Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton, a taped interview that aired on Fox News Sunday this weekend. The interview started out well enough, until Wallace asked a seemingly innocuous question about President Clinton's counter-terrorism strategy (specifically, why he didn't do more to capture or kill Osama bin Laden) - a question that, according to Wallace, was posited by many viewers who emailed in to Fox News, and in truth, it was a question that many conservatives and neo-cons have been asking, especially since so many liberals have laid so much of the blame for 9/11 squarely on the shoulders of President Bush. Clinton responded with beligerance and anger, calling Wallace's question a "conservative hit job" and saying that he was just doing Fox News' bidding in an attempt to prevent conservative viewers from leaving because of Rupert Murdoch's support for his stance on global warming. He also claimed that he had done all that he could to get bin Laden, but that his hands were tied by the CIA and FBI (two agencies which, by the way, answer to the authority of the President).
Clinton alleged that the demotion and subsequent firing of Richard Clarke was a major failure of the Bush administration's strategy to combat terrorism, and recommended the reading of Richard Clarke's book...but unfortunately for Clinton, Clarke's book has largely been discredited - in some cases by Clarke's own statements (by the way, a great book to read about Clinton's presidency is Dereliction of Duty by Col. Buzz Patterson). Clinton also alleged in the interview that he had left a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy when he left the White House, including plans to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban...something that Condi Rice publicly disputed. The interview wherein Rice disputed Clinton's claims was very telling: Rice disputed Clinton's claim that his administration left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy, and placed the blame for 9/11 on the shoulders of the terrorists, rather than on any American administration, saying, "When are we going to stop blaming ourselves for the rise of terrorism?"
The real question about Clinton's interview is, just what did Bill Clinton accomplish? To the hard left, Clinton handed Wallace his own head on a silver platter. To the hard right, Clinton came unhinged. Personally, I believe that Clinton did try to stop bin Laden. He should have done more, but it's inaccurate to say that he didn't do anything. In this interview, though, he came across as defensive and paranoid - Wallace and Clinton were getting along fine as the interview started, and Clinton seemed to get offended just a little too quickly when Wallace asked the question about bin Laden. Through the course of his response, Clinton basically accused Wallace and Fox News of being part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," along with ABC, who a week or two ago showed their "Path to 9/11" mini-series, the release of which was strongly opposed by Clinton, Madeline Albright, and others, who alleged that it was full of lies. According to Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the "nuclear football" for Clinton, however, the ABC mini-series was fairly accurate (at least, the parts that he had personally witnessed), and was actually kinder to Clinton than the full truth would have been.
There is a lot of speculation out there over just what happened with Clinton - just what set him off. As a conservative, and decidedly not a fan of Bill Clinton, I want to believe that his paranoia was real. Whether it was or not, I cannot say for sure. But the exchange came across to me as being manufactured - Clinton took too much offense too quickly to be sincere, which leads me to think that he's playing popularity games with the liberal base, possibly to win points for Hilary's run in '08, as well as trying to heal his image after the ABC mini-series...unless he really does believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," in which case he was being sincere, and he really is a liberal wack-job. With people as politically ambitions and slippery as the Clintons, it's hard to tell just what they're doing until it's already been done - but regardless, Clinton's anger and spin reflected poorly on him with nearly everyone except the left-wing kook base.
Hilary Clinton has come out stating that her husband's vitriol shows that Democrats are going to stand up to these kinds of attacks (though, ironically, they expect Republicans to stand there and take harsher attacks than that), and that the 9/11 Commission Report documents how President Clinton stopped terrorist attacks. Question for Mrs. Clinton: which attacks were these? Perhaps the USS Cole? The Beirut barracks? Or maybe it was the Khobar Towers? There is only one documented case of a foiled terrorist attack during the Clinton administration that I can think of: the attempted bombing of the World Trade Center. And then, the only action that was taken was the prosecution of the bomber.
When it gets right down to it, the Clinton presidency was a failure when it comes to fighting terrorism. Instead of reacting to the many terrorist attacks by killing the terrorists behind the attacks, the Clinton administration tried to criminally prosecute the perpetrators of those attacks. Then, they have the audacity to blame the Bush administration for failing to prevent 9/11, when Clinton had been in office for eight years, compared to Bush's eight months - eight months that were largely spent repairing the damage done to the White House when Clinton left, and trying to get cabinet appointments past Congressional Democrats' obstructionism. Bill Clinton was in office twelve times as long as George W. Bush, and was more focused on the economy and philandering (and then perjuring himself about his philandering) than he was on battling terrorism. Now, he is trying to re-write history - probably because he knows that the attacks on his presidency are accurate, and that isn't how he wants to be remembered.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Enemies foreign and domestic...
I don't have a lot of time to post today, but there are two topics that I want to cover in what time I do have.
First, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez's speech to the UN General Assembly. Only a small part of the Communist dictator's words made it through the press' filters...of course, the most absurd part, wherein Chavez calls President Bush "the devil." But the liberal media largely ignored the rest of Chavez's address. Why? Perhaps because it sounds so similar to what US Democrats have been saying about President Bush and America. Liberal blogs have been cheering Chavez's words, while big media has largely been silent as to the substance of the speech. But Chavez's attacks did not stop with the GA.
After that speech, Chavez gave another speech, this one at a college in New York City, where his anti-Bush tirade continued. He accused the President of committing genocide in Iraq and said the President should be tried for war crimes. Sound familiar? Chave's ramblings sound suspiciously similar to the lies that Howard Dean, John Murtha, Dick Durban, and many other Democratic Congressmen (and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org) have been spreading about President Bush for years.
After his speech, Chavez was given a standing ovation.
In World War II, America and England allied themselves with France and Russia to fight was was known as the "Axis Powers" - namely, Germany, Italy and Japan. Now a new Axis is forming, and it is very much more dangerous than its predecessor, because the heads of this hydra know well how to play the game of American politics. This new Axis consists of Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba...and there is some evidence to show that they are being supported by Russia and China, and have the support of the United Nations. Venezuela and Iran are now very closely tied together. They have numerous treaties, including one that stipulates that any action taken by the US to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability will be considered an attack on Iran, and, hence, an attack on their ally, Venezuela. Moreover, Hugo Chavez has been forming very close ties between his nation and Cuba - not only does Chavez provide lots of oil to Cuba, but the majority of Chavez's cabinet comes from Cuba (a new law in Venezuela making it illegal to publicly or privately criticize the President allowed Chavez to get rid of most of his original cabinet).
The great danger here is that both Chavez and Ahmadenijad know how to play American political games. While Chavez will likely receive some criticism from US Democrats, they cannot help but agree with his words - the same words they have been saying for some time now. The only reason he will be criticized is that US politicians have to play to moderates in order to get elected. Ahmadenijad looks great in the American press, primarily because the American press tends to only report on the interviews that he does with American reporters - they conveniently leave out interviews with foreign media, where he makes much more outrageous statements than he ever would here (denials of the Holocaust, his belief that Israel should be wiped out or moved out of the Middle East, his belief that Iran has a divine right to nuclear weapons, his belief that it is his religious duty to bring about the apocalypse to herald the arrival of the 12th Imam).
For more about the insanity and danger that we face, I strongly recommend listening to Glenn Beck and/or watching his television show on CNN Headline News. He is the only person in the media that I know of that sees the big picture when it comes to the gathering threats to America.
The other topic I want to address is the Democrats' opposition to an ID requirement for voting. Recently, a Georgia judge struck down a state law requiring voters to show valid ID before voting. Now, the House of Representatives has passed (over the protestations of Democrats) a bill requiring voters to show ID before being allowed to vote in federal elections.
Democrats claim that requiring ID is tantamount to instituting a poll tax. But let's face it: Democrats are also the ones who whine and complain the loudest about voter fraud after they lose elections. If we truly want to prevent voter fraud, an identification requirement is the thing that makes sense. But, then, Democrats also want to position themselves to get the votes of illegal aliens (it's important to note: for all their talk about disenfranchisement of minorities, it is impossible to disenfranchise a group that is not enfranchised in the first place, such as non-citizens). For starters, ID is not that expensive. For another thing, if Democrats truly wanted to prevent voter fraud, they would be all for this. The truth is that not only would requiring ID hamper the Democrats' stuffing of ballot boxes, it would significantly hamper their efforts to get illegal aliens out and voting. All told, it is another step in the right direction that the Democratic Party is trying to block.
First, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez's speech to the UN General Assembly. Only a small part of the Communist dictator's words made it through the press' filters...of course, the most absurd part, wherein Chavez calls President Bush "the devil." But the liberal media largely ignored the rest of Chavez's address. Why? Perhaps because it sounds so similar to what US Democrats have been saying about President Bush and America. Liberal blogs have been cheering Chavez's words, while big media has largely been silent as to the substance of the speech. But Chavez's attacks did not stop with the GA.
After that speech, Chavez gave another speech, this one at a college in New York City, where his anti-Bush tirade continued. He accused the President of committing genocide in Iraq and said the President should be tried for war crimes. Sound familiar? Chave's ramblings sound suspiciously similar to the lies that Howard Dean, John Murtha, Dick Durban, and many other Democratic Congressmen (and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org) have been spreading about President Bush for years.
After his speech, Chavez was given a standing ovation.
In World War II, America and England allied themselves with France and Russia to fight was was known as the "Axis Powers" - namely, Germany, Italy and Japan. Now a new Axis is forming, and it is very much more dangerous than its predecessor, because the heads of this hydra know well how to play the game of American politics. This new Axis consists of Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba...and there is some evidence to show that they are being supported by Russia and China, and have the support of the United Nations. Venezuela and Iran are now very closely tied together. They have numerous treaties, including one that stipulates that any action taken by the US to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability will be considered an attack on Iran, and, hence, an attack on their ally, Venezuela. Moreover, Hugo Chavez has been forming very close ties between his nation and Cuba - not only does Chavez provide lots of oil to Cuba, but the majority of Chavez's cabinet comes from Cuba (a new law in Venezuela making it illegal to publicly or privately criticize the President allowed Chavez to get rid of most of his original cabinet).
The great danger here is that both Chavez and Ahmadenijad know how to play American political games. While Chavez will likely receive some criticism from US Democrats, they cannot help but agree with his words - the same words they have been saying for some time now. The only reason he will be criticized is that US politicians have to play to moderates in order to get elected. Ahmadenijad looks great in the American press, primarily because the American press tends to only report on the interviews that he does with American reporters - they conveniently leave out interviews with foreign media, where he makes much more outrageous statements than he ever would here (denials of the Holocaust, his belief that Israel should be wiped out or moved out of the Middle East, his belief that Iran has a divine right to nuclear weapons, his belief that it is his religious duty to bring about the apocalypse to herald the arrival of the 12th Imam).
For more about the insanity and danger that we face, I strongly recommend listening to Glenn Beck and/or watching his television show on CNN Headline News. He is the only person in the media that I know of that sees the big picture when it comes to the gathering threats to America.
The other topic I want to address is the Democrats' opposition to an ID requirement for voting. Recently, a Georgia judge struck down a state law requiring voters to show valid ID before voting. Now, the House of Representatives has passed (over the protestations of Democrats) a bill requiring voters to show ID before being allowed to vote in federal elections.
Democrats claim that requiring ID is tantamount to instituting a poll tax. But let's face it: Democrats are also the ones who whine and complain the loudest about voter fraud after they lose elections. If we truly want to prevent voter fraud, an identification requirement is the thing that makes sense. But, then, Democrats also want to position themselves to get the votes of illegal aliens (it's important to note: for all their talk about disenfranchisement of minorities, it is impossible to disenfranchise a group that is not enfranchised in the first place, such as non-citizens). For starters, ID is not that expensive. For another thing, if Democrats truly wanted to prevent voter fraud, they would be all for this. The truth is that not only would requiring ID hamper the Democrats' stuffing of ballot boxes, it would significantly hamper their efforts to get illegal aliens out and voting. All told, it is another step in the right direction that the Democratic Party is trying to block.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Today I am depressed...
Why am I depressed? Because the United Nations depresses me. In the past two days, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez both spoke before the United Nations General Assembly, both taking the opportunity to slam President Bush.
Ahmadinejad bashed the US primarily over Iraq and the recent Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, and basically called the US Security Council a body that cowtows to large, powerful nations (namely the US) while descriminating against smaller, less powerful nations (Iranian nukes, anyone?). His solution: "the nonaligned movement, the organization of the Islamic conference, and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege." While this sounds well and good given the context of Ahmadinejad's speech, this is what he is really saying: give seats to America's enemies to balance out the Security Council. The "nonaligned movement" is a collection of dictators who met just last week in, of all places, Cuba - basically a new "axis of evil" uniting to oppose the United States. A representative of "the Islamic conference" undoubtedly means giving hard-line Islamofascists a seat at the table. I would agree with having an African representative on the Security Council were it not for the fact that so many African nations today are run by warlords (in many cases Islamofascist warlords), and it would benefit no one but them to give them a Security Council seat.
The end of Ahmadenijad's speech was where he truly revealed his agenda: he called for the world to be united under monotheism (in other words, Islam), and prayed for the return of the 12th Imam (the Muslim messiah).
Hugo Chavez was muuch more animated, and will get (has already gotten) more press. He started his speech off by recommending to the world, and to US citizens in particular, the latest book by Noam Chomsky, noted American leftist communist US-hating academic...just the kind of person one would expect Chavez to be reading. Then, in the statement that has gotten him the most press, Chavez referred to President Bush as "the devil." He went on to criticize the United States and Israel for civilian deaths in Lebanon and "American imperialism."
The reason these speeches depress me so is that here we have two world leaders - one an Islamofascist dictator, and the other a Communist dictator, coming to America to speak on the floor of the United Nations, bashing the United States, and a large segment of the US population agrees with them!
We will likely see the results of these speeches in the next couple of days. If logic, common sense, and the spirit that has made America into the great nation that it is today prevail, the people of America, whether black, white, latin, asian, conservative, liberal, Democrat or Republican will unite to say that enough is enough - we are fighting not only for our freedom, but for the freedom of people across the world, and not only is there no reason that we should stand for such insults, there is no reason that these tinpot dictators should be given the same amount of credibility that a free democracy such as the United States receives on the world stage (and it seems as though, in these cases, the tinpot dictators were granted even more credibility than President Bush).
There is one extremely revealing quote from Ahmadenijad's speech that should send chills into the hearts of every American: "There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability." What is Ahmadenijad referring to here? The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement. During the Vietnam War, a counter-cultural movement became a cultural movement. And now we are paying the price. Liberals complain that America is not respected on the world stage - we have no credibility, and other nations don't like us. Well, how about this: a united America would bring that respect back. America would be a credible member of the world community because we wouldn't have factions within our own nation doing everything they could to impede the progress of our own national security simply due to their own political aspirations. A united America could truly move the world forward to confront the threat of Islamofascism and global Communism. We defeated the Soviet Union, but the Cold War is not over yet...and now, with Communist dictatorships uniting with Islamofascist dictatorships, World War III is standing on our doorstep, just waiting to come in. When it finally does, will we be ready? Only if we stand united as Americans, resolved to face the threat.
Ahmadinejad bashed the US primarily over Iraq and the recent Israel-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, and basically called the US Security Council a body that cowtows to large, powerful nations (namely the US) while descriminating against smaller, less powerful nations (Iranian nukes, anyone?). His solution: "the nonaligned movement, the organization of the Islamic conference, and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege." While this sounds well and good given the context of Ahmadinejad's speech, this is what he is really saying: give seats to America's enemies to balance out the Security Council. The "nonaligned movement" is a collection of dictators who met just last week in, of all places, Cuba - basically a new "axis of evil" uniting to oppose the United States. A representative of "the Islamic conference" undoubtedly means giving hard-line Islamofascists a seat at the table. I would agree with having an African representative on the Security Council were it not for the fact that so many African nations today are run by warlords (in many cases Islamofascist warlords), and it would benefit no one but them to give them a Security Council seat.
The end of Ahmadenijad's speech was where he truly revealed his agenda: he called for the world to be united under monotheism (in other words, Islam), and prayed for the return of the 12th Imam (the Muslim messiah).
Hugo Chavez was muuch more animated, and will get (has already gotten) more press. He started his speech off by recommending to the world, and to US citizens in particular, the latest book by Noam Chomsky, noted American leftist communist US-hating academic...just the kind of person one would expect Chavez to be reading. Then, in the statement that has gotten him the most press, Chavez referred to President Bush as "the devil." He went on to criticize the United States and Israel for civilian deaths in Lebanon and "American imperialism."
The reason these speeches depress me so is that here we have two world leaders - one an Islamofascist dictator, and the other a Communist dictator, coming to America to speak on the floor of the United Nations, bashing the United States, and a large segment of the US population agrees with them!
We will likely see the results of these speeches in the next couple of days. If logic, common sense, and the spirit that has made America into the great nation that it is today prevail, the people of America, whether black, white, latin, asian, conservative, liberal, Democrat or Republican will unite to say that enough is enough - we are fighting not only for our freedom, but for the freedom of people across the world, and not only is there no reason that we should stand for such insults, there is no reason that these tinpot dictators should be given the same amount of credibility that a free democracy such as the United States receives on the world stage (and it seems as though, in these cases, the tinpot dictators were granted even more credibility than President Bush).
There is one extremely revealing quote from Ahmadenijad's speech that should send chills into the hearts of every American: "There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability." What is Ahmadenijad referring to here? The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement. During the Vietnam War, a counter-cultural movement became a cultural movement. And now we are paying the price. Liberals complain that America is not respected on the world stage - we have no credibility, and other nations don't like us. Well, how about this: a united America would bring that respect back. America would be a credible member of the world community because we wouldn't have factions within our own nation doing everything they could to impede the progress of our own national security simply due to their own political aspirations. A united America could truly move the world forward to confront the threat of Islamofascism and global Communism. We defeated the Soviet Union, but the Cold War is not over yet...and now, with Communist dictatorships uniting with Islamofascist dictatorships, World War III is standing on our doorstep, just waiting to come in. When it finally does, will we be ready? Only if we stand united as Americans, resolved to face the threat.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Pope makes obscure reference to Muslim violence in speech; Muslims protest with violence
Violence has erupted in the Muslim world in recent days over comments made by Pope Benedict XVI in a speech last week. What has basically happened is that the Pope gave an absolutely briliant speech, one line of which has been taken grossly out of context and blown completely out of proportion. The initial reports that I heard about the speech said that the Pope had criticized Islam for being violent, and that Muslims were protesting the Pope's comments with violence...basically, a repeat of the Danish cartoon "scandal." Upon reading the actual text of what Pope Benedict said, however, I found that this was decidedly not the case.
The remark that has offended so many Muslims is this: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Taken at face value, it is an inflamatory comment. Taken in the context of his speech, however, the violence that has occurred in the wake of this comment is absurd, at best.
The overall argument that the Pope was making in his speech was that academia and religion can, in fact, meet together to discuss logically the veracity of claims made by either side - outright rejection, such as we have seen by both sides for many years, and violence, as especially evidenced by the past and current uprisings, are unnecessary. Though he did not use these words, Pope Benedict was essentially arguing for the "marketplace of ideas." Rather than condemning Muslims for their violence, he was urging academics, Christians, and Muslims to come together to work out their differences logically. The quote blamed for the uprising of Muslims was taken from a 14th Century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, who wrote down the text of a debate between himself and a Persian scholar over the natures of Christianity and Islam.
Instead of listening to what Pope Benedict was actually saying, the Muslims reacted with violence to this one quote (in many accounts falsly attributed to Pope Benedict himself, both in Middle-Eastern and Western media), burning several churches, and even murdering a nun. Many are saying that, by reacting violently, these Muslims are proving the Pope right. This would be true if the Pope had been condemning Muslim violence, but he was not. The one they are truly proving right is Emperor Manuel II Paleologus...and by the fact that his remarks hold true for many Muslims 600 years after they were written, Muslims condemn their own religion.
The remark that has offended so many Muslims is this: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Taken at face value, it is an inflamatory comment. Taken in the context of his speech, however, the violence that has occurred in the wake of this comment is absurd, at best.
The overall argument that the Pope was making in his speech was that academia and religion can, in fact, meet together to discuss logically the veracity of claims made by either side - outright rejection, such as we have seen by both sides for many years, and violence, as especially evidenced by the past and current uprisings, are unnecessary. Though he did not use these words, Pope Benedict was essentially arguing for the "marketplace of ideas." Rather than condemning Muslims for their violence, he was urging academics, Christians, and Muslims to come together to work out their differences logically. The quote blamed for the uprising of Muslims was taken from a 14th Century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, who wrote down the text of a debate between himself and a Persian scholar over the natures of Christianity and Islam.
Instead of listening to what Pope Benedict was actually saying, the Muslims reacted with violence to this one quote (in many accounts falsly attributed to Pope Benedict himself, both in Middle-Eastern and Western media), burning several churches, and even murdering a nun. Many are saying that, by reacting violently, these Muslims are proving the Pope right. This would be true if the Pope had been condemning Muslim violence, but he was not. The one they are truly proving right is Emperor Manuel II Paleologus...and by the fact that his remarks hold true for many Muslims 600 years after they were written, Muslims condemn their own religion.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Why making deals with terrorists is never a good idea...
Besides the obvious fact that they are terrorists bent on using the deaths of innocents to accomplish their goals, making deals with terrorist organizations legitimizes not only the organizations, but their behavior, and encourages even more of that behavior. Case in point: Palestinian terror organizations are now plotting even more kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. While Hezbollah's kidnapping back in late July turned into a military defeat on their part as the Israeli military proceeded to bomb them back into the stone age, the overall campaign was a victory for the terror organization, as they won the PR battle and gained much-needed diplomatic legitimacy through the UN-brokered cease-fire.
And now, what is happening but the emboldening of Palestinian terror organizations. Why? Because they now know that they can not only find a sympathetic ear in the international press, but also in the diplomatic community. All they have to do is to continue make it look like Israel is the bad guy whenever they retaliate against an attack or a kidnapping, and the terrorists can declare victory, no matter how great their losses militarily.
There is a reason for the policy of refusing to deal with terrorists, and this is it.
Way to go United Nations...another great success. Looks like "Peace in our time" is working just as well now as it did for Neville Chamberlain.
And now, what is happening but the emboldening of Palestinian terror organizations. Why? Because they now know that they can not only find a sympathetic ear in the international press, but also in the diplomatic community. All they have to do is to continue make it look like Israel is the bad guy whenever they retaliate against an attack or a kidnapping, and the terrorists can declare victory, no matter how great their losses militarily.
There is a reason for the policy of refusing to deal with terrorists, and this is it.
Way to go United Nations...another great success. Looks like "Peace in our time" is working just as well now as it did for Neville Chamberlain.
Monday, September 04, 2006
The Apocalypse is coming...
And no, I'm not talking about Iran this time. In fact, this post has nothing to do with the Middle East. The date of the impending apocalypse is November 8. Figured it out yet? Well, just in case, I'll tell you: November 7 is election day, and on November 8, no matter who wins, all hell is bound to break loose.
Here is my prediction:
If the Republicans retain the majority in Congress, the Democrats will use the same tactic they've been using for the past 6 years, since the 2000 election: allegations of voter fraud. Now, there is ample evidence that voters are dissatisfied with the Republicans. Democratic politicians wrongly assume that that means those dissatisfied voters are headed their way. However, the majority of dissatisfied Republicans are out of sorts because the Republican Party has been moving steadily to the left for some time now, cow-towing to special interests, and generally playing the same political games that conservatives have come to expect from the Democrats, but try to avoid ourselves. However, the fact that Republicans are dissatisfied with their party does not mean that they will hand the Congress over to the Democrats. I personally believe (and hope and pray) that the Republicans will hold on to their majority, because, although they are the lesser of two evils, many Republican politicians are beginning to see the light: that they can no longer expect to hold on to their seats while capitulating to leftist ideals and special interests.
Republican dissatisfaction aside, however, Cynthia McKinney's recent primary election loss is a perfect example of what is to come, though her reaction is perhaps (and hopefully) a bit more insane what we can expect from Democrats, should they lose. McKinney gave speeches after her primary loss calling for African Americans to rise up violently, calling electronic voting machines "racist," playing pretty much ever old and tired card in the Democratic playbook (race, class, etc.). In 2000, paper ballots were discriminatory because they were confusing. In response, more and more voting districts have been moving to the easier-to-use electronic voting machines. We have been using them here in my home county for some time now, and while there have been some political spats over which company's machines to use, resulting in a few kinks in the system, the results overall have been promising. Having used the machines myself, I have found them to be quick and easy, very much preferable to the old punch-card system, and leaving little or no ambiguity as to who I was voting for. Get ready, though, because at this time in history, there is little reason to doubt that nearly every Democrat who loses in November will be alleging voter fraud, blaming it on electronic voting machines wherever they are used, and demanding recounts.
If the Democrats win the in November, the chaos may be postponed for a few days, or even weeks, but it will come, and will perhaps come even more violently than the allegations of voter fraud we'll see if they lose. Over the past few months, prominent Democratic Congressmen have been predicting almost constant impeachment hearings, should they win the majority. Given a majority, the Democrats would control the chairs of many Congressional committees. Investigations will be started by the dozens. If you think there's too little progress in Washington now, just wait until the party of obstructionism has everyone even slightly involved with the Bush administration under investigation for one thing or another. Just before the last midterm election, a memo was unearthed revealing the stragegy Congressional Democrats were planning to use against President Bush, should they secure a majority in Congress. The memo revealed that the Democrats' plan was to start investigations into anything and everything. The important part, according to the memo, was not the truth of the allegations being investigated, but rather the seriousness of the charges. These were not to be investigations per se, but rather opportunities for the Democrats to point out each and every disagrement they had with the Bush administration. If the Democrats win control of Congress, the best anyone can expect is two solid years of investigations and attempts at impeachment. The Democrats are still obsessed with defeating President Bush...none of them seems to care about the fact that, this being his second term, he cannot run again. But, then, so many Democrats seem to suffer from the delusion that President Bush has turned America into a fascist theocracy, maybe they think he will toss out the Constitution and install himself as the king of America. With all of the outrageous allegations the Democrats have made against the Administration so far, this really wouldn't be all that surprising.
So, if the Democrats lose, expect temper tantrums across the board. If they win, expect temper tantrums across the board. Either way, the response to this November's election will very likely be both predictable and extreme. Get ready, because the fun is about to begin.
Here is my prediction:
If the Republicans retain the majority in Congress, the Democrats will use the same tactic they've been using for the past 6 years, since the 2000 election: allegations of voter fraud. Now, there is ample evidence that voters are dissatisfied with the Republicans. Democratic politicians wrongly assume that that means those dissatisfied voters are headed their way. However, the majority of dissatisfied Republicans are out of sorts because the Republican Party has been moving steadily to the left for some time now, cow-towing to special interests, and generally playing the same political games that conservatives have come to expect from the Democrats, but try to avoid ourselves. However, the fact that Republicans are dissatisfied with their party does not mean that they will hand the Congress over to the Democrats. I personally believe (and hope and pray) that the Republicans will hold on to their majority, because, although they are the lesser of two evils, many Republican politicians are beginning to see the light: that they can no longer expect to hold on to their seats while capitulating to leftist ideals and special interests.
Republican dissatisfaction aside, however, Cynthia McKinney's recent primary election loss is a perfect example of what is to come, though her reaction is perhaps (and hopefully) a bit more insane what we can expect from Democrats, should they lose. McKinney gave speeches after her primary loss calling for African Americans to rise up violently, calling electronic voting machines "racist," playing pretty much ever old and tired card in the Democratic playbook (race, class, etc.). In 2000, paper ballots were discriminatory because they were confusing. In response, more and more voting districts have been moving to the easier-to-use electronic voting machines. We have been using them here in my home county for some time now, and while there have been some political spats over which company's machines to use, resulting in a few kinks in the system, the results overall have been promising. Having used the machines myself, I have found them to be quick and easy, very much preferable to the old punch-card system, and leaving little or no ambiguity as to who I was voting for. Get ready, though, because at this time in history, there is little reason to doubt that nearly every Democrat who loses in November will be alleging voter fraud, blaming it on electronic voting machines wherever they are used, and demanding recounts.
If the Democrats win the in November, the chaos may be postponed for a few days, or even weeks, but it will come, and will perhaps come even more violently than the allegations of voter fraud we'll see if they lose. Over the past few months, prominent Democratic Congressmen have been predicting almost constant impeachment hearings, should they win the majority. Given a majority, the Democrats would control the chairs of many Congressional committees. Investigations will be started by the dozens. If you think there's too little progress in Washington now, just wait until the party of obstructionism has everyone even slightly involved with the Bush administration under investigation for one thing or another. Just before the last midterm election, a memo was unearthed revealing the stragegy Congressional Democrats were planning to use against President Bush, should they secure a majority in Congress. The memo revealed that the Democrats' plan was to start investigations into anything and everything. The important part, according to the memo, was not the truth of the allegations being investigated, but rather the seriousness of the charges. These were not to be investigations per se, but rather opportunities for the Democrats to point out each and every disagrement they had with the Bush administration. If the Democrats win control of Congress, the best anyone can expect is two solid years of investigations and attempts at impeachment. The Democrats are still obsessed with defeating President Bush...none of them seems to care about the fact that, this being his second term, he cannot run again. But, then, so many Democrats seem to suffer from the delusion that President Bush has turned America into a fascist theocracy, maybe they think he will toss out the Constitution and install himself as the king of America. With all of the outrageous allegations the Democrats have made against the Administration so far, this really wouldn't be all that surprising.
So, if the Democrats lose, expect temper tantrums across the board. If they win, expect temper tantrums across the board. Either way, the response to this November's election will very likely be both predictable and extreme. Get ready, because the fun is about to begin.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Showdown with Iran
Well, Iran has now violated the UN imposed deadline by refusing to halt their enrichment of uranium.
The question now, is, will sanctions come? And will they be enough to stop Iran from developing nukes?
I wouldn't bet on it to save my life.
The question now, is, will sanctions come? And will they be enough to stop Iran from developing nukes?
I wouldn't bet on it to save my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)