We’re still a little over seven months away from the November elections and the level of political invective is already reaching an intolerable level. It seems that civil political discourse has been replaced with vile unthinking rhetoric of the worst kind. People on the left and the right aren’t willing to agree to disagree and leave it at that. It becomes personal and on occasion becomes almost criminal. What the hell are people out there thinking? Or are they thinking at all? I’m beginning to have my doubts.

An example of this incivility was brought forth by Michele Catalano describing how she and one of her friends, Chris, have had a falling out because of her viewpoints and political beliefs. That in itself is a shame. But then a troll using the name P.F. Romero commenting on this event in Michele’s life proceeded to slam her political leanings with further invective, claiming motivations by President Bush and Republicans in general that were not backed up by facts. It was an emotional diatribe of the worst kind, dehumanizing a goodly portion of the American populace in the name of “The Truth.” What it was was a load of horse manure masquerading as political commentary. Here’s some of what this troll had to say:

Anyone who votes for Bush is voting FOR the terrorists to win.

A vote for Bush is a vote to destroy America from with in. The terrorists won’t have to blow us up, foolish little girl, you are freely ruining it yourself.

You are not smart at all, you know nothing about what is really happening and you are a drone of the status quo if you vote for Bush thinking he’s the only one who would protect us from the “evil doers”. What a retarded thing to call them, by the way. It doesn’t make any sense, because it implies that anyone who does something he deems as doing something bad is evil. But sometimes when your only option to protect yourself and your culture is to fight back. And we have a billion dollar army and they have rocks. All they have is terrorism to protect their world.

What I see is twisted logic fueled by hatred. He denigrates Michele as a “foolish little girl” without really knowing her. He implies that the term “evil-doers” is a misnomer because who is Bush to decide that? But if someone does evil things, regardless of the reason, that in my book makes them evil-doers. Is the troll implying that the 19 hijackers on September 11th weren’t evil-doers even though they murdered almost 3000 people? What part of their ‘culture’ were they protecting with the murder of innocents? Even by the rules of jihad laid out in the Qu’ran, they could not claim that they were doing Allah’s bidding. This troll seems to be implying that the culture the Wahhabi are trying to protect has an equal right to exist. By that logic, one might say that so did Nazi Germany.

How did the sages of the past put it? “You shall know them by their works.” If that’s the case, then the ‘evil-doers’ are just that – evil due to the fact that they commit acts of evil.

But I digress….

Michael Crowley has also commented on the verbal brawling and personal attacks that have so colored political commentary and some of the more recent election campaigns and particularly this year’s presidential campaign. In the March 2004 Reader’s Digest Crowley points fingers at the left and the right and wonders what lessons younger voters and voters-to-be are learning. He refers to those those poisoning political debate as “Blow-hards and Buffoons.” An apt description.

Thomas Jefferson must be apoplectic in the Great Beyond. He warned that only people who are “well-informed can be trusted with their own government.” Well, look what’s become of us.

I met up recently with two old friends in California […] who told me that they are worried about terrorism. But it’s not Osama Bin Laden they fear – it’s George W. Bush. These are otherwise sensible people: He’s a doctor; she owns an antiques store. Which is why I was stunned to hear them predict that Bush will stage a terrorist attack this fall to ensure his reelection.

“Seriously?” I asked. Seriously, they said.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised, not after seeing an “ad” on the website of the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, that compared Bush to Adolph Hitler. That’s the sort of vitriol that’s “informing” the public today. And it’s hardly confined to the Left.”

Crowley goes on to illustrate that the Right is just as guilty, pointing out how some conservatives were saying “that liberals were secretly hoping Saddam Hussein would teach President Bush a lesson in humility.” Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter have also added fuel to the fire from the Right, and Michael Moore and Al Franken have done just as much from the Left.

Thoughtful debate has given way to angry, polarized arguments in which there is no compromise and no middle ground. Shades of gray, you ask? Stop being so wishy-washy! When it comes to abortion, you’re either a baby-killer or a religious nut.

[…]

And good luck talking about affirmative action – whether you’re pro or con – without being called a racist.

Both the Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been obstructionist, blocking federal judicial appointments because the nominees don’t meet some elusive criteria or pass an even more elusive ‘litmus test’ of the opposing parties. This obstructionism has been ongoing for at least the past eight years and two presidential administrations and the discourse (or lack thereof) has been getting more heated and less tolerant, with the parties unable to make a compromise.

Listening to the “shouting matches” between both sides has been getting tiresome. While I usually consider myself somewhat conservative with a strong libertarian bent, I’m becoming more moderate in some of my outlook because, quite frankly, I don’t want to be associated with either side in these ‘debates’ (and I use that term loosely).

The blinders are on and each side is willing to believe the worst about the other, proof not withstanding:

“Bush lied! There was no imminent threat from Iraq!”

“Liberals don’t seem to care whether we are safe or not as long as they control things.”

“The US went into Iraq unilaterally! We should have bowed down to the UN!”

“Liberals are either idiots or traitors who routinely side with the enemy and aim to destroy America with their relentless attacks on morality and the truth.”

“Nazi!”

“Commie!”

…and on and on and on.

This is the lesson we’re teaching our children. It’s the wrong lesson, the wrong message. It is not what the American political process is supposed to be about. We damn well better make some changes before we degenerate into something that no one living would recognize as America.

Note: Am I unbiased in all of this? Hell, no. But at least I know I’m biased and try to temper it. Do I always succeed? Nope, no way, at least not all the time. But at least I do try.

To listen to Democrats you’d think that there are three basic economic classes … poverty, middle class, and the upper 1%. The election year rhetoric has expanded the definition of middle class to include just about everyone in the US. An interesting statement in last night’s debate serves as good evidence. Edwards, in the midst of answering a question on health care policy, made the following statement: “When we lift Americans out of poverty … we actually strengthen the economy because we put them in the middle class, which is the engine of this economy.” Straight from poverty to the middle class huh? That’s a helluva subsidy!

As ridiculous as it sounds, it is actually a pretty reasonable assertion considering no one really knows what the “middle class” is. In opinion surveys most people will consider themselves middle class because … let’s face it … no one wants to believe they are poor, but no one really believes they are rich. Economic measures are no more certain. The median household income is around $40,000 according to the 2000 census, but depending on where you live this as radically different meanings. In rural Arkansas 40K is certain middle class, but in NYC I would bet it doesn’t go far.This WaPo Special Report puts the amoebic morphology of the middle class into perspective. Due to this ambiguity political rhetoric is always about the middle class … which would seem to imply that it isn’t really about anything at all.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush said Tuesday that he supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to “prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever.”

First and foremost there is no way this can be accomplished with the current makeup of this nation and therefore this is only a cheap election year ploy to polarize the nation. I’m not a big fan of litmus tests and this is one if ever there was one.

Second, the things I enjoy most about this country have nothing to do with democracy or the sometimes aptly called “tyranny of the majority.” Our independent judiciary provides a good example. Our bill of rights provides another example, although I have always hated the fact that if 3/4 of the state legislatures no longer wanted a bill of rights it would be gone.

I personally have no problem with same sex marriages and I think the 14th Amendment’s protections of personal autonomy encapsulated in the due process clause should offer everyone the right to choose their own marriage partner regardless of other people’s beliefs. I am also aware that there are many that disagree with me and for that reason there will not likely be an easy solution to this issue for a while. So, I’m insulted by Bush’s sleight of hand; we’re supposed to watch the hand holding divisive issues like same sex marriage bans and not look at the other hand that holds his failed domestic agenda like a burgeoning national debt, increased government intrusion and an economy that has failed to fully recover despite “stimulating” tax cuts.

I’m disgusted with this tactic by Bush to capitalize on a divisive issue that targets Gay and Lesbian families while doing nothing to actually strengthen marriage or families in general, just as I was disgusted by the Bush Administration capitalizing on the death of Americans from the 9/11 tragedy to accomplish the single greatest increase in executive police powers of any modern president in the USA Patriot Act.

Shame on Bush for more right wing religious fluff that divides the nation when he should be bringing it together to assail more important issues like the continuing failures of our intelligence community which linger from 9/11 and rolled over into the recent Iraqi WMD debate. And shame on the Democrats for failing to provide an alternative in the form of a candidate that can deliver a stronger America — internationally and domestically — rather than this cheap fraud.

John Podhoretz has an interesting op-ed in today’s New York Post about how Kerry’s present claims about his actions as a Vietnam War protestor don’t match the reality of what he and Vietnam Veterans Against the War actually did:

Kerry was present at those offices in September 1970, when the group decided to write then-Mayor John V. Lindsay and demand that the city refuse to welcome another organization, one dedicated to representing other American servicemen.

The group John Kerry and his associates were protesting was The National Guard Association, which had its 1970 convention in New York at the Americana Hotel (now the New York Sheraton) from Sept. 13 to Sept. 17. Kerry’s group set up a picket line in front of the Americana, and staged a protest rally against the Guard on Sept. 17, 1970 at 5:30 pm.

Why would they do such a thing? Here’s the sort of rhetoric Kerry and Co. used to gather anti-war forces in a mimeographed flyer:

“The National Guard Uses Your Tax Dollar:

“To support the military-industrial complex

“To honor war criminals - Westmoreland, Laird, Nixon, etc.

“To applaud campus murders by National Guard units

“To encourage armed attacks on minority communities”

… Now, Kerry and others will tell you that Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a group dedicated to advancing the interests of American servicemen - protecting them, bringing them home, helping them. The group’s protest against the National Guard Association demonstrates that this claim is revisionist history with a vengeance.

… But then Kerry was throwing around a lot of collective-guilt accusations in those days. He went before the Senate and accused his fellow American soldiers in Vietnam of “crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” He compared American conduct in Vietnam to the behavior of Genghis Khan, and said American forces “generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war.”

“While the GOP is still at its Zenith, the Democrats are now at the Nader.”

I have a piece on the ongoing campaign for president in today’s Birmingham News, entitled “Campaigns more ridiculous than sublime”. Get to it from here.

George Will: The flap over 'offshoring'
This is cross-posted at Insults Unpunished.

This is a pet issue of mine -- rarely does a week go by when I don't post on it -- and George Will, an economist trained at The University of Chicago, has written one of the best responses to it. He says, as I've mentioned in the past, that offshoring is just another form of creative destruction.

He also raises the point that a healthy economy is constantly shedding and creating jobs. In 1999 the U.S. economy shed 33 million jobs and created 35.7 million jobs. It's creative destruction at work and our dynamic labor markets are constantly reallocating labor to more productive pursuits and increasing total output.

Even with unemployment at 5.6%, people are under the impression that the economy is doing poorly. The Democrats will be talking down the economy until November, even with a relatively low unemployment rate, for political purposes. If they win in November you'll be hearing about the miraculous turnaround in the economy just because a Democrat was elected. It's not honest, but it's par for the course in politics. As Will points out, Republicans are guilty of pandering on this issue as well.

I've excerpted a large chunk, but I suggest you read the whole thing.

It is difficult to say something perfectly, precisely false. But Speaker Dennis Hastert did when participating in the bipartisan piling-on against the president's economic adviser who imprudently said something sensible.

John Kerry and John Edwards, who are not speaking under oath and who know that economic illiteracy has never been a disqualification for high office, have led the scrum against the chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, N. Gregory Mankiw, who said the arguments for free trade apply to trade in services as well as manufactured goods. But the prize for the pithiest nonsense went to Hastert: "An economy suffers when jobs disappear."

So the economy suffered when automobiles caused the disappearance of the jobs of most blacksmiths, buggy makers, operators of livery stables, etc.? The economy did not seem to be suffering in 1999, when 33 million jobs were wiped out -- by an economic dynamism that created 35.7 million jobs. How many of the 4,500 U.S jobs that IBM is planning to create this year will be made possible by sending 3,000 jobs overseas?

Hastert's ideal economy, where jobs do not disappear, existed almost everywhere for almost everyone through almost all of human history. In, say, 12th-century France, the ox behind which a man plowed a field changed, but otherwise the plowman was doing what generations of his ancestors had done and what generations of his descendants would do. Those were the good old days, before economic growth.

The disappearance of whole categories of jobs can be desirable for reasons other than economic rationality. The economist Irwin Stelzer recalls that John L. Lewis, the firebreathing leader of the United Mine Workers of America from 1920 to 1960, once said that he hoped to see the day when no man would make his living by going underground.

For the highly competent work force of this wealthy nation, the loss of jobs is not a zero-sum game, it is a trading up in social rewards. When the presidential candidates were recently in South Carolina, histrionically lamenting the loss of textile jobs, they surely noticed the huge BMW presence. It is the "offshoring" of German jobs because Germany's irrational labor laws, among other things, give America a comparative advantage. Such economic calculation explains the manufacture of Mercedeses in Alabama, Hondas in Ohio, Toyotas in California.

As long as the American jobs going offshore were blue-collar jobs, the political issue did not attain the heat it has now that white-collar job losses frighten a more articulate, assertive social class. But an old lesson applies to this new situation.

The welfare state, beginning with unemployment relief, was pioneered in part by European conservatives, Disraeli and especially Bismarck, to reconcile people to change -- to the frictions and casualties of economic dynamism on which, such enlightened conservatives saw, national greatness would depend in the industrial age. It is sound social policy, and simple justice, that the party who benefits from free trade -- the nation as a whole -- should be taxed to ameliorate the discomforts of those who pay the short-term price of progress.

That is the case for education and job training for persons needing to change their skills. Such assistance is especially imperative when the casualties of change bear no responsibility for their fate -- unlike, say, U.S. steelworkers, whose overreaching in collective bargaining deepened the problems of their industry.

Will is also right that job training and income assistance are appropriate to make the adjustment more bearable. To stop the destruction of jobs you will also stop the creation of other jobs. For those yearning for the prosperity of the 12th century, that's the path you want.

James Joyner, Dodd Harris, Matthew Yglesias and Dan Drezner have more.

My posts on offshoring are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Will the Real John Kerry Please Stand Up?
Cross-posted at Insults Unpunished.

You're probably asking yourself "What right-wing news outlet would print this filth?". Why, it's CommonDreams.Org, a well-established bunch of lefties. They point out -- correctly -- that Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, along with 98 other Senators, and that he's been responsible for The Big Dig, one of the most disastrous public works programs ever.

Bush is having some trouble with his base, but this is the first time I've seen any of the Democratic base organizations take a poke at Kerry. It's things like this that could make him vulnerable if Ralph Nader decides to run again, which he hasn't ruled out.

For the most part, Kerry has had a safe seat in the Senate. Politicians who have safe seats are the ones who are supposed to be the visionaries. They can afford to take chances as big thinkers and float the new ideas. Despite the opportunity to forward meaningful legislation and really affect people's lives in a positive way, Kerry hasn't done the job.

As he ramped up his road to the White House, Kerry could have started building his legislative resume, laying the foundation for the ideas to come. But instead, he coasted or even hurt his own cause, by ignoring political opportunities to shine in the gentlemen's club. In fact, his actions on legislation may come back to haunt him on a massive scale in the final stages of this campaign.

Take organized labor. [Please!!! Ed.]

Kerry has always had a bad relationship with the unions in Massachusetts. But lucky for him, most of these voters had nowhere else to turn. Anti-union zealots Jim Rappaport (1990), Bill Weld (1996) and Michael Cloud (2002), were Kerry's challengers. However, instead of making some inroads with the union folks, Kerry kicked the shins of the working class time and time again, by voting for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO, and PMFN trade status for China. [These are all pluses as I see it. Ed.]

Kerry has taken advantage of the fact that many voters had nowhere else to go in Massachusetts. Instead of standing up for workers, Kerry helped pass bad corporate and workers' legislation. His reaction to working folks has been a blasé toss of the hand, while reciting nonsensical globalist gobbledygook: If Americans can't compete with 10 cent labor in China, too bad. At an event in Manchester, N.H. back in August 2003, Kerry said precisely that to a handful of unionized Verizon workers complaining about outsourcing. They were all pretty shocked but those who have watched Kerry weren’t.

All across middle-America, working families are struggling to put food on the table because the factory jobs are gone. People have lost millions of good manufacturing jobs and now have to work two or three service slave jobs at a fraction of the wages they once earned. Kerry helped these people lose their economic advantages as Americans. He has been part of the problem, not the solution.

In fact, on a myriad of issues Kerry has been part of the problem in Washington, D.C. and so closely resembles President George W. Bush it is a wonder what the Democrats of 2004 are thinking.

Kerry voted for Bush’s war resolution but now attacks it. Kerry fell for what looks like a lie that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the definite falsehood that Saddam Hussein - contained between the 33rd and 36th parallel - was an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry assisted in President Bush's - and President Bill Clinton's - assault on the Constitution by voting for the PATRIOT Act and voting for the anti-terrorism bill in 1996. Kerry also voted for Bush's unfunded federal education mandate "No Child Left Behind," which he also now attacks. Kerry has supported wasteful government programs like foreign aid, hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year, IMF/World Bank’s enslavement of the Third World, etc. This morning, the Associated Press is reporting that Kerry worked to protect a $150 million loophole for a major insurance company working on The Big Dig - a $15 billion dollar construction boondoggle in Boston - which has been rife with corruption and political scandal, coming in 500 percent over budget.

More like this, please, Common Dreams.

This is a duplicate of the original post from the nikita demosthenes website.

Today, John Kerry attacked President Bush for “walking away” from promises to our troops, and not “keeping faith with America’s veterans.”

Kerry accused the President of a series of false charges, including cutting troops’ pay, not providing adequate equipment, and “walking away” from Veteran’s health care.

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: John Kerry’s attacks on the President are not supported by the facts or his own record.

The truth is that President Bush has delivered support for our troops fighting in the War on Terror. The Congress passed and President Bush signed an $87 billion supplemental that gave our troops the tools that need to get the job done. President Bush has delivered for America’s troops and veterans:

• The Administration has increased military pay by more than 21 percent over three years, expanded use of targeted pay and bonuses, and improved housing for men and women in uniform.

• The Administration has implemented changes to ensure that veterans receive timely, quality medical care; more than cut in half processing time for claims; and in 2004 will eliminate waiting lists for medical care.

• The President’s FY 2005 budget for VA medical care is more than 40 percent larger than when he took office – enabling a million more patients to receive treatment.

• The President took action to make concurrent receipt benefits law for our veterans.

Senator Kerry voted against the Iraq supplemental that contains the support on which he bases his attack. John Kerry has voted against body armor for troops in combat and health care benefits for active duty Reservists and their families. Additionally, he has a long history of voting against pay increases.

Senator Kerry’s position on the War in Iraq and claims of support for the troops contradict his own voting record. Kerry voted to go to war with Iraq, and then voted against providing the troops with the tools they need to get the job done. The fact is that Sen. Kerry’s position on disarming Saddam was the same as the President’s.

On NPR in March 2003, the OLD Kerry explained his vote this way:

“I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

According to the House Appropriations Committee, the funds in the November 2003 supplemental that Kerry voted against included:

Force Protection—The conference report increases funds to purchase body armor Special Armor Plate Insert, to clear unexploded ordnance and to increase production of other force protection measures such as armored HMMVV’s and electronic jammers.

Tricare and Reservist Health Care Benefits—The conference report allows inactive reservist and their family members to become eligible for TRICARE health care coverage if they are receiving unemployment compensation or not eligible for any other health coverage. It also includes provisions that expands eligibility time periods for reservists and provides Medical and Dental Screening and Care coverage where appropriate.

Meal Allowances—Prohibits service members injured in combat or training from being billed for meals during their hospitalization. Makes this benefit retroactive to 9/11/2001 and provides reimbursement for those who have already paid meal charges.

Hazard Pay and Family Support—The mark includes a proposed provision which authorizes continued payment of per diem for travel of family members of military personnel who are ill or injured as result of active duty service and includes a provision to continue the increased monthly rate of Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowances through September 30, 2004.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Kerry has voted against support for our troops. During his time in the Senate, Kerry has voted at least 12 times against pay increases for service members.

• Kerry Voted Against FY 1991 Defense Authorization, Which Included 4.1R0pay raise. (H. R. 4739, CQ Vote #320: Adopted 80-17: R 37-6; D 43-11, 10/26/90, Kerry Voted Nay; “Congress Cuts Bush Defense Request, ” CQ Almanac, 1990, p. 671-687)

• Kerry Voted Against Allowing Defense Pay Increases If President Clinton’s Federal Pay Freeze Proposal Was Not Enacted. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #46: Adopted 69-30: R 31-12; D 38-18, 3/23/93)

• In 1993, Kerry Voted Against Increased Defense Spending For Military Pay Raise. Kerry voted to kill an increase in military pay over five years. (S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #73: Motion Agreed To 55-42: R 2-39; D 53-3, 3/24/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

• Kerry Voted Against Allowing Military Employees To Receive Cost-Of-Living Adjustment In FY 1993. (H.R. 1335, CQ Vote #98: Motion Agreed To 51-49: R 0-43; D 51-6, 4/1/93)

• Kerry Voted To Freeze Military Pay Freeze In FY 1994. (S. Con. Res.18, CQ Vote #72: Motion Agreed To 54-44: R 2-40; D 52-4, 3/24/93)

• Kerry Twice Voted Against FY 1996 Defense Appropriations Bill, Which Provided Increase Of At Least 2.4R0In Military Pay. (S. 1087, CQ Vote #397: Passed 62-35: R 48-4; D 14-31, 9/5/95; H.R. 2126, CQ Vote #579: Adopted 59-39: R 48-5; D 11-34, 11/16/95; “Defense Bill Enacted Despite Objections,” CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 11-25)

• Kerry Voted Three Times Against FY 1996 Defense Authorization Bill. The pay increase of at least 2.4R0was also included in this measure. (H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #399: Passed 64-34: R 50-3; D 14-31, 9/6/95; H.R. 1530, CQ Vote #608: Adopted 51-43: R 47-2; D 4-41, 12/19/95; S. 1124, CQ Vote #5: Adopted 56-34: R 42-3; D 14-31, 1/26/96; “Goal Of Boosting Defense Budget Eludes GOP Lawmakers,” CQ Almanac, 1995, pp. 9-12)

• Kerry Voted Twice Against FY 1997 Defense Authorization Bill, Which Provided 3R0Military Pay Increase. (S. 1745, CQ Vote #187: Passed 68-31: R 50-2; D 18-29, 7/10/96; H.R. 3230, CQ Vote #279: Adopted 73-26: R 50-3; D 23-23, 9/10/96; “Clinton Signs GOP’s Fortified Bill,” CQ Almanac, 1996, pp. 10-33 - 10-38)

[The following was written by Dariush Shirazi, an Iranian activist and frequent Command Post contributor]

If, for only a moment, we could melt away all the rhetoric about Bush’s military service, failure to uncover stockpiles of WMD, and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and instead focus on the bigger picture of freedom’s struggle in the Middle East and the future of our world, we would arrive at a very sobering conclusion. The tumultuous history of the human race has led us to where we now stand, on the verge of a historic moment, a moment that if seized to the fullest could give birth to unthinkable beauty, prosperity, freedom and peace.

The question we should all be asking ourselves is not “What about the economy, stupid?”, or even, “What about the weapons, stupid?” We should really be asking those questions that remain unasked, almost intentionally so, such as - “What about the Islamic Regime in Iran, stupid?” and “What about the Iranian people who are overwhelmingly pro-US, anti-tyranny and begging for a chance, stupid?” Of course these questions are far from stupid, and in fact the answers to them shine light on many fundamental aspects of this “War on Terror” and the so-called “Forward Strategy of Freedom”.

As coalition soldiers roam through the streets and villages of Iraq and Afghanistan, a grand strategy is being devised and implemented in an effort to halt the progress of democratization and freedom. This operation has been launched in the face of America’s proposed effort to achieve freedom and stability in the region, and the operating headquarters are without a doubt, to the East of Iraq, in the hands of the Mullahs who brutally hold onto power in Iran. The Clerics who have repressed the Iranian people for over two decades through their systematic murder, torture and imprisonment as well as political assassinations throughout Europe and the United States, have only one thing in mind. They will go to any and all lengths to maintain their mafia rule, and they will do this by spreading their virus into all corners of Iraq and Afghanistan, until the forces of freedom retreat or until the Mullahs are stopped!

President Bush speaks of a forward looking strategy of freedom in the Middle East, and the natural willingness within all humans to be free, but by rhetoric alone this objective will not be achieved. America’s proposed objective is by all means the right one, and in fact many Americans would have supported military action against the regime in Iraq even without the WMD argument, but the past is the past, and the people of the world stand ready, in the midst of a historic battle between the forces of good and evil.

The future of the world depends on the outcome of this battle. On one side there are the Terror Masters, who, through brute repression and enforcement of a twisted fanatical ideology, control large masses of land and it’s inhabitants. On the other side, is the free world, a world that grows more interconnected and united each day. However, this evolution can be broken and reversed. The world’s evolving state depends on freedom for all human beings, and it’s unfailing defense, however the terror masters continue to spread their virus, in an effort to prevent the administering of the one and only cure, freedom. This infection will prevent globalization. This infection will prevent peace. In the end, the successful spread of this virus will destroy our hopes, goals and dreams for the future of the world. Time is not a luxury we have. We must act now!

As witnessed in Iraq, we have found that the cure to this virus is not found within the bark of some tree, but rather it lies within every human being. When the Iraqi regime fell, the cure was released after decades of suppression, and beautiful notions of progress, evolution and liberty were triggered. However, almost immediately the virus began to spread through the porous Iran/Iraq border, within vials carried by thousands of Islamic Clerics sponsored and guided by the regime in Iran. Through propaganda and violent military assaults they are attempting to halt any progress in an effort to destroy mankind’s cure. They will continue to spread their fanatical virus, unless they are stopped.

For the American Administration to wait and fail to act for fear of the political uncertainties brought about by the election-cycle whirlwind sweeping across the land of the free and home of the brave is an outright mistake, and a dangerous one at that. President Bush must set aside the political storm clouds that now cast shadows over America, for one last stand, a stand that will most certainly bring about the achievement of his proposed goals for freedom, as well as rewarding him with another four years in office so that he may continue his leadership and sustain current progress.

The ongoing political circus being played out in Iran has shown that neither the “hardliners” nor the so-called “reformers” have the support of the people. Iranians have for years viewed the regime in Iran as illegitimate, and on February 20th they will show to all of us how illegitimate the clerical regime really is, by their proposed massive boycott of elections. The regime will claim that the Iranian people boycotted the election because many reformers were banned from participating, a lie they want us to believe. We can also count on the regime to pay off and bring in bus loads of Iranians from rural areas to vote, in an effort to show there was no boycott, we mustn’t fall for their tricks. Politicians in America and abroad who have been paid off by the regime as well as regime-loving journalists will surely twist and turn the facts, we should ignore them. The regime has been illegitimate for decades, and has sponsored international terrorism from sea to shining sea. On February 20th, 2004, the Iranian people will make their case to the world. We must hear them!

The cure to the entire debacle and virus that is spreading throughout the Middle East rests in the hearts and souls of the Iranian people. If after the February 20th election, when all Iranians declare the clerical regime illegitimate, we fail to act in support of the Iranian people, we will have made a huge mistake and committed a great disservice to all of humanity. Everyone of us has a stake in freedom, and its victory in the Middle East. We must not wait one day more and we must never fail to defend freedom.

It’s time for one last stand!

Dariush Shirazi is a pseudonym of an Iranian-American university student and Los Angeles-based freelance journalist.

A very, very fine talk by Charles Krauthammer recently:

“We like Iowa corn and New York hot dogs, and if we want Chinese or Indian or Italian, we go to the food court. We don’t send the Marines for takeout. That’s because we are not an imperial power. We are a commercial republic. We don’t take food; we trade for it. Which makes us something unique in history, an anomaly, a hybrid: a commercial republic with overwhelming global power. A commercial republic that, by pure accident of history, has been designated custodian of the international system… That is who we are. That is where we are. Now the question is: What do we do? What is a unipolar power to do?”

What, indeed. Krauthammer examines the various doctrines and choices open to America right now, and comes to some firm conclusions. Some of them may surprise you.

Read the Rest…

The baseless, slanderous attack Kerry, McAuliffe and the biased media have mounted on President Bush’s service in the National Guard is completely irrelevant to the campaign for the presidency.

There was never anything to these scurrilous charges. The fact that this unfounded allegation was raised and dismissed in the 2000 presidential campaign should have been the end of the matter. Caught with a popular President and still unable to accept that the Democratic party is now an out of power minority party, the biased media, like a hungry predator, refuses to let go of the red meat thrown out by McAuliffe.

On ABC’s “This Week” on February 1, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said:

George Bush never served in our military in our country.

He didn’t show up when he should have showed up.

McAuliffe also said that Democrats would make reports that the president went “AWOL” from the Alabama National Guard in the early 1970s a central focus of the presidential campaign.

The kerfuffle over President Bush’s military record began with this 2002 Boston Globe article which reported that retired General Turnipseed [Lieutenant Colonel], of the Alabama Air National Guard, had no memory of Bush ever reporting for duty in Alabama. In addition to Turnispeed’s faulty memory the only other support for this irrelevant issue is an allegation by Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett, who has claimed that Bush’s National Guard files were “purged.”

On Tuesday, Turnispeed told the Associated Press that he was not sure whether he was even on the base during the time Bush was assigned there. Moreover, he said: “In 1972, I didn’t even know he was supposed to come. I didn’t know that until 2000. I’m not saying that he wasn’t there. If he said he was there, I believe it. I don’t remember seeing him.”

Kerry failed to try to put an end to this meaningless kerfuffle. On February 3rd, in an interview on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes show, Kerry was asked if McAuliffe’s unfounded allegations were fair. Kerry responded:

Well, I don’t know the facts on it [Bush’s National Guard service].

What I’ve always said is — and I defended Bill Clinton’s position, and I would defend the president’s choice with respect to going into the Guard.

I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard. Those are choices people make.

The Democrats and the biased mainstream media have done their best to keep McAuliffe’s promise, keeping this issue in focus all month. The story is still in play despite absolutely no evidence to support it and a great deal of evidence refuting it.

The New York Post reports today that Turnipseed recanted his statement that he couldn’t remember if Bush reported for duty. Turnipseed now says his memory is faulty because he’s in the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

The allegation that Bush’s file was purged has also been discredited. Boston.com reports that George O. Conn, a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett, said that the central elements of Burkett’s story are false.

President Bush’s entire service record has been released, demonstrating that there is nothing to hide. Witnesses to President Bush’s service in Alabama have attested to his service. The New York Post reports that retired Lt. Col. John “Bill” Calhoun went public to say he remembered Bush well, and that in fact it was Turnipseed, then a colonel, who introduced Bush to him. The same Post article also reports that Alabama Guardsman Joe LeFevers remembers seeing Bush on the Alabama base.

Regardless of all the media attention, this story about President Bush’s service in the National Guard is not only irrelevant; it is unimportant and an indication of how dirty a campaign the Democrats intend to run in their effort to defeat President Bush. What a shame!

McAuliffe’s charges are irresponsible and unsupported. McAuliffe’s statement implying that serving in the National Guard does not constitute serving in the United States military is likewise irresponsible.

Kerry is obliged to repudiate these charges. During the 1992 campaign, Mr. Kerry defended then-candidate Bill Clinton, saying:

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways … We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam, reduced to simple campaign rhetoric.

That was a wise position in 1992, it is even more so a decade later.

During this time of war, the primary focus of the presidential campaign should be about which candidate can better conduct the war against terrorism. There can be no more important issue facing the country. There are many other issues that need to be discussed such as immigration reform, health care, and education. By focusing on a failed attempt to smear the president, the media and the Democrats are diverting attention from the real issues. Why?

"No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast." -- Shakespeare's "Richard III"

If you have never seen the movie Runaway Train, go get it. It's an excellent movie and probably one of the best of the 1980s. Probably one of the best action movies ever with the following qualifications:

• The dialogue is not very good -- the screenplay was translated from Japanese and the movie has a Russian director who apparently doesn't have an ear for English dialogue. I read somewhere that the dialogue is "stilted". That's probably the best one-word description available.
• The visuals are stunning. I mean stunning. It is absolutely breathtaking and the final shot is a classic. I know that word is used a lot, but in this case it's true. You must be able to appreciate the visuals or the movie will likely bore you.
• It's an action movie with a message.

The quote above, taken alone, would seem damning towards man because it makes us seem lower than animals. The movie even suggests as much when the Voight character is called an animal and he says no, he's worse: he's human.

The larger message of the movie, and the context in which that quote takes on a different meaning, is existential. In short, I would rather not live at all than to live on someone else's terms. Death is preferable.

Why did I think of this?

In a post below I mentioned the killing of the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq approvingly. I even said I have no pity for them. It reminded me of this movie, and the quote, immediately. It also made me hesitate and consider the consequences of such an attitude.

After considering it a bit I concluded that these terrorists wouldn't hesitate to kill me if it served their end. I'm reminded of what Tony Blair said, in various forms, about the terrorists after September 11th:

They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent. If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?

So there is no compromise possible with such people. There is no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it, we must.

They are our enemies and, to me, the war on terror is an existential struggle, not unlike the threat of communism in the 20th century. The threat may not be apparent, or more likely we've been lulled into a sense of calm since 9-11, but it is real. I see no way that the liberal order -- individual liberty, prosperity and the like -- can exist alongside terrorists that are bent on our destruction. They've proven themselves inept -- it took them two tries and eight years to knock down the World Trade Center -- but they persevered and ultimately succeeded. The results you know about.

Am I a beast, or worse: human. I don't know. I do know that I have no intention of living in the terrorists' version of the world and, given that knocking out state sponsors of terrorism is the surest way to end that threat, I support our current efforts in Iraq. Not that you'll be surprised to hear me say that.

UPDATE: James Joyner has a post on a newly-discovered survival kit for terrorists. Really. We must be doing something right.

“This is rumor control. Here are the facts.”-Lt. Ellen Ripely, Alien Resurrection.

“A lie travels half way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on.”-Winston Churchill

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”-William Jefferson Clinton

Democratic Presidential frontrunner John F. Kerry now faces the suggestion that he has perhaps more in common with the original JFK than their similar moniker, though certainly not in the way he hoped or intended. The Ketchup Kid is in some hot soup - so to speak - with the charge that he had (wait for it…) an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of his interns. One must try their best not to belabor the inevitable Clinton comparisons at this point, but without failing to recognize the fully Clintonian scope of this scandal.

One of the most wonderful phrases in the english language is “rumor has it…” This is a good term, because it underscores the essential propriety which the realm of rumor exercises over the details in question. Rumor doesn’t just propose something or other, it has it, and its not letting it go.

Rumor has it that John Kerry had an extramarital affair with an unnamed intern, who has since left the country at the behest of the Kerry campaign.

Rumor has it, that this affair was the reason Kerry was not tapped by Gore to be his running mate in 2000, in order to avoid any hint of the scandal that plagued Bill Clinton.

Rumor has it, that Wesley Clark himself told reporters that an ‘intern problem’ would destroy his rival Kerry, shortly before dropping out of the race. (A proposition that would cast Clark’s soon-to-be endorsement of Kerry in a rather conspiratorial light.)

Whether one is inclined to believe reports of the Senator’s indiscretions or not, it is essential that the voting public preserve a presumption of innocence - as much for their own health as for that of the rumor’s target. Stories of this sort need not be at all true to have their desired effect - the court of public opinion is very fickle because it is based on varying and questionable information. It is precisely for this reason we must treat such rumors with the utmost reticence, if not outright disbelief, in order to deter their propagation.

The ease with which a devastating rumor can be spread necessarily requires that scandalous reports be regarded with an extraordinarily high burden of proof, and also that scandalmongers face the severest possible public criticism if exposed. This is only secondarily about fairness to the accused, it is essentially a matter of preserving access to the truth.

Damning rumors are like nuclear warfare: just about any power can lob one into the enemy camp to great effect and with minimal personal risk. One can no more prevent a wild rumor taking flight then they can an ICBM, which is why deterrence based on the threat of severe repercussions is the only to ward of such assaults on the public good. What this boils down to is this: regardless of their obviously enticing nature, stories about John Kerry sleeping with an intern are not to be believed until, and only until, serious evidence is provided to back up the charge. We are not simply to be agnostic in our approach to baseless accusation, but must maintain a strict skepticism in the spirit of scientific falsifiability: a proposed theory which cannot be definitively disproved is to be regarded with the utmost cynicism. John Kerry cannot demonstrate that he didn’t do any of the things he is accused of, and that puts him at a disadvantage. For that reason alone we should doubt the charges.

At least, for the moment.

Scott Ott breaks the story about Clinton. I was debating even posting the Kerry problem, but Scott’s unique perspective was worth posting.

I suspect this story will keep Dean in the race for a while longer. I’m starting to believe Edwards was staying in the race to position himself for a 2008 run, but he, too, has to wonder if this story will give him a chance in 2004.

This does not change my voting plans since I wasn’t going to vote for Kerry anyway. I’m mostly curious as to what the Looney Left (such as Move on) will do. You remember, these are the people who first defended Clinton by stating infidelity was a personal issue and should have no role in making political decisions. Then they decided that infidelity was an important political issue again when Schwarzenegger ran for office. Now that another Democrat has been caught, I suspect fidelity will no longer be important (again). Gotta love folks who can take a stand and stick with their principles…

Republican, Democrat, or Independent; I see no reason to believe that a man who will betray his family vows to his wife will keep his office vows to me.

Update: I was sure all readers would understand the Clinton endorsement was more of Scott’s satire, but someone emailed me about it. I hope this update ensures no one is confused. Move on is a joke too, but unfortunately my comments on their flip-flopping were not made in jest.

This is a duplicate of a post from the nikita demosthenes website.

The real problem with Kerry, of course (beyond an alleged affair) is his lack of new substantive ideas for the country.

That’s why Kerry’s surrogates must throw mud at Bush on 30-year old Guard service - which everyone agrees was fully completed.

Kerry’s only new substantive ideas are real losers: (1) raise taxes, (2) socialize America’s health care - Hillary’s Marxism on the Potomac revisited, and (3) make the war on terror a “law enforcement matter” - hello 9-11 all over again.

No wonder Kerry wants to focus on Bush’s 30-year old, Honorable Discharge, Guard service: Kerry’s own ideas are going nowhere fast.

Yes - please - let’s talk about the issues. What are Kerry’s new substantive ideas for the country? The above three? You’re looking at a Bush-Kerry landslide reminiscent of Bush-Dukakis.

The “Real Deal”? Please. To borrow an old line: where’s the beef?

The whole Kerry campaign is just pablum and smoke and mirrors - wrapped around a core of mud-throwing at Bush - and packaged under Kerry’s expensive Christophe coif and oh-so-thoughtful knitted-brows. When it comes to new substantive ideas, Kerry’s a no-show.

Getta loada this:

“He now makes much of his decorations from the war in Vietnam, to appeal to centrists and conservatives, without reminding those audiences that he for long was a leader of Vietnam veterans against the war. Indeed, assiduous searchers, looking for his vulnerabilities, will find much of interest in that period of his life. For example, the fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations (CNO), Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me — 30 years ago when he was still CNO — that during his own command of US naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets.

‘We had virtually to straight-jacket him to keep him under control,’ the admiral said. ‘Bud’ Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions — but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage.”

That’s W. Scott Thompson, writing yesterday in The Taipei Times.

What the hell is Jane Fonda going to make of this?

I have a question, though. What in the world was the relationship between a Lieutenant and ComNav Vietnam/Chief of Naval Advisory Group, MACV in 1969 that he got that kind of attention? This is a mystery to me. Look: My Lai was way in the news by April of that year. I’m trying to understand someone as bad as this report insinuates not being straight-jacketed and hustled home on the first availabe jet, that year.

This is wild. Has anyone ever heard this about Kerry before?

Man… the more I think about this, the weirder it gets. What the hell is going on here?

Is Thompson just some sort of a right-wing hatchet-dude? What a strange little drip into a story out of Taipei, at this point in the Democratic race. From what I can gather, Thompson has his spook-bits in his background. (This, for instance.) What the hell shook him out of the trees, just now? Why didn’t this allegation about Kerry ever surface before now? (Has it? If so, then when, and where?)

He talks about “…great problems for [Zumwalt] and the other top brass…” I’d say that’s worth digging on (which is actually Thompson’s suggestion in his story). Hell, man, there could be documents in a barrel of snakes like that. It’s not like he and the rest of MACV brass would be crawling around getting muddy out in the bush, seeing Kerry blowing away hootches and yelling, “Hey! Stop that! Come here, you!” No, they’d be sitting in the air-conditioned rear and getting reports. That means corroborating witnesses.

Zumwalt got way behind Kerry in ‘96 when some columnist accused Kerry of a war-crime. What’s up with that? He’s gonna hide his concerns over Kerry’s “civilian casualties” that he told Thompson about twenty-five years earlier and then cover his boy over that?

Well, yeah: he might. 1996 was a whole different game, and Zumwalt was a Democrat. His Boy was in a hard fight with William Weld for governor of Massachusetts. If the Commie Calley thing is true, he’d carried it so far, so why not go the distance?

(Taipei Times link by Scott Jordan, in the CAS mailing list. Brainstorm credit: Lynette Warren and John Kennedy from No Treason.)

I think of the person I was in high school and the few years after. I wonder if I ever ran for public office, if that part of my life would be up for grabs, even though most of it took place over 25 years ago and I am certainly not the person now that I was then.

When I was in high school, I was protesting everything. I was a radical student whose only regret was that she wasn’t born sooner so she could really experience the counterculture of the 70’s.

I went to No Nukes rallies. I bored my teachers to tears with speeches about Three Mile Island. I was anti-authority and thought that Ken Kesey and Abbie Hoffman were geniuses. It was all peace, love, happiness and fuck the establishment. Screw the United States because, man, they were screwing us. Here I am thirty years later, a war-mongering, hippie-hating, right wing fascist. Ok, I’m a right-of-center Republican.

Let’s talk about the Man Who Served in Vietnam.

Yea, the guy protested the Vietnam war. He threw away his (or someone else’s) medals. And he still believes in that same anti-war rhetoric he held dear during the “revolution.” But it’s not like he’s still hitting the bong and throwing stones at Lyndon Johnson.

There are so many other things not to like about Megatron John Kerry. Don’t waste your time ranting about the one thing that really doesn’t matter. I mean, the guy was at the same peace rally as Jane Fonda. Big deal. I once went to a No Nukes concert and was surrounded with every socialist, anti-American, acid-dropping celebrity who joined the movement to bring back the counterculture. You gonna hold that against me now?

With that in mind, I say to Bush supporters: If you don’t think GWB should have to answer questions about his National Guard duty, then why do you think Kerry has to answer questions about being in a photo with Jane Fonda? Aren’t we being just a bit hypocritical?

Let’s concentrate on the present and future. Forget the past. What have you done for me lately and what are you going to do for me in 2005 should be the only questions we are asking of Bush and Kerry right now.

I post this because these subjects have been on my own mind of late.

Steven den Beste says Michael Moore may be a mailicious liar who opposes the U.S. government during a time of war, but he is not a traitor. Of course, he explains the distinction quite thoroughly.

Michael Totten extends this theme with his own article, reminding us what a fifth column movement really is - and is not. “We are not doomed,” he says, and tells Nelson Ascher of Europundits to buck up.

So, what does a fifth column movement look like? Well, something like this, perhaps. Or like Prof. Sami al-Arian. The AMC also treads close to that line, if not over it. As does International A.N.S.W.E.R.

Clearer now?

Again and again the argument about Iraq’s WMD’s is beat to death by the media, politicians, the Europeans, and just about everyone else. The debate rages on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even though there was no doubt that in the past Iraq did have them and used them. After the Gulf War in 1991 UN inspectors inventoried, cataloged and counted them. Some had been destroyed up until the point where the inspectors were thrown out of Iraq. After that, the status of Iraq’s remaining arsenal was unknown.

Whether Iraq destroyed its remaining stockpiles or not remains in dispute. Unfortunately many in the world seem to think that it was up to us (meaning the US and our allies) to prove that Iraq’s WMD’s still existed. But they were wrong - it was up to Iraq to prove they no longer had them. However they failed to do so as laid out in one UN Security Council resolution after another. For a dictatorship that kept meticulous records about everything going on within its borders, it seems strange that they had no records whatsoever about the destruction of their chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and supplies.

In the long run it really doesn’t matter. In a guest editorial in the February 9th edition of the Union Leader (Manchester, NH), Tim Emory explains why.

Tim highlights the disparate methods of deception used by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1938 to throw off the League of Nations and various European, Western, and Asian nations, buying them time to complete their plans for domination by conquest. He then goes on to point out that Saddam tried using some of the same tactics, but this time they failed and his regime fell.

Which strategy do you believe Saddam Hussein employed as he played his game of cat and mouse with the U.N. inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?

What would have been the outcry had the Allies mounted a pre-emptive strike against the Nazis in 1938 only to discover that the Luftwaffe was a feint? Does Saddam have any ownership for the results of his strategy? Does it really matter whether WMD are ever found?

Saddam gambled and lost. He screwed up and ended up with his sons dead, himself in jail, and Iraq free from his tyranny. The possibility of him using WMD’s in the future is now zero. Better that than waiting for mass death in a form of a biological or chemical attack, or worse, a mushroom cloud over an American city courtesy of Saddam’s ever less tenuous connections to terrorist organizations.

While much abuse and blame has been heaped upon George W. Bush and his decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, President Bush’s predecessor had much the same idea and made no bones about it. James Lileks has dug up some of the relevant articles and papers from the old “microfilm” archives and brings forth President Clinton’s arguments for going after Saddam.

…..Clinton was arguing that Saddam not only had WMD, but that one day he might want to make more WMD, and this wasn’t acceptable. Interesting to read between the lines - the Clinton administration seemed to be arguing that the potential for future production was itself a valid reason to strike. Military force is never “the first answer,’ Clinton said, “but sometimes it’s the only answer.” “If Saddam isn’t stopped now,” the AP story said, quoting Clinton,“ ‘he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, someway, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.’ ” Thus spake Clinton in 1998. He went on to note that the strikes planned could not possibly destroy Saddam’s arsenal, because A) they didn’t know where everything was, and B) they didn’t want to kill Iraqis by unleashing clouds of toxins. And it gets better: a sidebar noted that this war plan – Desert Thunder – had been prepared weeks before, in case Saddam stiffed […] the inspectors.

Bill Clinton had a plan to go to war before the crisis flared! What does that tell you? Obviously, he was looking for any excuse! Halliburton! We all know about the ties between Clinton and Halliburton – he gave them a sweet no-bid contract after his Balkans war, you know.

Sounds hauntingly familiar, doesn’t it? But you didn’t hear the Democrats screaming about it back then, did you?

So does the fact that WMDs haven’t been found (at least not yet) really mean anything?

No. Not really.

Winds of Change.NET Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (see his article archive, and read his book “Culture, Civilization and Humanity”) is back with a new series. I have some issues with his analysis, especially when it comes to his take on American culture. Nevertheless, his articles are always thought provoking and so we’re always happy to present them here.

Here’s the complete series:

1. The Big Change in Islamic Societies
2. Muslims & The Clash of Civilizations
3. The Mentality of Violence… and the Games Nations Play!
4. A Movement Bred in the Isolation of the Desert
5. The Fall of the Oppressors and the Emergence of the Sword
6. The Crisis Facing Non-Wahabbi Islam

If you start at the beginning, you’ll also find links at the bottom of each post, leading you on to the next inthe series.

I have a piece in Sunday’s Mobile Register on some of the lessons of Dean’s run for the Democratic nomination. It can be accessed here.

[The following was written by Iraqi Ali. It was originally posted on Iraq The Model and is reproduced here with permission of the author.]

Oh my god what a fool I was. Yes, I realized this just lately, although I had my doubts but I was blinded by some facts and now thanks to some good friends of the Iraqi people, I’ve opened my eyes to see the naked truth.

For the first time I realize what a big lie I’ve been living in for the last 9 months and the worst thing is that it was me who made that lie and believed it so much that I accepted no other opinion. The whole world was telling me to wake up and get real, have some brains and try to find the truth. They offered me several evidences that leave no doubt that I was living a lie, but I was so stubborn and I apologize for it.

For nine months I’ve thought that things were okay, that America did the right thing, we got rid of S.H. and his killing machine, that I’m happy, free and dreaming of a better future.

Thanks to all the true friends of the Iraqi people, I began to have some doubts and began asking myself real questions and day by day my nine months. I decided to re-evaluate everything I see and compare it with what it was before the war.

So, one morning I walked down the streets as usual heading to the hospital were I work, but this time my eyes were open and I was very attentive to all that surrounds me:

-The first thing that struck me was that all the pictures of Saddam were gone. Now of course I’ve noticed that before but I didn’t think about it seriously, I mean nobody asked me whether I liked it or not, besides who did this? Was it the Iraqi people? Impossible, Iraqis loved Saddam (the whole media can’t lie) - was it the Americans? I think if they had spent their time removing his pictures they would’ve been in Nassireah right now. So I came to the conclusion that there must be a conspiracy behind this, and don’t ask me what conspiracy and who conspired and why, it’s a conspiracy and that’s it.

-The second thing that annoyed me was that no policeman or security guard or American soldier bothered to ask me where I was heading, where did I come from and didn’t even ask for an I.D. I checked my wallet and I found that I wasn’t carrying any, and in fact I haven’t carried an I.D. since the 9th of April, while prior to that I used to carry 2 or 3 I.D. cards (including the military service certificate) and still I would check my wallet every now and then to make sure that I haven’t forgot or lost any on the road. I mean seriously what is a man without an I.D.?

-Another distressing incident came as I went to buy a newspaper, I found dozens of strange Iraqi newspapers and magazines and more foreign ones (the total number of Iraqi newspapers til now is 132) instead of the 10 that were all owned by the government before the war, and I said ”what a mess! Who am I supposed to believe now? How can I tell which one of these is telling the truth?” and only for my further disappointment I read a title of the new Iraqi army celebrating the graduation of 700 volunteers! Now what? Aren’t we going to fight anymore (I mean a real war)? What a waste, we had only the chance to go through 3 major wars in the last 23 years and there are still many enemies that we haven’t taught a lesson yet.

-Another depressing news was that there will be no more public executions, what am I talking about, there will be no executions at all, can you believe it? There are no more action or amusement!

-Finally I got to work and there I didn’t find a large difference although I missed those sensational moments when a child dies simply due to the lack of cheap medications and his mother’s cries and the reporters from all over the world who were always around would rush in to get a good shot and make a smashing report about the effects of the sanctions. Things are now very boring, we just treat people and a lot of them even get well!

-Then a friend of mine told me that it was payment day and when I got my salary, they gave me these strange banknotes with no pictures of any Iraqi president. I remember well, and I said it here before, that my salary was around 17$ a month before the war. This time they gave me 200 thousand Iraqi Dinars which if divided by the current exchange rate (which is now 1330 ID for each US$) will be about 150$ and what was worse is that they confirmed a raise has been approved to make that 300$ starting from the next month with possible raises in the future. And I saw clearly what that meant, they are bribing us! yes, I’m not an idiot! they’re going to steal our oil, and they can say they’re giving the money back to us and that they even assigned billions of dollars to build Iraq and push many countries to cut down the Iraqi debts, but we are still the ones who are going to lose, and don’t ask me how, because I’ll be damned if I know the answer.

-On the other hand before the war, Saddam gave us nearly nothing at even better times than these. Still he didn’t steal the oil, he kept the funds safe in his pocket.

And what if he used some to enjoy himself and his family? It’s his right by birth, and what if he made some gifts to the good friends of the Iraqi people like George Galloway, Bernarde Merime or Jackie… Oops, sorry, the last one is just a rumor.

-And more and more, the long lines at the gas stations, the high prices for kerosine are all gone and back to normal, and the only things that were left to remind of the (good old days) were the ruins and garbage here and there. But they were also (sadly) being, although slowly, removed and rebuilt. But then I heard an explosion and gave a sigh of relief and thanked my Muslim brothers “at last, a sound from the past.”

What an ignorant I was to think that it was OK and again thank you CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, Mr. Dean, Mr. Cherac and our dear Arab and Muslim leaders for showing me the truth, and I’m not talking about the silly things I have mentioned. I’m talking about the most important fact:

You made me realize that freedom doesn’t worth waiting for hours to get 5 gallons of gasoline, and 10 hours of power shortage a day (even if it was temporarily). In fact you showed me that freedom means NOTHING to me. Thank you for showing me that I was born to be a slave and that I enjoyed getting down on my knees in front of my master whoever he was (and there was no one better than Saddam to bow to). I loved kissing the ground he walks on, and I adored his way of insulting, raping, torturing and killing Iraqis everyday.

A friend has asked me never to use the 4 letter word (and it’s not my style to do so), sorry Scott but I can’t help not saying For all those who tried to show me how I should feel:

Even if I was wrong (and I’m sure I’M not)To hell with oil, to hell with power supply and F***YOU ALL. GWB MADE THE RIGHT DECISION AND AMERICA DID THE RIGHT THING AND WE ARE FREEEEEEEEEE!

-By Ali.

This is a duplicate of the original post from the nikita demosthenes website.

Today is President Ronald Reagan’s 93rd birthday. Happy Birthday, President Reagan! Via the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, here are some quotes and photographs:

“…peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever.”
- January 20, 1981

“…there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.”
- January 21, 1981

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
- June 12, 1987

Reagan Family Portrait (left to right) Jack, Neil, Ronald (4 years old), Nelle, 1915, Illinois

Ronald Reagan’s high school football photo
1927, Dixon, Illinois

Ronald Reagan visiting with fans during the filming of “International Squadron,” 1940, California

Ronald and Nancy Reagan on their wedding day, March 4, 1952, William Holden’s Home

Ronald and Nancy Reagan with daughter, Patti and son, Ron, 1960, Pacific Palisades, California

Ronald Reagan being sworn in as Governor of California with son, Ron (private ceremony) January-67, Sacramento, California

Ronald and Nancy Reagan returning home from George Washington Hospital following the assassination attempt, April 11, 1981, White House

Ronald Reagan in summit meeting with General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, November 19, 1985, Geneva Boathouse, Switzerland

Ronald Reagan giving speech at the Brandenburg Gate, June 12, 1987, West Berlin, Germany

Ronald Reagan departing the U.S. Capitol his last day in office, January 20, 1989, Washington, D.C.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declares February 6, 2004, “Ronald Reagan Day” via proclamation.

Via the Reagan Ranch Program - President Reagan’s last words to the nation:

“In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.”

Send President Reagan well wishes on his birthday here.

Thanks, North Georgia Dogma, for the reminder.

THE HINDU: Putin rules out talks with Chechen rebels

Blaming Chechen leaders for the Moscow metro train blast that left about 40 people dead and over 120 injured, Russian President Vladimir Putin, today ruled out talks with the “terrorists”.

“Russia does not hold talks with the terrorists, it destroys them,” Putin declared at a Kremlin news conference.

Bookmark this story and keep it handy the next time the Israelis blow up a Hamas or Islamic Jihad leader and the Russians balk about “heavy-handed tactics” at the United Nations.

If Putin knew where he could build a wall to keep out Chechen rebels, he’d build one for protection and two as a works program to keep the Russian Mafia busy.