I’ve been watching some of the Democratic National Convention with interest. In my opinion so far, Teresa Heinz-Kerry, Al Sharpton and Jennifer Granholm were the three most interesting speakers so far, not in what they said, but in how they said it. All three speakers were quite good; between them and the Clintons, they made Edwards look weak. He came across as, well, woody. He didn’t seem to have it all together.
If Kerry speaks in monotones tonight like he normally does, it will swing undecided voters away from the Democratic ticket and more toward candidates that have a pulse. For all the excitement that the selection of John Edwards has created in the Democratic Party, I cannot say that his performance was enough to justify getting excited. My official position on the matter: BORING! The undercard has been consistently better than the main events so far!
Kerry has to deliver a grand slam tonight if he hopes to knock Bush out in November; if he doesn’t, then it will not matter what happens with Florida’s troubled election system. The stakes for Kerry tonight are huge. If he doesn’t deliver, then Bush definitely will in New York in a few weeks. His use of humor is consistently better than Kerry’s, he varies his voice tones, and uses his trouble pronouncing words to his advantage.
After California Governor Davis was voted out of office and Arnold Schwarzenegger was voted in, Bush met with the Governor-elect a short time later and made a statement that "We both married well, people talk about both of us not being able to speak the English language, and we both have big biceps.” His ability to poke fun at himself makes Bush more appealing to a wider audience; it also makes him more disliked in some quarters by those who want Bush out of office.
We’ll see what happens tonight.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Florida Election Nighmare in the Making
The New York Times is reporting that the 2002 gubernatorial primary voting records in Miami-Dade County in Florida have been wiped out by two computer crashes.
Miami-Dade was one of the counties that held up the 2000 Presidential Election because of the breakdown of their punch-style voting machines and voter confusion with the butterfly-style voting ballots.
In response, Miami-Dade and half of Florida went over to touch-screen voting machines, which were supposed to eliminate any repeat of the 2000 fiasco. But problems continue with votes being lost, records being lost and the machines generally not working as advertised with no paper backup of the records!
It was calculated that 8% of all votes were lost with the new machines.
It may be time to go back to paper ballots and optical scanners in Florida, which provide a paper backup when the technology fails. We are at war, and the nation cannot afford a repeat of the 2000 Election! We need leadership, not confusion and lawsuits.
Miami-Dade was one of the counties that held up the 2000 Presidential Election because of the breakdown of their punch-style voting machines and voter confusion with the butterfly-style voting ballots.
In response, Miami-Dade and half of Florida went over to touch-screen voting machines, which were supposed to eliminate any repeat of the 2000 fiasco. But problems continue with votes being lost, records being lost and the machines generally not working as advertised with no paper backup of the records!
It was calculated that 8% of all votes were lost with the new machines.
It may be time to go back to paper ballots and optical scanners in Florida, which provide a paper backup when the technology fails. We are at war, and the nation cannot afford a repeat of the 2000 Election! We need leadership, not confusion and lawsuits.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
Transcript of "Shove It" Incident
The following is from USA Today on the "Shove It" thingy with Teresa Heinz-Kerry:
In a speech to Pennsylvania delegates Sunday night, Teresa Heinz Kerry said there needed to be a change in American politics.
"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics," she said.
Afterward, she had this exchange with Colin McNickle, editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
McNickle: (inaudible) Un-American activity? You mentioned un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No, I did not say that.
McNickle: What did you mean?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that (pointing finger at reporter).
McNickle: Well, what did you say?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that.
McNickle: I am just asking what did you say.
Heinz Kerry: Why are you putting those words in my mouth?
McNickle: I thought you said something about being un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No I did not say that.
Heinz Kerry turns away, then returns a few moments later.
Heinz Kerry: Are you from the Tribune-Review?
McNickle: Yes, I am.
Heinz Kerry: Of course (turns away quickly).
McNickle: Come here (tapping her on the elbow).
Heinz Kerry: (Turns back to reporter) Understandable. You said something I didn't say — now shove it!
Sources: The Associated Press, ABC News
-------
Here's my translation:
What!! What!! What!! Huh??! What!! Well, duh!! Shove it!
Why is the press spending so much time on this? She obviously didn't want to talk to the reporter but didn't want to be misquoted. That's the story. At least she didn't use the "f" word. Now that would have been news!
In a speech to Pennsylvania delegates Sunday night, Teresa Heinz Kerry said there needed to be a change in American politics.
"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics," she said.
Afterward, she had this exchange with Colin McNickle, editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:
McNickle: (inaudible) Un-American activity? You mentioned un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No, I did not say that.
McNickle: What did you mean?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that (pointing finger at reporter).
McNickle: Well, what did you say?
Heinz Kerry: I did not say that.
McNickle: I am just asking what did you say.
Heinz Kerry: Why are you putting those words in my mouth?
McNickle: I thought you said something about being un-American?
Heinz Kerry: No I did not say that.
Heinz Kerry turns away, then returns a few moments later.
Heinz Kerry: Are you from the Tribune-Review?
McNickle: Yes, I am.
Heinz Kerry: Of course (turns away quickly).
McNickle: Come here (tapping her on the elbow).
Heinz Kerry: (Turns back to reporter) Understandable. You said something I didn't say — now shove it!
Sources: The Associated Press, ABC News
-------
Here's my translation:
What!! What!! What!! Huh??! What!! Well, duh!! Shove it!
Why is the press spending so much time on this? She obviously didn't want to talk to the reporter but didn't want to be misquoted. That's the story. At least she didn't use the "f" word. Now that would have been news!
Moore at DNC
Did everyone catch Michael Moore sitting in the Presidential box at the opening night of the Democratic National Convention? He was sitting two seats over from Ted Kennedy.
Any more dumb questions on Moore's intent behind "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
Any more dumb questions on Moore's intent behind "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
The French...again
My thoughts on Jacques Chirac, the President of France, have been made clear on my other postings: he’s an idiot.
During the build-up to the war in Iraq, the bombastic Chirac insisted that the new nations of the European Union follow France’s lead on its opposition to the Iraq War. The French also warned of consequences in the European power block if new EU members supported the U.S. Naturally, this had/has many new EU members upset with French attempts to insert France's influence into their affairs.
While I do not have an issue with French opposition to the Iraq war, I do have a major problem with France not being honest over why it really opposed the war. Billions of dollars in agreements between Saddam Hussein and France made the French government’s position very suspect during the lead-up to the war. French complicity in the oil-for-food scandal did not help the French image over here. Their attempts to sabotage U.N. involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq also made it look like the French were protecting their contracts (most of which will not be honored by the new Iraqi government) instead of helping the Iraqi people regain their freedom and restore stability to that war-ravaged country.
Many in Europe and in the U.S. will be cheering when the bombastic French leader leaves office. It seems like for all the screaming that the French are doing these days about the U.S. taking unilateral action in Iraq, the French are doing the same thing in other parts of the world. U.S. political leaders are not taking France to task over libelous statements that the French leadership has made over Iraq, over Turkey’s admission to the E.U., over the recent French accusations that Washington is blackmailing developing countries into accepting trade agreements in exchange for AIDS medicines and other French slurs. It has also not made a big deal out of France’s foot-dragging when it comes to admitting to its own war crimes guilt in Algeria over the hundred-year occupation of Algeria.
I think that the verbal sparring between Israel’s Prime Minister and Chirac has lain open French arrogance for the entire world to see. Sharon and Chirac are so alike that they are naturally aggressive toward one another. In a lot of ways, Bush and Chirac are alike too, so the sparks tend to fly. It’s actually been fun to watch. Reminds me of a back-and-forth tennis match.
The French continually underestimate Bush and Bush has turned right around on them and it annoys the daylights out of Chirac. Bush has also underestimated Chirac and has had his nose publicly punched, much to the delight of the French population, which also dislikes Bush.
This is what happens when egos replace common sense.
During the build-up to the war in Iraq, the bombastic Chirac insisted that the new nations of the European Union follow France’s lead on its opposition to the Iraq War. The French also warned of consequences in the European power block if new EU members supported the U.S. Naturally, this had/has many new EU members upset with French attempts to insert France's influence into their affairs.
While I do not have an issue with French opposition to the Iraq war, I do have a major problem with France not being honest over why it really opposed the war. Billions of dollars in agreements between Saddam Hussein and France made the French government’s position very suspect during the lead-up to the war. French complicity in the oil-for-food scandal did not help the French image over here. Their attempts to sabotage U.N. involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq also made it look like the French were protecting their contracts (most of which will not be honored by the new Iraqi government) instead of helping the Iraqi people regain their freedom and restore stability to that war-ravaged country.
Many in Europe and in the U.S. will be cheering when the bombastic French leader leaves office. It seems like for all the screaming that the French are doing these days about the U.S. taking unilateral action in Iraq, the French are doing the same thing in other parts of the world. U.S. political leaders are not taking France to task over libelous statements that the French leadership has made over Iraq, over Turkey’s admission to the E.U., over the recent French accusations that Washington is blackmailing developing countries into accepting trade agreements in exchange for AIDS medicines and other French slurs. It has also not made a big deal out of France’s foot-dragging when it comes to admitting to its own war crimes guilt in Algeria over the hundred-year occupation of Algeria.
I think that the verbal sparring between Israel’s Prime Minister and Chirac has lain open French arrogance for the entire world to see. Sharon and Chirac are so alike that they are naturally aggressive toward one another. In a lot of ways, Bush and Chirac are alike too, so the sparks tend to fly. It’s actually been fun to watch. Reminds me of a back-and-forth tennis match.
The French continually underestimate Bush and Bush has turned right around on them and it annoys the daylights out of Chirac. Bush has also underestimated Chirac and has had his nose publicly punched, much to the delight of the French population, which also dislikes Bush.
This is what happens when egos replace common sense.
Gore's At It Again
Did you hear Al Gore up on the stage last night, asking Americans to vote?
That part was fine and dandy, but then Goremeister HAD to slip in the comment to not allow the Supreme Court to "choose the next President." EXQUEEZE ME, but was it not Gore who initiated court action to override the Florida count? Was it not Gore who insisted on hand-counting the ballots in the disputed counties? Was it not Gore who did NOT insist on a state-wide ballot recount, which WOULD have given him the victory? By insisting on only those counties that had major discrepancies, GORE ensured Bush's victory, not the Supreme Court.
So get over it, Al, and quit trying to rewrite history again!
That part was fine and dandy, but then Goremeister HAD to slip in the comment to not allow the Supreme Court to "choose the next President." EXQUEEZE ME, but was it not Gore who initiated court action to override the Florida count? Was it not Gore who insisted on hand-counting the ballots in the disputed counties? Was it not Gore who did NOT insist on a state-wide ballot recount, which WOULD have given him the victory? By insisting on only those counties that had major discrepancies, GORE ensured Bush's victory, not the Supreme Court.
So get over it, Al, and quit trying to rewrite history again!
Monday, July 26, 2004
DNC Convention Week
Al-Qaeda had better stay away from Boston and New York City during the respective conventions that will be occurring in those two cities.
I am particularly worried about Boston as my brother will be attending the Democratic National Convention. He's not the political type, but he's working security there so I've told him to keep his wits about him if the bullets start to fly or whatever the problem is.
May the Democrats have a very safe and uneventful convention this week.
I am particularly worried about Boston as my brother will be attending the Democratic National Convention. He's not the political type, but he's working security there so I've told him to keep his wits about him if the bullets start to fly or whatever the problem is.
May the Democrats have a very safe and uneventful convention this week.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Star Wars Episode III Title Revealed
Starwars.com announced today that the full title of the third episode of the Star Wars prequel will be "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith."
This is AWESOME!
The original title of the sixth movie was "Revenge of the Jedi" but was changed to "Return of the Jedi" after George Lucas decided that revenge was part of the Dark Side of the Force. It is altogether appropriate for the evil Sith, who will establish the Galactic Empire as the Republic crumbles and the Jedi are annihilated.
My bet was on something along the lines of "Fall of the Jedi" or "Fall of the Republic" but I think the newly minted title is better than my ideas.
This is AWESOME!
The original title of the sixth movie was "Revenge of the Jedi" but was changed to "Return of the Jedi" after George Lucas decided that revenge was part of the Dark Side of the Force. It is altogether appropriate for the evil Sith, who will establish the Galactic Empire as the Republic crumbles and the Jedi are annihilated.
My bet was on something along the lines of "Fall of the Jedi" or "Fall of the Republic" but I think the newly minted title is better than my ideas.
Friday, July 23, 2004
Thank you, Manila
Six more hostages have been taken due to the terrorists being emboldened by their success in driving the Philippines from Iraq.
Thank you, Manila, for confirming Washington's fears.
They're kidnapping citizens from noncombatant countries and demanding they withdraw their troops from Iraq, even though those nations do not have troops in Iraq.
This tells me they are grabbing any non-Iraqi that they can find, regardless of nationality.
Kenya is trying to free its own hostages, but they have been unsuccessful so far. If Kenya wants to knuckle under to free their hostages, then they have learned nothing from al-Qaeda atttacks in their country. Have they forgotten the bombings in Nairobi, which leveled the targeted U.S. embassy and killed hundreds of Kenyans and wounded thousands?
This is kind of like Spain sweeping the March 11th terrorist attacks on Madrid under the carpet and trying to forget about it. The victims won't stand for it.
Thank you, Manila, for confirming Washington's fears.
They're kidnapping citizens from noncombatant countries and demanding they withdraw their troops from Iraq, even though those nations do not have troops in Iraq.
This tells me they are grabbing any non-Iraqi that they can find, regardless of nationality.
Kenya is trying to free its own hostages, but they have been unsuccessful so far. If Kenya wants to knuckle under to free their hostages, then they have learned nothing from al-Qaeda atttacks in their country. Have they forgotten the bombings in Nairobi, which leveled the targeted U.S. embassy and killed hundreds of Kenyans and wounded thousands?
This is kind of like Spain sweeping the March 11th terrorist attacks on Madrid under the carpet and trying to forget about it. The victims won't stand for it.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
9/11 Commission Report Released
The 9/11 Commission report was released today.
I am reading it and it looks like there will be lots of topics to talk about.
More to follow!
I am reading it and it looks like there will be lots of topics to talk about.
More to follow!
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Attack on Fox News Continues
Liberal political group MoveOn.org and supposedly non-partisan group Common Cause are continuing their attack on Fox News’s content and marketing. At issue is Fox’s “Fair and Balanced” slogan, which liberal critics decry as false advertising. They have petitioned the FTC to go after Fox News and issue a cease-and-desist order.
The FTC chair says that the petition will most likely fail because in order for the FTC to examine whether the slogan is false advertising, they would have to examine the news content, judge it and decide if it was acceptable. This intrudes on First Amendment guarantees of a free press.
While I do not care about the slogan itself, the First Amendment is again in danger of being weakened by people who care only about silencing their most vocal critic. Both groups have been severely criticized by Fox News for distorting facts when they make their political arguments. These groups have no thought of what they are doing to the entire system; they only care about their immediate short-term political objectives. Further, the second part of the Fox News slogan is being conveniently ignored by the libs: “We Report. You Decide.”
Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity have ridiculed the nonsense and utter hatred coming from MoveOn.org (see the Hitler/Bush ads for example) and Moveon.org has taken it upon themselves to destroy Fox News in return.
Common Cause is a bit of a surprise since they have usually gone right down the middle. I still agree with some of the stuff on their web site, but on other issues they’ve gone way left. Too far left for my taste. They appear to have moveon.org’ed.
Let’s look at the definition of false advertising via www.dictionary.com:
False advertising--the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public.
Here’s a news flash—There is no sale of property, goods or services to the public. "We Report. You Decide." In other words, if you don't like what they are saying, watch something else. Conclusion: this is nothing but a smear campaign and an attempted rape of the First Amendment. End of story.
Here's the link:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040720/D83UJ63G3.html
The FTC chair says that the petition will most likely fail because in order for the FTC to examine whether the slogan is false advertising, they would have to examine the news content, judge it and decide if it was acceptable. This intrudes on First Amendment guarantees of a free press.
While I do not care about the slogan itself, the First Amendment is again in danger of being weakened by people who care only about silencing their most vocal critic. Both groups have been severely criticized by Fox News for distorting facts when they make their political arguments. These groups have no thought of what they are doing to the entire system; they only care about their immediate short-term political objectives. Further, the second part of the Fox News slogan is being conveniently ignored by the libs: “We Report. You Decide.”
Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity have ridiculed the nonsense and utter hatred coming from MoveOn.org (see the Hitler/Bush ads for example) and Moveon.org has taken it upon themselves to destroy Fox News in return.
Common Cause is a bit of a surprise since they have usually gone right down the middle. I still agree with some of the stuff on their web site, but on other issues they’ve gone way left. Too far left for my taste. They appear to have moveon.org’ed.
Let’s look at the definition of false advertising via www.dictionary.com:
False advertising--the crime or tort of publishing, broadcasting, or otherwise publicly distributing an advertisement that contains an untrue, misleading, or deceptive representation or statement which was made knowingly or recklessly and with the intent to promote the sale of property, goods, or services to the public.
Here’s a news flash—There is no sale of property, goods or services to the public. "We Report. You Decide." In other words, if you don't like what they are saying, watch something else. Conclusion: this is nothing but a smear campaign and an attempted rape of the First Amendment. End of story.
Here's the link:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040720/D83UJ63G3.html
Monday, July 19, 2004
Can The Government Stop Terrorists From Entering American Airspace?
The answer to that question is uncertain. Our air defense system was designed to counter a massive Soviet attack on the United States in the event of World War III breaking out. To counter the Soviet threat, at the height of the Cold War, fifty fighters would be on “alert” at a dozen installations around the country to protect American airspace from Soviet incursions. The Red Air Force and the U.S. Air Force seemed to love to test one another’s detection and response systems as it happened regularly.
According to NORAD documents presented to the 9/11 Commission, there were fourteen fighters on alert at seven installations across the United States to protect the entire country on 9/11. This was due to the Cold War ending, and America not realizing that another war was about to be started. The Air Force could not vector in fighters to make any difference whatsoever and so the hijacked airliners either crashed into their intended targets or crashed after passengers attempted to retake their hijacked airliner from the terrorists.
Immediately after the attacks, the Air Force went to maximum alert and launched Operation Noble Eagle. Four hundred fighters were on duty around the clock, which continues to this day. According to NORAD documents, over 35,000 sorties have been launched since then with dozens of airliners coming under Air Force escort.
Yet, when the Reagan funeral was going on, the grounds of the Capitol and the Supreme Court were evacuated when a small plane entered restricted airspace. It was carrying the Governor of Kentucky, who had received permission to enter Washington airspace, but was experiencing radio trouble and so couldn’t contact ground control. This set off alarm bells and the Air Force responded. They were unable to intercept the plane before it was over key federal installations. It was fortunate that this was a false alarm, but the fact was that it broke through the Washington defenses with little opposition.
NORAD won’t say too much due to security concerns, but two fighters were scrambled to intercept the airplane but were too far away. On the ground, the Capitol was evacuated in record time. The plane landed without being challenged.
According to reports, the FAA didn’t inform the military or other agencies that this flight was a friendly or scheduled, the Air Force jets were out of position, the flight should not have been allowed under existing Homeland Security directives, and there was more than one radar system scanning the skies for potential threats with no coordination between the responsible agencies.
Major upgrades have been made since the incident, but the question remains whether the existing setup is good enough to stop inbound hostile air traffic. It appears that terrorists can use low-technology solutions to overcome high-technology defenses and this needs to be looked at, not shoveled under the carpet.
According to NORAD documents presented to the 9/11 Commission, there were fourteen fighters on alert at seven installations across the United States to protect the entire country on 9/11. This was due to the Cold War ending, and America not realizing that another war was about to be started. The Air Force could not vector in fighters to make any difference whatsoever and so the hijacked airliners either crashed into their intended targets or crashed after passengers attempted to retake their hijacked airliner from the terrorists.
Immediately after the attacks, the Air Force went to maximum alert and launched Operation Noble Eagle. Four hundred fighters were on duty around the clock, which continues to this day. According to NORAD documents, over 35,000 sorties have been launched since then with dozens of airliners coming under Air Force escort.
Yet, when the Reagan funeral was going on, the grounds of the Capitol and the Supreme Court were evacuated when a small plane entered restricted airspace. It was carrying the Governor of Kentucky, who had received permission to enter Washington airspace, but was experiencing radio trouble and so couldn’t contact ground control. This set off alarm bells and the Air Force responded. They were unable to intercept the plane before it was over key federal installations. It was fortunate that this was a false alarm, but the fact was that it broke through the Washington defenses with little opposition.
NORAD won’t say too much due to security concerns, but two fighters were scrambled to intercept the airplane but were too far away. On the ground, the Capitol was evacuated in record time. The plane landed without being challenged.
According to reports, the FAA didn’t inform the military or other agencies that this flight was a friendly or scheduled, the Air Force jets were out of position, the flight should not have been allowed under existing Homeland Security directives, and there was more than one radar system scanning the skies for potential threats with no coordination between the responsible agencies.
Major upgrades have been made since the incident, but the question remains whether the existing setup is good enough to stop inbound hostile air traffic. It appears that terrorists can use low-technology solutions to overcome high-technology defenses and this needs to be looked at, not shoveled under the carpet.
Friday, July 16, 2004
Another Kerry Flip-Flop
Unbelievable!
Now Kerry says he would authorize a pre-emptive war if he had credible intelligence that there was a threat!
This after he condemned the Bush Administration in a December 2003 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. He said "Today we have an Administration that has turned its back on [past] values and principles. We have a President who has developed and exalted a strategy of war – unilateral; pre-emptive; and in my view, profoundly threatening to America’s place in the world and the safety and prosperity of our own society."
He really does take both sides!
Now Kerry says he would authorize a pre-emptive war if he had credible intelligence that there was a threat!
This after he condemned the Bush Administration in a December 2003 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. He said "Today we have an Administration that has turned its back on [past] values and principles. We have a President who has developed and exalted a strategy of war – unilateral; pre-emptive; and in my view, profoundly threatening to America’s place in the world and the safety and prosperity of our own society."
He really does take both sides!
Queen Elizabeth II Honors Creator of World Wide Web
From CNN.com---
Tim Berners-Lee, the London-born scientist who invented the World Wide Web, was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II Friday.
He received the knighthood in recognition of his services to the development of the Internet through the invention of the Web, a system to organize, link and browse pages on the Internet.
The Queen made the 49-year-old scientist a knight commander, the second-highest rank of the Order of the British Empire, in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace.
What about Al Gore? He invented the Internet, too! Thhhp!
Tim Berners-Lee, the London-born scientist who invented the World Wide Web, was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II Friday.
He received the knighthood in recognition of his services to the development of the Internet through the invention of the Web, a system to organize, link and browse pages on the Internet.
The Queen made the 49-year-old scientist a knight commander, the second-highest rank of the Order of the British Empire, in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace.
What about Al Gore? He invented the Internet, too! Thhhp!
Iraqi Terrorists Defeat the Philippines
The Philippines are the latest nation to pull its troops out of Iraq under threat.
It's a bit surprising since the Philippine Islands are dealing with their own terrorist problems. They ought to know better than to give in to terrorists holding hostages. This will lead to problems with their own Marxist and Islamic terror cells that are on a campaign to overthrow the government of Manila.
Perhaps we should look at whether we want to keep sending military support to the Philippines to help them fight their insurgents when they pull out of the fight against terrorists in Iraq. Perhaps the French will help them. The French love to fight. Yeah, right.
Bye bye Manila.
It's a bit surprising since the Philippine Islands are dealing with their own terrorist problems. They ought to know better than to give in to terrorists holding hostages. This will lead to problems with their own Marxist and Islamic terror cells that are on a campaign to overthrow the government of Manila.
Perhaps we should look at whether we want to keep sending military support to the Philippines to help them fight their insurgents when they pull out of the fight against terrorists in Iraq. Perhaps the French will help them. The French love to fight. Yeah, right.
Bye bye Manila.
Lansing, MI, Cannot Afford Security for Cheney?
There's a report in the Lansing State Journal that Lansing, MI, (population 450,000) is worried about not having enough money to protect Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John McCain when they visit for a campaign stop today in the state capitol.
Cheney and McCain were expected to draw 1,500 people to the Lansing Center.
This, in spite of the fact that Marquette, MI, (population 20,000) handled 11,000 people showing up for President Bush's recent visit to that Upper Peninsula city with no trouble at all.
How can Marquette absorb over half of its population showing up at the Superior Dome to see Bush and the capitol of Michigan cannot handle a fraction of that number?
This sounds totally ridiculous!
Cheney and McCain were expected to draw 1,500 people to the Lansing Center.
This, in spite of the fact that Marquette, MI, (population 20,000) handled 11,000 people showing up for President Bush's recent visit to that Upper Peninsula city with no trouble at all.
How can Marquette absorb over half of its population showing up at the Superior Dome to see Bush and the capitol of Michigan cannot handle a fraction of that number?
This sounds totally ridiculous!
Kerry & Abortion
Kerry has an abortion problem, all right.
His political views, professed religious beliefs and voting track record are at war with one another. It's almost unfathomable that someone who was supposedly raised in the Catholic faith can go against his religion so completely on one of the most important stands that the Catholic Church has ever taken: to defend the unborn.
What kind of excuse does Kerry offer for his perfect voting record on pro-abortion legislation? "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist" says he. How very liberal of him.
What about standing up for what he believes in? This is the entire flip-flop thing that Bush has been nailing Kerry on these past several months. Kerry says "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." His voting record does not reflect this feeling.
Has it not occurred to Kerry that not all abortion foes are Catholic, or even Christian?
This is a sad example of what liberal politics does to religion.
His political views, professed religious beliefs and voting track record are at war with one another. It's almost unfathomable that someone who was supposedly raised in the Catholic faith can go against his religion so completely on one of the most important stands that the Catholic Church has ever taken: to defend the unborn.
What kind of excuse does Kerry offer for his perfect voting record on pro-abortion legislation? "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist" says he. How very liberal of him.
What about standing up for what he believes in? This is the entire flip-flop thing that Bush has been nailing Kerry on these past several months. Kerry says "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception." His voting record does not reflect this feeling.
Has it not occurred to Kerry that not all abortion foes are Catholic, or even Christian?
This is a sad example of what liberal politics does to religion.
Thursday, July 15, 2004
CBS Flop "The Reagans" Nominated for Award
"The Reagans" have been nominated for several Primetime Emmy Awards.
The acting was quite good, it was parts of the story that were made-up that ruined the thing. Here are the awards that the show has been nominated for:
Casting for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (The major problem here is that the main characters were played by openly liberal actors and actresses).
Hairstyling for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (No objection from me)
Lead Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie (James Brolin as President Reagan) (No objection other than he's a liberal)
Lead Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie (Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan) (See previous line)
Made for Television Movie (MAJOR objection here--it wasn't shown on public TV because it was inaccurate and wrong. Bad choice for this category.)
I don't care about the others, but the final category is a bit of a reach. Oh well.
The acting was quite good, it was parts of the story that were made-up that ruined the thing. Here are the awards that the show has been nominated for:
Casting for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (The major problem here is that the main characters were played by openly liberal actors and actresses).
Hairstyling for a Miniseries, Movie or a Special (No objection from me)
Lead Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie (James Brolin as President Reagan) (No objection other than he's a liberal)
Lead Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie (Judy Davis as Nancy Reagan) (See previous line)
Made for Television Movie (MAJOR objection here--it wasn't shown on public TV because it was inaccurate and wrong. Bad choice for this category.)
I don't care about the others, but the final category is a bit of a reach. Oh well.
News Report on What I'm Talking About
CBS News Same-Sex Marriage Foes Try Again July 15, 2004�08:46:22: "Unable to ban same-sex marriage, congressional Republicans are working to contain it, advancing legislation in the House to eliminate federal courts power over states decisions to recognize marriages.
'When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag,' Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee on a near party-line vote of 21-13.
The measure, called the Marriage Protection Act, would bar any federal court including the Supreme Court from interpreting the application of the Defense of Marriage Act. That 1996 law defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, and exempted states from recognizing same-sex marriage from other states. "
-----------------------------
Aaah, now this is good legislation. To read the full report, follow the link above.
Limiting federal control over state issues is a good thing.
'When federal judges step out of line, Congress has the responsibility to drop the red flag,' Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said Wednesday as the court-stripping measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee on a near party-line vote of 21-13.
The measure, called the Marriage Protection Act, would bar any federal court including the Supreme Court from interpreting the application of the Defense of Marriage Act. That 1996 law defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman, and exempted states from recognizing same-sex marriage from other states. "
-----------------------------
Aaah, now this is good legislation. To read the full report, follow the link above.
Limiting federal control over state issues is a good thing.
Marriage Amendment on Hold
The Senate defeat of the Marriage Amendment is being hotly debated around the country today.
Like I've said in previous posts, I do not support gay marriage but I am not in favor of a new Constitutional amendment that defines marriage.
My definition of marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Civil unions are between others.
This is a state matter under Constitutional law, as intended by the Framers, so I say let the states decide which way they want to go with it on their own. They do not need a power to be taken away from them by the federal government.
The feds need to take a step back and focus on more important matters and get out of state affairs. This is a huge distraction and the country needs to get over it.
Like I've said in previous posts, I do not support gay marriage but I am not in favor of a new Constitutional amendment that defines marriage.
My definition of marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Civil unions are between others.
This is a state matter under Constitutional law, as intended by the Framers, so I say let the states decide which way they want to go with it on their own. They do not need a power to be taken away from them by the federal government.
The feds need to take a step back and focus on more important matters and get out of state affairs. This is a huge distraction and the country needs to get over it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Bush Visits the U.P.
No politics in this post.
I'm delighted that the presidential candidates are paying attention to the people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
President Bush spoke in Marquette today, becoming the first sitting President to visit the U.P. since President Taft in 1911. He is the first major Republican candidate to visit in quite some time.
The Democratic presidential candidates of the past or their proxies have visited up there before; Gore was up there twice I think. It's been a while since this kind of national attention was paid to the U.P. so I think it's great.
I attended a speech that then-Vice President Gore gave in Marquette back in '96. It was OK but I was watching the sign language interpreter standing next to the Vice President as the interpreter was my mother. There were protests going on so I was a little concerned that she was standing that close to the Vice President. Everything went well with that speech; the Secret Service did a very good job of keeping things in hand.
Today's speech was at the Northern Michigan University Superior Dome, which, by the way, is the largest wooden dome in the world.
It would be nice if Kerry or Edwards visited too.
I'm delighted that the presidential candidates are paying attention to the people of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
President Bush spoke in Marquette today, becoming the first sitting President to visit the U.P. since President Taft in 1911. He is the first major Republican candidate to visit in quite some time.
The Democratic presidential candidates of the past or their proxies have visited up there before; Gore was up there twice I think. It's been a while since this kind of national attention was paid to the U.P. so I think it's great.
I attended a speech that then-Vice President Gore gave in Marquette back in '96. It was OK but I was watching the sign language interpreter standing next to the Vice President as the interpreter was my mother. There were protests going on so I was a little concerned that she was standing that close to the Vice President. Everything went well with that speech; the Secret Service did a very good job of keeping things in hand.
Today's speech was at the Northern Michigan University Superior Dome, which, by the way, is the largest wooden dome in the world.
It would be nice if Kerry or Edwards visited too.
2000 Elections Revisited
Some web sites are saying that Bush is talking about postponing the elections so he can steal them again.
He didn't steal them in the first place. The opposition tried to steal them in court after the electoral system broke down in Florida. The recounts showed that Bush won it; Gore's insistance that every vote be counted was done by independent news organizations and it was confirmed.
Litigate by the sword, lose by the sword. Get over it. Vote on November 2nd.
He didn't steal them in the first place. The opposition tried to steal them in court after the electoral system broke down in Florida. The recounts showed that Bush won it; Gore's insistance that every vote be counted was done by independent news organizations and it was confirmed.
Litigate by the sword, lose by the sword. Get over it. Vote on November 2nd.
Fox News Under Fire
See, I told you so!
“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism” is the so-called latest “documentary” to be released by Bush-hating liberals who are continuing their attack on conservative news outlets, politicians and ideas.
If MoveOn.org’s name appears in the credits, it’s a phony. See my write-up on Fahrenheit 9/11 for the difference between propaganda and documentary. This is NOT a documentary due to the heavy concentration of editorializing.
The attempt to besmirch Fox News’s reputation is being strongly countered by corrections on the Fox News web site, explaining who the so-called “publishers” and “editors” really are, not what the film falsely portrays them to be.
CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN all live in glass houses and are equally vulnerable to charges of being extensions of the liberal Democratic Party. Comments like the long-haired guy on CNN Headline News commenting on rising fuel costs that “we have to get rid of SUV’s” to Dan Rather and Peter Jennings complaining that the Reagan funeral was drawing too much attention from the Iraq War (Waah!) to numerous other examples of naked liberalism on those networks doesn’t leave them with a leg to stand on.
So they shouldn’t be crowing too much. Fox News just goes in a different direction from the liberal networks and does the same stuff that they do, only it’s more entertaining!
“Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism” is the so-called latest “documentary” to be released by Bush-hating liberals who are continuing their attack on conservative news outlets, politicians and ideas.
If MoveOn.org’s name appears in the credits, it’s a phony. See my write-up on Fahrenheit 9/11 for the difference between propaganda and documentary. This is NOT a documentary due to the heavy concentration of editorializing.
The attempt to besmirch Fox News’s reputation is being strongly countered by corrections on the Fox News web site, explaining who the so-called “publishers” and “editors” really are, not what the film falsely portrays them to be.
CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC and CNN all live in glass houses and are equally vulnerable to charges of being extensions of the liberal Democratic Party. Comments like the long-haired guy on CNN Headline News commenting on rising fuel costs that “we have to get rid of SUV’s” to Dan Rather and Peter Jennings complaining that the Reagan funeral was drawing too much attention from the Iraq War (Waah!) to numerous other examples of naked liberalism on those networks doesn’t leave them with a leg to stand on.
So they shouldn’t be crowing too much. Fox News just goes in a different direction from the liberal networks and does the same stuff that they do, only it’s more entertaining!
Marriage--Federal or State?
Is marriage a state issue or a federal issue?
That question is decisively answered by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution does not mention marriage in any way, shape or form. It does not give regulation of marriage to Congress, nor to the states, nor does it forbid the states to do anything about it. Therefore, it is a reserved power for the states.
And so every state in the union has laws on their books on marriage license requirements.
Now…is gay marriage a federal matter or a state matter?
Under the Constitution, as we’ve just discussed, that matter rests with the STATE. Civil unions are not mentioned either, so that falls under the jurisdiction of the states too.
Not so fast…they’re trying to tamper with the Constitution again. It’s not one side or the other this time, it’s both sides. The conservatives are trying to ban gay marriage via a Constitutional Amendment, and the liberals are trying to get the federal courts to overrule states who have banned gay marriage inside their borders.
My advice would be for the big government to leave the little governments alone. I do not support gay “marriage”, but I like the weakening of the Constitution even less.
If a case reaches a state Supreme Court, it should stop there. It’s a reserved power, no matter what activist judges say. Federal judges ought to keep their noses out of it, but both sides want the last word, so they take it up to the federal level if they lose on the state level. What they ought to do is put it on the ballot!
Some people think that if they litigate it enough, they’ll find a sympathetic judge eventually. They ought to pay the entire bill for the process and not dump it on the taxpayers.
That question is decisively answered by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution does not mention marriage in any way, shape or form. It does not give regulation of marriage to Congress, nor to the states, nor does it forbid the states to do anything about it. Therefore, it is a reserved power for the states.
And so every state in the union has laws on their books on marriage license requirements.
Now…is gay marriage a federal matter or a state matter?
Under the Constitution, as we’ve just discussed, that matter rests with the STATE. Civil unions are not mentioned either, so that falls under the jurisdiction of the states too.
Not so fast…they’re trying to tamper with the Constitution again. It’s not one side or the other this time, it’s both sides. The conservatives are trying to ban gay marriage via a Constitutional Amendment, and the liberals are trying to get the federal courts to overrule states who have banned gay marriage inside their borders.
My advice would be for the big government to leave the little governments alone. I do not support gay “marriage”, but I like the weakening of the Constitution even less.
If a case reaches a state Supreme Court, it should stop there. It’s a reserved power, no matter what activist judges say. Federal judges ought to keep their noses out of it, but both sides want the last word, so they take it up to the federal level if they lose on the state level. What they ought to do is put it on the ballot!
Some people think that if they litigate it enough, they’ll find a sympathetic judge eventually. They ought to pay the entire bill for the process and not dump it on the taxpayers.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Delay the National Elections?
There is talk in the media and the government about postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about Election Day.
Bad idea.
There are not many reasons that we should delay Election Day:
1) Nuclear attack on the United States.
2) BioChem attack on the United States.
3) Massive power outages like the August 2003 blackout that left people without power in the East and Midwest.
4) One or both candidates are assassinated.
We should NOT postpone the elections if a few car bombs go off, or some trains get bombed or if more skyscrapers get rammed by passenger planes or Wall Street is leveled. If they're that worried about an attack, then they should ground all air travel for a few days before and the day of the election.
They can do this by going to Threat Condition Red. This may scare people away from the polls if they do go to Red so maybe that isn't such a hot idea. But the air travel? They can tell people when there will be no air service so that they can make alternate plans.
Delaying Election Day is what rulers do when they are trying to establish a dictatorship. If a dictatorship starts here, then al-Qaeda has won. We may as well bring all of our troops home, ground the Navy and the Air Force, and prepare to fight another revolution. That's the conspiracy theory. Let's not even go there.
If we get nuked, that's a good reason for delaying the election. If there's a plague or a massive attack by an enemy using chemical or biological weapons, that's a good reason. If there's no power, they can't open the polls. That's a good reason. Assassinations are another good reason. If both candidates die, what happens then? That should be addressed. Everything else...life sucks, wear a helmet and VOTE.
Bad idea.
There are not many reasons that we should delay Election Day:
1) Nuclear attack on the United States.
2) BioChem attack on the United States.
3) Massive power outages like the August 2003 blackout that left people without power in the East and Midwest.
4) One or both candidates are assassinated.
We should NOT postpone the elections if a few car bombs go off, or some trains get bombed or if more skyscrapers get rammed by passenger planes or Wall Street is leveled. If they're that worried about an attack, then they should ground all air travel for a few days before and the day of the election.
They can do this by going to Threat Condition Red. This may scare people away from the polls if they do go to Red so maybe that isn't such a hot idea. But the air travel? They can tell people when there will be no air service so that they can make alternate plans.
Delaying Election Day is what rulers do when they are trying to establish a dictatorship. If a dictatorship starts here, then al-Qaeda has won. We may as well bring all of our troops home, ground the Navy and the Air Force, and prepare to fight another revolution. That's the conspiracy theory. Let's not even go there.
If we get nuked, that's a good reason for delaying the election. If there's a plague or a massive attack by an enemy using chemical or biological weapons, that's a good reason. If there's no power, they can't open the polls. That's a good reason. Assassinations are another good reason. If both candidates die, what happens then? That should be addressed. Everything else...life sucks, wear a helmet and VOTE.
Reagan Revisited
I recently watched "The Reagans" on video.
Do liberals really believe all of this crap? For that matter, do non-liberals buy into it?
It was a wise move for CBS not to air it. There were too many inaccuracies to simply explain away. How can the stars of the show admit that certain parts of the film were not supported by reality but then in the very next sentence say that those parts were equally as valid...just because. What a crock!
I came across a rabid anti-Reagan web site recently and the author said that he would never forgive Reagan for saying "Let he who lives in sin die in sin" when referring to AIDS victims. One problem...it never happened. That was something that got a lot of negative publicity from the conservative press. I can't remember if it was cut out of the Showtime viewing of it or not. Nancy says it didn't happen and I'm more inclined to believe her than a liberal show like that.
Are people really that gullible that they take it for Gospel truth? If they do, then I've got a bridge and some land on the moon that I'd like to sell them.
Do liberals really believe all of this crap? For that matter, do non-liberals buy into it?
It was a wise move for CBS not to air it. There were too many inaccuracies to simply explain away. How can the stars of the show admit that certain parts of the film were not supported by reality but then in the very next sentence say that those parts were equally as valid...just because. What a crock!
I came across a rabid anti-Reagan web site recently and the author said that he would never forgive Reagan for saying "Let he who lives in sin die in sin" when referring to AIDS victims. One problem...it never happened. That was something that got a lot of negative publicity from the conservative press. I can't remember if it was cut out of the Showtime viewing of it or not. Nancy says it didn't happen and I'm more inclined to believe her than a liberal show like that.
Are people really that gullible that they take it for Gospel truth? If they do, then I've got a bridge and some land on the moon that I'd like to sell them.
Friday, July 09, 2004
"Protecting our Freedom"
The party line that U.S. troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan to "preserve our freedom" is the most over-trumpeted and inaccurate mantra coming from the Bush Administration.
We are not!
Our soldiers are there to further the cause of democracy and to bring freedom to people who have known only oppression. Period!
Every time President Bush or someone in general says “Thanks to the soldiers over in Iraq for preserving our freedoms,” I think “From whom?” Terrorists? No, no, no!
Thank you to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for fighting evil, spreading democracy, getting dangerous weapons away from terrorists and their allies, ensuring that the locals are strong enough to deal with their own domestic and foreign threats, and for PROTECTING AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS!
Enough of this whimsical “protecting our freedoms.” From who? The only ones who can take away our freedoms are US. Not the terrorists. Us.
We are not!
Our soldiers are there to further the cause of democracy and to bring freedom to people who have known only oppression. Period!
Every time President Bush or someone in general says “Thanks to the soldiers over in Iraq for preserving our freedoms,” I think “From whom?” Terrorists? No, no, no!
Thank you to the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for fighting evil, spreading democracy, getting dangerous weapons away from terrorists and their allies, ensuring that the locals are strong enough to deal with their own domestic and foreign threats, and for PROTECTING AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTERESTS!
Enough of this whimsical “protecting our freedoms.” From who? The only ones who can take away our freedoms are US. Not the terrorists. Us.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Hair??!
John Kerry mentioned the Democratic ticket had "better hair." The press is having a hairy about it.
What is going on??! Who cares!
What is going on??! Who cares!
Terrorism & Election Day
It’s been reported today that terrorists are planning major strikes around Election Day in this country to disrupt the democratic process. This one has been coming along for quite a while, ever since al-Qaeda sent Spain packing out of Iraq. The March terrorist attacks on Madrid’s train system caused a pro-Iraq War government to be voted out of office a few days later.
Since Kerry and Bush both talk tough on terrorism, and both are likely to do what they say they will do, it seems likely that al-Qaeda doesn’t care about who wins the election. All they want is the election to be severely disrupted and our government to be thrown into Constitutional crisis.
Go out and vote on Election Day and throw it right back into their faces! If a terrorist attack does happen, DO NOT STAY AWAY FROM THE POLLS!
We must not allow terrorists to disrupt our democracy and our way of life!
Since Kerry and Bush both talk tough on terrorism, and both are likely to do what they say they will do, it seems likely that al-Qaeda doesn’t care about who wins the election. All they want is the election to be severely disrupted and our government to be thrown into Constitutional crisis.
Go out and vote on Election Day and throw it right back into their faces! If a terrorist attack does happen, DO NOT STAY AWAY FROM THE POLLS!
We must not allow terrorists to disrupt our democracy and our way of life!
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Internet Explorer in the Crosshairs
How many critical patches has Microsoft released for their bug-plagued Internet Explorer since 2001? Does anyone really know?
It seems obvious that the more complex the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Microsoft really needs to simplify its core browser technology and stop relying on third-party applications that are helping to blow gaping holes in Microsoft’s security apparatus.
Why aren’t other browsers having the trouble that Microsoft is having? Is it because hackers are focused on screwing Microsoft and ignoring the others, or is Microsoft doing stuff with their browser that makes it more vulnerable?
I just don’t know.
It seems obvious that the more complex the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Microsoft really needs to simplify its core browser technology and stop relying on third-party applications that are helping to blow gaping holes in Microsoft’s security apparatus.
Why aren’t other browsers having the trouble that Microsoft is having? Is it because hackers are focused on screwing Microsoft and ignoring the others, or is Microsoft doing stuff with their browser that makes it more vulnerable?
I just don’t know.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Saddam's First Court Appearance
I am no fan of Saddam Hussein (Saddam Insane) but I have to say that I was impressed with his first performance in court. I was also impressed with the performance of the Iraqi judge, who stood up to Saddam and admonished him for calling the Kuwaitis a pack of “dogs” (which is a grave insult in the Arab world, as dogs and animals are considered unclean). Both were impressive in their demeanor, but from a communications standpoint, Saddam’s facial expressions, tone and arm movements were extremely effective in getting his message across. Why are evil leaders such good communicators?
The reactions of the Iraqi people were quite revealing as well. Many eyes were glued on the TV sets in Iraq and other people were listening very closely to their radios. Most of the reactions were anti-Saddam, there were smiles and hope for a better future. Not all Iraqis were pleased to see Saddam in the dock. His supporters blamed the coalition for humbling Saddam and the Iraqi people, but the reactions that I saw on Fox News, CNN, CBS and other networks were decidedly anti-Saddam.
It’s their nation and their prisoner, but I had hoped that the provisional government would merely hold onto Saddam until an elected government comes into power after January. Until that time, (and I remind you that I am no fan of Saddam), this is still an installed government...until there are democratic elections, Saddam IS still the President of Iraq, if only on paper (and thank God for that!).
We invaded Iraq, captured Saddam and made him a prisoner of war. WE did not vote him out of office, we conquered his nation. It should be pointed out that we did not invade Yugoslavia and remove Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. He lost the election for the Presidency of Serbia, and then refused to give up being President. He was driven out by the Serbian people demonstrating in the streets of Belgrade, was arrested and turned over to the United Nations for trial.
In my opinion, the best thing that could happen would be for the interim Iraqi government to keep Saddam and his associates locked up until after national elections and then have the new representative government take over the prosecution. Saddam had no attorney present at the arraignment and he made the Iraqi judge look really bad by forcing the judge to acknowledge that the court had been created by the occupation forces.
Saddam’s been in jail since December, seven more months behind bars won’t be a big deal. It’s going to take investigators and his own defense team time to get their acts together.
The reactions of the Iraqi people were quite revealing as well. Many eyes were glued on the TV sets in Iraq and other people were listening very closely to their radios. Most of the reactions were anti-Saddam, there were smiles and hope for a better future. Not all Iraqis were pleased to see Saddam in the dock. His supporters blamed the coalition for humbling Saddam and the Iraqi people, but the reactions that I saw on Fox News, CNN, CBS and other networks were decidedly anti-Saddam.
It’s their nation and their prisoner, but I had hoped that the provisional government would merely hold onto Saddam until an elected government comes into power after January. Until that time, (and I remind you that I am no fan of Saddam), this is still an installed government...until there are democratic elections, Saddam IS still the President of Iraq, if only on paper (and thank God for that!).
We invaded Iraq, captured Saddam and made him a prisoner of war. WE did not vote him out of office, we conquered his nation. It should be pointed out that we did not invade Yugoslavia and remove Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. He lost the election for the Presidency of Serbia, and then refused to give up being President. He was driven out by the Serbian people demonstrating in the streets of Belgrade, was arrested and turned over to the United Nations for trial.
In my opinion, the best thing that could happen would be for the interim Iraqi government to keep Saddam and his associates locked up until after national elections and then have the new representative government take over the prosecution. Saddam had no attorney present at the arraignment and he made the Iraqi judge look really bad by forcing the judge to acknowledge that the court had been created by the occupation forces.
Saddam’s been in jail since December, seven more months behind bars won’t be a big deal. It’s going to take investigators and his own defense team time to get their acts together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)