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!
Friday, July 16, 2004
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)