They get it from Xena, Warrior Princess ...

That was nearly the first words uttered out of my mouth when meeting Jambo. I'm sitting box, Titus is flooring us & Jambo is on third base, doing what he would describe as "dealing dice", although that's up for debate. I had met Titus just a few days earlier and we'd already had our first argument (the fun kind), & this was my formal introduction to Jambo. Titus soon into the shift asked me if I knew where the term (beware) The Ides of March originated. Now it must be pointed out then whenever two, let alone all three of us are in a section together the casino game(s) become a complete side item subject to the intensity or enjoyment of the conversation - its like listening to Harry Carry (RIP) call a Cubs ball games, he's telling stories the game is completely coincidental. At any rate I of course answered - the warning to Caesar, but only after two or three bystander mouth breathers attempted in vein to answer correctly, which got Jambo shaking his head. I lean in and say, "What do you expect? Most of the people around here get their classical education from Xena Warrior Princess." Jambo turns off his left shoulder and says to Titus, "The force is strong in this one." And thus the trio was born.

****

On another note - you never saw The Kingdom before Titus? I don't know how you missed that one. We are actually portrayed as the good guys, the bad guys are actually Muslims (as opposed to the new Die Hard in which the enemy looks like he rowed crew at Harvard in 1950's), and we are responding to their aggression. That ambulance scene, man ... brutal. My favorite line is when that Saudi policeman says to the FBI agent, "this is a bad neighborhood." And he responds, "Really?" They had just spent 10 minutes under heavy fire and rocket launcher assaults, thus the no-duh tone in his"really."And yes, it very aptly portrays the shall we say "interesting" relationship we have with the House of Saud. 99% of the movie was great - but they should of left off the last 5 seconds. Your mind is racing now, "what was the last five seconds that he so objects to?" They just had to slip in some sort of moral equivalency between our prosecution of justice against aggressive enemies and the fanatical bent Islamists have. It is asked of Jamie Fox's character, "what did you say to her (Jennifer Garner) to make her stop crying before that briefing? At the beginning of the movie her boyfriend had been killed in the attack, she was weeping as they start the FBI briefing (she's an agent) and Fox whispers in her ear and she dries up and sits erect. The whisper is inaudible to the audience. He answers as to what he said in the last 5 seconds - "We're going to kill them all." Referring of course to whomever perpetrated the attack. Then as soon as he says that the scene shifts to the grandson of the attacks architect (the main bad guy), and his mother is asking what the grandfather said to him just before dying, (he was mortally wounded in a gunfight with the authorities as the boy was literally in his arms). The kid says, "He told me don't worry child, we are going to kill them all."

Rancit BS, and it was a clear elitist view that lumps our pursuit - via necessary violence - in with the acts perpetrated by Islamo-fascists. But as I said, the rest was great and it did quite well at the box office. Hollywood must be the only industry in which it is fashionable to work against your own bottom line. The Kingdom & Black Hawk Down, both which show our military or FBI men & women in appropriately heroic ways, did very well in ticket receipts. But they are outnumbered by films with an anti-American bent nearly 6 to 1, and they bomb (excuse the pun) financially one after the another. That Redford movie with Tom Cruise, I mean did they even make enough to cover Cruise's salary? That "Elijah something" movie with Tommy Lee Jones, and there's "Redacted" with that cute blonde, and now there's a new one coming out with Ryan Phillipe in which he plays a soldier trying to resist redeployment via the courts. Are you telling me there's not a thousand different missions, situations and scenarios that have occurred in 5 years of war that shows the heroism and dedication these men (& some women) have? I remember reading about a convoy, with "no stop orders" in which a 2nd LT in the lead vehicle did in fact bring it to a halt much to the cursing rants of his CO in the back vehicle. There was a little Iraqi girl, 7 or 8, sitting in the road, she wouldn't budge and he refused to run her over of course, so he stopped and got out in a bad neighborhood - extremely dangerous - to move her from harm. He soon noticed she was squatting down next to a IED meant for their convoy. A US soldier had given her candy the day before and she was trying to repay them for their kindness by alerting them of the bomb but she spoke no English so she just sat next to the thing hoping they would get the message. It saved that Lieutenants life. Are you telling me that an entire movie can't be built around that one story?? There are no John Waynes left in Hollywood and they'd never give an Audie Murphy (an actual combat vet) a chance in the first place nowadays ... unless he had tales of atrocities we've perpetrated of course.

*****

Sean Hannitty & McCain. His radio show now sucks. Not because of his politics mind you, but his format. He was (& is) Rush's Letterman and it was a good show because he went heavy on interviews as opposed to Rush whom nearly never has guests. BB Netenyahu (sp?) and other interesting people having intelligent discussions about war etc. But he's layed off that and mumbles far too many empty platitudes now. Compared to Savage (agree with his politics or not) he sounds like an uneducated boob, again not due to politics but show style and format. The TV side is much better. That being said he noted that he agrees with McCain 65% of the time, not 85 Titus, that I know. In either case you may very well be correct in that McCain just wants the law changed to be clear on the legality of water boarding, and that's a defensible position, however, his desire to shut down GITMO is purely political in my estimation and he offers no alternative like Jambo's suggestion of a Siberian site. GITMO is a buzz word with its own urban mythology attached in leftists circles just like Halliburton, Enron & Cheney. He's trying to distinguish himself from Bush's approach to the war with Islamists and that's hard to do mainly because there is no discernible difference at this point, so GITMO is an attempt at that and one that will be detrimental top our efforts in my opinion. GITMO is perhaps the most efficient, professionally run detainment facility in the world and only the highest level threats are kept there. To just turn them over to our judiciary, which is McCain's inevitable answer to what happens when he closes it, is falderal of the highest order. They are in no way protected by our Constitution. The UCMJ, yes, but not the US judiciary. By the way, there are many a learned scholars that interpret the law so as to give Bush the absolute authority to order water boarding now, without a change in the law. If McCain subscribes to a different interpretation and wants the law changed, fine, but his wish to simply "close down" GITMO is flawed at best as long as he wants them to avail themselves of our criminal courts. I'm open to handing them over to their respective nations assuming they are allies in our war on terror (Egyptian secret police get a hold of them and they'll be begging for the warm breezes of Cuba I assure you), but that arrangement must be in place prior to the executive order to shut down the facility (as a detainment camp). And thus far McCain has not stated that this would be the end game with those enemy combatants which leads me to believe he will allow them to enter our courts, make bail, be loose in the country, etc. Remember that discussion we had in which I pointed to that Dr. Phares analysis of the differing "tiers" in fundamentalist Islam? He gave hard numbers to the enemy we face and of that top tier (the most deadly) he named them at a few hundred here already in the US. You grant those detainees - whom are certainly in that top tier - access to the US judiciary and you'''ll double that number in a single day ... no thank you good Senator. By the way to answer your question:

Why is it wrong to spend tax dollars on supporting Mexican nationals incarcerated in the US for breaking our laws, but perfectly fine to do the same for 349 “enemy combatants” over the last 7 years?

You can't be serious. Namely because Mexican nationals in jail are there for crimes such as theft, rape etc - horrible crimes no doubt but they are not flying planes into buildings as a part of waging war on our nation! And more importantly to note - they committed crimes on US soil as opposed to being caught on the field of battle in far away lands - and that's HUGE! We don't send people attempting terrorists acts within the US to GITMO, we charge them here, thus the term "ENEMY COMBATANTS." And if GITMO allows for more aggressive intelligence recovery, as opposed to our court system, then I want as many terrorists as possible to end up there. And as soon as Mexican nationals organize a fundamentalists religion which seeks the destruction of the United Sates, is well funded, enters foreign theaters of engagement, and we determine they may have actionable intel on affecting those aims via future attacks, then I'll be all for sending Pedro to GITMO.... you dink.

*****

Our image? Over all it's FANTASTIC around the world. The US "brand" is phenomenal. It is a myth that we are somehow seen in an overall unfavorable light. The same US press that you stated couldn't give you a single unbiased account of our war efforts, while sitting on your front stoop with the morning cup of joe, is responsible for that complete fallacy. There is a loud, organized minority of people in Europe (and lets be frank, that's who we're talking about when we say "our image", Western Europe & Russia) and everyone from the BBC to Reuters to CBS makes a living out of highlighting them. In Canada, France, and Australia their people have all elected or maintained center-right chief executives during Bush's tenure. France is the most glowing example mainly because in their recent presidential election there was a rabidly anti-American candidate whom was utterly rejected for Sarcozi(sp?) - whom spoke glowingly of America. He vacationed here recently, the first French President to do so in over 30 years, and addressed our Congress in the most complimentary of terms. The growing consensus among Western leaders and policy makers -in my estimation - is that they can only afford to alienate the US via rhetoric and action for so long before realizing we are the free worlds best friend.

Again this "image" nonsense is a political tool that has no real meaning to it accept to infer that we are perpetually in the wrong because we look out for US interests first and everybody else second. What is he going to do? Nothing he has promised to do will turn the hearts and minds of those whom oppose America via Bush hatred now. NOTHING. He can change the Department of State all he wants but he'll follow the current policy in Iraq; follow the policy of protecting America's interests around the world first; follow our unmatched charity for AIDS in Africa and all other ails of humanity around the world, and whomever dislikes us now will dislike us then, period. Like I said, its politics pure and simple to say he'll enhance our image around the world. It's an empty campaign year platitude that is in no way actionable as CIC and its' "America's always wrong" inference pisses me off to no end.

****

Environmentalism? You wrote:

Environmentalism. As I have stated countless times in the past, this does NOT have to be a four-letter word to the GOP. Rational and reasonable managing of natural resources in a nation that does, indeed, have a finite amount of many vital resources is simply good planning, not pandering to a paranoid fringe. Giving profitable tax relief to companies and manufacturers that can both maintain productivity and reduce pollution or waste is a fantastic way to stimulate an economy AND promote a “greener” America. No concessions need be made to such dubious threats as “global warming”, when simple, measurable means like “cleaner, less polluting” measures can work just as well and go MILES further to make the public sympathetic to the effort.

Again I must apply the word "dink." THIS IS ALL HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!! This is the case as we sit in the here and now. The GOP isn't pro-pollution for goodness sake. Bush endorses (whether he aptly executes is another story) all of this and so does our party. The reason we are tagged with being "anti-environment" is because we don't buy into (by and large its namely conservatives within the GOP) man made Global Warming. McCain can remove all 1:1 pollution of man to a river or air he wants but if he doesn't publicly state, as both president and the leader of his party, that man-made global warming is real and occurring and that we are taking demonstrable steps to combat it then he will still be criticized by Gore &the enviro-whackos as being anti-environment. Nothing will change perception wise concerning the Republican Party if he doesn't publicly state that Gore & company are right and have been right all along, and that's why my opinion is that his current inferences/strategy concerning "enviromentalism" is wrongheaded. He's saddling up the fence in terms of the debate on global warming and he'll ride it to precisely where it takes every other politician - nowhere. Here's what I mean: his philosophy concerning this topic was summed up in a GOP debate some months back. His approach is basically look, if man induced global warming is real then we will have averted it by taking action and if it is not then all we've done is leave a cleaner world for our children. The problem is that that statement pisses off BOTH SIDES. He's got Hannitty and I concerned this will mean he'll buy into the credit swapping/buying scam that's meant to bilk highly industrialized nations in order to fill the coffers of the UN, not to mention go along with ever tougher environmental standards being placed on business and thus hindering entrepreneurship; and on the other side they get steamed that he isn't in lock step with the notion that capitalism is killing mother earth. And while we're at it, that's really what this hoax of global warming is all about. It is the last legitimate respite for socialists the world over. I believe there are 3 types that follow the Al Gore version of "consensus science." Here's my theory: 1.) There are socialists that have always opposed capitalism because there are no guaranteed results for all. They truly believe that guaranteeing only the opportunity is heartless and cruel and they'll use your tax dollars to prove it. They love the "green" movement because they move the economic conversation away from the logic of a free market to the emotion engendering discussion of our planet. They embrace global warming because it confirms that capitalism is "bad". They make up the majority of green people and are its leaders (Gore et al). 2.) People for whom, Christianity, Judaism, and moderate Islam all offer too rigid of a code in order to be deemed "good" find that the religion of global warming allows them to claim that mantle - "I'm a good person" because they recycle without those pesky commandments hindering their fun. After all there's nothing about coveting your neighbors wife in that lot. You can do all the cocaine you want, make pornography and cheat on your wife but if you show up to Earth Day rallies Leonardo DiCaprio will still call you a swell guy. They're the second biggest group. 3.) Dolts. Good hearted but ignorant peoples that just want to do the right thing and have been scammed into believing that this is it. They're the minority.

Back to MCain - he needs to wage a PR war on what "McCain environmentalism" will look like - namely common sense regulations that are both business and community friendly; prosecuting real polluters (chemicals being dumped into rivers to save a few bucks for example); and a sound energy policy based on national security via making us more independent versus green - and that distinction is HUGE. The former does not include CO2 swapping credits, making less SUV's or buying longer lasting light bulbs. THEN he will have Hannitty et al endorsing his program and its logical approach will be both defensible and appealing to independents and moderates alike. But as long as he continues to use platitudes like "environmentalism" thinking its politically apt, and says things like "maybe man made climate change is real and maybe its not, but lets proceed like it is", then he'll be subject to criticism on both sides and have me believing that he thinks turning off the lights during a football game broadcast (as GE ordered Berman to do during a game aired on NBC) was good for mother earth rather then the absolute nonsense that it was. If he's not playing to the fringe in that movement then let him say so and prove it with a specific and measurable policy initiative, but don't blame Hannitty, it's McCain's responsibility to make that clear - and until he does Hannitty and I are rightly suspicious.

****

You ARE a conservative. And please, enough with the poly-sci 101 pure definitions, it's mind numbing - I KNOW THAT'S THE TECHNICAL DEFINITION! I went to class too! I'm talking the political reality of what that word has come to mean. MUST we do this every time? If you go on TV in NEPA,or anywhere in America for that matter ,and state that you are a pro life, 2nd amendment defending, lower tax, responsible government spending, ACLU hating American, then ask the viewers if you're liberal or conservative they'll scream conservative. "Liberals" who shout Minutemen off stage during a speech at their campus or vote to eject military recruiters from their university certainly aren't "liberals" in the classical/technical sense either, but we're talking the current American political dialogue, and your insistence that "resisting change" is the only definition allowable in that discourse is out of step with reality. By the way, resistant to change is a very good thing if the change recommended is redefining marriage, allowing the abortion of fetuses, unconstitutionally restricting gun ownership, etc....

On the parties themselves, yes they're both guilty of hypocrisy (I've noted that there is no national security - Bush's bread & butter issue - without the enforcement of our sovereignty along the border), but I couldn't help to notice something about the DNC amongst this Hillary/Obama fight. Super Delegates. Do you know what they are and why they're there? There isn't any in the GOP. There are a few hundred of these and from what I can gather this system, of placing special emphasis and weight on the choice of party leaders (congressmen, governors, the chairman etc) was installed to avoid another McGovern 49 state landslide. In other words the party elders implemented this system so that in case the rank & file, the actual Democrat Party voters, chose someone the elders deemed "unfit" for the general election, they could come in, disenfranchise that vote completely and overturn the voters verdict and give the nomination to whomever they choose. They could, stiil at this late date, give it to Gore if they wanted - a man whom no one ever went into the ballot and voted on. It makes me chuckle, because that is the bare naked essence of the modern Democrat Party - they do not trust the individual man and woman to come to the correct conclusion. You aren't capable of making decisions on your healthcare, so we'll do it for you. You aren't cacapble being responsible for your own safety so we'll take your guns away and do it for you. You aren't cacapble of choosing a proper education for your child so we'll choose for you. You aren't capoable of spending your own money wisely, so we'll do it for you. And you can't even VOTE properly, so we'll choose your candidate for you. Well hell, how did we ever get along without them? They are the UNDemocratic Party if there ever was one.

****

Bush's War. No, I haven't gone on line to make sure I saw all of it, but I know I saw a good chunk. Even so I will today. However, let me just say this in concurence with Jambo. YES, the ultimate "buck" does stop with the CIC, however his judgment is only as good as the intel he gets, for better or worse (worse with Carter & Clinton). From MI6 to French special inteligence (or whatever they call themselves) to Mosad to our own CIA chief using the phrase "slam dunk" we all believed Saddam had WMD, and perhaps even Saddam did too. And when I say "all". I mean people like Kerry & Clinton whose speeches, were I to remove the name, one would think came from Bush. On that note there was a inteligence failure, however, whether Bush properly articulated it or allowed support fpor war to publicly swell around an ultimately dlawed topiv (wmd's), there is no doubt the action was both legal and neccessary. In his presidency he has dfone more to lend credibility to the UN Security Councile then all presidents combined (minus Raeagan given Russia is now a democracy, hence presumably more credible then the USSR) in the last 30 years. To allow yet another resolution to go ignored (what were we up to, 28, 19?) in a post 9/11 world would have, in my opinion, regulated the UN to the history's trash bin, along side the Leauge of nations. And to dovetail with that notion, of failed alliances, I do happen to like McCain's proposal to establish a "Leauge of Democracies", which would be like the UN only get things done. Chavez & the "Castro brothers" as Bush referrs to tem would be denied entry at the door. No more Sudan on the human rights councile there.

Alright, I'm off to watch the documentary. And by the way, although it may be the most comprehensive compilation of the lead up to war to date (keep in mind there's a new book out about John Adams), it certainly can not be described as objective in its totality. Joe Wilson, a known liar and Kerry capmaign supporter, used as a credible witness regarding yellow cake & over the MI6 report - come on; and as Jambo pointed out, journalists assigning motives to Bush (like he "just doesn't like to fire people") are higly subjective. It may be worth watching in its entirety, and I will, but lets not start with "its an objective masterpeice" lingo, okay.