#!@%*!! Language

* * * * * * UPDATE: SCROLL TO END OF POST * * * * * *

I've confused at least one regular reader (and absolutely brilliant political blogger), vigilante, about the point(s) I've attempted to make in recent posts. I apologize and I want to clarify the primary purpose of this particular journal.

The subheading at the top of this and every page for the last ten years reads "Journeys Through Cyberspace" and, indeed, that is my vantage point. I am observing and commenting on what is happening in this new medium, this new universe, called the Internet.

To be certain I am a classic liberal. And my personal political, philosophical and moral principles do color all my writings. But I've never intended this to be a political blog like vigilante's excellent blog, The Vigil.

I'm not trying to impeach the President. And my journal's objective isn't to bring the troops home from Iraq. It certainly isn't to support the agendas of either (or any) political party, politician or personality.

That doesn't mean these aren't all valid issues and certainly doesn't mean I won't comment on all these topics when I feel it is appropriate. I lend my support to many of these objectives every day and in many journal entries.

The key here is that I'll often comment on and/or criticize the actions of people who live, work and build the content of the web. And, perhaps because of my strong principles, I'll even attack someone with whom I actually agree politically.

Such is the case today!

I'm hoping that every single reader is now painfully familiar with the hottest topic in cyberspace, the John Edward's hiring and possible firing of two left wing political bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.

Edwards wanted to broaden his ability to appeal to the Internet's powerful liberal community. As Howard Dean proved, appealing to the grassroots of cyberspace can give a candidate an overwhelming advantage.

Marcotte and McEwan are well known bloggers. And, when I dig deep beneath their often crude and vulgar hyperbole and wild rants, I agree with them on 90% of the issues today.

Certainly Amanda Marcotte and I agree 100% on all the issues of women's reproductive rights and privacy. I don't want Christian conservatives or any part of the government in any one's bedroom!

But, take a look at how Marcotte thoughtfully and eloquently phrased her views (please be aware of the very crude language in the following post):

Rehnquist died. He was no crusader for decency or anything, but nor was he a person whose ideology overruled his decisions. Those days for the Supreme Court are over. BushCo has a new appointment and can also choose the new Chief Justice. Summary: We are fucked. Choice is gone. And as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned, states will start outlawing contraception, and eventually the ideologically run court will find that there’s no right to privacy, period, and contraception protection will be gone. The only thing I can say now is that people who have enough children or don’t want any at all–get sterilized while you still can. As for those who want children, just not now….well, I don’t know. If you use condoms, stock up on EC now. If you use the pill, start exploring Canadian options. One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.

First, Marcotte was so factually wrong it makes my head hurt. Rehnquist's death was hardly a nail in the Roe vs. Wade coffin. In fact, Rehnquist was Roe's biggest enemy on the Supreme Court.

More importantly, she clearly fails to understand the dynamics on conservative politics or the principles of the conservative Christian on these issues. She doesn't know her enemy.

But she certainly was colorful in her in her rant! Yet it is that very color that marginalizes her position. Substituting the "F" word for logic, clear thought, facts or reason diminishes her into total obscurity. Only mindless extremists could possibly like or respect her.

Clearly one or more of those mindless extremists are part of John Edward's campaign. And those folks convinced someone in Edward's campaign to hire this idiot without properly researching her previous writings or work.

Now Edwards is faced with the fallout. Marcotte's words are reverberating through all of cyberspace. Edwards is caught in a firestorm that might actually scuttle his candidacy.

And a certain portion of the Internet's progressive or liberal community feels somehow they must rally to Marcotte's defense and even go so far as to threaten Edwards if he fails to retain and support Marcotte and McEwan.

And here we have the real tragedy. Marcotte is an idiot. Just because her positions are correct doesn't make her a role model or a valid spokesperson.

In fact the left needs to actually lead the parade to dump this loser. She hurts us every single time she sits at the keyboard. Edwards' campaign made a horrific mistake. And they should rightfully be criticized for that. Who the hell is vetting staffers over there?

But we do our causes great harm when we support people who can't even get facts straight and feel the overwhelming need to post @#$%*!! rants in place of logical, reasoned arguments.

* * * * * UPDATE 2/8/2007 11:00 PM * * * * *

John Edwards campaign announced this evening that it will not terminate or release the controversial bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Edwards no doubt weighed the complaints and criticism from the right and especially from Catholic activist groups against the threatened reaction of the far left blogosphere.

First, the decision reflects badly on Edwards and on his campaign orgnization.

Second, it is a decision that will haunt Edwards throughout his candidacy. The stupid and vulgar writings of Marcotte and McEwan will be replayed throughout the campaign as if Edwards fully endorsed those statements.

Third, Edwards simply cannot write off the Catholic vote, a traditional Democrat stronghold.

From today's article in The New York Times:

In some of their online writings, Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwan used vulgar language to characterize religious conservatives and Roman Catholic teachings on birth control, homosexuality and the virgin birth. On her personal blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, Ms. McEwan had referred to conservative Christians as “Christofascists.” On the Pandagon blog site, Ms. Marcotte had said that the Catholic Church’s prohibition on the use of birth control forced women to bear “more tithing Catholics.” This week, William A. Donohue, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, had called for Mr. Edwards to dismiss the women. Stunned to learn that he did not, Mr. Donohue said in an interview Thursday, “The bloggers are no longer the issue. Edwards is the issue.”

Boy is Mr. Donohue right!

And here we have a PRESS RELEASE from the Catholic activist group Fidelis"

Fidelis President Joseph Cella commented: “We are shocked and appalled that John Edwards would stand by a campaign staff member who has viciously attacked Catholics and all Christians publicly on her personal blog. If any staffer had written similarly about gays, blacks, or Jews, there is no question Edwards would fire them immediately. Sadly, it appears that former Senator Edwards applies a different standard to attacks on Catholics.”

Cella also is spot on. If any remotely similar writings are ever uncovered by any Edwards staffer directed toward blacks, gays or Muslims, look for their immediate dismissal and public hanging with Edwards personally tightening the noose.

Did you know that Marcotte has consistently referred to Jesus as "Jeebus" in all her writings (one blogger counted 114 such references). Can you imagine Edwards rage if she have used a similar derogatory reference for Mohammad? Can you image the Muslim rage?

In summary I must tell you that this stupid, tone deaf pandering to the far left absolutely eliminates Edwards as a candidate anyone should support for President.

Both Marcotte and McEwan will be gone very soon, probably quietly resigning within the next few weeks, allowing both the embattled bloggers and Edwards to save face. And we have a perfectly clear picture of exactly the kind of President Edwards would make.

Disgusting.

TECHNORATI TAGS: AMANDA MARCOTTE MELISSA MCEWAN JOHN EDWARDS THE VIGIL WOMENS RIGHTS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS LIBERAL FREE SPEECH

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

I will defend to the death your right to say it

"I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
It is commonly believed that this a quote from Voltaire. However, as it turns out, the quote is more correctly attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who was writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G. Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire.

Hall was attempting to paraphrase Voltaire's attitudes, based on his Essay on Tolerance where he asserts: "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

I greatly appreciate the resource of Wikiquote for this interesting bit of information and the ability to correctly attribute this quote to Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

During this past week, controversy raged in half of the blogosphere (only the conservative half) over Washington Post Reporter/Columnist William Arkin's unbelievably stupid, self-centered, hateful, inane, vapid, ugly, mean-spirited, tasteless, insipid, ill-informed, prejudiced, and ego-driven drivel.

"So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"

This past week I considered what I might write in response to his columns. In the end I felt the very famous quote at the top of this page, as inspired by Voltaire and written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, was all I needed to say. Anything more would be simply a waste of time and cyber-keystrokes.

For those who want more, here is a link to Michelle Malkin's first article on Arkin with numerous links to other bloggers and other media reactions. Once on Malkin's site you can search and find much more.

I am disappointed at my fellow bloggers on the left who are quick to condemn similar hateful prose from columnist Ann Coulter, but who are notably silent on the now, multi-column horror being spewed by Arkin.

As Arkin hit full speed in his diatribe, Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person of the Day" was not Arkin, but a minor "Fox Noise" reporter who incorrectly identified the network that had employed Peter Jennings. WOW! That was bad!!

Keith, if you're going to make a reporter who makes a very minor mistake your "Worst Person of the Day," your colleagues on MSNBC can fill your top spot for the next year, with the AP, Reuters and New York Times reporters waiting in the wings.

Hell, I'm certain I can fill the top spot occasionally.

But, as a news show host who has correctly lampooned conservatives Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin in the past, I'd like to think you could find a spot for Arkin, too.

Likewise all you writers over at The Huffington Post who are absolutely obsessed with Ann Coulter. You would think you could spare a thought for William Arkin.

But, alas, that is the current state of political blogging and commentary today. Harpoon your enemies for the errors of their ways, but ignore the same sins from your friends.

In that regard, these are sad times, indeed.

TECHNORATI TAGS: WILLIAM ARKIN ANN COULTER KEITH OLBERMANN VOLTAIRE EVELYN BEATRICE HALL HUFFINGTON POST WIKIQUOTE MICHELLE MALKIN IRAQ MILITARY

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

We See What We Want to See, We Hear What We Want to Hear

Food for thought.

The conservative blogosphere and most conservative commentators and radio hosts are making much about politicians who endorse and confirm well respected generals and state department officials, then immediately repudiate those same general's and official's positions on Iraq and the "surge" of troops currently underway.

And I remain convinced that the vast majority of these same politicians are poll driven stooges who primarily hope to be reelected. If they have a real opinion, they keep them to themselves.

It was interesting to watch Don Imus tear into Hillary Clinton yesterday in the most vitriolic and hateful way because he believes that Hillary is one of the "poll driven" politicos. Imus said that "Hillary is trying to play catch up because the polls are passing her by..."

I'm not ready to cast such a harsh judgment against Hillary, but, in general, Imus is not wrong. But, as usual, I digress.

My point is that many bloggers, politicians and media personalities are extremely guilty of the same blind stubbornness they ascribe to President Bush. They immediately discard any opinion from any source with which they disagree.

So the game being played by most Democrats and a few Republicans is to condemn President Bush for not listening to the military leaders THEN to completely ignore Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus when he pleads for Congressional support for his plan and begs Congress not to pass any resolutions that would embolden or give comfort to the enemy.

And, need I remind you, Patraeus is the General the Congress just unanimously confirmed to lead our military in Iraq.

Now we have former Secretary of State James Baker, only a few weeks ago the darling of the Democrats, author of the Iraq Study Group Report, endorsing the President's surge of troops.

"James Baker, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, on Tuesday endorsed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, urging the Senate to "give it a chance." "The president's plan ought to be given a chance," Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Just give it a chance." "Baker, a former secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, said it was wrong for the Senate to confirm Army Gen. David Petreaus to lead the new Iraq mission at the same time it was moving to pass non-binding resolutions opposing the deployment of at least 21,500 U.S. forces to improve security in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province."

You remember the derogatory stories that littered the blogosphere and dominated the Keith Olbermann show. The stories that spoke of Daddy Bush sending his team in to save his bumbling son, only to have sonny boy repudiate his daddy by refusing to listen to reason.

Curiously, last night I didn't hear Olbermann condemn any of the "stubborn, closed minded" Democrat Senators who absolutely refuse to listen to James Baker today.

So, as a final thought today, I urge all who wander by my journal today to take a few minutes and listen to the commentary by Ted Kopple, formerly of ABC New's Nightline, and now a regular contributor for National Public Radio.

Kopple's commentary is titled How Honest Is the Debate over Iraq?

TECHNORATI TAGS: TED KOPPLE DON IMUS KEITH OLBERMANN IRAQ IRAQ STRATEGY DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH AL QAEDA LT. GENERAL PETRAEUS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Perhaps I Need to Reconsider....

Perhaps I was just too quick in abandoning my proposed satirical story about John Kerry seeking the Presidency...... of Iran (see my blog entry from earlier today).

Seriously, Senator Kerry is a folk hero in Iran! Here is Today's Iran Daily Newspaper.

Here is a link to the pdf file of the paper. Kerry is being lauded by the Iranian press for his many comments condemning President Bush's and U.S. policies on everything from global warming to aid to Africa.

Many of Kerry's comments from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland are factually incorrect or are mere political hyperbole. But far be it for Kerry to acknowledge Bush's outstanding leadership in aid to Africa. Praising Bush wouldn't have set well with the audience at the World Economic Forum.

After you bask in the glow of the Kerry article, but sure to read the article in the lower right hand corner of the front page. Iranian leaders are condemning the United Nations for their acknowledgment of the Holocaust and the UN's efforts to condemn individuals or countries who deny the Holocaust ever took place.

And, yes, that is Nancy Pelosi in the upper right hand corner of the paper.

I'm betting Hillary Clinton will make the front page tomorrow after her demand this afternoon that President Bush completely withdraw from Iraq by January, 2009. Talk about handing Iran and Osama bin Laden a gift on a silver platter!

It's the ultimate irony! Iran never had to conquer Iraq or overthrow Saddam Hussen. George Bush did that for them. And now Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha are going to present them with the country as a token for peace. The Iranians only need to wait two short years.

And to my detractors who would condemn my statements: Show me any plan, any idea or any proposal by any of the above mentioned individuals that would keep Iraq out of al-Qaeda's or Iran's or Turkey's hands.

TECHNORATI TAGS: JOHN KERRY HILLARY CLINTON NANCY PELOSI IRAN IRAQ AL QAEDA MIDDLE EAST

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Sunday Morning Rambling... The Whole Picture

I don't post a Blog Roll on my website. But perhaps I should. I particularly admire the Blog Roll listed over on vigilante's website The Vigil. He labels it "Places I Read and Write" and I like that type of personalization. Plus I greatly admire the fact that vigilante engages in dialog with bloggers of different political perspectives.

Vigilante's list is obviously not an endorsement of ideas. Instead he endorses the reasonable exchange of ideas.

I have a list of blogs in my bookmarks (favorites) in my web browser. I read each blog in the order I've placed them on the list. And I move blogs up or down the list based upon the value I find in the ideas and concepts the blogger explores. I also place bloggers in the list based my limited view of their intellectual honesty and candor.

Bloggers do drop off the list and new ones are added. And let's be honest, you cannot read more than 5 or 6 blogs on any given day unless you're retired or a professional blogger.

Still my current list contains 16 blogs. And Sunday is the only day I can read them all.

I'm still not going to list my Blog Roll. Regular readers can probably duplicate it because I so often link to, or give a "tip o' the Wizard's Pointy Cap" to bloggers who influence or contribute to my ideas.

But I do start every day with The Huffington Post. Because over a hundred writers contribute there, I often make it no further. Today's extensive writing about the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland had captured my attention.

Once I made it to Michelle Malkin's blog (5th on my list, if you must know) I got a different picture of Davos. I discovered there was a massive conservative backlash over John Kerry's remarks.

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I’ve never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

And, by following link's Michelle had provided, I learned of Kerry's cozy forum relationship with former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.

VIOLA! I had the genesis for my own blog entry today. It would be a great "tongue in cheek" satire about how Kerry, who has given up on seeking the U.S. Presidency, was now seeking the Iranian Presidency.

I'm sure it would have been very funny.

But I plowed on down my list of blogs. And near the bottom (15th out of 16 I am ashamed to admit) I came upon an article so unexpected and so important, I had to recommend it to you instead of writing my own rather insignificant piece of nonsense.

So I'd like to send you off to The Sudanese Thinker and an article written by blogger Drima, not about Darfur and The Sudan, which so correctly demands 99% of all the blog entries there, but instead to a very original discussion about the little covered test of a new Space Weapon by the Chinese.

I'm going to reprint a very small portion below, but I ask you all to link over there immediately and read the full discussion in the blog entry China the Rising Super Power: “Star Wars” Has Begun

"China has shown it can destroy a satellite in orbit. What could the U.S. do to stop Beijing, if it decided to attack an American orbiter next? Short answer: nothing." "Many Sudanese are happy about the fact that China has such close relations with Sudan. They love the idea of a broken America and a new Chinese super power filling the vacuum." "Sure. America is no angel. America is not perfect, America has made mistakes (Iraq anyone?), America has done bad things and it still continues to (Guantanamo anyone?). However America is by far better than China when it comes to freedom, respect for human rights and democracy. I do understand that China isn’t waging any wars… for now though (see, I told you I mistrust and fear what I don’t understand) but China is profiting from its activities in Sudan without caring much about what’s happening in Darfur. It’s doing the same in other places too."

Be sure to read the entire article.

If you're not following your own very diverse reading path, you're likely to miss some of the really important things happening in our world today.

Thanks Drima. I'm moving The Sudanese Thinker up several places on my reading list.

TECHNORATI TAGS: CHINA DARFUR SUDAN STAR WARS SPACE WEAPONS THE VIGIL MICHELLE MALKIN THE SUDANESE THINKER MISSLE DEFENSE BLOGGING

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

The Failure to Plan for Iraq After Saddam's Fall

President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and virtually the entire Bush administration have been rightly condemned for their absolute FAILURE to plan for Iraq after the defeat of Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi army crumbled, Saddam fled into his series of spider holes, and Iraq quickly fell into absolute chaos.

The US troops made no effort to keep the peace, protect Iraq's infrastructure, treasures and people. There were insufficient troops and the troops on the scene were neither trained nor directed to perform police duties.

As time progressed things went from bad to much, much worse. The vacuum created by the near total lack of planning by the so-called coalition of the willing is precisely what allowed al-Qaeda and insurgents from Iran and Syria to gain a foothold in Iraq.

Today's disaster can be directly linked to President Bush's failure to plan for the future of the country his forces so easily conquered. Frankly, it's a failure repeated over and often throughout history. And George Bush needed to learn from history.

So do the Democrats who are now using the Iraqi people and the future of the middle east as pawns for their personal and political gain.

Bush used his huge post 9/11 popularity and overwhelming poll numbers to cover his invasion of Iraq and cover-up his failure to properly plan, study, prepare and execute an intelligent strategy for the future.

Today, Democrats are using the same cover of overwhelming public dissatisfaction for the war to tie the hands of the military and either plunge Iraq into civil war or perhaps give control of Iraq to the same terrorists Bush had hoped to defeat.

Here is a telling editorial from the Washington Post, Congress's Iraq Quagmire:

"ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission." "Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy." "Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq: A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it."

Ninety percent of the strong heartfelt convictions being expressed on the floors of Congress today are simply poll driven drivel.

How else can you explain the speeches given in support of President Bush during the run up to the Iraq invasion?

Now we see the same impassioned speeches against the President. This is not "cut and run." This is "duck and cover."

I'm not saying we must stay in Iraq. I'm saying we must understand and be willing to accept and support the consequences of the decisions we make.

----------
Cartoon courtesy of Cox and Forkum, from their article Losing Strategy.

A tip of the Wizard's pointy cap to Bill Gnade of Contratimes for pointing me to the Washington Post editorial quoted above.

TECHNORATI TAGS: DONALD RUMSFELD VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY IRAQ IRAQ STRATEGY DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH AL QAEDA LT. GENERAL PETRAEUS

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Save the Cheerleader.... Part Deux

Let's take a look back at the Wizard's crystal ball predictions heading into the State of the Union address. And it looks like the Wizard was wrong not once, but twice!

First, NBC's Heroes did beat Fox's 24 in the overnight ratings! It was a stunning upset! Mike McDaniel, writing for the Houston Chronicle said:

Confounding odds makers but delighting the networks, NBC's Heroes won Round 1 of a ratings showdown between network heavyweights, edging past Fox's 24 to draw the largest audience, ages 18-49, during the 8 p.m. hour Monday. According to overnight 18-49 ratings, Heroes finished first with a 6.5 rating, followed by 24's 5.4. In total viewers, the contest was much closer, with NBC grabbing 14.8 million viewers for the hour and Fox taking 14.4 million.

And the Wizard was also wrong about the President's reception at the State of the Union address. The Congress was polite, attentive and respectful. There were numerous breaks for applause and Nancy Pelosi was certainly gracious during the speech. Naturally the folks over at Fox News were counting:

"While early analysis suggests President Bush delivered a flat State of the Union address Tuesday night that received only muted response, several lines in the 52-minute speech won the president enthusiastic applause." "Still, FOX News transcribers recorded 54 applause breaks, although not all those pauses were the result of bipartisan cheering for the president. That compares to 76 in 2002 and and 77 in 2003, though both of those speeches were longer."

Beyond those two errors, the Wizard was right. Not that is took any kind of crystal ball to predict the President's proposals would fall on deaf ears. Nor did it require great insight to predict that the President's pleas for support and time to prove out his new Iraq strategy would be nearly universally rejected.

In less than 24 hours, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee strongly rebuked the President by voting overwhelmingly (12 to 9) for a resolution against the President's proposed "surge" in U.S. troops in Iraq.

"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday passed 12-9 a resolution that dismissed Bush's plans to increase troops in Iraq as "not in the national interest." The vote on the nonbinding measure was largely along party lines, with Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska being the sole Republican on the committee offering his support."

Although Hagel was the only Republican actually voting for this resolution, most Republicans rebuked the President in their comments, but refused to support this particular resolution.

Faced with overwhelming public disapproval of the President and the occupation of Iraq, Senators were all seeking a safe spot, distancing themselves from the President.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri quietly began planning their victory celebrations in Iraq. They recognize that there is still a long way to go, but time is firmly on their side.

It is absolutely critical that they foil the President's plan to quell violence in Bagdad. But they only need to keep up the effort for a few months. A suicide bomber here, an IED there and victory is at hand.

Other than tying the hands of the Commander and Chief of the US military, none of the opposition in the United States, neither Democrats or Republicans, have offered ever a glimmer of an idea of how to prevent Iraq from becoming a totalitarian radical Islamic militant state.

And, as the United Nations and the supposed US allies quickly march away from Afghanistan, victory for al-Qaida and the Taliban there is clearly visible in the not to distant future. In a Bloomberg report, Caroline Alexander explains:

"An estimated 15,000 Taliban fighters are preparing for battle, counting on guerrilla-like techniques adopted last year. Meanwhile, NATO foreign ministers meet in Brussels tomorrow divided over the campaign, with France and Germany refusing to deploy soldiers to Taliban strongholds in the south and east, and forces still short of helicopters and transport planes a year after asking their governments for more." "This is going to make it more difficult to take objectives and hold them," Bastian Giegerich, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said in an interview. "It's going to be another difficult spring." "Losing Afghanistan to the Taliban might restore the Central Asian nation as a training ground for terrorists with "devastating" consequences for international security, British Prime Minister Tony Blair says."

While Tony Blair clearly understands the magnitude of the problem, it is unlikely he can gain support in Parliament or from the British public to send a promised 1,000 additional combat troops to Afghanistan. In fact, most NATO countries will not even allow their very few committed troops to be stationed in combat areas.

Although Democrats today support a surge in troops in Afghanistan, al-Qaida understands that continuous guerrilla war should quickly fatigue the American public.

I'll discuss in detail the huge failures of President Bush and the gigantic and virtually continuous victories of Al-Qaida in another article shortly. It is the stuff of legend.

What does all this mean? Well, let's not panic. There are many progressives who I greatly respect who feel a positive outcome is possible, even likely.

But let's not deny that the United State's strategy as begun by George Bush and now being ended by the U.S. Congress has, in the long term, helped al-Qaida.

TECHNORATI TAGS: HEROES 24 AFGHANISTAN IRAQ STATE OF THE UNION DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS OSAMA BIN LADEN PRESIDENT BUSH NATO UNITED NATIONS AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Save the Cheerleader... Save the World

Not even Hiro and the Heroes can save President Bush's State of the Union address tonight.

While it's possible, even likely, the the Heroes of NBC's hit graphic novel drama can save New York from destruction in three weeks, Bush's destruction tonight is assured and not even Jack Bauer can rescue the President this time.

If you want suspense, you'll need to watch the television network ratings to see if Claire the cheerleader (actress Hayden Panettierre, pictured on the right) and the Heroes stand a chance against the juggernaut of FOX's 24.

Don't waste your time waiting for the Democrat's response to Bush's initiatives or the instant poll numbers that the news networks will deliver late this evening. There is no suspense there. Neither the Democrats nor the public will be endorsing the President.

Bush's popularity will continue to plummet. Republicans are deserting the sinking Bush ship like rats. Fearing their fate in the upcoming election cycle, Republicans are joining the Democrats in seeing who can condemn the President's handling of Iraq the most.

Even Al-Qaida number 2 man Ayman al-Zawahri couldn't resist piling on. He mocked President Bush in a video released yesterday. "I ask him, why send 20,000 (troops) only — why not send 50 or 100 thousand? Aren't you aware that the dogs of Iraq are pining for your troops' dead bodies?"

Rumor has it the al-Zawahri may join Hillary Clinton and issue another video today announcing he is filing the paperwork to form an exploratory committee for 2008. He could teach Hillary a thing or two about videos on the web.

Of course, since George Soros is backing Barack Obama, al-Zawahri's candidacy is considered by many to be a long shot.

Still, tonight's polls may show al-Zawahri is more popular that President Bush. Preliminary poll numbers seen to indicate he is behind Clinton, Obama and Edwards for 2008, but running slightly ahead of Bill Richardson. It just may be too soon for a Hispanic to win the Presidency.

But back to President Bush and the State of the Union address. The Pelosi and Reid promised bipartisanship didn't last 15 minutes into the first 100 hours. I suspect the reception of the speech tonight will be ugly. I frankly expect it to resemble British Parliament and not the usual, cordial reception the President receives for a State of the Union address.

Pundits love to count the number of times the Senators and Congresspersons applaud. Tim Russert can leave his shoes and socks on tonight. It will be a small number.

Politicians can read polls and tea leaves and they can see the President is is worse than a lame duck, he is a dead duck.

They come tonight not to praise Ceasar, but to bury him.

The ramifications for the war in Iraq are profound. The insurgents have won, just as I have long believed they would. The battle for Iraq is over.

Oh, the killing will continue. The body count will pile up. As the US troops become disengaged, the sectarian violence will escalate.

The only question now is when will the Democrats and defecting Republicans pull the plug on funding and force the President's hand.

Will Bush read the tea leaves himself? Or will Congress pour him a cup of hemlock?

Can the Heroes beat Jack Bauer?

TECHNORATI TAGS: HEROES HIRO 24 JACK BAUER IRAQ STATE OF THE UNION DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH HILLARY CLINTON BARACK OBAMA HAYDEN PANETTIERRE AYMAN AL-ZAWAHRI

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

The Case for Impeachment

As the new year begins and tensions over the situation in Iraq and the middle east mount, there is increasing talk of Impeachment. Lawmakers are growing increasingly wary of the President's isolation. His policies are more and more out of sync with the national mood.

Today many political leaders from all parts of the political spectrum openly question his plans and policies, his intelligence, his unwillingness to compromise and his general leadership of the country.

The blogosphere has been full of talk of impeachment for a long time. But now the discussion is more open and it's quickly moving to the main stream media.

An in depth report this morning on National Public Radio by Gareth Smyth of The Financial Times and NPR's Renee Montagne shows how real this discussion has become.

Below are a few of the comments and the points made in this excellent analysis. The transcription of the audio report is mine and I freely admit this is an abridged transcription. A link to the full audio report is at the bottom of this discussion.

Renee Montagne: "How serious has the opposition to [the president] become?" Gareth Smyth: "...the opinion makers are becoming increasingly concerned with George Bush's new strategy on Iraq, which very much sounds like a new strategy on Iran.... and the US seizure of the Iranian employees, perhaps diplomats and perhaps not, in northern Iraq..... and at the US military deployment in the Persian Gulf....." "That sense of crisis over the international situation has led many people here to believe that [the government] can no longer afford the luxury of a President who puts rhetoric above the national interest." Renee Montagne: "Are conservatives and fundamentalists part of this opposition?" Gareth Smyth: "There are a minority of reformers who are critical of the President and this is where the talk of impeachement has begun." "The President, since he has been elected has failed to build political bridges, even to people who you would consider to be his allies. Traditional conservatives and even fundamentalists.... criticism is coming from these corners as well." Renee Montagne: "You also mention the economy is a problem?" Gareth Smyth: "The most common charge you hear is that the economy is being mismanaged. The president has brought in new managers with very little experience. Now lack of experience and failure to build bridges is not a particularly good way to run any country." Renee Montagne: "Just recently we saw protests at universities. Does this reflect a growing unease among younger people?" Gareth Smyth: "There is an anti-intellectual tone in many of [the President's] pronouncements, which obviously doesn't go down well in many universities."

Smyth and Montagne conclude that the situation is very serious and has gotten to the state where much of the Iranian Parliament and the Iranian public have lost faith in President Ahmadinejad.

Link to the full NPR report HERE.

Perhaps the U.S. experience and our frustration with George Bush is not as unique as we all would like to think.

TECHNORATI TAGS: PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD IRAN IRAQ IMPEACHMENT DEMOCRACY WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH DEBATE

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

Binary Choices

A society with a billion dollar fast food industry is always short on time.

Michael, in a reply to Bill Roggio's article, Iraq: The Greatest Enemy is Time

Iraq is not simple. The war on terror is not simple. And no matter how hard our fellow bloggers and television pundits and Washington politicians try to KISS us off ("Keep It Simple, Stupid"), the real issues are complex and the solutions difficult.

Bill Roggio said it best in his really superb article Iraq: The Greatest Enemy is Time, originally published in Die Weltwoche, but thoughtfully translated into English and reprinted in his blog by the author himself.

As President Bush unveiled his new vision to move forward on Iraq, the political debate in the United States has continuously degenerated into a simple, binary choice of withdrawal to prevent further American casualties, or surge more troops to attempt to restore order in Baghdad.

I would be hard pressed to be more disgusted with the level of political posturing in Washington over the last two day. Democrats, nearly all of whom are running fro President, have pontificated endlessly in front of their supposed "witnesses," while barely able to put together an intelligent sentence, let alone a reasonable question.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has now assured us that the Democrats don't need to come up with any ideas at all. "That's the President's job," he assured television reporters today.

I feel so much better now understanding his only responsibility is to insult the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. I am quite certain it is the only job for which Mr. Reid is qualified.

So we have President Bush's reasonably well laid out plan for the next several months in Iraq. In 22 minutes on national television Bush was pretty clear. And further details and specifics have come over the last two days.

And we have the Democrat's alternative of attacking the President for the next six months. Hold hearings. Attack and insult witnesses. Hold meaningless straw votes. Talk vaguely about some sort of troop withdrawal.

And the key Democrat strategy, of course, will be to distance themselves from real and very brave leaders like John Murtha and Edward Kennedy, who have specific plans and proposals and aren't afraid to state them.

The real situation in Iraq demands more. Bill Roggio's thoughtful article about a possible future for Iraq was developed after he spent two months embedded with the US troops in the Anbar Provence.

After spending two months out of the last 12 in the land between the two rivers, one thing I've learned is nothing is simple about Iraq, and there are no easy solutions to the vast array of problems. But despite the constant media portrayal of Iraq as a hopelessly violent nation, Iraq is not a nation without hope. The average life of an insurgency is about nine years. In Iraq, the insurgents and al-Qaeda hope to wear down the will of the American government and people, and precipitate a premature withdrawal.

Roggio is not unbiased. Those who have read his blog, articles or seen or heard him, know he is a hawk in the war on terror. He sees a real threat. And he believes in real solutions.

But he is knowledgeable and he researches and studies his subject with discipline. His opinions must not be dismissed out of hand.

When I talk to American troops about Iraq, their greatest concern isn't for their safety, but they are worried the American public has given up on the war before they can complete their mission. They watch the news - CNN, MSNBC and FOX News are beamed into the mess halls, some even possess satellite dishes with access to BBC World, Al Jazeera and hundreds of programs at their fingertips. Internet is readily available in many areas. I surfed the web in the center of Fallujah on wireless Internet. American troops watch the news and follow the debate in real time. They will tell you the war they see on television isn't the war they are fighting. To the troops, the war as portrayed on television is oversimplified and digested into sound bites. The soldiers are portrayed as victims and the violence is grossly exaggerated. From my own experiences with two months in Iraq out of a year, I had not personally witnessed an ambush, a roadside bombing or other attack. The closest action I saw were some poorly aimed mortar attacks in Fallujah, or a near by patrol getting hit (the bullets and RPGs never made contact). And this is in Anbar province, the most dangerous region in Iraq. I make it a point to accompany the troops on foot and mounted patrols on daily basis.

We can not and should not dismiss the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was miscalculated and grossly mishandled. It's possible, even likely, that it should never have even occurred in the first place. Nothing that I write here or that Bill Roggio writes should be seen as a vindication or even an exoneration of George Bush and his team.

But is walking away, hat (and troops) in hand even a remotely acceptable answer to the mess we are in?

Senator John McCain went on his own offensive today against the grandstanding Democrats. The quotes below are from the Associated Press article here:

"I believe that together these moves will give the Iraqis and Americans the best chance of success," said McCain, R-Ariz., a leading presidential contender for 2008. McCain also took a shot at Democrats who say the United States must bring some troops home within four to six months. "I believe these individuals ... have a responsibility to tell us what they believe are the consequences of withdrawal in Iraq," he said. "If we walk away from Iraq, we'll be back, possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."

What are the costs of withdrawal? How many Iraqi's are we willing to sacrifice?

Let's return to Roggio's article.

The nature of the insurgency in Iraq is complex, and cannot be simply framed as a sectarian war or a war against "U.S. occupation." The insurgency is designed to destroy any semblance of a democratically elected Iraqi government, and is directed at the developing Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government and institutions, U.S. and Coalition forces, and against sectarian targets. In Anbar province, where I embedded in the city of Fallujah last December, sectarian violence is virtually non-existent. In fact, Sunni tribes have rallied to protect their Shia neighbors numerous times in the past and drove of al-Qaeda attempts to 'cleanse' the region of Shia. Al-Qaeda blood ran in the streets the few times they tried to purge the Shia from Ramadi. In Fallujah, Ramadi and greater Anbar province, Al-Qaeda in Iraq the most dominant insurgent organization. Al-Qaeda focuses its attacks on Iraqi government security forces, government institutions, as well as U.S. Army and Marine units operating in the region. Their ability to fund the insurgency in the impoverished province is their greatest weapon. Unemployed Sunnis are a paid well (as much of $1,000 according to a military intelligence source) to attack Iraqi and Coalition forces. While there is a large volume of insurgent attacks, the large majority of attacks fail. Inside Fallujah, there is no U.S. Marine or Army presence, save the members of the Police and Military Transition Teams – small, 15 to 20 man teams that are embedded within the police and Army units. I embedded as a reporter with both the Police and Military Transition Teams in Fallujah. The Marines in these teams take great risk in dong their daily job. They live, eat and sleep with their Iraqi counterparts, and are wholly dependent on them for security. Their American backup is stationed outside the city limits. As brave as the American Marines are, their Iraqi counterparts outshine them. The police, who are local to the city, are specifically targeted by insurgents. Since the late summer, 21 Iraqi police were murdered by insurgents. Their families are regularly threatened with violence. Several police officers told me how that while they were home they would sit with their backs to the door, AK-47 in hand, as they feared their homes would be stormed and their families would be killed.

This is quite a different picture than we see in our national media.

Can this Iraqi force develop and grow? Is there a future for the elected Iraqi government? Will threats of scheduled troop pullouts help the fledgling Iraqi police and military?

The [Iraqi] police and soldiers do their jobs with very little resources. Some haven't been paid in a year. Supplies and equipment such as helmets, bullet proof vests, uniforms and batteries are in high demand demand, as the Iraqi Army logistical system is broken. The police just received armor Humvees to patrol the city, and have been up-armoring their pickup trucks with scrap armor kits. Despite these problems, morale and fighting spirit are not an issue. In fact, the police and Army believe that, if given the right equipment, they can defeat the insurgents without U.S. help. Nationwide, the Iraqi Army and Police clearly are not ready to fight the insurgents and militias on their own. Baghdad and Ramadi are clearly two cities where the police and Army would collapse without U.S. backing. But the police and soldiers in Fallujah believe they can. Pride, courage and fighting spirit are certainly traits these soldiers do not lack. They will need time to develop the capacity to fight on their own, and time is the one commodity the West seems to be short of.

From the very day the Coalition invaded Iraq I have said that we cannot win. We have superior fighting force. We have vastly superior weapons and logistical supply lines. We have talent and military knowledge. And we have great soldiers.

We can't win because we lack the patience and persistence to win. Our will was strong on day one. But we like six day wars. We want everybody home on Sundays.

There are dozens (perhaps hundreds or hundreds of thousands) of reasons why President Bush should not have embarked on this folly. For a man who so adamantly campaigned against the concept of nation building back in the fall of 1999, Bush began one of the toughest projects ever attempted.

But, having embarked on this tragic adventure, our problem today is that Al-Qaeda or Syria or Iran (or the Shi'ites or perhaps even the Sunni's) have the ultimate weapon we lack. Time.

TECHNORATI TAGS: BILL ROGGIO IRAQ EDWARD KENNEDY AL QAEDA DEMOCRACY WAR ON TERROR PRESIDENT BUSH SOLDIERS DEBATE JOHN MCCAIN JOHN MURTHA

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us

I Left My Heart in San Francisco

Much of the "conservative" blogosphere and virtually all "conservative" radio talk show zealots are all talking about the nasty attack on the Yale a capella singing group The Baker's Dozen in San Francisco this past New Year's Eve.

This hits especially close to home for me because our radio station, WiZARD RADIO, plays the music of The Baker's Dozen and many of the other fine and talented college a capella groups. In fact, for the past three years WiZARD RADIO has done special March Madness programming each spring showcasing the nation's finest college a capella groups.

The reason for conservative outrage is that the group was taunted and then physically attacked after performing in sports coats and ties and singing The Star Spangled Banner.

That conservatives would jump to this conclusion isn't without merit. San Francisco has been the center of outrageous liberal behavior over the last several years. The city council and mayor, in particular, have set a tone that might seem to foster an anti-military, anti-conservative morality, and even "anti-preppy" atmosphere.

Whether it's forcing ROTC out of city schools or attempting to illegally sanction gay marriage, San Francisco is on the forefront of liberal values and causes. It might seem safe to assume that the mayor and city council actually reflect the views of the San Francisco population.

But the truth of this story is much darker and more sinister. This is much more likely to be an anti-gay hate crime.

Here's a portion of a report by San Francisco Chronicle columnists Matier and Ross, New Year's nightmare for visiting Yale singers

The 16 singers showed up late to the party wearing preppy sport jackets and ties, and launched into "The Star-Spangled Banner." A couple of uninvited guests started mocking them, and allegedly the words "faggot" and "homo" were tossed -- and so were a couple of punches. The loud noise drew relatives from next door, who promptly ordered the house cleared. The Yale kids, most of whom were staying with a family a block away, began heading home. But witnesses said one of the uninvited guests -- who happens to be the son of a prominent Pacific Heights family -- pulled out his cell phone and said, "I'm 20 deep. My boys are coming." According to Rapagnani and others, the Yale kids barely made it around the corner when they were intercepted by a van full of young men. "They were surrounded, then tripped -- and when they were on the ground, they were kicked," Rapagnani said. According to police reports, the cops arrived about 12:40 a.m. to find 20 people fighting in the street. To the police, who were out in force to keep a lid on New Year's, it looked like just another drunken brawl. But according to Rapagnani, "This was not a fight -- it was an attack." Four of the alleged assailants were detained at the scene, then released after the cops took their names. Meanwhile, Sharyar Aziz Jr. was taken by paramedics to San Francisco General Hospital, and later had to undergo reconstructive surgery in New York for a broken jaw that will remain wired shut for eight weeks. Another unidentified Yale student sought treatment for a concussion, and a third for a swollen ankle and other abrasions. Yale Dean Peter Salovey told the school paper that he was "shocked and appalled" by the incident, which has yet to yield an arrest.

Bruce, the superb blogger over at Gay Patriot summed it up:

Of course, I naturally assumed the attack on these boys was because they dared sing our National Anthem in the City by the Bay. Ah, but no.... it appears those tolerant folks in the Bluest of Blue America... went after the guys in a gay-bashing rage.... in San Francisco! *shocked* Great, just great.! I actually have to be in San Fran in less than two weeks for work. I guess I better not wear a tie, look cleaned up, or sing the National Anthem. Maybe I'll attend all of my business functions dressed as a homeless bum. Heck, I might get a San Fran taxpayer-funded stipend out of it!

TECHNORATI TAGS: GAY BASHING HATE CRIMES SAN FRANCISCO STAR SPANGLED BANNER YALE LIBERALISM THE BAKERS DOZEN HOMOSEXUAL A CAPELLA WIZARD RADIO PREJUDICE

DIGG THIS

SAVE THIS PAGE TO del.icio.us