clinton's stance.  But as inexperienced as Obama is, he still has political savy.  As sure as the sun rises in the east, if asked about the comments of his former advisor, he would immediately dissasociate himself from her and reiterate his statements on his website. 

What I'm wondering is this:  How would a revised stance play with his moveon.org and other fervently anti war buddies that have eagerly joined him at the hip?  If he becomes President, I will eagerly waiting for that very first news conference he holds when Wolf Blitzer from CNN addresses him.  "Mr President, first of all I think I speak on behalf of everyone at CNN and indeed the majority of the news media when I say, DAMN its great having one of us in the oval office.  Now then, when are you signing your very first executive order withdrawing those evil American troops from Iraq?"

What will surely follow would be worth the price of admission.

Transcript:

STEPHEN SACKUR: Let me stop you just for a moment. You said that he'll revisit it when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months isn't a commitment, isn't it?

POWER: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008, about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can't even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.

So to think, I mean it would be the height of ideology, you know, to sort of say, "Well I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality entreats me" --

SACKUR: OK, so the 16 months is negotiable?

POWER: It's a best case scenario.

SACKUR: It's a best case scenario.

POWER: It is, on the basis --

SACKUR: And of course in Iraq we've never seen best cases come off --

POWER: We have never seen best cases.

SACKUR: So we needn't necessarily take it seriously at all.

POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get U.S. forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible, and that that's the best case estimate of what it would take.

Hamas Celebrates Massacre....When will the West Wake Up?!

The attack on the Israeli students today is another reminder of the perilous times we live in.  It is truly time to wake up!  If we've learned one thing from this attack its this.  The idea that the palestinian people are being held hostage by a few militants is crap.  One look at these "Palestinian hostages" celebrating the massacre of unarmed children should once and for all convince the world that these people are not a bunch of peace loving, I just wanna get along with everyone, peace niks that the press (and those on the far left) paint them to be!  Students.  Slaughtered.  In a seminary school.  What will it take before Americans and the Israelis themselves realize that the time for inaction is past?  Is the lack of response just another case of political correctness gone amok?  Or could it be lack of will?  Maybe its a case of final futility on the part of the citizens of Israel as to their own destruction. 

When will we as Americans WAKE UP!?  The Palestinians are NOT our friends.  Let us not forget similar Palestinian celebrations after 9/11.  Those pictured to the right aren't smiling because they are our friends, they are celebrating the slaughter of CHILDREN!  And now, even as I write this I see that Bush is quietly pushing for talks between Israel and Hamas!  At least with Clinton and Carter, you KNEW which side those two were on.  They're still waiting for the Palestinians to throw flowers and not bombs.  Pardon me, but those don't look like tulips. 

No one in Israel or the U.S. can say that they didn't see this coming.  Let us not forget that after the Oslo I Accords, Israel felt compelled to give in to over 90% of Arafat's demands of his Land for Peace agenda.  When the Israelis finally agreed, former PLO Chairman Arafat turned down the agreement.  His real agenda then, as is the agenda of the Palestinian people now, was the total destruction of the state of Israel.  Anything else was and remains, unacceptable.

The number of jihadist speeches given by Arafat since the signing of Oslo I gives a clear understanding as to his intent.  One of the most notorious occurred at a mosque in South Africa in 1994.  There, Arafat proclaimed: "The jihad will contnue.  You have to understand our main battle is Jerusalem.  You have to come and fight a jihad to liberate Jerusalem, your precious shrine.  No, it is NOT their capital.  It is OUR capital!"

Of course this information was not discussed by the media or the politicians in this country.  It was swept under the rug while President Clinton and others, celebrated their accomplishments, poo pooing the very notion that all was not as it appeared.

And look who's celebrating now.

9/11 Conspiracists are Driving me NUTS!

By JDickson

Okay.  So I decided long ago not to offer my opinion regarding 9/11 conspiracies largely because I see myself as a reasonable (albeit not necessarily an intellectually gifted) person that these various conspiracy theories are so totally full of holes as to make a swiss cheese maker weep, and another opinion is hardly necessary.  But looking at the previous post from yesterday reminds me that these mindless globs of primordial excrement are still out there espousing this crap.  All it proves to me is that intelligence is not a prerequisite for winning an Oscar. 

Now I certainly won't waste my time or anyone else's trying to debunk each of these idiotic conspiracies surrounding 9/11; there are alot smarter people than I (such as the folks at Popular Mechanics) who are actual ENGINEERS and know what the hell they are talking about (unless of course you believe the imbiciles who claim that these people too are on Bush's payroll).  However, simply to placate my own consciense, I have the following brief points:

1. Given Bush's masterful organizational abilites as seen in his handling of the Katrina debacle, does anyone seriously believe that in the course of the eight months from the time he took office to September 11, 2001, that he could (or anyone else for that matter) organize such a thorough operation that would require the resources of not only the FBI and CIA, but other departments such as DoD, the DOJ, the FAA, and the NTSB among others?  They give Bush far too much credit.  Had Bush been in charge, the terrorists ... oops!...Co-conspirators wouldn't have made it on board the planes since they would have been too busy in the restroom making themselves look good for the cameras.  And besides the pilots would have been too busy circling their targets wondering what to do next.
2. Given number one above, no one, not ONE person out of the hundreds of people necessary to pull this off would feel the guilt of their participation of the mass killing of several thousand people? Amazing that ANYONE would believe that.
3. If there exists any verifiable evidence, I would think the Democrats in office who surely would have caught wind of this conspiracy would have sounded the alarm bells by now.  Shhhh.  If you listen really, really hard, I think you'll find their silence is deafening.
4. Finally, wouldn't a much smaller plan have been just as effective in giving Bush a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq?  Given Bush's obvious designs on Iraq I think someone in Arab garb whacking Bush's pet, Spotty the dog would have done the trick.  All this talk about World Trade Center building Seven blows my mind.  I think anyone with common sense would abandon the idea long ago that this building was somehow crucial to the 9/11 question.  I seriously doubt that anyone  inside or outside the government said, "What??!!  They knocked down Building Seven??!!  THIS MEANS WAR!"  OR, if you believe the conspirasists, the idea that Bush and Cheney, et al, were congratulating themselves declaring that the destruction of Building Seven FINALLY gave them the pretext necessary for war.

These people remind me of those who deny the Holocaust as simply just another Jewish hoax.  No amount of evidence to the contrary will in any way cause them to deviate from their firm beliefs.  Now, I don't really give a damn about who believes what as a general rule.  But, what's scary is, depending on which poll you read...or believe, somewhere between 16 percent and 40 percent believe that the Federal Government has at least some culpability in 9/11.  And these people vote??!!  While the Government does little to assuage people's mistrust of itself as an institution and in fact helps perpetrate this mistrust on a daily basis, I can't bring myself to accept a Rosie O'Donnell view of the world.  My money on this issue is with those men and women who are PART OF the government, who day in and day out, honor the victims of 9/11 by simply being there, doing their often thankless jobs and doing so under the umbrella of suspicion perpetrated by a bunch of kooks who wouldn't know a fact if a terrorist flew one down their throat.  But then again, I work for the Federal Government.  I guess I should just shut up and go deposit my hush money.

'9/11 attacks made up,' says French Best Actress Oscar Winner

By PETER ALLEN

Actress Marion Cotillard sparked a political row yesterday after accusing America of fabricating the 9/11 attacks.

The 32-year-old French actress, who received an Oscar last month for her performance as singer Edith Piaf in La Vie En Rose, openly questioned the truth behind the terrorist atrocity in an interview broadcast on a French website.

"I think we're lied to about a number of things," Cotillard said, singling out the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center as an example of the US making up horror stories for political ends.

Referring to the two passenger jets being flown into the Twin Towers, Cotillard said:

"We see other towers of the same kind being hit by planes. Are they burned? They [sic] was a tower, I believe it was in Spain, which burnt for 24 hours. It never collapsed. None of these towers collapsed. And there [in New York], in a few minutes, the whole thing collapsed."

She added that the towers, planned in the early Sixties, were an outdated "money-sucker" that would have cost more to modernise than to rebuild altogether, which is why they were destroyed.

She said: "It was a money-sucker because they were finished, it seems to me, by 1973, and to re-cable all that, to bring up-to-date all the technology and everything, it was a lot more expensive, that work, than destroying them."

Cotillard's stardom and increased earning power looked assured following her Oscar win.

But after her outburst, in which she also queried the 1969 Moon landings, a successful future in Hollywood appears to be in jeopardy.

She said: "Did a man really walk on the Moon? I saw plenty of documentaries on it, and I really wondered. And in any case I don't believe all they tell me, that's for sure."

Great Website Added to Links

I often visit the On the Issues web site for information on each candidate.  I think that one of the major issues facing democratic countries is regarding voting.  Many who vote in national or local elections have very little understanding of the candidates' stances on even the basic issues.  The issues facing all of us are far too important to wistfully and ignorantly cast our votes.  Most uninformed voters would be surpised where their favorite candidate stands on certain issues.  Worse yet, however, are the "single issue" voters who deny all importance of the multitude of other matters and concerns that undeniably AND collectively are more critical.  Its time for those folks to Wake Up.  At any rate the website has been added to my "Important Sites" on the left.  Its a nice place where you can compare the various candidates not only in the Presidential elections but in State elections as well.

Al Sadr Playing Politics?

Before we get too excited by Anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr order to his Mahdi Army militia last week to extend a cease-fire for six months let's take a quick look-see at the timing.  In six months, when the cease-fire will be due to end, it will be August 24, 2008.  Why is this particular date so significant?  It just so happens to be the day before the opening of the Democratic Convention.  Two things have become clear.  First, the timing can hardly be construed as coincidental and secondly, the odds will be that on that date, al-Sadr will not extend the cease-fire thereby giving the dems the pulpit that the surge has failed.  This is an obvious tactical move they the Shiite cleric, but shrewd nonetheless.  Stay tuned.

Berkley Should Lose Funding NOW!

The city of Berkley, California continues to demand that the Marines close their recruiting office there and has gone so far as to give space directly across from the Recruiting Station to the Ultra Left Wing group Code Pink to launch protests.  Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC has initiated legislation revoking federal funding to the city.  Read the report here. 

Peaceful protesting is a great thing and is in fact a guaranteed right enforced by the very military the city of Berkley is attempting to subdue.  Witholding federal funding is no small matter, but they cross the line when the city encourages these kinds of protests and uses taxpayers' funds to do so.  Thankfully, the Marines aren't budging....nor should they.  To leave would encourage other communities to attempt similar efforts.  These left wing radicals in the local government are predictably, enouraged by the ACLU and others.  Its time to stand up against these freeloading, freebasing, contemptuous hippie wannabies. 

Limbaugh - McCain Feud Part II

If this report in the Washington Post is any indicator, Rush isn't exactly offering up any olive branches anytime soon to McCain.  It would appear that Limbaugh would rather vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.  By doing so he is painting himself in a corner labeled, "Sore Loser".  Its one thing for someone as powerful as Limbaugh is to disagree with the likley Republican nomiee on the issues and perhaps to not even vote, but it is something else entirely vote against the Republican nominee.  Whatever philosphical differences exist not to mention the personal derision felt on both sides, the idea of prefering so vocally a democrat over your party's nominee based SOLELY on a few issues is akin to abanding your child if he or she doesn't agree with your own hardened viewpoints.  Limbaugh's reasoning is that McCain's nomination "Would destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.".  I don't know.  Destroy it....no; Change it....very possibly.  If change is what is required in the best interests of the country, then so be it.  Don't we all change and modify to one degree or another based on life's experiences?

While I personally disagree with McCain on issues such as immigration I don't ever remember a candidate for any office that I agreed with on all issues.  It certainly wouldn't stop me from voting for him as long as I believed he was the best person for the job.  McCain is a true 'maverick" as he is often referred to.  One thing you have to admire him for is his resistance to pandering.  I think its best summed up best by John McCain himself.

“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches
of American politics and the agents of intolerance whether they be
Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson
or Jerry Falwell on the right.”