How To Build Bill Clinton’s Legacy – Lesson One is ‘Shut Up’

By now, everyone has heard about former President (yes, this guy was once a sitting President of the United States) Bill Clinton’s altercation with Chris Wallace on Fox News. The tantrum on national television brought joy to comedians and cartoonists, stress to the political aspirations of a number of politicians (especially a certain Senator for the State of New York), and additional damage to the supposed existence of a “legacy” for William Jefferson Clinton. I have no intention of addressing the specifics of the debate from that noisy interview, as others have already done so admirably, and in any case to advance the Leftist lie even through refuting it is not morally palatable. Besides, this article addresses that most elusive of Clintonian qualities, durable accomplishments. There is a way, actually, for Bill Clinton to ease memories of his less-laudable moments, and to establish something on which he may yet demonstrate that much-vaunted intellect and perceptivity. The road to that goal lies through the example of fellow former President Richard Milhous Nixon.

Yep, old “Tricky Dick” himself. Nixon actually did quite a bit during his two terms which was notable ands even worthy of some praise, but he blew it all away because of Watergate. Humorist Dave Barry once speculated that an enemy must have somehow installed a “stupid ray” in the White House, because every President has moments which are too stupid to explain in any normal way. In Nixon’s case, Barry observed that Nixon was undone by secret tape recordings which proved what he was saying and thinking during the Watergate scandal. Barry pointed out how strange it was, to consider that Nixon was the one person fully aware of the taping and yet was the one person damaged the most by them. A brilliant man undone by an incredibly stupid chain of decisions. Nixon resigned rather than face certain impeachment. Clinton won’t want to admit it, but he has a certain similarity to Nixon on that level, wouldn’t you say?

But I am not here to heckle Clinton, seriously. You see, By the time he died, Richard Nixon had done quite a bit to rehabilitate his reputation, to the point that even Democrats were publicly accepting him as something of an elder statesman. Anyone familiar with the names and descriptions of Nixon circa 1975 would be amazed by that transformation. To be sure, the most rabid Nixon-hater never forgave him, but the average person did. This has figured in creating a legacy for Nixon which focuses on his Administration in a kinder light. No, he will not be thought of as a “great” President, but his name is not ridiculed and his reputation is actually above average. While he may grind his teeth to follow in the footsteps of a hated enemy, Bill Clinton may find that this way is the only viable course.

The first step is often the hardest, and this may be excruciatingly so for Clinton. You see, the first thing Nixon did after resigning was to go home and shut up. Nixon gave no interviews, wrote no books, and made no attempt to stick his nose into things for more than a decade after leaving the White House. He answered Presidents who called on him, yes, and he continued personal writings and research at home, and when the time was appropriate he did produce books and essays and interviews, but not while the emotions were still raw and the hatred still venomous. One of the biggest post-office mistakes which Bill Clinton has made, is to continue stoking those fires by shooting his mouth off at every opportunity.

You don't seem a bad sort, Mister Clinton. Lots of people find you likable and intelligent. But if you really want to have that legacy, you are going to have to learn when to shut up and sit down.

DEFCON What? The War Quality of a Candidate

“Sir, wake up. An event has occurred.”

I didn’t have to open my eyes to recognize the voice. Not the individual, but the type. Young, male. military, calm but urgent. Which meant that something somewhere had gone very wrong, very fast, and could get worse if nothing was done soon or the wrong choice was made. I sighed, swung my legs over the side of the bed onto the floor and got up.

And I was alone in my bedroom at home. There was no one there at all. A dream had awakened me.

Thinking about that dream, I gave up trying to sort out specifics, but chewed on a few generalities in my mind. And one of those is what it means to be President of the United States.

One of the more stupid charges tossed out from time to time, is to try to insult the President for taking “vacation”. That word is a misnomer, because Presidents do not get the chance to get away from the job and relax. The plain fact is, Presidents never get vacations; even former Presidents find that they cannot simply visit a mall or take in a movie – the current culture requires advance planning for even the most mundane activity – ask Bill Clinton how easy it is for him to go to a McDonald’s these days, or G.H.W. Bush to decide on the spur of the moment to go golfing. And for the sitting President, that “vacation” is all work. All it really means is a change of location, and some pretty scenery – a lot of people are clueless to how often Presidents hold private conferences with key foreign and Congressional leaders while on “vacation”; Carter’s Egypt-Israel peace treaty started with phone conversations during one of Carter’s “vacations”. Dubya has met with Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister Koizumi, and many other leaders while on “vacation”. And do I really need to remind the reader that every President, regardless of party or circumstance, is never far from the “football” or aides who will not hesitate to inform him of serious events? You know, now I think about it it’s no wonder no President ever had a child conceived while he was in office – the knowledge that a Secret Service agent could enter without any warning would “kill the mood” for anybody. Well, almost anybody.

But getting back to the topic under discussion, when Americans are choosing a President, it is important to realize that the war condition of the nation is a critical factor. I would suggest that when people are worried about conflict, they are less likely to consider changing the party in leadership, but when things are relaxed and going well in national security terms, they will consider alternatives more readily. Sometimes the more competent leader is seen in the light of who can lead effectively in time of war. In other times, war seems unpopular or irrelevant and a war leader is less respected than an economic leader. With that in mind, consider the war qualifications of the following failed candidates:

Dewey 1948 Economic leader, not seen as a war leader
Stevenson 1952, 1956 Intellectual, not a war leader
Nixon 1960, 1968 Not seen as a war leader, hurt him in 1960 but
helped him in 1968 (seen as war leader in 1972)
Goldwater 1964 Depicted as emotional and unstable
Humphrey 1968 Not seen as a war leader
McGovern 1972 Not seen as a war leader
Ford 1976 Not seen as a war leader (given Vietnam and Carter’s Navy experience)
Carter 1980 Seen as militarily incompetent
Mondale 1984 Not seen as a war leader
Dukakis 1988 Not seen as a war leader
Bush 1992 War experience seen as irrelevant
Dole 1996 War experience seen as irrelevant
Gore 2000 Not seen as a war leader
Kerry 2004 Not seen as a war leader

This overly-simple description of these men is not meant to slap them, but examine them in the context of their election year. Truman looked tougher than Dewey, General Eisenhower more than Stevenson, former Navy officer JFK over Nixon, reasonable Nixon over indecisive Humphrey or partisan Wallace, war-hardened Nixon over McGovern, reasonable Carter over reflexive Ford, decisive Reagan over timid Carter and Mondale, war veteran GHW Bush over wanna-be Dukakis, peacetime-priorities Clinton over war relics Bush and Dole, “Dubya” Bush tougher than Al “Treeman” Gore.

It’s probably too soon to get an accurate fix on the 2004 election, though. Did Bush win over Kerry because Bush was seen as tougher than Kerry, who trotted out tired old overdone stories whenever he wanted to sell his cred, or was it that Kerry seemed to dwell on Iraq all the time, while Bush seemed more reasonable talking about job growth and Social Security reform? I have a sneaking suspicion that Bush carried more cred than Kerry because of his record – what moron thought you could sell a ex-Vietnam protestor as a war hero? But I also suspect that Bush sold his case in more than one dimension, while Kerry droned on about magic hats and his wounded pride.

In conclusion, it seems to me that we are all aware that every single President is awakened sooner or later by that aide or young officer. And we elect Presidents in some measure on the assumption of how they will address the issue. The optimal candidate will have the foresight to anticipate the crisis; the wisdom to place the best-qualified officials to address the specific needs and to trust them to know their job; the intelligence and diligence to develop a plan and make changes or adjustments as necessary; and the courage to stand – alone if necessary – behind the plan through its completion. In retrospect, the decisions of the past elections make these points clear, and it is significant to consider who, among the many who want the job, is really capable to carry that burden in the next Administration.

When Zombies Go Suicidal

I am not much of a fan of horror movies. It’s not just that I don’t find much to like about the gore and carnage of such fare, but the plots frankly strain credulity. The present state of the Democratic Party of the United States certainly strikes me the same way; like a bad zombie movie where nothing makes sense, yet the show remains popular.

Bill “Braaaaaaains” Clinton is suddenly a classic example. If he really believed his spiel, all he really needed to do was ignore the ABC movie and answer Chris Wallace’s questions with the same dignity and maturity which the Bushes in office have done for the past two decades, and he could establish something of credibility. If he had pointed out the fact that every significant investigation into 9/11 has shown flaws and mistakes on the part of both Administrations to encounter bin Laden, and admitted his errors while explaining the context of his decisions, Clinton could have supported both his reputation and that of Democrats. Instead, former President Clinton threw a tantrum, tossed out lies and excuses, and reminded America why his party could not be trusted with Crisis Management decisions.

I wrote a factually sound article about why our next President needs to be as much like George W. Bush as possible. I posted that article on both Wizbang Politics and Stolen Thunder, where it was largely well-received by those adults who read it ( turns smirk off ).

On Wizbang Politics, one type-capable zombie using the name “Alex” presented a series of statements which purported to “recap” the George W. Bush administration. These statements are fascinating not only in their degree of dishonesty, but also as a text to the mindset of the Zombie Left. I present them here:

“1. Before 9/11 Bush spent 42% of that time on vacation, while ignoring all warnings about Bin Laden; such as a report entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States".
2. Bush lied to the country when he said that there were WMDs, that Saddam Hussein had a connection to 9/11, and that Saddam Hussein was buying Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger.
3. When we had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, Bush redirected troops to Iraq where there was absolutely no threat to us.
4. He has purposely used terror to scare voters into voting for him as demonstrated here
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Terror-Nexus-8-14-06.mp4
5. He has created the largest deficit in US history, out of the biggest surplus in US history created by President Clinton.
6. It took him days to order federal response units into Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.
8. He has repeatedly condoned torture, and violated the Geneva convention.
9. He has also violated the constitution by authorizing warrantless wiretaps on innocent Americans.
10. He has vetoed only one bill, for stem cell research, a bill that would save lives. Instead the stem cells will just be discarded.”

Like scratching an itch, answering these lies is something of a reflex, but I will do so anyway.

1. Anyone who thinks “vacation” for a sitting President means relaxing and ignoring the world is brain-dead. Every President, Bush included, spends his “vacation” making decisions, meeting with world leaders and leadership from both major parties, and is kept briefed on all major events. Alex seems to be unaware of this, just as he seems to have forgotten that the August brief he referenced had zero actionable information, and was no more than a summary of general intentions. It is also a poor tactic for Alex to play, since questioning Bush’s focus during his eight months prior to 9/11 naturally invites attention to what President Clinton did during his eight years in office. That’s just zombie-dumb …
2. Like children who won’t give up on fairy tales, the Left must cling to the “Bush Lied” canard long after it died from lack of substance. But just for the exercise, here are the facts. First, the war was never just about WMD, but even if we focus just on that for this lie from Alex, “WMD” is Nuclear, but also Biological and Chemical weapons. The fact is that Saddam had active programs in all three categories, hid evidence for all three from inspectors, and literally hundreds of chemical warheads for shells and missiles – that would be those “stockpiles” the Zombie Left kept denying. One warehouse in Iraq held 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, by the way - more than enough to make several crude but very real nuclear weapons. As for Saddam Hussein’s shopping habits, Alex has listened keenly to Joe Wilson lie about various things, but has missed the fact that British Intelligence still stands by its report that Saddam did, in fact, plan and attempt to buy uranium from Niger. Alex is not even telling original lies, much less believable lies …
3. While Alex may possess psychic abilities, the claim that we had bin Laden “cornered” is an opinion not shared by professionals, nor is it truthful to pretend that the President of the United States micromanages to the degree of troop allocation between locations. It is similarly false – and laughable, since the Zombie Left is usually moaning about casualties – to pretend that there was no threat from Iraq. But I have not read a military overview yet from a Zombie Liberal which demonstrated a sense of orientation, much less mission acuity…
4. Pretending that discussing the issues which concern voters the most is somehow “scaring” them into voting for him is almost as absurd as submitting a Zombie Leftist website as a valid source to prove his claim. But I should not be too harsh; Alex would be hard pressed indeed to find evidence to support this lie from any objective source …
5. Leftists must cross their fingers every time they toss out that lie, because even a grade-school education in Social Studies would catch them out. Congress makes the budget, not the President. And those deficits and surpluses come from the actual spending decisions made by Congress. Now, it is true that the White House submits a budget – and those submissions by Clinton are not especially impressive. I also have a good laugh at that “biggest deficit” and “biggest surplus” lie – as a percentage of GDP the current deficit is far from the worst, and by the way even that deficit is shrinking. You might note the “record revenues” part from that report before the next time you lie about tax cuts being ‘only for the rich’ or ‘bad for the country’. And while I’m thinking about it, the ‘Clinton Surplus’ was just another one of those fables told by Democrats – Clinton promised a surplus but there was never a real surplus – the Clinton Administration changed its method of Accounting (they created the so-called “unified” system, which does not follow GAAP) and projected possible surpluses in the future, based on best-case conditions which do not occur in real-world conditions. But Liberals are not on good terms with real-world conditions …
6. Yet another big lie. As I have mentioned before, President George W. Bush authorized federal assistance for the Gulf Coast in general and the State of Louisiana in particular on August 26 2005, more than two days before Hurricane Katrina landed on the shores of Louisiana and hit New Orleans. If you want to find someone who delayed giving authorization for relief and help to get where it needed to be, you will have to look to people like Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. My personal “most guilty”, as I have always said, is Major General Bennett C. Landreneau, whose duck n’ deny method of accountability showed up ugly and often in how he advised the people who needed information and coordination of action. Alex is destitute where facts and honesty come into consideration…
7. was empty. Apparently Zombie Central lost the signal to tell Alex what lie and insult to enter on this line.
8. Alex has never read the Geneva Convention or he would know what that treaty prescribes for non-government combatants who kill civilians, and like all Zombie Liberals his definition of “torture” always comes down to mean any action he can defame in order to smear the military and the President. We don’t saw people’s heads off, we don’t kidnap kids off the streets, but Alex can’t tell the difference…
9. Alex should actually read the U.S. Constitution sometime. Maybe that part about the President being “Commander-in-Chief” of the military, or noting that Constitutional Rights cannot and do not apply to foreign agents, especially those attempting to kill Americans? But this would likely still be lost on Alex, who talks about “warrantless” where no warrant is needed, “wiretaps” where no wiretaps were used, and “innocent Americans” where the subjects were reasonably believed to be neither innocent nor American. Alex’s charge is as stupid as it is dishonest …
10. And like a lame “Top Ten” routine on a particularly bad night for Dave Letterman, Alex finishes with the charge that not vetoing bills is bad unless one happens to like the bill. And as for any bill ‘saving lives’, give me a break. Not one person’s life was saved by stem cell research. Maybe such research has value, maybe not, but that is a contentious moral and scientific issue still in hot debate, and whether fetal cells are necessary or even the best choice for such research is also a point far from decided. The notion that a President who has been very consistent in pro-Child decisions would continue to do so in this arena is not an area where I would think Liberals would want to shine a light. As with all his other charges, Alex’s attempt here not only fails to persuade, but even small consideration of the facts leads one towards the Right side of the question.

Which brings me to the reason for this article. Republicans and Democrats are once again in that stupid Dance-Of-The-Stuffed-Suits we see every couple years. Predictable as those Zombies I mentioned at the start of this article, these men and women go after political targets of opportunity full bore. It’s almost frightening to see the mindless pack of politicos in action.

But this season the Democrats have started something different. Those zombies are increasingly attacking each other, even as they seem to believe they are attacking the Republicans. While Alex’s dishonest and stupid allegations are easy to refute, it’s strange to see how many on the Left have embraced such tactics. As I mentioned, Bill Clinton could have made a measured statement or two to deflect attention to his National Security decisions, but instead made sure the whole country noticed his record. Democrats could have shown Hugo Chavez the door and made clear their support for civil politics, but instead tried to play it both ways, condemning Chavez while sponsoring events for him. Liberals could have shown that despite dissenting with the President about going to war, they support the troops by supporting the success of their mission and trusting the men in the boots over there, but they chose not to do so. Democrats could have come up with specific and constructive plans for the economy and National Defense, but instead fell back on the same old screech and whine plays they have tried in past elections, and which always lost. It’s a lot like seeing a mob of zombies go after each other. Bring popcorn.

IQ 086 and Falling?

Work is insane right now.

Various stresses at home right now.

I have two tests this week, one more next week, two assignments due plus starting on two term papers ... then mid-terms in eleven days.

Blogging will be intermittent, sorry.

Loss and Remembrance

Kitty Myers’ mother has passed away. Her article is poignant and articulate, far better than I could manage when my father passed away in April of this year.

I have not really been able to face my father’s death. When I started blogging again, I simply went back to political nit-picking and the usual fool-foorah for a mind on auto-pilot, and shoved grief into a neat little box. That box is still there, waiting in the back of my psyche for me to deal with it. I have busied myself with family, work, and my MBA studies, but I realize that someday I will have to come to terms. For here and now, my heart goes out to Kitty, and I pray the Lord will grant her family comfort in this time.

Chief Hurtt Must Resign

The performance of Houston Police Department Chief Harold L. Hurtt has reached unacceptable levels. The recent death of Officer Rodney Johnson at the hands of an illegal migrant from Mexico is simply the latest and most obvious example of Hurtt’s incompetence and stone-faced apathy to the needs of his officers and the city.

Hurtt was the guy who thought that red-light cameras at intersections to increase ticket revenue was better than protecting safety by using police officers.

Hurtt is the guy who decided HPD officers could not pursue suspects in chases, a decision which ran directly counter to the officers’ experienced opinion.

And when Rodney Johnson was gunned down by an illegal who should never have been in the United States at all, Hurtt refused to allow HPD officers even ask suspects if they are in the United States legally, much less take them off the streets. Mayor Bill White asked Chief Hurtt to reconsider his – well, his consistently stupid and dangerous decision – last December, but Hurtt did not bother to reconsider, and now a police officer is dead in part because of that policy.

Chief Hurtt is not even available to answer questions and criticisms from Houstonians; he went off on a trip to give speeches in Arizona and North Carolina immediately after Officer Johnson's death. Almost as if the murder of one of his officers brings him no worry or grief.

Resign, Chief Hurtt.

Now.

Before your policies and politics get more people killed.

America Needs Another Bush

It is said, and truly, that a wise man never dissents with a wise woman. I fear I am about to prove I am not a wise man, but I must.

In her article Saturday, The Anchoress said the following:

“I am more convinced than ever that I don’t want to see another president named Clinton or Bush for a very long time. I’ve had enough of this whole Hatfield/McCoy scene. I don’t think the wide rift that exists between parties can possibly be healed - for the better of our nation - while these two families are in power.”

I am sorry to differ, milady, but you are wrong. And the error must be challenged*.

I am not anti-Clinton, per se. Recently I wrote an article defending President Clinton somewhat, with regard to his efforts on National Security. While I agree with criticism in some specific instances, I agree with The Anchoress that people who use only hindsight demand an unreasonable perfection, and hold officials to an impossible standard.

I also wrote recently about a disturbing article in the off-mainline press which tried to cast Clinton as a madman, and if true in its specifics it admitted to a deliberate attempt to weaken National Security rather than allow the President to do his job.

But that said, the attempts to equivocate between elected officials named Clinton and elected officials named Bush are disingenuous and more, dangerous in their falsity. While I do not blame pre-9/11 officials for not being able to foresee and therefore prevent that monstrous wrong, I stop short of suggesting that such a viewpoint is appropriate or tolerable in a national official now. To show what I mean, just consider that Tom Harkin, Democrat, claimed that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, that every nation on earth, including (and Harkin emphasized this part) Islamic governments. Harkin charged that President Bush “squandered” that “good will”. (ht Powerline)

Think about that. First off, we’ve heard a lot things like that from Democrats for the last five years, so Harkin can fairly be said to represent the Democrats’ voice. And I challenge his claim. We all knew within days that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden were all directly responsible for the attacks. Did Afghanistan offer to turn them over for trial? Did Saddam Hussein offer to help round them up? Did any Islamic government step up and offer to catch the monsters?

Obviously, no, not one of them made any such offer. They made public gestures of sympathy, but in action they were silent, or worse. I do not know whether the threat attributed to Mr. Armitage is true or not, but if so it raises my estimate of the man; that was precisely what needed to be said at that place and time.

I am old enough to know the evils of war. But I am also old enough to have learned that such evils show up many times when someone believes that cowardice will be safer, that the expedient will somehow cost less; the butcher’s bill is always paid, and always by those with the resolve to say “This ends here” to men like bin Laden, Hussein … and men like Ahmahdinejad, Assad, and Jintao.

And so I look forward to 2008. Uneasily, because the Democrats have abandoned almost all pretense of a fair fight, and they will use pretty much any device or method to gain control of the White House. The Republican candidate therefore must win in 2008, of the nation will suffer for it, because – and it is sad to have to say this about a major political party – there is no chance at all that the Democrats’ nominee will be competent or resolute in the charge to defend the nation. Thus the GOP nominee must be attractive to the public in a way the Left cannot easily pervert, and I believe this is what The Anchoress means. That said, this nation cannot stand a Republican in the White House either, if that Republican lacks the vision, resolve, or backbone to face down the enemy, whether in Teheran or across the aisle in Washington. Therefore, this nation cannot afford to see someone named McCain, Frist, Hagel or Tancredo. We need another George “Dubya” Bush.

No, I am not saying find a way for the man to run again, nor do I mean that it’s time for Jeb. But whomever plans to represent the party had better be planning to learn from our current President and apply his doctrine. They can make their own name on a host of domestic issues and pressing concerns, but where defending the nation is concerned, there must be a strong Crawford flavor to the next President’s policies and directives.

(*UPDATE The Anchoress has kindly reminded me that my statements ought to be logical, and so I have corrected this one at her suggestion. Thank you, lady. )

I HATE Baylor Football

My Bears just GAVE AWAY another game.

We USED to be a good team.

Back when my knees weren't like bubble-wrap.

Good n' Bad

Rick Perry is running for re-election as Texas' gubnah.

The good news: Rick Perry looks like a Hollywood movie star.

The bad news: Rick Perry sometimes acts like a Hollywood movie star.

Rules Of The Game

Well, I have to do something I once thought I would never do; criticize another official’s on-field performance. I am doing so now A) because the official concerned has already admitted he blew the call, B) because of the consequences of that call, and C) because once again, a lot of people are demanding things which – if they understood the matter in context – they would understand would hurt the game much, much worse than a blown call.

I am speaking of the NCAA Football game last Saturday between the Universities of Oklahoma and Oregon. Oregon won the game 34-33 after a controversial call on an onsides kick.

A blown call, and the worst kind, because it affected the outcome of the game, by giving Oregon possession of the ball and a chance to take the lead. The official who reviewed the call on replay made matters worse by backing up the wrong call and giving Oregon possession of the ball. I would normally never make such a statement about someone else’s call, except that the official admitted he blew it.

This week, there were the usual stupid claims; that the officials were biased, or crooked, or that life as we know it is over since the “wrong” team won the game.

And as happens too often when people forget that a game is not real life, at least one of the officials has received death threats from some sub-human miscreant.

The officials in that game were suspended by the Pac-10 for a game, which is more serious than it sounds. You see, officials are scheduled according to their reputation, and whether or not Oklahoma fans believe it or care, even Oregon would be reluctant to bring that officiating crew back for another game. These men lost more than one game of work. When you consider that of the crew, all but maybe three of the officials had nothing to do with the blown call(s), which is a pretty harsh punishment just be being near someone who blows it. I mean, imagine if when one employee does something to get himself fired or written-up, everyone in his group or department gets it too. But no one seems to notice that injustice.

Which brings me to the next point about officiating NCAA games. To be an official means to be different from almost everyone else out there. You have to love the game, yet remain detached from cheering one team. You have to hone remarkable skills and maintain both mental and physical conditioning, yet you will be paid poorly for your work. And when the demands of the work are considered, with expectations of perfection and no notice of you unless and until you are believed to have made a mistake – at which time you will find yourself villainized and pilloried by people who don’t have the first clue what they are talking about. Officiating is always short of good people, because many of the best prospects – former athletes and coaches who have played the game and know what matters – are unwilling to take the abuse they so quickly delivered to the referees. And even those officials who were willing to train and work their way through the ranks of high school games, are not always able to take on the commitments that an NCAA schedule demands.

One suggestion was that officials should be formed into a national pool, rather than hired by individual conferences. Sorry, but that is a non-starter. The various athletic conferences in college football were formed because of regional agreements, but also because of different styles of play. In the North, for example, bad weather is more common than in the South, especially when snow gets considered. Also, the turf is different in different parts of the country, and so on. While it is true that officials’ organizations like to have officials who are experienced in different styles of play and who avoid getting attached to one place, it is also a hard fact that officials have real-world jobs and families, and too much travel would drive them away from the NCAA. You're just going to have to deal with conference officials, which sometimes means controversy.

Even though I hung up the whistle over six years ago, I still think like an official, and one thing which people are just going to have to get their brains around, is that an official is like a field condition – in fact the rulebook says so. That’s why the Oregon win over Oklahoma won’t be overturned or erased. Yes, officials made errors, and that is regrettable on many levels. But first off, it’s too easy and cheap to blame officials for how a game turns out, even when they blow a call badly. The Sooners still had their chances, after all. But even if you want to insist that the call decided the game, that is no more significant than a funny spot on the field where the ball bounces differently, or the turf is slippery, or any other condition that can affect the game. The officials did their job – badly in places, I admit, but they did their job – and in the end that’s part of the game. We all have seen, and will see again, calls we think were missed or blown, and some of the time we will be right to claim that. I wonder, though, how many of you would be able to stand having your mistakes played on national television over and over again? It takes a real commitment to be an official, and most of the whiners and cry-babies will never understand that.

When Madness Rules

As a rule, I take anything from World Net Daily with a large dose of salt. They are not, to put it bluntly, very careful about checking out their facts. I read them for a combination of amusement and thought-poking concepts. So it was that while doing some looking into anecdotal information about SIOP, the highly-classified war plan for America’s nuclear arsenal, that I came across an article about the Reverend Curt Tomlin.

I am extremely reluctant to quote much from Tomlin, who may fairly be called an extremist and a conspiracist. I mention him now, because of something I noticed in a WND article from 1998, which got me thinking. And those thoughts trouble me.

First, about Tomlin. David Bresnahan, the WND writer who put together the story, focused on Tomlin for his information, so everything he claims is no stronger than the credentials of Curt Tomlin. And Mister Tomlin seems to think very highly of himself. First off, while he claims to be a minister now, Tomlin also claims – and I quote – to have been “called out of retirement three times and has served in the Navy, Air Force, and Army for a combined total of just over 24 years. He has also been hired by government contractors to assist in computer intelligence systems designed to improve security for military computer systems.”

Just how many people do you know, who have served in more than one branch of the services, much less three? But wait, there’s more. Tomlin also claims – personally – to be the single person who “designed and perfected the Pentagon's first war games computer system, the top secret "Single Integrated Operating Procedure." He claims to be a retired U.S. Army Major, who served during the JFK Administration as a Petty Officer in the U.S. Navy.

OK, for those playing along at home, SIOP is called the “Single Integrated Operational Plan”; you’d think someone with intimate knowledge of it could get the name right? And if you think a single individual designed, programmed, and perfected SIOP, well, let’s just say that notion is more than slightly distant from the facts. While it is true that “SIOP-ESI” clearance is above “Top Secret”, there are quite a few people who hold it, and the heart of SIOP comes from field officers who can explain why ‘X’ or ‘Y’ will or will not work; the notion that a single computer systems engineer who never held command rank would hold comprehensive knowledge of the database, let alone the decisioning, is laughable. I will be blunt – Curt Tomlin is lying, not a good trait for a man of the cloth.

Basically, that 1998 article in WND is your basic pack-o-lies, written as near as I can tell for the express purpose of smearing Bill Clinton, to make him look like a desperate and reckless fool, likely to kill innocent people just to make himself look good. Kind of like the tripe we can read in ‘Newsweek’ when they start trying to smear President Bush. What bothered me was this section. I quote from the article:

“Clinton had tried to become an international hero by destroying hundreds of terrorists being trained by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and a chemical weapons plant in Sudan. Those two missile attacks were chosen through use of the SIOP computer to which Clinton has access, according to Tomlin.

“The computer predicted the result of the attacks would bring about the death of hundreds of terrorist forces and eliminate a chemical weapons factory. Someone intervened to change the results, according to an intelligence source who spoke only on condition of anonymity.”

Think about that for a moment. If this claim has any relation to reality whatsoever – and it may not – then President Clinton correctly targeted a major training base for Al Qaeda and a chemical weapons plant, and someone who did not want him to look good changed the targeting and tipped off the terrorists. Let that notion sink in for a moment.

Did that happen? Probably not. But the idea that someone in the Intelligence Community would not only disagree with the President of the United States, but actually work to prevent an American victory, is chilling. It is chilling because we have learned that some in the Intelligence Community deliberately leaked secrets to the press rather than obey their sworn oaths.

We have learned that high-level CIA officials allowed an enemy of the President special access for the specific purpose of attacking the President at a crucial time and on crucial issues.

We know that the CIA gets involved in U.S. political debates, picking a side when it serves personal or department advantages.

Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a Conservative or a Liberal, this should make you think.

God At War

“The Lord is a Warrior; the Lord is His name” - Exodus 15:3

I am not only a Christian, but also a Fundamentalist. Sometimes that requires me to step away from the comfortable platitudes of Conventional Christianity – you know, where Jesus never ever says anything controversial or difficult to understand, and is cool with whatever the society of the day wants to embrace – and seek out the truth. After looking through the Bible for direction on the question of War, it has finally dawned on me that just maybe God wants War sometimes, and when He does, we are obliged to obey.

Oh yes, this kind of thinking treads into dangerous waters. I have not forgotten the Crusades, after all – but actually that’s part of what got me started thinking that way. You see, while most people seem to believe that the Crusades started when a bunch of Christian leaders and kings decided to invade peace-loving Arab lands, in actual fact one motive for the Crusades was that the Muslims had been conducting a Jihad – not unlike the one they seem to want to start up again now – for several centuries, and this included raids and various marauding nastiness across Southern and Western Europe. It occurred to the leaders of a number of European countries that if they mounted an organized offensive, they might very well push back the Muslims from European land. To make a long story overly short, that goal was achieved. I say ‘overly short’, because the Crusades included chapters and events which have sullied the Church and shamed decent people who should have done better, and who will have to answer to God for choosing a dark path. Obviously, when we discuss War, the Christians will always find it imperative to sort out the justice in their course, because we know we will be held to account for our decision.

But before I discuss the present condition, I want to point out what the Bible says. I used to believe that the men who pleased God were peaceful, and if by that one means “peace loving”, that still applies. But throughout the Bible, God has often done violence and called men to violence. In Genesis Chapter 14, Abraham leads a band of specially trained men to rescue family and recover their property, against a military force from five invading kings. In Genesis 19, God personally destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Later, when the Hebrews come to the promised land, God specifically orders the formation of am army in Numbers Chapter 1, and when they come to the promised land, God orders battle. In Deuteronomy 2:24-25, for example, God commands “See, I have given into your hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his country. Begin to take possession of it and engage him in battle. This very day I will begin to put the terror and fear of you on all the nations under heaven. They will hear reports of you and will tremble and be in anguish because of you." From there the Old Testament is, well, pretty bloody. It has caused a lot of people to reject the Old Testament as a book speaking God’s truth. Warriors are praised extensively; it’s no coincidence, I think, that David is both Israel’s most famous Warrior and the king who received God’s promise of an eternal line of kings.

Why would this be? If one accepts, as I do, that God speaks truth to us through the Bible, why would War be something God would tolerate, let alone call good? Anyone who has seen a battle firsthand, to paraphrase Bismarck, would be slow indeed to desire War. It is a grave and irrevocable step to choose War.

But History tells us that War serves a useful purpose, indeed seems to be the only way certain conditions may be remedied. The tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church as it existed during the Medieval years could not end without the Reformation and all its chaos. And that came after the expulsion of the Muslim invaders from Europe. The nation which first stood for the rights of individuals rather than governments came into being only by revolution, and Slavery was expunged from most nations only through Wars, as was the case with open-sea piracy. Blackbeard feared only the Navy.

Hitler was defeated only by War. The same for Tojo. And those forces which were allowed to avoid Warm proved a pestilence on the world, like Pol Pot and the Soviet Union. And they brought their own Wars into being, anyway.

It is a naïve lie which some people tell themselves, that War will leave them alone if they just ignore it. War must be fought, or else it will seek out victims, often weak and vulnerable ones. Why else is Darfur such an abomination?

Here is where we see the virtue of War. Some of us know people in the military, and I will say with no embarrassment that there is nothing like the American soldier. They are strong and sure and smart, but most of all they understand their identity. They stand between all that is good in America, and those would harm that good. They stand for the rights of those unable to do so on their own. They are not policemen, because where they go there is no law but force and might, but they establish Law and Order. They are not government, because where they go there is only Chaos and Confusion, but they establish republics for the people who live there. They see things too horrible for ordinary people to bear, and they bear them. They face enemies more evil than ordinary people believe can exist, and they destroy them. They take on responsibilities which ordinary people think are impossible, and they succeed. Every nation which stands alongside America finds a sure friend, and every nation which stands against America, though it may take generations to finish, they are doomed.

This all comes by the grace of God. It would take a long time, and no doubt start an even noisier argument to explain why we are so blessed, and on what that blessing depends. But for here and now, the matter is simple enough to accept that, so long as we fear God and obey Him, this War against Terrorism and Islamofascism, is good, and we shall prevail.

Monday And The Obvious

With the fall elections bearing down on us, certain key issues should be considered by every serious voter. While there are local and state issues of importance, every House and Senate candidate will be required to address the questions which concern the public the most.

According to Polling Report, (August/September entries noted twice or more) the top issues are the War in Iraq, the Economy, Terrorism, Healthcare, Immigration, Gas Prices, and Education, in that order. So let’s check the basic condition in each area:

1. The War in Iraq – Republicans fall into two broad groups here; those who support the President and state that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terrorism, and those who try to evade the issue. Red States generally support the war, while Blue States generally want a timetable to pulling out troops, except in military communities, which continue to strongly support President Bush. In general, there is fatigue but continued determination. Democrats have failed to exploit opportunities, mischaracterizing the war and its purposes. Despite their best efforts in what everyone understands to be the top issue, Democrats have not been able to gain ground here, largely because extremists have convinced Americans that the Democrats do not have a constructive plan to offer.

2. The Economy – Unemployment (a key issue in 2004) remains under 5%, the GDP continues to show strong growth, and Inflation remains under 5%. Democrats have done an effective job of soft-pedaling the numbers, while Republicans for some reason have not pointed to obvious successes.

3. Terrorism – The 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks could not help but remind Americans about who we are and why we fight. Five years of lies by the Left cannot change that .

4. Healthcare – Hey, remember when Congress had that long, decisive debate about how to protect the healthcare needs of Americans, with both Republicans and Democrats making concrete proposals? ** Sigh ** No, I don’t recall that ever happening, either.

5. Immigration – America is an open country, where anyone who wants to join us is generally welcome. That does not mean, however, that we want to give away our services and resources to people who won’t pull their weight, and who think they have no obligation to speak our language, pay their taxes, and support our way of life. Immigration is not the problem; sneaking in and stealing things from people who worked to make their success is the problem. For some reason, the Republicans are having a hard time getting serious about this issue, and Democrats have decided to back the rule-breakers and the thieves.

6. Gas Prices – Check your pump. Gas prices are falling, and falling fast. Republicans have been too modest to point this out, and Democrats have been smart enough to shut their yaps about connecting the GOP to gas prices, now that their lies no longer help them here.

7. Education - Hey, remember when Congress had that long, decisive debate about how to improve Education for our kids, with both Republicans and Democrats making concrete proposals? ** Sigh ** No, I don’t recall that ever happening, either. “No Child Left Behind” was a nice promise, but I don’t see any follow-up, do you?

With these points in mind, the results for the fall elections should be predictable.

History and More Bad News For The Donkeys

As Labor Day has passed, we are fully into the election season for 2006. And the news is getting better for Republicans, which means worse for Democrats. President Bush, whom Democrats have made the focus of every issue, is still rising in Job Approval polls, climbing above 40% in the consensus and he appears to be gaining strength. The generic poll that the Democrats found so cheering – even though it bears little connection to reality – has also turned to the Right, to such a point that it shows a statistical tie. And most head-to-head races indicate that while Democrats may gain a few seats, that’s it – they are increasingly UN-likely to gain control of either the House or Senate.

This means that the 2008 Presidential race will be even more important.

I took a look at recent History, and if you’re a Donk, History is not your buddy. To show what I mean, here’s a brief look at the last ten candidates to hold the Democrat and Republican nominations:

THE DEMOCRATS

2004 – John Kerry. Ran once, lost.

2000 – Al Gore. Ran once, won Popular Vote but lost Electoral Vote.

1992 and 1996 – Bill Clinton. Ran twice, won twice, although never claimed a majority of the Popular Vote.

1988 – Michael Dukakis. Ran once, lost.

1984 – Walter Mondale. Ran once, lost.

1976 and 1980 – Jimmy Carter. Ran twice, won once lost re-election bid. Last Democrat to clear 50% of the Popular Vote.

1972 – George McGovern. Ran once, lost.

1968 – Hubert Humphrey. Ran once, lost. Some historians think he could have won in 1968 if the Democrats had not fractured.

1964 – Lyndon B. Johnson. Ran once, won. Fell out with his party, reportedly chose not to run in 1968 because party leaders warned him they would not support him.

1960 – John F. Kennedy. Ran once, won. Assassinated in office.


Summary: Ten candidates in the last twelve elections. Four out of ten won an election (40%), but of those four, only one managed to win a second term (25%, 33% if JFK is not counted).

THE REPUBLICANS

2000 and 2004 – George W. Bush. Ran twice, won twice. Lost Popular Vote but won Electoral Vote in 2000, won clear majority of Popular Vote in 2004.

1996 – Bob Dole. Ran once, lost.

1988 and 1992 – George H.W. Bush. Ran twice, won once. Some historians think he could have won in 1992 if the GOP had not fractured.

1980 and 1984 – Ronald Reagan. Ran twice, won twice.

1976 – Gerald Ford. Ran once, lost.

1960, 1968 and 1972 – Richard Nixon. Ran three times, won twice. Resigned rather than face near-certain impeachment in 1974.

1964 – Barry Goldwater. Ran once, lost.

1952 and 1956 – Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ran twice, won twice.

1944 and 1948 – Tom Dewey. Ran twice, lost twice.

1940 – Wendell Willkie. Ran once, lost.

Summary: Ten candidates in the last sixteen elections. Five out of ten won an election (50%), and of those five, four managed to win a second term (80%).


Comparison : Historically, the Republican nominees are more stable, win their initial election more often than Democrats, and if a Republican wins election, he is very likely to win re-election. Also, of the last 10 Democrats only Lyndon Johnson can be said to have won in a “landslide”, while of the last 10 Republicans Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan all won landslide victories.

Those are the numbers.

The Days Of Clinton Past

I supported President Clinton during his term. I did not like him or agree much with him, but I supported him. I write this in response to the predictable backlash of liberal bile to my statement Friday that, like it or not, President George W. Bush carries the full authority of his office, and those who refuse to acknowledge his authority are refusing to serve their country. As hard as that may be for Democrats and Liberals to accept now with Bush in office, it was just as true when Clinton held the office. I am not advocating supreme power for the President, and anyone paying attention would have understood that; Richard Nixon in 1974, then Clinton in his time, paid for the excess of their behavior through proper channels and Constitutional process. The thing to understand however, is that even an impeached President Clinton remained President Clinton until and unless he was convicted in the Senate. As it happens, Bill Clinton was never convicted in the Senate, and therefore continued to serve the remainder of his term. In Nixon’s case, of course, he chose to resign his office rather than face Impeachment – it impossible to know whether or not Nixon would have been convicted after being impeached, but it is hardly relevant to the main point here – Richard Nixon resigned his office, and was fully President of the United States right up to the instant that Gerald Ford took the Oath of Office. Like him or not, he was the President.

It’s a difficult thing for some people to accept, that the President should be a man of consequence specifically because he won the office. I read one commenter who actually separated his reverence for the office from the man, which is laughable. The President of the United States is a person, and respect for his authority comes specifically to the man because he holds the office. It is that dishonest attempt to suggest that some Presidents should be respected and others not. How convenient, and how utterly disingenuous. Many of the comments I read in Wizbang! jumped right to the assumption of their choice, with only one reader stopping to consider the context of my statements. Since that task proved to be beyond the ability of some readers, I will walk them through the matter here.

Here is what I said, precisely, in the most volatile statement: “George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America. Yes, he earned that support, by getting elected. Like it or not, it comes with the job.” Yes, taken emotionally that statement is going to set people off, but if you stop and think it through, a different concept emerges. First off, you have to understand the context. It’s a favorite sport of critics to rip something out of its place in a discussion or essay, and twist it to serve whatever Gumby Rhetoric game they want to play. But in the Friday essay, I took pains to point out the difference between people speaking with the authority of their office and people shooting off their mouth on nothing more than their arrogance. Sure, we all enjoy Free Speech – although the Left did not like the idea of ABC exercising that right last week – but having the right to say something banal and stupid does not give the boor the same authority as the person who knows of what they speak. And the President of the United States holds unique authority, by right of his position and the quality of being elected President. He is by no means absolute, yet he holds clear and valid authority beyond any other individual person in the American government. You do not have the right to treat him like a light switch, granting him his authority or not as you choose. No matter what party, background, or circumstances, so long as he holds the office the President of the United States innately holds authority. No matter whomever else you or I might hope to see in that office, the President of the United States – while serving – holds real and specific authority to speak for the United States. Now, the prickly part of my statement, I think, was my demand that “you either back him up or you are not supporting America”. That was actually a carefully chosen phrase. I did not mean that he could not be criticized, and I never said so if you actually pay attention. I certainly did not mean that he was free to do whatever he wished – the Constitution makes clear the specific powers and limits of the President, as Presidents Clinton and Nixon have discovered. When I said “back him up”, I meant that we are at war, and the President is the leader of the United States at war. “Leader”, as in he sets the course and commits us to certain actions. “Leader” as in, whether or not we are happy about it, we are careful to consider the effects of things like divisiveness and personal attacks which embolden our enemies, be they terrorists, Communists, Nazis, or Redcoats, depending on your frame of reference. As an example, John Adams was not happy at all with many of Jefferson’s actions as President in regards to Europe, but he was very careful in what he said, and to support Jefferson while he was in office. During World War 2, many Republicans took issue with a lot of FDR’s policies and war plans, but they made sure to maintain the public image of solidarity – certainly no one compared Roosevelt to the enemy, or demanded that we quit the fight. Like it or not, whether we are talking about George W. Bush, his dad, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, or any other President, while they held office they were the Commander-In-Chief, a title which means the President if your superior officer, even if you are not in uniform. As it is said and must be repeated, elections matter, and never more than when a President is chosen.

When America goes to war, it must be a decision made clearly and for a specific reason. If for nothing else, this is why all American wars begin with a decision by the President to go to war. And while the Congress may react to it in ways which limit that war in scope, duration, or objective, it is the President who leads that war. This is why Truman was right to sack MacArthur, whether or not one supported MacArthur's plan. This is why that general who went to the press to complain about President Clinton was wrong - the President is the guy in charge. It's a fine line, Free Speech - on the one hand yes, every American enjoys Freedom of Speech, but there are consequences for what and how people use it, and when someone refuses to accept the authority of the President, this gives comfort to America's enemies and weakens American resolve. One need look no further than the War in Vietnam to see how treason can kill our soldiers and allies.

Some people have whined that my statement would deny them their right to criticize the President or hold dissenting opinions. Not at all. The question what someone believes, but what they do about it. As I said, the Congress and the Courts both hold authority to limit the President's power, as well as proper authority to stand against him when they believe he is wrong. And obviously, popular opinion is a factor in how Congress and the Courts work (for all their claims to objectivity, many judges are just as partial and influenced by popular moods as anyone else). But that does not justify personal slander against the man, or fraudulent movies in a blatant attempt to sway elections, or publicly and repeatedly suggesting that the leader of the United States should be arrested or assassinated, simply because some perverted group gets its jollies by such suggestions. Whether or not the law allows it, such conduct is abhorrent to the American nature, and corrodes the national will. This does not matter which political party is so targeted.

Also, as has been repeatedly reminded and just as often ignored by boors and thugs who cannot manage a comprehensive evaluation of international cultural development, the Global War On Terror is a new kind of war, driven not by American designs or provocations, but the cruel and bitter fruit of Mahdi-ism, more commonly referred to as Islamofascism. Whether or not a person agrees with why we went to Iraq, it is imperative, on a scale nearly impossible to exaggerate, that we do not leave without a stable and self-sufficient Iraq. It is imperative that we deal with Iran before their malicious plans can develop. It is imperative that we demonstrate that Terrorism exported will simply come back on its creators. And sorry Bush-haters, that means you have to grow up and accept that Bush is a legitimate President, doing a tough-as-hell job with damn little support. If you can't cut him some slack, you will be sorry for it later.

With that said, I return to the subject of Bill Clinton. As I said earlier, I neither like nor respect him, and I found many of his decisions poor. And when he won the White House in the 1992 election, I was bitter and disappointed, especially since that meant the Presidency, the Congress, and the Courts were all in Liberal hands. So yeah, I understand how Democrats feel, to a degree.

But I got over it. I did not have to like the man, for Clinton to be President. He won the election, even with just 43% of the vote. So I supported him, even where I disagreed with him. I even argued with my Republican friends when some of the nutters went over the top, with Hillary-shot-Vince-Foster conspiracies and Whitewater-sold-secrets-to-China innmuendo, and so on. Make no mistake, Clinton got himself impeached on his own fault, just like Nixon did himself in on Watergate all on his own. But I never, not once, made personal fun of Bill Clinton, I never suggested he should be killed or that he did not the authority for his decisions as President.

I know it's all the rage these days to laugh at Clinton and trash him for decisions he made regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. But we have to remember that in 1996, we had no way of knowing what, precisely, Al Qaeda was up to, or what the consequences of a given action would bring. In his place, yes, I think I would have made different decisions, but I have to stop and accept that only Clinton sat in the seat to make those calls when the time came, and only Clinton had to carry those choices with him. Reagan had Lebanon to regret, so is it really appropriate to expect Bill Clinton to have anticipated 9/11? We Republicans accept that Bush had limited knowledge before the 9/11 attacks came, but even with more time, Clinton was depending on his CIA and FBI people to tell him solid information. It's easy to look back afterwards and point fingers, but I am reluctant to do so. For a fact, I will not give Clinton credit for things he never got right, but I respect the weight of the office, and even half a decade after he left office, William Jefferson Clinton is still a man who was twice elected to the White House. That still counts, even if there is no way I would ever trust him with my vote, or Hillary.

Maybe this is all to difficult to accept for some people. There are people who just cannot cope without having a strawman to hate, some phantom they can heckle in order to make themselves feel good. Some people just cannot grant respect to an opponent, and they would rather be their worst than grant that there is good on the other side.

The War Matters, Katie Couric Does Not

Americans think very highly of themselves, and many of us use that belief in their self-importance to justify all sorts of boorish behavior. Our celebrities travel the globe and act as if their personal opinion is divine and perfect in wisdom, when examination often reveals a poor education and an indoctrination in sophomoric rhetoric. Our “spiritual” leaders are no better, as they not only try to teach us to live more peaceful and fulfilling lives, but feel free to speak about economics and political conditions without even a basic comprehension of the subject matter. And then there are the politicians, those men and women who make snake-oil salesmen and motorcycle gangs look wholesome and trustworthy in comparison. These people are obviously bright, persuasive individuals – who seem for the most part to care nothing for any responsibility or commitment unless and until there is something in it for them to gain.

But the war for America’s fickle attention rages on; everything gets ignored until someone glamorous mentions it. The twice-elected President of the United States talks in detail about what we are doing in Iraq and why, but it’s George “Me-Time” Clooney who gets attention. We have literally dozens of active-duty military writing about the war, but the press follows Cindy “Martyr” Sheehan in her mindless quest. Hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans could tell us about the threat from Islamofasicm, but it’s a bloody-handed terrorist leader who is invited to the National Cathedral, and to speak at Harvard. Not long ago, dozens of terrorists were arrested while trying to put together another plan to kill, quite literally, thousands of innocent people, but a major political party is demanding we return to the complacency of 1993.

“I support the troops” does not mean quitting because the fight is tough or long.

“Don’t question my patriotism” is nothing but spineless evasion if you cheer for people who want to kill Americans.

“Bush lied” is a baseless lie, shouted by people who do not want anyone to look too closely into their own closet.

Here’s the score:

George W. Bush is the President of the United States. Him, no one else. You either back him up or you are not supporting America. Yes, he earned that support, by getting elected. Like it or not, it comes with the job.

We have a military to defend us against our enemies. That means hunting down and killing the bastards, over on their land if we can do so. That’s how you win wars. For those who still do not understand, ask an adult who Patton, Grant, or Washington were.

We are at war. No, we are not at fault. No, running away will not make them like us. No, wishing we could live in some fantasy Utopia will not change reality. It’s time to grow up.

The Return of Dr. Ray Fair

Some of you may remember Dr. Ray Fair, the Yale Economist who believed he had a formula to predict the share of the Popular Vote that a certain candidate (or party) would collect in an upcoming Presidential election. Dr. Fair’s model was based on key economic data, and some people found his formula a valid indicator. I am one of those people who find Dr. Fair’s work valid, although I doubt the likelihood of predicting actual shares of the Popular Vote to a fine degree. Dr. Fair’s system appeared to work; his 1978 paper produced results within 1.25% of President Carter’s actual results in the 1980 election.

In 1988 Dr. Fair evaluated the 1984 election, claiming accuracy within 1.7% of the actual result, and made his first forward prediction, promising that (depending on the rate of Inflation and GDP growth), Governor Michael Dukakis would take between 42.7% and 57.4% of the popular vote. Looking at the actual rates of Inflation (4.1%) and GDP growth (4.1%), Fair’s table predicted Dukakis would take 46.1% of the Popular Vote; in reality he took 45.7% of the Popular Vote, so Dr. Fair landed within 0.4% of his predicted target.

In 1990, pleased with his 1988 results, Dr. Fair prepared a paper (but did not publish) which, for 3.0% Inflation and 3.3% Real GDP growth, predicted Bill Clinton would claim 41.6% of the Popular Vote.

Dr. Fair saw those numbers and decided “Bush should have a fairly easy time winning re-election”. Dr. Fair failed to develop a factor for a third-party candidate, so while Clinton’s 43.0% of the Popular Vote made Fair only 1.4% off the target, Bush lost the election.

In June of 1996, Dr. Fair tried again, with an updated formula and a prediction which said that on the available data, President Clinton would claim 49.1% of the Popular Vote, which might mean a close loss. In the actual election, Clinton won, but his 49.2% result showed good results for Fair’s prediction.

In 2000, Dr. Fair released a series of updates, ultimately predicting in October that Vice President Al Gore would take 50.8% of the Popular Vote, but immediately warned that his formula had a 2.15 point margin of error, making the race too close to call. In the actual race, Gore only claimed 48.4% of the Popular Vote, so that Fair’s prediction was off by 2.4 points, outside his own margin of error.

2004 was therefore a natural point of interest for Fair-watchers like myself. Once again Dr. Fair issued a series of releases, with another release in late October 2004, which predicted President Bush would claim 57.7% of the Popular Vote. The actual results gave President Bush 51.6% of the Popular Vote, 6.1 points off Dr. Fair’s prediction, which led to a wry “post-mortem” by the good doctor.

These days Dr. Fair is – I think – retooling his formula yet again, but it seems there are certain lessons we can take from his work. First, obviously an exact predictor of elections is not yet within our grasp, for which I frankly am pleased. Man has a bad habit of fooling around trying to manipulate things, and if we understood what drove elections well enough to make it a pure science, I worry that the people would suffer for it. That said, I agree with Dr. Fair that the adage “people vote their pocketbooks” is true to enough of a degree that we can lay out the terrain for an election by watching the numbers. For a Republican, this is good news at the moment, with Inflation under 4% and Real GDP growth above 3%. It would be difficult indeed for a Democrat to win in 2008, unless the economy collapses, the Republicans nominated McCain or Chafee, or the Democrats nominated a mature, civil candidate who holds a working comprehension of National Security. Perhaps some combination of those possibilities would even be required. While I am thinking about the needs of the nation, let me remind Dr. Rice that as much as she would like to be Commissioner of the NFL, there is a serious need for her services as President of the USA.

But in his latest release, Dr. Fair has noticed something I knew all along, but has added his experience and wizardry to the matter; the fact that Presidential elections in the United States depend on the Electoral College, which in function means that one or a few states in almost every election make the difference in which candidate wins. In 2004 it was Ohio, and in 2000 it was Florida, for example. This is because there is a threshold in each state for a given candidate to win, and the states can be ranked by that demand threshold. Once you know that ranking, you can determine which state(s) will be the pivot point. The Republicans and Democrats have known this for many years, which is why the campaign money gets spent the way it does. What is interesting, is that there are sometimes subtle differences between which states the Democrats think will be pivot, and which states the Republicans think are pivotal. Dr. Fair has written another fascinating paper examining that process, which is well worth your time and effort to read.

While it is presumptuous for me to compare my thoughts to those of a Ivy League college professor, deference is not one of my strong suits, and I freely present my thoughts with the caveat to the reader that I am as yet unready to support my thesis with hard numbers, I would nonetheless suggest that while I agree with the demand ranking suggested by Dr. Fair, I have observed a certain set of tension points which restrict movement in party preference. For instance, while neither the Republicans or the Democrats have even begun their campaigns for the 2008 White House race, it would be safe to say that the Democrat will carry Massachusetts, and the Republican will carry Texas. The same can be said for an array of other states. Other states can be swayed, but begin in clear camps, like West Virginia or Michigan. Still others are very much in the middle, with no clear preference at this time, like Florida or Pennsylvania; they lean a bit and have history, but they are not at all locked into a position. I would compare these states, then, to balls on a number of adjoining pool tables; they can move about freely and appear to be headed for another table, but their impetus is not enough to change the table on which they sit – something genuinely unique would have to happen to move them to another table. This has happened before, of course – LBJ ran the table, basically, on Goldwater in 1964, Nixon did it to McGovern in 1972, and of course Reagan did it to Mondale in 1984. So I find it worth considering to ask, which states are on which tables, and what would it take to move them? I may post my conclusions on those questions if I can find evidence to back them up, but for now I submit them for consideration and discussion.

Me Good Learning Am Getting: My MBA Saga Continues

A lot of folks may not care for my spouting off about my return to school, but there are some folks who seem to have an interest, and it’s been a little while, so here again is an update in my search to claim my MBA at the University of Houston-Victoria.

First, the numbers: By my count, the semester began with 32 students in my Business & Society class, 35 in my Accounting class, and 33 in my Economics class. One member of the Business & Society class was kicked out for poor behavior, two students seem to have left our Accounting Class, and two students never took the first Economics test, which suggests they quit. So, 5 out of 100 students dropped out right away. Interesting.

Also interesting were early grades. I have not yet received a grade in Business & Society, though the professor’s comments on my participation on the Discussion Board (25% of the total grade) and my own careful participation in every discussion in a meaningful and source-citing way give me reason to think I am in good shape so far. For that class, the Midterm and Final each count for 30% of the grade, with the DB taking 25% as I said, leaving 15% for an “individual case” assignment (which will be posted September 18, and is due October 30 at 8 AM). It’s interesting to see how some people pay a lot of attention to the discussions, and how some do very little.

In Accounting, I have received two quiz grades for an average of 95%, and one assignment completed for 100%. I got a nice e-mail from the professor, which noted ”Excellent. I like your summary and references in particular”. It’s a good sign, I think, to hear that from your professor. Can’t get a big head, through. In Accounting, 30% of the grade comes from the Midterm, 20% from a Group Project – my group is studying and will report on Blockbuster, Inc. – 10% on Discussion Boards, 20% on the quizzes (so each quiz is 2% of the total grade), and 20% on individual case assignments (there are six of those, so each is worth 3.33% of the total grade). So, three grades in things are going well, but only 7.33% of my grade is complete at this time. I have no real idea how the class is doing as a whole, although Dr. Lee said he was generally pleased with our first assignments, and he chose eight submissions to “publish” as examples to the class (including mine), which seems to set those apart.

The most interesting so far in confirmed results, is my Economics class. I should expect, maybe, that my Economics professor would be keenly interested in displaying the statistical results. First, the grade breakdown; 30% each for the Midterm and Final exams, 15% for the “Industry Analysis” paper we have to do, 10% for Discussion Board participation, which I have paid careful attention to, 5% for homework and 10% for the four quizzes. So far we have been discussing the text and a variety of exercises, and last Saturday we took out first quiz. I got 90% on the thing, mostly because I paid poor attention to the exact wording on two questions – I gave the correct answer for a question about GDP, when I should have noticed they wanted the answer for per-capita GDP. I also misread another question and my assumption cost me. The Economics professor was less than pleased with our class as a whole. I did OK, all things considered, but the class broke down as follows:

100% [] 2 students
90-99% [] 6 students (including me)
80-89% [] 12 students
70-79% [] 7 students
Less than 70% [] 4 students

So, 4 students are already failing, and since an MBA student must keep a ‘B’ average and – if I remember right – is allowed no more than two ‘C’ grades during their course of study, fully 11 out of 31 students are not doing well at all.

What does it all mean? Pretty much what I expected going in. Some people take a challenge seriously, and some blow it off until it comes back and hits them. To be honest, I was in that second group while I got my Bachelor’s, so I have every intention of making the best of my opportunity this time. After all, it’s not just about getting the degree; I want to get every bit of knowledge and skill improvement that I can from my studies. I hope my classmates who are having a hard go of it now, can find what they need to pull their grades up, but I have to say, I am feeling very glad that I made the commitment to read and study hard, to do all my homework and exercises, in order to know the material. No, I don’t plan on getting cocky – if I get stupid the Midterms will blow me away, and this is still my first semester, after all. But there is something very true about making a good first impression and in getting a good start, and I am very thankful for how things are going so far. Now, if this was boring to you, just remember I warned you at the first I was going to talk about my school work, and if someone gets out of line I can always type out an essay on the distinctions between historical and current asset valuation. I know you all would love that story!

Why I Did Not Participate In Project 2,996

Now that the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 abomination has passed, I want to point out one tremendous effort; the 2,996 Project, where volunteer bloggers each remembered one particular person on 9/11/06 who passed away on 9/11/01.

This was a great gesture, and exactly what the day needed. Thank you, good people.

I did not participate in that effort, because my heart was not so molded. Certainly these people deserved their honor, and thank God for the bloggers who stepped forward and took up that challenge. Certainly this was a very good thing, at a time where we see so little of true goodness on that scale. But I remember King David of Israel, who wanted to build a temple for God. God told him ‘no’, because David was a bloody man.

I am not worthy to claim any comparison to David, whose heart was right with God. But I see my place as different than to stand with choirs or poets. I will speak my share of praise and doggerel, no worry of that, and you might even find my Irish wit worth a look and a laugh. But my focus is on the fight, and if I am not in condition to carry a gun, nor will my present circumstances allow me to take a government post (for which Liberals, always quick with jibes and taunts these days, will doubtless mock me if they pay any attention at all) , then I will use my mind and reason to sway the opinions of reasoning persons, and define the enemy wherever and whomever he may be. Whenever I think about 9/11, I am filled with rage and determined to not let it slip into platitudes and apathy.

My anger prevented me from being able to do justice to these victim’s memories, but I will apply it to prevent, as best I can, some fool in Washington letting it happen again.

The Liberal Corporate Suicide

I made a statement yesterday, which I almost thought I would have to retract; that it is impossible to have a civil, productive debate with Liberals on the subject of National Security. One of the comments in the article I put up yesterday in Wizbang Politics seemed, just for a little while, to show that some Liberals were willing to explore the matter with a clear head and calm attitude. The reader posting under the name “Gadfly” wrote:

”Very well written. Many good points. And it's surprisingly non-fanatical for wizbang. But...
Can you, or any other posters, please explain/provide the evidence for...

1. We now know that there were, in fact, caches and stockpiles of WMD...
2. ...turns out that President Bush’s “Axis of Evil” was just as he claimed. (Assuming "axis" denotes and connotes "connection", linear or otherwise.)
3. How is Iraq under Saddam (i.e. secular) related to ISLAMO-fascism? Why do conservatives link them? Other than the conservative proclivity to both create and conflate enemies. Or because, to conservatives, they're all "towel-heads".
4. And in what ways do conservatives distinguish Islamo-fascism from Islam? I think they fail to utterly. (Particularly on this website). And, in doing so, escallate conflict, rather than "defeating" it.”

All things considered, these were reasonable requests, which I thought and still think deserve answer. That answer will be presented further on. But I am familiar enough with the matter, and frankly dissatisfied with the evasion from the core question, that I pressed Gadfly to answer a few things himself:

”1. Petty name-calling is the mark of petulance. What, specifically, would you suggest as an effective policy for addressing Islamofascism, as practiced by Al Qaeda and like-minded groups?

2. Please answer why you feel compelled to ignore clear factual evidence of WMD programs, with specifics as to how not invading Iraq would have prevented the development and use of known extant programs under Saddam Hussein.

3. The WMD threat was only one of numerous causes for the invasion of Iraq. Please respond to the other causes, including the attempted assassination of a former U.S. President, the use of WMD on civilians, and sponsorship of multiple terrorist groups.

4. Please explain the Liberal policy for containing/addressing fanatics like Ahmadinejad.

I will work on my response, and look forward to yours. It would also be illuminating to learn why Joe Lieberman was good enough for you to be Vice-President in 2000, but not Senator in 2007.”

That, unfortunately, was the high-point of our discussion. Gadfly’s next response was distinctly disappointing

“Petty name-calling is the mark of petulance.
If you're referring to my assertion that wizbangers (though not you) are usually "fanatical", I stand by it. In fact, I think "fanatical" is an understatement. That's why I found your piece so refreshing in its lack of demogoguery.”

[ Gadfly ignores the fact, or is trying to duck it, that during the past six years, the Liberals have poisoned the well of discourse with the majority of invective, and the worst slanders being repeated at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. George W. Bush had no insults to spew at Democrats, yet Howard Dean, while the front-runner for the 2004 party nomination, mentioned that the lie that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance was ” the most interesting theory that I've heard so far”. Ted Kennedy accused Buch of cooking up the war for political points, and nancy Pelosi claimed President Bush deliberately misled Americans about Iraq. The same Democrats who clearly supported the war against Saddam in 2002 when it was time to vote their conscience, are the ones who lied about their votes later when they saw a chance to play politics. The largest and most popular Liberal blogs – Daily Kos and Democratic Underground – censor their comments to deny participation at all by Conservatives, and regularly allow comments which are defamatory of Conservatives, and in some cases incendiary examples of slander and incitement of violence against Republicans ]

“What, specifically, would you suggest as an effective policy for addressing Islamofascism, as practiced by Al Qaeda and like-minded groups?
First, it would be akin to Bush's in taking the threat seriously, but 1) I wouldn't project the fear that he projects and 2) I would hold a very high standard for acting within the bounds of the law (for example the 1996 War Crimes Act) the constitution, and the Geneva convention as much as humanly and humanEly possible. Recognizing that many people in the world will lend their support (which we need for intelligence) to the more morally responsible party. We're not doing well on that front.”

[ It is an untrue allegation that the President is ‘projecting fear’. Sorry, but that projection is nothing more than the Liberal “projecting” his fear of the facts getting out. Terrorists want to kill Americans, and saying so is simply setting the necessary focus. I also find it interesting that Gadfly confirms my observation that Liberals want a legal prosecution of Terrorism, not an effective war. Terrorists need killing, not lawyers. I would strongly suggest that Gadfly and other Liberals read the specific terms of the 1996 War Crimes Act, the United States Constitution, and the Geneva Convention. The plain fact is, terrorists do not enjoy protection under any of those treaties. The Geneva Convention, for example, specifically limits its protection to civilian non-combatants and military combatants of sovereign nations. NGO’s like Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not have the standing of soldiers or non-combatants ]

“Also, language. Good point Red Baron!!!! Don't bind our enemies together! But to add to his point - what you call islamo-fascism, I might call fundamentalist-terrorism. Because it avoids the disgracefully inaccurate implication that Islam is primarily or significantly fascist. Or that the world's Muslims are at war with the west. (Though I recognize that SUBSETS of Islam ARE certainly marked by a propensity for violence. A violence that may be comparable to Christianity when it, Christianity, was about 1,300 years old.) But also because it clarifies to a democracy-loving Muslim (whose support we need) that, in our eyes, they are NOT a more serious threat to the U.S. than, say, Timothy McVeigh.”

[ This is a perversion of my phrase. I do not expect Gadfly to be especially familiar with my writings – for anyone interested, just visit my homepage and click on the ‘Significant Posts’ links, which begin with the Islamic condition in Iraq, or simply do a blogsearch matching “Drummond” with “Islam”, and see how often I have separated the faith from men wishing to usurp it. In point of fact, however, I do not know of many Conservatives at all trying to pretend that Islamofascism is the same as Islam as a whole. Certainly President Bush has repeatedly emphasized that Islam is not the enemy. I will write more about the nature, source, and remedy to Islamofascism in my conclusion. ]

“Please answer why you feel compelled to ignore clear factual evidence of WMD programs...
I don't feel compelled to ignore them. I do think, though, that 1) the evidence obtained post-invasion, for most Americans, does not sufficiently match the pre-war evidence provided by Bush. Thus the perception that he "lied". Though I'd call it "misrepresentation" and/or "exaggeration". Which, when justifying war, is still profoundly immoral.”

[ There you go again, projecting your own assumptions. The “pre-war evidence” was significant and effective, after all, since it demonstrated how the Bush Administration reached its decision, and that same information was available and seen by all leading members of the Republicans and Democrats. And frankly, there has been quite a bit of “post-invasion” evidence found. The problem has been the way that evidence has been portrayed by the MSM. Frankly, most Americans, according to the polls, do not think Bush lied at all. They may or may not support his decision, but the consensus is that he made his decision honestly. That’s actually a very great mistake the Left makes: You could actually sway some people if you admitted that President Bush was and is honest, but that you simply disagreed with the decision and the present policy. That you take such an opportunity and try to make it into something which is simply not true, is yet another example of the problem the Left has in dealing with its compulsion to attack Bush, even when such attacks cost you support of reasonable people. ]

“2) evidence continues to surface which suggests that a DESIRE for war with Iraq affected the Administrations objectivity in assessing the level of the Iraqi threat. (For example the Downing Street memo suggests this).”

[ Sorry, there is no such “evidence”. That the Bush Administration paid attention to all of the regional threats is accurate, but it is false to pretend that Bush influenced, or even tried to influence, the intelligence-gathering or the recommendations. Once again, this demonstrates the Left’s habit of deciding what they want to believe, then trying to shoehorn the facts to make things fit. Kind of like saying Bush “rushed to war” against Iraq, when in fact he took his time with diplomatic efforts, consultations with allies and the United Nations, and dealing with Afghanistan long before anyone began to consider acting against Saddam. ]

“3) Had Bush & co. employed a higher, i.e. more truthful, standard of accuracy for the intelligence, the case for war would probably not have persuaded Americans to support a pre-emptive war.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with democracy.”

[ That statement is a baseless cheap shot, and a lie. No further comment is warranted. ]

“with specifics as to how not invading Iraq would have prevented the development and use of known extant programs under Saddam Hussein.
Containment. It worked well against the Soviet Union.”

[ The Cold War took decades, ate tens of trillions of dollars, killed more than a million people in proxy conflicts and incidents, destroyed the economies and infrastructure of those countries absorbed by the Communist Empire, and still poisons the future of more than a quarter of the planet. Only a great fool would suggest it was a model for confronting groups which developed during the Cold War, and which have created their tactics and supply lines to take advantage of that especially bureaucratic mode of conditions. Further, it is a fact that the French and other allies of Saddam were already moving to lift sanctions, after which time Saddam’s protected WMD programs would soon have renewed their pace and development. ]

“Also, in consultation with military experts, I would build a case for war which turned out to be more true than not true. I would hold a high standard for evidence. More akin to Powell's standards than Cheney-Bush's (i.e. 1%). I would not fabricate arguments, especially those that appeal to vengeance - i.e. that Iraq was connected with 9/11. (Spin it all you want, that conflation was a clear case of irresponsible misrepresentation).
Second - I would place enormous, perhaps equal importance, on the "rebuilding" phase of the occupation. In order not to INCREASE TERRORISM. If my Secretary of D demonstrated a disdain for "rebuilding" I would fire him. That's not only imcompetent - that morally disgraceful.”

[ Here again you demonstrate the elitist arrogance of the purely hypothetical thinker – as if war could be so quickly and cleanly removed from the matter. In the first place, the military developed the war plan used: The best minds with experience and insight planned the war. Narcissist generals like Wesley Clark have no clue as to the best and necessary way to prosecute the war in Iraq, even if they had the inclination. If you cannot understand the huge difference between social interaction with NATO allies in Bonn and Verona, and street warfare in Baghdad and Fallujah, you need to go back to remedial tactics. And as for the “rebuilding” phase, you pretend that Iran and Syria are not fomenting violence through the insertion of terrorists over the border, and seem to believe that we had, say, a swell plan for making the boo-boo better after World Wars I or II? Again, to pretend so only shows how little you know of History. ]

“Third - In addressing the Iraq problem (i.e. possible, indirect threat), I would make sure that it did not diminish my pursuit of Al Qaeda (i.e. KNOWN, DIRECT THREAT).”

[ What a strange statement! Do you even know how many Al Qaeda have been killed or captured, have you not read the desperation in their intercepted communications, or the fact that they have fled to Sudan for their Headquarters because no other place, literally, exists for them? And I am sure I don’t need to remind you, that despite Liberal pretense, Al Qaeda has hardly been sitting around in one location, like a bad movie. The US military has done a spectacular job in hunting down these vermin, and your statement, while surely unintentional, demonstrates again how the Left does not in fact support the troops, since you are so unaware of even their most obvious accomplishments. ]

“Please respond to the other causes, including the attempted assassination of a former U.S. President...
Horrible as that was, we have no moral grounds to use that as justification - Cuba, Chile, Congo and (if you count coup attempts) Iran (Mossadeh) and Venezuela and many others.”

[ You are wrong. Assassinations and attempts on heads of state are accepted as valid causes for declaring war. Your attempts – whether factual or just spiteful – to link the United States to Saddam’s Iraq on this behavior, once again demonstrate to any reasonable person your contempt for America. We are the good guys, and that’s how most of us see it – if Liberals ever want to hold the trust of the public, they’re just going to have to change this kind of bile spewing. ]

“4. Please explain the Liberal policy for containing/addressing fanatics like Ahmadinejad.
Similar to an earlier question:
1) Take it seriously like Bush. But-
2) Don't be quite so idiotic and incompetent in the execution.”

[ The jury will observe that Gadfly made no attempt whatsoever to respond in substance, but chose to revert to a baseless insult. ]

“It would also be illuminating to learn why Joe Lieberman was good enough for you to be Vice-President in 2000, but not Senator in 2007.
For me, it was his explicit encouragement that the public NOT question the president in the vague and nebulous arena of "war on terror". Which, from my pov, for an Senator, borders on constitutionally lazy, if not structurally (governmentally) dangerous.”

[ Curiouser and curiouser. Lieberman never soft-pedaled the issue. In fact, he is still a critic of President Bush in many respects. You are simply lying about him, why? Because he finds the war in Iraq necessary. That speaks volumes. ]

(all Gadfly’s comments quoted from above are here)

Sad, really. While the Gadfly was still attempting to be civil, he had already begun to turn away from the substance.

Once in moral decline, Gadfly continued a slow but unfortunate descent. His next comment, in response to anecdotal evidence reminding him of the connection between Saddam and Terrorism, was this:

”Sorry, not buying it. I'll try to find the piece you reference. But maybe Bush should as well. He has on at least two occasions, finally acknowledged Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
If conservatives want to have any credibility on this point, they ought to acknowledge that the Iraq-9/11 connection as presented by Bush & Co was, at best, incorrect.
But, to spare your sensitive feelings, I won't say he "lied".”

Other Liberal comments were present, but they made no attempt at all to address the issue, but instead resorted front to back to boorish insults and petty vitriol. Beyond noting that they unintentionally proved my point, they are worth no response.

The blog Sweetness & Light put up a compelling reminder yesterday of just how delusional and bitter the Left has become, to the point that even the most obviously non-biased sources were attacked simply for not buying their lies. James B. Meigs of “Popular Mechanics” writes today about the acid-laced delusion which led Liberals and 9/11 Conspiracists to defame his magazine, for proving that the conspiracy theories simply cannot be true (ht Betsy’s Page).

In conclusion, then. Sorry, but the end is as long as everything up to it. In as brief as possible then, Liberals have demonstrated a delusion which makes it impossible to trust them in any post of responsibility. This is actually unfortunate, as Conservatives need a balancing force in debate and ideals to challenge their own assumptions and priorities. But the absolute hatred which drives the Left, makes their perspective irrational and a threat to the nation itself.

Now, to Gadfly’s initial questions and points:

[] Liberals focus on only one aspect of one point of the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein; his nuclear weapons program and material. This misses a great deal about why the 2003 Coalition existed, why the U.S. Military was and remains strongly motivated, and why the effort has been a success on the merits of its clear objectives. Ed Morrisey eloquently explains the context.

[] The “Axis of Evil” must be understood in the context of the threat, not some artificial construct to be made into a strawman. Bill Clinton discussed abstract concerns, yet Liberals left him unchallenged, and Liberals have always supported “wars” on Poverty and Social Ills, but perhaps I must leave those for another time. There are, to be clear, to be blunt, nations which seek the destruction of the United States as it exists, and there is a cowardly unity to nations which hate us enough to make it their policy to find whatever weapons, however foul, they can use against the best nation on earth. Liberals who mock President Bush for trying to illuminate the danger, would do well to listen to the echoes from other Presidents calling out the clarion before him. There are nations which want you dead. It is not only right, but duty, to point that out.

[] Saddam Hussein deserved to die. Beyond that I do not see a speck of injustice in what he has lost, or why. I would be happy to discuss the specifics of how and why it was necessary and right to invade Iraq, but only after my Liberal counterpart acknowledges that removing him was right. No, you don’t have to praise the war or any political position, but anyone who cannot agree to the basic fact that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who needed removal, which was in fact made the official policy of the United States in 1998 – that’s uh, a while before Bush became President, by the way – is effectively so dispatched from reality that discussion is impossible.

[] Islamofascism is one of those insidious disorders, which takes a culture and does its damndest to pervert its ideals and strengths. I have said before that given the thousands of terrorist acts committed by self-proclaimed Muslims, and matching them against the billion or so Muslims in the world, is prima facia evidence that most of Islam is not aligned with these monsters.
But there is a serious, grave problem for Islam. The leaders of Islam are not speaking out against the evils done by fanatics, and whole governments have dictated “Jihad” against non-Muslims, simply because they exist. It is also a dark and undeniable fact, that the overwhelming majority of terrorist violence planned and committed is by groups which declare themselves to be Muslim, and who declare that their religion is the principal motivation for their crimes.
And no, Conservatives are not “escalating” the violence. They simply refuse to hide from it, or to let innocents be tyrannized and murdered in the hope that the evil ones will not notice us across the water. 9/11 proved that was a false hope, anyway. The planning for 9/11 started long before Bush was President, just as Americans were taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran on motives which never concerned themselves with anything we actually did. We either hunt down these bastards, wherever and whoever they are, or we let them come and murder Americans.

I vote to take them out.