Already on the Record: Prophets of Doom Run a "Fowl" of the Truth

In the Aesop’s fable of “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg” we meet a farmer whose goose gives him every thing he could ever have dreamed of ; then the greedy farmer cuts the goose open to get at the eggs inside. Too late, the fool realizes that now he has nothing at all.

The coming of the New Year has prompted many to prognosticate the future of America, its President, its War in Iraq, and the failure of all. I am reminded of the prophets of gloom of the past whose confident doom saying only got them egg on the face.

Rush Limbaugh put me onto an article by the Historian Victor Davis Hanson from the National Review Online. Through the wonders of my classroom’s computer network hookup I had a hard copy in my hands within five minuets. All that computer training is paying off!!!

I will abridge it here and then supply some documentation to back up Hanson’s wisdom.

THE PLAGUE OF SUCCESS http://www.nationalreview.co,/

“After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. . . Patriot Act. . . war in Afghanistan. . . the removal of Saddam. . . and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wire tap intercepts of phone calls . . .

Now the horror or 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. . . The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.

Apparently due to the success of George Bush at keeping the United States secure. . .

Afghanistan in October, 2001, conjured up almost immediately warnings of quagmire, expanding Holy War at Ramadan, unreliable allies, a trigger-happy nuclear Pakistan on the border, American corpses to join British and Russian bones in the high desert – not a seven week victory and a subsequent democracy in Kabul of all places.

Nothing in our era would have seemed more unlikely than democrats dethroning the Taliban and al Qaeda – hitherto missile-proof in their much ballyhooed cave complexes that maps in Newsweek assured us rivaled NORAD’s subterranean fortress. . .

Are we then basking in the unbelievable notion that the most diabolical government of the late 20th century is gone from Afghanistan, and in its place are schools, roads, and voting machines? Hardly. . .

The same paradox of success is true of Iraq. Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf kingdoms, with thousand of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. On the eve of the war, had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election – at a cost of some 2100 war dead – he would have been dismissed as unhinged. . .

What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turnout better than anticipated? . . . (A bitterness of disappointment we are familiar with here in the Agora)

One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins. . .

Second, there is a sort of arrogant smugness that has taken hold in the West at large. Read the papers . . . in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit . . . The headlines are mostly the story of mayhem – murder, rape, arson, and theft, Yet, we think Afghanistan is failing or Iraq hopeless when we watch similar violence on television, as if they do such things and we surely do not. . .

A greater percentage of Iraqis participated in their elections after two years of consensual government than did Americans after nearly 230 years of practice. It is chic now to deprecate the Iraqi security forces, but they are doing a lot more to kill jihadists that the French or Germans who often either wire terrorists money, sell them weapons, or let them go.

Third, our affluent society is at a complete disconnect with hard physical work and appreciation of how tenuous life was for 2,500 years of civilization. . . The result of this juvenile boredom with good news and success? Few stop to reflect how different a Pakistan is as a neutral rather than as the embryo of the Taliban, or a Libya without a nuclear-weapons program, or a Lebanon with(out) Syrians in it, or an Iraq without Saddam and Afghanistan without Mullah Omar. . . .

Precisely because we are winning this war and have changed the contour of the Middle East, we expect even more – and ever more quickly, without cost in lives or treasure. So rather than stopping to praise and commemorate those who gave us our success, we can only rush ahead to destroy those who do not give us even more. (Sounds like Aesop' s fable to me!)

Had the farmer in the Aesop’s story been smart enough to truly look ahead he would never have murdered his goose. By way of evidence to Hanson’s exposition above I offer the following foolish farmers.

We begin with the war in Afghanistan. Before the seven weeks of war brought Liberty to Afghanistan many sought to kill the effort with demoralizing claims. Note how all have proven false. There is much disappointment in the anti-Bush crowd now. Disappointment sparked by the bitterness of having ones predictions made lie by events. Please observe the dates of the quotations presented. I will be doing a lot of quoting now. We have all heard these silly claims before, but I would implore you to read them so you can stand witness to the RECORD. My words are “bolded” to help you discriminate them from the quotes.

Maureen Dowd (NYT) October 28, 2001 “Liberties; Can Bush Bushkazi? (I had to pay for this one, what a waste!)

The terrorists and Taliban have the psychological edge on three fronts: military, propaganda and bioterror. . . President Bush has been lured through the high-altitude maze to the minotaur’s lair, or as it’s know in the novel “Flasman,” “the catastrophe of Afghanistan.” Now, like the British and Russians before him, he is facing the most brutish, corrupt, wily and patient warriors in the world, nicknamed dukhi, or ghosts, by flayed Russian soldiers who saw them melt away. (No!! I'm not making this up, Maureen actually wrote this. I wonder if she even knows what in means to flay someone. Her stupidity cooked her own goose!) . . . Are we quagmiring ourselves again? “Yes, it may be a quagmire,” President Musharraf of Pakistan said to Peter Jennings. (Now he tells us.) . . . Just as terrorists, American or foreign, cunningly used our own planes and mailboxes against us, so they used our own morality against us. We were stumbling over scruples against a foe with no scruples. (Interesting this from a woman who now condemns Bush’s lack of scruples. I guess one should just pay for her comments and not follow her advice.). . . With Muslims, the media-savvy troglodytes in a cave were still out spinning Ari Fleischer at a podium. And even as Rear Adm. Stufflebeem denied we were getting bogged down over there - - always a sure sign we’re getting bogged down over there - - the pentagon issued a disconcerting plea. . .” (I guess Stufflebeem, then chair of the Joint Chiefs, was right after all. Not so, Maureen.)

From Stars and Stripes (Of all places. It shows the courage of our military to tell their “students” ANYTHING), Tuesday, September 26, 2001, “Chorus grows against military intervention in Afghanistan”, by Tom Jensen,

RAF MIKDENHALL, England – American cruise missiles and ground troops are not useful weapons in a war on terrorism, some people have stated saying about any military intervention in Afghanistan. “you can go in and rearrange a hell of a lot of sand and rock [with bombs and missiles], but what is accomplished?” asked retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, . . . .Carroll cautioned, too, against any ground force. Not only will land mines be a major factor, he said, but the Afghan Taliban fighter have the advantage of the terrain, which they know intimately. . . Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr . joined the chorus Sunday . . . “It would only demonstrate once again the impotence of the American superpower,” the double Pulitzer Prize winner wrote. Such an attack, he wrote, would push moderate Muslims toward hatred of the U.S. and produce a new generation of suicide bombers. The historian and former adviser to President Kennedy said Afghanistan is “Famous for its unconquerability,” a lesson learned by the British Empire and the Soviet Union. (I guess Schlesinger failed to note that the British Empire and the Soviet Union, had learned the same lesson about the unconquerability of the United States, and now so have the Taliban! I wonder if Schlesinger has?) . . “American troops in Afghanistan would be even more baffled and beset than they were a third of a century ago in Vietnam,” Schlesinger wrote. . . . To allow the situation to become a clash of civilizations, he wrote, would be a catastrophe. “Bin Laden has set a trap for the United States,” He wrote. “Let us not walk into it.” Jay Farrar, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and international Studies in London [said] “. . . there is very little a conventional military force can do.”

(I found Schlesinger invoked again on) : “Radtimes resist@bes.com for Sun, 04 Nov. 2001.

Arthur Schlesinger: Are we trapped in another Vietnam? . . . Today the enemy is in the shadows; he strikes in cities well know to every American; and he turns the most familiar conveniences, the airplane and the letter into vicious weapons – and ordinary people are the target. . . Remember the optimistic remarks a couple of weeks back about the way American bombs were evisceration the enemy? (Something the bombs did do.) This has given way to somber comment about the Taliban’s dogged resistance. . . . Perhaps they should have reflected on Vietnam. We dropped more tons of explosives on that hapless country than we dropped on all fronts during the Second World War, and still we could not stop the Vietcong. (“Thanks” to a politically motivated and constantly interfering Democrat controlled Congress.) Vietnam should have reminded our generals that bombing has only a limited impact on decentralized, undeveloped, rural societies. (I guess that limited impact was all it took to undo the invincible Taliban.) . . . we may have to send in our own ground forces. Do we do that next month in face of the grim Afghan winter, Moslem religious holidays and unexploded land mines? (Which of course America did.) Or do we wait for spring? In any even , a quagmire looms ahead. As for the post -Taliban regime, this has vanished into a gruesome tangle of tribal feuds and rivalries. (Oh YA?) . . . Nearly every day newspapers carry stories about new and mysterious instances of anthrax poising. Behind anthrax looms the specter of smallpox, which, unlike anthrax poisoning, is contagious. . . If terrorists can find ways of unleashing a smallpox plague, it might be like the Black Death, which ravaged Europe in the 14th century.”

Arthur Schlesinger Jr him self wrote on 9/24/01 at http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/09-24-01schlesinger.html

Bombing is not likely to eliminate Bin Laden and his crowd, who have well prepared hide-outs. It would only demonstrate once again the impotence of the American superpower. . . . The only thing that would probably please Bin Laden more would be an invasion by American ground forces. Afghanistan is famous for its unconquerability. The British Empire and the Soviet Union failed in their efforts to dominate the country, and they at least knew the rocky terrain and had people who spoke the languages. American troops in Afghanistan would be even more baffled and beset than they were a third of a century ago in Vietnam. There is, in addition, the land-mine problem. According to Robert Fisk, Middle Eastern correspondent for the Independent in London, Afghanistan contains one-tenth - - more the 10 million - - of the world’s unexploded land mines, laid by the Soviet Red Army. . . Moreover, by November, freezing weather will arrive, and the Pentagon has no hope of dispatching troops and winning the war in the six weeks remaining before winter come to Afghanistan. Nor could an invading American army count on serious assistance from the internal anti-Taliban resistance their most effective leader, Ahmed Shah Masoud, having been assassinated shortly before the assault of America. . . (I guess Schlesinger didn’t know about Hamit Karzai) Bin Laden has set a tarp for the United States, let us not walk into it . . . The quest for a knock-out blow is an illusion. (NO! it was Schlesinger who was crafting illusions!)

(Here are some great “Mistaken Wartime Predictions from the Punditry" collected by Glenn Reynolds posted on the Free Republic December 11, 2001, sixties@lists,village.virgnia.edu )

Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 11/6/01: “Whatever the case, this war appears to be behind schedule.:

Jacob Heilbrunn, Los Angeles Times, 11/4/01: The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it’s already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it.

Sen. Joe Biden: Los Angeles Times (news story0, 10/26/01: Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-Del.) warned that unless the air attacks end “sooner rather than later,” the U.S. risks appearing to be a “high-tech bully. Every moment it goes on, it makes the aftermath problem more severe . . .”

Cokie Roberts, ABC News, 10/28/01 (to Donald Rumsfeld): “the perception is that this war the last three weeks is not going very well.”

(And my favorite from the NPR)

Daniel Schorr, NPR, 10/27/01: “Well, I don’t know how long this was supposed to take, but it’s certainly going a lot wore than was expected . . .”

(Here are two more I dug out of Newsweek)

MSMBC.com Newsweek, “Letter from Afghanistan: Ragtag Army by Owen Matthews, Sept. 28, 2001: The grim reminders are everywhere in this hostile terrain. Every road, every ditch and field from Afghanistan’s capital of Kabul up to the Hindu Kush 80 miles to the north, is littered with the rusting and twisted remains of Soviet tanks and armored personnel carriers. . . a boy-soldier carries a Martini-Henry rifle of 1880’s vintage. That’s a souvenir of an even earlier incursion; the British attempt to subdue the tribes of Afghanistan.. . . Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance . . . rolled out its crack troops . . . The intention was probably to show that the alliance is willing and ready to topple the Taliban regime. It ended up looking more like something out of the Keystone Cops. . . ( It turned out that these “cops” were very effective after all, in spite of News Week’s scorn.) But the display did more to illustrate why the alliance has over the last five years lost some 95 percent of the territory of Afghanistan to the Taliban. . . “Without our help the Americans will not be able to do anything.” Says Quayum, a native of the nearby Salang district. “It is difficult for me to imagine how Americans can fight here.” (We don’t have to imagine it now, we know they fought very well. And then this on Bagram airport) . . . the base is now a wasteland of shattered concrete barracks and the littered wreckage of MiG-21 jets. A forlorn memorial to Soviet war dead stand among the debris, and the base's gates with their red star motif swing free.” (Now Afghanistan is free!)

MSNBC.com Newsweek, “Ultimate Fighters” Sept 28, 2001 – Tom Carew look to history for proof of the fighting qualities of the Afghans. “The last time they were conquered was by Alexander the Great in the forth century B.C.” (Something I pointed out to my student at the time; by way of giving lie to the much touted claim that Afghanistan had never been conquered.). . . And his conclusion may be unwelcome to military planners in Washington. “They are the ultimate fighters in their own terrain.” (Until American soldiers came!) . . . the nature of the country produces a super tough breed of warriors adept at using the terrain to their own advantage, says Carew. “They know the land like a Welsh sheep farmer know his hillsides.” (Isn’t it wonderful that far better fighters can be produced right here in American classrooms and training camps were students and soldiers are taught to deal with ANYTHING?) If crude, their [the Taliban] tactics were adapted to their strengths. “they will only attack when they want to . Otherwise you just won’t see(m) them. They will hide like foxes. “supplies are buried in dumps across the country, known only to the guerrillas. . . They are very hard and ferocious fighters. . . That ferocity can show itself as barbarism, especially in the treatment of prisoners, Carew has told of how mujahedeen slashed open the stomachs of captured Russians and left them to die in the baking heat. Indeed, the brutality is one reason why Carew is convinced that Afghanistan will be no place for conventional troops. . . the technology of modern warfare may be ill-suited to Afghanistan. Armored vehicles may be bogged down; misty valleys add one more hazard to helicopter flying.” (Where is Carew’s retraction of all this silliness?)

I know this is getting long, but my efforts have not even scratched the surface of the inanity presented just before and during the first weeks of the Afghan War. Of course reality was completely contrary to the dire predictions. The weekly news magazines couldn’t even get their “doom and gloom” warnings of American defeat onto the news stands before the war was over and Afghanistan on its way to democracy!

I had thought to present the same "quantity" of shameful doom saying by the know-it-alls on the left pertaining to the Iraq War. We all know that the results were the same. Even as weekly new magazines and Sunday talk shows joined Baghdad Bob to line up and bewail American defeat before the walls of Babylon, the liberated Iraqis were dancing in the streets and pulling down the statues of Saddam. Perhaps, if any kind of discussion ensues, I can post some for consideration, for now I will present only the two most telling “quality” misstatements by Senatorial Prognosticators. I’m sure both of these Democrat prophets of doom would like to hide their silly fears. They will not retract, but it's ALREADY ON THE RECORD!

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002, to the School of Advanced International Studies:

. . . Some who advocate military action against Iraq, however, assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone (Never the Bush plan.) over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Experts have informed us that we do not have sufficient intelligence about military targets in Iraq. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals, If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold number of Iraqi civilians could be killed. (But they were not.)

In the Gulf War, many of Saddam’s soldiers quickly retreated because they did not believe the invasion of Kuwait was justified. But when Iraq’s survival is at stake, it is more likely that they will fight to the end. (In fact they saw Saddam’s cause as no more just this time around; because it was not.) Saddam and his military may well abandon the desert, retreat to Baghdad, and engage in urban, guerilla warfare.

In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie “Saving Private Ryan.”

Senator Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, in a floor Speech on Oct 11, 2002, Under:

THE DANGERS OF BATTLE IN BAGHDAD

Third, an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change would necessitate a march on Baghdad. Such a course would expose our forces on the ground to serious risks, in hand-to-hand, street-by-street urban warfare in a foreign capital. We would lose much of our advantage in superior air power and technology. The military and civilian casualties could be substantial.

The former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, testified before Congress, and I quote, “In urban warfare you could run through battalions a day at a time. All our advantage of command and control, technology, mobility . . are in part given up.” Those are sobering words, Mr. President: “Battalions a day at a time.”

Consider how silly the facts made all these predictions. With the beginning of 2006 we have a host of predictors, fans of catastrophe, and politicians invested in defeat; who prophesy disaster for American, and for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the West. They are fools so greedy for power or determinedto force their views on all, that they have decided to kill the goose and take all the golden eggs. History will hold them to account because their words are ALREADY ON THE RECORD!

Darwin Was for Intelligent Design

Federal Judge John Jones ruled on December 20th ’05 that the 9th grade Biology Teachers of a Dover, Pennsylvania School District cannot read a one “minuet disclaimer” at the beginning of their class’s study of evolution. The “recitation” concluded that there are “gaps in the theory” of evolution and that intelligent design was another explanation they [the students] should consider.

I tend to agree with Jones’ ruling. I am against teachers being required to read anything to students. On the other hand, I am against teachers being prohibited from reading anything to their students. Where I disagree with Jones is that he does not stop with preventing the reading of a mandatory disclaimer. He goes on, in his lengthy opinion, to condemn involving God in the creation process as illegal, even unconstitutional. He argues that those who teach the possibility of divine involvement in creation are using the government [read school] to establishing a specific religion; in his opinion Christianity. All those of other religions who also hold that God or the Gods created the universe, or at least organized Cosmos out of Chaos, might find his judicial stretch troubling. What Jones has done, in the infinite wisdom only granted to members of the judiciary, is rule that one part of the Constitution cancels out another; in fact that one part of the Bill of Rights cancels out another; in fact that one end of the First Amendment cancels out the other end of the First Amendment.

I wonder if the judge, having cooked his brain for weeks in the arguments of fanatics on one side and the other, realized his ruling will ban Charles Darwin from the classroom. Once you throw out free speech to protect any position, you are in trouble!

It is obvious to anyone who has read Darwin’s Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection; obviously not a pre-requisite to those who develop theories to explain it, disclaimers to condemn it, or court rulings to impose it; that Darwin believed in Intelligent Design.

I quote from The Origin of the Species:

“ To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter BY THE CREATOR, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes like those determining the birth and death of the individual. . . It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different form each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ration of Increase so high as to led to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed BY THE CREATOR into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (From the sixth edition published in 1872, my copy by The Easton Press, 1976, pgs 444 – 445) (Capitals added for emphasis and clarification)

What Darwin does not do, what Science cannot do, and what the book of Genesis refuses to do, is answer the question on HOW God created anything. I believe, along with Darwin, that God laid down the laws that made evolution possible. The fossil record and the study of genetics can trace the wondrous progress of His hand; but no authority, theological, scientific, or judicial can explain how the laws came into being.

We come back to what ought, under the Constitution, to be taught in the classroom. Neither the religion of the Christians nor the Atheists should be imposed on anyone; either by forcing the reading of disclaimers or by excluding the opinions of Charles Darwin from the classroom. Nor should students be kept in a hothouse of scientific design which denies the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans; which denies the beliefs of the students and teachers themselves.

The Glass - Half Full or Half Empty

The other day a Democrat pundante was desperately trying to make a claim of his party’s leadership in the now commencing withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq. Fred Barnes, of the “Weekly Standard” gave the perfect retort. “The Democrats wanted to leave Iraq because, as they claimed, “America is losing”. Bush is now ordering withdrawals because America is winning.” This Democrat insistence on seeing only the empty portion of the glass has led the Democrats to endanger their country and make a joke of their politics.

A month ago the Democrats were eager for the United States to lose the War in Iraq. Murtha demanded some sort of withdrawal beyond the horizon. A foolish strategy, that has never won a war. It cost the Nationalists, China and the Spanish, the New World. Had it been put forward by anyone but the “hand picked veteran darling of the left”, it would have been laughed out of the conversation. At the first of December, Pelosi and Kennedy were openly saying the war was lost, the glass had been tipped over, and all that was left for America to do was cut and run.

Then came Presidents Bush’s speeches explaining to the American people the strategy and success in Iraq. Americans saw the “good stuff” in the glass and fixation on the empty portion was washed away as support for the war and the President rebounded.

To those that savor the sweetness of America, it was amusing that even as Kennedy’s empty rhetoric once centered on complaints that Bush was wasting time in Iraq and not concentrating hard enough on the War on Terror that; now, taking their cue from their media masters at the NY Times, the Democrats are indignant that President Bush is doing too much on that front. The entire anti-Bush strategy clings to the hope that the American people will fixate on their empty arguments and ignore the full half of the glass of American accomplishment. It only takes one sip of the truth to bring Americans around to the recognition that below the empty bubbles of Democrat propaganda is a sweet draft of success.

Desperate at the revelation of the hollowness of their dissent, the New York Times has taken over the lead of the “offer nothing party”. Together, the anti-war media and the anti-Bush Democrats are trying to poison the victory cup. Four propaganda blasts in the media followed by frothing gusts or bubbles from the Democrat leadership, attempted to dilute Bush’s success. But, in each case these attack stories in the press have flowed into Bush’s cup. Charges of domestic spying have proven false; a NY Times story on intentional spying on domestic communications proved to be unfounded; an article on the vast trove of intelligence garnered on terrorists by the NSA “mining” of international-to-international calls has proved a support to the successes of the Bush plan; and finally indignation that the government, in an attempt to do its job and seek out nuclear weapons, has been testing the air around suspicious sites, turned to support for a President who is willing to act in the nation’s defense. Thus the gaseous garbage from the left has quickly risen to the surface and popped; leaving nothing in the upper half of the glass.

A friend recently put me on to two articles in the Weekly Standard. They and the daily flow of news clarify the good stuff in the glass. My thanks to her for leading me to answers and helping me to see that our glass is indeed half full.

I have been casting about for a lawyer to explain the Constitutional questions related to President Bush’s efforts to combat terror by listening to the phone conversations of terrorists plotting to attack America. Mackubin Thomas Owens, professor of national security at the Naval War College, provides arguments from no less a lawyer than Abraham Lincoln. (“War and Peace, Lincoln and Bush on Vigilance and Responsibility”, the Weekly Standard, 12/21/2005)

The Albany Democratic convention censured Lincoln for what it called unconstitutional acts. Lincoln replies that certain actions that are unconstitutional in the absence of rebellion or invasion become constitutional when those conditions exist. Let me quote Lincoln’s Corning letter as Owens provided it.

“I can no more be persuaded that the Government can constitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion, because it can be shown that the same could not lawfully be taken in time of peace, that I can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick man, because it can be shown not to be good for a well one. Nor am I able to appreciated the danger apprehended by the meeting [of the New York Democrats] that the American people will, by means of military arrest during the Rebellion, lose the right of Public Discussion, the Liberty of Speech and the press, the Law of Evidence Trial by Jury, and Habeas Corpus, throughout the indefinite peaceful future, which I trust lies before them, any more that I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite or emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life.”

Owens then argues that, “IN TAKING THE STEPS he believes to be necessary to preserve republican government, it is important to note that the president possesses his own inherent constitutional powers. The presidency is not, as one commentator suggested, merely “a kind of independent agency under the ultimate control of Congress.” The president is the commander-in-chief, which directly bestows upon him powers in times of military crisis that are not derivative of any congressional power.”

Owens not only provides us with a “heavy weight” in the legal arena, he also presents a philosopher of some punch to support the President’s “prerogative”. None less than John Lock argues that “the prerogative is ‘the power [of the executive] to act according to discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law and sometimes even against it.’ Since the fundamental law that the executive ultimately must implement is to preserve society, it is ‘fit that the laws themselves should in some cases give way to the executive power, or rather to this fundamental law of nature and government, viz. that as much as may be, all members of society are to be preserved.”

If these arguments from legal and philosophical minds are not enough to revel the emptiness of the anti-Bush portion of the glass, consider the following statutory support from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, quoted from an article by Edward Morrissely from the December 21 2005 issue of Weekly Standard:

“However, FISA gives wide latitude to the government when such communication does not involve a “U.S. person.” FISA authorizes warrantless surveillance in its opening chapter: (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writhing under oath that - -

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at - -

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section1802 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in sections 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1802 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.


The core of the issue is this: the NSA and the administration defined international communications as including those where one end – and one end only -- occurs in the United States."

Further support came from no less a statesman than former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Powell said that a major controversy could have been avoided had Bush gone to the FISA court, but he sees “absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions” to protect the nation. Powell did add that “My own judgment is that it didn’t seem to me, anyway , that it would have been hard to go get the warrants. And even in the case of emergency, you go and do it.” But although Powell’s equivocation over method explains why we are in a controversy, it does not lessen his support for the legality and necessity of the President’s actions. He adds, “Of course it should continue, and nobody is suggesting that the president shouldn’t do this.”

Anyone who is claiming that the Administration’s efforts are aimed at anything but terrorism is blowing bubbles. There has not been any evidence that the Administration has done anything but seek for legitimate foreign communications that relate directly to national security. There is probably no stronger support for the need of the President’s order than the FACT that, although the Democrat Leadership condemns the President’s actions, they have not called for him to desist from the surveillance he insists he will continue. I imagine Democrats are justly concerned at how it will look if they add their demand that the President stop doing all he can to protect American to Hairy Reid’s recent jubilance at “killing the Patriot Act”. The question, “Whose side are these guys on?” is coming into the minds of more and more citizens. What is important to citizens contemplating the content of the glass is where the substance is; and Bush’s actions are brimful of substance. In his Weekly Standard column, Morrissey continues:

“AND THE PROGRAM PAYED OFF. Information developed during the NSA effort kept al Qaeda from destroying the Brooklyn Bridge in 2003 when Iyman Faris was captured before he could initiate the attack. He pled guilty to terror-related charges and is now serving a long prison sentence.”

Two important points to note: First, by fixation on the empty glass the Times and its lackeys in the Democrat Party leadership are endangering America’s defense against terrorist attack, and secondly, by harping on the empty part of the glass, the Democrats are in dangerous political territory. Their efforts to destroy Bush in order to garner seats in the 2006 election has left them fighting for a position that consists of exactly nothing. In the glass that contains the heady brew that is American Success and its challenge in the war on terror, Democrats are fixated on the nothing that floats above. The Democrats have offered nothing to replace either the sweet taste of victory or the bitter dregs of disaster. The cup the President holds is not all sweetness and buzz, but the portion the Democrats offer is the nothing at all.

The Questions in Question:

Should President George W. Bush II have directed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop in America?

My first purely “emotional” response is NO!

Right now it seems that there were specific rules in place to block domestic “eves Dropping” by the NSA if there was no involvement of an independent judge. I even understand that there is a special court to expedite and keep secret the issuance of such permission. I think I am for changing those rules in the cases as specific as President Bush has described, or perhaps granting some kind of extraordinary power to fight new enemies in the age of new technologies, however it dose not seem to me that the President has the prerogative to sidestep rules specifically in place.

More Questions to consider:

1. The President claims he is within his legal and constitutional power to make this directive. What are the legal and constitutional powers he is claiming?

2. Members of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leader on the House Intelligence Committee, knew about and obviously sanctioned the President’s actions. Why did Congress feel the President was within the law then and why have some changed their minds now?

3. The New York Times has had this story for a year and has held in back until this time. What is the newspaper's motive in holding the story, and in releasing it now?

4. What benefits have come to our nation because of the President’s action? What harm has this action done to our enemies, what harm has it done to our Constitution?

5. If there are legitimate constitutional questions, how can our country continue to take advantage of the NSA’s abilities to protect our security and at the same time protect our freedoms?

6. Will the New York Times be forced to tell the name of the leaker?

7. Will this “leaker” be forced to face a Grand Jury and indictment for his or her criminal behavior?

8. What advantage has the leaker and the NY Times given to the enemies of America?

9. How angry should we be with President Bush if he, in good faith, thought he was legally acting in the defense of our nation and the Constitution?

10. If the President has broken a law, what should be the consequence for his crime?

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.

In Defense of Saddam Hussein

In his thirty years as dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein murdered hundred of thousands of innocent people without justice or mercy. NOW HE IS INNOCENT.

Under Roman Law, under American Law, and, now that freedom and justice rule in Iraq, under Iraqi Law; a man who tortured men and boys to death for the entertainment and “education” of his sons; will be innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

There should be no difficulty in attaining this conviction. Like a tourist in Hell, Saddam made films and videotapes of his atrocities. But for now he shelters under the shield of justice. He basks in the rights he so long denied his people and for which so much precious blood has been shed!

The irony is bitter sweet. The man who denied the most basic of human rights to his people, now demands them for himself. While questioning the legitimacy of the government and the court where he seeks mercy, he sits smug and secure, protected by the very law he would destroy. But for Her blindfold, Justice would weep!

I have great respect for the officers of this Iraqi court; for the judges and lawyers, both prosecution and defense, who take up the heavy burden of this trial. I stand in awe of the guards and soldiers who risk their lives, and the lives of their families, that a tyrant might find justice.

I have no respect for Ramsey Clark, a joy riding opportunist, seeking one more whiff of adoration, one more chance to attack the country that gives him, and the world, the freedom to savage it. As far as I can tell the Iraqi defense team, who are risking their lives – two have already been murdered – to see justice done, have not accepted this grandstanding interloper into their ranks. How such a publicity stunt would sully their sacrifice!

Now the world will wait while the “wheels of justice” grind out the atrocities of Saddam; both slow and fine. And we can have faith, that while justice is blind, she also wields a sword.

Personal note: I am against capital punishment under any circumstance. Death, the fate and right of all men, is too good for Saddam. Let him spend his days, and may they be long, in the life he designed for his fellows; in a world without freedom or hope, where mercy deepens the weight of justice.

Note #2: Chapter 2 Article 5 of the Iraqi Constitution reads:

The accused is innocent until proven guilty pursuant to law, and he likewise has the right to engage independent and competent counsel, to remain silent in response to questions addressed to him with no compulsion to testify for any reason, to participate in preparing his defense, and to summon and examine witnesses or to ask the judge to do so. At the time a person is arrested, he must be notified of these rights.”

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.

The Bird and the Box

It must have been a late spring up north because the golden plovers were all over town; not above the artic circle where they belonged. As a little boy growing up in Anchorage, Alaska, seeing wild life was nothing new, but this sea of birds that washed over our fields and forests was wonderful. Hunter instincts raged in the hearts of my buddy, Lawrence White and myself, and we set about to ‘catch us some birds’! The plan was to carefully balance a pasteboard box on a stick attached to a long string. A trail of bread bits would lead the unsuspecting plover into the trap, then a yank on the string and he would be ours. We sat in the bushes for hours watching the clouds of birds come down to cover the lawn around our box. They would come like falling rain, in squalls of tens and twelves, then explode into the air all at once like a hurricane of beating wings and erry calls; spooked by some too quick move or careless sound. Over and over again they churned between earth and sky, but not one paid the slightest attention to our box. There were so many birds that it seemed the mere force of the building mass would push one into our snare, but not a bird showed any interest in bread or box. At last I lost it and stood up. The plovers were gone in a roaring cloud. I kicked the box and headed home. Lawrence called bitterly after me; he cried warm tears. Why wouldn’t I stay? How could I abandon him? Surly, with so many plovers, one would be ours if we would just wait long enough. I went and got my 22 and shot a few. We didn’t speak for weeks.

For two years the media and their stoolies in the Democrat Party have crafted and tended the Valeri Plame trap. Now, after failing to coax in any birds and with nothing to show for their years of casting their bread upon the waters, Bob Woodward has kicked out the stick and left the Left with nothing but bitter tears.

Perusal of Fox News reports for Friday, November 18th (referenced here in my attempt to reach up to recent standards in the Agora) shows the falling out of media buddies.

Woodward, once the patron saint of investigative journalists, is now the subject of angry and pouting disappointment. Critics charge that Woodward has become too cozy with Sources. One wonders where such media wise-guys were when Woodward was wooing Deep Throat. Colleagues at the Washington Post sob that “people feel let down!” Why; because Woodward told the truth and crushed the carefully crafted snare the media had built for President Bush?

Close Woodward friend, Walter Pincus (I couldn’t have made up a more fitting name) insists he can’t remember that Woodward told him about Plame two weeks before Libby is alleged to have blown her cover. How convenient for media types, they need have no memory of the facts. Too bad the poor souls they ensnare aren’t given an equal latitude of tolerance. By the way, Pincus is already in contempt of Court for failing to disclose a leaker, but that is only a crime if you’re a bird slated for the box.

It seems Woodward is already in trouble for telling the truth about the Scooter (where do they get these names) witch hunt. Woodward has claimed that this tea pot tempest is a pretty crumby case and not at all significant. This degradation of the carefully crafted box trap; dropped Woodward from media hero to Bush flunky in a wing flick.

Woodward’s revelation has kicked the sticks out from under the box of Prosecutor Fitzgereld’s teetering trap. The prosecutor’s clam that “He [Libby] was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter”, has not only fallen flat, it has been stepped on.

In his own defense, Woodward states, “People want reporters to use information as a political weapon. I won’t do that. I’m just trying to find out what happened and report it as accurately as possible.” Woodward’s memory is a little foggy. Those outside the media box have a better memory of the political ramifications of Watergate, or has all that Deep Throat stuff started stinging Woodward’s conscience. Let’s hope so!

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.

The Fisherman and the Genie

One of my favorite stories from the 1001 Nights Entertainment is the “Fisherman and the Genie”. In the story, a poor fisherman drags a great jug out of the sea. When he opens it, a genie appears and demands the fisherman choose how the poor fisherman wants to die. It seems the genie has been waiting so long to be released that he has grown angry with whoever will eventually release him. He has sworn to give his benefactor death as his reward. Of course the fisherman is taken aback – but he thinks to himself, “I MUST OUTWIT THE GENIE. SURELY I MUST BE SMARTER THAN HE; FOR EVIL SPIRITS WOULD NOT BE EVIL IF THEY WOULD USE THEIR HEADS.”

The behaviors of many evil doers in the world today seem to bear out the Fisherman’s pronouncement:

1. I think of the rioters in Toledo, Ohio a week or so ago. Enraged that a group of Nazis were about to march through a portion of their city, a bunch of “civil rights demonstrators” proceeded to attack their own community. Claiming that the Nazis supported violence, a mob of idiots proceeded to commit the most gratuitous acts of violence. Eager to grab headlines, many Ohio blacks behaved exactly as the Nazi hate mongers predicted they would. Talk about playing into the hand of your enemy in order to prove their point!

2. I think of the “peaceful and sophisticated” citizens of France who for approaching two weeks now have been rioting and burning down their own communities. Overcome by boredom, impotence, and raciest bigotry they have turned upon themselves. We are reminded that these are the descendants of the same people who turned a Revolution for Freedom into a Reign of Terror. Now the French (need I really come up with a pejorative more telling) grope for attention on the world stage by committing national suicide. How like them!

3. Think of protestors in Argentina during the meeting of the leaders of the nations of North and South America. In a ridiculous, if not laughable, attempt to get the attention of the world media, anarchist protestors destroy and burn; providing proof that their way must be avoided by thinking people at all costs.

4. Democrats, seeking to gin up some press for their anti Bush agenda, - the only agenda the Democrats in office in this country seem to possess - burst into flames last week. The obligatory crash which followed was spectacular. Failing to get any significant indictments against the “movers and shakers” in the Bush administration for the non crime of outing the non covert agent wife of a non reliable Joe Wilson, the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, proposed to kill the nation that gives him freedom. In a publicity stunt that was all hot air, Reid dragged the U.S. Senate in to an unnecessary closed session to demand things which have already been done be done again. He was forced later to recognize, if not admit, that the “re-do” was already scheduled before his tantrum. Thus the Democrats blocked the business of the nation in order to grandstand for the political points the media rushes provide. Meanwhile the fishermen, and farmers, the workers and owners, the simple minded citizens of American, realize that politicians who thus refuse to use their heads must surely be evil.

The fisherman in Scheherazade’s tale at last convinces the evil genie to go back into his bottle. The Fisherman does this with a simple appeal to the genie’s ego. He asks the “wonderful genie” to prove that someone as great as he could actually fit into the jug. Determined to prove himself possessed of the greatness the fisherman implies, the evil genie turns himself into smoke and reenters the bottle. The fisherman replaces the stopper. The media has given full reign to the monsters of the moment, and their egos are swollen with hot air to the bursting point. I wonder if now the media has pulled the cork, the simple citizens of this nation will be able to get the genie back in the bottle. Perhaps their first step is realizing just how stupid the evil doers really are.

News Stories?

I would like to contrast four news stories: two that should be footnotes but are dominating our national conversation, and two that should be all over the front pages, screaming on the radio, and pouring off the television into every home, but are all but ignored.

Stories one and two: Two administration officials MAY be indicted – after which they will still be innocent until proven guilty – for some non-crime sharked up by the media and their party. This has been the tag line and the front page story in all the media for days now. Any further listening or further reading of these “news stories” always shows this to be a tiny tempest in a tiny tea pot. Meanwhile thousands of companies joined the roles of shame. Paul Volcher’s report reveals that not only did UN big bugs, French, German, Russian political leaders, and British MPs profit from the bribes of Saddam, but that 2,200 of the companies we support with our purchases were paying Saddam for illegal privileges; thus financing Saddam’s abuses of his own people and his dreams of world conquest and domination.

Stories three and four: The 2,000th American was killed in the war in Iraq. Now don’t take me wrong here, every American, EVERY AMERICAN, that dies in the war for our freedom should be reported and recognized, and honored as the heroes they are. But to ghoulishly wait for some number, to set off protests and TV commercials and a flood of news stories and talking heads yammering, is exploitation. These great men and women have given the ultimate sacrifice that we might live in peace and safety, while enjoying our freedoms and sharing those freedoms with the future and the world. Meanwhile close to 3,000 Americans a day are being killed for convenience sake. And their deaths are not even mentioned. 2,740 AMERICANS WERE KILLED TODAY IN AMERICA. If you divide the million babies that will be aborted this year by 365 you get that number. These murdered children are not mentioned in newspapers, on radio, on TV, or in the churches, schools, or web logs of the nation.

Am I the only one that sees injustice here?

Al-Zawahiri's Struggle: The Little Bloody Book

It has always been interesting to me that Hitler, and Marx, and Mao carefully wrote down the course their ambition would follow, and no one took them seriously until they were well on their way to accomplishing their design.

Like a hurricane projecting its own course and land fall, Terrorist Murder Leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri has laid out a step by step plan for world wide domination. To ignore his threats would place world leaders once more in denial and appeasement mode. As the disaster in Louisiana should have taught us – we ignore such threats at our own peril.

I’ve spent the afternoon reading al-Zawahiri’s demented letter to al-Zarqawi. Like Mein Kompf and the Communist Manifesto, Zawahiri’s letter is full of silly leaps beyond reason and down right falsehoods. But it is also like them in displaying a determined, albeit twisted, mania to exercise control over the human soul by seizing military and political power and establishing a super state to propagate a malicious dogma and impose it on the world.

I offer here some quotes and commentary:

Al-Zawahiri links his cause to the will of God and outlines the violent establishment and subsequent goals of a super state under the control of his ideology.

1. “. . . what is now the place of the greatest battle of Islam in this era and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God about the epic battles between Islam and atheism. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established . . .”

2. “. . . the battles that are going on in the far-flung regions of the Islamic world. . . are just the groundwork and the vanguard of the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world.”

3. “. . . our goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly- according to how it appears in us-in the heart of the Islamic world. . .”

Zawahiri then lays out a series of steps to accomplish the enslavement of man:

4. “The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.”

5. “The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans. . . “

6. “The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.”

7. “Fourth Stage: It may coincide with what came before; the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

Zawahiri then goes on to explain how to exploit the masses – many of whom he intends to slaughter after they have served their purpose. Like the monsters that followed Marx – the masses are only the tools for assent into power.

8. “The Muslim masses-for many reasons. . . do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.”

9. “If we look at the two short-term goals, which are removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible, then we will see that the strongest weapon which the Mujahedeen enjoy – after the help and granting of success by God – is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.”

10. “The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the Shia is a matter that will happen sooner or later, This is the judgment of history, and these are the fruits to be expected from the rejectionist Shia sect and their opinion of the Sunnies.”

11. “Indeed, questions will circulate among Mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia AT THIS TIME (emphasis added).”

12. “. . . questions will circulate among Mujahedeen circles and their opinion makers about the correctness of this conflict with the Shia at this time.

a. Is it something that is unavoidable?”

b. Or, is it something [that] can be CAN BE PUT OFF (emphasis mine) until the force of the Mujahed movement in Iraq gets stronger?”

c. . . . is the opening of another front now in addition to the front against the Americans and the government a wise decision?”

d. And can the Mujahedeen kill all of the Shia in Iraq? Has any Islamic state in history ever tried that?”

e. “and do the brothers forget that both we and the Iranians need to refrain from harming each other AT THIS TIME (my emphasis) in which the Americans are targeting us?”

Al-Zawahiri is confident that America will soon desert the Iraqi people; a hope buoyed by many Democrat politicians and the mainstream media. He is confident that the terrorists will then be able to impose their will on Iraq and thence the world. He makes reference to the communist successes in Vietnam. Success which equaled the murder of millions and the perpetuation of slavery!

13. “The Americans will exit soon, God willing, and the establishment of a governing authority as soon as the country is freed from the Americans – does not depend on force alone.”

14. Things may develop faster then we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam – and how they ran and left their agents – is noteworthy.”

15. “. . . despite all this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma.”

These last words about the “hearts and minds” of the masses outline the same strategy followed by all the tyrants and mass murders of the past. Seize the people in their ignorance; by the power of fear and hate, color them with prejudice, and imbue them with fanaticism, and when all else fails, kill, kill kill.

It is against this great evil, self declared and mapped out by its mad leaders, that we are called upon to contend. Let us learn from history – apply reason and the light of truth – and stand in defense of freedom.

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.

Cindy Shewho? Misguided Matron Makes Massive Miss

Cindy Sheehan was bitter last week. Having sharked up some thousands of 60’s retreads, professional protestors, and one mentally unbalanced congressperson; “Ms Smarty” gave a party and nobody came to play. Bitterly berating the media – and not just Fox News – for spending their collective attention on Hurricanes, wars, the conformation of the Chief Justice, and other such trivia; she marched off to the White House to get her self arrested. The image of queen Sheehan, grinning with pleasure, as she was haled off – as if in a sedan chair – by officers of the D.C. police, left me cold. This is the “Mother Inferior’s” attempt to link her sinking, and stinking, cause to the noble tradition of civil disobedience? Her failure would be laughable if it weren’t for the bitter consequences that even a minuet of fame for this gorgon gets, brings upon those who risk their lives to defend freedom throughout the world.

Sheehan has totally missed the formula for actually performing an act of civil disobedience. Three elements and one condition are key to invoking the power by which Gandhi drove the British from Empire and M. L. King lead our nation out of racial segregation. These three important elements and condition are: 1) an unjust law, 2) nonviolent disobeying of that law, and 3) taking the consequences for disobedience to that law. The one condition is that these actions must take place in a nation that accepts the rule of Law (justice). Gandhi and King would have vanished, along with millions of others, had protested the injustices of Nazism or Communism.

Sheehan’s protest doesn’t pass the smell test. Were is her suffering in Birmingham Jail; where her beating at the hands of apartheid driven jack troops? Instead Sheehan is gently carried off into the evening’s news cycle.

Where is the great injustice against which she fights? Where the enforced poverty, the inequality of opportunity, the oppressive brutality against a race or group? The law Sheehan chooses to break is nothing more than jay walking. How are laws against blocking public access unjust? Of course they are not. She does not even have the grace of protesting in the name of one brought down by oppression like the mothers of the disappeared n Peru. Her mock protests degrade the sacrifice of her son, who was not sent to war by any mother, but who freely gave his life in the battle to bring hope and freedom to millions.

Modern relativists cannot discern these concepts. Thus, eco-terrorists endanger lives and destroy property from secret web-cells and never gain one ounce of sympathy for there unjust causes, thus PETA attacks the livelihoods of honest farmers and ranchers, and cannot understand why the masses do not embrace their agenda, thus terrorists must murder to get attention but garner only righteous wrath.

Not all mothers are loving care givers, some are abusive monsters, Sheehan continues to abused her son, his memory, and the just cause for which he gave the ultimate gift of love. You’ve missed it Ms Sheehan. Your moment of fame may be fanned by those who seek to use you – but you have only harmed the cause justice.

Perception Is Everything - NOT!!!!

Last Friday I had the privilege of participating in my second “Late Start Day” of the school year. Our most excellent Principal arranged a very informative training for the first part of our extra two hours without students. This training culminated in a discussion on the fact that my school had failed the “No Child Left Behind” standards for last year. The presentation soon degenerated into a lot of excuses and complaints about the entire testing program. Finally one of my most respected colleagues, with a pointed stare in my direction, suggested that our only salvation was to elect a new President. At this point I put in my two bits worth. “What does it matter that we got a “No” on the level of success of our Hispanic students? Isn’t the purpose of the standard test to help us find students that need help? Perhaps we would be better off with a President who allow us to continue to sweep our failures under the rug – but wouldn’t it be much better if we were to work together to make these students more successful and quit worrying about whether we beat Davis High or not!!” At this point another dear friend and fellow teacher said loudly and pointedly, “Perception is everything!” Then my Principal intervened to explain that I was stealing his final remarks.

But I was deeply troubled at Mr. Brimhall’s comment. It is at the foundation of what I call Relativism. Reality does not matter – it is what one chooses to believe that matters.

Please consider these examples:

1) I spent many hours last week watching the “questioning” of Judge John Roberts. (Thank goodness for CSPAN) It soon became obvious that many of the questioners were far more interested in perception than in Judge Roberts. For those of you who have listened and watched, I am sure you are aware of a thousand examples, but the most blatant, to me, was Ted Kennedy EEOC attack. Toward the end of his second set of questions, the twenty minute round, Kennedy started reading a lengthy description of the EEOC and its great value to America and to the civil rights of all those who Kennedy pretends to champion. He then read one phrase from a memo that Roberts had written while advising President Reagan some twenty years ago. Kennedy read from Roberts’ memo: “. . . we should ignore the assertion that the “EEOC is un-American”, the truth of the matter not withstanding.” Kennedy’s hope was that the perception would be that Roberts was implying that it was true that the EEOC was un-American and that Reagan should just ignore that fact. Kennedy wanted to propagate the perception that Judge Roberts truly believed the EEOC to be un-American. When Kennedy pompously demanded an explanation of this abhorrent claim, Roberts promptly provided one – the TRUTH!!! He pointed out that Senator Kennedy was only reading the last half of a sentence. The first half of that sentence referred to a person who had written to President Reagan demanding that he fulfill an alleged campaign promise to abolish the EEOC. Roberts explained that he had been unable to prove or disprove that Reagan had made any such promise – but was advising the President to ignore such a claim – the truth of the matter of whether Reagan had made such a promise or not, “not withstanding”. It then became obvious that Roberts was defending the EEOC to Reagan not disparaging it. Kennedy was left gasping like a great fish out of water. He tried to obfuscate and to withhold the memo from the record and from Judge Roberts, but fortunately Chairman Specter provided the Judge a chance to prove the truth by providing him the memo and time to explain.

Now an observation, which I hope my many friends who were most successful policy debaters in high school and college, will not consider in any way a slight on the merits of that activity. In Kennedy’s folly I see all the trappings of the card quoting and brief building of certain high school debaters. What Kennedy had done was set loose his army of aids and interns to scour the 100,000 or so pages of documents provided from John Robert’s paper trail. One of these eager beavers had found this little treasure and wrote page after page of brief for Kennedy to read in the hearing. The entire purpose of the charade? – To try to create a pernicious perception. This CARD was to carry the day for the relativists and sully the reputation of a great man, because, to them, perception is all that matters. What Roberts’ brilliance and Specter’s fairness proved was that it is the TRUTH that matters!!!!

2) The endless yammering about the “failed” policy in Iraq. Now I hear that George McGovern and Bill Clinton have joined the chorus calling on America to desert democracy in Iraq.

3) The constantly inflated casualty numbers, the lies about dikes being blown up, the constantly casting of the “race card”, the endless blame game, of the hurricane disaster.

4) The endless griping about the costs for wars and disaster clean ups.

It would be nice to consider some facts for a change:

Consider the fact that both Iraq and Afghanistan have had more successful elections than Germany.

Realize the fact that leaving Saddam to grow in power and brashness would have inevitably brought upon the world far greater costs in lives and treasure. Saddam demonstrated his brashness and earned his destruction by ignoring multiple UN resolutions.

Understand that leaving Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in ruins, will do this nation far more damage than spending enough money to revitalize and rebuild them. I would point out that the deficit spending of FDR together with the Marshal Plan and the rebuilding of Japan, at great expense to Americans; enunciated the second great economic boom of the twentieth century. By the way, the roaring fifties far surpassed the roaring twenties. I would add that Ronald Reagan’s deficit spending and tax cuts allow the US to spend the USSR out of existence without nuclear war, and lay the foundation for an economic prosperity that it took Bill Clinton seven years of mismanagement to deflate.

The truth is out there – but I fear it will have little effect on those to whom Perception Is Everything.

The Cannibals Are Choking

Last week a media personality, and enemy of President Bush, claimed that poor people in New Orleans were eating the bodies of the dead. This nameless blip on the media screen later retracted his pernicious and deliberate lie, but the damage had already been done. The flood of misinformation flows from the enemies within our country to buoy up and embolden our enemies without. Americans eat themselves up to the cheers and delight of Alkada murders, South American dictators, French snobs, and German politicians.

Now for some facts:

1. Thousands of Americans were NOT KILLED by the most devastating storm to hit our country in many years. Previous storms have been just as powerful but there was far less to devastate. The devastation was not what our enemies had hoped for, but that did not deter them. Without a real failure of America, its enemies set about sharking up corpses in order to dismember our county.

2. Realize that not one American has died of starvation or thirst due to Katrina. These important necessities were made available not only to the hundreds of thousands that followed the directions of their chosen leaders and fled the city to safety, but to the thousands who did not leave the city when they could have. Many still refuse to leave. They and are being fed and hydrated by their fellow citizens, at great cost and sacrifice to us all. America’s government and President, and the leaders of States and Cities, communities throughout this land, have and continue to do all that is possible to alleviate the danger and mitigate the suffering of our fellows smitten by an over whelming act of natural power. To seize upon that suffering; fabricating specifics which the facts do not support; as a way of increasing one’s own political power; to misrepresent the extent and causes of disaster in order to bludgeon ones opponents to get gain in the next election is to truly cannibalize the dead.

3. This hurricane and the devastation it has wrought is neither the result of the anger of Ala nor global warming. Storms like Katrina, and greater, have been boiling about the oceans of this planet since before our ancestors crawled out of them. When such storms come ashore were people are - they hurt those people. Environmental and Islamic fanatics have long abandoned reason; now they search for sustenance by feeding on the dead. To blame an act of nature on God or man is to devour the dead to strengthen one’s selfish ambition.

4. The resurrection of the areas affected by the storm and flood is progressing at a rate ahead of all predictions and at a level which promises to improve the standard of living for those affected. I listened to a German Reporter on the NPR gushing with pleasure that the “One Superpower” had been brought to its knees by the might of nature. What a pleasure to see this ghoul made a fool. America has not been brought to its knees; it stands taller than ever as we reach out to serve each other. Those who wishfully speak of the failure of America are devouring themselves. Trying to sharpen their teeth on the bones of our lost loved ones they are consumed by their own lies.

We have seen this all before. The cannibals counted the slaughter on 9/11 - predicting 50, 000 dead and America weakened beyond recovery; they choked on the truth. The cannibals predicted the utter defeat of the United States in Afghanistan, licking their chops as they predicted our nation would follow the USSR into the morgue of history; they choked on the truth. The feasters on human flesh predicted that 20,000 Americans would be killed in the first days of the charge up the Euphrates, and that that many more would fall before the walls of Baghdad; they choked on the truth. Still smelling blood the naysayer call for another Vietnam in Iraq. They will find the truth hard to swallow. And now, baying for blood, those who would devour their fellows for their own gain condemn the Bush administration and other selfless servants of our nation, who rushed into the storm to bring safety and support to our countrymen in danger. Of these cannibals I say, "Let them choke!!!"