Where have I been?

It has been so long since I posted here it took ten attempts to remember what my log-in is.

It is "cake day" at work and I am about to suffer a sugar rush that I will regret within minutes!

So much to say and so little motivation :-(

Then and Now

President Bush does not allow himself the luxury of sitting around talking about how he would have done things differently if he knew then what he knows now. It’s not leadership when you change “past” positions based on subsequent events or opinion polls and then try to rewrite history. Hillary supported the removal of Saddam in the strongest terms in 2002 and listed off the various reasons for doing so.. most of which had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. She did so in even stronger more direct language than she does in these clips. But now she wants to say Bush failed as a leader by acting on the same information she had when she supported the use of force against Saddam. The same goes for Edwards and Kerry. These people are who the Democrats think should be running the country?

These political opportunists can’t say they voted to oust Saddam based on the intel at the time, which in retrospect may have not been totally accurate, because the same would apply to the President. For political reasons they have to pretend they either never said what they said, or claim he personally misled them. They are not fit to lead this nation.

Video

What Alternative Plans Do They Offer?

President Bush has made mistakes, as any wartime leader has, and he is not unique in having to fight a war on two fronts. Unfortunately one of those fronts is at home against his political opposition.

How refreshing it would be if the debate in the Congress was over who’s plan for Iraq is best, or which competing plan to deal with jihadists announced plans to destroy us. Instead, what we have are most Democrats and some Republicans working hard to beat down the President’s plans while offering no alternative. They simply disagree with his plans for confronting the enemy so they are working feverishly to see that he fails. I’d be happy to listen to it, but I’ve not heard one forward thinking pro-active alternative plan from any of them.

Barak Obama did site and urgent need to develop a plan, but that was a call for a plan to restrain the President, not for a plan to fight our sworn enemies.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are introducing measures to prevent the USA from taking military action against Iran without Congressional approval. Of course even if the President gets approval, they reserve the right to later deny they approved and then go to war against him, just as they have done in Iraq.

President Bush is trying to do the difficult job of confronting terrorists and keeping the homeland safe, while helping establish a large democratic America friendly country in the heart of the middle-east and all Congress, the press and half of America can do is assault him at every turn.

Our enemies must be having a good laugh.

Pres. Bush: Don't Play Nice

I think our enemies should be having some sleepless nights about now. Bush is a lame duck President with two years left and he has little motivation to “play nice” with them. As he is painted into a corner by his enemies abroad and in Congress, so he may have the courage to do what needs to be done… seriously kick some ass.

We need to make it real clear to the Iraqi government that they have to get serious or we will do what has to be done on our own. We need to let our military rout out the militias in and around Baghdad. We also need to go after Iranian and Syrian elements working in Iraq. Bush technically does not need the approval of Congress to take this bull by the horns and get down to business, so he may step up the pace.

Political and global motivations have kept the Israelis and America in check, but the stakes are up and the pressure is on to set aside any concerns other than destruction of the enemy. Like a short-stacked poker player, he needs to just get aggressive.


A

On My Mind

We are not fighting Iraqis. We are trying to help the newly formed government deal with local thugs and foreign forces set upon destroying any progress toward a free, America-friendly nation.

The Iraqi people, and Arabs in general, have a long history of being ruled by whatever strong man takes power and the idea of self-government will be slow to take hold.

Islam and the cultural heritage of this area promote vast social inequity and allow for a brutal disregard for individual rights. If Arabs, Persians and other Islamists around the world do not shift their thinking on individual rights, democracy will never work for them. If they cannot learn to tolerate differences of opinion or belief, the majority, or what ever thug is in power, will always be able to abuse the minority. The only reason a free, democratic society has worked here in America is because we honor a Bill of Rights that protects the minority or those out of power.

Ted Kennedy’s idea of running any war by committee is crazy. The Commander in Chief has to be able to direct the activities of our forces without endless debate with Congress. Congress is inefficient, wasteful, slow to act and too subject to the winds of political opportunity to be given authority to directly inhibit the President’s authority in wartime. The President may be a good Commander or a bad one, but there is no practical alternative when it comes to authority over the military.

Alan

Plutonium - 210 Everywhere?

Maybe they are finding plutonium-210 in so many places beacuse it is present all around us and we just never looked before!

related

Bolton calls it quits - we all lose.

It is arguable that all politicians are duplicitous self-serving pricks, but some are worse than others. Now that the real assholes are a majority in the House and Senate, the Speaker elect addresses corruption by trying to put corrupt people like Murtha and Hastings in key positions (thankfully Pelosi failed in both cases). The 9-11 Commission recommendations they were going to implement… not so much. Worse, they will now block all progress with regard to appointments by the lowest tactic possible… the filibuster. The loss of Bolton at the UN is the first such defeat for America under the Democrat majority. Trust me, they will not only argue against good people filling positions... they will block most, if not all, from even getting a vote on the floor. - AS


“Yes, he could be a blunt man. But John Bolton surprised many people by pretty effectively working the room at the United Nations, especially on difficult issues such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon and Darfur.

One good, recent example: After months of maneuvering, the UN was prepared to set up an international tribunal to try the killers of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Then another Lebanese Cabinet minister, Pierre Gemayel, was assassinated. Some in the UN started quietly maneuvering to postpone final approval of the tribunal because of Lebanon's "instability."
Bolton's angry reply: "How incredibly wrong that would be. Instability? They're killing people in Lebanon. They're assassinating political leaders. Not the time to seek justice? There may be those on the Security Council who say it. Let them step forward and say it." The UN approved the tribunal hours later.

That track record apparently didn't matter much in Washington. Bolton's close-minded? Turns out it was his critics who fit that bill.”

Bolton calls it quits.