What does the War on Terror mean to the Left?

This is quite a question that I would love to see the Democrat candidates actually answer. No evasions, no speeches, just a straight answer.

Given their actions over the last 5 years and their history of ‘Wars on whatever’, my thoughts are as follows:

1. It is a symbolic war;
2. It is primarily a talking point war;
3. It is a Federal program at which to throw buckets of tax dollars into their own special pet projects;
4. It is only against Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden;
5. It was never intended to be a ‘real’ war with real US soldiers taking real casualties;
6. It is ‘war’ that only they can ‘win’ through symbolic trials (show trials) and diplomacy

What does all of this really mean? Either that the Left leadership doesn’t understand English (which they don’t, particularly the straight, normal kind) or that they only thought Bush was engaging in hyperbolic rhetoric when he stated in September 2001 that:

“…Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated…. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime….”

Emphasis mine and it seems quite clear to me.

This war is not just against al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden, but against all who would harbor and support them. For those who don’t understand this last bit: If you provide them safe living and training conditions/land, or provide them weapons, intelligence, or money you are a legitimate target. So yes, that means Iraq, Iran, Syria, the Palestinian Authority are legitimate targets. As to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the rest of the Gulf States; their Governments at least seem to realize that direct support is going to be dangerous; their citizens may provide support, but the Governments do not.

There is no denying that Iraq is a mess; yet there have been many successes there as well. We can all remember the purple fingers of normal Iraqi citizens who freely voted their consciences three times within the last 2 years. Many were women! Schools are open outside of Baghdad, power is there, and clean water is flowing. Outside of the Sunni Triangle of Death, Iraq is rebuilding with our help. The same activities are occurring in Afghanistan, another place impossible to win if I recall correctly.

Do I have doubts about the wisdom of going into Iraq with the force-mix we had? Of course. Do I doubt we did the right thing in removing Saddam? No, I do not; although the follow on government is still an open question.

What is the long-term solution?

I don’t know that there really is one; however partition seems likely the only way to stabilize the region. That is unfortunately unlikely given that the Turks and the Saudis will not tolerate it. The Turks due to their animosity and internal issues with their own Kurdish population and the Saudis don’t want a Shi’a region on their Northern Border – particularly one with strong ties to Iran. Come to think of it, none of the Gulf States is particularly enamored of the Persians across the water, whatever their philosophical bent.

Containment, remember that? is again raising its head. This time the target of that containment seems to be Iran. North Korea is fairly well contained at the moment, though I make no predictions for the future. I mean, look at the map. Afghanistan and Iraq both surround Iran on the landward sides, making for possible invasion routes. The Gulf is not at risk as it’s essentially a lake controlled by the US Navy. Granted, the Iranians have diesel-electric submarines (old Soviet Kilos, IIRC) and that is a concern. However, US ASW is the best in the world and I have no doubt that any Iranian boat that even looks like trying anything is gonna get real dead real fast. We also own the air over the region, so that flank is also fairly secure. Are we going to invade Iran? Doubtful, the terrain is much like that of Afghanistan or Korea (mountainous) and not easily crossed; besides there really is no need. They continue to feed idiots into the meat grinder of Bagdad and we continue to kill them.

Some 9/11 questions:

Hannity aired the 'unedited' bits from the path to 9/11 last night and while it may not be accurate; it feels accurate; it has the ring of truth about it. In addition, the screenwriter/producer backed up this scene (wherein Berger hung up on the field team), by stating he had spoken to agents in the field who experienced similar things over the years leading to it and that this individual had been on 12 teams – admittedly this is hearsay evidence. Was it contrived? Perhaps, but why then would Berger and the Clintons have demanded, yes demanded, that ABC excise parts of this scene? Could it be it hit far too closely to the truth? Unfortunately we may never know as Mr. Burglar destroyed documents that the 9/11 Commission needed - and many of the commissioners were well aware of the destruction. What did these documents show? Were they phone logs? Drafts of internal memoranda with President Clinton’s notes? Drafts with Her Supreme Anointed Ones’ notes???? We will likely never really know as Burglar has not been polygraphed on this, despite that being a condition of his plea. The originals are gone and there is little doubt that the relevant papers in the Clinton library say what the Clintons say that they say – and they may even have a passing resemblance to copies in the Archives. They will have little to no relation to the truth, not to mention reality.

Now, could we have killed Osama before 9/11, certainly, perhaps even deniably. Would it have been an illegal assassination: Nope – or at least I don’t think so. Straight assassination may even have been legal, a paramilitary covert operation would also have covered it. Yet there are times when deniability can be a handicap. If one is too worried that things will get out, then nothing will ever get done – particularly things that need to be done in the shadows. Yet there are actions that Nation-States take in the shadows that other Nation-States respect, even if they are not particularly legal.

Let’s take another look at a couple of Lefty fantasies:

A) Bush stole the 2000 election thereby taking the post-9/11 world away from ALGORE. Stipulating that 9/11 would still have occurred, what makes them think that ALGORE would actually have done anything at all? This deserves some examination based only on what his mentor actually did.

a. In 1993, Mr. Bill did not visit the WTC site following the bombing. Once it was determined that Muslim extremists had carried out the attack, he did nothing;

b. 1993: Blackhawk Down in Somalia: Clinton withdraws a couple of months after US casualties are dragged through the streets;

c. 1995: Janet Reno unleashes Federal Agents on the compound in Waco, setting large fires and killing American children;

d. 1996: Oklahoma City: Agents do not spend enough time looking at other links to Timothy McVeigh – there are allegations that he had support from external agencies;

e. 1996: Khobar Towers was bombed by Muslim extremists – Clinton’s reaction was to move all troops then stationed in Saudi out to Prince Sultan Air Base deep in the desert and to fire the wing commander;

f. 1998: US Embassies were bombed by Al Qaeda Clinton retaliated by tossing a few Tomahawks at the problem. Hitting a milk factory in Sudan and a few empty camps in Afghanistan;

g. 2000: FBI agents raid a house in Miami and seize arch Cuban terrorist Elian Gonzales;

h. 2000: USS Cole bombed in Yemen harbor. Clinton left it for Bush to deal with.

B) Kerry lost the election in 2004.

a. What makes the Left think he would have done anything different in Iraq??? This is a ‘man’ who was ‘wounded’ 3 times in 4 months (requiring band-aids) and departed Vietnam to testify a couple of years later about ‘war crimes’ we were committing. As an active Reservist at the time his testimony was arguably legal; but as it was fraudulent it was actionable by the Navy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

Something to Consider:

The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the law and traditionally may use regulations as the means. Let us consider what this could mean to the citizens of this Great Experiment in Republican Democracy come 2009.

1) All parents are hereby relieved of their responsibility for raising children, it takes a village to raise them properly, therefore all children will be delivered to Party approved care centers immediately;

2) All private health insurance plans are now null and void, the Party will provide care from birth to age 60. Doctors who chose to care for patients beyond this cutoff age will be re-educated;

3) Immigration reform will not happen, the open boarder types will get what they want, and all people (citizens or not) will by Executive decree be permitted to vote

4) Secret balloting will go the way of the Dodo as electronic voting is mandated in all States and territories; a fingerprint scan will be required for votes and all reactionaries (e.g. non-Party members) will be ignored. Absentee votes by service personnel overseas will be disregarded

5) Tax returns will be analyzed with a fine tooth comb; any that show an excess of income will be taxed at a level to ensure that anyone earning more than minimum wage is penalized (the exceptions being tenured professors, Congress-critters of proper Party affiliation and their children)

6) No one will be permitted a personal vehicle; airfare will be not less than $100 per air mile flown, thereby making air travel unaffordable for all except Party members and their ilk.

7) All privately owned guns (working or not) will be confiscated as the Constitution was never intended to permit armed citizenry (Party members excepted, of course);

8) There will be but one recognized Party;

9) All internet connections will run through Party approved servers;

10) All news and broadcast media must be professionally certified by the Party;

11) The 22^nd Amendment is hereby repealed by Executive Order; to Justices of the Supreme Court who disagree with this Order your resignations are accepted immediately;

12) The new Rules of Engagement are as follows:

a. There must be no doubt as to the actions of the enemy;

b. You may return fire directed at you with non-lethal methods only;

c. Any combatants captured are automatically granted US citizenship and must be represented by a Party attorney within 2 hours;

Granted, many of these are somewhat over the top, but how far?

 

Vietnam/Nixon

And Bush/Iraq. What do all of these have in common? The Left's prism of them. Vietnam=all future US wars not fought by them Nixon=All Republican Presidents since. The press got a taste of political power when they exposed the problems of the Nixon presidency in Watergate and they've never found a reason to let go. With the notable exception of their Sainted Bill that is...Ms. Coulter in "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"  pointed out that Nixon was impeached for (among other unsavory things) merely mentioning the possibility of having the IRS look into someone's tax situation. Clinton actually had it done and fired his initial IRS commissioner for refusal to do so during the Travel-gate scandal. Also Paula Jones, etc were victims of targeted IRS audits. That is an egregious abuse of power, if true, and deserved impeachment. Of course, they only impeached him for lying under oath in a civil matter - not for lying about WMD or unleashing the IRS on his political foes, or taking campaign money from a foreign country, or... This from the 'most ethical administration in modern history'... They make me sick. And the moonbats out there care nothing for verifiable fact; just the point that their guy wasn't able to engineer victories in 2000/2004 and so therefore can't spend trillions of our dollars in a rat-hole pseudo war on terror... Or perhaps they are convinced that 9/11 would have been avoided with ALGORE in office? Please... Link to Ann's Book: http://www.amazon.com/High-Crimes-Misdemeanors-Against-Clinton/dp/0895261138/sr=1-6/qid=1169742856/ref=sr_1_6/002-7855750-7459250?ie=UTF8&s=books

Ben Shapiro has an interesting analysis of the Dem response to the SOTU today...

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2007/01/25/webb_of_venom?page=full&comments=true

Ann Coulter is her usual satirical self and the moonbats are out in force in response...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/01/24/i_am_woman,_hear_me_bore

Jeff Jacoby asks why the Dems are silent on the overall threat...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=democrats_silence_on_the_global_jihad&ns=JeffJacoby&dt=01/25/2007&page=full&comments=true#d5a29d24-85f4-4d9e-81e1-71af50b52679

my Constitutional analysis blog. It's at http://dashontheconstitution.blogspot.com and concerns the enumerated war powers of the Congress and the President... 

Looks like Her Highness, Princess Nancy is pulling a hillary and trying to establish another 'select' committee. This one focusing on 'Climate Change and its Solutions'. Two things: A) Climate change, if even occurring is far more likely to be caused by natural phenomena than by human (read American) activity; B) Did she learn nothing when The Supreme Anointed One tried the same kind of thing???? 

In other insane news: The Weather Channel has declared that the AMS must pull recognition from broadcast meterologists, and other members, who do not agree with the 'fact' that global warming is exclusively caused by American Capitalism. Well, ok, just one of their hosts...see this for her own words...

Two things on this last paragraph: 

Climate change may be ocurring: we do not have enough observational data to say. Those who would refer to models I remind of the ancient and honorable GIGO law - Garbage IN, Garbage OUT. Computer models will state what their authors want them to state and nothing else. They can be useful guides but are no substitute to real observational data. And when dealing with something as complex and large as Earth's climate, ALL factors MUST be considered.

Even stipulating that climate chage is ocurring; it is neither the first nor last time it has happened. And America is NOT at fault. If you think that an oversimplification of the human-centric warming argument; i invite you to look at who would actually be paying for all of the Kyoto mandated changes (which don't work anyway - as the Europeans are discovering). Hint: It ain't the Chinese consumer...

The so-called 'fairness' doctrine is raising its ugly head again. I'm neither the first nor the last to comment on this, so don't blame me if you're finding links to others who have commented on it.

While an initial reaction from the muddle-headed might be "what wrong with 'fairness', anyway?" deeper and more rational thought proves its censorship under another name. A little history may be in order here, or at least the gist of it. The original fairness doctrine was established by the FCC as a regulation (not law, though it had the force of one) in the late 40's as an avenue to ensure both sides of controversial issues were presented over public broadcast media. To wit: over radio and newsreels, television, etc. Newspapers were specifically exempted as they must be purchased by the consumer. Fine so far. Except that only one side was routinely presented, and that was the side of the Congressional and media majority. In 1987, this regulation was quietly eliminated and conservative talk radio boomed on AM. Again, no biggie. The big 4 news outlets (ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC) still dominated the broadcast media and presented their side with depressing regularity. Opposing viewpoints were limited to NPR, which still has limited listener-ship as compared to all other avenues, and perhaps 30 seconds at the end of the broadcast. The Big 4 took no note of this, except to limit counter viewpoints still further and to gradually extend their commentary into their reporting still more. And a funny thing happened on the way to the 1994 mid-term elections. People started to listen to AM talk radio in ever increasing numbers and worst of all: they acted by voting for Republicans and the Contract with America.

While some Dem members of Congress were aware of the possibility of such an event, the majority ignored the implications until they found themselves out of power. Now that they are back in the majority they naturally enough intend to stay there and the best way to do it is to censor conservative talk radio with the appealing rationale of 'fairness'.

Make no mistake: the 'Hush Rush'/'Slam Sean'/'Bash Boortz'/'Smash Savage' idea is nothing but an attempt to force stations to drop commentators those in power do not like under the guise of 'fairness'. Wake up people! Air America is failing not because your ideas are not being heard, but because you don't have a monopoly to force it down people's throats anymore! The market (and more importantly, the listening/viewing public) have heard your message and voted with their wallets - they are avoiding Airhead America like the very plague. The only reason you are now the majority party is that the Republicans failed in their task of securing the National Defense and were FIRED! You have no other mandate than to attempt what the previous majority failed to do: SECURE THE F*&^ING BOARDERS.

The vast majority of Americans DO NOT CARE about your 'ethics' changes (which will change nothing inside the beltway) unless it impacts them directly (e.g. lobbying reform which requires churches and bloggers with more than 500 regular supporters to register as lobbying firms). They want the boarder sealed and the invasion of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to CEASE!!!!!!!!!! They want the campaign in Iraq and the Global War Against Islamic Terror concluded with an American/Western victory for they know the alternative is the utter destruction of our way of life (to include yours, you ignorant fools).

Why are we the only Nation in the world who does not defend its own border and enforce its own immigration law?

What do immigration and the GWOT have to do with the ‘fairness’ doctrine? Just this: Once they control the airwaves again, they control the terms of the debate. If you must use your opponents (misleading) terms, you’ve already lost. The biggest example of this is the debate over abortion. By framing their argument in terms of choice, they deny the term choice to their opponents. Note how those in favor of unrestricted abortion on demand state that they are pro-‘choice’ implying their opponents are anti-‘choice’. This is not terribly honest and denies the Pro-life side the term of ‘choice’ as well. Opponents of unrestricted abortion on demand are all for choice: the choices of life, adoption, marriage, etc. The proponents of abortion on demand are for no choice at all. Unwanted pregnancies (those not planned, wrong gender, debilitating disease, etc) have no choice: kill the child, and because some parents may react badly they must not be informed. After all, a concerned parent may have the fiscal wherewithal to support an unplanned grand-child. And many would prefer to do so. Exceptions for rape, incest, etc are not under debate, though ‘health of the mother’ is. And only because the other side will demand and get the opportunity to define the phrase (meaning whatever they want it to be: a child carried to near term (8+mos) with no ill effects can currently be killed if a doctor will certify that there is a health issue with the mother (no restrictions on this either, simple potential of post partum depression might be enough).

Another area in which conservatives are losing ground (though gaining) is the area of taxes. For years the left have demanded that the rich (slippery) ‘pay their fair share’, and that the tax code must be ‘progressive’. The current tax code is utterly regressive in that it punishes those who succeed by making them pay MORE than their fair share. For example, 10% of $1,000,000 is 1000 times more than 10% of $100. So while they are paying the same rate, is not this more fair since the higher income is still paying more tax?

Perhaps more later, I’m frustrated and tired.

 More on Sen. Babs (Dim - CA) blabs from Debrah Saunders today. She has numerous examples of citizens and families decrying the Senator's comments of last week along with a recap of the comments themselves. See Boxer's Personal Hit on Personal Price.

 Senator Boxer's comments are worthy of disdain and all the talking head repetition of 'sacrifice needed by the US people' and other such idiocy is worthy of my contempt. Nor will their continued repetition of it, along with the DBMs continued silence on the matter change my opinion.

My own comment is also posted and I must admit to pointing out the unfairness of a previous poster for pointing out a few facts regarding Saint Cindy's martyred son. Spc. Sheehan is a true hero from all I have been able to discern, and I have zero quibbles with him, his service, or the circumstances of his death. His mother along with her anti-Bush zealots are to be condemned for attempting to capitalize on his death for political profit. While I sympathize with her for her loss, the media's capitalization of her loss and trumpeting of her supposed 'moral authority' because of it sickens (but does not surprise) me. It further saddens me in that they have numerous, positive examples of service members and/or their families who have made similar sacrifices, but who do not share their overriding hatred of President Bush. These service members and their families, because they are proud of their service, their President, and the mission are to be ignored by the MSM as unworthy or not newsworthy.

Indeed, it is their opinion (not at all supressed, mind you) that their 'moral authority' is suspect since they have not come to the only 'rational' conclusion that must be reached, to wit: that President Bush is a usurper who has commited war crimes and should be impeached for 'lying' about WMD. Nevermind the fact that such weapons have indeed been found (albeit highly degraded), and the further inconvinient truth that they themselves trumpeted the WMD threat in 1998 when Saint Bill was utilizing that excuse to distract from the Monica-gate trial. They further tend to ignore the fact that since 1987 we had casus belli with Hussein's Iraq after one of his pilots put a couple of Exocet missiles into the side of the USS Stark. (And, yes moonbats, I know quite well that Ronaldus Magnus let it go so don't bother flaming or DBP-ing me about it). Not to mention the numerous cease fire violations from 1991 onward.

Having said all of that, let me reiterate: Cindy Sheehan deserves respect and sympathy as a Gold Star mother, as do all of our Gold Star parents/families. 

Senator Boxer's comments are worthy of disdain and all the talking head repetition of 'sacrifice needed by the US people' and other such idiocy is worthy of my contempt. Nor will their continued repetition of it, along with the DBMs continued silence on the matter change my opinion.

On that note, its time to head home and make dinner...:)

The NJ State Assembly has done something I could state was irresponsible, stupid, insane, etc. but to what point?  I mean, while it is nice of them to ostensibly acknoledge there are limits in what a Government can and can not mandate vis a vis 'education', their target exposes both their bias and their ignorance of facts.

Oh, wait, did I mention 'fact' in conjection with a governmental body. Silly me...

See today's Cal Thomas for more.