MEMRI: Latest News has this on the boss hog in Syria:
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: ‘Do Western Countries Want to Fling the Entire Region Into the Volcano? Haven’t We Learned From 9/11, From the War in Iraq?… When a Volcano Erupts, its Core Strikes Countries Near and Far, Great and Small, Powerful and Weak’
Now I’m absolutely certain we are achieving great success in Iraq. Who do you think the countries near, small, and weak that he is concerned about might be?
A couple of weeks ago I tried to put into perspective how history will possibly judge the Presidency of George W. Bush.
Today, Paul Kengor does the same, better, in National Review Online.
Kengor examines how representative government in the world came about because of our radical attempt to change things on this continent over 200 years ago. That gained momentum after our Civil War showed we could survive our own failures, and become even stronger. France’s revolution, an the other hand, reverted quickly to the age-old Supreme Leader example of European governance.
The 20th Century became America’s Century as we spread democracy throughout Europe at the end of WWII, and with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the early 1970s there were only 40 democracies. As the 20th century ended, there were 120.
Against incredible odds, George W. Bush may have laid the ground for Middle East democracy in the two most unlikely places, the Taliban’s Afghanistan and Saddam’s Iraq. Nowhere were women more repressed than in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Nowhere were humans generally more repressed than in Iraq under Saddam. Between the two, Saddam was the biggest destabilizer in the world’s most unstable neighborhood.
Whatever happens in two more weeks, the wheels are in motion. Bush will be remembered by history as the man who brought the promise of democracy to the last bastion of feudalism in the world. Should Kerry win, he can build on that or be remembered as the one who let it all go to waste.
Kerry seems to think the fear of a draft plays well with young men and women:
“With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of the draft.”
Dubya has been about as emphatic as he can be:
Bush has flatly ruled out reinstating the draft. “We’re not going to have a draft, period. The all-volunteer army works,” Bush said during last week’s debate in St. Louis.
Just on the face of it, I know which man has integrity, and which one says his mother told him integrity was important while she lay on her deathbed.
The real question people aged 18 to 26 should ask themselves is why would we ever have a draft again.
Let me give you a military answer: Never. Let me give you a political answer: If we get into a war with a major power and need to rapidly mobilize forces in the million-man range.
Military professionals have little use for draftees. They provide no continuity in the long run because they will leave at their first opportunity. (Some will stay when they find they actually like it.) In the short term they are a huge training burden and pull competent people from line jobs for that training. And they are often going to be attitude problems without a thought as to what the consequences of a dishonorable discharge really are. “You want to kick me out? Go for it!” Even those with minor attitude problems can cause significant disruptions in an organization.
So, we have the current Commander-in-Chief saying there is no way he will institute a draft. And we have Democrats in Congress (only two actually voted for it) attempting to start it back up. And we have the man who wants to be Commander-in-Chief, another Democrat, trying to convince voters that the President wants a draft, but he doesn’t.
Is this really a Neil Simon play?
Every now and then I go back over to see what Noam has to say. Today there are 24 posts on his site going back to May. I have a link for him on my “All My Links” page if you are interested.
I was. After about two days of posting when he first began his blog, he decided to take down the comments capability. He was flooded. Some of it pretty irrational–but that goes with his territory. All that I read that were reasonable took him to task on some portion of his opinion, and many did it quite respectfully and with some thought involved. He never answered a single challenge. He doesn’t have to–he’s Chomsky.
Since then he has added the capability to comment on his posts. You simply pay a small fee, and you are granted the privilege. I thought that was a pretty good idea for an anti-capitalist.
As of today, there is not a single comment on any of his posts.
All his readers must also be anti-capitalists.
What is a sworn oath? Does it have any value?
A friend of mine helped his Boy Scout Troop with a voter registration booth in the local shopping mall. We talked about it in relation to the current registration drives being run by various groups around the country. He said that every adult who handled registration forms was required to swear an oath before participating. They swore to follow the legal directives, and handle the applications properly, and to do nothing to influence people in their party choice or voting options.
He followed the rules completely, and couldn’t understand why anyone wouldn’t. “We had to take an oath! We swore to do it properly.”
For this man, the value of his word is inestimable.
Neal Boortz has a lot to say about this election. In particular, he’s been discussing voter fraud this week–and DNC plans to cause some if it doesn’t appear on its own:
In a Drudge exclusive, the 66-page Democratic mobilization plan says “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a ‘pre-emptive strike.'”
I would like to now point out something we all need to consider. I seem to remember that one of our Presidents was impeached for lying under oath. His entire Party rallied behind him, including all of their Senators and Congressmen. Lying under oath was no big deal. We needed to move on. A sworn oath really wasn’t all that important.
Those supporters are many of the same ones who are now out registering people to vote. They are swearing an oath to follow the laws.
Can we really believe they take that oath seriously?
Boortz believes, as I do, that there are still people in this country who value their own oath:
George Bush takes seriously the oath he took when he was sworn in, an oath to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To protect the Constitution is to protect our country. George Bush believes that the Constitution and his oath of office is all the permission he needs to defend America.
If you are truly undecided, and I doubt many are, I ask that you read this in its entirety, and check the VodkaPundit link for an even more heart-felt opinion.
This election cycle has come to define for me something very clear. I look at things, I believe, with a very open and logical mind. I listen to all sides, and don’t evaluate words from a single instance. Rather, I try hard to listen in context, and that means more than simply the words around the words. It means paying attention to past actions to see how well the new words fit.
The common statement by Democrats, with no basis in fact as shown many times, that Bush stole the 2000 election is a case study of what we will see in three weeks. It doesn’t require clairvoyance to see it coming. They are already prepping us for their onslaught. Lawsuits will be filed in every single swing state.
Our military personnel have become pawns in their game–and they do seem to consider it one. The Democratic Party either doesn’t understand international relations, or choose to ignore the ramifications of their words and actions. Remembering how Johnson was brought down by Vietnam, they see a chance to do the same to Bush. They want Iraq to be another Vietnam. That is fact. It is undeniable if you simply look at how they continue to use the same words and actions as they did when teenagers. They can talk all they want about supporting the troops, but their actions speak much louder. Those men and women know. Every slander of Bush adds to the morale of those we fight. Certainly the leaders of the DNC know that. Yet they continue. They could disagree without slandering, but choose not to do so. As long as the enemy believes they are fighting a winning cause, they will continue to fight.
Why?
I often ask myself what it is that the Democratic Party wants to do with the power they cherish above all. I just don’t know. Every specific they mention, and there are damn few of those, has proved to be a failure, and a horrendous waste of money.
They speak of getting back to a balanced budget, yet were dragged yelling and screaming to the last one by Newt Gingrich. Clinton only signed that one after sending it back two times, and having the Congress send it to him a third. And even that wasn’t truly balanced. Excess Social Security receipts offset the real budget deficit–another Democrat sleight-of-hand from the Johnson era. Still in use today.
A National Health Care System is a false dream. Ask anyone in the military what it is like. Or ask the Medicare patients you know about their pleasure in having government assistance. Ask a Canadian with health problems what he thinks of their system.
Why is that power something they crave? The term “Public Service” is false. Public service is volunteer work, not your career in an elected position. Career politicians are serving themselves, not the public.
They want to do good. Please. Their actions in the last year have shown that “good” isn’t on their agenda.
Steve Green of Vodkapundit has had enough himself.
If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic.
And he feels much as I do.
The rules don’t matter. The reputation of the country doesn’t matter. The political health of the nation doesn’t matter. Power matters.
I have voted a straight ticket only once in my life. The last week or so I have been trying to pay closer attention to local candidates. I feel it is important to vote for someone rather than some Party, and I want to make intelligent choices. But I’m beginning to believe Steve has the right approach.
But for the first time in 16 years, I’m going to vote Republican straight down the line. If I have to punish a couple of local Democrats I’m fond of, then so be it, but I have to try to get a point across: The national Democratic Party is bad for this country.
The only thing that will end this is a landslide for Bush. I really see no other prospect.
Kevin Sites managed to score an interview with Iraq Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. He asks the tough questions, and gets some good, and some politic, answers.
Powered by WordPress