Bad Moon Rising

Can I ask a general question?

Why are Islamo-fascists so fixated on air planes? Seriously. I know there were a few bridge plots in there, but the overwhelming majority of attacks are directed at airplanes. Why? Strategically I mean. As inept as it was in the wake of the "underwear bomber" (we've got to stop giving them such goofy names, it undercuts the seriousness of the matter) airport security may seem laughable, but it IS one of the few public venues in American life that does have a security apparatus. God forbid, and I don't mean to "give them ideas", but a crowded Avatar theater, or Christmas shopping mall, wouldn't that be a terrifying location for an explosive to go off? You may be able to avoid air flight in your daily life but try avoiding a grocery store for any length of time. Why do they forgo these soft targets? Yes, there is some innate, added fear of being blown up thousands of miles in the air, with no where to run, literally; but what would it do to commerce in this nation if 2 or 3 busy shopping centers were detonated on "black Friday?" Again, I have no doubt in my mind that they have considered these ideas and rejected them, so I'm hardly giving any Jihadi a hereto unthought of plan. But that's precisely what's gotten my curiosity stirred - they have rejected the idea thus far.

Let me go in another direction. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, correct? Yet I have to get at a minimum of an instant background check to buy even a hunting rifle at a sporting goods store, let alone a handgun at a real gun shop. But air travel, that's a privilege. I have no unalienable right to an airline seat. So why doesn't a privilege require at least as much scrutiny as one of my Constitutional Rights? A Yemen based Nigerian can purchase a ticket in cash and there is no instant background check in place that would provide AT LEAST the same level of security as my local Wal Mart were I to buy a Remington Bolt Action Rifle? Does that seem right to you?

Another angle, as I round out my free association inquisition ... El Al. The Israeli airline. They haven't one documented case of a high jacking, nor have they ever lost a single plane to explosives nor purposeful crash. Why? This is the ONLY nation whom draws the blood thirsty ire of the radical Islamic terrorist more than the US, yet they have successfully prevented any airline catastrophe. I do know this, as it pertains to answering the question of "why?" While you, as a potential passenger, are in line to board an El Al craft a plain clothed man will be working the line, having casual conversations. He will talk to you about your trip, your family, seemingly innocuous stuff, right? Wrong. He is an Israeli security officer. He looks for any sign that might "give you away" were you intending foul play. And let me be clear - he does that in line IN New York City, NOT just Tel Aviv. And as I hear all of this chatter about new scanners, puffer machines that detect explosive residue, etc etc, I am reminded of a quote by an El Al official when comparing their airline security with ours - "You look for the weapon, we look for the terrorist." Now I realize there are infinitely more airports in the US than in Israel, but I think that we could learn a lot from them on how a democracy deals with airport security, that's all. Something tells me that even the most jr. Mossad agent or El Al security officer isn't hung up on the political correctness of "profiling." Of course that's going to happen when you're surrounded by about 800 million people that would like to push you into the Red Sea ... this time, no Moses. At some point if we know the approximate age, religion, ethnicity and sex of the potential offender it ceases to be profiling and becomes quite simply a description of the suspect. But I digress ...

One more ... are we at war? Seriously, are we? I tend to think we have an army at war, but not a nation. And certainly not a President. The "condom bomber" (again, with the names) was arrested and promptly given a lawyer. A foreign national, suspected of an act of war, or at the very least a crime against humanity. Is that not a 9/10 mentality? Going back to "terror" being a matter of criminal law? Think about this - he, as it has come to be known, trained recently in Yemen at an Al Qeada camp. He was escorted to the ticket counter by a fellow Nigerian (presumably), male, in a suit, whom inquired as to the bombers ability to board the plane without a proper passport. Given all this, how much Intel could our new detainee potentially have? GITMO should have been his next destination. Or at least Egypt. Nothing like a little rendition to a nation with no Bill of Rights to get the ol' vocal cords loosened up. But alas, with neither a president at war to order it, nor a nation at war to demand it, it does not happen. He'll get the same lawyer as a 16 year old kid who holds up a 7/11 ... and the same rights. And yet tomorrow we will ask a 19 year old Marine to get up and fight the war on terror in a dust ridden hell hole half away around the world. Does that sound like a nation seeking victory to you?

Putin, again...

I know I just read an article stating quite clearly that Russia (Medvedev, specifically) had announced that the nuclear arms reduction treaty between the US and Moscow was in its "final stages".

This morning I read that Putin announced that it was "held up" because of US anti-missile defense development, which was causing Russia to expand its offensive nuclear capacity.

This Putin-Medvedev regime is hell-bent to get back the former status of the USSR for modern Russia, and I am afraid Obama is going to pander and barter away more of America's advantage to "keep the peace". I'm certainly not in favor of a general reduction in nuclear weapons unless the US can maintain some kind of edge through the deal... that is the essence of diplomacy, isn't it? To be perfectly frank, "diplomacy" stems from the Latin diploma, which was an official document conferring privilege or advantage in station or status... and current American diplomats seem to have forgotten that root meaning to their title. Where is the privilege or advantage in status or station for the US when we keep giving away what little we still manage to hold in the way of progress or superior ability?

I'm not soft on Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, by any means... but as far as long term issues that the US is currently ignoring, I'd say that Russia, and specifically Putin/Medvedev, are right at the top of that list. They are propping up a diseased and very dangerous regime in North Korea (via massive aid and food shipments directly to the communist government rather than humanitarian agencies within the country), they are in bed with Iran over oil and gas production and distribution both into and out of the region, they are not doing ONE THING to support US efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they are constantly undermining efforts by NATO and the US to strengthen ties with former Eastern European (and especially former Warsaw Pact) states. Add to this the undeniable fact that they are making BILLIONS every month on gas and diesel exports to the EU and China... more than enough to fund the development and production of those "offensive" nuclear weapons he was referring to in today's press release... and I would venture to say that Russia's goals are not the same as America's goals.

Can't pass this up...

Believe me, I'm not bragging... or, at least, not very much... but I can't stop myself from telling everyone that hasn't heard this a hundred times: I have SEEN that very fountain from the scene in Enemy at the Gates, that your sharp-shooter son has become so fascinated with.

While on a train to Odessa, I got to stop in Volgograd (Stalingrad) and the very fountain in question is very close to the main train station (and the river, by the way... the movie didn't give that view).

Anyway, that's it. Just another chance for Thomas to scream at the top of his lungs to anyone that cares to listen, "Hey, I've actually BEEN there!"

Merry Christmas ...

... good post, good times. Dickens would be proud, even if there was a Dublin man there ... hehe.

Well, out of the 3 potential big gatherings I could have been at - my mother's in Mississippi, my Dad's in Illinois & Titus's (I doubt he'd turn me away at the door) in NEPA, I was unable to attend any. However, as a recently divorced father I did take GREAT pleasure in knowing that my sons are in my custody and thus I will always be able to celebrate with them - and boy did we. We spent Christmas Eve watching "Enemy At The Gates", with a pre-film dissertation of Stalingrad, pointer & map in hand. And as luck would have it one of the video games my oldest opened the next day from good ol' Dad - "Call to Duty, World At War" (a WWII genre) - featured the exact scene of Vasilly in the fountain pretending to be dead, then sniping German officers. The entire Stalingrad level was played from that first person Soviet sniper perspective and my boy was hooked on the game instantly. A perfect history lesson. So we played football, video games, and football video games; built many an Indiana Jones & Star Wars Lego set; they donned their new Roethlisberger & Peyton jerseys, and though they begged to go eat dinner at Hooters (true story), I chose for us to instead cap off the night at the movies seeing Sherlock Holmes. It was quite good. Directed by Guy Ritchie (of "Snatch" fame). Downey was a fine Holmes and Jude Law was a great Watson. We then rushed home and once again repelled the Huns from their unholy invasion of the Motherland ... fascist dogs!

Good stuff ...

PS> in the game, and it IS a great game, you are allowed to upgrade weaponry upon earning enough points (money). And when as the Russian you complete the upgrade he quips in a heavy, jovial Ruskie accent, "Ooooh, I feel like a dirty capitalist." That cracked me up.

Remembering Christmas Eve...

I hope everyone following this site had a joy-filled Christmas, and that everyone has a Happy New Year, too.

Ours was busy, busy, busy. Our best friends were over for Christmas Eve dinner... Super John and Becki, Mick the Lib and Jen, all the kids (and I do mean all of them) and Mick's younger brother, Noel, from Dublin. We had manicotti, shrimp, scallops, stuffed mushrooms, a cheese platter and a huge pile of spinach dip with dark rye bread. I bought Liz a case of NEPA's finest wine (from our local winery, Nimble Hill), two cases of porter, a bottle of Paddy's and Noel brought a bottle of Michael Collins whiskey, as well.

Just as we were reaching the height of our pint-count, Jambo called to wish us a Merry Christmas and James got his chance to speak with our visiting Dubliner. What Jambo might not realise is that we had been talking about him and his antics prior to his call, and some of the better stories had moved everyone to tears with the associated laughter... so Noel was probably feeling like he was talking to an old friend. I sure hope Jambo wasn't too put off by the conversation... I'm sure it was a lot to take sober and unprepared, but it was all in good, honest fun.

It was a great time, and between the four of us men, we finished the entire bottle of Collins and left only a swallow of the Paddy's. Good food, great drink, and even better company makes for one hell of a memorable Christmas Eve party. No one fought, no one fell, and almost nothing got broken... the perfect party.

Liz and I spent the rest of the night putting Christmas morning together, until about 2 AM. Since our youngest, Jake, had fallen asleep in my bed, Liz slept with him and I nodded off on the couch (ouch) until Nolan woke up at about 6 AM ready to open his gifts. The rest of the family was up by 7 and the house rang with the sound of tearing paper and laughter. French toast, some fresh berries, and two pots of coffee helped round out the morning into a very nice Christmas Day, if ever I have seen one.

Noel gets on his plane back to Ireland today, and I hope he has a great trip and a great New Year! Thanks so much for helping to make our Christmas so memorable and happy! I certainly look forward to seeing him again as soon as possible... he's a gentleman and a scholar, no doubt.

Today is Jacob's 7th birthday, and we have made plans to take him to one of the most evil and hated places on the face of the earth... Chuck E. Cheese's. I shudder to think of the 2 to 3 hours that I am going to have to spend there, but he has been waiting for this trip for (literally) MONTHS and can't stop talking about it. So, I will take up my cross and bear it with as much grace as I can... someday, when he is rich and famous, perhaps he will remember this and determine that supporting Liz and I in our old age is the least he can do for such considerate parents.

If I didn't say it previously, I'll say it again now (belated though it is)...

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all our much-loved friends and family!

That's a damn good point...

Having read your post a while ago, and having had time to ponder your words, I have come to the conclusion that you are CORRECT when you say that "liberals" (I won't go so far as to say Democrats as a whole) hold the posturing and propagandizing for any particular issue as more important than actually acting to resolve any particular issue.

Pius XII could have screamed from the Papal throne against the inhumanity being perpetrated by the Nazis across Europe, and his "words" would have rung empty and fruitless when looked upon by history... but today's "experts" on what is morally RIGHT and JUST in this world (the Schiks, Obermanns, John Cornwells (the author of "Hitler's Pope"), Mike Malloys, et al ) would be perfectly satisfied, it seems.

Yet none of these same moral-ethical experts have anything to say about the FACT that both the FDR and Churchill administrations during the war REFUSED to allow Jews fleeing Europe in the face of Nazi terror immigrant status so they could escape the Holocaust. In fact, one small ship, the MS St. Louis, carried nearly 1,000 Jews out of Germany but were refused entrance into Cuba, then the US, then Britain, and finally had to disembark the passengers in Antwerp were they were eventually captured by the Nazis after the occupation of France in 1940. Of the 936 original refugees, 227 died in the Nazi death camps, and an additional 389 were detained in work-slave labor camps (but did survive the war). To be fair, 288 made it to England after the Dunkirk disaster... but that seems sad consolation for Churchill and the British, doesn't it?

This entire topic pisses me off to no end. Yes, Pius was very traditional and didn't do much to effect some of the changes in Church structure and organization that some in the Church were asking for (at least not initially)... but even today, if Pius were here now and could clearly state exactly what his position on matters of social justice and moral responsibility by governments, there isn't a liberal in America that wouldn't agree with EVERYTHING he had to say except when it came to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle. He was as big a supporter of social justice as anyone since Christ Himself! It was the biggest issue between him and Mussolini right up to the start of the war.

Confrontational, antagonistic, bigoted anti-Catholic sentiments are all that is behind this story... nothing more.

"Ouch" ... that's gonna leave a mark.

As well it should.

In college I was assigned a book, a book undoubtedly still in circulation. For a class entitled "Nazi Germany" (and taught by the chair of my southern university's history department no less) I was required to read: "Pius XII, Hitler's Pope." In fact I showed it to you gents one moon and fire lit Bund night on my back porch (ok, that sounded fairly gay). As I recall at its' sight you recoiled like a vampire being exposed to a crucifix. And of course then spent the evening (the both of you) taking it apart. 2 hours and Jambo's ruined jeans (via the bleach I used to clean the lawn chairs) later, you had won me over. Truthfully I hadn't developed an opinion either way except to defend my instructor, whom I did like. But given he and I argued loudly & often in his office after many a class I was willing to concede the book to be revisionism ... and it was.

I have since come to the conclusion, and your post only reinforced this, that there are two forces at work here. 1.) The left will pass up no opportunity to condemn Christianity, and even a Mormon would concede there is no bigger symbol after Christ then the Popes. The idea that they could tie Christianity to complicity in the greatest crime man has ever perpetrated upon himself must be simply irresistible. 2.) The left is big on "statements." And I mean that quite literally. To stand up and "speak out" against a given injustice is prized over actually fighting them. To "speak" against an evil, they seem to believe, requires a fortitude of character that acting against said evil just doesn't carry. Witness President Obama, his peace prize, or regaling the 60's protesters as "brave" rather than the soldiers actually serving in Vietnam - this type of misplaced virtue is alive and well even today. Which brings us back to Pope Pius XII. The idea that he didn't publicly condemn the Holocaust, neither in his public BBC radio broadcasts at Easter Mass nor through his Archbishops, is identified as "weak." For if "speaking" is the chase prize of history's champions then surely "not speaking" defines its' complacent villains. It is ridiculous. I wonder would these same leftists be so quick to condemn FDR? I seem to have missed his "Holocaust Fireside Chat."

History records that both the greatest mind of the 20th century and Israel's most hawkish Prime Minister have both endorsed the real ACTIONS of Pius XII ... were I him, I could live in eternity with that.

Nauseating...

It's been a long time since I have seen this much revisionist history being thrown around by the mainstream media... and it is making me physically ill more and more every day.

With the news that Benedict XVI was elevating Popes John Paul II and Pius XII to the status of "Venerable", the press is full of stories about the silence or outright cooperation that the Catholic Church was supposed to have practiced between 1940 and 1945 in regards to the Nazi Holocaust.

We'll pass on examining the record of John Paul II... I can't imagine there is anyone capable of reading this blog that doesn't realize the risks that Karol Wojtyla took to practice his faith and moral understanding during the Nazi occupation of Poland and the subsequent years of Communist repression... or his efforts as Pope to end that repression in all of Eastern Europe.

Pius XII, however, continues to be condemned as a man that did nothing to stop the killing of Jews and others by the millions across occupied Europe. On what basis do those that continue this falsehood use to perpetuate this lie? How is it that this sort of revisionism and outright falsification of fact is allowed to continue on an almost daily basis?

In 1958, at the death of Pius XII, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (arguably the toughest PM Israel has ever had and dedicated to Nazi-hunting to her dying day) officially recognized Pius XII for as having been personally responsible for saving the lives of 7,800 Jews in Italy and Austria by issuing them Vatican passports signed in his own hand so they could "legally" immigrate to Allied and neutral nations (US, Great Britain, Ireland and Canada... all countries that were DENYING Jews immigrant status if they came from Germany, Italy or Spain). I'm having trouble imagining a more weighty acknowledgement of efforts made than that...

Pius received official recognition for his efforts of relief and humanitarianism towards the Jews from the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem, Bucharest, Krakow (that from a man already inside Auschwitz!) and Rome. In fact, the Chief Rabbi of Rome was so touched by the efforts of Pius XII that he converted to Catholicism and took Pius' given name as his Christian name (Eugenio). Does anyone think THAT particular Jew questioned Pius XII in his ethical and moral standing, or in the position he took in regards to Jewish persecutions? Please...

In 1944, he convinced the Prince Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary (a member of the Axis and a personal acquaintance of Hitler's) Admiral Miklos Horthy, to NOT send 800,000 Hungarian Jews to the concentration camps in Germany and Poland as ordered by Hitler. Without Pius' intervention, does anyone wonder what would have happened to those 800,000 Hungarians... with nearly a year left in the war to go? Does THAT sound like complicity in the genocide of the Jews of Europe?

Pius XII did ask that regional bishops and archbishops refrain from public comment on the treatment of Jews AFTER the Archbishop of Utrecht (Belgium) made a public denouncement of Nazi policies regarding Jews that resulted in the immediate deportation and subsequent extermination of 7,900 Jews from Belgium, including the now famous (and Jewish) St. Edith Stein. I DO NOT see this as complicity, however... not when you are simply asking that public statements about policies that CANNOT BE CHANGED by those making the statements be held in check to protect innocent lives (like the 7,900 Belgians that died because of the political posturing one Archbishop chose to make). THAT constitutes criminal silence in the face of genocide? Really?

The most famous Jew of the age, Albert Einstein, said this about Pius and the Church during the war: "Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty." When he said this, Einstein was already an American, and had already given so much to the American and Allied war effort... but he DID NOT include FDR or Churchill in his quote, did he?

No, he did not.

I'm due...

With the two women of this house all "sinc'ed up" when it comes to their menstral cycles, I'm REALLY looking forward to the planned trip to our local pub this week. Mick is flying in his brother from Dublin, and we are taking a night to go to... you guessed it... the Banshee for pints, punts and palavers. I haven't had a drink since Thanksgiving, and I'm due for a rock-solid drunk. If we don't go to the Banshee, we'll be at the Boathouse (a lot closer, but no Guinness) just 6 miles down the road.

I'm also holding my breath that Mick convinced his younger sibling (his name is Noel) to bring a few bottles of Paddy's duty-free from Ireland... no finer whiskey is to be had, in my opinion. That should make the Christmas Eve dinner we are planning to host here at the house a LOT easier on me...

Mick made me promise to tell you guys that we'd "raise a glass" to all of you (Leona too!) so you won't feel left out of the fun. Just don't forget to do the same for us if there is any celebrating to be done in your futures this week, okay?

Something to consider...

When we speak of the need for visible "leadership" in the GOP, what do we mean? Surely we aren't saying that Steele or Gingrich or McConnell or Boehner aren't doing all they can, are we?

I spent a couple of minutes this morning watching Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) "do his stuff" on the Senate floor. He's not making friends, on either side of the aisle... but he's making his point very visibly and he's doing it in ways that everyone can see. Is that leadership? Maybe not... but it isn't hurting the Dem cause, either.

His recent exchange with Sen Thune (R-SD) is a good example. He's arguing a losing point, I'm sure, but he's also making himself look like a crusader and someone who is getting things done. I'm not saing he's right... in fact, the point he is arguing is going to come back and bite him in the ass in the very near future. He is demanding that those debating bills on the floor must have read them first, and we all know that the Democratic agenda right now won't allow ANYONE to read entire 1000+ page bills with hundreds and thousands of earmarks each BEFORE they are voted on. If the conservative element only holds him (and the rest of the Dems) to the same standard set by the Honorable Senator from Minnesota, we'd go a long way to stopping some pretty crappy legislation in its tracks.

I'm saying that we don't have conservative voices doing for the conservative cause what Franken is doing for the liberal cause... making it part of the everyday experience of the average American. This isn't the sort of thing I think we can blame on the "mainstream media" either... C-Span is pretty non-partisan in its presentation, and everything I have seen has been via C-Span.

If we all agree that the agenda of the liberals in America is a fundamentally flawed position from the start, then how hard can it be to expect someone in a position within the Congress (or anywhere, for that matter) to articulate the concerns and points of the conservatives from the floor of the House or Senate?

Now, to counter my point, I submit that Franken did, indeed, step on his male reproductive organs when he shot down Leiberman's request for more time to articulate his additions to the defense bill... but it wasn't enough of a gaff to counter his rather pointed exchange with Thule.

Where is the conservative voice screaming from the floor?

Someone recently asked me for evidence...

I'm pretty particular about who I talk "politics" with... religion, too, for that matter... because I'm not the kind of person that wants to force my view on someone that can't or won't take the time or effort to see my point of view. Some people will discuss a topic like adults, listening to contrary opinions and weighing them against their own... while others will defend an established "position" like the 101st defended Bastogne in '44: no compromise and no surrender.

While talking with someone recently I posited that Obama was less than a year into his Presidency and was already reaping the rewards of failed foreign policy. That person then asked for evidence that his policies had failed (or were failing). I readily offered several, but these were dismissed nearly out of hand as vestigial remains of failed Bush policy, not something Obama dropped-the-ball on at all.

Of course, I conceded nothing... but I wasn't going to beat my head against a brick wall to try and show this particular Liberal why they were wrong. Instead, I'll do it here... and make myself feel a little better, anyway.

Iran:

Obama DID, in fact, say that he would have unilateral meetings with Iran with no preconditions. He has failed to bring to fruition any substantial coalition of allied nations that are willing to enforce sanctions against Iran if it continues to follow its stated goal of nuclear development. Iran continues to be the biggest supplier of arms and material to insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan (bigger even than China), and offers an "open border" to those insurgents that need somewhere to run to when the heat gets too much in Iraq.

Most telling, though, is the FACT that yesterday, Iran seized (by MILITARY FORCE) an oil drilling complex within established Iraqi territory, stating that the complex is actually on Iranian territory. Seventeen foreign nationals (including 7 Americans) have been detained by Iranians for extended periods of time on questionable and even ridiculous "charges" and then used as bargaining chips in their political game-playing. Iranian gun boats routinely harass and interdict coalition warships in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz, putting the lives of hundreds (even thousands) of coalition sailors and marines at risk (mainly Americans) every day.

All this from a government that has ceaselessly supported terrorism against the US AND her allies (like Israel) for the last 30 years and continues to pump money and material into the insurgencies in both Iraq and Afghanistan while funding such terror outlets as Hammas, al Qeida and Hezbollah without rest. They have ALWAYS denied the Holocaust... and now even deny that 9-11 happened at all. Amazing.

RUSSIA:

Obama has seen the relationship with Russia grow, just as he promised. I maintain, however, that this growth and development has been exclusively at the expense of the United States and her allies. Example: Poland and the Czech Republic both spent MILLIONS of dollars on the preliminary facilities for the "missile defense shield" the US had promised to partner with them on (some estimates have gone as high as 3% of their respective GNPs) only to have Obama retract the promise and replace it with a vague promise of future cooperation via NATO agreements. This "change of direction" was at the very loud and very pointed complaining of Russia... who THEN refused to cooperate with the US on tougher sanctions against Iran. It would seem that better diplomatic relations with Obama take a back seat to more cash from Tehran.

Furthermore, while Obama has worked to reduce the influence of the US in the regions of Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia has worked tirelessly to INCREASE theirs. They have created 14 new brigade-sized units of rapid-response forces that are capable of intervening (in one manner or another) in less than 36 hours anywhere in the Eurasian continent. Our forces are being rotated out and end-date time lines are being established as we read this.

EUROPE:

Europe continues to move in its "left-leaning" direction via the Lisbon Treaty of the European Union... but more and more of the component states are electing "conservative" leadership, with Denmark, France, and Austria leading the way. I tend to credit this change in attitude by the European electorate to the economic realities of higher taxes forcing and prolonging the depressed market economies, but I also think that the growing influence of Russia and China are factors. If Europe is to thrive as a single economic and political power, it must be able to effectively compete with Russia, China and what is left of the US free-market economy. Liberal idealism and an environment of "hope" are not enough to guaranty success against the far more established and far less idealistic theaters found to the east of Europe.

These are the areas that I feel SHOW conclusively that Obama is failing in the area of foreign policy. Just my thoughts... I wanted to vent this all night long. :)

It's beginning to feel a lot like Christmas...

I'm almost ashamed to say it, but I'm getting tired of it, too. I'm not sure I can bring myself to bake one more cookie or one more batch of fudge. I'm sick of wrapping presents and shopping and planning the "big day" so that each child has an adequate number of gifts and presents.

Two years ago, I posted THIS and I still stand behind what I wrote. I have watched for this program on our TV schedule now, but have yet to see it aired. I guess our modern, politically-correct and ultra-secular society have determined that this icon of the Christmas season for children over the last 45 years is no longer acceptable viewing. We have it on DVD, so we will watch it anyway.

Jacob, our soon-to-be 7 year old, was watching me wrap his gift for a school grab-bag exchange last night, and said that he wished "Christmas was everyday!" Honesty and honor forces me to admit that I was feeling less-than-Santa-like at that moment, but his comment was sincere and touched me to a point that I felt I couldn't let it go. I asked him if he knew why we had a "Christmas" at all... and this child blew me away. He told me that Christmas was Jesus' birthday, and that is why we give presents... giving presents to others is like giving presents to Jesus.

He doesn't always behave the way we could want, and he is a trial at least as much as he is an angel... but that moment was my Christmas miracle. Jacob understood better than I did what I was supposed to be doing (even if he wasn't able to employ that understanding any better than I was... hehe).

When next I say my rosary (with the name Terry first and foremost on my lips... :) ), I will remember to say an extra "Thank You" for Jacob and all of my family and friends that help me to remember why we REALLY have a Christmas at all.

I also missed one ...

It would have been 2 undoubtedly had Titus not listed the answer for the application. The one I missed was which of the following amendments does "not" address voting rights or guarantees: the 24th, 7th, 19th & 15th. I knew the 19th & 15th, I just blanked on the 7th (right to trial by jury/double jeopardy) & the 24th - utterly ridiculous, I know. But you're right, it was fairly lame.

I had the little ones take it, they both passed (they even knew the chief justice & that the Constitution was 1787 as opposed to 1776 - I was pleased). It occurs to me that roughly 30-40% of high school seniors, in every study I've seen, could NOT pass. And although that's sad I decided on a silver lining - my boys will clean those clowns clocks in life ... haha.

Here it is...

INS sample citizenship test. From Ryan's favorite source, too... hehe...

...and its pretty lame. I got only one wrong (because I have never had to fill out an application for naturalization (Form N-400) from the INS) out of twenty.

There are quite a few tests out there, and maybe we can make them a bit more challenging... but I still feel language shouldn't be one of the requirements outside of completing the test and application process. Let's leave that for another time, though...

I guess the point I wanted to make with this thread was to discuss what the government's role should or shouldn't be. I simply don't think that assimilation is within the parameters of the government's defined powers, and giving them MORE authority over our or anyone else's lives can't possibly be a good thing, can it? Our government was meant to provide a fair and level playing field for ALL Americans to work towards their individual success and prosperity... not to take prospective or newly-made citizens and shape them into something they may or may not want to be based on pretty arbitrary assumptions by either the Government itself or the current population (neither of which is in any sort of position to make such determinations, in my opinion).

9 and 1 ... again.

Thank you for the congrats ... and the profile update.

Last year our team went undefeated into the championship game and lost in overtime on a 2 point conversion, 29-28. This year we repeated our regular season record and faced off against the exact same school. This time we led through to the last 9 seconds when their successful hail Mary sealed our fate ... a real heart breaker. 5th grade boys toss aside their adolescent machismo (read: cheer leaders are watching), and cry openly when you lose one like that, I can assure you. The good news for me personally is that last year my boy was an occasional starter only, playing center 90% of the time with few if any plays directed at him, only dreaming of how "cool" it would be to score an "actual touchdown in an actual game", as he put it on drives home after practice. Some thought it a bit "cruel" last year to not start my own child, but I unapologetically noted that at best doing so would teach him nothing, and at worst teach him to expect something for nothing. Well, long story short over the off season he practiced and practiced and studied positions and this year started as my middle linebacker/captain of the defense, and full back - iron man style. He became one of the 5 core players of the team that led the other 19 boys on and off the field. And in the championship game he made an interception, gained us 3 first downs, had 2 sacks, and ran in a touchdown to give us the lead going into half time ... not that I was counting (hehe). I've got to tell you, it was pure joy to watch and outside of the final 9 seconds one of the all time great days he and I have shared ... good stuff. I can only hope that this makes him even more hungry, and he continues to improve by leaps and bounds the way he did over the last year (& per our post game "long talk" I believe that is exactly what will happen). Oh, and on a side note you and Jambo will be happy to know that I can now watch an NFL game and spot a tight end without the cameras panning to the cheer leaders ... so yes, we both learned a lot.

****

Look, you need not explain "assimilation" to an avid Star Trek fan, I get it. And I would never advocate shutting down any newspaper, television station, etc over language or any other nonviolent/legal activity (as I believe I made a point of saying in my last). I was under the impression that you were advocating (in theory) a deregulation of current requirements (requirements that do currently require a base level of English proficiency). If you were not then perhaps we were having a glass half full / half empty conversation (not that Titus and Ryan would would ever do such a thing, perish the thought). But since you broached the subject I would appreciate one of us (read: YOU) posting the current requirements to become a United States citizen so we can all be on the same page - with average wait time, tests, cost, all the hurdles and requirements, the whole ball of wax. Perhaps even the test itself, and we can all take it, cold. Lets see how we who fancy ourselves academics do. Outside of the test (or a link therein), you could give a summary of the overall experience and requirements, with more specific information where you deem needed. Then we can better judge whether the present requirements strike the proper assimilation (or "baseline of unity" if you prefer)/integration balance according to our opinions.

And just to stress ... for any single, rich, politically connected hotties out there, I am VERY single now. Hey, you never know ... one of the Bush daughters is still unmarried.

Two things...

First off, I wanted to congratulate Ryan and his son for their success this football season. It seems that they went all the way to the Championship game, but couldn't win it all. An outstanding effort by both of them, and I am convinced both learned a lot about themselves over the course of the season. Well done, boys!

Secondly, I wanted to tell Ryan that I have (finally) updated the "Bios" page of this blog so that it accurately reflects his marital status. If you have issues with the wording, please feel free to adjust it accordingly yourself.

Liz didn't think the "Ang" reference was appropriate anymore... especially if there were rich and well-connected "hotties" that might be interested in our Ryan and check out his blog.

Here I go... again...

Ryan, why is it so difficult for you to read and understand my posts? Are they that convoluted? Do I degress that often?

So which is it - should the focus be assimilation or integration?

I am completely in favor of the manner and means by which we now allow legal immigrants to become full-fledged citizens of these United States of America, unless an easier or more streamlined means can be found that still weeds out criminals and terrorists. I am completely against any additional legislation, requirements, addendums, caveats, hurdles or tests that aren't already part of the process that might be implemented to make the process any more difficult or weighty than it is now. Isn't that the "conservative way"? How does this make me the radical liberal you still seem to associate me with?

My problem with this is we have always put a special burden on those seeking to become a citizen.

By making them take an oath of allegiance, a written test, and enough proficiency with the written word to complete the application process, yes... you are 100% correct. MY POINT was that it continues to be a topic of debate as to whether or not we should INCREASE the requirements for citizenship to include an English (written and verbal) test. I think this is the sort of reactionary requirements that stem from unfounded and unreasonable fears about the immigrants themselves, rather than the immigrant's intentions or abilities as citizens. My further point was that we didn't need it in the past... why would we need it now?

Would we accommodate a Sudanese national to maintain his Christian slaves, or preform Biblical style stonings upon arrival in the US?

Utterly asinine. This is a non sequitur of absolutely monumental proportions! Of course these are not the "cultural norms" I am asking about, any more than yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater is protected speech or polygamy is protected religious practice under the First Amendment. My point was that requiring any level of proficiency at English outside of what is already required (which is more than at any other point in our national history) is extraneous, and thus unnecessary. Simply more government regulation clogging up the works and holding back individual freedoms.

Base requirements on assimilation are necessary. Not at the expense of ethnic cultural identity, but rather to preserve what makes us all similar, to provide a baseline of unity. That should be the focus of government, that base line assimilation.

This is the point I was waiting so long for. Now we can discuss the issue...

I don't disagree with this statement, but I think you might not understand what "assimilate" really means. Webster's New American defines assimilate as "to bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like", which is a perfectly straight-forward understanding of the word. I simply don't think I want the GOVERNMENT mandating any degree of "conformity" to anyone in this nation when it comes to "customs, attitudes, etc." Safety and security, yes... criminal or reckless behavior is not something that just anyone should be allowed to participate in.

I'm a fan of "integration". Ensuring that everyone, immigrant and native alike, has the same basic freedoms and opportunities to succeed at any endeavor, in whatever manner they feel best suits their needs. Immigrants from Latin America that choose to run and circulate a Spanish-only newspaper could be in a very lucrative operation in a nation that boasts more than 25 million Spanish speakers... but where does the US get the right to say you CAN'T have a Spanish-only newspaper? Where does the US get the right to say to a phone company or a large lending institution that you can't offer over-the-phone services in Espanol just as easily as you can in English? How does that NOT constitute the Government regulating and limiting personal freedoms?

My examples above stem from yours... I'm truly trying to avoid the English-only argument here. I want establish which is the best course for the government to take... less regulation or more? You cannot mandate "assimilation" without adding more rules and regulations to the already VERY thick and ponderous law tomes, but we have (especially in the last 40 years) truly made great strides in ensuring broad and general guarantees of fair and objective "integration" into society.

Which do you support?

Come again?

This is what happens every time Titus discusses immigrant issues, he goes into a too clever by half professor mode, and it sounds as if he is promoting an understanding of both sides, which makes it appear as if he hasn't picked one.

I am in complete agreement with the closing paragraphs of your posts regarding political attitudes towards illegal immigrants. I have query with a few points though. You noted that immigrants of the past had an advantage over those today. Yet far less accommodations were made for integration then - for example, in terms of English it was sink or swim, no "press 1."

So which is it - should the focus be assimilation or integration? Let me address it another way with the assumption that you are pro-integration at the expense of any "forced" assimilation. I still think you are presenting a false choice, an unnecessary either or, but NOT in the original question of what the government focus should be, but rather in your answer.

"Insisting that a level of proficiency in English be a requirement for legal immigration seems to fly in the face of the very principles that Ryan was delineating in his post... primarily, personal and individual freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans. We are asking immigrants to embrace the Constitution, but we (as a society) place limits and standards on citizenship that the Constitution prohibits for naturally-born sons and daughters... how is that not a contradiction?"

My problem with this is we have always put a special burden on those seeking to become a citizen. You mentioned natural-born citizens aren't required to learn English - well neither are they "required" to learn about the founding fathers, nor the Constitution, nor take a "citizenship test" on American history in order to maintain their citizenship. The personal liberty I speak of does not extend to making "any" allowance for cultural differences. Would we accommodate a Sudanese national to maintain his Christian slaves, or preform Biblical style stonings upon arrival in the US? Both of which still occur in parts of Sudan I might add. There must be SOME standard that allows a base level of assimilation so that all of our disparate cultures, races and tongues can share a basic level of unity. Insisting the citizenship test and a base level of English proficiency is no more an infringement of personal liberty then asking a new immigrant to respect our equal rights among the sexes laws, or child labor laws, or any other long abandoned practice that remains part of their native cultural norm. Becoming an American does in fact require various levels of assimilation, they just aren't as controversial as "language." But I would submit that once you agree that we can not allow the continuation of immigrant cultural customs that violate US law, then you have already conceded assimilation is a must, and we are thus discussing degrees.

"Forced assimilation has less historical examples, but they are there none the less. After 1890, Indians (Native Americans) were "forced" into schools where they spoke only English and learned only American subjects, and they were punished for wearing, speaking or practicing their native culture. This experiment in assimilation is one of our greatest failings as a society... because it denies the very rights and freedoms of the individual that Ryan defined in his post."

Again, while these historical examples are accurately described they are not warranted examples as a part of this discussion. I am not advocating such assimilation. This also falls into the zero sum scenario. The choice you presented isn't a wiping clean of all ethnic culture OR integration. My point is when you take into account "press 1"; newspapers that offer the immigrant Spanish or Chinese only print; and the 5 or 6 Spanish only tv stations on local cable, that it is incumbent upon the government to encourage a base level of assimilation when it comes to English proficiency, US history, the oath, recitation of the pledge in schools, etc. Now please understand that point - not shut down these papers and tv stations, nor make illegal "press 1", but rather upon citizenship have required the afore mentioned standards so that when people recede or immerse into lifestyles involving "only" their own language or ethnic culture we will be able to maintain a base level of unity as a nation.

Bussing, the Native American example, no intelligent person whom is even mildly familiar with history would advocate such disastrous paths. However, English proficiency, a familiarization with US history, an oath, the pledge, all such things are to the immigrants benefit and the nation as a whole. Such standards are neither racist nor an imposition on personal liberty, no more then requiring the newly arrived respect any other US law that isn't native to their land of origin.

Base requirements on assimilation are necessary. Not at the expense of ethnic cultural identity, but rather to preserve what makes us all similar, to provide a baseline of unity. That should be the focus of government, that base line assimilation. The preservation of an immigrants original culture, and its integration into American society as a whole I do believe in 2009 will take care of itself within the private sector, minus any special emphasis from government ... the fantastic array of cuisine, carnivals, events, and celebrations occurring within virtually any medium to large city in the US is clear evidence of this ... in other words I will order Chinese food without government prompting. But unless a base level of assimilation is required, the proprietor is much less likely to succeed.

Just my opinion ...

Finally...

Some activity! I'll grant that Baddboy has a good excuse for not posting... but he's the only one. Ryan and Jambo are just lazy. The "candy-ass" label still applies.

Both Baddboy and Ryan commented on my "integration vs assimilation" post, and neither seemed to think I was correct in my initial query: Which should be the national priority for the US? At least, neither seemed to address my point directly.

Ryan is correct in stating that it isn't a "zero-sum" formula... because it isn't. Not even the furthest left Liberal is acting as if this were the case (where they might be in the question of taxes or government welfare hand-outs). I wasn't suggesting that the query was purely a theoretical issue... much of what plagues the nation now in the area of immigration and cultural assimilation is hype that has no actual historical precedent as a cultural concern. I was simply asking where should the primary focus of our government's efforts in relation to the immigration issue be?

My use of the English-only example was just that... an example. Even if we assumed that such a law was passed and enacted across these United States, the number of legal immigrants entering the country with no English skills would require a certain level of compromise in terms of official and legal communication between the government and the immigrant. This negates the process, in my eyes... even if the intent of the original law was accommodate the immigrant rather than limit them (which is what Ryan described... I understand that).

I don't want to get side-tracked here, though. The question isn't "Should English be the official language of the US?" but "What should the primary goal of the US be in terms of addressing the questions associated with large numbers of immigrants... integration or assimilation?"

Insisting that a level of proficiency in English be a requirement for legal immigration seems to fly in the face of the very principles that Ryan was delineating in his post... primarily, personal and individual freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution to all Americans. We are asking immigrants to embrace the Constitution, but we (as a society) place limits and standards on citizenship that the Constitution prohibits for naturally-born sons and daughters... how is that not a contradiction?

I'm afraid I'm not being clear... so I'll sum up with my personal opinion on where the nation (as a whole) needs to be going, in regards to integration.

By 1850, one out of every ten people walking the streets of America were immigrants... and 1 out of every 19 (or just more than 5%) didn't speak a word of English. America didn't have "Press ONE for English..." back then, so immigrants were forced to either learn English or deal only with fellow immigrants on a daily basis. This contributed (greatly) to problems of racism and prejudice in the country, but history shows that integration alone leads to assimilation in every case, given only the passing of one or two generations.

Forced assimilation has less historical examples, but they are there none the less. After 1890, Indians (Native Americans) were "forced" into schools where they spoke only English and learned only American subjects, and they were punished for wearing, speaking or practicing their native culture. This experiment in assimilation is one of our greatest failings as a society... because it denies the very rights and freedoms of the individual that Ryan defined in his post.

Another example is the "integration" movement in the 50's and 60's within out education system. Once blacks were allowed to attend the same schools as whites, it wasn't enough to leave the choice of schools (or even of transportation to and from school) to the parents. Instead, districts were redrawn so that a "proportionate" number of blacks to whites was present in EVERY school. If a community didn't have enough blacks (or whites) to meet the proportionate average, then they were bussed in from other areas. This, too, is a denial of the individual rights and freedoms of the people being forced to conform to "cultural" norms rather than personal choice and ability.

How is greater restrictions and more legislation in today's world going to solve the problems associated with immigration, especially when promoted by the very "conservatives" that routinely call for less government and greater individual freedom?

I want to give one more example of why I think that immigrants in the past have an advantage over immigrants today...

In the period I discussed above (the 1850's), we saw political parties, local "bosses" and even businesses promising work and benefits to immigrants walking off the boats for nothing more than the promise of "your vote". This gave the party hacks the short-term benefit of additional votes and more political power, but it also taught the immigrant populations (and their immediate descendants) the "POWER" of their vote, and the effect that a united ethnic community can have on local politics. Germans, Italians, Irish, Cubans, Mexicans, Chinese... and even Muslims and Jews, quickly learned the value of a united "front" when it came to politics, and we are still living with that legacy today in the pandering that goes on to the Latino vote, or the Catholic vote, or how much influence a name can have on a campaign in a specific community.

Today, we are seeing almost the same thing happening within the very large community of illegal immigrants already in the US, and it is coming from the Liberal left. I think they understand that America, as a whole, is fairly conservative in its make-up and values. Thus, they "promise" all that the Government will "give" them as newly-made citizens (through amnesty or whatever means meets their agenda at the time), rather than selling citizenship (and all that comes with) as the reward itself. The selling point 160 years ago (and even 50 years ago) was the OPPORTUNITY that America offered. Today, the selling point is what you get for free without having to do anything. What they aren't telling you is that much of what is wrong with the places they are leaving is exactly what they are promising here.

Yes, in the past, America promised land to immigrants simply for coming and living on it... but that had a price all its own, and a reward for society as a whole. Today, the focus is almost solely on the reward itself, as long as it is immediate, tangible and free of cost.

Thoughts?

Zero sum scenarios and play off games ...

... oy! I back off for one week due to family being in town and play off games I'm trying to win - by the way the middle linebacker who happens to share my DNA scored a TD last Saturday, talk about Irish pride - and low and behold Titus comes clamoring, fit to be tied (up by Trevor no doubt) over the absence. Hey buddy, I'd wager an F.Ryan win in a 1:1 comparison of total posts made for 2009, so watch it ... amigo.

Well, as you well know the question of assimilation vs integration is hardly a zero sum game. The very premise reminds me of leftists whom seem to believe that for one man to get rich, another must be made (or remain) poor. Or that if we cut taxes it lowers receipts to the Treasury - where in reality cutting taxes creates more tax payers, a preferable and more coffer lucrative venture than creating more tax law. At any rate, I think badboy is asking slightly the wrong question. Rather than "are you an American", I would submit the interrogative - "what is an American?" Long is the tradition of ethnic restaurants, neighborhoods, clubs and parades which celebrate the origin of an immigrant heritage within our nation. Unlike Germany, France, India or any other nation on earth, here, one can be born a foreigner yet become an American. No matter how many bitter pints you throw back, EU taxes you pay, or Lederhosen you wear, you can not "become" German. This makes us unique, uniquely strong.

However, exactly what is the heat source which causes the "meld" or "melt" within the melting pot? There must be some identity we can all share, be we from France, Zimbabwe, or New Delhi. There IS a uniquely American culture, is their not? It isn't simply a barren canvas with no record or history proceeding the newly arrived is it? Now granted, "culture" is a subjective term, however, I don't think it unreasonable to present "language", in specific the English language, as part of the American culture. There are other attributes such as our hyper (compared to all other experiments in democracy) personal liberty; the Bill of Rights; our Constitution; our emphasis on the individual's responsibility for his own success and needs (I'm talking historical perspective, not the age of Obama); our disdain for class-born status, all of these I would argue are part of the uniquely American culture. But in addition to these large philosophical aspects there are those "little" threads, seemingly little that is. For if you pull upon them the tapestry of our nation unravels. What is "culture" after all then a series of prized traditions? Baseball is part of our distinctly American culture. Christmas, also a part. Our Independence Day being the 4th of July, aslo a part. Gun ownership, private property rights, no trespassing signs, the hamburger, Western expansionism, ALL part of our prized traditions or "culture." Is our traditional language, that binding force, that instrument of success not also a part of our tradition, our culture? Should it be championed any less than the above? I say no. Because it takes all of these disparate cultures, ethnicities, creeds and colors and gives them some aspect of unity in order that the melting pot might thrive. So I have reservations about the term "forced." Forced? Outside of Cuba residing terrorists very few are "forced" onto these shores. They come here in search of a better life and we owe it to them to encourage through law and community an assimilation of language. Not at the expense of their native tongue, but rather to ensure they become a native of their new nation.

Let me put it another way. To pull out your wallet, remove a $5 bill and place it in the hand of a homeless person is about the least compassionate thing you can do all day. Because that act is for the giver's benefit, not the receiver. It is to make you feel good about yourself, not helping that poor soul's life. Rather if every single passerby refused to dole out funds of any kind, by mere base survival instinct that man or woman will end up in a soup kitchen, or sober facility, or at least in doors, increasing his chances to find real, long term help exponentially. With each dollar forked over you enable a fellow human being to live on the street, in squalor, for just that much longer. I ask you ... is that compassion? Is that being sensitive? Is that enabling that person to succeed? Cow towing to those that would call me a nativist, or even racist because I insist my fellow Americans learn English are simply enabling failure. It is the quintessential "soft bigotry of low expectations."

Now I would agree that the newly arrived shouldn't be required to watch baseball, so no, not every aspect of American culture should be required by law ... but then again their future, their personal success and even their safety in an emergency situation doesn't depend on knowing the rule on a ground roll double, does it? But language, that is a glue which binds the individual to both his neighbor, and his potential. And that is much too important to allow "press 1 for English." The automated voice might as well continue with, press 2 to limit your income; press 3 to be unable to help your children with their homework; press 4 to be unable to communicate with paramedics if your husband has a heart attack; press 5 if ...

I believe this statement to be unique to our nation - only by assimilation can the individual immigrant fully appreciate and experience the freedom they have to cherish, preserve and protect the cultural heritage of their native lands. In other words being a fully assimilated proud American makes you a better Irishman, Italian, Japanese, Vietnemese, Brazilian . . .

You ask the wrong question

What we should be asking is "Are you an American?" It is possible for an individual to be proud of there heritage and still consider themselves an American. I'm not even sure you need to be a citizen of this great country to think of yourself as an American. I have seen especially in the southwest people living in and enjoying the comforts of this great land we call home and insist on displaying the flag of a foreign nation above the flag of the United States. These people don't consider themselves American but the sons and daughters of other nations. It is imperative that we understand that it is not our government that should insist on assimilation of immigrants...it is the sons and daughters of this great nation that should insist on it. We the people of this great land should be the ones asking the question "Are you an American?" Are you here because you wish to participate as an integral part of our soceity or do you insist on living on the fringe?

It is our responsibility "WE THE PEOPLE"

Candy Asses?

I have to apologize for my absence but unlike my part time dealing brothers I have been working 60+ hours a week. One of these days I may get back to my candy ass dealing job but for now Uncle Sam demands my undivided attention. I'm gonna get caught up on my reading and see if I have any responses.

One more thing...

Look, I know I'm unemployed right now, and have the time to post my opinions here far more than I have in the past. That doesn't change the fact that YOU GUYS are part-time dealers that could, and should, be checking the site and posting as well. I don't want to hear about "domestic constraints" either... no one is more domestically contrained than I am, yet I have managed to post 4 posts to any one of yours.

Pick up the slack, you candy-asses.

And it gets better...

TODAY, I hear on the satellite radio that India and Russia have cemented a deal wherein Russia constructs four additional nuclear power stations and supplies nuclear fuel for India at a price tag of roughly $4.8 billion over the next 6 years, and India gets to increase its domestic electrical capacity by more than 17% in the same time frame, which is projected to add an additional 22% to the GNP over the next decade.

While this deal was being announced, the two leaders (Medvedev and the Indian PM... can't recall his name) stated that they were going to "jointly" work to close the "nuclear club" in the region. I take this to mean that Russia now intends to extend its influence in the region by taking on the role formerly held by the US in making sure nuclear capacity doesn't extend to nations and states (and terror groups) that don't already have the bomb.

This is Russia, and specifically Medvedev/Putin, moving back into the "superpower" role that Russia had lost since 1991. I predict that over the next months, we will see Russia solidifying some kind of agreements with both Iran and Afghanistan where Russia takes on a greater percentage of import/export capital for both of these nations to ensure long-term cooperation OUTSIDE of America's ability to intercede. Even Obama can't afford to be seen "wheeling and dealing" with Tehran with the nuclear question still on the table... but Russia has already said that the weapons program (if it even exists) is not their concern, Russian security is.

Think on this: Afghanistan doesn't have a lot to offer in the way of "exports" outside of a currently illegal opium market... but there is not ONE functioning gasoline or oil facility in the entire country. Every drop of gasoline that Karzai needs to run the country could be pumped right out of the Russian steppes and into Kabul via a very-nearly completed pipeline in as short as 24 months, and the cost would be taken up by American "assistance payments" that we have promised to Afghanistan for the next 8 years. That means that the fledgling Afghan Army and security forces will be using Russian gasoline that is paid for by American taxpayers until 2017. The same is true for any governmental vehicles that Karzai might want to utilize to expand the functionality of his government... road constructions, farm machinery, postal carriers, airline services, border security, police and emergency services, et al. That, my friends, is a big gas bill... and Russia earns it all.

Wood, coal, metals, food stuffs, machinery, equipment... all within "arms reach" of Karzai if Medvedev/Putin play their cards right, and they won't have spent a penny or risked a single Russian life to secure the deals, and Karzai doesn't have to pay the bill. Current US policy (both Bush's and Obama's) are making this scenario a REALITY as we watch it unfold on TV.

Again... epic fail.

Does this qualify as "epic fail"?

That is a term my teenagers use all the time... "epic fail". Not sure what it means to them, but I kind of like the term in reference to our President's biggest foreign policy failure, as I see it.

Background: I'm up early today, as the kids are back to school on a Monday and it is "officially" winter outside... snow everywhere, less than 20 degrees, and everyone needs help finding gloves, hats, boots, etc. While things are getting settled, I read a headline that the Indian Navy has acquired the former Soviet Kiev-class aircraft carrier/cruiser Baku (later changed to the name Admiral Gorshkov) for an estimated US$1.8 billion dollars. This is an absolute STEAL when compared to what it would have cost the Indians to make a modern aircraft carrier, and for what they intend to use it for, I'd say the 22 year old Gorshkov will do them very well.

So, while I'm reading about the Indian plans for expanding their naval influence in the region, I encounter an article stating that the US had (important... HAD) a deal under the Bush Administration to supply the Indians with US$1.6 billion dollars worth of aircraft (mainly F-16 and F-18 variants). It would seem, however, that the deal has "gone south" since the Indian Prime Minister's visit to the White House in November, because Pakistan was "concerned" about the sale of the planes and Obama can't afford to offend our "biggest" ally in the Afghan war.

So a deal that would have made the US government $1.6 billion dollars and put more than 5,500 people to work at Boeing and Lockheed Martin for as long as 7 years (hows THAT for beating back unemployment?) is CANCELLED because Obama doesn't want to upset Pakistan? Excuse me?

India is the second largest population on the face of the earth, the fourth largest economy (and it is booming, by the way), and will have the fourth largest standing armed forces globally by 2012. It has more Muslims within its borders than Pakistan does, but with less than 1% of the conflict and strife (meaning terror attacks) associated with radical Islam. It is the single, largest democratic society to ever have existed in all of human history. It is (without question) a regional "super-power" that has the capacity to reach targets from East Africa to SE Asia with a variety of nuclear weapons on any one of four delivery platforms. All this... and PAKISTAN is our biggest ally in the War in Afghanistan???

Didn't Pakistan spawn the Taliban? Isn't Pakistan where Osama bin Laden is right now? Didn't seven very large and particularly deadly suicide bombers just strike there recently, killing more then 170 people in two of the largest (and supposedly safest) cities in the nation? Isn't Pakistan the reason that the contract for $1.6 billion in planes was CANCELLED?

So, we cancel the deal for the planes, and who gets the money instead? Putin's "mini-me" Medvedev and the Russian Federation. India gains, Russian gains, Pakistan gains (sort of) and the US LOSES AGAIN.

Bush didn't have a lot of success in the region when it comes to foreign policy... but his ability to build a relationship with the Indians was definitely one of them, and one that could have been a HUGE boon to the Obama White House. Obama could have reaped the benefits of Bush's relations and never had to give any credit at all... but because it was Bush that began the effort, it HAD to be abandoned as another failed Bush policy. The Indians have the cash, and they have the need to modernize and expand their military capability, and if the US isn't going to keep its word on contracts and sales of arms and military technology, they will go to places like Russia, France, and China to get what they need. Win-win for the Indians... lose-lose for the US and Obama.

Yep... I call that "epic fail".

Integrate versus assimilate

Which is best for nations with large or problematic immigration dynamics? To integrate the immigrants so that they can practice and enjoy their diversity and unique cultural characteristics while still allowing them to become complete "citizens" of the society, or to promote (and sometimes force) the assimilation of such groups into a culture by making the use or practice of their language, religion or cultural norms difficult or impossible through government regulation and limitations?

Obviously, I ask this because it is topical for us in the US... but with the recent referendum in Switzerland concerning the minarets of newly-constructed mosques, I think it is becoming more and more an issue globally.

"Conservatives" like Ryan and the many pundits on the radio and TV advocate less government regulation in almost every facet of our lives... from free enterprise to taxes and education, the cry is for LESS GOVERNMENT REGULATION. I say "almost" because I know that many (including Ryan... and Jambo, I think) still support legislation making English the "official" language of the USA. It's exclusive use in schools, government offices, official correspondence and legal matters would, seemingly, force assimilation of one culture into another.

I won't venture into the area of racial or cultural profiling here... I understand that the greatest threat the the US is from radical elements of the Muslim faith, and people associating with those radical elements must be considered suspect when circumstantial evidence shows itself. In this area, I don't argue that we must keep our eyes very open when looking at risks and threats from Muslim immigrants, as long as it isn't an exclusive eye on Muslims.

No, I'm speaking of what this nation and society need to be working towards in the future: Integration or assimilation? Why? How best do we achieve the result you are advocating? Why?

I'm serious here... think this over and give me your honest assessment and reasoning. I will do the same with my opinions, and I (really... me too) will do all I can to stay objective and open-minded.

"You have all the watches, but we have all the time."

Says a Taliban terrorist.















I receive (& occasionally find the time to read) Townhall.com emails which include political cartoons. I thought this one just about summed up the July, 2011 deadline.

I listened to another one being described on the radio. Two soldiers are talking while on patrol in Afghanistan. The first says, Hey, this is good news, they're parachuting in 30,000 more troops to help us. The second replies, They're not parachuting in, they're bugee cording.

As we have agreed, half war is the surest way to fully lose.

Aaahhh - the Cold War never gets old.

Although children huddling under their school desk in the 1960's probably would disagree, but from an academic standpoint it's as rich as the Urals.

Once again I was all set to pounce on this last line: "Reagan, Thatcher and the rest of the Western leadership didn't knock it down... they just stopped propping it up."

Believe me, I understand the quandary certain individuals put themselves in pretending that the USSR was a thriving, functioning state and Reagan came along & knocked down with a Rambo knife in his teeth and a machine gun under each arm. A "quandary" because those same people would declare communism and socialism systems doomed to fail on their own, unsustainable, unworkable. So yes, I agree the system was crumbling from within, and that's why there is no need to embellish Regan's resume' on the matter - he stood up to them when many believed they were at their most likely to strike. A cornered wolf (or in this case, bear) so to speak. That history is impressive enough with no need of fiction.

However, after your follow up post (in which you appropriately attributed Regan, et al) I would assume that you would amend your italicized statement above. To describe it as simply "withdrawing support" doesn't convey the strength in his resolution to end the empire, as you so aptly pointed out in your addendum. You can say the Soviets were reeling after Breshnev and during Afghanistan, then recognizing that, Reagan (+Thatcher, JP II & Kohl) sought to deliver the knock out punch at great risk, ok, I can live with that analysis. But that means they DID in fact "knock them down."

Hell - if a Russian aficionado, damn near Sovietologist like yourself that once thought Reagan was out of his mind (& league), that we "needed" the Soviets for proper geopolitical balance; and whom "post wall fall" assigned the lions share of credit to Gorbby (affectionately known as "Gorbasms"), can come around to a post like your last and assign Reagan his proper kudos then I think outside of Berkley and Cambridge history has properly recorded what happened to the USSR.

Oh, and I have a pack of those most wanted Iraqi cards, unopened, still sealed. Along with Iraqi currency from the Saddam regime, with his picture on it and everything. My little brother, the one that was at Ft. Hood, he brought it back for me from one of his tours over there. I had no idea the cards were worth something now. Doesn't matter, I ain't selling ...

One more thing...

On re-reading the last post, I wanted to clarify that I DO NOT deny that there was risk in what Reagan did. By refusing to concede to the Soviets at ANY level, he was placing them in a very precarious position... and the risk was very real that the Kremlin would resort to open warfare before they would allow the system to fail from within.

Case in point... Afghanistan.

My old professor from college (poli-sci and Russian) was of the opinion that the Soviet leadership under Breshnev was convinced that the solution to the economic disaster that the USSR had been undergoing from roughly 1972 to 1979 (caused utterly by Breshnev's inability to curb rampant corruption within the Soviet system AND his fascination with "prestige projects" like the space program and nuclear weapons development) was to take the people's mind off their problems by starting a "war". Frankly, with all I have read since the collapse in 1990, I think Dr. Kenney was right. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the false hope that it would ease economic pressure and take the people's focus away from the Party's failed promises and put it squarely on a cheap, successful example of the military might of the USSR against the imperialist Western agenda in the Middle East.

The problem was, it wasn't cheap and it wasn't successful... at all. Those nine years of fighting cost the Soviets more than they could even have imagined. Each year (from 1979 to 1988) the USSR was more than DOUBLING its national debt due to its expenditures in Afghanistan. Even as early as 1982... mail carriers in the USSR were seeing their monthly paychecks coming in as much as 90 days late. College professors were going six, eight... even twelve months without pay by the end of 1988.

The USSR had dug a hole too big to escape from. Reagan recognised this, and exploited it... but it came with a risk. Soviet planning (as we now know very well) called for expansionist invasions into the Middle East and Western Europe as means of maintaining power, and the Soviets were NEVER afraid of using MWDs as a means of military victory. Chemical and nuclear attacks on places like West Germany and Austria, as well as Iran (in that hallowed push to a "warm water" port like the Persian Gulf) and China were SOP for the Red Army, and knowing that the end was damn near... many thought they wouldn't hesitate to employ them simply to stem off the inevitable.

So, don't think I am taking anything away from Maggie and Ron. They knew they were taking a risky (and mainly untrodden) path by ending all concessions and compromise with the "Evil Empire". My original point remains, though: The Soviet system itself was doomed to fail, and nothing people like Nixon or Ford or Carter could have done to prop-up the USSR would have stemmed off its demise for any great length of time.

I would even go so far as to say that it wasn't "Misha" Gorbachev that ended the USSR with his policies and agendas... it was Leonid Illych Breshnev. He was more responsible for the death of the USSR than anyone I can think of.

Nice...

I like the Topps cards, too. I'm also inclined to think that saving them is a good idea, as they tend to gain collector value early... much like any militaria of a unique or collectible nature (just look at what the "Iraqi Most Wanted" cards are going for now, if you doubt me). I think they do it for baseball too... if the boys collect those, as well.

The real value of the card you found, though, is the fact that its subject is such an open fan of the Bengals... rare indeed! Hehe.

About your other post, I'm not going to start a fight about "who beat the Soviets" again. We've been over this in the past, and I give Reagan and Maggie just as much credit as I give John Paul II... all three brought the evil inherent in such a system right into the face of the world, where no one could deny it or make excuses for it.

My point was that we didn't need to do anything "directly" to topple the Soviets. No shots fired, no Americans at risk (at least no more than there were over the 70 years prior to the fall of the USSR). The Soviet system promised to surpass the West ("We will bury you!") in every possible manner as it marched on triumphantly towards true global socialism, but there wasn't a single facet of their society that could boast better returns than even most European nations, let alone the USA.

Reagan's genius was that he stopped making concessions to the Soviets. Every President since FDR has spent vast time and money either giving the Soviets what they could not get for themselves (like Nixon and Ford's massive grain shipments at little to no cost to the USSR) or throwing away what advantages we did have with no reciprocity on their part (like SALT II). Pre-Reagan "containment" was tantamount to political and economic "support" from the West, and very nearly each and every example you care to list can be seen as a benefit to the very system we all hated so much.

What Reagan (and Thatcher) did was to say "Sink or swim... it's up to you. No more help from us, though." No treaty concessions, no bargains, no promises, no compromises. The Soviet-style communist system employed by the Russians since the late 50's (with Stalin's death) could not survive on its own. Period. Had Reagan maintained the status quo for another 8 years, would the USSR have still collapsed in 1990? Perhaps, but it might have run itself out just a little longer. The disease that killed it was brought to Moscow from Afghanistan, Warsaw, Prague and Berlin, though, far more than it was from the US or Britain. It was a demand from the vox populi for something the Soviets couldn't deliver alone... food, commercial goods and a means for the individual to prosper via their own efforts and labor.

THAT is what I mean by the USSR collapsing under its own weight... the failings inherent in the system itself had doomed the "great socialist experiment" since it was first implemented in 1917. Reagan, Thatcher and the rest of the Western leadership didn't knock it down... they just stopped propping it up.

Talk about 'top'-ical ...

No sooner do I rise up off of the ol' computer, satisfied with a morning's post, then I hear on the local AM station which carries Glenn Beck, an advertisement for the Atomic Testing Museum which is eminently close to my domicile. Check the sight, seriously, look at this thing, this is no "worlds biggest ball of string" that road side desert towns are famous for: THE BOMB. You like that pun? Well, I figured since the Commander-in-Chief is sending "shout-outs" ...

****

Also something I wanted to share -

My sons and I returned from our desert oasis, that vital among resources for man facing the elements - Wal Mart, and as is common they tore open the ceremonial offering as a counter to, "Dad, do we have to go grocery shopping?", which would be a fresh pack of Topps football cards. I then eyed the fourth card in - it was a man in a US Marine uniform with Cincinnati Bengals emblazoned across the bottom. I instantly thought "cool", here's a Pat Tillman sorta guy - using the brains and bronze that serve him so well on one field to serve on another. But then as I examined the card I realized in small print it said "fan of the game series." It was a US Marine, on active duty, who was not at all a professional football player. You know the traditional critique Americans have in the age of the celebrity - "they should put the soldiers on trading cards" ... well TOPPS did, and they should be commended for it.

James A. Lenihan
Lance corporal/US Marine Corps Reserves/2005 - PRESENT
Favorite Team: CINCINNATI BENGALS
Armed Forces
Fan of the Game
Favorite NFL Moment: "Any win over Cleveland."

I thought that was really rather cool of them - can you imagine how much he and his buddies & family felt, buying a pack of cards, tearing it open and seeing "Jimmy" in there - well done Topps, very well done.

The left's original boogeyman - nukes.

First ...

"Too many people have forgotten the lessons of WWII... that there is no guaranty of victory when the planning goes no further than "low risk-high return" in regards to military costs in lives and material."

I kept preparing to pounce on your post, fingers poised, as you set about ripping Cheney/Rummy, but in the end I can not disagree with the driving point you make - without a commitment to "total war", and accepting the up front cost that entails, then you have condemned the war to last longer, and cost more in the long run. From a formal declaration, to boots on the ground commitments post Saddam/Taliban, to the domestic war drive (bonds to the White House PR needed) we have seen that this "we will go to war, you just get back to the mall" strategy has been inefficient. I wouldn't call it a failure because the surge has drastically improved Iraq but "half war", in terms of the commitment from the civilian leaders, has been shown to not work from Vietnam to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Let me just add though - I do not believe Bush/Cheney/Rummy get a Johnson/McNamara treatment from history. Mainly because we will NOT (I would hazard to predict anyway) be leaving these 2 theaters on a helicopter over the embassy allowing the enemy to take all positions and land. Even with the near fatal flaw of "half war" imposed after the regimes were deposed the bottom line is "Bush's War" will get its' victory and that alone will separate him form any Vietnam comparisons.

Now let me comment on something that caught my eye ... I have zero beef with your nuclear war head via Time Magazine post. The authors have the typical sophomoric view of nuclear weaponry - all bad, all the time, no matter what. And I find it hilarious that those on the left now employ the phrase, "no longer needed in a post Soviet era", when in truth they opposed MAD and our stockpiles DURING the Soviet Era. At any rate, the following was what caused an arch in my right eyebrow:

The article seems to indirectly scoff at the notion that nuclear deterrents are needed in a post-Soviet world, but I am of the opinion that the strategy of MAD (mutually assured destruction) in the event of a pre-emptive strike by the Soviets was enough to keep them in check until such time as the communist system itself failed utterly from within.

Can you tell me, why is it that those who grew up as Democrats in the 80's are to this day so hesitant to give credit to Regan and Thatcher, not to mention John Paul II (although I scarcely believe you would have trouble with crediting that name)?

I mean yes, communism of any brand is ultimately doomed to fail. But I think its a little intellectually dishonest to describe the fall of the Soviet empire as one that "failed utterly from within", adding nothing else. We didn't merely "keep them in check", we actively pushed that crumbling. Let us put it this way. Without the decades of opposition form the West, most prominently the US, how much longer would the empire have existed? I dare say a might longer. And with Reagan in specific the military build up was one the Soviets tried but could not match, costing them the few dollars that their beloved 5 year plans left behind. From Kennedy to Reagan we (with exceptions like Carter & Ford) maintained proxy wars, evil empire status, and strategic opposition on every conceivable level in order to "tip Humpty Dumpty" over the wall - he didn't merely fall on his own accord. Look I don't need to give you, of all people, a history of the Cold War, and perhaps you agree with every word I wrote, and maybe you were simply trying to articulate past that part of the post in order to arrive at your main point - but I find it so oddly curious that the initial, knee jerk reaction to the fall of the Soviets, from the perspective of "1980's Democrats" seems to always be "it crumbled from within", and then ending their sentence on the matter at that. Perhaps a residue of partisan dust with some shelf life still left in it gets shaken into the air whenever you step outside to beat the rug of Cold War era policies ... ay there buddy? Hehe.

What a load...

Time Magazine ran an article recently decrying the fact that the US still maintains a stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe under our treaty obligations with NATO. You can follow the link and read it for yourself, but the jist is that the US is in violation of the 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Accords because the NATO treaty allows the US to "give" any one (or more) of the more than 350 B61 warheads to a fellow NATO member-state in times of conflict. These warheads are kept at bases throughout Europe, and not all of them are American bases (but I know that the weapons are kept, maintained and managed by American personnel... because I know at least two of the soldiers and airmen that have done the job), and this seems to make the author of the article think that the Italians, Danes, Spaniards, or Icelanders can simply pick up and use one of the weapons at their ease.

What a load of crap...

Why haven't states like Italy or Denmark pursued a nuclear program of their own? Because they didn't need to. They could let the US, British (and French, to a lesser degree) do all the "heavy work" during the Cold War and sit back and know that the "nuclear umbrella" was spread over their heads just as nicely as if they HAD built their own weapons.

The article seems to indirectly scoff at the notion that nuclear deterrents are needed in a post-Soviet world, but I am of the opinion that the strategy of MAD (mutually assured destruction) in the event of a pre-emptive strike by the Soviets was enough to keep them in check until such time as the communist system itself failed utterly from within. We do NOT have that luxury with states like Iran, North Korea, a Taliban-controlled Pakistan, or any one of a baker's dozen Islamic terror groups that might acquire a nuclear device on the black market... for no other reason than the simple fact that they do not fear destruction themselves. The "jihadist" mentality is every bit as dangerous and underestimated as the "kamakazi" mentality was within the Japanese Empire before 1945... they do not fear dying for their cause, nor do they fear allowing their families, communities and even their entire countries to die as well. It would only further their cause (in their own minds).

Interestingly enough, the B61 is the sort of warhead that you can "dial in" the amount of destruction you want to deliver. It seems that, given a very small list of designs, the several hundred warheads still in Europe can deliver anywhere from .3 KT (about one quarter of a Hiroshima bomb) to as much as 340 KT (about 280x greater than the Hiroshima bomb), all with just a few adjustments on the bomb itself. It is specifically designed to be delivered by an aircraft, but can also be sent on a cruise missile. It can airburst, groundburst, ground-penetrate (up to 6 meters into the ground, for those tough, dug-in positions), or actually be delivered to fall gently to the ground and lay there to be detonated at a later time.

I can't help but think that this is EXACTLY the kind of versatility that our modern era demands. We (hopefully) will never need a weapons that can vaporize an entire city... but we very well could need a weapon that could vaporize a couple hundred acres when literally MINUTES count and we don't have time to wait for airborne troops to drop, take and control the same area of land/mountain/forest/desert.

If the problem with the article's author is stemming from foreign access to these same weapons, I have this question to ask: Why should we expect Danish, German, Italian or Spanish troops to fight and possibly die alongside of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, but NOT trust them with weapons we control? No one is suggesting that these warheads would be allowed to be used WITHOUT our permission... so why assume that is what is going to happen? If it is accepted US policy (and it is) that these weapons are an integral part of our national security and defense, why wouldn't they also be part of our mutual security and defense agreements with our fellow NATO allies?

Like I said... a load of crap.

Let's talk "strategy"...

That was a good post. I certainly don't want to impugn Rummy's character or personal conduct while he was SecDef... I'm sure he was honest and following what he felt was the best course of action in his time as the chief architect of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are, however, certain facts that are unavoidable. One is that history is going to look at the manner in which the US has conducted the war to date, and will determine what has and hasn't worked according to the goals and objectives laid down by those that started the process in the first place.

Our goals and objectives in both Iraq and Afghanistan were fuzzy, to say the least. We wanted to remove the threat of Osama bin Laden and his support within the Taliban government by completely removing and replacing the "bad elements" in Afghanistan, and we wanted to do the same with the very dangerous Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athists in Iraq because of suspected MWD development and deployment. Authors and historians the world over refer to this sort of plan as "grand strategy" in that it defines the goals and objectives the the broadest manner. Our success in both these endeavors were rapid and unarguably achieved with minimum cost to the US and her allies.

No one here will argue that the failings don't really come into play until we work down to a theater-level strategy implementation and a post-invasion planning schedule. Rummy (and Cheney, in my opinion) fail at this portion of their jobs... and thus Bush does, too. The (seemingly) main objective as defined by Bush and Co. was to oust the Taliban and Ba'athists, then walk away while the Iragis and Afghanis put things back together to our satisfaction, with little to no risk for US assets while they were doing this.

My point here is that, in an ideal world, the leadership of our nation comes up with the Grand Strategy, and the military planning and logistics that make up the theater-level strategy and tactics of the effort is left (mainly) to the military. We (civilians) tell them what they are working towards, and they (military) tell us what they need to achieve those goals and how long they think it will take to get there.

Cheney-Rummy (and by extension, Bush) failed because they let the military tell them what could be expected as "grand strategy" and they either ignored or failed to implement the more detailed aspects of the effort at a smaller scale... meaning the details of a post-invasion effort to put a functioning government in place once the "bad guys" were gone. When things were going sour on the ground in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the solution was to "fire" (and I still think that is what happened) and replace the military commanders in-theater until someone was found to finish the job to everyone's satisfaction (at least until the end of the Bush terms). THAT is exactly what cost the Union so much in the first two years of the Civil War (from a Republican President, no less), that is what made for such trouble and suffering in the First World War (thanks to Wilson), Truman saw the same thing in Korea when McAuthur was dictating "strategy" rather than tactics in regards to the Chinese, and that is exactly what was NOT working in the Johnson-Nixon years of the Vietnam war.

And, yes... Reagan did it too. Reagan failed to resolve the issues that led to the death of more than 200 Marines in Beirut in 1983, and removed all US forces there within 90 days as a result of one of the most horrific terrorist attacks on US personnel EVER. He had a "grand strategy" in place, but didn't want to pay the price that strategy demanded according to his commanders in the field. I think Rummy and Cheney brought that same kind of thought process with them from the Reagan years into the Bush Administrations.

Too many people have forgotten the lessons of WWII... that there is no guaranty of victory when the planning goes no further than "low risk-high return" in regards to military costs in lives and material.

"Alright Nix, what do they have waiting for us in Foy?"

Partisan 1: Bush had a chance to get Bin laden, and he didn't!

Partisan 2: Ya, well so did Clinton, he had him on a silver platter, the CIA drones had him in sight!

Partisan 1: That's not as bad as Bush, this was the guy responsible for 9/11! He probably let Bin Laden go so he could still invade Iraq!

Partisan 2: At least Bush took the threat seriously & wasn't grabbing hummers in the Oval instead of focusing on this nation's enemies!


The "Bush did it on purpose so he could still invade Iraq" was actually said, out loud in all seriousness, by a sitting US Congressman on MSNBC very recently which caused even the left wing commentator to gasp.

But lets be serious for a moment - the record on national security for the modern Democrat Party is not simply "inept." Making a partisan issue out of Tora Bora is rather "glass house-ish", wouldn't you say? Kerry in particular, along with characters such as Dick Durbin and Jack Murtha, have repeatedly, publicly gone as far as maligning our soldiers as murderers and accusing them of "kicking in the doors of women and children in the dead of night"; not to mention comparing them to Nazis and Gulag guards, all in there endeavours to malign the Bush administration. So I had no doubts that any operational error Bush and co made would someday (sooner rather than later) come to light the moment these people were in charge.

Let me start with this ... immediately following 9/11 I had great reservations with "blaming" Clinton. I routinely attacked his policies, character (but then again who didn't), and various aspects of his cabinet and tenure. But the idea of holding him "responsible" for 9/11 was something I never felt entirely comfortable with. One can scroll back through our 1000+ Bund posts, and the email threads before that and you will never see me indicting Bill Clinton by name. What you will find is a more legitimate argument - that a "police" or "criminal justice" strategy rather than an active war mentality as applied to fighting Islamic terror is quite literally fatally flawed. That, I believe, is not only a perfectly legitimate discussion, but one vitally important to maintain less we regress (as is evident in the current administration). And I have heard this very argument made by Limbaugh et al, however they (for ratings or true belief) do make a point to attach Clinton, by name, to that 9/10 mindset (as it has been dubbed). The problem is one could then reasonably stretch that indictment to include the way both Bush 41 and our beloved Reagan "saw terrorism", as it applied to the United States - that being more criminal than war. Did those presidents have a chance to capture Bin Laden? No. But even with that mistake on Clinton's part I would contend the 9/10 mindset wasn't exclusively his - as a nation we all owned that mistake (save some sharp analysts within our bureaucracies). Now you can make the point, as the 9/11 Commission Report did, that our professionals in Intel & security, along with the elected officials they briefed "should have realized" that "they were at war with us, but we were not at war with them." Ok, that's a legitimate critique and one necessary to make in order to avoid a repeat of mistakes. However, as I said, that was hardly the exclusive domain of William J. Clinton in specific, but rather a cautionary tale of what we as a nation must avoid in the future.

Now, that was a mistake or "misguided approach" if you prefer, in strategy. In how we as a nation dealt with Islamic terror - treating it as a criminal justice matter. The Bush error recently revealed appears to me to be an operational mistake. In other words Bush went full bore ahead in correcting our government's 9/10 mentality by taking the war to the enemy, but made an error in battlefield operations. And as I mentioned with Clinton, it is more than obvious that such a mistake is hardly the exclusive property of George W. Bush. Every engagement has its' mistakes. The fog of war is just that, and commanders must make the decision they think best at the time. And in my opinion the fact that this nation was never again attacked under the tenure of George W. Bush overshadows this operational mistake.

On a personal note I always liked Rummy. He was tough. He came off, to me anyway, as an unapologetic, eats nails for breakfast Sec Def, and at the time that was exactly what the American public was looking for. So I would endeavour to include that in my report card were I you.

Now to further the conversation - what Kerry, in his infinite wisdom, has done by releasing this report and making partisan hay out of it is cause exactly the partisan 1 / partisan 2 (kudos to Dr. Seuss) conversation. Which does what? It leads serious, informed people into the legitimate conversation of the criminal justice vs hot war discussion. Which highlights with a big, fat, yellow, fluorescent marker just how far the Obama administration has reversed course and thrown this war back into the realm of the civilian, criminal domain. From transferring KSM and company to New York, to shutting down GITMO, to mandating only the FBI (a domestic police force) be allowed to interrogate high priority targets on the battlefield all the way to Holder - in perhaps the worst congressional testimony performance by an AG in US history - conceding that there may be instances where reading battlefield prisoners their Miranda rights is "appropriate." So in my estimation no matter who wins the partisan Clinton VS Bush "should of gotten Bin Laden" argument, Obama loses.

****

Now, the PoTUS just gave his much anticipated "Afghanistan Speech." He did it from West point, which I have no problem with, he is the Commander-in-Chief. But in a 30 minute+ speech he never mentioned the words "victory" nor "win" once. Nor did he use the word Islamic or Muslim, opting for the baron, faceless "extremist" description - and that's significant, one must be able to identify evil by name in order to confront it. He spoke much of "ending" the war. I still don't know how one "ends" a war in a vacuum - you either win or lose, but that historical lesson is lost on Barry. One just hasn't the time to read Sun Tzu or Frederick the Great when there's Communist Manifesto's to memorize and "workers of the world unite" rallies to go to. And I have no doubt that May Day picnics are a fabulous place to cruise for chicks on a sunny Cambridge afternoon. Ooh, look, they died the potato salad in the "white" deviled eggs red, how posh .. . but I digress. Even more distressing though is the flawed strategy in his thinking on the troop surge (and by the way, anytime he prefaces a segment in a speech with, "now let me be clear", I know my anus is about to get a work out). His hand picked general, McChrystal, asked for 60,000 troops, with a caveat minimum of 40,000. The president gave him 30,000. Now help me with this Obama apologists the world over - if 30,000 is a good idea how is 40 or 60 thousand not an even better one? Has any commander in history ever woke that morning for battle and decried, "dammit, I've just got to many f***ing troops! How am I supposed to effectively wage this war with so many troops"? The entire premise is ludicrous to the point of being child like. But most comcerning of all may be the deadline he announced for withdrawal. Oh, he won't call it that, he refers to it as a "transition date." Uh huh, I see. And to be so specific as July 2011, it's mind boggling. Surely Jihadi calenders in caves the region over just gained a red check mark.

I have come to the conclusion that a man whom has never failed professionally, and I mean never. Whom went from a state senator to leader of the free world in roughly 4 years, and did so based solely on likability, believes that the power of his personality is a perfectly legitimate substitute for a strategy, a plan. And I don't see how that story ends well ...

God Bless those brave men in theater and about to deploy - if we pull this off it will be a tribute to their talents and commitment ... and nothing else.