HEHE, Jambo can't drink. Anyways I'm glad he made it safe and wish I was there to help empty the ice chest but I'm down here sewing up fools that want to try and take their legs off with chain saws. It was an interesting day in the ER for sure.
Let me know if Jambo makes a fool of himself so I have some good ammo when he gets back.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Bund Update...
For all the lurkers... and Baddboy, of course...
Jambo made it fine. He arrived yesterday just as he was supposed to, and we grilled and drank beer till none of us could stay awake another minute.
Today, Ryan was scheduled to fly in... at 4:30 PM. I got a call late in the morning from him, saying that he had missed his flight due to a long wait in the security line and wouldn't be landing till 10:30 PM.
How much you do you want to wager that he waited till the last minute to leave for the airport and didn't factor in more than 45 minutes to check in and get through security? If you know Ryan, you know he loves cutting it close... and I'm betting today he cut it TOO close.
Hehe... that's F. Ryan, to a tee. I guess I'll have to buy more ice to keep the beer cold while he kills three more hours in Chicago. LOL
Jambo made it fine. He arrived yesterday just as he was supposed to, and we grilled and drank beer till none of us could stay awake another minute.
Today, Ryan was scheduled to fly in... at 4:30 PM. I got a call late in the morning from him, saying that he had missed his flight due to a long wait in the security line and wouldn't be landing till 10:30 PM.
How much you do you want to wager that he waited till the last minute to leave for the airport and didn't factor in more than 45 minutes to check in and get through security? If you know Ryan, you know he loves cutting it close... and I'm betting today he cut it TOO close.
Hehe... that's F. Ryan, to a tee. I guess I'll have to buy more ice to keep the beer cold while he kills three more hours in Chicago. LOL
Sunday, May 25, 2008
It's easy...
Two choices, Baddboy:
Get in your vehicle and drive north till you get to Scranton, PA, then hang a left... or hop a MAC flight to MacGuire AFB in New Jersey and I'll pick you up (it's about two hours away from my front door). Then it can be "all about you"... LOL
My apologies for not sending you an invite, but surely you must know you are as welcome as anyone else! Far more than Jambo, for Pete's sake.
The article was good, and correct. The GOP has to focus on his "leftist" issues right from the start... the man makes Clinton look conservative. However, it isn't his policies that scare me as much as the bias he controls in the media.
Look at some of his gaffs, man! 57 states and "one to go"? Bush mispronounces "nuclear" once too many times, and is labeled an idiot for life, but Obama suddenly thinks the US has 58 states and no one blinks an eye. "Iran is no threat", but less than 24 hours later "Iran is a very grave threat" is a BIG flip-flop, bigger by far than Kerry's voting record... but the media ignores it. The man has made more verbal mistakes than Quayle, and has half his political experience... yet he remains the darling of the media, unable to err no matter how hard he tries.
Unless McCain focuses on Obama's idiotic statements (which I certainly hope are within the bounds of his "higher ground" campaign), the media will ignore Obama's mistakes or spin them for him. Keith Olbermann is the brightest example of this kind of biased reporting and commentary.
The man is a walking example of doctrinal contradiction... we just have to let all of America see it.
Can't end without mentioning Obama's reference to how "bad" it is to have veterans as CIC (he said he was referring to an article, but I'm sure he agrees with the sentiment). Too much mental instability resulting from combat and life-threatening experiences, it seems. Has he forgotten that prior to Clinton's Presidency, EVERY SINGLE Democrat President for the last 40 years was a veteran? James Carter (US Navy), LBJ (US Navy), JFK (US Navy), Harry Truman (US Army). These are just the Dems, too... every one of the six GOP Presidents we've had also served. Even Reagan, although (like Johnson) he never saw combat theater duty while in the service.
Funny thing, though... of the 10 Presidents that DID serve in the military since FDR (and Clinton is the ONLY one that didn't serve at all), only 3 were Army (Ike, Truman, and Reagan). The rest?
All Navy men. Four decorated combat veterans, and one of the better CIC's (Bush Sr.) a very distinguished naval aviator. Seems history is in favor of McCain for President, doesn't it?
Get in your vehicle and drive north till you get to Scranton, PA, then hang a left... or hop a MAC flight to MacGuire AFB in New Jersey and I'll pick you up (it's about two hours away from my front door). Then it can be "all about you"... LOL
My apologies for not sending you an invite, but surely you must know you are as welcome as anyone else! Far more than Jambo, for Pete's sake.
The article was good, and correct. The GOP has to focus on his "leftist" issues right from the start... the man makes Clinton look conservative. However, it isn't his policies that scare me as much as the bias he controls in the media.
Look at some of his gaffs, man! 57 states and "one to go"? Bush mispronounces "nuclear" once too many times, and is labeled an idiot for life, but Obama suddenly thinks the US has 58 states and no one blinks an eye. "Iran is no threat", but less than 24 hours later "Iran is a very grave threat" is a BIG flip-flop, bigger by far than Kerry's voting record... but the media ignores it. The man has made more verbal mistakes than Quayle, and has half his political experience... yet he remains the darling of the media, unable to err no matter how hard he tries.
Unless McCain focuses on Obama's idiotic statements (which I certainly hope are within the bounds of his "higher ground" campaign), the media will ignore Obama's mistakes or spin them for him. Keith Olbermann is the brightest example of this kind of biased reporting and commentary.
The man is a walking example of doctrinal contradiction... we just have to let all of America see it.
Can't end without mentioning Obama's reference to how "bad" it is to have veterans as CIC (he said he was referring to an article, but I'm sure he agrees with the sentiment). Too much mental instability resulting from combat and life-threatening experiences, it seems. Has he forgotten that prior to Clinton's Presidency, EVERY SINGLE Democrat President for the last 40 years was a veteran? James Carter (US Navy), LBJ (US Navy), JFK (US Navy), Harry Truman (US Army). These are just the Dems, too... every one of the six GOP Presidents we've had also served. Even Reagan, although (like Johnson) he never saw combat theater duty while in the service.
Funny thing, though... of the 10 Presidents that DID serve in the military since FDR (and Clinton is the ONLY one that didn't serve at all), only 3 were Army (Ike, Truman, and Reagan). The rest?
All Navy men. Four decorated combat veterans, and one of the better CIC's (Bush Sr.) a very distinguished naval aviator. Seems history is in favor of McCain for President, doesn't it?
Saturday, May 24, 2008
What about me?!?!?!?
KK, so the bund is going to be in person and I'm stuck here with nothing to laugh at. If you guys have forgotten, let me remind you it's all about me!!! I haven't verified this article so I can't be held responsible for the accuracy but this was sent to me today and I thought you might want to read it.
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics. The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential front runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.' Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists -something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk. Next, consider economic policy For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clintonas well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs?Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck. Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked -Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is movingin that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban -ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and SanFrancisco values, not Middle America values. The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and- yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war.
Kind of scary, wouldn't you think
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics. The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential front runner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.' Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists -something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk. Next, consider economic policy For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clintonas well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs?Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck. Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked -Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is movingin that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban -ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and SanFrancisco values, not Middle America values. The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and- yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilization war.
Kind of scary, wouldn't you think
Damn... quiet again
And it's only going to get worse starting this week.
That's because the Bund will be at MY house in NEPA. From Tuesday to Tuesday, Ryan, Jambo and myself will be holding these debates and arguments face-to-face, rather than having them on the web for all to see and follow.
You'll just have to wait for the commentary after the event.
That's because the Bund will be at MY house in NEPA. From Tuesday to Tuesday, Ryan, Jambo and myself will be holding these debates and arguments face-to-face, rather than having them on the web for all to see and follow.
You'll just have to wait for the commentary after the event.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Mac/Jindal?
Did I read that right? Bobby Jindal is on the four-name "short list" for VP candidate?
Look, don't get me wrong... the man is solid. Catholic, born in Baton Rogue, LA (so he really is Southern), and real conservative in his make up. He has had a meteoric rise in the Party since his '06 re-election to Congress (winning almost 90% of the vote), and is the first non-white Governor of LA, and only the second Republican to win the Governorship since 1877 and the end of Reconstruction.
But, damn... the guy has only been Governor since October, and he was born in '71! That makes him damn near as young as Ryan...
Is this the GOP (and McCain) pandering to minorities again, or is he really the best choice for the job? I can see wanting some youth behind Mac's age on the ticket, but that's a 40-year swing, right there.
Look, don't get me wrong... the man is solid. Catholic, born in Baton Rogue, LA (so he really is Southern), and real conservative in his make up. He has had a meteoric rise in the Party since his '06 re-election to Congress (winning almost 90% of the vote), and is the first non-white Governor of LA, and only the second Republican to win the Governorship since 1877 and the end of Reconstruction.
But, damn... the guy has only been Governor since October, and he was born in '71! That makes him damn near as young as Ryan...
Is this the GOP (and McCain) pandering to minorities again, or is he really the best choice for the job? I can see wanting some youth behind Mac's age on the ticket, but that's a 40-year swing, right there.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I was doing some reading...
... after hearing about Ted Kennedy's malignant brain tumor. Made me think about the passing of an era. He is the last vestige of my mom's Democratic Party. And while nothing he did outshone the shadow of Chappaquiddick (I know I butchered that), for the eulogy he gave Robert alone I need to pause out of respect.
I can hear Ryan and Baddboy now, each choking on their coffees.
For real now. Think about it. Everyone here has a brother. Everyone here has seen family in crisis. And no matter what sins Ted is taking to the grave, there was a moment in his life where he stood and sang the praises of his big brother out of tribute and not out of self glorification. It's not hard to find the text, and if you find a streaming video even better, but in the eulogy where he talks about Robert seeing wrong and wanting to right it, tell me that doesn't make your throat tight with emotion. (Not bile, Baddboy. I know this is hard for you.)
It brings up a thought. Could Robert have beaten Nixon in '68?
It was in Robert's platform for a unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam. His record on civil rights, social programs and defense were well documented. He very well could have been a far better president than his brother. And imagine the state of our nation without Watergate, without the bitterness of a Ford pardon, (no matter how right the act was) without the necessity of the disgrace of a presidential resignation. Robert could have made Camelot work.
Man, no wonder Mom is bitter.
And think of this. With no Nixon and Ford, there is no Carter. A very real possibility for president in 1976, following the political pendulum swing, would be Reagan.
Wow.
I can hear Ryan and Baddboy now, each choking on their coffees.
For real now. Think about it. Everyone here has a brother. Everyone here has seen family in crisis. And no matter what sins Ted is taking to the grave, there was a moment in his life where he stood and sang the praises of his big brother out of tribute and not out of self glorification. It's not hard to find the text, and if you find a streaming video even better, but in the eulogy where he talks about Robert seeing wrong and wanting to right it, tell me that doesn't make your throat tight with emotion. (Not bile, Baddboy. I know this is hard for you.)
It brings up a thought. Could Robert have beaten Nixon in '68?
It was in Robert's platform for a unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam. His record on civil rights, social programs and defense were well documented. He very well could have been a far better president than his brother. And imagine the state of our nation without Watergate, without the bitterness of a Ford pardon, (no matter how right the act was) without the necessity of the disgrace of a presidential resignation. Robert could have made Camelot work.
Man, no wonder Mom is bitter.
And think of this. With no Nixon and Ford, there is no Carter. A very real possibility for president in 1976, following the political pendulum swing, would be Reagan.
Wow.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Mac and Huck?
More and more I'm hearing discussions of Huckabee as the running mate to McCain.
He fits the criteria as I see them, and as have been discussed here: a measurable conservative record, Southern, openly religious, with strong executive experience. In fact, his Southern background and religious affiliation probably are what kept him in the race as long as he was, over someone with all the money and charisma he faced from Romney, and the name recognition Mac had.
Is he the right choice though? I don't really have a problem with Huck... honestly. I certainly don't agree with him on the details of his faith, but his moral fiber has proven to be very impressive without taking over his image (as Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson allowed to happen). He has a fairly good record as Governor of Arkansas, and can show leadership that brought about real fiscal progress in a state that was facing budgetary bankruptcy at one point.
Senators don't have a good record winning the White House, but this year one will. However, I am convinced that we are facing a one-term President in '08. Neither Dem will manage to deliver their promises in 4 years (or I pray they won't), and what they do deliver will NOT help the country. Mac's age may very well be a factor in his NOT running again in '12. That means that (if Mac wins) the GOP's best bet for a '12 victory is having a VP that is very nearly as popular as the President.
The Reagan administration made sure to keep Bush Sr. in the light for the better part of 8 years, and his active role in the administration won him (among other things) the election in '88. Quayle's less-than active role in the Bush White House had the opposite effect, and cost the GOP in '92. Clinton kept Gore by his side and on-camera for 8 years, and only Bill's stupidity kept Gore out of his own Presidency. Cheney... well, Dick has certainly had his share of the lime-light since '00, but it hasn't been flattering most of the time... and he didn't run anyway. He certainly wouldn't have won, if he had. That's the price of being the "voice behind the throne" when things go wrong.
Mac has shown himself to be a Republican that bucked Bush... so do the need another as VP? Wouldn't a popular, more conservative, younger (yes, I know nearly everyone is younger) running mate go further? I'm not in favor of "crossing the aisle" in VP selection... I like Joe Lieberman, but he'd kill the GOP ticket. So would any choice of VP seen as based on minority pandering... Michael Steel or Kay Bailey Hutchison, say.
What the McCain Camp needs is SUCCESS. Too much of McCain's past has come back to haunt him... campaign finance, immigration compromise, Gang of 14, etc. Why has no one spent any time discussing Crist, Barbour, Daniels or Perdue as running mates? All solid conservatives with good, measurable success as executives... and yes, Huckabee can be on that list too... but he is ALL you hear about.
Why do you think that is?
He fits the criteria as I see them, and as have been discussed here: a measurable conservative record, Southern, openly religious, with strong executive experience. In fact, his Southern background and religious affiliation probably are what kept him in the race as long as he was, over someone with all the money and charisma he faced from Romney, and the name recognition Mac had.
Is he the right choice though? I don't really have a problem with Huck... honestly. I certainly don't agree with him on the details of his faith, but his moral fiber has proven to be very impressive without taking over his image (as Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson allowed to happen). He has a fairly good record as Governor of Arkansas, and can show leadership that brought about real fiscal progress in a state that was facing budgetary bankruptcy at one point.
Senators don't have a good record winning the White House, but this year one will. However, I am convinced that we are facing a one-term President in '08. Neither Dem will manage to deliver their promises in 4 years (or I pray they won't), and what they do deliver will NOT help the country. Mac's age may very well be a factor in his NOT running again in '12. That means that (if Mac wins) the GOP's best bet for a '12 victory is having a VP that is very nearly as popular as the President.
The Reagan administration made sure to keep Bush Sr. in the light for the better part of 8 years, and his active role in the administration won him (among other things) the election in '88. Quayle's less-than active role in the Bush White House had the opposite effect, and cost the GOP in '92. Clinton kept Gore by his side and on-camera for 8 years, and only Bill's stupidity kept Gore out of his own Presidency. Cheney... well, Dick has certainly had his share of the lime-light since '00, but it hasn't been flattering most of the time... and he didn't run anyway. He certainly wouldn't have won, if he had. That's the price of being the "voice behind the throne" when things go wrong.
Mac has shown himself to be a Republican that bucked Bush... so do the need another as VP? Wouldn't a popular, more conservative, younger (yes, I know nearly everyone is younger) running mate go further? I'm not in favor of "crossing the aisle" in VP selection... I like Joe Lieberman, but he'd kill the GOP ticket. So would any choice of VP seen as based on minority pandering... Michael Steel or Kay Bailey Hutchison, say.
What the McCain Camp needs is SUCCESS. Too much of McCain's past has come back to haunt him... campaign finance, immigration compromise, Gang of 14, etc. Why has no one spent any time discussing Crist, Barbour, Daniels or Perdue as running mates? All solid conservatives with good, measurable success as executives... and yes, Huckabee can be on that list too... but he is ALL you hear about.
Why do you think that is?
Monday, May 19, 2008
Unfortunately we are both right
If you ask Jambo sometime he can tell you that noone is more pro-fathers rights than myself. The reasons for that are subject for a future line of posts. I don't think that I could agree with you more. A mothers right to choose life or death for her unborn child without the fathers consent is unacceptable. The mothers right to choose life or death for her unborn child without consideration for the soul of that child is also unacceptable.
Now for the big BUT......
Due to the stance taken so strongly on both sides we as a nation are incapable of a compromise on this issue or with any other for that matter. Since that is the case the only reasonable solution to the issue at this point is to keep it legal, for health of the mother reasons. I still hold to the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the mother wants to make a bad decision doesn't mean she should have to risk sterilization, infection and death. There are reasons to terminate pregnancy that in my opinion are reasonable such as risk of death to the mother by attempting to carry a sick child. There are times that the child cannot survive birth and becomes taxing on the mother to carry the child to term. Instances of pregnancy brought on by rape and molestation. For all of these reasons therapeutic abortions need to be legal and available.
Baddboy
Now for the big BUT......
Due to the stance taken so strongly on both sides we as a nation are incapable of a compromise on this issue or with any other for that matter. Since that is the case the only reasonable solution to the issue at this point is to keep it legal, for health of the mother reasons. I still hold to the opinion that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the mother wants to make a bad decision doesn't mean she should have to risk sterilization, infection and death. There are reasons to terminate pregnancy that in my opinion are reasonable such as risk of death to the mother by attempting to carry a sick child. There are times that the child cannot survive birth and becomes taxing on the mother to carry the child to term. Instances of pregnancy brought on by rape and molestation. For all of these reasons therapeutic abortions need to be legal and available.
Baddboy
Sunday, May 18, 2008
One more thing...
Let’s use your example for a minute. You say that Roe v. Wade was the right decision because it means your daughters can go to a safe, clean facility to end a pregnancy for reasons they do not have to divulge (thus, maintaining their right to privacy). Your daughters have this “individual right” to privacy because they are individual human beings, and the Constitution of the United States recognizes that they have these Rights, and acts as a protection for those Rights against limitation or infringement by the Government.
I maintain that your daughters are individuals because from the moment of THEIR conception, they had a unique, “one-in-a-trillion” DNA signature that means they are not a portion of another person (meaning the mother) but are separate beings, even if they must have someone else feed them, cloth them, monitor them, and provide for them for at least the first several years of their “individual” lives. No more fundamental definition of individuality can exist than the very DNA that defines us.
How, then, can we separate the individual nature of the “mother” of a child, but not the individual nature of the child itself, or the father (who needed to be involved or this wouldn’t be an issue at all). Why does a mother’s right to end the pregnancy supersede the right of the child, simply because the child cannot survive without the mother? The child’s rights are recognized once the child is born, and the rights of the child are seen to exist in the case of violence or murder against a pregnant woman (thus, the double-murder charge in the Lacey Peterson case), but when the question is between the woman’s right to end the pregnancy and the right of the child to have a chance to live a normal productive life, the woman’s right ALWAYS supersede the child’s.
IF (and this is a big IF) Texas, or any State, prior to Roe had, indeed, been violating a woman’s right to privacy, then it was the “obligation” of the Court to rule in favor of the plaintiff. It would then, however, have been the “responsibility” of the Court to define the means in which the “rights” of the child were to be seen as viably protected by the Constitution… but this wasn’t the case. Nor was it the case that a FATHER’S rights were defined in regard to this issue.
The First Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to speak as he chooses, so long as his speech doesn’t limit or remove another person’s rights as defined by the Constitution. One cannot walk into a theater and yell “FIRE!” simply because one enjoys watching the panic and confusion of the resulting exodus… that is a violation of everyone else’s civil rights. As much as the Courts are intended to limit Government’s role in our lives, they also ensure that no individual’s exercise of their rights supersedes or infringes upon another’s. The Burger Court’s ruling in Roe may have satisfied the former criteria, but it failed miserably in the latter.
I maintain that your daughters are individuals because from the moment of THEIR conception, they had a unique, “one-in-a-trillion” DNA signature that means they are not a portion of another person (meaning the mother) but are separate beings, even if they must have someone else feed them, cloth them, monitor them, and provide for them for at least the first several years of their “individual” lives. No more fundamental definition of individuality can exist than the very DNA that defines us.
How, then, can we separate the individual nature of the “mother” of a child, but not the individual nature of the child itself, or the father (who needed to be involved or this wouldn’t be an issue at all). Why does a mother’s right to end the pregnancy supersede the right of the child, simply because the child cannot survive without the mother? The child’s rights are recognized once the child is born, and the rights of the child are seen to exist in the case of violence or murder against a pregnant woman (thus, the double-murder charge in the Lacey Peterson case), but when the question is between the woman’s right to end the pregnancy and the right of the child to have a chance to live a normal productive life, the woman’s right ALWAYS supersede the child’s.
IF (and this is a big IF) Texas, or any State, prior to Roe had, indeed, been violating a woman’s right to privacy, then it was the “obligation” of the Court to rule in favor of the plaintiff. It would then, however, have been the “responsibility” of the Court to define the means in which the “rights” of the child were to be seen as viably protected by the Constitution… but this wasn’t the case. Nor was it the case that a FATHER’S rights were defined in regard to this issue.
The First Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to speak as he chooses, so long as his speech doesn’t limit or remove another person’s rights as defined by the Constitution. One cannot walk into a theater and yell “FIRE!” simply because one enjoys watching the panic and confusion of the resulting exodus… that is a violation of everyone else’s civil rights. As much as the Courts are intended to limit Government’s role in our lives, they also ensure that no individual’s exercise of their rights supersedes or infringes upon another’s. The Burger Court’s ruling in Roe may have satisfied the former criteria, but it failed miserably in the latter.
I see no contradiction...
But I will respect your opinion and your right to voice it.
The Roe decision said that no State or Government agency can limit the choice of a woman to abort a pregnancy up to the point of "viability", without violating her civil rights. The problem with Roe is that no adequate definition of "viability" was made, and absolutely no consideration was given for the RIGHTS of the BABY or the FATHER in the decision-making process. Texas was violating "Roe's" right to get the abortion... so the decision went against Texas laws that made such abortions illegal. By extension, this now includes ALL States. However, had the FATHER of the child wanted it to go to term, no consideration for HIS rights was given, then or now.
And it goes without saying that those among us who recognize that the "child" within the womb becomes human at conception, rather than birth, feel that no consideration was given to the CHILD'S rights at all.
Couple that with the fact that in 1972, at the time of the decision, the earliest a premature baby had been born and lived (proving itself viable) was right at 30 weeks. Now, infants of 24 weeks have lived with routine regularity... yet the Court and society at large have never taken that into consideration.
The Roe decision was based on a privacy issue, and the mother's right to maintain it. This decision went against the rights of the FATHER and CHILD, in my opinion, and the former's is just as strong as the Mother's, while the latter's should be paramount in the eyes of the Court. Who's rights are more endangered that the defenseless child?
As for "punishing" a juvenile for making a "mistake" (i.e. justifying abortion as birth control), no concerns or worries are voiced of the 16 year old "gang-banger" that kills little old ladies in random drive-by shootings when he is facing his 3rd offense and life without parole, yet the average abortion-seeking teen has 2.5 of them BEFORE they are old enough to vote in this country. When are they expected to take on the responsibility of their actions if the gang-banger is expected to carry his responsibility? The gang-banger is responsible for the life he takes, even at 16... but the pregnant teen has no responsibility for her pregnancy EVER, in the eyes of the pro-abortion camp.
Time and time again I hear the defenders of abortion (this does NOT include Baddboy) saying "You can't legislate morality". However, if I am going to condemn such decisions as Dred Scott and Plessy, then how can I NOT condemn Roe? If institutional slavery in this country is morally wrong, then what right has the Government to make it illegal? If child pornography is morally wrong, then what right has the Government to limit my ability to view it? Because both of those extreme examples violate the rights of others (slaves and children)... but in the Roe decision, no consideration was given to the rights of the FATHER or the CHILD.
This, of course, ignores the simple FACT that all legislation of society and its behaviors defines moral action to some degree or another... but we can save that for another thread.
The Roe decision said that no State or Government agency can limit the choice of a woman to abort a pregnancy up to the point of "viability", without violating her civil rights. The problem with Roe is that no adequate definition of "viability" was made, and absolutely no consideration was given for the RIGHTS of the BABY or the FATHER in the decision-making process. Texas was violating "Roe's" right to get the abortion... so the decision went against Texas laws that made such abortions illegal. By extension, this now includes ALL States. However, had the FATHER of the child wanted it to go to term, no consideration for HIS rights was given, then or now.
And it goes without saying that those among us who recognize that the "child" within the womb becomes human at conception, rather than birth, feel that no consideration was given to the CHILD'S rights at all.
Couple that with the fact that in 1972, at the time of the decision, the earliest a premature baby had been born and lived (proving itself viable) was right at 30 weeks. Now, infants of 24 weeks have lived with routine regularity... yet the Court and society at large have never taken that into consideration.
The Roe decision was based on a privacy issue, and the mother's right to maintain it. This decision went against the rights of the FATHER and CHILD, in my opinion, and the former's is just as strong as the Mother's, while the latter's should be paramount in the eyes of the Court. Who's rights are more endangered that the defenseless child?
As for "punishing" a juvenile for making a "mistake" (i.e. justifying abortion as birth control), no concerns or worries are voiced of the 16 year old "gang-banger" that kills little old ladies in random drive-by shootings when he is facing his 3rd offense and life without parole, yet the average abortion-seeking teen has 2.5 of them BEFORE they are old enough to vote in this country. When are they expected to take on the responsibility of their actions if the gang-banger is expected to carry his responsibility? The gang-banger is responsible for the life he takes, even at 16... but the pregnant teen has no responsibility for her pregnancy EVER, in the eyes of the pro-abortion camp.
Time and time again I hear the defenders of abortion (this does NOT include Baddboy) saying "You can't legislate morality". However, if I am going to condemn such decisions as Dred Scott and Plessy, then how can I NOT condemn Roe? If institutional slavery in this country is morally wrong, then what right has the Government to make it illegal? If child pornography is morally wrong, then what right has the Government to limit my ability to view it? Because both of those extreme examples violate the rights of others (slaves and children)... but in the Roe decision, no consideration was given to the rights of the FATHER or the CHILD.
This, of course, ignores the simple FACT that all legislation of society and its behaviors defines moral action to some degree or another... but we can save that for another thread.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
HAHA love the contradiction
You said "That is the definition of the Court's role, isn't it? To stop the infringement of individual rights by the Government." and yet you are against Roe vs Wade? Miranda vs Arizona was a legitimate ruling...not that I agree with it in whole but it is law enforcements responsibility to inform any suspect of thier rights prior to questioning. No doubt the guys was a dirt bag but...
Roe vs Wade on the other hand as much as the pro-lifers would love to tell you was the wrong decision was the right one. I know how can you be pro-choice and be a conservative? Well I look at it as a health issue not a moral one. I have daughters and I'll be damned that if they decide against everything that I have taught them or tried to instill in them that they are going to get an abortion that I want them to find some dirtbag with a clothes hangar to help them take care of it. Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control but should it come to be then I don't think that she should have to get butchered in the process.
Take it for what it's worth, just my 2 cents again
Baddboy
Roe vs Wade on the other hand as much as the pro-lifers would love to tell you was the wrong decision was the right one. I know how can you be pro-choice and be a conservative? Well I look at it as a health issue not a moral one. I have daughters and I'll be damned that if they decide against everything that I have taught them or tried to instill in them that they are going to get an abortion that I want them to find some dirtbag with a clothes hangar to help them take care of it. Abortion should never be used as a form of birth control but should it come to be then I don't think that she should have to get butchered in the process.
Take it for what it's worth, just my 2 cents again
Baddboy
A good article, from a Dem that even Ryan can like...
Dick Morris has been THE loudest critic of Hillary since she announced her candidacy, and seems to have no love lost for Obama either... the most vocal Democrat that will be casting his vote for Mac in Nov.
I'm posting this article for review because I think much of what he says is true. I really do think Mac needs to court the middle... moderate... voter, and not the base. He is the candidate that can get Dems to cross the aisle and pull a GOP lever, while NO GOP will pull for Hillary/Obama. What else can account for his surging popularity in the face of REAL conservative competition like Romney and Huckabee? What else can account for the rabid hatred of McCain by pundits like Hannity, Coulter, and Levin?
Here's the LINK...
I'm posting this article for review because I think much of what he says is true. I really do think Mac needs to court the middle... moderate... voter, and not the base. He is the candidate that can get Dems to cross the aisle and pull a GOP lever, while NO GOP will pull for Hillary/Obama. What else can account for his surging popularity in the face of REAL conservative competition like Romney and Huckabee? What else can account for the rabid hatred of McCain by pundits like Hannity, Coulter, and Levin?
Here's the LINK...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Let's drum up some interest...
Since I was driving in last night for my grave-shift at the casino, I have heard nothing but discussion after discussion about the California Supreme Court decision to overturn a 2000 referendum vote making same-sex marriages illegal.
Obviously, the left-leaning stations are dancing with joy, while the conservative stations and programs are crying foul. For 5+ hours of radio listening, I have heard Hannity, Wilkow, Levin, and Bennett complain about "activist" courts legislating from the bench.
In fact, I've heard the term "activist" used describe Supreme Court justices that have made many questionable decisions today. The Burger Court's decision in Roe vs Wade is the biggest, but the current Robert Court's upcoming decision about D.C. vs Heller case over the District of Columbia's gun ban is another.
This is particularly important as Ryan just recently read me the riot act about the importance of voting for President's that choose "conservative" justices. So, let's look at some of the most "activist" decisions made in history and see what happens, shall we?
Since 1953, the United States Supreme Court has been led by GOP-appointed Chief Justices... Warren, Burger, Renquist, and now Roberts. That's 55 years of "conservative" leadership from the bench. At no point in the last 35 years has there ever been a majority of justices appointed by Democratic Presidents. Not once. Yet, these are the Courts that have handed down the most "activist" decisions in our lifetime.
Let's look further back, and find the decisions of the "constructionist" Courts. In 1853, the Taney Court decided 7-2 that African Americans were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." This came from a Supreme Court that, excluding this decision, is still seen as the MODEL of constructionist judicial action. In 1896, the Fuller Court decided in Plessy vs Ferguson that "separate but equal" was not discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment... and that decision was 8 to 1.
As much as I am against the ruling in Roe vs Wade, I can't deny that the patently "activist" decision in Brown vs Board of Education (which overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision) not only determined that "separate but equal" IS discrimination, but also was the RIGHT determination. The Warren Court also made landmark "activist" decisions in Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona (you guys can look those up yourselves). These decisions flew in the face of popular referendum law, and determined that States had, in some manner or way, abridged the rights of citizens.
That is the definition of the Court's role, isn't it? To stop the infringement of individual rights by the Government. The Taney Court failed at this in Dred Scott, as did the Fuller Court in Plessy. I do not deny that the Burger Court failed in Roe v. Wade too... let's be clear there.
My question is where does this leave us in regards to "activist" versus "constructionist" benches? How does this stand in the eyes of those looking to base their voting choice on the possibility of a Presidential appointment to the Court?
Obviously, the left-leaning stations are dancing with joy, while the conservative stations and programs are crying foul. For 5+ hours of radio listening, I have heard Hannity, Wilkow, Levin, and Bennett complain about "activist" courts legislating from the bench.
In fact, I've heard the term "activist" used describe Supreme Court justices that have made many questionable decisions today. The Burger Court's decision in Roe vs Wade is the biggest, but the current Robert Court's upcoming decision about D.C. vs Heller case over the District of Columbia's gun ban is another.
This is particularly important as Ryan just recently read me the riot act about the importance of voting for President's that choose "conservative" justices. So, let's look at some of the most "activist" decisions made in history and see what happens, shall we?
Since 1953, the United States Supreme Court has been led by GOP-appointed Chief Justices... Warren, Burger, Renquist, and now Roberts. That's 55 years of "conservative" leadership from the bench. At no point in the last 35 years has there ever been a majority of justices appointed by Democratic Presidents. Not once. Yet, these are the Courts that have handed down the most "activist" decisions in our lifetime.
Let's look further back, and find the decisions of the "constructionist" Courts. In 1853, the Taney Court decided 7-2 that African Americans were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." This came from a Supreme Court that, excluding this decision, is still seen as the MODEL of constructionist judicial action. In 1896, the Fuller Court decided in Plessy vs Ferguson that "separate but equal" was not discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment... and that decision was 8 to 1.
As much as I am against the ruling in Roe vs Wade, I can't deny that the patently "activist" decision in Brown vs Board of Education (which overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision) not only determined that "separate but equal" IS discrimination, but also was the RIGHT determination. The Warren Court also made landmark "activist" decisions in Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona (you guys can look those up yourselves). These decisions flew in the face of popular referendum law, and determined that States had, in some manner or way, abridged the rights of citizens.
That is the definition of the Court's role, isn't it? To stop the infringement of individual rights by the Government. The Taney Court failed at this in Dred Scott, as did the Fuller Court in Plessy. I do not deny that the Burger Court failed in Roe v. Wade too... let's be clear there.
My question is where does this leave us in regards to "activist" versus "constructionist" benches? How does this stand in the eyes of those looking to base their voting choice on the possibility of a Presidential appointment to the Court?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Hello?
Is anyone there?
Childers wins in MS, in a district that voted 65% for the GOP in 2004. McCain ran away with the nomination in a race where he faced no fewer than 3 rock-solid "conservative" candidates (Huckabee, Romney and Paul). Now, the GOP faces the prospect of being only 9 seats away from a Senate "super-minority" and 29 seats away from the same in the House... and this news coming after 3 consecutive losses in special elections in LA, IL and MS. Only 22 of the 50 States still have GOP Governors, and of those 22... how many are "conservative"? Arnold in CA? Lingle in HI? Daniels in IN? I'd bet you'd be hard-pressed to find 16 solid conservatives on that list.
I am rapidly becoming convinced that if the GOP doesn't do something very soon to stem the tide of frustration that is sweeping traditional GOP supporters, the people that will win in '08 and '10 will be "Blue Dogs" and not Conservatives. I don't have a huge problem with that, seeing as how there are quite a few Blue Dogs I could support with a very clear conscience... but I see it giving Ryan fits for years to come.
Now, I'm sure that Ryan is dismissing my opinion here as quickly as he is reading it... but let's look at the facts:
Three Senate seats are up for open elections... meaning no incumbent advantage. The seats are in NM, NE (Hagel is quitting), and IA.
Norm Coleman (R-MN) is up again, and he is NOT very popular right now in a state that is rapidly becoming the DFL hot-bed that it once was (visions of Paul Wellstone swimming before Ryan's eyes).
Sununu (R-NH) is facing a tough and very focused effort to unseat him in '08, and his approval ratings are down because he tends to support an unpopular President.
G. Smith (R-OR) ... a Mormon... is up for re-election, but has changed his stance on many "conservative" issues recently. Is he taking a more moderate line to shore-up his chances in '08?
That's 6 of 9 needed seats that could easily fall to the Dems. What is the GOP doing?
Childers wins in MS, in a district that voted 65% for the GOP in 2004. McCain ran away with the nomination in a race where he faced no fewer than 3 rock-solid "conservative" candidates (Huckabee, Romney and Paul). Now, the GOP faces the prospect of being only 9 seats away from a Senate "super-minority" and 29 seats away from the same in the House... and this news coming after 3 consecutive losses in special elections in LA, IL and MS. Only 22 of the 50 States still have GOP Governors, and of those 22... how many are "conservative"? Arnold in CA? Lingle in HI? Daniels in IN? I'd bet you'd be hard-pressed to find 16 solid conservatives on that list.
I am rapidly becoming convinced that if the GOP doesn't do something very soon to stem the tide of frustration that is sweeping traditional GOP supporters, the people that will win in '08 and '10 will be "Blue Dogs" and not Conservatives. I don't have a huge problem with that, seeing as how there are quite a few Blue Dogs I could support with a very clear conscience... but I see it giving Ryan fits for years to come.
Now, I'm sure that Ryan is dismissing my opinion here as quickly as he is reading it... but let's look at the facts:
Three Senate seats are up for open elections... meaning no incumbent advantage. The seats are in NM, NE (Hagel is quitting), and IA.
Norm Coleman (R-MN) is up again, and he is NOT very popular right now in a state that is rapidly becoming the DFL hot-bed that it once was (visions of Paul Wellstone swimming before Ryan's eyes).
Sununu (R-NH) is facing a tough and very focused effort to unseat him in '08, and his approval ratings are down because he tends to support an unpopular President.
G. Smith (R-OR) ... a Mormon... is up for re-election, but has changed his stance on many "conservative" issues recently. Is he taking a more moderate line to shore-up his chances in '08?
That's 6 of 9 needed seats that could easily fall to the Dems. What is the GOP doing?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Self-fullfilling prophesy...
One of the most heated and hateful "debates" that I recall having with Ryan centered around my comparing the political commentary of Al Franken to Ann Coulter. Last night I had that opinion re-affirmed.
The Sunday night replay on Patriot 144 was the Mike Reagan show, and he had Ann Coulter as a guest. This woman optimizes hateful, elitist, bigoted opinion within the "conservative" right, and if there is ever a day when the 2008 general election becomes a crisis for the Republicans, she can take a large part of the blame.
The woman was so busy patting herself on the back and plugging her books and her syndicated column that very little actual commentary ever escaped her lips, but what was really telling was how little original thought ever showed in her discussion. I can't quite bring myself to give Michael Reagan credit for doing this, but it sure seemed to me like every time she said something that might have been "opinion" or "commentary"... Mike would say "Yeah, that's what So-and-so said yesterday..." or "That's right, just like Whats-his-face said in his article last week..."
One of the few times she actually got her own words our of her mouth, she referred to former President GHW Bush as a "boob in a tie". What more tangible example of Reagan-Republican could you hope for than Reagan's VP for 8 years? I'm no Republican, but even MY report card gives Bush Sr. high marks... his Cabinet was solid, he kicked Iraq's ass, he kicked Noriega's ass, he talked Gorby out of military intervention in Europe at Malta, he furthered the economic growth cycle, he signed NAFTA into law. In fact, the only real mistake you can point from his Administration (aside from vomiting on a dignitary's lap) was the whole "Read my lips" quote. The left used that all the way to the bank.
She never once referred to McCain as a viable GOP candidate for President... she just called him the "old liberal" in comparison to the "young liberal" (Obama) or the "female liberal" (Clinton). She says she still plans to write-in Romney's name on her ballot, because McCain hates conservatives. She kept crediting his success in the primary race to his "wearing the robes of conservatism" for the occasion, not because he believes in the cause.
Is this really how the GOP sees McCain? Does the RNC actually believe that the front-runner of the Party got where he is in the primary race simply because he "saw the light" and promised to change his liberal ways? Why wouldn't the GOP have voted for someone that ALWAYS supported GOP ideals, like Huckabee or Romney... or better yet, Paul? Why go with the "old guy" with the checkered past when they could have had someone more "conservative"? If there was anyone voting today that remembered the "Keating Five"... would McCain have the nomination?
As someone that has seen the path of their "Party" change to such a degree that I feel completely left behind, I wouldn't suggest that the GOP change its platform to suit the latest opinion polls... but perhaps the NEW "conservative revolution" needs to follow some of the winning ideas of the old one. Like abandoning the "Rockefeller Republican" attitude of "Follow ME" and getting back to some grass-roots campaigning to make the voting public understand the GOP position on key issues. Show us WHY the GOP is right, and the left is WRONG... don't just continue to play opposition politics because the Dems are.
Finally... all GOP supporters are drooling over the prospect of the Dems self-destructing in Nov because of the primary split... especially Hannity and Wilkow. But with Huckabee and Romney STILL getting a combined 27% of the GOP vote in Indiana, isn't that possibility still there for the GOP too? Doesn't the fact that more than a quarter of all GOP voters in Indiana chose to WRITE IN a candidate that hasn't been in the race for months tell you that the pundits that are STILL bitching about McCain's aisle-crossing past are setting a rather disturbing precedent for the November election?
Living here in NEPA, I can tell you first hand that I see no fewer than 11 "Ron Paul '08" signs on my way to work, and 6 "Huckabee for President" signs... but not ONE McCain sign. Not ONE. What happens if the Dems DO get their shit together and unite the party at the last minute, while the GOP is still fighting about McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy? How many votes can the GOP afford to lose to a write-in campaign before key states start to fall to the Dems?
The Sunday night replay on Patriot 144 was the Mike Reagan show, and he had Ann Coulter as a guest. This woman optimizes hateful, elitist, bigoted opinion within the "conservative" right, and if there is ever a day when the 2008 general election becomes a crisis for the Republicans, she can take a large part of the blame.
The woman was so busy patting herself on the back and plugging her books and her syndicated column that very little actual commentary ever escaped her lips, but what was really telling was how little original thought ever showed in her discussion. I can't quite bring myself to give Michael Reagan credit for doing this, but it sure seemed to me like every time she said something that might have been "opinion" or "commentary"... Mike would say "Yeah, that's what So-and-so said yesterday..." or "That's right, just like Whats-his-face said in his article last week..."
One of the few times she actually got her own words our of her mouth, she referred to former President GHW Bush as a "boob in a tie". What more tangible example of Reagan-Republican could you hope for than Reagan's VP for 8 years? I'm no Republican, but even MY report card gives Bush Sr. high marks... his Cabinet was solid, he kicked Iraq's ass, he kicked Noriega's ass, he talked Gorby out of military intervention in Europe at Malta, he furthered the economic growth cycle, he signed NAFTA into law. In fact, the only real mistake you can point from his Administration (aside from vomiting on a dignitary's lap) was the whole "Read my lips" quote. The left used that all the way to the bank.
She never once referred to McCain as a viable GOP candidate for President... she just called him the "old liberal" in comparison to the "young liberal" (Obama) or the "female liberal" (Clinton). She says she still plans to write-in Romney's name on her ballot, because McCain hates conservatives. She kept crediting his success in the primary race to his "wearing the robes of conservatism" for the occasion, not because he believes in the cause.
Is this really how the GOP sees McCain? Does the RNC actually believe that the front-runner of the Party got where he is in the primary race simply because he "saw the light" and promised to change his liberal ways? Why wouldn't the GOP have voted for someone that ALWAYS supported GOP ideals, like Huckabee or Romney... or better yet, Paul? Why go with the "old guy" with the checkered past when they could have had someone more "conservative"? If there was anyone voting today that remembered the "Keating Five"... would McCain have the nomination?
As someone that has seen the path of their "Party" change to such a degree that I feel completely left behind, I wouldn't suggest that the GOP change its platform to suit the latest opinion polls... but perhaps the NEW "conservative revolution" needs to follow some of the winning ideas of the old one. Like abandoning the "Rockefeller Republican" attitude of "Follow ME" and getting back to some grass-roots campaigning to make the voting public understand the GOP position on key issues. Show us WHY the GOP is right, and the left is WRONG... don't just continue to play opposition politics because the Dems are.
Finally... all GOP supporters are drooling over the prospect of the Dems self-destructing in Nov because of the primary split... especially Hannity and Wilkow. But with Huckabee and Romney STILL getting a combined 27% of the GOP vote in Indiana, isn't that possibility still there for the GOP too? Doesn't the fact that more than a quarter of all GOP voters in Indiana chose to WRITE IN a candidate that hasn't been in the race for months tell you that the pundits that are STILL bitching about McCain's aisle-crossing past are setting a rather disturbing precedent for the November election?
Living here in NEPA, I can tell you first hand that I see no fewer than 11 "Ron Paul '08" signs on my way to work, and 6 "Huckabee for President" signs... but not ONE McCain sign. Not ONE. What happens if the Dems DO get their shit together and unite the party at the last minute, while the GOP is still fighting about McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy? How many votes can the GOP afford to lose to a write-in campaign before key states start to fall to the Dems?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Shared perspectives
There has never been much doubt in my mind that we ALL agree that the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq must reach a successful conclusion, regardless of the issues that brought about the conflicts. We don't even seem to disagree about what the requirements of that "successful conclusion" are... representative democratic regimes with fundamental human rights as their foundations and viable defense forces for their protection.
In the past, I have been seen as "reluctant" to voice criticism of Muslims in general, or too "politically correct" for not advocating a harsher stance on Islam in general... and not only by Ryan. I will agree (in principal) with the first assessment, but I firmly deny the second. Islam as a major religion instills piety and reverence for God, but only through the promoting of intolerance and bigotry within its mainstream society. There is no "redemptive" quality to its message, and its adherents need only follow the precepts by rote, with little or no understanding of its message, to qualify for holiness. Islam's spread, at least since the end of the Crusades, has always been at the expense of other faiths... and too often, society in general.
There is no question that if the US fails in its role as the leader of the effort to fight radical Islamic terror, the US will bear the brunt of the cost... in all its manifestations. THAT is the reason why the US cannot afford to be seen as weak or ineffectual in its efforts AT ANY POINT. We cannot stand up to those who would promote summary use of inhumane policy simply to further a strategic or tactical goal (militarily or otherwise) while doing the same thing ourselves. I understand that the gulf that divides the degrees of extremes between Saddam's use of torture to further his regime's goals and those of the US in employing water-boarding techniques during interrogations... but I still see them only as degrees of the same effort. If the technique in question is illegal under the US Constitution and its established laws, then it has no place in our effort to fight and win the war on terror.
Simply having the means to follow a proscribed course of action doesn't mean that the action itself is the right course. The use of nuclear weapons against Japan is an excellent example. We could have simply dropped the bombs on targets that would have eliminated the governmental structure of Japan to bring the nation to a point where they were unable to continue to effort of fighting... but instead, the use was debated long and hard, and in the end, we even warned the Japanese that the bombs were coming... both times!
This kind of conscientious debate and consideration make the effort the obvious result of careful and thoughtful consideration for all future generations of both the world... and the US. Sure, you still have the fringe element calling the Truman Administration "war criminals" (like Rev. Wright)... but you will always have the fringe arguing the obvious. It doesn't change the objective, rational view of history that has determined that no other course of action would have furthered the stated goals of the Allies in their efforts to end the war.
While I have admitted that I have seen the results of simply releasing detainees from GITMO in recent posts, this should be understood to mean that the release of those prisoners should ONLY be to states and authorities that will prosecute those detained for the crimes they are accused of. If that isn't something that will happen, the the men should be prosecuted here in the US for their crimes, and if they have taken up arms against US troops or assisted in the killing of US personnel abroad, then they can be tried for those crimes. I am no longer going to suggest that they be released as "free" men... we have seen the fruits of that policy. Their detainment at GITMO has been declared "constitutional" by the highest Court in the land... so I won't continue to harp on the issue.
Let me use the following for an example of my position on "water-boarding":
The Rummy/Wolfowitz plan of minimum personnel with maximum effect might eventually have won the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is certainly capable of winning a protracted, attrition battlefield effort... if the US is willing to accept a 15 year effort with a cost in dead and wounded of 60,000 Americans. However, the original recommendation of 480,000 US ground troops would have dramatically changed the environment behind our advancing forces, as we have seen since the "surge" went into effect. So, we see that there were (at least) TWO avenues of planning that the US could follow to achieve the goals it had stated it wanted to reach. One assured a fast removal of the Saddam regime with minimum exposure of US personnel to death and danger by reduced numbers in the field, the other a fast removal of the Saddam regime by overwhelming force with the risk of greater exposure to larger number of US personnel. History has shown which path gave the best results. I simply feel that the current Administration took the riskier plan in the hopes of keeping the effect on the "home front" to a minimum.
This analogy breaks down quickly when we take it to extremes in regards to interrogation techniques... but following the riskier plan (risky in that it flies in the face of legality here in the US) has inherent risks, and if those risks outweigh the benefits, then they should be abandoned for a more acceptable course of policy.
Most proponents of the techniques in question would scream that there are no risks... but what greater risk is there in WAR than divisive dissent on the homefront? How much more successful could we expect our efforts to be if we could have maintained the level of unification of purpose and drive that we saw when the President spoke from Ground Zero immediately after 9/11? Back when only 53 US legislators from both Houses thought they had enough balls to vote AGAINST the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
Baddboy called for leadership to win the effort and the war, as did Ryan in his response. Leadership means making tough decisions about HOW a war is conducted, not just IF a war is conducted. No one here is arguing that we are at war... we are simply debating how best that war should be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.
In the past, I have been seen as "reluctant" to voice criticism of Muslims in general, or too "politically correct" for not advocating a harsher stance on Islam in general... and not only by Ryan. I will agree (in principal) with the first assessment, but I firmly deny the second. Islam as a major religion instills piety and reverence for God, but only through the promoting of intolerance and bigotry within its mainstream society. There is no "redemptive" quality to its message, and its adherents need only follow the precepts by rote, with little or no understanding of its message, to qualify for holiness. Islam's spread, at least since the end of the Crusades, has always been at the expense of other faiths... and too often, society in general.
There is no question that if the US fails in its role as the leader of the effort to fight radical Islamic terror, the US will bear the brunt of the cost... in all its manifestations. THAT is the reason why the US cannot afford to be seen as weak or ineffectual in its efforts AT ANY POINT. We cannot stand up to those who would promote summary use of inhumane policy simply to further a strategic or tactical goal (militarily or otherwise) while doing the same thing ourselves. I understand that the gulf that divides the degrees of extremes between Saddam's use of torture to further his regime's goals and those of the US in employing water-boarding techniques during interrogations... but I still see them only as degrees of the same effort. If the technique in question is illegal under the US Constitution and its established laws, then it has no place in our effort to fight and win the war on terror.
Simply having the means to follow a proscribed course of action doesn't mean that the action itself is the right course. The use of nuclear weapons against Japan is an excellent example. We could have simply dropped the bombs on targets that would have eliminated the governmental structure of Japan to bring the nation to a point where they were unable to continue to effort of fighting... but instead, the use was debated long and hard, and in the end, we even warned the Japanese that the bombs were coming... both times!
This kind of conscientious debate and consideration make the effort the obvious result of careful and thoughtful consideration for all future generations of both the world... and the US. Sure, you still have the fringe element calling the Truman Administration "war criminals" (like Rev. Wright)... but you will always have the fringe arguing the obvious. It doesn't change the objective, rational view of history that has determined that no other course of action would have furthered the stated goals of the Allies in their efforts to end the war.
While I have admitted that I have seen the results of simply releasing detainees from GITMO in recent posts, this should be understood to mean that the release of those prisoners should ONLY be to states and authorities that will prosecute those detained for the crimes they are accused of. If that isn't something that will happen, the the men should be prosecuted here in the US for their crimes, and if they have taken up arms against US troops or assisted in the killing of US personnel abroad, then they can be tried for those crimes. I am no longer going to suggest that they be released as "free" men... we have seen the fruits of that policy. Their detainment at GITMO has been declared "constitutional" by the highest Court in the land... so I won't continue to harp on the issue.
Let me use the following for an example of my position on "water-boarding":
The Rummy/Wolfowitz plan of minimum personnel with maximum effect might eventually have won the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is certainly capable of winning a protracted, attrition battlefield effort... if the US is willing to accept a 15 year effort with a cost in dead and wounded of 60,000 Americans. However, the original recommendation of 480,000 US ground troops would have dramatically changed the environment behind our advancing forces, as we have seen since the "surge" went into effect. So, we see that there were (at least) TWO avenues of planning that the US could follow to achieve the goals it had stated it wanted to reach. One assured a fast removal of the Saddam regime with minimum exposure of US personnel to death and danger by reduced numbers in the field, the other a fast removal of the Saddam regime by overwhelming force with the risk of greater exposure to larger number of US personnel. History has shown which path gave the best results. I simply feel that the current Administration took the riskier plan in the hopes of keeping the effect on the "home front" to a minimum.
This analogy breaks down quickly when we take it to extremes in regards to interrogation techniques... but following the riskier plan (risky in that it flies in the face of legality here in the US) has inherent risks, and if those risks outweigh the benefits, then they should be abandoned for a more acceptable course of policy.
Most proponents of the techniques in question would scream that there are no risks... but what greater risk is there in WAR than divisive dissent on the homefront? How much more successful could we expect our efforts to be if we could have maintained the level of unification of purpose and drive that we saw when the President spoke from Ground Zero immediately after 9/11? Back when only 53 US legislators from both Houses thought they had enough balls to vote AGAINST the 2003 invasion of Iraq?
Baddboy called for leadership to win the effort and the war, as did Ryan in his response. Leadership means making tough decisions about HOW a war is conducted, not just IF a war is conducted. No one here is arguing that we are at war... we are simply debating how best that war should be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Leadership not politics it key to winning any battle...
I am a firm beleiver that there is a time and place for everything. What was good for the last 8 years may not be good for the next 4. We are in desperate need of a leader, not a politician. For at least the next 4 years we need decisiveness not waivering. It is a known fact that you cannot please all of the people all of the time but you can please most of the people some of the time and I beleive this is one of those times. The pacifists speak louder than most and that's why we hear all of the "We need to get our of Iraq stuff". Reality is a bitch some times and we are in a unique position to press the American policy of projection of power from Iraq and Afghanistan. To pull out would be a major mistake. We need to stay if for nothing else we get to live in the back door of every fundamentalist Muslim country that hates our guts. If they want to fight I say we give it to them but on their soil...not ours.
I know at times it sounds like I'm a war monger but the reality is that war at its most basic fundamental makes me sick. One human being being asked to take another human beings life goes against anything most of us in the past through our moral/religious upbringing says is wrong. But it's our whole way of life that is being challenged. Whether you beleive it is right or wrong to fight war we are not being left much of a choice if we don't want to have to fight it on our own soil. The longer our children don't have to be exposed to the brutalities of war the better I feel so if we have to stay in the middle of the "sand box" and fight insurgents and Iranian made weapons if our current locations I say so be it.
Immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq or Afghanistan at this point in time is and will continue to be a major mistake. Whether you think we were lied to about how we got there to start with we are there now and we as a country cannot afford to leave.
The hardest reality is that soldiers die on both sides everyday in either war so Fathers, brothers and sons put their lives on the line so civilians don't have to and that is the most basic fundamental of American volunteer proffessional military concept of today.
I love this country, I love the fact that we can write this blog and agree to disagree on a daily basis and we don't go to jail for it or better yet bet beheaded and burned or stoned to death for speaking our mind.
Thank you for allowing me to participate and putting up with my absence.
Baddboy
I know at times it sounds like I'm a war monger but the reality is that war at its most basic fundamental makes me sick. One human being being asked to take another human beings life goes against anything most of us in the past through our moral/religious upbringing says is wrong. But it's our whole way of life that is being challenged. Whether you beleive it is right or wrong to fight war we are not being left much of a choice if we don't want to have to fight it on our own soil. The longer our children don't have to be exposed to the brutalities of war the better I feel so if we have to stay in the middle of the "sand box" and fight insurgents and Iranian made weapons if our current locations I say so be it.
Immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq or Afghanistan at this point in time is and will continue to be a major mistake. Whether you think we were lied to about how we got there to start with we are there now and we as a country cannot afford to leave.
The hardest reality is that soldiers die on both sides everyday in either war so Fathers, brothers and sons put their lives on the line so civilians don't have to and that is the most basic fundamental of American volunteer proffessional military concept of today.
I love this country, I love the fact that we can write this blog and agree to disagree on a daily basis and we don't go to jail for it or better yet bet beheaded and burned or stoned to death for speaking our mind.
Thank you for allowing me to participate and putting up with my absence.
Baddboy
Regarding Nero and company ...
Welcome back badboy, and thank you for your service ....
I read your last and it should be of no surprise that I am in agreeance with the good Major General and I appreciate your adding his message to our site. However, I would add this... this type of message, the explanation of our current battles, the war we are in, with whom and the stakes involved in losing, are being done a grave disservice by those current leaders whom agree with you, me, Jambo & the general (and to a large extent Titus). From Alexander to Frederick, to FDR and Patton (and there are obviously countless other war time leaders throughout history), the common leadership trait in each of these, which is missing in the US right now, is the ability to communicate our struggle in clear, inspiring ways. There is something about the human condition which allows our better spirits to only be rallied with the artful spoken word. Regardless of God's reason for ingraining that necessity into the human experience, the fact remains it is incumbent upon "leaders" to acknowledge it and address it.
It is often said that actions speak louder then words. Perhaps, and ON the battlefield this is indelibly true. But just as true is that the words spoken by the commander, civilian or otherwise, prior and subsequent to the initial battle are equally important. Churchill's continual addresses to his fellow Brits. Even our favorite series, "Band of Brothers" comes from one of the most famous inspirational pre-battle speeches in Western civilization. Reagan's "tear down this wall". Kennedy's inaugural address. What the US needs right now is a supreme allied communicator whom uses that strength to be an effective supreme allied commander, and lead us to victory. In our 232 year history we have more times then not produced as a country a war time commander-in-chief that had both the strength of his convictions and the weight that a properly spoken word can carry in acting on those convictions. I have never questioned our presidents heart or that he is cut from the best moral fiber in his desires to both spread liberty and protect the United States. But let us hope (and act via voting)that the next president will add to that the ability to inspire a nation through word, and thus be our much needed war time leader.
****
Titus, I read your "hang em' high" post regarding GTMO. I assume that even if I contextually add the emotion at the time you wrote that post, you would now favor water boarding as a means of garnering Intel? I mean, if summary executions are to be advocated to prevent a terrorist act (as in those 26 lost souls), then surely NON lethal interrogations are acceptable in order to prevent such attacks, yes?
I read your last and it should be of no surprise that I am in agreeance with the good Major General and I appreciate your adding his message to our site. However, I would add this... this type of message, the explanation of our current battles, the war we are in, with whom and the stakes involved in losing, are being done a grave disservice by those current leaders whom agree with you, me, Jambo & the general (and to a large extent Titus). From Alexander to Frederick, to FDR and Patton (and there are obviously countless other war time leaders throughout history), the common leadership trait in each of these, which is missing in the US right now, is the ability to communicate our struggle in clear, inspiring ways. There is something about the human condition which allows our better spirits to only be rallied with the artful spoken word. Regardless of God's reason for ingraining that necessity into the human experience, the fact remains it is incumbent upon "leaders" to acknowledge it and address it.
It is often said that actions speak louder then words. Perhaps, and ON the battlefield this is indelibly true. But just as true is that the words spoken by the commander, civilian or otherwise, prior and subsequent to the initial battle are equally important. Churchill's continual addresses to his fellow Brits. Even our favorite series, "Band of Brothers" comes from one of the most famous inspirational pre-battle speeches in Western civilization. Reagan's "tear down this wall". Kennedy's inaugural address. What the US needs right now is a supreme allied communicator whom uses that strength to be an effective supreme allied commander, and lead us to victory. In our 232 year history we have more times then not produced as a country a war time commander-in-chief that had both the strength of his convictions and the weight that a properly spoken word can carry in acting on those convictions. I have never questioned our presidents heart or that he is cut from the best moral fiber in his desires to both spread liberty and protect the United States. But let us hope (and act via voting)that the next president will add to that the ability to inspire a nation through word, and thus be our much needed war time leader.
****
Titus, I read your "hang em' high" post regarding GTMO. I assume that even if I contextually add the emotion at the time you wrote that post, you would now favor water boarding as a means of garnering Intel? I mean, if summary executions are to be advocated to prevent a terrorist act (as in those 26 lost souls), then surely NON lethal interrogations are acceptable in order to prevent such attacks, yes?
There's no place like home...There's no place like home
I clicked my ruby combat boots together and there I was, at home finally.
I thought I was going to try and catch up on the past posts (no pun intended) but have decided I really need to catch up on what's actually going on in the world again. I received an e-mail today and I thought I would pass it along. Some of it is fact and some of it is opinion and some of it is dated but I thought it might bring up some other discussion besides which is the lesser of 3 evils this election year.
Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL
Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1 When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)
2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4 What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).
(see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others..
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?
2 What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.
Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.
I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can they be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.
The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens. Best we support them.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
I thought I was going to try and catch up on the past posts (no pun intended) but have decided I really need to catch up on what's actually going on in the world again. I received an e-mail today and I thought I would pass it along. Some of it is fact and some of it is opinion and some of it is dated but I thought it might bring up some other discussion besides which is the lesser of 3 evils this election year.
Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A. :
A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL
Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let's examine a few basics:
1 When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)
2 Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.
3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4 What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%
5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).
(see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others..
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?
2 What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?
It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..
They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.
Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?
The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:
President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.
I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.
And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can they be for real?
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.
These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't!
If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.
If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.
The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.
And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.
Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.
Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens. Best we support them.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Addendum...
"Decipio" does translate in my Latin dictionary as "lie", and there is no question that the English word "deceive" stems from this Latin root. However, in its classical form, decipio means to ensnare, trap, entangle... this was obviously the meaning behind its use in Virgil's Aeneid.
I am inclined to think that the authors of the term, in reference to a policy of the Pitt Administration between 1804 and 1805, probably had its "classical" meaning in mind: to trap or ensnare an enemy, as opposed to lying to or cheating the enemy. After all, this is the same era that so famously coined the phrase all's fair in love and war.
I know this is the kind of posts that piss off Ryan to no end. I am not making this point out of a purely symantic argument. But the term nosos decipio describes the said policy perfectly... so to understand the term is to understand, at least in part, the policy itself.
The policy itself can trace its root back to Carthage, and was employed by later states and nations as recently as WWII... by both the Allies and the Axis powers. It is only in the years since WWII, where nations have become so dependant on foreign and over-seas trade for the success of their economies, that the absolute interdiction of ALL foreign, over-seas trade has stopped being standard international wartime doctrine.
Add to this the fascinating aspect of the development... perhaps even a facet of the evolution... of a language that still touches our own today. If we take our own (English) definition of the word deceive (decipio), we see that its means to cheat, lie, or otherwise infer dishonesty... when in Virgil's time, and even further back, it denoted ingenuity, guile, "street-smarts".
Take the Greeks gaining entrance into Troy... were that story penned in classical Latin, rather than Greek, the word would have been decipio. Jacob's hunt for his brother's birthright and his father's paternal blessing would have been decipio, had Genesis been written in Latin, rather than Hebrew. In fact, I would be willing to bet that Jerome's Vulgate translation of the story of Jacob is replete with the use of the term decipio (although I do not own a Vulgate Bible). Jerome's translation was into a form of Latin common to as many people in the Empire as possible, but he was classically educated... thus his understanding of the term would have been the same as Virgil's, while the rest of the Empire reading his work might see another connotation behind the term... thus, the idea that Jacob did something wrong in trying to gain that which wasn't his by right, rather than doing what was expected of him by God.
Okay... I'm done.
I am inclined to think that the authors of the term, in reference to a policy of the Pitt Administration between 1804 and 1805, probably had its "classical" meaning in mind: to trap or ensnare an enemy, as opposed to lying to or cheating the enemy. After all, this is the same era that so famously coined the phrase all's fair in love and war.
I know this is the kind of posts that piss off Ryan to no end. I am not making this point out of a purely symantic argument. But the term nosos decipio describes the said policy perfectly... so to understand the term is to understand, at least in part, the policy itself.
The policy itself can trace its root back to Carthage, and was employed by later states and nations as recently as WWII... by both the Allies and the Axis powers. It is only in the years since WWII, where nations have become so dependant on foreign and over-seas trade for the success of their economies, that the absolute interdiction of ALL foreign, over-seas trade has stopped being standard international wartime doctrine.
Add to this the fascinating aspect of the development... perhaps even a facet of the evolution... of a language that still touches our own today. If we take our own (English) definition of the word deceive (decipio), we see that its means to cheat, lie, or otherwise infer dishonesty... when in Virgil's time, and even further back, it denoted ingenuity, guile, "street-smarts".
Take the Greeks gaining entrance into Troy... were that story penned in classical Latin, rather than Greek, the word would have been decipio. Jacob's hunt for his brother's birthright and his father's paternal blessing would have been decipio, had Genesis been written in Latin, rather than Hebrew. In fact, I would be willing to bet that Jerome's Vulgate translation of the story of Jacob is replete with the use of the term decipio (although I do not own a Vulgate Bible). Jerome's translation was into a form of Latin common to as many people in the Empire as possible, but he was classically educated... thus his understanding of the term would have been the same as Virgil's, while the rest of the Empire reading his work might see another connotation behind the term... thus, the idea that Jacob did something wrong in trying to gain that which wasn't his by right, rather than doing what was expected of him by God.
Okay... I'm done.
"We Deceive"
James was right... nosus decipio was a term used in reference to policies of the Pitt Ministry during the Napoleonic Wars, he just spelled it wrong.
It seems he has something to add to the thought, so I will leave it at this.
It seems he has something to add to the thought, so I will leave it at this.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Okay, you win...
"Nosos dicipio"?
Our prerogative? Our jurisdiction? Is it Greek? Latin would read "nostros" I think...
Why can I find no reference to this phrase in any association with Pitt, Wellington, or Wilberforce?
Jambo wins the Obscure Reference award for today!
Our prerogative? Our jurisdiction? Is it Greek? Latin would read "nostros" I think...
Why can I find no reference to this phrase in any association with Pitt, Wellington, or Wilberforce?
Jambo wins the Obscure Reference award for today!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
I had no idea what I saw.
I've seen William Pitt's stone, set in the floor of the crypt of Westminster Abbey. Nothing exceptional about it, certainly nothing compared to Admiral Nelson's tomb, nor Wellington, (ironically enough the P.M. in the 1830s) but right next to Pitt in a underneath a stone far less ornate than even Christopher Wren was one William Wilberforce. The same William Titus spoke so glowingly of, the man featured in the movie Amazing Grace.
For being such a self proclaimed aficionado of history, I should have known then what I was looking at. Granted, it was a decade before the movie was made, but of all the things at Westminster, I made it a point to see Pitt. And there beside him was some name that stuck in my head. I mean seriously, how do you forget a name like Wilberforce?
Even more than the historical implications of the first bill Wilberforce got through the House of Commons, the prosecution of vessels flying the flag of neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars, thus strangling the slave trade, was the simple two word phrase that set the stage for the eventual winning strategy. Nosos Dicipio.
For being such a self proclaimed aficionado of history, I should have known then what I was looking at. Granted, it was a decade before the movie was made, but of all the things at Westminster, I made it a point to see Pitt. And there beside him was some name that stuck in my head. I mean seriously, how do you forget a name like Wilberforce?
Even more than the historical implications of the first bill Wilberforce got through the House of Commons, the prosecution of vessels flying the flag of neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars, thus strangling the slave trade, was the simple two word phrase that set the stage for the eventual winning strategy. Nosos Dicipio.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Once again...
I have to admit that I was wrong.
It seems that the US military, the State Department, and HIS OWN FAMILY have confirmed that one Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti national and former detainee of GITMO that was released after 3 years of confinement in 2006, has killed as many as 26 innocent Iraqi civilians in Mosul last week during the rash of suicide bombings.
So, my official opinion on keeping enemy combatants and terrorists at facilities like GITMO is this:
Rather than spend the $450,000 a year that it takes to keep, secure and feed these animals on US military property, let's save everyone a bunch of money and effort. Let's buy 10' of good, stout rope and string the bastards up by the neck from the nearest shade tree... then bury them in deep, unmarked holes so they can be quickly and quietly forgotten.
It seems that the US military, the State Department, and HIS OWN FAMILY have confirmed that one Abdullah Salim Ali al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti national and former detainee of GITMO that was released after 3 years of confinement in 2006, has killed as many as 26 innocent Iraqi civilians in Mosul last week during the rash of suicide bombings.
So, my official opinion on keeping enemy combatants and terrorists at facilities like GITMO is this:
Rather than spend the $450,000 a year that it takes to keep, secure and feed these animals on US military property, let's save everyone a bunch of money and effort. Let's buy 10' of good, stout rope and string the bastards up by the neck from the nearest shade tree... then bury them in deep, unmarked holes so they can be quickly and quietly forgotten.
You're right ...
I did love that post ... as you proclaimed I would in a text message.
I'll dove tail with your assessment of his post Iran/Contra life and add that at that "Hannitty Freedom Concert", he spent about 20 minutes on stage between book signings. And in that time, with the 2000+ crowd gathered, it would have been very easy to simply bash Democrats with clever quips as Levine and Hannitty did. But he didn't. He spent the entire time talking about the troops. I think where they and our military policy is concerned he is the epitome of nonpartisan.
Two quick stories he told ... the back cover of that book you are soon to receive (and is sitting in my office right now) is that of a Marine carrying a body. At first glance one would assume that the soldier is carrying a wounded comrade ... he is not. North was standing on the ramp of a medi-vac not far from a live fire fight, snapping pictures himself, with the button down capturing each moment frame by frame at break neck speed. Now, he mentioned that he was asked why he put this particular Marine and that particular shot in such a prominent place in his book. He said that the person the Marine was carrying was a wounded Iraqi that was caught in the crossfire. As the soldier set him down on the medi-vac ramp the "docs" patted him down for weapons very quickly, then started an IV, and began to dress his wounds with these amazing inflatable bandages that stabilize broken bones and put pressure on wounds while absorbing blood. As the Marine ran back into the fray to further assist his unit a Reuters reporter was just off the side with his own camera crew and screamed "Mate, what'd you do that for? Didn't you notice he was an Iraqi?" North said the young Marine turned to the reporter, and offered what can only be described as a "single digit gesture", and shouted out, "that's what WE do."
The other story he told ...
He was doing a live feed for Hannitty and Colmes. It was at night in Iraq and that grainy green night vision screen is what everyone was looking at as they went live with Ollie and a soldier right off the front in Fallujah. He noted to Sean that mortar shelling followed by close quarter combat of the type this Marine had just experienced was probably the worst thing a human being can go through. "It's 90% adrenaline and 10% stark terror", he noted a soldier once said years ago. Now, during any broadcast FOX News has an "instant feedback" loop running to the right of the screen that no one but the pundit or field correspondent can see - its viewer emails. And one caught his eye just before they went "dark" concluding the Hannity and Colmes segment. He printed it and carries it with him at every troop rally (and given that the Hannitty concert is in fact a charity event for the children of fallen soldiers, "The Fallen Hero Foundation", that is exactly what this was). He read that email:
"Dear Colonel North. I just heard you you say that there is no worse thing that a human being can experience then close quarter combat. I disagree. I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom,and the truth is that the worst thing a human can experience is living with my mother-in-law. I called several buddies from my unit and asked if they agree, one of which lost a hand in combat, and he says it isn't even a close contest."
Yours Truly, Lieutenant ...
The crowd erupted in laughter and applause.
Not one time did he mention Hillary or Obama or the Democrat Party.
He simply wanted to tell the troop's story, and suggested before he left that the next time you are on a commercial flight with a Sailor, Airmen, Marine or Army soldier, that you ask the stewardist to announce over loud speaker that there is a US soldier on board ... and then watch as your fellow Americans give him or her a standing applause ... he's seen it happen.
And perhaps that too is why "we" (conservatives and anyone with an appreciation of the US Military, like you Titus) like him despite his faults in the 80's. The story he is going around the country telling reminds us that there are bigger things happening then politics, and it refocuses us on what real sacrifice is .... and "class"as you put it, sums that effort up quite nicely.
Bet in 1989 you never thought you'd be buying Ollie's book, and saying nice things about him .... well done Titus, good form.
I'll dove tail with your assessment of his post Iran/Contra life and add that at that "Hannitty Freedom Concert", he spent about 20 minutes on stage between book signings. And in that time, with the 2000+ crowd gathered, it would have been very easy to simply bash Democrats with clever quips as Levine and Hannitty did. But he didn't. He spent the entire time talking about the troops. I think where they and our military policy is concerned he is the epitome of nonpartisan.
Two quick stories he told ... the back cover of that book you are soon to receive (and is sitting in my office right now) is that of a Marine carrying a body. At first glance one would assume that the soldier is carrying a wounded comrade ... he is not. North was standing on the ramp of a medi-vac not far from a live fire fight, snapping pictures himself, with the button down capturing each moment frame by frame at break neck speed. Now, he mentioned that he was asked why he put this particular Marine and that particular shot in such a prominent place in his book. He said that the person the Marine was carrying was a wounded Iraqi that was caught in the crossfire. As the soldier set him down on the medi-vac ramp the "docs" patted him down for weapons very quickly, then started an IV, and began to dress his wounds with these amazing inflatable bandages that stabilize broken bones and put pressure on wounds while absorbing blood. As the Marine ran back into the fray to further assist his unit a Reuters reporter was just off the side with his own camera crew and screamed "Mate, what'd you do that for? Didn't you notice he was an Iraqi?" North said the young Marine turned to the reporter, and offered what can only be described as a "single digit gesture", and shouted out, "that's what WE do."
The other story he told ...
He was doing a live feed for Hannitty and Colmes. It was at night in Iraq and that grainy green night vision screen is what everyone was looking at as they went live with Ollie and a soldier right off the front in Fallujah. He noted to Sean that mortar shelling followed by close quarter combat of the type this Marine had just experienced was probably the worst thing a human being can go through. "It's 90% adrenaline and 10% stark terror", he noted a soldier once said years ago. Now, during any broadcast FOX News has an "instant feedback" loop running to the right of the screen that no one but the pundit or field correspondent can see - its viewer emails. And one caught his eye just before they went "dark" concluding the Hannity and Colmes segment. He printed it and carries it with him at every troop rally (and given that the Hannitty concert is in fact a charity event for the children of fallen soldiers, "The Fallen Hero Foundation", that is exactly what this was). He read that email:
"Dear Colonel North. I just heard you you say that there is no worse thing that a human being can experience then close quarter combat. I disagree. I am a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom,and the truth is that the worst thing a human can experience is living with my mother-in-law. I called several buddies from my unit and asked if they agree, one of which lost a hand in combat, and he says it isn't even a close contest."
Yours Truly, Lieutenant ...
The crowd erupted in laughter and applause.
Not one time did he mention Hillary or Obama or the Democrat Party.
He simply wanted to tell the troop's story, and suggested before he left that the next time you are on a commercial flight with a Sailor, Airmen, Marine or Army soldier, that you ask the stewardist to announce over loud speaker that there is a US soldier on board ... and then watch as your fellow Americans give him or her a standing applause ... he's seen it happen.
And perhaps that too is why "we" (conservatives and anyone with an appreciation of the US Military, like you Titus) like him despite his faults in the 80's. The story he is going around the country telling reminds us that there are bigger things happening then politics, and it refocuses us on what real sacrifice is .... and "class"as you put it, sums that effort up quite nicely.
Bet in 1989 you never thought you'd be buying Ollie's book, and saying nice things about him .... well done Titus, good form.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
More on Ollie
As anyone who follows our posts here knows, I really do try to give credit where credit is due. This is one of those times.
I'm in the habit of listening to my satellite radio exclusively to and from work. I listen to the political talk shows on the way in, and Catholic talk on the way home. Today, on the way in, Andrew Wilkow had Ollie North on as a live guest.
Convicted felon or not, the man has class. Nothing he said was partisan in any way, shape or form. He didn't favor one side of the aisle over another in his talk, and as much as Wilkow tried to get him to come down on the side of conservative GOP policy, North wouldn't bite. If he was critical of past Democrat administrations (and he was, especially Johnson's), he was just as critical of the GOP administrations... especially Bush's.
He was brutal on the policies and actions of L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. He ripped de-Ba'athification and the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as the single greatest piece of failed policy since the end of the Reagan era (could he be referring to the Iran-Contra affair here?). He decried the Bush White House for not immediately recalling Bremer once the policies were announced, because they contradicted Rumsfeld's plans. He applauded Powell for standing tall and strong in the face of harsh criticism from the Vice President and the SecDef immediately after the invasion. In short, he made it abundantly clear that he seemed to agree that much of what we discussed about the facts behind the "Bush's War" program were true, even if they were presented in a biased manner.
Of course, the greater part of the show was about his new book, American Heroes. I am not the type of person that typically runs out and buys every conservative book to hit the shelves... especially those written by avowed pundits. However, tonight I ordered a copy of this book.
I do not agree with his defense of his actions while working for Reagan and Poindexter... but any wrongs he may have committed in the past are well on their way to being overshadowed by his actions since 9/11 and his role as a field correspondent for Fox News.
Just giving credit where credit is due...
I'm in the habit of listening to my satellite radio exclusively to and from work. I listen to the political talk shows on the way in, and Catholic talk on the way home. Today, on the way in, Andrew Wilkow had Ollie North on as a live guest.
Convicted felon or not, the man has class. Nothing he said was partisan in any way, shape or form. He didn't favor one side of the aisle over another in his talk, and as much as Wilkow tried to get him to come down on the side of conservative GOP policy, North wouldn't bite. If he was critical of past Democrat administrations (and he was, especially Johnson's), he was just as critical of the GOP administrations... especially Bush's.
He was brutal on the policies and actions of L. Paul Bremer, the former head of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. He ripped de-Ba'athification and the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as the single greatest piece of failed policy since the end of the Reagan era (could he be referring to the Iran-Contra affair here?). He decried the Bush White House for not immediately recalling Bremer once the policies were announced, because they contradicted Rumsfeld's plans. He applauded Powell for standing tall and strong in the face of harsh criticism from the Vice President and the SecDef immediately after the invasion. In short, he made it abundantly clear that he seemed to agree that much of what we discussed about the facts behind the "Bush's War" program were true, even if they were presented in a biased manner.
Of course, the greater part of the show was about his new book, American Heroes. I am not the type of person that typically runs out and buys every conservative book to hit the shelves... especially those written by avowed pundits. However, tonight I ordered a copy of this book.
I do not agree with his defense of his actions while working for Reagan and Poindexter... but any wrongs he may have committed in the past are well on their way to being overshadowed by his actions since 9/11 and his role as a field correspondent for Fox News.
Just giving credit where credit is due...
That's no answer...
Yes, Ryan, you explained the "cool" aspect of North in the eyes of war-time Moms and people who like to read books written by conservative pundits... but the real meat-and-potatoes portion of Jambo's post was why the fawning nostalgia and longing for past Presidents that circumvented the separation of powers aspect of our Constitution?
James was dead-on with that post... one of his best yet, I think. The example set by the list of past Presidents that felt they were above the Congress in the governmental pecking order certainly gave GW no lessons on how to conduct himself in the face of military confrontation, did it? He got the Congressional support he needed... based on extremely biased and (now) questionable intelligence concerning Saddam's capacity to project force and destruction in the region. His administration is now seen as "liars" out to fulfill an agenda outside of the professed goals of the US government. Why is this acceptable in the eyes of conservatives? Even Bush's conservative supporters are divided in how they see the war in Iraq concluding... many are beginning to take the Ron Paul position of "no more nation-building"... true "conservatism" in my eyes (and not necessarily the right course, either).
How far back into the history of "republicanism" do you have to go to see that when the executive powers buck the legislative powers, it is almost always the latter that wins. Go all the way back to the "first" republic in history (Rome), and you see more examples than you can easily count... Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Marius, Caesar himself... all bucked the Senate and paid the price, and none could point to their actions (had they lived to see the results) and say "See, I was RIGHT! It worked!" The Gracchian and Marian "reforms" paved the way for Caesar and Augustus and the end of the Republic.
FDR's strengthening of the Executive branch might have roots back to the 1860's and the Lincoln administrations, but his was the administration that fought the hardest and the most often against a rabidly opposed Supreme Court, and was constantly being handicapped by Congressional oversight and review (at least domestically speaking).
One more small item, then I'm done... I'm not up for a Reagan-bashing right this minute.
While James is correct in that any documents that could have implicated the White House in Iran-Contra were destroyed by Poindexter and his aids, and thus no concrete evidence exists to the fact that Reagan knew we were selling arms to Iran... the fact remains that while Reagan was President, we sold over 2,500 high-tech missiles to Iran, along with tons of spare parts and technology needed to service them (and, unfortunately, reverse engineer them, as well). These included TOW and Hellfire missile systems... cutting edge technology for the mid to late 80's. How does that NOT constitute US government cooperation with an established terrorist state (as Iran had already been labeled, by Congress and two Presidents)? As James stated... this practice did not end until Feb of 1989... one month into the administration of GHW Bush. How am I supposed to see this as anything less than some form of "bargaining" with a terrorist state that has already waged a campaign of terror against Americans?
James was dead-on with that post... one of his best yet, I think. The example set by the list of past Presidents that felt they were above the Congress in the governmental pecking order certainly gave GW no lessons on how to conduct himself in the face of military confrontation, did it? He got the Congressional support he needed... based on extremely biased and (now) questionable intelligence concerning Saddam's capacity to project force and destruction in the region. His administration is now seen as "liars" out to fulfill an agenda outside of the professed goals of the US government. Why is this acceptable in the eyes of conservatives? Even Bush's conservative supporters are divided in how they see the war in Iraq concluding... many are beginning to take the Ron Paul position of "no more nation-building"... true "conservatism" in my eyes (and not necessarily the right course, either).
How far back into the history of "republicanism" do you have to go to see that when the executive powers buck the legislative powers, it is almost always the latter that wins. Go all the way back to the "first" republic in history (Rome), and you see more examples than you can easily count... Tiberius Gracchus, Gaius Marius, Caesar himself... all bucked the Senate and paid the price, and none could point to their actions (had they lived to see the results) and say "See, I was RIGHT! It worked!" The Gracchian and Marian "reforms" paved the way for Caesar and Augustus and the end of the Republic.
FDR's strengthening of the Executive branch might have roots back to the 1860's and the Lincoln administrations, but his was the administration that fought the hardest and the most often against a rabidly opposed Supreme Court, and was constantly being handicapped by Congressional oversight and review (at least domestically speaking).
One more small item, then I'm done... I'm not up for a Reagan-bashing right this minute.
While James is correct in that any documents that could have implicated the White House in Iran-Contra were destroyed by Poindexter and his aids, and thus no concrete evidence exists to the fact that Reagan knew we were selling arms to Iran... the fact remains that while Reagan was President, we sold over 2,500 high-tech missiles to Iran, along with tons of spare parts and technology needed to service them (and, unfortunately, reverse engineer them, as well). These included TOW and Hellfire missile systems... cutting edge technology for the mid to late 80's. How does that NOT constitute US government cooperation with an established terrorist state (as Iran had already been labeled, by Congress and two Presidents)? As James stated... this practice did not end until Feb of 1989... one month into the administration of GHW Bush. How am I supposed to see this as anything less than some form of "bargaining" with a terrorist state that has already waged a campaign of terror against Americans?
Monday, May 5, 2008
IIIII'MMMMMMM BACK!!!! well pretty soon
Well it's good to be missed I suppose. And as for the slacker stuff I have completed almost 4 months of training so far in a not so quite inviting atmosphere, with 18 year old kids who think they know better about everything, instructors who believe they are above everyone and everything (I don't think I have ever in my 21 year military career met so many ego-maniacs in one place) and still managed to maintain an over 90% average in a course that has about a 50% wash rate. With that said I an GLAD to be going home in two days.
I am going to try and catch up with the posts when I get home so I can get back to stirring shit.
Hope all is well and I'm looking forward to seeing Jambo's apartment, sorry about the house bro.
Baddboy
I am going to try and catch up with the posts when I get home so I can get back to stirring shit.
Hope all is well and I'm looking forward to seeing Jambo's apartment, sorry about the house bro.
Baddboy
Its not all shredded papers and cake you know?...
First ....
"Can anyone think of current "under-30" celebrity that is actively pro-military or morally conservative in their political views?"
"Can anyone think of current "under-30" celebrity that is actively pro-military or morally conservative in their political views?"
Ummm ...NO. And there's good reason. You CAN NOT become successful in that industry and publicly be a "conservative", or a "traditionalist" if you like. I once heard Bill Cosby say that he knew something had gone terribly wrong when writers on his show were privately confessing their more traditional political views, but swearing him to secrecy so that they could still work in town. From the studio moguls (and they still exist), to the brand names in film making there is a "Stalinist" smell in the air - you will be ostracized, there own version of a blacklist ironically enough, if you confess to being politically right of center ... or even a practicing Christian for that matter. You can portray a serial murderer and be applauded, even win awards, but talk about Christ in positive terms and your reward is unemployment. Buddha and Allah are probably still acceptable, but not Jesus.
I could add to that list off the top of my head - Gary Sinese (Forrest Gump, etc), Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Jon Voight (and his greatest contribution to the world of film is having that SMOKIN' hot daughter, Angelina "Tomb Raider" Jolie) . But think about that list, yours and mine. Each and every person, outside of Willis and Eastwood, have seen their careers drop off the radar as soon as they visit the troops. Sinese is a better actor then 90% of Hollywood and what's he doing now? Silver? I haven't seen him since a Jean Claude Van Dam flick, and he's another classically trained actor (Silver that is). The Robocop guy speaks for itself - ROBOCOP. You have to have reached "untouchable" status like a Willis, or Eastwood, or Swarchenegger, and even a Gibson to some extent , in that you can make movies out of your own pocket, and people will go and see them, otherwise you kill your career by copping to being a troop supporting conservative - they've instituted a de facto blacklist whilst simultaneously claiming that Dubya supporters are trying to censor their criticism of the war (I'm talking to you, Dixie Broads).
There's a syndicated conservative radio host based here in Vegas, Jerry Doyle. He was a main character on Babylon 5. I've never seen the show, but if you have he was the bald guy. At any rate, for several years during the running of that popular Sci-fi show he was pulling down 50k a week! Now, he was a Wall Street investor for 10 years before he tried his bit at acting, so he used that tremendous salary wisely and set himself and his family up so that even if he never worked another day in his life, they could live like kings ..... and he did this for a particular reason, outside of it just being smart. As that show was going off the air he decided to run for Congress instead of further pursuing his acting career ... as a Republican, and a conservative Republican at that. He knew this would end his acting stint, thus the estate had to be in place to fall back on in the event he lost the congressional bid. He of course did lose, badly (he was running in CA after all), and subsequently went into the AM radio game where he's found some success. And he sums up Hollywood's attitude towards politics quite succinctly ... "You can come out of rehab, you can come out of the closet, and they will embrace you. But if you come out as a conservative, they'll give you the Corleone kiss of death, and order the hit."
****
I think I explained why North is "cool" in conservative circles, but I'll extend briefly on those comments since Jambo posed the question. One, Ollie is a brand name linked to Saint Ron, period. You can go on all day about it being linked in a negative way, say it was the proverbial "black eye" all you want, but we're talking an emotional connection, by definition it is "unreasonable." And by your own admission, the Democrat congress went on a political witch hunt rather then prosecute crimes, so Ollie represents Reagan in essence "beating" those who came after him in the only vulnerable moment of his presidency. Also, I think one can NOT underestimate the "respect currency" that North has accrued in his devotion to the current troops, getting out there story of success, rallying - using his brand name - much needed and much deserved attention to their many good deeds (this entire book that I got signed for my mother is the troops in theater from cover to cover & his entire bit on stage was about them). Name me another popular name, with a recurring news spot on a major cable network, that does that. So, you add these all up and while on paper it doesn't make sense, the Ronnie/pro-troop/we defeated the Soviets overall lens that one can use to look back on North, does in fact garner him a great deal of affection.
And let me add, we like him in spite of his failings that the judge pointed to, not because of them. I was in that line as the gold star moms thanked him for supporting their sons and daughters, and highlighting their wartime successes in an otherwise hostile media. It's not like we were in line shouting out, "hey Ollie, that was GREAT when you shredded those documents and all!" They were there to thank him. That was what I heard uttered the most as people passed through him in that line .... "thank you."
Let's dial the way back machine to 1989...
First off, Baddboy will be back on the Coast Thursday. His phase two training will be done out of Keesler, so that's nice. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of my new apartment.
Secondly, Ryan's gushing love fest concerning Oliver North made me think. I didn't recall Ollie being a convicted felon of the same cut as G. Gordon Liddy, (who is a turd no matter what your political views or affiliations are, a crook who makes a name for himself from the ashes of the darkest moments in United States Executive Office history.)
So I loaded up Mr. Peabody and we dialed the Way Back Machine to 1989.
Oliver North was part of a twenty-three count indictment along with Admiral Poindexter, Mag. General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim. Ryan's grandfather's contribution allowed Ollie to artfully separate his case from the others (they were all tried separately eventually) and due to classified testimony and national security issues, eleven charges were dropped. Of the twelve he was tried for in February 1989, he was convicted of three. They were:
1) Obstruction and misleading Congress.
2) Shredding and altering official documents.
3) Accepting illegal gratuities from Richard Secord.
In closing Judge Gessel said,
"The indictment involves your participation in particular covert events. I do not think that in this area you were a leader at all, but really a low-ranking subordinate working to carry out initiatives of a few cynical superiors. You came to be the point man in a very complex power play developed by higher-ups. Whether it was because of the excitement and the challenge or because of conviction, you responded certainly willingly and sometimes even excessively to their requirements. And along the way you came to accept, it seems to me, the mistaken view that Congress couldn't be trusted and that the fate of the country was better left to a small inside group, not elected by the people, who were free to act as they chose while publicly professing to act differently. Thus you became and by a series of circumstances in fact and I believe in your mind part of a scheme that reflected a total distrust in some constitutional values.
Now, a trial is a very extraordinary thing. As you stand there now you're not the fall guy for this tragic breach of the public trust. The jury composed of everyday citizens your supporters mocked and mocked throughout the trial understood what was taking place."[ 66]
"Observing that many others involved in the events were escaping without censor or with prosecutorial promises of leniency or immunities they used their common sense. And they gave you the benefit of a reasonable doubt." 66
Judge Gesell was referring to media opinion pieces and public statements by North supporters expressing the view that the jury was too ill-informed about current affairs to pass judgment on North. They argued this based on the fact that none of the jurors claimed to be knowledgeable of or interested in North or the Iran/contra matter before being sworn in. It was North's attorneys, however, (good job, Granddad Ryan!) who insisted on selecting a jury virtually unaware of their client's widely publicized congressional testimony. In pre-trial hearings regarding jury selection and possible problems stemming from the publicity that had surrounded the Iran/contra matter, Judge Gesell said it was his experience in presiding over high-profile cases, including some of the Watergate cases, that ordinary citizens pay little attention to the national news events occurring around them in Washington. Because of this, he said, it was possible to pick a fair-minded jury even in the most publicized cases.
"You're here now because of your own conduct when the truth was coming out. Apparently you could not face disclosure and decided to protect yourself and others. You destroyed evidence, altered and removed official documents, created false papers after the events to keep Congress and others from finding out what was happening. Now, I believe that you knew this was morally wrong. It was against your bringing up. It was against your faith. It was against all of your training. Under the stress of the moment it was easier to choose the role of a martyr but that wasn't a heroic, patriotic act nor was it in the public interest."67
Now, that being said, I wish I could link the freaking page I got this from, but I can't.
It is important to remember what Oliver North did was illegal. Viewing his actions through the rose tinted glasses of our victory in the Cold War, it nevertheless was the will of a freely elected Congress to deny funding of the Contras. It was the publicly stated (and I can't overstate that, as can anyone else who remembers Reagan's weekly addresses, regular as church on Sunday) that the United States never has, will not nor ever will negotiate with terrorists by our President. There was no record of any Executive Order clearing North for the actions he took. His original sentence was $150,000 and two years community service and probation.
In July 1990 the Court of Appeals dismissed the charges because it was deemed the witnesses were impermissably affected by immunized congressional testimony. So, in fact, North is not a convicted felon of the same cloth as Liddy. Had Congress been more in tuned to prosecuting law breakers and not witch hunting the most popular President of the last half of the century, North would have done hard time. Congress gave him immunity to get to the Administration.
In the end, what does history show us?
1) The Contras failed. Ortega was removed from power due to the financial collapse of his sponsor state, the USSR. Communism did not spread to El Salvador or the neighboring Central American states.
2) Negotiating with terrorists failed. In fact, it prolonged the hostages' internment by as many as five years. All the hostages were released within two and a half years of George Sr.'s election because George DIDN'T negotiate.
3) The policy, as admitted by Reagan on national TV in 1987, was a failure. It seemed like a good idea at the time but it wasn't. It became the one black eye on an otherwise top five executive era.
4) It set the stage for the underming of the Legislative Branch of the government that has been prevelant over the last eight years.
Opinion now.
I don't know why "conservatives" have such an issue with following rules when it comes to policy. Why is it we look to almost mythicly powerful executives and think, "That's it! That's what we need!" when the Framers NEVER intended for that to be the case. Our greatest President, Washington, abhorred that kind of executive power. Andrew Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson (as much as I can't stand the bastard), Teddy, all of them either toed the line or got slapped. Even FDR, as much a king as we've ever had, got his hands slapped repeatedly. So when Reagan circumvents Congress and allows members of his staff to fall under prosecution for HIS failed policy, why do we see heroism in that? What is "cool" or admirable about that?
Secondly, Ryan's gushing love fest concerning Oliver North made me think. I didn't recall Ollie being a convicted felon of the same cut as G. Gordon Liddy, (who is a turd no matter what your political views or affiliations are, a crook who makes a name for himself from the ashes of the darkest moments in United States Executive Office history.)
So I loaded up Mr. Peabody and we dialed the Way Back Machine to 1989.
Oliver North was part of a twenty-three count indictment along with Admiral Poindexter, Mag. General Richard Secord and Albert Hakim. Ryan's grandfather's contribution allowed Ollie to artfully separate his case from the others (they were all tried separately eventually) and due to classified testimony and national security issues, eleven charges were dropped. Of the twelve he was tried for in February 1989, he was convicted of three. They were:
1) Obstruction and misleading Congress.
2) Shredding and altering official documents.
3) Accepting illegal gratuities from Richard Secord.
In closing Judge Gessel said,
"The indictment involves your participation in particular covert events. I do not think that in this area you were a leader at all, but really a low-ranking subordinate working to carry out initiatives of a few cynical superiors. You came to be the point man in a very complex power play developed by higher-ups. Whether it was because of the excitement and the challenge or because of conviction, you responded certainly willingly and sometimes even excessively to their requirements. And along the way you came to accept, it seems to me, the mistaken view that Congress couldn't be trusted and that the fate of the country was better left to a small inside group, not elected by the people, who were free to act as they chose while publicly professing to act differently. Thus you became and by a series of circumstances in fact and I believe in your mind part of a scheme that reflected a total distrust in some constitutional values.
Now, a trial is a very extraordinary thing. As you stand there now you're not the fall guy for this tragic breach of the public trust. The jury composed of everyday citizens your supporters mocked and mocked throughout the trial understood what was taking place."[ 66]
"Observing that many others involved in the events were escaping without censor or with prosecutorial promises of leniency or immunities they used their common sense. And they gave you the benefit of a reasonable doubt." 66
Judge Gesell was referring to media opinion pieces and public statements by North supporters expressing the view that the jury was too ill-informed about current affairs to pass judgment on North. They argued this based on the fact that none of the jurors claimed to be knowledgeable of or interested in North or the Iran/contra matter before being sworn in. It was North's attorneys, however, (good job, Granddad Ryan!) who insisted on selecting a jury virtually unaware of their client's widely publicized congressional testimony. In pre-trial hearings regarding jury selection and possible problems stemming from the publicity that had surrounded the Iran/contra matter, Judge Gesell said it was his experience in presiding over high-profile cases, including some of the Watergate cases, that ordinary citizens pay little attention to the national news events occurring around them in Washington. Because of this, he said, it was possible to pick a fair-minded jury even in the most publicized cases.
"You're here now because of your own conduct when the truth was coming out. Apparently you could not face disclosure and decided to protect yourself and others. You destroyed evidence, altered and removed official documents, created false papers after the events to keep Congress and others from finding out what was happening. Now, I believe that you knew this was morally wrong. It was against your bringing up. It was against your faith. It was against all of your training. Under the stress of the moment it was easier to choose the role of a martyr but that wasn't a heroic, patriotic act nor was it in the public interest."67
Now, that being said, I wish I could link the freaking page I got this from, but I can't.
It is important to remember what Oliver North did was illegal. Viewing his actions through the rose tinted glasses of our victory in the Cold War, it nevertheless was the will of a freely elected Congress to deny funding of the Contras. It was the publicly stated (and I can't overstate that, as can anyone else who remembers Reagan's weekly addresses, regular as church on Sunday) that the United States never has, will not nor ever will negotiate with terrorists by our President. There was no record of any Executive Order clearing North for the actions he took. His original sentence was $150,000 and two years community service and probation.
In July 1990 the Court of Appeals dismissed the charges because it was deemed the witnesses were impermissably affected by immunized congressional testimony. So, in fact, North is not a convicted felon of the same cloth as Liddy. Had Congress been more in tuned to prosecuting law breakers and not witch hunting the most popular President of the last half of the century, North would have done hard time. Congress gave him immunity to get to the Administration.
In the end, what does history show us?
1) The Contras failed. Ortega was removed from power due to the financial collapse of his sponsor state, the USSR. Communism did not spread to El Salvador or the neighboring Central American states.
2) Negotiating with terrorists failed. In fact, it prolonged the hostages' internment by as many as five years. All the hostages were released within two and a half years of George Sr.'s election because George DIDN'T negotiate.
3) The policy, as admitted by Reagan on national TV in 1987, was a failure. It seemed like a good idea at the time but it wasn't. It became the one black eye on an otherwise top five executive era.
4) It set the stage for the underming of the Legislative Branch of the government that has been prevelant over the last eight years.
Opinion now.
I don't know why "conservatives" have such an issue with following rules when it comes to policy. Why is it we look to almost mythicly powerful executives and think, "That's it! That's what we need!" when the Framers NEVER intended for that to be the case. Our greatest President, Washington, abhorred that kind of executive power. Andrew Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, Wilson (as much as I can't stand the bastard), Teddy, all of them either toed the line or got slapped. Even FDR, as much a king as we've ever had, got his hands slapped repeatedly. So when Reagan circumvents Congress and allows members of his staff to fall under prosecution for HIS failed policy, why do we see heroism in that? What is "cool" or admirable about that?
MIA?
What the hell ever happened to Baddboy?
Did he ever get back from TX? I don't think we've heard from him in ages... somebody light a fire under that slacker.
Did he ever get back from TX? I don't think we've heard from him in ages... somebody light a fire under that slacker.
That's for Ryan...
Maybe he'll stop "geeking out" now over "the good Colonel" and let the picture and the post fall to new topics and discussions.
(laugh)
I certainly can't argue with your summation of North's pro-military media efforts. He is, more than any other "celebrity" in the media today, working non-stop to show the effort and sacrifice that the service men and women are providing each and every day.
I keep comparing North's pride in his service with leading Democrat veterans (like John Kerry), who didn't take ANY pride in his service (according to his Congressional testimony upon his return to the US) until it was determined that it was something the DNC could count as "voter-friendly"... and by then it was too late.
On a side note... but kind of related topic... there is a rather "has-been" actor by the name of Peter Weller, who gained much fame and fortune through his sci-fi cult classic "Buckaroo Bonzai" and the Robocop series of movies. After his fall from the immediate lime-light spot, he took a position as a professor of history at Syracuse University (not all that far from where I am now, in fact). He hosts a History Channel series called Engineering an Empire and is a very good commentator on unique historical perspectives (I especially loved his commentary on the Byzantine Emperor Justinian's role in the "Nika" riots of the 6th Century... hehe). He hails from Stevens Point, WI (very close to my hometown) and has made some very acute observations about the historical necessity of our struggle against radical Islam in this country and across the world. I think his knowledge of the Byzantine Empire's struggle with Islam has given him a good view of just how pervasive the jihad-mentality can be to large segments of a population.
Celebrity support of our troops and of core Judeo-Christian values of family, life and liberty is a rare thing nowadays... North, Tom Selleck, Ron Silver, Ted Nugent, Robert Duvall, and the few others (it is a very short list) that support a moderate political view... not necessarily a conservative view even... are not given much of a voice in the modern media. On top of this... does anyone see something particular about the group I listed above? It truly is just about as full of a list as I can think of, off the top of my head, now that Heston is dead.
The people on my list are all of the "older" generation... probably not even of Ryan's generation. Jambo and I grew up with Magnum PI and "the Nuge" (I was particularly fond of Damn Yankees)... but for the younger crowd, I'm not sure there is a lot of connection from the celebrity world of Hollywood.
Can anyone think of current "under-30" celebrity that is actively pro-military or morally conservative in their political views?
(laugh)
I certainly can't argue with your summation of North's pro-military media efforts. He is, more than any other "celebrity" in the media today, working non-stop to show the effort and sacrifice that the service men and women are providing each and every day.
I keep comparing North's pride in his service with leading Democrat veterans (like John Kerry), who didn't take ANY pride in his service (according to his Congressional testimony upon his return to the US) until it was determined that it was something the DNC could count as "voter-friendly"... and by then it was too late.
On a side note... but kind of related topic... there is a rather "has-been" actor by the name of Peter Weller, who gained much fame and fortune through his sci-fi cult classic "Buckaroo Bonzai" and the Robocop series of movies. After his fall from the immediate lime-light spot, he took a position as a professor of history at Syracuse University (not all that far from where I am now, in fact). He hosts a History Channel series called Engineering an Empire and is a very good commentator on unique historical perspectives (I especially loved his commentary on the Byzantine Emperor Justinian's role in the "Nika" riots of the 6th Century... hehe). He hails from Stevens Point, WI (very close to my hometown) and has made some very acute observations about the historical necessity of our struggle against radical Islam in this country and across the world. I think his knowledge of the Byzantine Empire's struggle with Islam has given him a good view of just how pervasive the jihad-mentality can be to large segments of a population.
Celebrity support of our troops and of core Judeo-Christian values of family, life and liberty is a rare thing nowadays... North, Tom Selleck, Ron Silver, Ted Nugent, Robert Duvall, and the few others (it is a very short list) that support a moderate political view... not necessarily a conservative view even... are not given much of a voice in the modern media. On top of this... does anyone see something particular about the group I listed above? It truly is just about as full of a list as I can think of, off the top of my head, now that Heston is dead.
The people on my list are all of the "older" generation... probably not even of Ryan's generation. Jambo and I grew up with Magnum PI and "the Nuge" (I was particularly fond of Damn Yankees)... but for the younger crowd, I'm not sure there is a lot of connection from the celebrity world of Hollywood.
Can anyone think of current "under-30" celebrity that is actively pro-military or morally conservative in their political views?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
