Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Speech – A Debate?

I found myself intrigued by Obama’s speech at the Nobel Awards. At first I didn’t know exactly why, and then it hit me. I was listening to a debate between President Bush and Jimmy Carter. It was Obama's mouth, but I heard two voices.

(Obama as President Bush) began by asserting that just war is the price of peace.

(Obama as Carter) countered by reading from his precut card by Hobbs – claiming a “dawn of history” when war was a disease or natural disaster, some kind of pre-moral phenomena.

Carter then makes a definitional argument; attempting to cast just war as: 1) a last resort, 2) in self-defense, and 3) required proportionality, insisting American troops in Afghanistan must have their hands tied like the hands of our troops in Vietnam. After all we must make “it” a fair fight for the Taliban.

President Bush counters by going directly to the cause of the wars in which America is justly involved; equating, Islamic extremism to Nazis aggression, and repudiates pacifism by reminding the world that, “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.” Thus, he recognizes the truth found in history and pays, albeit silent, tribute to the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. He then goes on to extol the virtues of American military strength and action throughout the past century. He notes the peace and prosperity victorious American armies brought to Germany, Korea, and the Balkans. He does not mention Japan or Iraq, nor does he point out that it was American military might that liberated Norway from Hitler and Quisling. It is the Bush Doctrine of creating peace and prosperity by the spread of freedom.

Then Carter is back. He invokes President Kennedy as the justification for an unusual and painfully relativist view of peace. According to Obama’s Carter voice, Kennedy says, “Let us focus on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” In what must be a negative counter plan, Obama’s Carter voice calls for a reinterpretation of the laws of nations and war. Wars justified, not by universal truths, not by the Natural Laws that have always determined right and wrong, but based on the opinions of men and states; by something called evolved human institutions. He is willing to bind America, not to natural laws, but to rules of conduct crafted by the likes of NATO and the UN.

Carter then retreats to the political talking point that got so much mileage in the Obama campaign, half truths and manipulation. There is the claim to have prohibited torture, closed Guantanamo, and brought America into compliance with the Geneva Convention.

He then fills the air with more hollow plans and promises. A litany of should-do’s albeit without a single how to: ending nuclear weapons, imposing respect for international law on the two remaining members of the Axis of Evil, and the end of genocide in Darfur, the Congo, and Burma.

Then President George Bush takes the podium. “In some countries failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. . . Peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.” He piles up the evidence:

1. “Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace.”

2. “America has never fought a war against a democracy.”

3. “Our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.”

4. “Neither America’s interests – nor the world’s – are served by the denial of human aspirations.”

Carter comes back: He couples exhortation with painstaking diplomacy, hoping for open doors that will somehow lure repressive regimes down “new paths”.

Then it’s President Bush again; reminding us of real success in diplomacy: He credits President Nixon for lifting the Chinese from poverty and Ronald Regan’s efforts on arms control, (the Star Wars initiative) as empowering dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.

Carter then argues that the solution is access to food, clean water, and medicine which will somehow magically appear if we accept the Global Warming agenda. In order to condemn globalization he seems to lament the loss of racial purity, tribalism, and religious bigotry.

President Bush points out that it is false religion that is used to justify the murder of innocents.

Carter rebuts in to claim that Crusaders did the same.

Bush explains that at the heart of every major religion is the Golden Rule and closes with an appeal to “that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.”


My Ballot:

I give the round to Obama as President Bush:

1. Just War – President Bush wins with Universal Truth and reason that have always enabled men to tell the difference between just and unjust war, and just war is always justified. President Bush proves that America might has always championed the good. Carter loses both by his retreat to the “evil natural man” position and by claiming that some sort of manmade construct can define right and wrong. This is Marx, Mao, and Hitler talking.

2. U. S. Power v International action - President Bush wins by presenting real examples of American success while Carter’s reliance on international organizations has no support in history or logic.

3. On the Democrat Party talking points – President Bush wins on facts vs sophistry.

a) On the claim that Obama prohibits torture – so did President Bush.

b) On the claim that Obama closes Guantanamo Bay - pure sophistry, moving Guantanamo to Illinois does not close the prison. Moving and changing the name will make no difference to the Haters.

c) On the kowtow to the Geneva Convention. America has never violated the Geneva Convention!

4. Carter’s promises are not substantiated. They are wasted rhetoric, he provides no evidence of any doors to open or any way his dreams will do so even if there were.

5. President Bush’s evidence of the positive effects of America’s just wars are historically supported and irrefutable.

6. Carter retreats into the Global Warming farce but provides no support of climate change or any reasonable connection to it and peace. If there is no climate disaster, there is no value in pretending there is one.

7. President Bush’s condemnation of fanatical religion is based on fact.

8. Carter’s “the Crusaders did it too” is neither true nor relevant. The claims against the Crusaders, now popular in some circles, condemn the Taliban “Holy” Warriors, not the American Heroes who fight for justice.

9. President Bush wins with the Golden Rule – universally applicable, divinely reasonable, and factual.


Déjà vu for me: in the end the whole speech was high school forensics.

Two Obama Speeches:

I Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

First - The speech Obama should have given:

Having won the war in Iraq, we must now do the same in Afghanistan. After six years of sacrifice and service our national resolve and our military have produced victory in Iraq. The people of Iraq have been brought from slavery and abuse enforced by terror and tyranny to democracy, a fertile garden for the reason that will replace fanaticism and insure rights and freedom. The nation of Iraq changed from the greatest threat to and a sworn enemy of America to a functioning democracy that is an ally against the terrorist threat to America and the peace of the world.

Now it is the time to rescue the benighted people of Afghanistan from terror and tyranny and further secure America peace and safety. The strategies that brought victory in Iraq will be employed to win in Afghanistan.

(Here Obama should have laid out the justice and necessity of the war against radical Islam.) Here are the atrocities against humanity committed by the Taliban and carried out and planed by Al Qaeda: the oppression of women, killing of Christians and Hindus, the complete destruction of human and civil rights, the terror attacks against many nations and peoples, the plan to build a new Caliphate to challenge the west and the United States as a aggressive new super power with nuclear weapons, the “schools” were hate for freedom and democracy are taught -while knowledge and truth are distorted and hidden, the denial of the holocaust, the determination to destroy Israel, the river of heroin flowing to the west. All this and more explains the need for free peoples to stand together against these ruthless enemies of Reason.

We will know we have victory when the light of Reason cleanses the infection of mindless religious fanaticism, when the people of Afghanistan have the rights of life, liberty, and happiness guaranteed by pluralism, tolerance, and reason.

Second – The speech that Obama gave:

The core of the speech indeed was:

Having won the war in Iraq, we must do the same thing in Afghanistan. But then he muddied it all up. He was so desperate to please everyone – to cover his tail in any possible circumstance that may arise that his trumpet blast came across like a "high school" heavy metal riff.

1. Justification:

a. He explained that we went to war because on 9/11.

b. He explained that the Taliban and Al-Qaida corrupted and defiled Islam.

c. He explained how Congress supported the Liberation (my word) of Afghanistan 98 to none in the Senate and 420 to one in the House.

d. He explained how NATO and the UN supported the action in Afghanistan.

e. He then attacked President Bush (though not by name), claiming “we” got distracted by a war in Iraq. He then went on to point out that “we” won that war.

What wasn’t in the speech was the recognition of who the “we” were. It was the Bush/Cheney administration that united the country behind the liberation of Afghanistan, (in much the same way the Obama/Biden administration now hopes to unite us in support of sending troops to Afghanistan). It was the Bush/Cheney administration that consolidated the support of NATO and the UN. And it was the Bush/Cheney administration whose military commander, Tommy Franks, supported by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, crushed the supposedly invincible Taliban and brought an elected, pro-western government into power in Afghanistan, and did it four months.

Obama says "we" will not debate the "need for the liberation of Iraq"; he simply gives his opinion: a set of talking points cooked up to get Democrats elected and responsible for much of the pain that has come from the war in Iraq. Saddam was not a hypothetical threat to America. The vote count for the "War to Free Iraq" in the House and the Senate was almost as supportive and the one Obama lauds for having been cast in support of the Afghan Liberation. Obama’s Secretary of State, who sat stone-faced, (and with egg on her face), throughout the speech, was among the vast majority of Democrat Senators who voted to liberate Iraq.

He proceeded to talk about the “bad” war, and then to point out how it succeeded – (his first applause line). Claiming that the unspecified “we” were successful in Iraq, he neglected to point out that if “we” had listened to Obama and not initiated the surge, “we” would have failed in Iraq. He made the contradictory claims that the past administration had not acted on calls for needed forces in Afghanistan, while, almost in the same breath, he claims that there was no need to send troops to Afghanistan before 2010. It is noteworthy that previously reticent Don Rumsfeld has spoken up to point out that there was never a call for more troops by field commanders during his tenure. The only calls for more troops came in 2008, during the tenure of now Secretary of Defense Gates, and by a general who was not only ignored but fired by Obama.

Obama did call for 17,000 more troops to be sent to Afghanistan in April of this year, four months after he took office, but there is a question as to how many have actually been deployed, even at this late date. The number of troops in Afghanistan is down by 5,000 since September of this year.

Obama made much of the negative and divisive effects of the War in Iraq, but it was the Democrats who divided the nation and Obama particularly who used this division to claw his way into power. He now begs for the unity he destroyed - now that it will be to his advantage. I am willing to unite behind a surge in Afghanistan. I am saddened that the Democrats, led by Obama, were not willing to do the same for success in Iraq. I am grateful that President Bush did the hard thing anyway.

Next, for some inexplicable reason, Obama launched into a rant on the Economy; fallaciously claiming that we are just recovering from the worst economy since the Great Depression. Anyone who knows history, and remembers the Carter years, knows Obama is not telling the truth.

2. Call to action: The U. S. will send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and bring them home in 18 months. In that time, three goals will be accomplished:

a) The military will break the Taliban. Obama said that “we” will turn the hateful fanatics.

But Obama does not say what "we" will turn "them" to. President Bush had no trouble telling us how and into what the fanatics needed to be turned in his call for action. In his speech calling for the surge in Iraq, Bush clearly stated the goals of the United States: bringing the freedom to reason to a people who would thus stop indulging in mindless support of terror, murder, and hate.

Obama goes on to praise the responsible withdrawal of troops form Iraq, made possible by the success of the Surge. Once again he fails to recognize that it was the courage of President George Bush, in the face of Obama’s opposition, that made success possible. He continues to laud Bush’s success while excoriating President Bush. What President Bush did not do, and Obama can not do, is set a date certain for success. What does Obama mean by success? [I am continually annoyed that Obama seems incapable of saying the words win or victory.]

b) “We” will work with the UN and Afghanistan to improve civilian government in Afghanistan, a Civilian Surge.

I don’t know how much help the UN was or will be, but again this is exactly what President Bush did in Iraq. It can’t be done in eighteen months, and President Bush would never have made such a hollow and politically motivated pledge.


c) “We” will develop a partnership with Pakistan; sealing both sides of the boarder.

First, Pakistan has long been our ally in this war, and that alliance was strengthened, and an improved Pakistani government put into place, under President Bush. Second, Obama does not even pretend to explain how any improvement is going to be made. We are left to presume he will handle Pakistan as deftly has he has: the Iranian development of nuclear weapons, peace in the Middle East, and the deficit.

3. Obama then provides preemptive answers to his critics:

a) Those who claim that Afghanistan will be another Vietnam and we should cut and run now.

Here Obama’s arguments are a bow to revisionist history. He claims we had no legitimate cause in Vietnam. Realize that the spread of Communism was a real threat to the freedom of Americans, and the mass murder of Vietnamese and Cambodian peoples was the direct result of our cut and run from Vietnam. Realize that the Communist government of Vietnam has destroyed the human and civil rights of its people, and continues to cripple the economic and civil freedom of millions.

b) Those (read Joe Biden) who say we can’t leave but want to maintain our forces at the same inadequate level – leaving the situation open to slow deterioration.

This, by the way, is what did happen in Vietnam.

c) Those who oppose a time frame – a call for open ended nation building. He claims we cannot go beyond 1) our responsibilities, 2) our means or 3) our needs.

Obama then trashes on the one trillion dollar cost of the war thus far. Ignoring that he has been using the successful Iraqi surge as proof that a surge (a word he never usesin refrence to war) can work in Afghanistan. He says he can pull it of for $30 billion; a number he surly pulled out of the air. Obama says we cannot stay in Afghanistan “indefinitely”. I would ask him to tell us when “we” are going to withdraw our troops from Bosnia? from Korea? from Germany?

To support his determination to leave when we reach the pre-set expense account for the war, Obama launched into a diatribe on the economy. He claimed that our power is based on our prosperity, but he does not explain how failure in Afghanistan will save our prosperity. He ignores the fact that another attack on the American homeland will dwarf the expenses of fighting to victory in Afghanistan. How much will it cost to clean up the physical and economic damage of another hijacked airplane bomb, let alone a nuclear attack, on L.A. or New York? His arguments were unreasoned and two dimensional. I wonder if he would use them for dealing with another Katrina type hurricane. (Once we run out of money, let um drown!) He is also claiming he can impose such limits on health care expense. I wonder who believes him.

He then presents ominous allusions to future attacks from Somalia, Yemen, and some place he calls elsewhere.

One is forced to wonder what his expense account limit for these conflicts will be.

He concludes his speech by patting himself on the back: trumpeting the triumph of his diplomacy, glorying in the new ties he has forged with the Muslim world. He claims to have ended torture and promises, again, to close Guantanamo Bay. He also praises everybody he can think of, including school teachers and community organizers. He points to the advancing frontiers of human liberty and praises the folks in uniform. (He finally gets another applause) He ends up with a call to international organizations – the UN and the World Bank.

First, the Muslim world may like Obama, but the radicals who want to destroy American and the things it represents, only like him because he is weak. Second, President George W. Bush also outlawed torture. Third, the only advances of human liberty, since the fall of Communism under Reagan and Bush One, has been the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the great accomplishments of President George W. Bush. Forth, the international organizations Obama praises have had every opportunity to deal with the evils out there in the world, with or without American assistance. They have done no more to curb the atrocities of the Taliban and other Muslim monsters than did Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. We can only hope that, with this call for 30,000 additional troops for Afghanistan, Obama will avoid joining that gallery of failures.

Obama gave his entire speech without ever mentioning the word win or victory.

Maybe he does’t know what victory is. I do. A call for it is the conclusion of the speech Obama should have given: When the light of Reason shines down to cleanse the infection of mindless religious fanaticism, when the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan are pluralist, humane, tolerant, and reasonable “we” will be able to “come home” safe.

There has been much made of not allowing Afghanistan to become another Vietnam. I agree, rather let Afghanistan become another Iraq and, (as some of his former supporters now lament), let Obama become another President George W. Bush.

I Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be know what is spoken? for yea shall speak into the air.

Outrageous

Jimmy Carter is unbelievable – literally. The only people stupider than those who voted for him for President are the ones who now believe his lies about President Bush.

This past weekend Carter claimed that President Bush’s administration is “the worst in history”. It is particularly shameful that this unfounded and ridiculous claim comes from the mouth of the man who truly did preside over the worst American administration in History. Admittedly Clinton set out to give Carter a run for his money – but Billy’s blunders prevented him from doing the same degree of harm that four years of Carter brought on the world.

Carter is among the most subtle and consistent liars in history. This particular calculated lie by Jimmy Carter is on a par with Adolph Hitler, the only other democratically elected leader of the twentieth century to be responsible for as much death and misery as Carter.

Americans of the twenty-first century are venerable to Carter’s lies because they are abominably ignorant of history. A partial list of the foreign policy disasters precipitated by Carter includes:

Communist expansion in Africa, Asia, and America:

Nicaragua was handed over to the Communists and Guatemala and El Salvador placed on a slippery slide to disaster from which only Ronald Reagan could save them.

The USSR invaded Afghanistan and established a Communist dictatorship.

Panama Canal handed over to Manuel Noriega.

The Shah of Iran was deserted and overthrown by Khomeini – and the world’s greatest terrorist exporter nation was born.

The Killing Fields of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot reached full effect.

Iraq / Iran War

Terrorists hijacked airplanes and even ships at will.

Carter tries to this day to take credit for Anwar Sadat’s courageous efforts to end war in the Middle East, but stood by and did nothing as Islamic terror reached out to control the Levant.

Oil embargos crippled the American economy and put enormous power in the hands of Islamic fanatics.

Carter’s entire Presidency was a deception. On the domestic front he presided over double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and coined the word stagflation and dragged America into malaise. In other words Carter made America sick and the world almost died.

By the time Carter was done with America the world was looking to the USSR for leadership and his administration was ready to announce that America was through.

Because of the obvious and utter failure of Carter's Presidency he has spent years trying to redeem himself. He has the blood of millions on his hands, and he can do nothing about it but lie. The farce that is a type of the entire Carter phenomena is the “agreement” he worked out with North Korea to end their development of nuclear weapons. Kim must have felt he had found a kindred spirit as he spun the lies that would allow him to develop an A bomb. It is easy to see them in one's mind, sitting around one of Kim Ill’s pleasure palaces; (Carter allowing himself to be tempted) as he spins the lies he hopes will buy his redemption. It does not matter, to him, whose or how much blood it will take. Had it not been for the vigilance of the Bush administration the nuclear ambitions of North Korea would have remained unchecked. What is particularly telling is that Carter was nominated (even received) a Nobel Peace prize for this tissue of lies. This is an honor he shares with Yasir Arafat - who likewise lied to get a Nobel Prize for Peace while his hands dripped with the blood of the innocent. Carter and Arafat share the dubious distinction of being nominated for the Noble Peace Prize with Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, North Vietnamese liar murderer Le Duc Tho (actual winner) Henry Kissinger (also a winner), Criminal General of the Oil for Food scandal – Kofi Annan (who also won) and Al Gore!!!!

Now Carter plays into the hands of the American enemies and the terrorists by attempting to paper over his own failures by savaging the reputation of President Bush. It is outrageous

DUTY

I went to 300 for a second time this week. There is an image in the graphic novel showing Leonidas keeping watch over his people by moon light. It seemed a fitting form for the heavy burden our President must bear as champion of Truth, Justice, and the American Way!

Bush Speech Brings Hope: A "High Point" Review

Last Tuesday’s State of the Union Address by President Bush was a real pleasure to watch. I particularly enjoyed how much fun he was having. His own hopefulness set the theme for his speech, and for the nation he leads. I’m sure most at the Agora have listened to the President; his speech is available at, www.whitehouse.gov . Here is my “high point review”. I will try to “bold the President’s own words; mine will be in common script.

President Bush began the speech by reaching out to all America. His tribute to Coretta King was powerful. He praised the “TWO PARTY” system and call for tough but civil debates, but “. . . our differences cannot be allowed to harder into anger”, he warned.

He talked about his important role as “choice maker” and promised to lead our nation in its leadership of the world.

He laid out the direction in which he would lead us:

“. . . our nation is committed to a historic , long-term goal – we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future of American depends on it. . . . Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and at their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. . . In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today there are 122.”

Bush then spoke of the common enemy of free peoples, the terrorists. “They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder. . . the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Besian, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth.”

“But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it. In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. “

“There is no peace in retreat.”

Bush then laid out the “clear path to victory” that America and its allies are on.:

1. “Helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be ease and the insurgency will be marginalized.”

2. “. . . reconstruction efforts. . .”

3. “striking terrorists targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy.”

“The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home.”

“. . . decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.”

Bush spoke of lessons learned and beneficial critique but then he reminded us of an important truth. “Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure.”

“Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.”

The highlight of the evening was when President Bush quoted Dan Clay, a fallen hero. The contrast between Clay’s words and the lies of those who deprecate our troops sacrifice was deeply touching.


“. . . Dan wrote: “I know what honor is. . . . It has been an honor to protect and serve all of you. I faced death with the secure knowledge that you would not have to. . . . “

Bush went on to challenge those who maintain that *freedom is only for the few*.

“Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity.”

Bush talked about security at home and called for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. He also spoke boldly about the NSA surveillance program: “I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous President have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of American. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.”

“The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious would . Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders, -- from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan – rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march.”

Bush then went on to discuss the hopeful condition and successes of America’s domestic efforts.

“Our economy is healthy and vigorous, and growing faster than other major industrialized nations. In the last two-and-a-half years, American has created 4.6 million new jobs – more that Japan and the European Union combined.”

Bush warned of forms of economic retreat: “. . . walling off our economy. . . . government . . . directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes. We hear claims that immigrants are somehow bad for the economy – even thought this economy could not function without them.”

“Our economy grows when Americans have more of their own money to spend, save, and invest. In the last five years, the tax relief you passed has left $880 billion in the hands of American workers, investors, small businesses, and families – and they have used it to help produce more than four years of uninterrupted economic growth.”

“Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we’ve reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending.”

I was delighted at the grace with which President Bush referenced his two predecessors. “This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 69, including two of my Dad’s favorite people – me and President Clinton.” It was even more fun to see the look on Hillary’s face. Thanks CNN!

“Our nation needs orderly and secure borders, To meet this goal we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border.”

Under health care, the President called for better recording procedures, “strengthening
Health saving accounts – making sure individuals and small business employees can buy insurance with the same advantages that people working for big business now get. . . . [and] make this coverage portable. . . And because lawsuits are driving may good doctors out of practice. . . I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year.”

President Bush called for action on energy:

“Breakthroughs on . . . new technologies will help us reach another great goal, to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.”

President Bush called for better education through his AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE: “We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people. . . . to give our nation’s children a firm grounding in math and science”

President Bush then explained why America is a HOPEFUL SOCIETY. He began by touting some statistics we don’t hear much from a media seeking only bad news.

1. "Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970’s”

2. “Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade.”

3. “Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001.”

4. “There are fewer abortions in American than at any point in the last three decades,”

5. “the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.”

“A HOPEFUL SOCIETY depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members. . . Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. . . . I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench.”

“A HOPEFUL SOCIETY [does] not cut ethical corners. . . Human life is a gift from our Creator – and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale.”

“A HOPEFUL SOCIETY expects elected officials to uphold the public trust. . . both parties are working on reforms to strengthen the ethical standards of Washington . . .”

“A HOPEFUL SOCIETY gives special attention to children who lack direction and love. Through the Helping American’s Youth Initiative, we are encouraging caring adults to get involved in the life of a child – and this good work is being led by our First Lady, Laura Bush.”

“A HOPEFUL SOCIETY comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency – and stays at it until they’re back on their feet. SO far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans.”

“A HOPEFUL SOCIETY acts boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented, and treated, and defeated.. . . I ask Congress to reform and reauthorize the Ryan White Act, and provide new funding to states, so we end the waiting lists for AIDS medicines in America. We will also lead a nation-wide effort, working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups, to deliver rapid HIV tests to millions, end the stigma of AIDS, and come closer to the day when there are no new infections in America.”

It was interesting to me to hear the almost immediate criticism of the speech in the media. Attempts to “SPING DOWN “ the power of the president’s message. Those whose only hope for power is America’s failure, fear the truth, and attempt to corrupt the message with cynicism; confident that most will never hear or carefully consider the President’s actual words. I hope this “high point review” will help refocus on the good news to be found in our HOPEFUL SOCIETY of America.

Cincinnatus, Service, and George W. Bush

This morning I found myself once more delivering a “heritage lecture” to the assembled student body. The theme this time: service. By the end of the “Service Assembly” our students had raised $4,200.00+ for a local homeless shelter and to buy special equipment for handicapped students. There are those who voice some despair about the “youth of today”. I don’t see it. Kids are wise enough to recognize what is really valuable and to act accordingly.

Preparing for my assignment I found myself leafing through Livy. Seeking for an example of selfless service and honorable leadership, I happened across the account of Cincinnatus. An internet search reviled that many others have recognized his greatness. What follows is what I read the students:


Meaningful service requires sacrifice. It can be rendered by anyone willing to give of themselves for the benefit of others, but when that sacrifice is accompanied by a generosity of spirit that seeks no reward or recognition, but only the good of those in need, it bespeaks true greatness. As Lancers, we can look to our Lancer Heritage for inspiration in service. In 458 B. C. two powerful enemies attacked the Roman lands. The Senate sent two Consular armies into the field. The Army commanded by Minucius was trapped on a lonely hill top. Desperate riders fled for Rome; without help the Roman army would be destroyed.

The Senate knew they could not run the rescue by committee, and none dared take the job himself. The Senate looked for a single hero to save Rome. Their emissaries took the symbols of absolute power from the capital to the tiny, three acre farm of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus. The heralds found Cincinnatus plowing his field. The crop he sought to plant would be his family’s only support. The messengers form the city begged Cincinnatus “to put on his toga and hear the Senate’s instructions.” His wife ran to their cottage to fetch his toga; he wiped the grim and sweat from his hands and face and put it on; at once the envoys saluted him, as Dictator, and begged him to save the city. Leaving his plow in the field, Cincinnatus headed for Rome.

Cincinnatus was in the Forum before dawn. He assembled the people, suspended all business, and called all men of military age to bring their weapons, five days’ bread and twelve wooden stakes to Mars field. That night Cincinnatus took his army to war.

They arrived at midnight, surrounded the enemy, dug a trench, and planted their stakes. Cincinnatus ordered his soldiers to raise a shout. At the cry, Rome’s enemy realized they were surrounded, and the trapped Roman troops knew help had come. Caught between two Roman armies the invaders were destroyed.

Cincinnatus returned to Rome. He entered the Senate chamber and gave back the bound rods and ax, symbol of his absolute power. His dictatorship of Rome had lasted sixteen days. He returned to his farm. His plow was still in the field were he had left it. He took off his toga and went back to work.

Cincinnatus teaches selfless service; setting aside his own needs for those who could not help themselves. He thought only of the good of those-in-need. When he had saved his country, he set aside the absolute power Rome had given him and returned to his humble life. His example of greatness in service has not been lost on history. Today, a city in Italy and Cincinnati, Ohio bear his name. And it was Cincinnatus who inspired George Washington; to set aside the power his military service brought him at the end of the Revolutionary War; to return to his farm. Later, after two terms as America’s first President, Washington again set aside supreme authority and returned to private life. Washington’s example has guided the course of America ever since. Washington was himself inspired by a simple Roman farmer, a man who valued service above wealth or power, a Roman Lancer named Cincinnatus.


Here my presentation to the students ended. I was pleased to think that they not only saw the model of Cincinnatus’ selfless service, one of giving without lust for power or glory; but many saw, in his just and necessary application of power, the answer to the neo-lib’s misrepresentations concerning the War on Terror.

I am impressed with how much Cincinnatus’ story is like that of George Bush II. President Bush did not seek the glory of a war-time Presidency. In the rubble of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the tyranny of a plotting Saddam, the atrocities of the Taliban, and the murderous dreams of al Qaeda; the danger swarmed against American and our country needed him. The “Senate and people” went running to Gorge W. Bush and begged him to take up the mantel of leadership. He “put on his toga and headed for the city”. In strict obedience to the Constitution, Bush climbed down from the ruins the Twin Towers, wiped the sweet from his hands and face and took up the leadership of a nation at war. The years have passed and President Bush continues to lead us day and night. All too soon he will head back to his farm and take up his “plow”.

Meeting the Challenge: George Bush Casts His Shadow on History

My school is trying to “re-discover” its heritage; develop some traditions related to our mascot – the Roman Lancer. My “part” is to present a lecture at each assembly. Rather a let down for most of the students, they escape class for a few minuets to hear a lecture from “old man ____.” The theme of this assembly was overcoming challenges. The most powerful presentation was the Downs syndrome student who stood alone in front of the 1,700 students and sang The Star Spangled Banner. The applause was deafening. Quite an act to follow, I did my best.

Scipio Afracanus: Citius, Altius, Fortuius

Excellence comes from meeting and overcoming challenges; the greater the challenge we overcome; the faster, higher, and stronger we become.

Among the greatest Roman Lancers produced in 1200 years of challenges was Scipio Afracanus.

On the Battle field at Zama where “the two most famous generals and two mightiest armies of the two wealthiest nations in the world advanced to battle, doomed either to crown or to destroy the many triumphs each had won in the past.” (Livy, pg.659) Scipio met his greatest challenge and proved himself faster, higher, and stronger. Defeating Hannibal to save Rome was not Scipio’s first challenge.

At age seventeen Scipio had saved his father’s life. The stricken general had been deserted on the battle field by allies who cut and ran at the approach of Hannibal. Scipio rushed into the chaos to carry his father to safety.

Two years later, when he was too young to officially stand in the ranks, Scipio saw the largest Roman Army ever assembled under one commander destroyed by Hannibal’s genius and the Fortune’s malice. Fifty thousand Roman soldiers were killed in a single day. Many of the patrician leaders, fearing Rome was lost, planned to flee Italy and abandon their city to Hannibal.

When word of their leaders’ desertion reached the desperate survivors they turned to Scipio, a boy of nineteen, and voted him commander by universal consent.

Scipio drew his sword and ran to the house were the mutineers were assembled. He cried “I swear with all the passion of my heart that I will never desert our country, or permit any other citizen of Rome to leave her in a lurch.” (pg. 153) These men of great power and influence, Generals, and Senators, were shamed by Scipio’s courage and determination. Taking him as their leader, they organized the retreat of the survivors. Their arrival at the city preempted surrender and saved Rome from destruction.

In twelve years of war there were few successes for Rome but Scipio’s reputation for leadership grew as he faced every challenge. At last he presented a daring plan to lead a Roman army to Africa and draw Hannibal from Italy. The Senate agreed.

But many Senators were jealous of Scipio. These men were willing to endanger Rome for political gain. They accused Scipio of looting the temple of Persephone in the city of Locri. As Scipio raised his armies, his Roman enemies brought ten Locrain envoys, to “make their appearance . . . dressed in filthy rags . . . they prostrated themselves before the consuls’ tribunal with pitiful cries and floods of tears.” Scipio’s enemies “accused him of having all the qualities which inevitably lead to the ruin of military discipline. . . So strong was party feeling for and against Scipio that there was not time that day for every senator to be given a chance to speak . . . much was said against the commander-in-chief himself – his dress and bearing were un-Roman, and not even soldierly; he strolled about the gymnasium in a Greek mantle and sandals, and wasted his time over books and physical exercise; his staff and friends were enjoying amenities . . . The discipline of the whole army had gone to the dogs . . . so that it was more of a menace to its friends than its enemies.” (pg.592)

The Senate sent officers to Sicily to relieve Scipio of command, but the officers went to Locri first and found that the accusations against Scipio were false. They went to his camp to see, “about Scipio’s dress and idleness and the lax discipline of his troops. The day after their arrival Scipio put both his land and naval forces though their paces . . . and such was their admiration for every detail in the grand total of what they saw that the officers were convinced that, if Scipio and his army could not defeat Carthage, assuredly nobody else could.” (pg 595)

Crossing the sea was difficult, beset by fog and storm. Scipio arrived to find that
his most powerful ally had betrayed him; his only supporter defeated in battle.

Two years of challenges followed. Scipio’s envoys to Carthage were rejected and
humiliated, his ships destroyed, and Hannibal returned to Africa. At last the battle was
joined. On that morning, Hannibal brought forth his powerful army supported with
eighty war elephants. “Factors which seemed trivial to recall . . . proved of great
importance at the time of action. The Roman war-cry was louder and more terrifying
because it was in unison, the Roman attack gained solidity as the men pressed on,” (pgs
661-662) and the discipline of the Roman legions allowed them to work together on the
battle field. Scipio was victorious.

At age 32, Scipio had become great by overcoming a multitude of challenges. He was
able to save his country and founded Roman greatness for hundreds of years.

It is easy to see the challenges of our lives as defeats, to be discouraged by the attacks of
Enemies, and lose faith. When challenges come, remember the example of that Great
Lancer, Scipio Afracanus, Citius, Altius, Fortuius.

***References are from Livy, The War With Hannibal, Penguin Books, 1972.

The parallels between Scipio and Bush II are obvious. It was rather enjoyable
for me to go beyond my usual 200 student reach to the full 1700 of our student body
with a message so important, and which so many of them got. George Bush’s greatness
will have far reaching consequences on the world; George Bush has stood against the
most difficult of challenges, foreign and domestic, and has done so well. His greatness
will be revealed in time. I just wanted to go on record.

Two Ways of Rewriting History

In the midst of the Great Civil War, the war to determine if a Nation conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, could long endure; President Abraham Lincoln faced the bitter attack of the Democrat Party. The Democrats put forward General George Brinton McClellan to run against Lincoln, and built their platform around a plank demanding an end to the war; a war which Democrats labeled a failure. Let’s talk about rewriting history. What if the Democrats had won that election? Where would the world be today if this nation, under God . . . a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, had perished from the earth?

The Democrats of 1864 were far more interested in gaining control of the White House and the Congress than they were in ending slavery and preserving the United States of America. It seems that party’s motivations and practices have changed little in the past one and a half centuries.

In the midst of so much rewriting of history, I thought it appropriate to take a journey back to the un-rewritten pages of history to seek perspective and truth. On February 26, 2003 – less than a month before a Coalition of thirty-five nations, lead by the United States, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom; President Bush outlined the reasons for removing Saddam Hessian from power in Iraq. He not only dealt with the reasons for going to war but clearly outlined the difficulty of the task ahead. The selective memory of those who now claim that the President lied about the reasons for and difficulty of the war requires us to deal with the truths in this call to action.

Reasons for War:

1. Because 9/11 has made the United States a battlefield in the Great War of the 21st Century.

2. Because the greatest danger is an outlaw regime arming with Weapons of Mass Destruction. (I point out that the Doffer report has clearly stated that Saddam had in place monies, technologies, and desires to reconstitute the weapons he had used in the past and to develop nuclear weapons.)

3. Because the Iraqi dictator was building Weapons of Mass Destruction. (This was a position held by the UN, all nations with established intelligence organizations, the Democrats and Republicans in congress, the military, the CIA, and even Joe Wilson.)

4. Because Saddam had close ties with terror. (Not 9/11 but with terror – Saddam was running terror training camps, giving money to families of suicide bombers, and providing refuge to al Queda terrorists escaping from Afghanistan.)

5. Because a free Iraq would help to insure the long term safety and security of the world.

6. Because it was necessary to stop Saddam’s regime from spreading discord and violence in the Middle East.

7. Because the liberation of Iraq will allow the power of freedom to transform a region – bringing hope and progress to millions.

8. Because a free and peaceful Iraq will provide the liberty Americans believe in and the security it needs.

9. Because Iraqis live in scarcity and fear in a police state maintained by secret police and torture chambers, and terror. The lives of Iraqis mean little to Saddam, but they do matter to the U.S.

10. Because free nations do not breed ideologies of murder.

11. Because the liberation of Iraq will serve as an inspiration to other peoples suffering under regimes maintained by murder and terror that if they fight they can do so with hope of success.

12. Because the Iraqi people desire to be safe from brutality and oppression.

13. Because the liberation of Iraq will begin a new stage of Middle East peace. (And it has – yesterday the new Palestinian government took over control of its own national border for the first time.)

14. Because ending Saddam’s regime will cut off a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers.

15. Because the liberation of Iraq will serve as a warning to others not to support terror.

16. Because the removal of Saddam will encourage Palestinians to abandon terror.

17. Because removal of the Saddam regime will enable support for a Palestinian state.

18. Because freedom in Iraq will break the old patterns of hate.

19. Because victory over terror, war, and murder will bring peace.

20. Because following through on the commitments of the UN will make the UN a viable organization. (Not one steeped in oil and blood money)

21. Because the defeat of a murderous dictator and outlaw regime will signal other out- laws that they cannot ignore the will of the civilized world.

22. Because only such a significant change can end Middle East violence and its world wide effects.

President Bush spoke of the difficulty of the war long before it began:

1. It will be difficult to bring stability and unity to that part of the world, but any future will be better than the present.

2. It will be difficult not to allow one Dictator to replace another.

3. It will be difficult to rebuild a nation devastated by a generation of brutalization by a dictator.

4. “It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war.”

5. “It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife."

President Bush invokes the memories of Lincoln’s battle against slavery, of Roosevelt’s and Truman’s battle against Fascism and Japanese Militarism, of Reagan’s battle against Communism when he ends his pre-war address by claiming, “Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.”

The Democrat political party is now willing to ignore and jeopardize all these important reasons and valuable goals, to give up the difficult fight for a better future of the world, in their disingenuous screaming of “Bush Lied; People Died”. Their only goal is to damage President Bush and gain political power for themselves. In one hundred and forty-one years the goals of the Democrats have not changed.

If Lincoln’s enemies had had their way, two antagonistic nations, one slave and one free, would have battled out the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; warring for territory and power; destroying each other while the monsters in Europe gobbled up the world in Communism, Fascism, and genocide. Slavery would have dragged on into another century of injustice brewing “a fire in the night” that would have dwarfed the “first” civil war in its terror and destructive might.

Now, we must ask ourselves, what if Saddam Hussein’s power would have remained unchecked in ambition and hate. Even John Kerry, who was one of the leaders of the anti- war movement of the 60’s and 70’s that led to the murder and enslavement of millions in South East Asia, cannot bear to contemplate that terror. Yet, to gain power the Democrats are willing to endanger us all, and set the world back into the hand of terrorists and terror states. Let’s remember history – not rewrite it for the momentary expedience of the Democrat political party.

Two Talks Tell Total Tale

On Veterans Day 2005, two men gave two speeches. The contrasts of these two agenda driven talks could not be more telling of the character of the two speakers and the causes they represent.

In a speech before a group of academics in Hempstead New York, Bill Clinton defended his presidency.

In a speech before assembled servicemen and the families of warriors and veterans at Tobyhanna Army Depot, President George Bush defended the fight for freedom.

Clinton’s speech centered around his impeachment, which he called an ‘egregious’ abuse of the Constitution and he challenged those who claim history will consider him a poor president because of his White House sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

President Bush’s speech centered on the service of America’s military in the creation and preservation of freedom for America and the world and the danger presented by those who would rewrite history to serve political ends.

Clinton, whose presidency saw neither, claimed an economic turn around and Middle East peace initiatives as his accomplishments.

Bush, whose presidency has seen the turn around of the Clinton Recession and the establishment of a new Palestinian government and the withdrawal of Israel from Palestinian territory, outlined the five difficult steps he is leading America through the global war on Terror. 1) Preventing attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. 2) Denying weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes. 3) Denying radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. 4) Denying militants control of any nation. 5) Denying the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope.

Clinton challenged his critics by using deceit; arguing that his impeachment was not about what he called his “misconduct.”

Bush challenged his critics by speaking the truth; “While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community’s judgments related to Iraq’s weapons program.”

Bush continues: “they also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: “When I voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.” [John Kerry] That’s why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate – who had access to the same intelligence – voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

Bush adds: “The stakes in this global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.”

Thus we have two men giving speeches which reveal the goals and interests that drive them.

Clinton’s goal, as was the goal of his entire presidency, his own self aggrandizement. Thus he sets out to rewrite history to fit his ends. Clinton’s claims of greatness are laughable to the informed and are plausible only to the ignorant.

President Bush’s goal, as has been the goal of his entire presidency, to spread freedom and peace. He seeks to set the slanted record straight and does so by presenting the facts and asking thinking people to come to a just conclusion.

Defending the War on Terror

On Thursday, October 6th, President Bush delivered the speech we have all been waiting for. I have it before me and have listened to all forty minuets of it five times. I didn't play it for my Art History Class – but all the rest of my classes got it beginning to end – then commentary.
Here are some highlights. I have divided the speech with my own headings, but the numbered quotes are the President’s words.

Since the founding of The National Endowment for Democracy by President Reagan American sacrifice has spread freedom and peace to much of the world.

1. ". . . all the cost and sacrifice of that struggle has been worth it, because, from Latin America to Europe to Asia, we've gained the peace that freedom brings."

The world now faces a new world wide enemy set on destroying peace and freedom – and we must sacrifice again.

2. ". . . freedom is once again assaulted by enemies determined to roll back generations of democratic progress. Once again, we're responding to a global campaign of fear with a global campaign of freedom."

3. "Recently our country observed the fourth anniversary of a great evil, and looked back on a turning point in our history. We still remember a proud city covered in smoke and ashes, a fire across the Potomac, and passengers who spent their final moments on Earth fighting the enemy. We still remember the men who rejoiced in every death and Americans in uniform rising to duty. . . We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire, or rest, until the war on terror is won."

President Bush then listed many other places were terrorists have attacked and the innocent nature of their victims. This is a world wide war, a real war against a real and determined enemy. The President described this enemy which he calls ISLAMIC RADICALISM.

4. 'Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane."

5. "This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision; the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom."

6. "Many . . . are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda . . . Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda . . . insurgencies and separatist movements . . . Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism. . . Yet . . . [all] . . . share a similar ideology and vision for our world."

President Bush then presents that ideology and vision.

7. "We know the vision of the radicals because they've openly stated it. . . First . . . to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. . . . Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their "resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands." . . . They hit us and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 – only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences."

8. "Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. . . . They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they've set their sights on Iraq. . . . The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror."

9. Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda; to [1] develop weapons of mass destruction, [2] to destroy Israel, [3] to intimidate Europe, [4] to assault the American people, [5] and to blackmail our government into isolation."

10. ". . . Zarquwi has vowed. "We will either achieve victory over the human race or we will pass to the eternal life."

The past teaches the clear lesson of why we must fight:

11. ". . . the civilized world knows very well that other fanatics in history, from Hitler to Stalin to Pol Pot, consumed whole nations in war and genocide . . . Evil men, obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience, must be taken very seriously – and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

President Bush then goes on to explain how the radicals plan to and can grow in power.

12. ". . . it thrives, like a parasite, on the suffering and frustration of others. The radicals exploit local conflict to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution. They exploit resentful and disillusioned young men and women, recruiting them through radical mosques as pawns of terror. . . . Islamic Radicalism is also magnified by helpers and enablers. They have been sheltered by authoritarian regimes, allies of convenience like Syria and Iran. That share the goal of hurting American and moderate Muslim governments, and use terrorist propaganda to blame their own failures on the West and American and on the Jews. These radicals depend on front operations, such as corrupted charities, which direct money to terrorist activity.
They're strengthened by those who . . . fund the spread of radical, intolerant . . . Islam . . . aided . . . by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American "war on Islam"."

President Bush then deals decisively and brilliantly with those in the blame America crowd, showing the folly of appeasement.

13. "Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the
actions of our coalition in Iraq. . . . I would remind them that we
were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001 – and al Qaeda attacked us anyway. The hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse. . . .
Over the years these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence – the Israeli presence on the West Bank, or the U. S.
military presence in Saudi Arabia, or the defeat of the Taliban, or the Crusades of a thousand years ago. In fact, we're not facing a set of grievances that can be soothed and addressed. We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives; to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers – and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder.

14. "They target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. Against such an enemy, there is only one effective
response: We will never back down, never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory."

President Bush then aptly applies the lessons of History to the War on Terror. The perilous battle we must now win is eerie in its resemblance to the fight against the monster murder mania that was world wide communism.

15. "Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism:

a) . . . is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not."

b) "Like . . . communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life."

c) ". . . in spite of this veneer of religious rhetoric, most of the victims claimed by the militants are fellow Muslims. When 25 Iraqi children are killed in a bombing, or Iraqi teachers are executed at their school, or hospital workers are killed caring for the wounded, this is murder pure and simple – the total rejection of justice and honor and morality and religion. These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity. We have seen this kind of shameless cruelty before, in the heartless zealotry that led to the gulags, and the Cultural Revolution, and the killing fields."

d) ". . . our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination . . ."

e) "Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, they terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery."

f) our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. . . . But let us be
clear: It is cowardice that seeks to kill children and d the elderly with car bombs, and cuts the throat of a bound captive, and targets worshipers leaving a mosque. It is courage that liberated more that 50 million people. It is courage that keeps an untiring vigil against the enemies of a rising democracy. And it is courage in the cause of freedom that one again will destroy the enemies of freedom."

g) . . . like the ideology of communism, contains inherent contradictions that doom it to failure. By fearing freedom – by distrusting human creativity, and punishing change, and limiting the contributions of half the population - - this ideology undermines the very qualities that make human progress possible and human societies successful."

h) Those who despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline, and collapse. Because free people believe in the future, free peoples will own the future."

President Bush then sets out three goals and describes five strategies that we are now and must continue to use in the fight against Islamic radicalism.

16. "Defeating a broad and adaptive network requires patience, constant pressure, and strong partners in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia and beyond.

17. "First . . . prevent the attacks of terrorist networks before they occur. . . . Together, we've killed or captured nearly all of those directly responsible for the September the 11th attacks; . . . the United states and our partners have disrupted at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States. We've stopped at least five more al Qaeda efforts to case targets in the United States, or infiltrate operatives into our country."

18. "Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist alls who would use them without hesitation."

19. "Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. . . The united States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder."

20. "Forth, we're determined to deny the militants control of any nation . . . and so we will defeat the enemy in Iraq."

President Bush then contrasts the efforts of our troops and our allies with those consumed by pessimism.

21. "Our coalition, along with our Iraqi allies, is moving forward with a comprehensive, specific military plan. [1] Area by area, city by city, we're conducting offensive operations to clear out the enemy forces, [2] and leaving behind Iraqi units to prevent the enemy for returning. . . . [3] we're working for tangible improvements in the lives of Iraqi citizens. [4] And we're aiding the rise of an elected government that unites the Iraqi people against extremism and violence."

22. "Some observers look at the job ahead and adopt a self-defeating pessimism. It is not justified. With every random bombing and with every funeral of a child, it becomes more clear that the extremists are not patriots, or resistance fighters – they are murderers at war with the Iraqi people . . ."

23 ". . . elected leaders of Iraq are proving to be strong and steadfast. By any standard or precedent of history, Iraq has made incredible political progress – from tyranny, to liberation, to national elections, to the writing of a constitution, in the space of two-and-a-half years. . . . the Iraqi military is gaining new capabilities and new confidence with every passing month. . . . no fair minded person should ignore, deny, or dismiss the achievements of the Iraqi people.”

President Bush then goes on to challenge those who doubt the commitment to democracy and freedom of Iraq and its people.

24. “We’ve heard it suggested that Iraq’s democracy must be on shaky ground because Iraqis are arguing with each other. But that’s the essence of democracy. . . “

25. “As Americans, we believe that people -- everywhere – prefer freedom to slavery, and that liberty, once chosen, improves the lives of all.”

President Bush next deals with those who would cut and run!

26. Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the Untied Stats and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarquwi and bin Laden [or Saddam] in control of Iraq, its people and its resources?

27. “There’s always a temptation, in the middle of a long struggle, to seek the quiet life, to escape the duties and problems of the word, and to hope the enemy grows weary of fanaticism and tired of murder. This would be a pleasant world, but it’s not the world we live in. The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday’s brutality. This enemy considers every retreat of the civilized world as an invitation to greater violence. In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our verve and we will win that victory.

President Bush next describes how free people can deny the militants future recruits; gain the support of the Muslim world. He give evidence that this process is in progress.

28. “The fifth element of our strategy . . . is to deny the militants future recruits by replacing hatred and resentment with democracy and hope across the broader Middle East. . . . If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will b marginalized . . .”

29. “Many Muslim scholars have already publicly condemned terrorism, often citing Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity. After the attacks in London . . . an imam in the United Arab Emirates declared, “Whoever does such a thing is not a Muslim . . .”

30. Many people of the Muslim faith are proving their commitment at great personal risk. . . . Afghan troops are in combat against Taliban remnants. Iraqi soldiers are sacrificing to defeat al Qaeda . . . “

President Bush unites the War on Terror with the “ancient” struggle.

31. “. . . the fight we have joined is also the current expression of an ancient struggle between those who put their faith in dictators, and those who put their faith is the people. Throughout history, tyrants and would-be tyrants have always claimed that murder is justified to serve their grand vision – and they end up alienating decent people across the globe. Tyrants . . . have always claimed that regimented societies are strong and pure – until those societies collapse in corruption and decay. Tyrants . . . have always claimed that free men and women are weak and decadent – until the day that free men and women defeat them.

**** Well I hope you have read and considered the President’s words. I am eager to add commentary in any discussion on the justice of the war or the importance of the President’s words.

A Speech for Today,a Speech for All Time

Here are my favorite quotes from President Bush's Second Inaugural Address. I think it was wonderful - full of absolute truth. I will not comment now. Tell us what you think.

1. "For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat."

2. "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom."

3. "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."

4. "American’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one."

5. "From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth."

6. "Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation."

7. "The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations."

8. "The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it."

9. "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom which is eternally right."

10. ". . . yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed."

11. "In the long run, there is not justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty."

12. "We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery."

13. "By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well - a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

14. "Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself - and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character."

15. "That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the Varied faith of our people, America moves forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before - ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever."

16. ". . . always remember that even the unwanted have worth."

17. "And our country must abandon all the habits of racism, because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time."

18. "From the view point of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of Freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?"

19. "We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul."

20. "When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" - they were acting on an ancient hope that is to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Author of Liberty."

Promises, Prayers, and "The Dog in the Manger"

There was a time when the soldiers of Rome would gather to swear allegiance to a new emperor; investing in him, by the strength of their swords, the power proffered by the Senate and the people. Next Thursday, 20, January, 2005 the "most powerful man in the world" will swear his obedience and devotion to the Law. George W. Bush will take an oath in the name of God to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Inauguration of a President is not a celebration of election victory; not a glamorous gloat. It is a sacred ordinance whereby WE THE PEOPLE are promised the rights endowed upon us by the Creator.

I find it telling that the days leading up to the Inaugural ceremony are filled with court battles over prayer. Mobs of malcontents are amassing to practice their right to make fools of themselves by pouting and ranting against the will of the majority and the Constitution. They claim the "constitutional" right to pout before the world, but they, with shrill protestation and frivolous suits, attempt to muzzle the prayers of their countrymen and debase the celebration of the supremacy of Law. Their lawlessness and lies will pollute the airwaves and foul the highest mass of our nationhood. With thoughtless demonstrations of discontent they will attempt to drown out the rights of others in an obscene misexercise of their own. Theirs is the same chop logic that condemns the burning of a cross as hate speech but justifies the burning of a flag as free speech.

Aesop tells the fable of the "Dog in the Manger." The dog, shirking his duties, finds a comfortable bed and sleeps the day away curled up on the soft hay of the ox’s manger. As darkness falls the weary ox returns from his day long labor at the plow looking forward to his supper. But when the ox approaches his rightful feast, the dog snarls and snaps driving the poor beast away. The snapping dog will neither eat the hay nor allow the hungry ox to do so. Curled up on the cozy nest of their Constitutional rights the snarling dogs of the left neither support the Constitution nor allow others to partake of their rights therein.

A majority of Americans support President Bush. He was elected by a clear majority and chosen according to the dictates of the Constitution. Those who hate President Bush have no real love of the Constitution. They are not interested in justice; only in their own desires. They let the Law labor for them when it serves their need but disdain it when it inconveniences their agenda. Like terrorists everywhere, the sore losers of the 2004 election are snapping and snarling like angry dogs. Having lost their legitimacy, they must usurp attention by violence and intimidation. On the day when all mankind should celebrate the sacred miracle of government of, for, and by the people; their whining and barking will disrupt the peace. These unworthy acts will show the "protesters" for what they are. Their barking and whining will not dim the wonder for those who are wise enough to ignore the dog sounds and listen to the prayers and sacred oaths of a noble, just, and honorable servant of the people.

Right War, Right Place, Right Time

Unjust, Unnecessary, and Unconstitutional. This is the mantra chanted by the anti-war crowd in their effort to de-legitimize Freedom’s current struggle in Iraq. These are accusations that must be dealt with head on if we the people are to give this conflict the support necessary to see it through. No people should support an unjust war; all people have a duty to fight for justice. When the U. S. sent off its billions and it aircraft carriers to save the suffering earthquake victims of South Asia, no one question the justice of that sacrifice. The world faced a far more devastating disaster in the person of the dictator of Iraq but America’s sacrifice to end that disaster is questioned by the many enemies of justice. Where is the consistency?

This morning three terrorist groups are threatening to kill poll workers in Iraq if they participate in the election. These groups have declared, "Democracy un-Islamic". When King George declared democracy to be against his will, our forefathers Declared their Independence. There were those then who said the fight for freedom wasn’t worth the sacrifice. In the bitter winter of Valley Forge the heros suffered and we will be in their debt forever.
Now in Iraq the fight for freedom goes on. There are those who say the people of that country do not want freedom - are not capable of Democracy. There was even such a speech given at the mid-year commencement at Weber State University this past week. A honoary doctoral recipient claiming that, "our form of government was not appropriate for everyone". That the only people to applaud this silliness were a few University Professors is telling.

That the Islamic Fanatics must use murder and terror to maintain their "system" puts them into the same category of liars as the Nazis and the Communists; and their cause is equally discredited and unjust. Liberty and Justice are unalienable human rights. They have nothing to do with being American or Western - all people want them by nature. As Cicero said, ""Nothing can be sweater than liberty." Cicero also pointed the way to the justice of removing tyrants form power. He explains in his On the Laws that, "As soon as a king begins to rule unjustly, that kind of government vanishes on the spot, for that same man has become a tyrant." It was also Cicero who explained that there is nothing more like than one man to another, and but for evil habits and deceits we (men and gods) would all be of the same mind.

I will put down some starting points for consideration. In future posts I will try to deal with most of these in detail. If there is anyone else in the Agora, please give comments to correct or clarify. I claim that the War in Iraq is Just, Necessary, and Constitutional. It is the Right War in the Right Place at the Right Time.

Just:

1. Oil for Food and the abuse of the United Nations. How many people died by Saddam’s diversion of needed monies from the feeding and medical care of the Iraqi people to build weapons, palaces, and torture chambers?

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction - Saddam was building, had used, and was preparing to build more weapons of mass destruction. As soon as he had bribed and bamboozled the U.N. into dropping inspections he would have build an A bomb and he was crazy enough to use it. He has killed millions in the past, why should he be trusted to behave differently once he was capable of greater atrocities? I still believe that there are hidden cashes of WMD in Iraq but weather they exist or not does not matter. If Saddam did not commit this crime he was in a conspiracy to do so. You lawyers tell me - doesn’t the law require us to act against conspiracy just as it does against murder?

3. Support of Terrorism - Saddam was proudly and openly giving money to Hamas and other terrorist groups to kill Israelis and Americans in murder bombings. There is mounting evidence that he was giving money to Al Qaeda. More on this to come.

4. Mass murder of the Iraqi people - at least four times the number were murdered by Saddam as have died in the Tidal Wave (Tsunami? - since when do the Japanese get to pick the words for the world?). If the U.S. could stop a Tidal Wave - or punish one for murder, wouldn’t it be our duty to do so.

5. Invasion of Kuwait. - Aggression, defeat, defiance of the treaties. You add it up!

6. Eight years of war with Iran (killing over one million people) in open aggression which demonstrated his intent to rule the world - a fantasy which he never gave up - and with U.N. support continued to pursue.
a) Saddam was spending millions to bribe the French (who would be so many oven roasted capons, - castrated chickens, - but for the U.S. willingness to spend its blood and treasure in a just cause).
b)Saddam was buying off the Russians (who have recently supported the totalitarian hopes of the Prim Minister of Ukraine and probably were involved in two attempts to murder the people’s choice to head that country). Need we look any further to judge Russian commitment to freedom?

Necessary:

1. War on Terror - Terror is the weapon of fanatic Islam to destroy and conquer the West. World domination and the destruction of the infidel are millennia old interpretations of the teaching of Mohamad. But for the courage and military might of past enemies of Islam the world would be under a system that finds Democracy an anathema.
Past efforts at world conquest were stopped by:
A. Charles Martel
B. Genghis Khan
C. El Sid
D. Spanish defeat of the Turkish Fleet
E. King of Sweden defeating invading Turks
F. Austrian Empire stops a second Turkish invasion who’s mission was the spread of Islam and the destruction of the West at the gates of Vienna.
G. The defeat of the Moslems by the armies of Polish Lithuania. This was a religious war.

2. Osama Bin Laden’s growing power - Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi. It is better is it to fight "them" there than here.

3. Establish a pro-Western democracy to support Afghanistan in surrounding and isolating Iran and to counter the terrorists in Syria and else were.

Constitutional:

The President sought permission and the advice and consent of Congress and was granted the same, not only in support of the Constitution but in obedience to some very unconstitutional laws pushed through Congress during the crisis of the Vietnam War. The Constitution was written to provide for the common defense.

If any can add to these arguments please do. If you disagree please let us know - only out of the clash of ideas can we find the truth.

How Sour Was Your Grape?

Here at "the high school" we're certain we're the best; "if WE lose, there is something wrong with the game! " Every defeat is splattered with sour grapes to mask the bitter taste. I'm not a sports fan, though I once rooted for the debate team. I was, however, looking forward to reading "HOW HE DID IT", the special Newsweek edition on the election. I was sure I would be reading a play-by-play on my favorite game of all time, but Newsweek is not on my team. Instead of finally presenting George Bush's successes, foreign and domestic; explaining how the voters recognized our nation's economic strength and the successes of the War on Terror; Newsweek published a "Greek Tragedy", the tale of Kerry the Good destroyed by Fate and Carl Rove.

In their battle to deliver fifteen points to Kerry, Newsweek has become so used to their spin that they can't feel it; they have drunk so long from the bitter cup, they cannot tast the sour grapes.

In Newsweek's "On Line Expert" section (pg 4), Jimmy Carter begins the spin and splatter. His paragraph makes three sour claims that are so fictional I conclude he is either either lying or senile.

1. "I don't remember any time in my lifetime when there was this much antagonism between the political parties." This from a man who clawed his way to power solely on the vitriol of Watergate? Where was Carter during the Clinton impeachment? Oh ya - In Korea pretending.

2. He then claims that "during slavery times . . . it [politics] didn't carry over to all the ancillary bills ..." NO comment - just teeth on edge.

3. He writes that there is a new development - negative advertising and implies that it was Bush that used it as " -- a very effective ploy, I might add. " Well, how about an example of this negative advertizing Jimmy? Are you talking Mike Moore, or moveon.org?

Carter's baseless blather would be laughable if it didn't foretell the theme of the entire magazine. Here are some "more pickings from the Newsweek sour grape vine."

Under Conventional Wisdom Watch (pg 9): (The section with the up and down arrows)

Up "BUSH - In another cliffhanger, 9/11 and "moral clarity" on things like gay marriage and abortion ultimately trumped Iraq and the economy." Not only a sour grape by a false claim. On page 19 Newsweek reports, Ohio which gave 140,000 more votes to Bush than Kerry, passed its "anti-gay-marriage" measure by only 302 votes. It would seem that 139, 698 fanatical Bushies were driven to the polls to defend gay marriage!

Down KERRY - As the numbers came in, it was as if Americans voted for him before they voted against him. But he showed class and grit in his run." This sounds like the Monday morning annoucement at my high school - when our team was "cheated out of victory" at the Friday game.

Up ROVE - "Base Strategy" pays off big, even if it turns the country into a battle zone, and validates smash-mouth politics for a generation. Thanks." I'm too puckered to speak!

Down DASCHLE - Minority leader loses his seat, victim of well-executed hit job by GOP. The Senate loses a decent man who may have stayed too long." So sad - I guess the people of his state should have been too dumb to notice all that obstructionism.

Here are some more telling tart ones from the remainder of the article. Again Newsweek can't even feel the spin. But I can taste it!

Pg 50 - "The capture of Saddam Hussein on Dec. 13 made Democrats despondent. Iraq was looking like a worthy cause after all: the violence seemed to be abating there." Yes, America's success brought despair to her enemies everywhere.

pg 56 - Newsweek defines the Republican base: "the vast Red State army of evangelicals; flag-waving small-t0wn and rural American Dreamers; '60s-hating. pro-death-penalty, anti-gay-marriage social conservatives; ..." Nice of Newsweek to tell us what we are!

Pg 64 - "Kerry would offer his solutions to the pressing problems of the day: getting the economy going again and restoring international faith in American foreign poloicy." Kerry never told us these things. He never once offered a plan - he just claimed to have them.

Pg 77 - "... at a fund-raiser in New York, he [Kerry] went on stage after some Hollywood stars had made vulgar jokes about the president and proclaimed, "Every single performer" in the program "conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country." Well that's what Kerry was hoping for; neither Kerry nor the media got what the majority of American voters did, just saying it doesn't make it true.

Pg 85 - "In his familiar role of Dr. Doom, the designated hit man, Vice President Cheney suggested, outrageously, that by voting for Kerry, Americans could be inviting another terrorist attack. Yet Bush and Cheney seemd to waltz away from their clumsy or embarrassing moments." What is so bogus here is that Cheney was right. Show these terrorist dogs weakness and they will attack. Kerry was weakness embodied and most American voters recognized this, why can't Newsweek.

Pgs 90 - 91 "The Swift Boat Ads - a first round charging that Kerry had lied to win his medals, then a second batch accusing him of betraying his mates by calling them war criminals - were misleading, but they were very effective. " Newsweek perpetuates the position that theSwift Vets were misleading but neither here nor anywhere do they give evidence to support this claim. That is because their claim isn't true. Although Newsweek may feel otherwise most voting Americans understand this inspite of the medias spin!

Pg 92 - "Douglas Brinkley, author of a wartime biography of Kerry, cautioned that Kerry's diary inculded mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris. Edwards was flabbergasted. "Let me get this straight." the senator said. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good." Ya! It was good that we knew this and for this knowlege we can thank the honest and honorable Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - not Newsweek or the rest of the spinning media.

Pg 96 - "The story quickly turned from Bush's war record to Dan Rather's carelessness and overzealousness - even to the question of whether CBS had been secretly working with the Democrats to smear Bush ... the whole flap diverted attention away from questions, never entirely resolved, about whether Bush had skipped out on his guard service." First Dan Rather was a liar, secondly even after the Bush victory, Newsweek is still spinning not reporting.

Newsweek, and I might add the rest of the "old media", have spoken. Their team lost - something must be wrong and they will never see or report it otherwise. Copernicus explained that we cannot feel the movement of the earth because it is our natural state - we have become so used to it we are not aware. The media is so used to spinning they are not aware of what they are doing, not even when all they have to spin is sour grapes.