10/30/04
dateline St. Paul MN
In an incredible turn of events a little known Internet blogger (a term short for Web log writer) has called Osama bin Laden out of hiding. http://protohuman.blogspot.com/2004/10/osama-osama-where-for-art-thou-osama.html
The blog known as Protohuman posted a piece by blogger StaticNoise on Tuesday, October 26th that speculated that bin Laden was probably dead because the terrorist had not been seen since 2001. Proof of life, the blogger contended, "was not that difficult".
On Friday October 29th a video tape of Osama bin Laden was aired around the globe surprising everyone and ended the speculation the mastermind behind the September the 11th attacks was dead. "I guess I'm as surprised as anyone," StaticNoise said Friday night, "I had no idea my blog was read in the caves of Afghanistan."
In the speech given by bin Laden gone was the firey rhetoric and direct threats against the so-called Great Satan. In stark contrast to all his other public pronoucements bin Laden sounded a conciliatory tone. Absent from the picture was the trademark assault rifle bin Laden is fond of carrying. The speech basically said "if you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone". As if reading out of the playbook of the DNC or a script by ultra slob Michael Moore, bin Laden touched on every point made by the anti-war/anti-Bush movement. What is the American electorate to make of this October surprise? Tuesday's election will tell the tale as to whether America will accept his terms... Both candidates said they will not let Osama bin Laden dictate American policy, but it seemed perfectly clear who master terrorist Osama bin Laden wants to see sitting in the oval office come January.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Will the Curse be Lifted?
The World Should be so Lucky...
When I heard the news my heart jumped. Could it be possible? Will the curse be lifted? The Red Sox you say? No, Arafat on his death bed!
It's being reported that master terrorist and all around evil guy, Yasser Arafat is very, very ill and I couldn't be more tickled. Now, I have always been taught to have compassion for those who suffer. Honestly, does that apply to Satan's right hand man? This miserable excuse for a human being doesn't deserve and will not receive even an ounce of compassion from me.
One only has to follow the bouncing Arafat to witness the path of destruction and mayhem this vile creature has visited on this Earth. From Egypt to Jordan to Lebanon to the West Bank and to Gaza there is a trail of blood and misery that ends at his doorstep. The real tragedy is that during the late '80s Arafat was marginalized and living in exile. There was relative peace, and the Palestinians living in and around Israel saw their plight improve greatly. That was before President Clinton brought Arafat out of exile plopped him down in the Gaza strip, gave him money and weapons (and a farcical Nobel Peace Prize). The Palestinians and the Israelis have suffered ever since. Nice going, President Clinton.
Join me in prayer that the world will finally be rid of this beast. Amen
When I heard the news my heart jumped. Could it be possible? Will the curse be lifted? The Red Sox you say? No, Arafat on his death bed!
It's being reported that master terrorist and all around evil guy, Yasser Arafat is very, very ill and I couldn't be more tickled. Now, I have always been taught to have compassion for those who suffer. Honestly, does that apply to Satan's right hand man? This miserable excuse for a human being doesn't deserve and will not receive even an ounce of compassion from me.
One only has to follow the bouncing Arafat to witness the path of destruction and mayhem this vile creature has visited on this Earth. From Egypt to Jordan to Lebanon to the West Bank and to Gaza there is a trail of blood and misery that ends at his doorstep. The real tragedy is that during the late '80s Arafat was marginalized and living in exile. There was relative peace, and the Palestinians living in and around Israel saw their plight improve greatly. That was before President Clinton brought Arafat out of exile plopped him down in the Gaza strip, gave him money and weapons (and a farcical Nobel Peace Prize). The Palestinians and the Israelis have suffered ever since. Nice going, President Clinton.
Join me in prayer that the world will finally be rid of this beast. Amen
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Osama, Osama where for art thou, Osama?
Proof of Life is Not that Difficult
After listening to John Kerry repeat his ridiculous charge that George W Bush "outsourced" the capture of Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords I've been thinking about the bearded one and his disposition. Personally, I think he's dead. Just stop to think about it, proof of life is not that difficult. A photogragher and a daily newspaper is all one needs to show proof of life. Yet since December of 2001 we have not seen hide nor hair of Mr. bin Laden. Prior to that he seemed to have no problem with video cameras or photographers. There are hours of video tape and hundreds of photos of Osama - but none since 2001.
Now, if he is dead, buried under tons of rubble in Tora Bora, or killed in any number of ways by special forces and having assumed room temperature, why wouldn't the Bush Administration be holding it up as a trump card against the naysayers? Perhaps the President and his advisors are wise beyond their desire to score political points. What would it serve to create a martyr out of him? A body would bring instant martyrdom. A captured bin Laden and a trial would only rally a world full of virgin seekers to a massive call to arms. But a master terrorist that is missing in action creates nothing but speculation.
There have been a number of tapes reportedly of bin Laden's voice submitted to arab news agencies and eventually to CIA types who have proclaimed that the voice is likely to be bin Laden. This is not proof of life and besides, the CIA, like any good spy agency, uses misinformation as a weapon.
In all honesty, I hope we never know what has happened to Osama. The mystery serves America and the civilized world far better than knowing one way or another where he is. Only the worms know for sure.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Racism and the Drumbeat
When is enough enough? After listening to the local sports station over the weekend I have to wonder if there will ever come a day when race won't be used to make us - all of us - feel bad about ourselves.
You see, there is a quaterback for the local NFL team, the Minnesota Vikings, who is a black man. He is also one of the very best quaterbacks in the league this season. Daunte Culpepper has wowed the sports community with MVP-like performances all season long. In years past he has shown flashes of this ability but has he never put it altogether like he has this year. Still, he has his detractors. To this I say - so what. Just because there are people out there who will never be satisfied with Culpepper's performance does not imply they are racist. For the local sportscasters on KFAN to state categorically that Culpepper will never be universally loved because he is black is offensive to me. The truth is, until he wins the Vikings a Superbowl ring he will never be given his proper due.
These sportscasters forget about another local hero who has been celebrated lavishly for his ability and his contribution to the game and the community. He name is Kirby Puckett. Puckett was loved by everyone - black and white - because he was very, very good on and off the field regardless of his race. Kids loved him, little old ladies loved him, heck, I loved him! Puckett helped his team (in fact, in 1991 he carried it on his back) secure a World Series championship. For Puckett and the Twins it was the 2nd time in five years. The difference between Culpepper and Puckett is the rings they wear on their fingers.
When will the day come when a black man can be legitimately or illegitmately critisized without the race card being played? Perhaps, as I have said throughout my life, it will take one or two more generations. My Dad was a bigot as were many men from his generation. Somehow I have "seen the light" and have not passed that on to my son. My son has never heard me say one word that can be construed as derogatory toward anyone of another race because of their race. I have rightly critisized the behavior of people of color when they deserved it. I have stopped my son from using negative characterizations of Hmongs in our city because he needs to know that Hmongs act as individuals just as we do.
To ignore the history of this melting pot and the unique circumstances for our racial diversity is folly, bigots will always be with us. But to constantly use it as a club to make one group feel bad about themselves is disgusting.
You see, there is a quaterback for the local NFL team, the Minnesota Vikings, who is a black man. He is also one of the very best quaterbacks in the league this season. Daunte Culpepper has wowed the sports community with MVP-like performances all season long. In years past he has shown flashes of this ability but has he never put it altogether like he has this year. Still, he has his detractors. To this I say - so what. Just because there are people out there who will never be satisfied with Culpepper's performance does not imply they are racist. For the local sportscasters on KFAN to state categorically that Culpepper will never be universally loved because he is black is offensive to me. The truth is, until he wins the Vikings a Superbowl ring he will never be given his proper due.
These sportscasters forget about another local hero who has been celebrated lavishly for his ability and his contribution to the game and the community. He name is Kirby Puckett. Puckett was loved by everyone - black and white - because he was very, very good on and off the field regardless of his race. Kids loved him, little old ladies loved him, heck, I loved him! Puckett helped his team (in fact, in 1991 he carried it on his back) secure a World Series championship. For Puckett and the Twins it was the 2nd time in five years. The difference between Culpepper and Puckett is the rings they wear on their fingers.
When will the day come when a black man can be legitimately or illegitmately critisized without the race card being played? Perhaps, as I have said throughout my life, it will take one or two more generations. My Dad was a bigot as were many men from his generation. Somehow I have "seen the light" and have not passed that on to my son. My son has never heard me say one word that can be construed as derogatory toward anyone of another race because of their race. I have rightly critisized the behavior of people of color when they deserved it. I have stopped my son from using negative characterizations of Hmongs in our city because he needs to know that Hmongs act as individuals just as we do.
To ignore the history of this melting pot and the unique circumstances for our racial diversity is folly, bigots will always be with us. But to constantly use it as a club to make one group feel bad about themselves is disgusting.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Debate III: It's Bush!
It's all over but the crying...
The President was very good tonight. John Kerry was John Kerry. If there is one thing that sets these men apart it's the realness of George W. Bush. He is no idiot and despite what the Bush haters think this is a man with a great big heart. John Kerry may have a human heart (and he almost showed it tonight) but he so damn full of himself (and his "plans") that he is really not a likable person; you might say he comes off as a know-it-all.
On the substance, I think Bush really scored big on the more personal questions. One can credit Senator Kerry with having all those facts and figures at his fingertips but we are not just judging the man on his command of statistics we are trying to see what kind of man he is on the inside. President Bush is actually quite humble and suprizingly optomistic. Deep inside Kerry is a know-it-all... Did I say that already?
Senator Kerry really struggled on the "man of faith question" which was a gift to President Bush from Bob Schieffer, the moderator. Bush literally ducked the question on the assault weapons ban and the minimum wage. Clearly these were the low points for the President. One, raising the minimum wage question, is a complicated issue that while seeming only fair actually backfires on the people it's supposed to help out there in the real world. Everyone who knows anything about Washington economics knows it's bone for the labor unions who use it as the base for their contracts. Still, that being said, the President should have said something. On the assult weapons ban he gave a weak answer - something about "it wasn't going anywhere in congress".
Senator Kerry threw a really uncalled for jab at the Vice President regarding the fact that Cheney's daughter is homosexual. Ms. Cheney never made her sexual orientation an issue in this campaign and it was shameful the way both John Edwards and John Kerry used it to perhaps try to hurt the President with the far right of the party. Senator Kerry, again failed to answer how his health care "plan" could be anything other than a govenment run health plan. Bush hammered him on the very real fact that when the government starts offering plans more and more employers will stop offering healthcare coverage. Bush also correctly pointed out that with the government funding for healthcare that government control will not be far behind. He made references to how other nations with governement controlled healthcare offered poor quality and eventually rationing. Kerry was on the defensive more than once, assuring the American people it wasn't a government takeover of healthcare. Bush asked, why after 20 years in the Senate that Kerry never put up a bill on the healthcare issue, not one. Kerry had no answer. The President, again offered some real ideas on how to lower healthcare costs.
Bob Schieffer held Kerry to account on the Social Security reform question. The Senator said he wouldn't touch it (he actually said taxing the rich would take care of it) while the President emphatically said that the cost of doing nothing would be far greater. The President said it would be a major focus in his second term and that he is willing to take on the issue.
I realize as a Bush supporter I have a biased take on the debate, but honestly I don't see how it could be anything less than a draw if not a clear Bush win. Whatever... November 2nd is the only poll that will matter. The next few weeks should very interesting.
The President was very good tonight. John Kerry was John Kerry. If there is one thing that sets these men apart it's the realness of George W. Bush. He is no idiot and despite what the Bush haters think this is a man with a great big heart. John Kerry may have a human heart (and he almost showed it tonight) but he so damn full of himself (and his "plans") that he is really not a likable person; you might say he comes off as a know-it-all.
On the substance, I think Bush really scored big on the more personal questions. One can credit Senator Kerry with having all those facts and figures at his fingertips but we are not just judging the man on his command of statistics we are trying to see what kind of man he is on the inside. President Bush is actually quite humble and suprizingly optomistic. Deep inside Kerry is a know-it-all... Did I say that already?
Senator Kerry really struggled on the "man of faith question" which was a gift to President Bush from Bob Schieffer, the moderator. Bush literally ducked the question on the assault weapons ban and the minimum wage. Clearly these were the low points for the President. One, raising the minimum wage question, is a complicated issue that while seeming only fair actually backfires on the people it's supposed to help out there in the real world. Everyone who knows anything about Washington economics knows it's bone for the labor unions who use it as the base for their contracts. Still, that being said, the President should have said something. On the assult weapons ban he gave a weak answer - something about "it wasn't going anywhere in congress".
Senator Kerry threw a really uncalled for jab at the Vice President regarding the fact that Cheney's daughter is homosexual. Ms. Cheney never made her sexual orientation an issue in this campaign and it was shameful the way both John Edwards and John Kerry used it to perhaps try to hurt the President with the far right of the party. Senator Kerry, again failed to answer how his health care "plan" could be anything other than a govenment run health plan. Bush hammered him on the very real fact that when the government starts offering plans more and more employers will stop offering healthcare coverage. Bush also correctly pointed out that with the government funding for healthcare that government control will not be far behind. He made references to how other nations with governement controlled healthcare offered poor quality and eventually rationing. Kerry was on the defensive more than once, assuring the American people it wasn't a government takeover of healthcare. Bush asked, why after 20 years in the Senate that Kerry never put up a bill on the healthcare issue, not one. Kerry had no answer. The President, again offered some real ideas on how to lower healthcare costs.
Bob Schieffer held Kerry to account on the Social Security reform question. The Senator said he wouldn't touch it (he actually said taxing the rich would take care of it) while the President emphatically said that the cost of doing nothing would be far greater. The President said it would be a major focus in his second term and that he is willing to take on the issue.
I realize as a Bush supporter I have a biased take on the debate, but honestly I don't see how it could be anything less than a draw if not a clear Bush win. Whatever... November 2nd is the only poll that will matter. The next few weeks should very interesting.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Prediction
I'm going out on limb here... Having perused the usual newspapers and the blogs today and having seen in the headlines things such as "...GOP Dirty Tricks" I think we can expect a very sensational allegation against Bush on or about the Thursday before the election. Like the decades old DUI thing thrown out on... What? ...the Thursday before the 2000 election!
What strikes me as odd is Dan Rather and 60 Minutes could've waited a few weeks with their little mocked up memo. Makes you wonder...
What strikes me as odd is Dan Rather and 60 Minutes could've waited a few weeks with their little mocked up memo. Makes you wonder...
Democracy In Action - Afghanistan and Australia
But I don't hear the democrats cheering...
It's amazing to witness this thing called democracy in action. With a sense of excitement and a deep desire to participate in something historic some voters walked for miles to get to the polling place. Some dressed in their best clothes while braving potential attacks by the terrorists in their midst. Yes, indeed, it was a big day... Oh, I'll bet you think I'm talking about the election that took place in Afghanistan this past weekend? Actually, I'm talking about the elections that took place over a decade ago in a country called Nicaragua. I say this is to illustrate a point that will be lost on the Bush haters. The point is, back in the 1980's the very same people who called Ronald Reagan all the nasty things they now call George W. Bush opposed every effort America made to run the communists out and usher in free elections. In fact, it was John Kerry and his soul mate, Ted Kennedy among others who stood in the way of democracy coming to Central America. The elections were first of many that finds us in a place where now democracy rules in Central America and communism is nowhere to be found. And what if John Kerry had his way back then?
Central America is an American success story, a Reagan success story. He believed in opposing communism every where it reared its ugly head. The truly amazing thing that happened after those elections was how the leftists gave up and for all intents and purposes, the war was over. The overwhelming turn out and the enthusiasm of the voters knocked the wind out of the communists. This past weekend, in war torn Afghanistan we saw exactly the same thing. The future for Afghanistan got so much brighter in just one day - one magical day. Maybe this is the silver lining in the tragic attacks of September the 11th. Think about how amazing it is for a country that has been battered around for the better part of five thousand years to have chosen its government for the first time ever. Afghanistan may not have"turned the corner" yet, but the wheels are cranking. Bully for them.
In an another amazing turn of events, the stalwart Bush ally Australian Prime Minister John Howard has won a historic fourth term. There were those who thought his close association with President Bush and his support for the Iraq war of liberation was going to be the nail that sealed his political coffin. Australia and Great Britain are surely two of America's closest allies and we are so very grateful to them.
Elections are set for January in Iraq and come hell or high water it is imperative they take place on schedule. Nothing will deflate the old Baathists and the foreign terrorists like a gleeful electorate. Eventually peace will come to a free Iraq and peace starts with free elections. Like I said come hell or John Kerry the Iraqi elections must take place!
It's amazing to witness this thing called democracy in action. With a sense of excitement and a deep desire to participate in something historic some voters walked for miles to get to the polling place. Some dressed in their best clothes while braving potential attacks by the terrorists in their midst. Yes, indeed, it was a big day... Oh, I'll bet you think I'm talking about the election that took place in Afghanistan this past weekend? Actually, I'm talking about the elections that took place over a decade ago in a country called Nicaragua. I say this is to illustrate a point that will be lost on the Bush haters. The point is, back in the 1980's the very same people who called Ronald Reagan all the nasty things they now call George W. Bush opposed every effort America made to run the communists out and usher in free elections. In fact, it was John Kerry and his soul mate, Ted Kennedy among others who stood in the way of democracy coming to Central America. The elections were first of many that finds us in a place where now democracy rules in Central America and communism is nowhere to be found. And what if John Kerry had his way back then?
Central America is an American success story, a Reagan success story. He believed in opposing communism every where it reared its ugly head. The truly amazing thing that happened after those elections was how the leftists gave up and for all intents and purposes, the war was over. The overwhelming turn out and the enthusiasm of the voters knocked the wind out of the communists. This past weekend, in war torn Afghanistan we saw exactly the same thing. The future for Afghanistan got so much brighter in just one day - one magical day. Maybe this is the silver lining in the tragic attacks of September the 11th. Think about how amazing it is for a country that has been battered around for the better part of five thousand years to have chosen its government for the first time ever. Afghanistan may not have"turned the corner" yet, but the wheels are cranking. Bully for them.
In an another amazing turn of events, the stalwart Bush ally Australian Prime Minister John Howard has won a historic fourth term. There were those who thought his close association with President Bush and his support for the Iraq war of liberation was going to be the nail that sealed his political coffin. Australia and Great Britain are surely two of America's closest allies and we are so very grateful to them.
Elections are set for January in Iraq and come hell or high water it is imperative they take place on schedule. Nothing will deflate the old Baathists and the foreign terrorists like a gleeful electorate. Eventually peace will come to a free Iraq and peace starts with free elections. Like I said come hell or John Kerry the Iraqi elections must take place!
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Debate II: Advantage Bush
The President redeemed himself nicely Friday night in a spirited and scrappy debate. The audience driven questions were hard-hitting and without pretense. It was without a doubt one of the best debates I've ever seen. The town hall format seemed to be a more comfortable fit for the President than the first one. Senator Kerry did not appear as sure-footed when speaking directly to the public represented here by the questioners. He often used that semi-condescending tone when asked a direct question that clearly put them on the opposite sides of an issue. Kerry felt it necessary to empathize with the questioner, citing his "enormous" respect for their point of view. The President, when presented a question that didn't square with his policies simply said "that's a great question, I'm glad you asked" and proceeded to lay out his position without a hint of condescension.
On the substance of the debate - was it me or did John Kerry simply repeat verbatim the things he said in the first debate? This is not to say the President didn't repeat himself ad nauseum as well, but honestly Kerry sounded like a broken record. Senator Kerry spent most of his time repeating the same laundry list of sins committed by the President rather than giving us details of these "plans" he has to solve everything that's wrong under the sun. In fact, my dear wife, who was listening to the debate as background noise, left the room to escape the drone of Kerry's negativism. The Senator did, however, score a direct hit when he rebutted the notion that the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq didn't work. He stated unequivocally that the goal of the sanctions was the elimination of Iraq's WMD's. By any and all accounts there were no stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. However, this, again, is with the benefit of hindsight - John Kerry was not saying loudly and clearly that the sanctions were working two years ago, quite the opposite actually.
The President scored several important points as well. To the delight of his base he finally hit Kerry on his less than distinguished record in the senate over the past 20 years. He also showed Senator Kerry's inconsistency with regards to the multi-lateral talks over North Korea that the Senator insists should be one on one talks between Kim Jung Il and the United States. This strategy is exactly what he condemns the President for doing in Iraq. Bush jumped all over Kerry's non-answer answer regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. Personally I think that having the U.S. military surrounding Iran with a huge presence in Afghanistan and in Iraq (not to mention American nuclear armed subs in the Persian Gulf) is an aggressive policy where Iran is concerned.
The domestic policy questions shed no new light on the debate with both candidates offering party line sound bites. Once again Senator Kerry promised a magical plan to solve the health care problem, and again offered no details. Here the President actually laid out specifics by citing medical liability tort reform and the push for medical savings accounts and insurance pools for small businesses. Bush also found the opportunity to paste the liberal label on John Kerry. Like all liberals, the Senator treated it as a dirty word. Apparently liberal is a code word for socialist, which is, of course, what John Kerry is.
In the end, professional debate analysts will probably score this one a draw, but on substance and on the tone President Bush helped himself greatly. Senator Kerry did not. Advantage Bush…
On the substance of the debate - was it me or did John Kerry simply repeat verbatim the things he said in the first debate? This is not to say the President didn't repeat himself ad nauseum as well, but honestly Kerry sounded like a broken record. Senator Kerry spent most of his time repeating the same laundry list of sins committed by the President rather than giving us details of these "plans" he has to solve everything that's wrong under the sun. In fact, my dear wife, who was listening to the debate as background noise, left the room to escape the drone of Kerry's negativism. The Senator did, however, score a direct hit when he rebutted the notion that the UN imposed sanctions on Iraq didn't work. He stated unequivocally that the goal of the sanctions was the elimination of Iraq's WMD's. By any and all accounts there were no stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. However, this, again, is with the benefit of hindsight - John Kerry was not saying loudly and clearly that the sanctions were working two years ago, quite the opposite actually.
The President scored several important points as well. To the delight of his base he finally hit Kerry on his less than distinguished record in the senate over the past 20 years. He also showed Senator Kerry's inconsistency with regards to the multi-lateral talks over North Korea that the Senator insists should be one on one talks between Kim Jung Il and the United States. This strategy is exactly what he condemns the President for doing in Iraq. Bush jumped all over Kerry's non-answer answer regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions. Personally I think that having the U.S. military surrounding Iran with a huge presence in Afghanistan and in Iraq (not to mention American nuclear armed subs in the Persian Gulf) is an aggressive policy where Iran is concerned.
The domestic policy questions shed no new light on the debate with both candidates offering party line sound bites. Once again Senator Kerry promised a magical plan to solve the health care problem, and again offered no details. Here the President actually laid out specifics by citing medical liability tort reform and the push for medical savings accounts and insurance pools for small businesses. Bush also found the opportunity to paste the liberal label on John Kerry. Like all liberals, the Senator treated it as a dirty word. Apparently liberal is a code word for socialist, which is, of course, what John Kerry is.
In the end, professional debate analysts will probably score this one a draw, but on substance and on the tone President Bush helped himself greatly. Senator Kerry did not. Advantage Bush…
Some Things Never Change
Politicians kissing babies... The time honored tradition of politicians hugging and kissing the next generation is alive and well in 2004. I think it's kinda' sweet.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Election 2004: A Time for Soul Searching
Concerning the election of 2004 – it’s soul searching time. We have a stark choice this time and there is much at stake. There is the economy and jobs, the future of the Supreme Court and, of course there is the war against the terror masters. In all honesty the first two won’t matter a hill of beans for our long term future if the third fails. Unlike all the other wars America has fought this one is unique in that far too many people won’t accept that it is a “real” war. It’s real enough alright, and it didn’t start with 9/11 and it won’t end in Baghdad.
One man is preaching peace through strength, peace through war – preemptive war – and the aggressive use of offensive American military power. The other man is urging peace through diplomacy, peace through international bonding and consensus building. You almost have to suspend your disbelief. Peace through war? That hardly makes sense. Isn’t that like offering a drowning man a glass of water? Doesn’t peace through consensus sound so much better? Who doesn’t endorse international bonding? Well, for one, our enemies, the enemies of western civilization, don’t do international bonding and they certainly don’t waste time consensus building. They are a death cult. They offer no alternative ideology for the living. They don’t negotiate and they don’t attend diplomatic conferences (summits, if you will). So the question one needs to ask themselves is which of these strategies is likely to work in the long run?
Analogies can be very instructive. The President’s actions can be likened to a strategy employed by firefighters battling wild fires in the western United States. They set fires. That’s right; the firefighters set fires to fight fires. They are called firebreaks. More often than not they work and thousands of acres are spared. Sometimes things go wrong – the wind shifts, firefighters are pre-positioned in the wrong place, or maybe the rain that was expected never materializes. There are naysayers who will say that firebreaks are dangerous and therefore should never be used. Fires should be contained and if innocents lose their homes and property it’s tragic, but at least the fire department didn’t start the fire.
War is not always the wrong answer despite what the bumper stickers may say. The use of American military power has freed millions of people from invaders and brutal dictators. Hope, freedom and even prosperity has risen from the rubble in Germany, Italy, Japan, France, South Korea, Central America, Kuwait, Kosovo and Afghanistan. It will happen for Iraq too, if we persevere. By standing fast against Soviet expansionism the United States succeeded in the Cold War as well. In the one place we as a nation gave up millions of Vietnamese lost their lives when the U.S. military pulled out for good. It was John Kerry who was one of the loudest voices against America then. He should be made to answer for what happened in Southeast Asia after we left.
George W. Bush has answer for Iraq and the war on terror – take the fight to them and spread democracy and liberty as the best antidote to the death wish that fuels Islamic terrorism. John Kerry’s doesn’t have an answer except to say that what ever Bush does is wrong.
One man is preaching peace through strength, peace through war – preemptive war – and the aggressive use of offensive American military power. The other man is urging peace through diplomacy, peace through international bonding and consensus building. You almost have to suspend your disbelief. Peace through war? That hardly makes sense. Isn’t that like offering a drowning man a glass of water? Doesn’t peace through consensus sound so much better? Who doesn’t endorse international bonding? Well, for one, our enemies, the enemies of western civilization, don’t do international bonding and they certainly don’t waste time consensus building. They are a death cult. They offer no alternative ideology for the living. They don’t negotiate and they don’t attend diplomatic conferences (summits, if you will). So the question one needs to ask themselves is which of these strategies is likely to work in the long run?
Analogies can be very instructive. The President’s actions can be likened to a strategy employed by firefighters battling wild fires in the western United States. They set fires. That’s right; the firefighters set fires to fight fires. They are called firebreaks. More often than not they work and thousands of acres are spared. Sometimes things go wrong – the wind shifts, firefighters are pre-positioned in the wrong place, or maybe the rain that was expected never materializes. There are naysayers who will say that firebreaks are dangerous and therefore should never be used. Fires should be contained and if innocents lose their homes and property it’s tragic, but at least the fire department didn’t start the fire.
War is not always the wrong answer despite what the bumper stickers may say. The use of American military power has freed millions of people from invaders and brutal dictators. Hope, freedom and even prosperity has risen from the rubble in Germany, Italy, Japan, France, South Korea, Central America, Kuwait, Kosovo and Afghanistan. It will happen for Iraq too, if we persevere. By standing fast against Soviet expansionism the United States succeeded in the Cold War as well. In the one place we as a nation gave up millions of Vietnamese lost their lives when the U.S. military pulled out for good. It was John Kerry who was one of the loudest voices against America then. He should be made to answer for what happened in Southeast Asia after we left.
George W. Bush has answer for Iraq and the war on terror – take the fight to them and spread democracy and liberty as the best antidote to the death wish that fuels Islamic terrorism. John Kerry’s doesn’t have an answer except to say that what ever Bush does is wrong.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate: Round 1 goes to Kerry
John Kerry did well. He had to. The President did not.
The President seemed to run out of gas toward the end of the debate. Kerry could have gone on for another 90 minutes. While this debate may not affect the eventual outcome of this election, it did put John Kerry in a new light. President Bush consistently hammered home his main campaign points but failed to rebut some of Kerry's inflated rhetoric.
The dilemma for the President is that he has a track record in office, and John Kerry has the benefit of hindsight. This is not to excuse the President's lackluster debating skills. I imagine it is difficult to take the carping from the cheap seats that has gone on for over a year only to have your rival pound you once again without the benefit of an on/off switch. Whereas in the year 2000 it was Al Gore who had the air of incumbency and George Bush played the fresh faced challenger. Kerry's "commanding" performance with facts and figures (many demonstrably wrong, by the way) contrasted sharply with the President's reflexive defenses and visable exasperation. Kerry's very good debating skills papered over the fact that he was not saying much of anything. His reference to a "Global Test" America would have to pass before commiting our military and a promise to halt any advanced nuclear testing should call into question his ability perform as commander in chief.
There is some light here for the President. I get the feeling that there is a bit of Bush Hatred Fatigue Syndrome falling over the land. Just as many, many people who thought Bill Clinton's affair with a young White House intern was despicable; they also grew weary of the pounding the man took over it. September the 11th did change the world; Bush gets it and has acted decisively. I still don't think Kerry gets it.
The President seemed to run out of gas toward the end of the debate. Kerry could have gone on for another 90 minutes. While this debate may not affect the eventual outcome of this election, it did put John Kerry in a new light. President Bush consistently hammered home his main campaign points but failed to rebut some of Kerry's inflated rhetoric.
The dilemma for the President is that he has a track record in office, and John Kerry has the benefit of hindsight. This is not to excuse the President's lackluster debating skills. I imagine it is difficult to take the carping from the cheap seats that has gone on for over a year only to have your rival pound you once again without the benefit of an on/off switch. Whereas in the year 2000 it was Al Gore who had the air of incumbency and George Bush played the fresh faced challenger. Kerry's "commanding" performance with facts and figures (many demonstrably wrong, by the way) contrasted sharply with the President's reflexive defenses and visable exasperation. Kerry's very good debating skills papered over the fact that he was not saying much of anything. His reference to a "Global Test" America would have to pass before commiting our military and a promise to halt any advanced nuclear testing should call into question his ability perform as commander in chief.
There is some light here for the President. I get the feeling that there is a bit of Bush Hatred Fatigue Syndrome falling over the land. Just as many, many people who thought Bill Clinton's affair with a young White House intern was despicable; they also grew weary of the pounding the man took over it. September the 11th did change the world; Bush gets it and has acted decisively. I still don't think Kerry gets it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)