POST SCRIPTS

IMHO this contributes to high recidivism (return to prison), higher budget costs, higher risk for officers and ultimately it has to contribute to an overall loss of control. Over decades the convicts have created their own culture with their own rules and laws and that adds to crime inside and outside prison and makes rehab all but impossible. Imitating certain aspects of prison culture, like tattooing, gang association, slang, even body language, is considered very hip by inner city youth to kids in the burbs.

A prison's first priority is to isolate an offender in order to protect society. It's also a place of punishment where all Constitutional rights are surrendered, save for the right to humane treatment.

Prison is also a place for rehabilitation through improved job skills and education. Anything that conflicts or restricts these basic objectives doesn't belong in prison...period. Yet, here we have all sorts of "prisoner rights" and "prisoner privileges" that do just that! For example, we have weight lifting benches in all the prison yards. The weights and other gym items buff up these cons until they look like hulking monsters. A prison guard or police officer is going to get seriously hurt taking on one of these beefed up cons and it happens all the time, I know, I've been there and seen it. A strength training program for cons doesn't belong in prison anymore than lessons on knife fighting or karate training. Weights were a stupid idea from the start - better the cons come out looking like whimps than weightlifters.

A strength training program doesn't belong in prison anymore than lessons in knife fighting.

The court system is flooded with these legal writs from cons (aka jail house lawyers). In another example there have been hundreds of writs authored by just one con. I happened to read about him recently. He is doing life and he apparently has nothing better to do, so he trained himself with the prison law library to produce writ upon writs. This guy writes up a writ over mashed potato’s not served hot enough, writs for paint color not to his liking! It could be anything and everything and it's just to annoy the courts and pass the time at our expense. And according to law, each writ has to be addressed in Superior Court and that takes time, money and resources. It's bull too! If that's what the law says, then the law needs to be changed. This is absurd and too many prisoners are abusing this legal loophole !

What possible good purpose for society does a prison law library serve and at what cost?

Here's another suggestion worth considering. I think the prison blue clothing and those black watch caps are too macho and it sends the wrong message. The watch cap is almost a prison trademark or prison cultural statement. It helps hide an inmates identity should a problem breakout like a stabbing or fight and you have seen them being worn on the outside by just like cons do on the inside. From now on we should issue khaki clothing for low risk inmates and pink clothing for high risk or problem inmates and do away with all forms of head covers. They want to be bad...let them wear pink! Along this line of thinking are the prison tattoos. They are often gang identification or badges to show they have killed or knifed someone...who needs that kind of advertisement? It's counterproductive to good conduct. Its branding cons in way that they see themselves as violent men. Tattoos should be forbidden and all joint type tats removed. If they get new tats its extra time added to their sentence.

California has an average 51% return to prison within one to two years and that is just unacceptable. It means our system is not working.

No more catered ethnic meals and special treatment to facilitate some oddball religious practice or wacko holiday. There is only one historically recognized religion in prison and its Christian based. It's been that way ever since the first prisons were built on American soil and if that CHRISTIAN based religion isn't good enough, then they can do without. We shouldn't be so stupid as to allow the recruiting of future terrorists from our own prisons. A prison is not where you go to learn Jihad, Caribbean Voodoo or Wicken Witchcraft, but if prisoners want to read the Bible or attend a Christian based church that advocates peace and love, then I'm all for it. A religion that advocates Jihad against infidels is not welcome. However, we have seen that Christian ministry helps lower the violence and it can really help with the rehab part too. Many a bad guy was saved through Christ. This is very beneficial to him and society, but anything else that obstructs this effort is not needed nor wanted.

"Our nation has set a new record: The highest rate of incarceration in the world. According to the Department of Justice, the U.S. prison and jail population grew by 2.7 percent last year, placing a record number of Americans (2,193,798) behind bars. An unprecedented 7 million people—one in every 32 Americans—were either "behind bars, on probation, or on parole by the end of last year."

Whenever possible, a prison should have ample acreage to raise vegetables and fruit to significantly offset the cost of prisoner feeding. It's healthy for the prisoners to work on a farm and it would save taxpayers a ton of money. Same goes for prison clothing; they can make their own clothes and again save taxpayers money.
If you think I am being mean for the sake of mere punishment, better think again. Shorter, harsher sentences can result in lower recidivism and that's where we need to focus. We need the prison room and we don't need the crime. If we can get compliance by shorter, tougher sentences I am willing to try it! Look around the world and see what works and what doesn't, don't rely on some Ivory Tower study done by academics basing it all on theory! Look at what works and what doesn't, let’s learn from those examples!

The bottom line here is, we need to run a no nonsense prison system like a boot camp, where people are taught the discipline they lacked that got them busted in the first place. Prisons are becoming too soft and some are more like a resort than prison. No, I'm not exaggerating. Do you not know that some prisons in California have tennis courts? Look, if that was working for us, I would be the first to say lets start building tennis courts for every prison, but it's not working, it's ridiculous. Recidivism is too high and all the associated crime that goes with it is getting worse! Like I said, one of the main priorities of a prison is for punishment that acts as deterrence. Hold that thought...prison and punishment, is for DETERRENCE!

"WASHINGTON — The number of inmates in U.S. prisons likely will rise nearly 13% during the next five years, costing states up to $27.5 billion in new operating and construction expenses, according to a new analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts."

A prison is not a place to kick back or learn how to be a better criminal. Nor is it a place to practice hip-hop prison culture where cons swagger around acting like rappers and bad asses just like they did on the outside. Prison is not a place to get reunited with their old gang pals or become new gang members as they continue their old bad habits in the joint. No, all that should end! And it will end if and when we decide to regain control of our prisons.
Prisoner identity or affiliation is tied closely to race and gangs and that has contributed to violence inside and outside the prison system. Did you know that California is considered to be the birthplace of many of the country's most powerful gangs, such as Nuestra LaFamilia, Black Gorilla Family (the BGF's), Vickiestown, FOB's, the Aryan Brotherhood (AB's) and Mexican Mafia? How could we let this get so far out of control? And now we are really paying for it, aren't we?

This proposed reform is just a start in the right direction as far as I am concerned. It barely begins to do what is needed, but you can bet that prisoners and the ACLU won't like it and we'll have a fight on our hands to take back control. So I say... tough, let em, we can handle it. We have to, or we can watch this situation spiral out of control -and time is not on our side here folks! We're already 200% overcrowded in prisons and outside prison we have a cultural movement fostered by the hip-hop, rap, gang banger wannabees who think the joint is kinda cool. It's not the deterrence it should be because it's not that bad on the inside, you got your homies, your gangs, drugs, sex and whatever else your perverted heart desires. And that is because what we are doing is NOT working and that ought to be obvious to anyone.

However, before I close please remember this one thing, nothing in this article is advocating any unreasonably harsh or cruel treatment. This is about being strict for sure, but not about being inhumane. Quite the opposite. I'm only suggesting a level of discipline that will insure safety for both the inmates and those that supervise them. That's called order. It is the kind of order that is known to every American that has served in our military. If it was good enough for them, it ought to be good enough for our convicts. What do you think?

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:39 AM | Comments (12)

July 19, 2007

Sorry Al-My Mistake

by Tina Grazier

I strongly believe in being truthful and admitting my errors and so I am delighted today to report to you that Al Gores recent wedding feast was indeed green friendly and not, as I reported, another embarrassing green hypocrisy. Read all about it in the Telegraph, “Al Gores fish dinner turns out green:”

The night before the wedding, People magazine reported, the Gores were at a dinner for 75 at the nearby Crustacean restaurant where a six-course tasting menu included Chilean sea bass - also known as Patagonian toothfish...

The reaction was swift: writing in in the Australian Daily Telegraph, Rebecca Keeble of Humane Society International, a conservation pressure group, complained of the danger to the species from "from illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activities". ** She noted that "more than 50 per cent of toothfish traded is illegally caught, and includes juveniles vital to the ongoing toothfish population". She called on the US government to help crack down on illegal fishing by sanctioning Spain for allowing its nationals to fish illegally for the species in conservation areas. ** And in the meantime, she acidly suggested, "Al Gore could choose something else to eat". Her attack on the former vice-president, and his implied hypocrisy, were rapidly picked up by bloggers around the world.

Yours truly sends her apologies to the entire Gore wedding party.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:17 PM | Comments (5)

Latest Universal Healthcare Alert

“Woman dies waiting for brain scans”
Telegraph (London, UK), by Sophie Borland

A high-flying television producer died from a suspected epileptic fit while waiting for vital brain scans on the NHS. /snip/ Miss Price, from Notting Hill, west London, had begged a junior A&E doctor for anti-seizure drugs but had been told they could only be prescribed by a neurologist. Two days earlier she had visited a specialist at Charing Cross hospital and was told she would have to wait six weeks for a brain scan.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:15 PM | Comments (2)

BIG Medical Breakthrough!

“New hydrogel can repair, regenerate tissue”

NEWARK, DE, United States (UPI) -- U.S. scientists have developed a biomaterial that has antibacterial properties and can be used as a hydrogel to repair and regenerate human tissue. ** University of Delaware researchers said the biomaterial can be injected as a low-viscosity gel into a wound where it rigidifies nearly on contact, opening the door to the possibility of delivering cells and antibiotics to repair damaged tissue. ** The researchers said the new technology has the potential of regenerating healthy tissue in a cancer-ridden liver, healing a biopsy site and providing wounded soldiers in battle with pain-killing, infection-fighting medical treatment. ** Associate Professors Joel Schneider and Darrin Pochan said their patented invention marks a major step forward in the development of hydrogels for medical applications.

Hat tip: monstersandcritics.com

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:13 PM | Comments (0)

This Weeks Best Joke

From Tinman....

THE SIGN IN A STORE WINDOW SAID:

"WE WOULD RATHER DO BUSINESS WITH A 1000

AL QAEDA TERRORISTS THAN WITH ONE SINGLE AMERICAN"

This sign was prominently displayed in the window of a business in Philadelphia. You are probably outraged at the thought of such an inflammatory statement. But we pride ourselves on being a society which holds Freedom of Speech as perhaps our greatest liberty. And after all, it is just a sign. You may ask what kind of business would dare post such a sign?

Answer: A Funeral Home (Who said morticians had no sense of humor?)

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:41 PM | Comments (0)

Buying a Used Car - (Starts Monday)

Update: The pro's from Wittmeir's will kick off this series of articles on how to buy a used car with tips from other automotive related businesses from around Chico. The series will be published every Monday until it's completed.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:15 PM | Comments (0)

Caliphate

Dream government for the Middle East or a deadly serious global goal?
by Tina Grazier

A couple of days ago I read an article in The Guardian written by a man named Inayat Bunglawala titled, “Bringing back the caliphate,” in which he suggests an ancient form of government made new for today:

Osama Bin Laden wants it back, as does Hizb ut-Tahrir and also, according to a recent poll organised by an American university, a majority of Muslims across the world do so too. But what is the caliphate (Arabic: Khilafah) and what would it look like today?

Before he died in 632 CE, the Prophet Muhammad succeeded in establishing a single state in Arabia, in which he was both the spiritual head and also the temporal ruler. Within a period of just over 20 years, Muhammad had unified the Arabs, smashed the centuries-old practice of idolatry and inculcated in them a deep love for Islam: voluntary submission to God's Will. *** It was an astonishing achievement and the Islamic state would, after Muhammad's death, continue to expand and draw in new converts to Islam from other peoples. Islam, with its pristine monotheism, stood in stark contrast to the many competing versions of Christianity with their endless bickering over the true nature of Christ and also the rather narrow tribalism of Judaism. *** The Prophet's successors (Caliphs) tried to maintain this system but it was inevitably beset with divisions and rivalries, and in time, multiple regional caliphates came into existence. The last caliphate to be widely recognised - Ottoman Turkey, which in its latter days came to be known as the "sick man of Europe" - was abolished by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924.

The article then goes on to briefly site the merits of a new caliphate and mentions polling data that suggests democracy is favored in the Muslim world. The writer quotes a famous Sudanese Islamic philosopher, Abdelwahab el-Affendi:

“Wisdom dictates that we should be pessimistic about the qualities of our rulers, something which should not be too difficult, given our experiences. The institutions of a Muslim polity, and the rules devised to govern it, should therefore be based on expecting the worst. *** Human experience shows that democracy, broadly defined, offers the best possible method of avoiding such disappointment in rulers and affords a way of remedying the causes for such disappointments once they occur.”

This sounds good initially…we’ve come to the same conclusions in the west. The next quote, however, which the writer believes would allow Muslims to create a “broadly” defined democracy while keeping to the Muslim faith, contains a few words that, in today’s atmosphere, are a bit chilling:

“The model we are proposing…entails a concept of an international order based more on coexisting communities than on territorially-based mutually-exclusive nation-states. The European Community and the United States of America reflect some of the characteristics of the model we have in mind.”

I would be encouraged by a system that could bring relative peace to the Muslim world. I’m just a bit bothered by the casual way that “international order” is used…almost as if it was the natural order. The chilling effect is then enhanced when the words that follow seem to suggest that some characteristics of democracy would remain but that American democracy is inferior to their model. Go ahead, read it again. If this new caliphate were being proposed with only the Middle East in mind why would the words “international order” be used? Also, the fact that bin Laden is in favor of it doesn’t exactly inspire calm…or confidence. This information does suggest yet another reason to consider that radical elements of this faith are deadly serious about dominating the world.

***

I tucked the above information into the back of my brain and thought little more of it until I read this intriguing exchange Wednesday night over at the blog “Tank” at National Review Online:

…But it is Sheuer's comments on al-Qaeda's vision of a global Islamic caliphate that are most striking.

Beck: "What behavior is it that we could possibly change that would stop them when they are looking for a global caliphate?"

Schueur: "Well, the global caliphate is kind of the last refuge of neo-conservatives after they've been wrong about everything else. There's really no chance of a caliphate in our world any more than there is of Christians turning the other cheek, sir."

Ironic that he should dismiss al-Qaeda's goal of a global caliphate, and unfortunate and perhaps telling that he did so in such a politically charged tone. Furthermore, does it really matter whether it's actually possible or not? Or perhaps does it matter more that al-Qaeda thinks it is possible?

For only two short years ago, Scheuer himself – now a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation - wrote on the importance of recognizing and understanding al-Qaeda's goal of a global caliphate. And he used bin Laden's own words to demonstrate.

The recent attacks fit bin Laden's strategic goal of ensuring "the pious Caliphate will start from Afghanistan." [9] In 1998, bin Laden pledged personal loyalty to Mullah Omar, describing him as "our chief" and "the legitimate ruler of the state of Afghanistan … [the] embodiment of Islamic respect." [10] These facts are downplayed by Western leaders who say bin Laden was paying lip service to Omar and that al-Qaeda is now solely focused on the jihad in Iraq. No one, however, should doubt bin Laden's resolve to help retake Afghanistan for Mullah Omar. In June 2000, Bin Laden stressed Afghanistan's central place in al-Qaeda's strategy" *** "Any aggression by the United States today against Afghanistan would not be against Afghanistan itself, but against the Afghanistan that hoists the banner of Islam in the world, the true, mujahid Islam, which fights for the sake of God… Allah has blessed Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan… They were able to unify the country under the Taliban and under the leadership of Amir ul-Mu'mineen [Commander of the Faithful] Mulanna [our Mullah] Omar. So today, Afghanistan is the only country in the world that has the Shari'ah. Therefore, it is compulsory upon Muslims all over the world to help Afghanistan. And to make hijra to this land, because it is from this land that we will dispatch our armies to smash all kuffar all over the world." [11]

Seems bin Laden deems the caliphate central to his strategy. Some may recall a book on al-Qaeda's caliphate vision by a man who spent time in prison with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. One of his primary sources was Saif al-Adel, currently in — yes — Iran. In it, described in detail are what is described as al-Qaeda's seven steps to the global caliphate.

***

The more I read the better my understanding of the seriousness of this problem. The more I read the more I understand the unbending resolve of President Bush and admire his determination to defend this country without regard to polling data or popularity. I am both humbled by and grateful to our fighting men and women who have chosen to defend this nation (and the free world) and who have seen this enemy up close and personal.

Jack Lee is right, we are coming to a point of decision for which there may be no turning back. America is strong when we stand together…but, “a nation divided”…you know the drill.

I love this land of ours and the idea of our republic being swept aside to be replaced by a new world order of caliphate is neither desirable nor acceptable…we must soldier on, around the world and here at home. We cannot count on most in the general press to keep us accurately ar adequately informed. We are ultimately responsible, and so, must endeavor to uncover this important information for ourselves.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:42 PM | Comments (1)

Profession Advice on Buying a Used Car

by Jack Lee

Just to let you know, I am still working on bringing you a series of articles on how to buy a used car. Some of the delay has been my own scheduling problem, some has been just the research, but it's coming together. I think this will be one of those money saving articles you'll want to run off on a printer for future reference. So stay tuned, (no pun intended) It's starting next Monday!

Here's the outline:

*#1. Selecting the model based on economy, reliability and resale.

*Understanding simple mechanical tests to determine roadability and reliability.

*Power basics, engine, transmission, cooling, smog and exhaust.

*Detecting body work from prior accidents.

*Cosmetic care and mechanical preservation (tune ups, oil changes).

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:12 AM | Comments (0)

July 18, 2007

Polls, polls and more polls

Are you a poll watcher? Then you might find this link helpful. Bush polls.

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:36 PM | Comments (0)

Back to the Basics - Understanding Al Qaeda

by Jack Lee

I wonder how many people really understand the true nature of Al Qaeda? My guess is not nearly enough, because this nation is so divided on how we should deal with them. The left says we are failing in Iraq and we have more terrorists now than before, we need a change in course. The right says we are winning and Al Qaeda is much weaker and we need to stay the course. Now, you can't get much further apart than that! And I'm sure our mutual enemies in Al Qaeda are thrilled by this division that leads to political confusion.

It's about time we understand who and what we are fighting and then rise above the partisan politics to form a cooperative alliance for our mutual defense. To that end, here's a really brief synopsis of bin Laden's Al Qaeda:

In the radical's world, Al Qaeda is seen both as a political and a cultural force. Al Qaeda is therefore part ideology and part theology, and unlike many terrorists organizations of the past, this one has a very loose command structure and they encourage individuals to act on their own. So, Al Qaeda is often just a state of mind by those who would hide behind it's banner while committing acts of terrorism for their own agenda and that's fine by Al Qaeda's commanders because it all serves their purpose for chaos. Al Qaeda has evolved into a two tier organization, one being the actual group and the second tier being the franchise groups that borrow the name and the methods.

Consider, most of the recent acts of terrorism in England were not directed by Al Qaeda operatives, but motivated by the spirit of Al Qaeda, .i.e. the doctors planting car bombs for Jihad. This was a Jihadist plot that came from the Al Qaeda mindset, but not from Al Qaeda's command directly, at least this is what we have been led to believe so far.

Al Qaeda also represents a number of angry Muslims from around the world that feel alienated from the west by the perception of unequal treatment when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, particularly with Israel. Other Al Qaeda members or sympathizers could care less about such technical political things and are motivated more by the Q'ran and their lust for Jihad based on their unique fundamentalist views. But, all of them have at least one major thing in common, they interpret the U.S. war on terrorism as a war on Islam and they would like the rest of the Islamic world to think this too. This is why we have to proceed very carefully.

I want to launch into the pro's and con's of hitting back, in particular in Pakistan's northwest territory where Al Qaeda have a very strong presence, but I think I will save that for another time. For now, please just keep in mind we are fighting a very elusive and dangerous enemy that has no intention of playing nice anytime soon. If we are going to prevail then we're going to have to come together as a nation. Understanding the enemy is step one and the enemy is not a Republican or a Democrat...let's get past that!

Here are some links you might find interesting. BBC Report and International Security Study.

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:36 PM | Comments (1)

There he goes …again!

Daily Telegraph, by Rebecca

ONLY one week after Live Earth, Al Gore's green credentials slipped while hosting his daughter's wedding in Beverly Hills. Gore and his guests at the weekend ceremony dined on Chilean sea bass - arguably one of the world's most threatened fish species.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:22 AM | Comments (3)

July 17, 2007

Buying the Vote

But, it's for the children…natch!

by Tina Grazier

Americans will go to the polls next year to choose a new leader for our country. It would be a wonderful change if candidates would simply tell us what their platforms entail and how they would go about implementing them. It would be refreshing if they would just explain their basic philosophy and the reasons they believe their suggested policies are consistent with that philosophy…but they won’t. Instead they will make campaign promises, they will make deals, and they will pander, pander, pander to the voters.

As reported by the AP, Hillary Clinton recently played the "promises and deal making" card with a group of representatives from counties across the nation:

The former first lady promised about 2,500 elected county officials attending the National Association of Counties annual convention that she and a Democratic Congress would expand the child health insurance program to cover 9 million uninsured children if she wins next year's election.

The most brilliant woman in the world once again demonstrates her ignorance (or is it simply condescending disregard?) with a tempting but unworkable hook. Her idea is delivered as a promise without a viable financial or administrative plan and she completely ignores the debilitating effect that new or expanded tax structures would have on the nation’s economy or on your personal pocketbook.

Hillary’s idea would most assuredly mean that more dollars would come out of your paycheck, your pleasures (cigar tax), or your necessities (higher gas tax). Money would flow to the federal government where a huge bureaucracy would gobble up a very large chunk. It would then be sent back to the counties (unless the state gets a bite first) where another bureaucracy would scarf a chunk. Eventually the county would dole out what was left, probably through another layer of nibbling bureaucracy. In the end, for every dollar sent to Washington some children in your county might receive 10 cents worth of regulated insurance benefit. That is no bargain and the regulation would go something like this: "Your child’s wound might heal quickly with this new antibiotic cream but the insurance dictates that we must try a bandaging routine first. Please bring her in for the next few weeks so we can change the dressing and apply this cheap salve.” Within a few weeks what was a fairly deep wound has now become an infected tunneling sore (that eventually will require surgery), your child is sporting a high fever and you are told before anything can be done certain paperwork must be filed and approved. "Try aspirin and cool baths, honey, that's what I do."

Oh goody! What a bargain! But, having shoved this new law down Americas gullet, the Hills and Bills of this world can jet set in peace knowing that they “really made a difference"…yeah right!

Pull toy voters will love it because they only hear the promise. And it sounds...so...nice, so compassionate, so caring and good! Pull toy voters will fail to consider what such a plan will cost or the bureaucratic mess it will create. Like children in front of a candy counter they just want it…all of it and for free! Yippee!!

***

Hillary Clinton, in full candidate mode, also made sure she didn't disappoint Bush haters:

Clinton said county governments have coped with 45 million Americans who have no health coverage and that those Americans have been "invisible to the president for the last 6 1/2 years." *** "We're ready to make a change in Washington, D.C., so they will no longer be invisible to the president of the United States," Clinton said in a pointed attack on the Bush White House. *** She accused Bush of threatening year after year to veto funding for the child health insurance program…"I can't understand for the life of my why this president keeps trying to cut this program every year," Clinton said.

Gosh, Senator, it’s a dang shame you lack understanding I'd say it’s about time you got a clue, ticktock, ticktock!

Listen up. The President would veto the legislation because he’s aware of the benefit that citizens realize when they can keep their own money and make their own healthcare insurance decisions. He would apply the veto pen because he hates the layers and layers of bureaucratic waste and fraud…and he would choose to veto because he knows that crumby vote getting schemes don’t work and cost a fortune.

Voters, please pay close attention to what candidates say and how they say it. Empty promises and shameful pandering reveal weakness in a candidate and a level of dishonesty that is disrespectful to all voters...don't buy into it.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:02 PM | Comments (4)

Religious School Trains Children to be Suicide Bombers

by Jack Lee

President Hamid Karzai called child suicide bombers, "a fearful and terrible truth. In an interview with the Afghanistan President, Rafiqullah said he and two other 14 year old boys were separated from the other students at his madrassa (religious school) and trained to drive a car. Then they were forced to watch videos of suicide bombers carrying out attacks before they were sent on a mission from Pakistan into Afghanistan where they met another man named Abdul Aziz who gave them a suicide vests loaded with explosives. Rafiqullah said he was afraid of committing suicide and at that point Aziz pointed a gun at him and told him if he didn't do it, he would be killed anyway. The intended target was the provincial governor.

In the same story noting Rafiqullah's experience, it detailed a 6 year old boy that was forced by the Taliban to wear a suicide vest and walk up to American soldiers where he was supposed to trigger his vest. The plot was foiled when the boy instead asked for help from Afghani soldiers.

A Taliban video was captured last April that showed a 12 year old boy forced to cut off the head of a suspected traitor. The video shows the Taliban militants giving instructions to the child.

President Karzai freed the 14 year old boy, saying he did not know what he was doing when he was taken into the clutches of the terrorists. The more I hear about Karzai the more I am impressed. He appears to be a real leader and a man of great courage and conviction. I hope he lives long enough to make a difference.

When it comes to recruiting children and filling them with lies and hate, there can be no forgiveness, no rehabilitation and no mercy. Every leader in that Pakistani madrassas school knew what was happening and they endorsed it. For them and every madrassas like it, moderate Muslims ouight to see it as their duty to Islam and humanity to make sure those religious teachers will not infect one more generation of Muslims. However, given the stand that moderate Muslims have taken in the past to protect their faith from the corrupt influences of radicals, chances are this clean-up task will be left up to us... and just as likely the leftist in the world will hate us for it and call us the problem!

For those few of you out here that think we would be as bad as the terrorists for taking out the radicals, let me point out there's a big difference between justice and cold blooded murder of innocent and unsuspecting people, especially when little children are used as the instruments of death and destruction.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:22 PM | Comments (1)

July 16, 2007

Actual Purpose of Story…Buried

by Tina Grazier

The news is a hoot to read because so often the real purpose for the story is hidden somewhere in the text, often toward the end. An example from the AFP can be found posted today on Yahoo complete with this heart wrenching headline:

“Conditions for Iraqi children worsen sharply: UNICEF”

Notice the reference to UNICEF and the strong sense of authority it invokes. They want to make sure you know it’s a “credible” story and deserves your attention…but is it credible and is it noteworthy or just inderstandable given current conditions? Let’s look at the assertion:

"I have no doubt whatsoever that the condition today is much worse," Dan Toole, acting deputy executive director of the UN Children's Fund, told journalists after being asked for a comparison with the situation under Saddam Hussein's regime. ** "Children who have had to flee Iraq -- and millions have fled -- are much worse off than a year ago and they certainly are much worse off than they were three years ago," he added. ** Toole said there were signs that the health and nutrition for Iraqi children was "changing for the worst", despite recently released two-year-old indicators that had shown signs of an improvement.

Well, there’s clue number one…there were signs of improvement…so what happened?

"My concern is that the focus on Iraq is on the political situation, the security situation, it is not on the lives of Iraqis living day in, day out, with deprivation, with lack of food, with lack of medical supplies," he said. ** "That says something about the attention of the world, the attention of our leaders," Toole added, urging a greater focus on the impact on children. ** UNICEF says its aid programmes for children in Iraq have only received about one-third of the funding they need.

BINGO! The real purpose of the story is to make an appeal for money (and possibly take a poke at world leaders, cough, cough). Notice too, that this “acting deputy executive director of the UN Children's Fund” has been sent out to report this awful news…but he probably has no authority to speak of... and certainly, if he is accountable, what’s he been doing for the past two or three years!

Read the story for yourself on Yahoo…HERE.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:18 PM | Comments (1)

There Goes the Neighborhood!

“16 Detainees Transferred From Guantanamo”
Washington Post, by Josh White 7/16/2007

Sixteen detainees were transferred out of the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to authorities in Saudi Arabia, Pentagon officials announced yesterday, amid discussions within the Bush administration about how to close the facility. Included in the unusually large group was Bahraini national Jumah al-Dossari, 33, a longtime Guantanamo Bay detainee who had drawn attention for trying to kill himself nearly two dozen times.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:12 PM | Comments (2)

President Nouri al-Maliki - U.S. Forces Can Leave Anytime

by Jack Lee

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki minimized the feelings of skeptics that his government's military and political progress leaves them vulnerable to an overthow without US military proping them up. Maliki said his forces are quite capable of handling any problems and added that American troops can leave ''any time they want''.

Al-Maliki comments came at a time when many in the US Congress are plotting against President Bush for a quick cut and run retreat, feeling civil war is about to tear Iraq apart. Last Thursday President Bush gave a mixed progress report on the Iraqi government and this didn't help bolster confidence.

President al-Maliki said the difficulty in enacting the reforms was ''natural'' given Iraq's turmoil, but hardly insurmountable. ''We are not talking about a government in a stable political environment, but one in the shadow of huge challenges,'' al-Maliki said. ''So when we talk about the presence of some negative points in the political process, that's fairly natural.''

Al-Maliki said his government simply needs ''time and effort'' to meet the benchmarks setforth by Washington and

time is necessary, ''particularly since the political process is facing security, economic and services pressures, as well as regional and international interference''.

Al-Maliki declared, if necessary, Iraqi police and soldiers could fill the void left by the departure of coalition forces.

AMMAN, Jordan - Nov. 2006 - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Thursday that his country's forces would be able to assume security command by June 2007 — which could allow the United States to start withdrawing its troops.

"I cannot answer on behalf of the U.S. administration but I can tell you that from our side our forces will be ready by June 2007," Maliki told ABC television after meeting President Bush on Thursday in Jordan.

Al-Maliki's confidence runs directly contrary to feelings of most in Congress. If Al-Maliki is wrong, then it calls into question his ability to lead, but if he is right, it calls into question what Congress really knows! Either way, it's not good for the American voter who will eventually pay a great price for either a mistaken Congress or a mistaken Al-Maliki. Personally, I'm hoping Congress is wrong and given their track record, the odds are Congress is wrong.

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:26 PM | Comments (1)

July 15, 2007

Jolt of the Day

by Tina Grazier

You'll read this in my article, "A Turning of Tables," but I thought it worthy of special emphasis since you won't hear about it in the press:

Petraeus also is focusing on Anbar Province in western Iraq. A year ago, that area was given up as lost, so firmly was it under al Qaeda’s control. But the more the region’s traditional tribal rulers experienced the reality of al Qaeda rule — e.g. the baking of children in ovens to teach obedience to their parents (as reported by Michael Yon) — the more they looked for a way to escape the group’s clutches.

Where is your compassion and sense of brotherhood...you on the left who so easily dismiss our efforts to stop al Qaeda and other terror groups...wherever they are in the world.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:53 PM | Comments (3)

American Report Card II

by Tina Grazier

Imagine my surprise to find the following article after determining to rate the American public on it's defense of the war. It would seem that the American image around the world get's a failing grade through the efforts of some folks who would, no doubt, be shocked to discover they are the problem. Read on Post Scripters...you're gonna love this one.

"Stop Trying To 'Save' Africa," by Uzodinma Iweala:

Last fall, shortly after I returned from Nigeria, I was accosted by a perky blond college student whose blue eyes seemed to match the "African" beads around her wrists.

"Save Darfur!" she shouted from behind a table covered with pamphlets urging students to TAKE ACTION NOW! STOP GENOCIDE IN DARFUR!

Idealistic college students, celebrities such as Bob Geldof and politicians such as Tony Blair have all made bringing light to the dark continent their mission. They fly in for internships and fact-finding missions or to pick out children to adopt in much the same way my friends and I in New York take the subway to the pound to adopt stray dogs.

This is the West's new image of itself: a sexy, politically active generation whose preferred means of spreading the word are magazine spreads with celebrities pictured in the foreground, forlorn Africans in the back. Never mind that the stars sent to bring succor to the natives often are, willingly, as emaciated as those they want to help.

Perhaps most interesting is the language used to describe the Africa being saved. For example, the Keep a Child Alive/" I am African" ad campaign features portraits of primarily white, Western celebrities with painted "tribal markings" on their faces above "I AM AFRICAN" in bold letters. Below, smaller print says, "help us stop the dying."

Do read the full article. It goes on to tell what Africans are doing for themselves without being credited by our press...and it names names and pulls no punches!

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:36 PM | Comments (0)

A Turning of Tables

by Tina Grazier

In poll after poll the war has been pronounced a lost cause and the president unpopular and ineffective. The latest polls put Bush at a low 29% approval with congress polling even lower. It’s said that people are “war weary” and looking for new leadership and direction. I have no way of knowing whether these polls accurately reflect the true thoughts and feelings of most Americans; experts insist that they are pretty accurate. Fine, I can accept that. But if so, what does this say about the American people? What kind of report card or approval rating would the American people inspire? Would we be described as patriotic and committed, a force to be reckoned with, fine examples of that spirit that has always made America great, a people to be counted on when tough times come to call? Or would Americans be described as weak and petty players of contentious “gotcha” politics or worse yet, as a self-absorbed, shallow lot with the attention span of a two year old?

There are definitely quite a few of that first type of American…find them in the U. S. military…a group well deserving of high marks. That they deserve better in terms of support from their fellow citizens is the point of this article.

*****

Let’s begin at the beginning; the place where seeds are planted and American thought starts to take shape…the American press. Media reporting on the war and the president has been adversarial and relentlessly negative. The casual listener would be hard pressed to give even a few examples of successes in Iraq or of positive developments resulting from Bush administration policies. The news hounds among us must dig for information and facts to support defense of the war or our president. Many in the military have taken this added task on for themselves through personal websites and blogging. Their efforts have only a limited capacity to reach large or diverse audiences and therefore have little impact on the general mood and pulse of the nation. And so, yes, we must rely on our media to accurately portray events that so vitally effect our lives.

A recent example of media failure is the rush to judgment on last week’s “benchmark report” on the progress being made in Iraq. The public was given a barrage of negative stories designed, IMHO, to firther inspire a defeatist attitude and to lend credibility to those who have been against the war and Bush from the start. The media did not bother to make the following information the primary focus of the week, nor did it feature this information as an aside:

“The benchmarks that were set for the Iraqi government’s performance…may not be the most reliable measure of whether the American military and diplomatic missions are making progress. *** More useful indicators might include (1) the level of damage being done to al Qaeda; (2) the extent to which Iraqis are assuming responsibility for their own security; (3) Iraqi government progress in delivering basic services such as electricity; and (4) whether Shia, Sunni and Kurdish leaders are working more collaboratively. *** It was never anticipated that the Petraeus mission, in its early stages, would lead to settlement of the most difficult issues dividing Iraqis. The idea was rather that those issues could be tackled only when the military mission had brought a reasonable degree of peace and stability to the country. *** At this moment, America’s enemies are doing all they can to prevent Gen. Petraeus and his troops from achieving that goal.” Clifford D. May - NRO

Many in our media are trying to prevent General Petraeus and our troops from achieving that goal as well. It should bother you, America, but the latest on Brittany Spears or Paris Hilton is instead what seems to float your boat. Moving on myself, let’s consider this…also from Clifford May:

The first large-scale operational phase, “Phantom Thunder,” began only on June 15th. Among its key components: targeting al Qaeda hideouts and bomb factories in and around Baghdad. *** Petraeus also is focusing on Anbar Province in western Iraq. A year ago, that area was given up as lost, so firmly was it under al Qaeda’s control. But the more the region’s traditional tribal rulers experienced the reality of al Qaeda rule — e.g. the baking of children in ovens to teach obedience to their parents (as reported by Michael Yon) — the more they looked for a way to escape the group’s clutches. *** Gen. Petraeus and his troops have given them one. If we were to now abandon these people to the tender mercies of al Qaeda, what message would it send to the world? This message: To be America’s enemy entails minimal risk; but to be America’s friend is hazardous and foolish in the extreme.

That last couple of sentences should provide a clue as to our president’s position…he isn’t guessing or wishing and hoping. He is clear about the reality that failure, or withdrawal, would bring to Iraqis and to America and he is using information provided to him from the general in charge. Moving on…how about this from an article by Steve Schippert, “Honing The Message In Iraq Reporting:”

Case in point, today’s Washington Post article, Iraqi Military’s Readiness Slips. *** Right from the beginning, including the headline, bad news in an internal assessment is reported as either accepted fact or authoritative information: Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has decreased since President Bush’s new strategy was launched in January, according to the White House progress report released yesterday.

Mr. Schippert fills in the blanks:

The tribal leaders in Anbar came together to negotiate an accord that ultimately produced the Anbar Awakening, an association of Anbar tribes dedicated to fighting al Qaeda. Recruiting for the Iraqi Security Forces in Anbar increased from virtually zero through 2006 to more than 14,000 by mid-2007. *** This is the equivalent of an entire American Army Division worth of men, fluxing into the military at entry-level without waiting equipment. The alternative was zero recruitment in Anbar. The consequences of that were most certainly reported negatively, if one recalls the daily carnage reports (sans context, of course) from Ramadi, Fallujah and elsewhere in Anbar.

*****

Had the American media been willing to report in like fashion over the past five years perhaps the mood and resolve of the American people might be quite different today. We’ll never know the full impact of the efforts in the press to undermine the war and, therefore, the president, but their lousy reporting certainly earns them a failing grade in my book. The overall approval rating for MSM is well under that of the president and congress. I’m not sure what percentage of Americans are actively and consciously undermining the war for personal, political or selfish reasons but I would hope it’s under 30%. In any case, blaming the media, no matter how culpable they are, for the poor performance of the citizenry to support this war effort is like blaming the criminal 's mother or poverty for his criminal activity and then stupidly professing his ignorance of the law. It just doesn’t fly.

So how do I rate the American people on their knowledgeable support of the war…the defense of our nation…the protection of future generations? Quite poorly, I’m afraid, and it's enough to make a grown, red white and blue gal hurl. Still it’s my intention to inspire responsible behavior and patriotism along with support for our military and so I hope you will keep this informal "report card" in mind for the future. The real hero’s among us; patriots who have willingly sacrificed so that you and I might continue to breathe in the fresh air of freedom are counting on all of us for genuine support. We need to grow up...and wise up...before it's too late.

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:46 PM | Comments (2)

The Reaper

BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq (AP) -- The airplane is the size of a jet fighter, powered by a turboprop engine, able to fly at 300 mph and reach 50,000 feet. It's outfitted with infrared, laser and radar targeting, and with a ton and a half of guided bombs and missiles.

The Reaper is loaded, but there's no one on board. Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada.

Read the entire story, “Robot Air Attack Squadron Bound for Iraq.”

Posted by Post Scripts at 04:43 PM | Comments (2)

How About that Air Force!

by Tina Grazier

It would appear that "the surge" involves more than we've been told (or the CIA, Senator Leaky or the press has been able to sneak into headlines for the benefit of our enemies). We 've heard quite a lot about what a "mess" and a "failure" the barely begun surge has been. It's as hard to avoid that kind of "news" as it is to find a story about the progress being made. The following story reminds us that despite daily political bickering and the constant trashing of our president, the effort in Iraq moves ever forward. Our troops continue in the fight, the Navy has moved more support ships into the Gulf, and now this AP story out of Seattle tells us what the Air force has been doing lately.

“Air Force quietly building Iraq presence" by Charles J. Hanley gives a birdseye view of Air Force activity:

BALAD AIR BASE, Iraq -- Away from the headlines and debate over the "surge" in U.S. ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces. *** Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq. *** Early this year, with little fanfare, the Air Force sent a squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes - a dozen or more aircraft - to be based at Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq. At the same time it added a squadron of F-16C Fighting Falcons here at Balad. Although some had flown missions over Iraq from elsewhere in the region, the additions doubled to 50 or more the number of workhorse fighter-bomber jets available at bases inside the country, closer to the action.

The Air Force has a few new toys to play with as well. Pilots can now aim at a target simply by looking at it and in October something called "Rover" will come into play allowing pilots to download real-time aerial video to troops on the ground. I'm sure these innovations will mean a lot to the troops as they work tirelessly to win.

The hard work of the war...getting the job done every day...continues in the White House and on the ground, seas and skies in the Middle East. Thank you Mr. President and staff, and thank you Army, National Guard, Marines, Navy and Air Force.

Posted by Post Scripts at 01:17 PM | Comments (2)

Appeasing Al Qaeda

by Jack Lee

From the time that Al Qaeda slipped across the Tora Bora Mountains from Afghanistan into the largely tribal areas of northwest Pakistan, they have been fomenting revolt against the government of Prime Minister Pervez Musharraf and staging incursions back into Afghanistan. This lawless region has long been under the control of regional warlords that view Osama bin Laden as a hero.

If there was any land deserving of a good carpet-bombing, this is it. But, despite the proclamations of President Bush that we will track down terrorists until there is nowhere to hide, we've made Pakistan the exception, they can hide there. We have deferred to Musharraf's authority (1) because he's been very supportive in other areas of fighting terrorism, including government raids in and around the capitol city of Islamabad that have netted some of Al Qaeda's top people and (2) it would violate Pakistan's sovereignty and this would undermine one of our few friends in the Arab world. Musharraf's reign would be at an end when the first American soldier's crossed into Pakistan. He's already walking a razor thin line between staying in control and being overthrown or assassinated by Islamic fundamentalists who would love to see a Taliban style government.

Musharraf attempted to end the fighting between police, military and the Islamic insurgents in the mountainous regions near Afghanistan by offering up a truce. Musharraf said, that as long as Al Qaeda behaved themselves within Pakistan’s borders they were free to live without fear of government attack. Well, kiss that off. It just didn't work because Al Qaeda doesn't exist to live peacefully with anyone. Musharraf must have overlooked the part about their quest for world domination.

Now this story from the AP wires, "Militants Kill 38 in Northwest Pakistan

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) - Suicide attackers struck a police headquarters and a military convoy on Sunday in Pakistan's northwest, killing as many as 38 people in an intensifying anti-government campaign in an area long known as a haven for the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Militants in the Afghan border region disavowed a 10-month old truce with the government that critics said gave them a safe haven from which to launch attacks on Afghan, U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan."

If Osama is still alive, it's a good bet that this is where he's hold up. Even if he's not alive, this region is rife with terrorists, smugglers, criminals, Taliban and Al Qaeda.

What would you do if you were the President, play along with Musharraf and allow this lawless region to continue breeding terrorists or go kick some A and maybe take down bin Laden? If the Pakistan government goes under the situation could become many times worse. It's not an easy call by any measure.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:00 AM | Comments (1)

July 14, 2007

College Boozing Still a Big Problem

by Jack Lee

Dr. Aaron White and a team of researchers from Duke University in Durham, N.C. and the University of California, San Diego discovered that binge drinking doesn't really cover what today's college men are doing, it goes beyond binge drinking, they call it extreme drinking.

According to the study, 20 percent of freshmen males reported having 10 or more drinks at a time at least once in a two-week period. 8 percent admitted to having 15 or more drinks at a time.

But, it's not limited to just males, one in 10 freshmen women reported consuming eight or more drinks on at least one day, which is twice that of the binge-drinking rate for females. In addition, nearly 2 percent said they had 12 or more drinks on at least one day.

The number of drinks for both sexes could be even higher since many college students often underestimate the standard size of an alcoholic drink, the study reported. While most of the college men and women surveyed did not engage in extreme drinking, 55 percent said they did drink some with the average number of drinks almost six for men and four for women.

White's team analyzed data from 10,424 college freshmen who attended 14 unnamed U.S. colleges. In 2003, the students took a survey prior to taking an alcohol education and prevention class, revealing how many drinks they had consumed each day for the previous two weeks. Their answers were anonymous. "Alcohol is more dangerous than many street drugs, yet it is advertised like candy. It is time for us to finally start taking this drug seriously,"

Based upon the data it doesn't appear the warnings about alcohol poisoning have sunk in much. Can the next alcohol related death at Chico State be that far away?

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:27 AM | Comments (3)

July 13, 2007

The Begining of the End?

by Jack Lee

As expected a bill challenging the White House authority over Iraq policy was introduced today, however the surprise was, it came from Senators John Warner of VA and Richard Luger of Ind. The bill demanded a new direction for US policy in Iraq by October 15th which is basically a demand to cut back US missions and start a withdrawl as a result of growing sectarian violence. The bill came on top of the bad news that a decreasing number of Iraqi forces were able to operate on their own.

``American military and diplomatic strategy in Iraq must adjust to the reality that sectarian factionalism is not likely to abate anytime soon and probably cannot be controlled from the top,'' the Warner-Lugar proposal states.

Bush had asked for more time to allow the Surge Plan to work and to re-evaluate the plan in September. Unofrtunately, next year is an election year and too many Republicans don't want to face the war weary voters and are preparing to abandon their President. According to an AP report, "The White House conceded that not enough progress was being made in training Iraqi security forces - the linchpin in Bush's exit strategy for U.S. troops."

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:27 PM | Comments (1)

Why Is Friday the 13th Bad Luck?

If you're one of those people who avoid traveling, going to work, eating in a restaurant or signing important documents on Friday the 13th, you have paraskevidekatriaphobia. There is no need to call the doctor. It means a fear of Friday the 13th. Friday the 13th is unlucky in North America, Western Europe and Australia and has its roots in both pagan culture and Christian beliefs. In the United States, it is the most widespread superstition. The British Medical Journal reported in 1993 that on Friday the 13th, the number of hospital admissions that are due to vehicular accidents is significantly higher--by as much as 52 percent--than on "normal" Fridays.

Ever since Christ was crucified on a Friday, many Christians believe the sixth day of the week to be unlucky, reports InfoPlease.com. In addition, 13 brings bad luck because that is the number who attended the Last Supper. But such superstitions go back even further than some 2,000 years ago. Norse mythology also reviled the No. 13. Loki, the most loathed of all the Norse gods crashed a dinner party for 12. As the 13th guest, he was said to cause the death of Balder, the god of light, joy, and reconciliation.

Courtesy of Netscape

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:01 AM | Comments (0)

July 12, 2007

Our Emboldened Enemies

by Tina Grazier

The anti-war movement is increasing in intensity and growing in favor in politics, the press and in the population at home and abroad. They blame the Bush administration for waging an “unlawful” and “unnecessary” war for the increase in terrorist activity. But what if threats have increased because of growing anti-war furor? The trend began with the elections following the train bombings in Spain. The call to end the war and to impeach the president has gradually increased since then and world-wide associations and groupings of radical Islamist terrorists have also increased since then. Certainly Hugo Chavez meeting with Achmadinijad and the public statements they have made about the President and America suggest that as Bush has repeatedly stated, our enemies become “emboldened” when a weakened front is presented.

I have been concerned with events in politics south of our borders and expressed my concerns here on Post Scripts. I have suggested that there is a growing danger to democracy and to America with the changing factions in our hemisphere. A recent event in Mexico, as reported by “Investors Business Daily,” highlights this point and also the larger point of emboldened enemies:

Two gas pipelines were blown up in central Mexico on Thursday, shutting off energy and forcing evacuations in factories, residences, and offices through Mexico's industrial heartland. The hit costs the regional economy $6.4 million a day. *** . These attacks raise the prospect of a new campaign to destabilize our vulnerable southern neighbor through violence. They show how easy it is for a small terror group with perhaps as few as 100 members to disrupt Mexico's economy, threaten America's energy supplies and rock Mexico's stability. *** There also is reason to fear that the success of the attack, by something called the People's Revolutionary Army, or EPR, will draw more powerful terrorist sponsors from abroad, increasing the group's clout and capacity for trouble. *** This attack was like a dinner triangle to al-Qaida and Colombia's FARC narcoterrorists, both of which already have threatened Mexico, favor economic warfare and specialize in blowing up energy pipelines. Finding a pawn that will carry out such attacks in Mexico may be just what they are seeking.

Any kid in a schoolyard can tell you that bullies terrorize and pick on the kids who are meek, frightened and unwilling to defend. Hunters will confirm that a wounded animal becomes an easy target, and meal, for any prey. Every family that has endured a bullying parent can tell you that the bullying continues until someone takes a risk, makes a bold move…stands up to the bully and takes the necessary steps to remove him from the family. It is the same with all bullies and bullies usually hang out in packs. The more their targets show fear or try to appease, the more they back down or run away, the bolder and more vicious the attackers become.

America, a free and open country, has many enemies. Ego driven dictators and “isms” of every stripe have come out to play. They began to grow in boldness during the nineties and with every anti-war breath (after our initial unified front following 9/11) they have grown ever more emboldened. Now they are beginning to form alliances in our hemisphere and they have a plethora of vulnerable targets to choose from…killing is only part of it, the grizzly part. They can and will most assuredly try to attack our economy with the desire to weaken us for eventual humiliation and defeat or collapse. This “end” is what they live and breathe to accomplish. Some are Marxist and others Islamic radicals…an alliance of convenience is not so unusual in the world.

It is not the war in Iraq or George W. Bush that makes them grow stronger or more determined; it is the fractious sentiment of our daily headlines, the failure to present a strong unified front, and our unwillingness to confront and defeat them that makes them strong and bold. It is the anti-war movement that is sparking and igniting them...mark my words.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:12 PM | Comments (2)

President Bush - Press Conference

by Jack Lee

38 minutes ago.... President Bush gave a press conference this morning following the release of a special interim report on Iraq, ostensibly to head off further undermining of his Iraq policy by Congress. 'I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must,' Bush said. He made an appeal to the American people and to Congress questioning his Iraq policy, and although it was a good speech, it was mostly a reiteration of previously stated positions.

The Iraq report gave few reasons for optimism. The report said the Iraqi government had made only satisfactory progress towards eight of 18 benchmarks on political, security and military goals previously set by the US Congress. The report indicated the government rated 'unsatisfactory' on legislation explicitly requested by the US to fight sectarian violence.

Putting aside the interim report at the conclusion of his press conference, Bush made it clear that polls will not determine his course of action, "the security of the nation will determine my course." Bush said he is making decisions based on "principle, not politics." The media was unrelenting in asking one negative poised question after another that seemed more like criticisms or indictments than questions.

"The societies that don't provide hope will
become the societies where al Qaeda has got the
capacity to convince a youngster to go blow himself up."

President Bush

Then....at the close of his conference President Bush exited his podium, but was stopped briefly by reporters pressing him for just a few more questions. Bush brushed aside the questions saying it would unfair to answer them now after the conference had been adjourned, but then in a sort of off the cuff manner, President Bush gave a further elaboration of his policy in Iraq. President Bush said in the most sincere way, it was his goal to provide a brighter future for young Iraqis, so they didn't feel hopeless and become easy targets for Al Qaeda recruiters who want them to strap a bomb to their chest.

Who doesn't understand by now
that we are fighting Islamic fascists, not poverty?

What Islamic terrorists were poor, frustrated, youths deprived of hope in England? Five of the last group of bombers were doctors or interns! What number of the 9/11 hijackers were poor, frustrated and hopeless youths? The majority of them were fanatics from middle-class and up Saudi families! Their motivation to kill us came from Madras’s schools that teach hate, it did not come from the frustration of poverty. This is all about a facistic Islamic ideology! After countless acts of global Islamic terror, who doesn't understand this by now? We're fighting radical Islamic fascists. This not a war on terrorism and it never has been, clearly this is a war between our western values and ideology verses a centuries out of touch, radical, fundamentalist Islamic ideology.

How our President could blame the bombings on poverty left me feeling about as frustrated and hopeless as that mythical poor youth.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:19 AM | Comments (7)

July 11, 2007

Spending Ourselves Into the Poor House

by Jack Lee

Q. How do you spend 2 billion dollars in 20 minutes? A. Ask a Democrat in the State Legislature! Because in a committee hearing just last May that is exactly was the dems proposed. At a time when we realized we were probably going to be about $2.5 billion short by the end of the year the spendy Dems approved some obscure programs that will cost you almost $2 billion and they did it during a 20 minute hearing! 4 dems approved it, 2 reps of course voted no. They just spent $100 million per minute folks!

Here's what they approved:

1) Item 8885, Commission on State Mandates, Issue 2: Technical Cleanup Trailer Bill Language. This action delays payments of $230 million to local governments to reimburse them for unfunded state mandates. This money will

have to be paid next year and only delays payment from the State level of government to the Local level. By delaying payment for a year, the government can spend another $230 million in the coming year.

2) Item 9618, Economic Recovery Bond Extra Payment. This vote cancels the Governor’s proposed early payment of $595 million in debt from the Economic Recovery Bonds sold in 2004 as the result of Prop. 57. This debt must be repaid sometime in the following two budget years meaning that by deferring payment now, we are likely to incur another $75 million in interest for a total payment of $670 million in the 2009-10 budget year. By deferring payment on this bond, the Big Spenders can spend another $595 million in the next year.

3) Control Sections 4.04/4.05 Unallocated Reductions of $143.6 million. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) so-called “unallocated reductions” do not work as advertised because real savings in government spending would have already been identified and wrung out of the budget. In truth, “unallocated reductions” are usually double counted with other savings proposed by the Administration. In addition, in agreeing to “unallocated reductions” the Legislature is ceding some of its budgetary authority to the Governor – never a good thing in a system of government built on checks and balances. Scoring $143.6 million of “unallocated reductions” allows the state to spend a like amount by assuming this false savings as money in the bank.

4) Control Section 35.60 Authorization to Transfer Budget Stabilization Account to the General Fund for $1 billion. On May 1, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 4 voted to delete this control section. By doing so, we acted to place some Legislative oversight on the ability of the Governor to quickly spend $1 billion from the Budget Stabilization Account. By rescinding our vote of three weeks ago, the Committee’s Democrats ceded authority to the Governor and greased the skids for an added $1 billion of state spending by ensuring that added spending would undergo one less legislative vote.

The above is thanks to Assemblyman Chuck DeVore-R. Thanks for trying Chuck, glad you're in there for us!

PS ....and we wonder why we can't get by on a budget of 133 billion a year? Ha!

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:07 PM | Comments (1)

Iraq Bill - Much At Risk

by Jack Lee

Sen. Olympia Snowe-R joined Democrats as she co-sponsored a bill calling for withdrawal from Iraq by 2008. However, President Bush is standing firm. He said he will not bow to the mounting pressure from Democrats or from pressure within his own party.

Snowe joined Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., in co-sponsoring a bill that would require troops to start leaving in 120 days. The bill also would end combat by April 30, 2008. The bill requires a super majority of 60 votes to force a cloture vote (1) and that is expected to happen this week. Republicans have been holding back this highly unusual attack on Presidential powers, giving Bush a very thin wall of protection so far, however if only a few more Republican defect this wall will crumble. Political insiders are expecting a major policy shift to come on Iraq adding to the Presidents massive defeat on his Immigration plan.

If the Snowe-Smith bill passes, it is expected that the President will use his veto. Then it will go back to the Senate for an override vote. To overturn a presidential veto will take 66 votes and that will be a defining moment in our history and for the Iraqi people. Iraqi's may soon find themselves caught up in an international plot that has so many dimensions and players it will take a hundred years to sort out, if ever. Iraq will likely descend even further into corruption and revolution, if not a religious bloodbath, as factions from Iran, Syria, Sunni, Shia, Al Qaeda, Bathists and oil-seeking nations battle for influence and/or control over this fabulously oil rich nation.

As the Iraq debate rails on in Congress, the Bush Administration was preparing to release a report detailing the progress of the SURGE plan that added 30,000 soldiers to control the violence in key areas of Iraq. Many Republicans are hoping the report would show some definitive progress, but as time passes this hope is fading. "The report to be issued by Sunday will present a picture of satisfactory progress on some benchmarks and not on others. This is to be expected given the report is a preliminary snapshot of what are the early stages of the full surge," a senior US official said hours after the briefing.

Yesterday Bill O'Reilly on Fox News said he expressed concerns 3 years ago that Iraqi's may not be up to the task. O'Reilly said Iraq is a mess and that the anti-Bush, anti-war, leftist factions have steadily been gaining momentum as they undermined US efforts to stabilize the country. However, more than anything else, O'Reilly blames the Iraqis for not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption, and said, "the USA can't control that country - no nation could." O'Reilly characterized Iraq as a failure that will be President Bush's departing legacy.

Whatever happens next in Congress can only be viewed as extremely traumatic for the moral of our troops in Iraq. Can you imagine being asked to risk your life in Iraq knowing that the war is as good as lost and that your forces are preparing to pull out in a matter of months? And what of the Iraqi's? Will they act out of fear and turn on their American friends if only to avoid being labeled as collaborators? For when we are gone there will be nothing between them and the anti-American death squads rounding up any Iraqi that was friends with American soldiers.

The situation for our troops in Iraq has gone from bad to critical and they deserved better. This is just about as bad as it could get for our troops and for the security of the USA. IF this goes down as expected and Iraq's oil riches becomes controlled by those intent on doing us harm there will be an Iraq III.

____________________

Note: According to the poll, just 23 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. Bush beats the congressional number by 6 points, pulling in a 29 percent approval rating. With these numbers we have virtually no leadership. The ship of state is without a rudder.

1. cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

UPDATE: "Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have made it clear their support for the troop increase does not mean they are signed on to keeping 160,000 US troops in Iraq, even as they have laid out hawkish positions on other aspects of foreign policy.

Their recent moves underscore the President's growing isolation on Iraq as Republicans begin searching for a post-Bush foreign policy. The shifts also distance the three top contenders from Senator John McCain, the former frontrunner, who has reaffirmed his commitment to the increase."

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:38 AM | Comments (0)

July 10, 2007

My Plan’s Better Than Your Plan

by Tina Grazier - Hillary got tough on the war today, practically ordering the president to listen to her...or else.

“Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war – not next year, not next month – but today,” Clinton said in a speech to about 350 people at the Temple for the Performing Arts.

Her own plan is a list made of clever sounding words of little substance and ultimately echoing a quite familiar tune:

Troop withdrawal: She would direct her secretary of defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and her National Security Council to draw up a “clear, viable plan” to start bringing troops home within the first 60 days of her administration.

Cooool…sixty days…now that’s fast. Wonder what “clear, viable plan” they would come up with after sixty whole days? …it’s that “viable” thing that’s the stickler.

Care for troops: She would direct the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense to prepare a plan for “the highest quality health care and benefits” for every service member, including National Guard members and Reserves and their families. She would make sure it’s promptly funded and implemented.

Wow…she would “direct” and “make sure”. Wonder what “promptly funded and implemented" plan we can expect after all that directing and making sure?

Stabilize Iraq: She would focus U.S. aid on stabilizing Iraq and helping its people, “not propping up the Iraqi government.” She would support the appointment of a high-level United Nations representative to help broker peace.

Now this is truly amazing…she would “stabilize Iraq and help its people”…but how is still a mystery, and oh yeah, she would call on the UN to broker peace…sure, that’s never been tried! (This is the smartest woman in the world?) And why so hostile to the Iraqi government?

Diplomatic initiative: She would pull together key allies and people from countries bordering Iraq to mediate among sectarian groups in Iraq, and convince Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Syria from getting involved in civil war in Iraq, either directly or indirectly.

Where does she come up with this stuff…? ?? ? …”pull together key allies and people” to “mediate” and “convince” …is there a plan here that I missed…nope…not so far. Maybe she’s psychic…or maybe she has special powers that allow her to “force men”…especially incredibly proud, macho, “women in their place,” men…to do her bidding. Has anyone seen her with a broom or a wand lately?

Refugees: Clinton would organize a multibillion-dollar international effort to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. It would be paid for by several countries and led by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Now this one I get! All she has ever had to do is show up to spend other people's money. It's a no- brainer. So she would take this money and “organize” a multi-billion dollar international effort to address the needs of Iraq refugees.” But wait…I guess this means she knows that if we pull our troops out of Iraq the Iraqi's will desperately and fearfully try to flee…and that means she also knows a slaughter will follow. And this is her plan?

Terrorism: She would “order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations” against al Qaida and other terrorist organizations in the region.

Yep, I can imagine this too…she would “order.” I think “ordering” others about is par for the course for this particular woman…but the plan? Let’s see…”specialized units”…yep we have those…"narrow and targeted operations”… determined how?...against al Qaida and other terrorist organizations in the region”…hmmmm…this sounds a little like…”terrorists and those who harbor terrorists”…isn’t that the essence of the Bush plan?

Can't you just picture all of the pull toys nodding their little heads in approval as they sigh, "She'll do so much for peace."

Read all about it in “Clinton to Bush: End Iraq war now,” by Jennifer Jacobs in the Des Moines Register.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:41 PM | Comments (1)

Oh Great…

How about fat? Obese survive better - Associated Press, by Staff Writer

LONDON -- While being fat increases your chances of a heart attack, some studies suggest a puzzling paradox: Obese people seem to have a better chance of surviving one. Scientists are stumped over why that seems to be the case and pose several theories. There may be differences in the hearts of obese and normal-weight people. Or perhaps it depends on where the fat is on their bodies.

Now I feel like Sybil…arghhhh, the conflict!

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:43 PM | Comments (0)

Head of FDA Executed for Corruption?

by Jack Lee

As much as I would love to comment on this as it might relate to corruption in US politics...I won't!!! lol (I'm biting my lip not to say one more thing)

Here's the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070900689_pf.html

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:16 PM | Comments (2)

"How's our schools doing? Call 1-800-Who Cares?"

by Jack Lee

This bumper sticker slogan might as well be from the Calif. Teacher's Association, for all the good they've done for our schools. K-12 now ranks 49th out of 50 for reading and science, but that is just the beginning of this D- report card. 45% of incoming college freshman need remedial English, 37% need remedial math and for all this underperformance, California spends more money on education than any other state and it's the largest slice of our budget pie! You might think all this money would rate us at least a C?

Break it down to per student costs and its about $8600 a year, next year it will be about $11,000 per student and the really enlightening part is the latest, best study says no amount of spending will improve this situation unless it is accompanied by "extensive and systematic" reforms.

Depending on which study you read, overall California ranks about 45th out of 50. As the saying goes, "Your tax dollars at work!"

By a 3 to 1 margin, flexible spending, not solely increasing funds, is the answer to better schools, according to survey of School Superintendents. I've always believed when tax money is spent as close as possible to it's origination, it gets more mileage. And this seems to be true for just about everything in government, not just schools.

This current D- ranking does not appear to be a problem due to economic status or even caused by a recent influx of non-English speaking students. California schools with English-learners and students from low income families vary widely in their test results. According to the most recent study "children of college graduates rank in the bottom 3rd of the nation compared to their peers."

It would be great if we tracked what those higher performing schools are doing right and adopt it into schools that are drawing down the statewide averages, but to do that we need to empower our principals and our school boards to make the necessary changes and they are faced off against the Unions and protectionism.

There are so many levels where change could bring about dramatic results, for instance: Does anyone in the real world think 2 years is enough to grant lifetime tenure for a job? Maybe 5-7 years, but 2 years seems ridiculously low. And how about teacher raises being tied to student performance instead of mere seniority? Works everywhere else in the real world!

Charter schools and vouchers have been laughed at by the teacher's union, but they deserve some serious consideration. We need to get out of this box and be creative, experiment and adapt to changing techniques that have proven themselves effective in other states. But, first we have to get past the CTA and that is one big hurdle. The lobbyist money they pour in to Sacramento has too many legislators paralyzed into the status quo.

For more information try reading the Status Quo Must Go...San Diego Tribune 3/16/07

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:11 PM | Comments (1)

Knowledge with Sowell

“Today, whole classes of people get their jollies and puff themselves up by denigrating and denouncing American society. Such people are a major influence in our media, in our educational system and among all sorts of vocal activists. Nothing illustrates their power to distort reality like the way they seize upon slavery to denounce American society. Slavery was cancerous but does anybody regard cancer in the United States as an evil peculiar to American society? It is a worldwide affliction and so was slavery. Both the enslavers and the enslaved have included people on every inhabited continent—people of every race, color, and creed. More Europeans were enslaved and taken to North Africa by Barbary Coast pirates alone than there were African slaves taken to the United States and to the colonies from which it was formed. Yet throughout our educational system, our media, and in politics, slavery is incessantly presented as if it were something peculiar to black and white Americans. What was peculiar about the United States was that it was the first country in which slavery was under attack from the moment the country was created. What was peculiar about Western civilization was that it was the first civilization to destroy slavery, not only within its own countries but in other countries around the world as well. Reality has been stood on its head so that a relative handful of people can feel puffed up or gain notoriety and power. Whatever they gain, the rest of us have everything to lose.” —Thomas Sowell

Hat tip: “Patriot Post”

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:29 AM | Comments (1)

July 09, 2007

End to Korean War?

Reuters, by Staff

New York - U.S. strategists are exploring how to implement a peace accord to officially end the 1950-53 Korean War and hope to start discussions with North Korea as soon as year end, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. North Korea is expected to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor in coming days. *** A formal peace treaty could coincide with the formation of a regional security body to resolve security disputes, along the lines of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Amazing! The progress to be made when liberals aren’t tossing stink bombs every other minute…

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:17 PM | Comments (0)

July 08, 2007

The Hill & Bill show

NEWSFLASH: So much has been made over former VP Gore's "Live Earth Concert" you might have missed the fact that Hillary is campaigning now with her boy Bill. Catch up with the former first couple in this cute little piece out of Iowa:

NASHUA, IOWA — Hillary Rodham Clinton looked enviously at her husband's malted milkshake at a roadside ice cream shop. Then, unable to resist, she dipped in a plastic spoon. Sitting side by side at the counter, cooing over the array of flavors, the Clintons seemed the picture of marital bliss, like any other husband and wife team that just happened to be running for president once again. **** Elsewhere during nearly three days of campaigning across Iowa, the couple hugged, touched and whispered in each other's ears. He would pat her back. She would touch his arm. In the Fourth of July parade in Clear Lake, they marched along holding hands, fingers interlocked.

Gag me with a copy of "Hell to Pay" by Barbara Olsen...make that three copies.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:19 PM | Comments (0)

Try to Keep Up

by Tina Grazier

Man, when liberals take over it’s tough to keep up. They’ve been telling us for quite a long time now that discrimination is bad, that profiling is wrong and that “judging others” makes one a bigot, “phobe” or racist. You can imagine the confusion when Gordon Brown recently said:

"…we have got to separate those great moderate members of our community from a few extremists who wish to practice violence and inflict maximum loss of life in the interests of a perversion of their religion."

Call me crazy but doesn’t that mean we must now become profilers? Doesn’t that mean we must learn to discriminate by judging others? Hasn’t he just tossed the PC mantra out the proverbial window? And isn’t it fuunnneee, the way liberals don’t seem even to notice their own hypocrisy?

***

Just to make things interesting a former jihadist from Manchester is said to have written:

the "real engine of our violence" is "Islamic theology."

OK…now that the war, and therefore the collective will to win, has been thoroughly undermined in the press, and Blair/Bush have been painted as evil war mongering imperialists…now, that the left has taken the reigns in Great Britain and there is great anticipation for a lefty to win the presidency in America…NOW we can begin to tell a more accurate and real story. We (the press) have hero’s to create…we might even get the chance to turn this toward Camelot again…sigh.

***

I think I’ve got it…you put your right foot in….no, no, you put your right foot OUT…you put your LEFT foot in…and the story turns about…you do the hokey pokey while the righties scream and shout…it’s all for political clout…..everybody now…

***

The very good story from the New York Post that inspired my giddy ire, “Islams Problem - We Must Stop Denying Our Religion’s Roll in Violence,” by Irshad Manji is well worth the read if you are so inclined. A sampling:

CONSIDER Mohammad Sidique Khan, the teaching assistant who master minded the July 7, 2005 transit bombings in London. In a taped testimony, Khan railed against British foreign policy. But before bringing up Western imperialism, he emphasized that "Islam is our religion" and "the Prophet is our role model." Khan gave priority to God, not to Iraq. *** Now take Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim who murdered Amsterdam film director Theo van Gogh. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into van Gogh's body. Knowing that multiple shots would finish off his victim, why didn't Bouyeri stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate van Gogh? Again, we must confront religious symbolism. The blade is an implement associated with 7th-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into van Gogh's corpse, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry. Let's credit Bouyeri with honesty: At his trial he proudly acknowledged acting from "religious conviction."

America…do vote wisely in 08!

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:57 PM | Comments (2)

You Know You're From California If....

From Tinman, you know you're from California if:

1. A coworker has 8 body piercing and none are visible.

2. You make over $300,000 and still can't afford a house.

3. You take a bus and are shocked at two people carrying on a conversation in English.

4. Your child's 3rd-grade teacher has purple hair, a nose ring and is named Flower.

5. You can't remember. Is pot illegal?

6. You've been to a baby shower that has two mothers and a sperm donor.

7. You have a very strong opinion about where your coffee beans are grown, and you can taste the difference between Sumatran and Ethiopian.

8. A really great parking space can move you to tears.

9. Gas costs $1.00 per gallon more than anywhere else in the U.S.

10. Unlike back home, the guy at 8:30 am at Starbucks wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses who looks like George Clooney really IS George Clooney.

11. Your car insurance is as much as your house payment.

12. It's barely sprinkling rain and there's a "STORM WATCH" on every news station.

13. You pass an elementary school playground and the children are all on their cell phones.

14. Its barely sprinkling rain, so you leave for work an hour early to avoid all the weather-related accidents.

15. Both you AND your dog have therapists, psychics, personal trainers and cosmetic surgeons.

16. The Terminator is your governor.

17. If you drive illegally, they take your driver's license. If you're here illegally, they give you one!

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:06 PM | Comments (11)

Live Earth Report

The Gesture Jester Holds Court
by Tina Grazier

“Live Earth is about engaging a global movement of people to take action against the climate crisis,” - Live Earth Founder and Producer Kevin Wall

The same old song and dance troupe took center stage this weekend around the world as liberals united to “do something”…this time it’s about the climate crisis formerly known as global warming. The crisis, as we all know, is really, really important…so important that it has been deemed the most critical issue of our time. “Engaging a global movement of people to take action,” which is sixties speak for party hardy and carry a big sign, is this years best effort event for solving this critical problem. The weekend of 07-07-07 hatched “Live Earth,” featuring concerts, rock stars, celebrities and corporate sponsors all across the planet.

In anticipation of criticism Gore and friends have promised to purchase carbon credits to offset the huge footprint this event will generate…but does that justify the extravagance, the waste, the cost to our poor sick planet?

“Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on?” is a story with a few interesting guestimates:

A Daily Mail investigation has revealed that far from saving the planet, the extravaganza will generate a huge fuel bill, acres of garbage, thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions, and a mileage total equal to the movement of an army. ** The most conservative assessment of the flights being taken by its superstars is that they are flying an extraordinary 222,623.63 miles between them to get to the various concerts - nearly nine times the circumference of the world. The true environmental cost, as they transport their technicians, dancers and support staff, is likely to be far higher. ** The total carbon footprint of the event, taking into account the artists' and spectators' travel to the concert, and the energy consumption on the day, is likely to be at least 31,500 tonnes of carbon emissions, according to John Buckley of Carbonfootprint.com, who specialises in such calculations. ** Throw in the television audience and it comes to a staggering 74,500 tonnes. In comparison, the average Briton produces ten tonnes in a year. ** The concert will also generate some 1,025 tonnes of waste at the concert stadiums - much of which will go directly into landfill sites.

When gestures are the cure…pretence becomes the order of the day, hence the following admonition to performers:

Andrea Robinson, Live Earth's green manager, says her message to celebrities is: "Leave the Learjet at home - fly commercial."

John Rego, the environmental director of Live Earth, says he expects to purchase at least 3,000 tonnes of carbon credits to off-set the event. It is believed the organisers will spend in excess of £1million on carbon offsetting to counter criticism.

Like, W-O-W!!! But listen, if these folks really believed in this stuff wouldn’t they just give everything away and go back to the earth (hippie speak for living out of a sleeping bag and peeing behind a tree.)? What? And give up the good life? Are you crazy….nooooo waaaaaaaaaaaay…on with the gestures…the glitter...the pretense…the show!

***

Another interesting wrinkle in this gesture fest is the political/corporate angle. Those on the political left love to “partner” with corporations. It’s a great way to make sure they “perform and pay.” A great article by Steven Milloy, “Junk Science: Live Earth’s Gross Groupies” makes this connection:

Why is NBC airing Al Gore’s Live Earth concert this weekend? … the parent company of NBC is the General Electric Company, a corporation that is aggressively lobbying for global warming regulation. GE’s ostensible rationale is that it hopes to profit by selling high-priced global warming-related and alternative energy products, ranging from solar panels and wind turbines to compact fluorescent lightbulbs and nuclear power plant technologies. ** Electric utilities that belong to USCAP, like Duke Energy and PG&E Corp., expect to benefit from higher energy prices, which tend to be associated with higher profit margins. Additionally, these higher energy prices and profits — because they will be based in government-sanctioned environmental policies — will likely be politically protected (unlike the ratepayers who will foot the higher bills). ** GE’s stock has mostly traded in a relatively narrow range since Immelt took over and has significantly underperformed the broader market. So, in 2005, Immelt adopted image-building as his key to success – hence the re-branding of regular GE products into trendy “Ecomagination” products. The idea for GE’s Ecomagination marketing strategy came not from engineers who had new product ideas, but from PR consultants hired to burnish GE’s brand. Immelt then became a global warming regulation advocate, one of the first CEOs to do so. At WRI’s 25th anniversary dinner in February, Live Earth concert organizer Al Gore personally presented Immelt with the WRI’s “Courage to Lead” award.

***

Oh well, it's all in good fun and after all it does keep old Al, the little clown, very busy. So in the spirit of fun, laughter and Al try this factoid from a great blog “Planet Gore” over at “National Review Online”:

Going Green is Bad for the Planet! - Tim Worstall
One of those little stories that does so much to warm the cockles of my cruel, cruel, heart. One of the big campaigns of encouragement over in the U.K. is currently that we should all compost our food and garden waste rather than sending it off to a landfill. The justification for this return to the technology of the medieval peasantry (with, no doubt, the follow on of long drop latrines and the use of corn cobs...as long as those aren't GM of course) is that landfills produce methane. True, but then the wormeries used to do the composting also emit greenhouse gases:

This is because worms used in composting emit nitrous oxide - a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. Landfill sites produce methane which is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

And if that didn’t make your sides split try this just in from the concert in London:

"If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!" – Madonna, in a black satin leotard articulating one plan to combat global warming.

The gesture jester strikes again and all is right with the world!

Posted by Post Scripts at 01:13 AM | Comments (7)

July 07, 2007

Shifting Sands In Britain's War

by Tina Grazier

Now that Gordon Brown is the new Prime Minister expect a radical shift in the battle against terror…at least I’d bet those on the left who hate this war (and blame Blair and Bush) hope that’s what will happen. But let’s not jump on that peace train just yet. Developments in the recent car bomb attacks reveal that those responsible were educated doctors and respected members of the community, a realization that has shocked and surprised:

“Islamic charity linked to car bomb suspect” It is an innocent looking semi-detached property in the university city of Cambridge from where an Islamic charity, dedicated to peace and interfaith friendship, operates. The leaders of the Islamic Academy are so moderate that they were recently invited to share a platform with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Yet there are growing suspicions that this suburban house is where the origins of the suspected London and Glasgow bomb plots may lie, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

If it is proved that this “moderate” academy has been the headquarters of terror plots an adjustment in how people think about the enemy is called into play…we must conclude that all will now be suspect and that to continue to deny such is a fool’s game.

As if on cue Gordon Brown’s newly appointed security minister confirms my thoughts as the following snippet reveals. But a more interesting part of the story is what it indicates about Tony Blair (and George Bush)…that they have been right all along…and that they have restrained themselves so as not to offend or misrepresent the Muslim community. It’s a thin line to walk; a fine edge of a very sharp sword. Few have given them the credit they deserve; most, in fact, have denied and disparaged them and their efforts.

“Warning of 15-year fight against terror” Britain faces a 15-year battle to end the threat posed by Islamist terrorists, the Government's new security supremo has admitted. Admiral Sir Alan West, the former First Sea Lord, said the overall danger facing the country, from both home-grown and foreign terrorists, was at its greatest ever level and that a new approach was badly needed to tackle it. In his first interview since his surprise appointment by Gordon Brown as security minister, Sir Alan called on people to be "a little bit un-British" and even inform on each other in an attempt to trap those plotting to take innocent lives. "Britishness does not normally involve snitching or talking about someone," he said. "I'm afraid, in this situation, anyone who's got any information should say something because the people we are talking about are trying to destroy our entire way of life." He said he was determined to build on the Government's core anti-terrorism strategy… Of the terrorists, he said: "I think they have severely damaged one of the world's great religions - the one they purport to support." The claims that British foreign policy was solely to blame was an erroneous argument, he said. "It's not something that has happened recently. Iraq, for example, they use that as an excuse. There's no doubt the Middle East peace process is an important issue but actually when we were having men killed fighting to look after Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo, these people even then were trying to undermine us and ... cause damage to us."

Admiral Sir Alan West says this war goes back a long time (mentions Bosnia and Kosovo) and says the battle could last 15 years. Interesting number, “15’…if I’m not mistaken, and I’m not, it was GWB who stood in that pile of rubble (and un-recovered bodies) in New York and said this battle could take twenty years. West also said that a “new approach was badly needed to tackle it.” (A new approach huh?) He then went on to say they would “build on the Government’s core anti-terrorism strategy,” indicating the strategy would be “more” not “less” of what has been done.

I don't know anything about the Admiral West or his politics so my remarks are directed toward the left leaners. Now that this war is “their” problem we can expect that war stories in the media will shift in a decidedly positive direction, at least as to the leadership of Gordon Brown. Tactics will be ‘built upon” but they won’t be deemed serious breaches against freedoms. They will be called “necessary and brilliant moves” that offer a pathway to “peace”…tra la.

We can expect no less from our own media should a democrat win the White House in 08. The big difference, and it’s a very important difference, between having “Bushco” in charge and a democrat at the helm is that the war will not be run by generals who know what they are doing but by a politician…an ego driven politician with a desperate need to be popular and in control…not to mention the whole peace legacy thing. Beware the shifting sands.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:46 PM | Comments (0)

July 05, 2007

Blessed by bin Laden?

by Tina Grazier

NEVER MIND: The Australian Federal Police have rejected a report that terrorists had planned to set off a car bomb in Britain remotely from Australia...as reported here earlier.

The Times Online reports that the recent terror plots in Great Britain were carried out with Osama bin Laden’s blessing:

The London and Glasgow bomb plots were carried out with the approval of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, a top foreign intelligence source said last night. *** “It was an established fact from Day 1 that al-Qaeda was behind this and it was planned by its followers in Great Britain with bin Laden’s blessing,” the source told The Times. *** British security officials were more guarded, saying that it was too early to say whether the plot was masterminded by some foreign hand or hatched in Britain. *** The warning an al-Qaeda leader in Iraq delivered to Canon Andrew White, a British cleric working in Baghdad, in April certainly suggested that he knew of the doctors’ plot. “Those who cure you will kill you,” the man said.

One person, a doctor, who responded in the comments section following the article had this to say:

I am ashamed at what these Muslim doctors did.Unfortunately ,I suffer more mental anguish than most,as I am a muslim doctor of specialist level who was happy and proud to have worked many years in the UK.The respect and love shown by the patients and public was great ,but what can one expect now?

I donot know when will we muslims realise that we have to do something constructive to improve ourselves and not destructive.Regardless of how many such stupid attempts are made,muslims will remain in miserable conditions,as we are ourselves responsible for those.Why are we not annoyed with daily killings of thousands of muslims by muslims.How is that does not raise anger among us?Somehow it is accpted our the last fifty years in Afghanistan,Iran,Iraq and other muslim countries.It seems we shall never learn as we never take blame for anything.So how are we going to correct ourselves,if we are never at fault? - Dr.F Q Zaman.MD,MRCP London, Hamden, CT USA

Apparently Dr. Zaman, bless him for speaking out, isn’t buying into “Mr. Brown’s Lovely Idea.” (see post below)

Posted by Post Scripts at 10:37 PM | Comments (0)

American Report Card

by Tina Grazier

Setting the immigration issue aside this snippet from an AFP story tells the sorry tale of the state of our society, the family and our educational system:

US software behemoth Microsoft Corp. said Thursday it would soon open an office in Canada, lamenting tough immigration rules in the United States that make it difficult to hire foreign staff. ''It is about recruiting the best and brightest, and right now, the majority are coming from overseas,'' Marc Seaman, a spokesman for the world's biggest software company, told The Globe and Mail newspaper.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:30 PM | Comments (0)

Mr. Brown’s Lovely Idea

by Tina Grazier

A name by any other rose smells just as bad! The new PM of Great Britain, however, insists that calling the war against terrorist acts “the war on terror” is just too insensitive...and on top of that, his ministers have been banned from using the word Muslim in connection with terror events:

"Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with the terrorism crisis. The Prime Minister has also instructed his team including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith that the phrase war on terror is to be dropped. The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more 'consensual tone' than existed under Tony Blair."

What , pray tell, will the good Prime Minister demand of those... er, fellows from that obscure desert region who like to play really, really rough…um…games, using er, fire and poisonous gases, car and plane crashes and um swords and well, GUNS (oh dear)…when his British citizens, including Muslims, are “offended” by being in the wrong place at the wrong time? (BOOM)

The last time we in the US handled this problem with a “consensual tone” the much bigger boom came in the form of 9/11, an event greater than any previously waged against us. Playing nice is a gift to these thugs. it gives them time and space to plan and execute.

The next phase of playing nice will result in a big BOOM that’s likely to include nuclear or biological weaponry launched from right here at home. The goal for “them” has always been bigger, more spectacular and horrific….it’s why we call them terrorists…it’s why we call it a war against terror...it's also why we identify them as Muslims. We need to find them and looking for Chinese grandmothers won’t work.

A great number of Muslims, Mr. Brown, are our allies in this effort.

Posted by Post Scripts at 08:18 PM | Comments (2)

I Didn’t Know That!

by Tina Grazier

I’ve never heard of a “Zebrula, just didn’t know such a thing existed, but there
it is in black and white! If you care to see more just click HERE. The story is short
but if you scroll down you’ll find a slide show of “Eclyse.”

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:18 PM | Comments (0)

July 04, 2007

God Bless America

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated." - Thomas Paine; 1776

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:31 PM | Comments (0)

JULY 4th, 2007: I AM A CANDIDATE!

by Jack Lee, not a consultant...

For over 40 years I have been the voter, but now I am venturing to the other side, as a candidate for the 3rd Assembly District. It's been a long and difficult decision making process, but it's done and I'm running. It's pretty exciting as a whole new dimension to my citizenship has opened up, one that I always knew existed, but never fully appreciated... at least not until now. It's also been a humbling experience too as I took a hard look in the mirror and weighed what this commitment means to me and to you.

I can take failing myself, but I can't take failing you. That's not an option and I had to be sure I would be the kind of guy you needed in Sacramento and I really think I can do this job. I've got a very diverse background from law enforcement, small business owner, real estate politics and farming and thats a combination that could serve us well in Sacramento. It gives me a very real perspective on the challenges we're facing in this state.

Today, I was at One Mile in Chico for the 4th of July celebration and I was wearing my "Jack Lee for Assembly button" for the first time. I was trying to acclimate myself to randomly shaking hands with potential voters and handing out my first election brochures, (which were nothing more than my ideas on typing paper) and all was going really well. Then I think, I've just spent the last 4 hours walking around this event to talk to a total of about 30-35 voters, and that was great don't get me wrong, but there are roughly 63,000 more voters I need to meet! Worse yet, they are spread over seven counties!!! If you figure that a typical work year has about 1920 hours in it and the primary election is 11 months away, then I'm about 4 years behind in man hours and I'm just starting as candidate! lol Well, thank goodness for a great staff of volunteers and the internet. No way can this race be run without a lot of good people behind your every step. Research says I can expect as much as 20% of my support to come from the internet, but that still leaves 50,000+ contacts to go and go we will, but, we sure have our work cut out for us!

It costs a lot to communicate with the voters, for instance to do just three strategic mailings and calculating the

costs for postage and brochures, it looks like about $110,000 is needed in the coming months. And you wonder why we don't have a lot of people stepping up to run for Assembly? Ha! And there's many more hurdles ahead and they all cost money, a lot of money.

Big money in politics just seems like a bad combination to me, but it’s sure a reality. The Supreme Court has held that money equals free speech, so it's not likely we're going to take big money out of elections anytime soon. The upside to raising our money is, I still have total ethical control over what money I will or will not accept and exactly how much money we should raise to get our message out. (FYI, I have signed a voluntary spending limit with the Secretary of State, seemed like the right thing to do.)

However, if we do it right, we can run our campaign on about 35-40% less money than the competition and still be very effective. For starters a professional campaign manager is going to take about $110,000 or more in fees and commissions...we don't have one of those guys and it's for darn good ethical reasons, not a lack of money to hire one! We see this professional manager as driving up the costs of elections far beyond mere inflation and in that sense he's preventing a lot of good people from running because the costs are growing prohibitively high. This guy is also keeping you from really getting to know who you are electing. See, in a professionally managed campaign this character decides what the issues are and he creates the candidate's imagine to fit the theme. He manages almost everything they (candidates) say and do, based on his scientific research and polling data. All this might buy an election, but it's not good for a democracy! So, we decided this is not for us and we know it's a risk to do away with the professional consultants, but it's a risk done for good reason....ethics.

I'm not hiding behind a consultant. What you see is what you get. We'll likely make some mistakes as a result, but we're trusting YOU to see and appreciate why we've taken this grassroots approach and thats where we earn YOUR trust back. Bottom line, this is going to be an clean race based on good ideas and critical issues and we will not turn to mudslinging and character assassinations, no matter what.

Want to see a little of what I'm going to run on? Here's my contract with the voters, we may ad more to it as things progress:

I will… work for a secure border, responsible immigration reform and fight to change the baby anchor rule.
I will… work for lower taxes and reform in our tax codes.
I will… work towards restoring fiscal discipline, by cutting waste, fraud and abuse and paying down California’s bond debts early to protect our children from an unfair burden.
I will… support legislation for more affordable, quality health care.
I will… work to provide every child in California with the best possible education.
I will… support police and fire through responsible funding and fair salaries.
I will… fight to protect our water rights provide strong levees to prevent flooding.
I will… fight for the public interest and against special interest legislation.
I will…respect and uphold rights of individuals and support and protect our Constitution.

There's more I could have said above, but I am trying to prioritize on what is most important to you without going too far out on a tangent. I wish I had the space for all the details too, like my thoughts for a performanced based budget where we quantify the value of a given program based on in-put verses out-put. However, that will have to save that for another time. I would be happy to discuss any issue that is important to you off site or privately in comments.

I owed it to you to make my candidate announcement here since many of you have been with me since the first time I writing about my decision process. You've all been a great help to me and your words of encouragement, advice and ideas were truly the deciding factor to run. Thank you and have a happy 4th of July!

Now let's roll! Lee4assembly@dslextreme.com

_____________________________________________

NOTICE: As part of the equal time rule, if another candidate for the 3rd Assembly District wants to share space here, this your one and only opportunity, because this is my first and last personal political post.

Posted by Post Scripts at 04:36 PM | Comments (8)

Iraq War Debate Conclusion

Response by Nick Freitas....

I'm sorry this took so long in coming, but here is my "wrap it up" statement.

Here is the "how and why" I think the war was a good idea, and remains so.

In my first statement I promised that I would demonstrate why I think the war was and is the right course of action, morally, politically, economically, strategically and legally.

Morally...

Because of our actions:

1. Because of our actions Iraq is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism.

2. The Kurds and Shia are no longer oppressed by the State.

Politically....

Because of our actions:

1. We have demonstrated (although not as thoroughly as I would like) That we have the political will to back our statements with action.

2. Iraq has had multiple nation wide elections with over 67% of the eligible population voting.

3. Egypt and Saudi Arabia have started instituting municipal elections.

4. Syria and Libya have been forced to make changes in their policy of supporting terrorist action because of our demonstrated willingness to intervene.

Economically....

1. We have prevented a dictator from controlling the oil flow of a country with the second largest known oil reserves. And while this was not our main goal, it is certainly a respectable and important one.

2. Intervention in this part of the world was absolutely necessary, and Iraq was the best choice economically because of the resources they posses for self sufficiency, and the ease with which we can rebuild infrastructure compared to other possible targets.

Strategically....

1. Iraq presented a good target because we had intimate knowledge of their conventional force and capabilities.

2. Their shared border with Iran, puts us in a position to have greater influence on Iran if military force should prove necessary.

3. The fact that the Saddam regime had alienated and oppressed various people groups within Iraq made for readily availible sympathizers upon invasion.

4. The flat terrain provided easy transportation for ground and air assault forces, and limited actions in difficult terrain (other than urban).

5. Their shared borders with 4 Arab nations, 1 Persian and 1 Ottoman made for a strategically convenient location to support allies and defend against enemies.

Legally....

1. Iraq fired on our warships patrolling an agreed upon "No Fly" zone established as part of the cease fire during the first Gulf war. This is an act of war and therefore we are within our rights to re establish hostilities with Iraq. (Which according to international and domestic law empowers us to strike to defend the conditions of our pre-set agreement.)

2. Iraq failed to abide by multiple UN imposed sanctions.

3. Iraq failed to abide by the terms of the cease fire (which according to international law, allows a military response.)

4. The Iraqi regime under Saddam had been a repeat offender of the Geneva conventions, UN resolutions, regional treaties, and cease fire agreements.

In short, there is something for everyone.

What is most impressive about our decision to invade Iraq, and our mission to create a representative government there in, is that it is a long term solution. We could have very easily toppled Saddam and replaced him with another dictator. Instead we choose the hard road, but the only one that has the potential for lasting peace and a comprehensive solution to State Sponsoring of terrorism. there are only two other alternatives. We can resume our old methods of dealing with terrorism which have proven ineffective, or we can fight a war of eradication.

We have chosen the much more difficult of the 3 options. I believe it is the right one. I certainly hope that it is, because of the other 2 options, one is unacceptable, and the other horrific.

We can win a huge battle in the war against Islamic Fascism by helping to build a prosperous Iraq with rule of law and representative government.

To do this we must have far reaching restrictions removed.

Greater control for the war needs to be given to counter insurgency units.

The Iraqi border must be secured.

The American media has to at least show both sides of the story.

Politicians must understand that they have an obligation to support our troops, and that anything short of supporting our mission has the effect of undermining it. (again, you have a right to oppose this war, but you had better be right, because your opposition DOES help our enemy in the interim, thats the reality, like it or not.)

The American people should be at least as willing to accept casualties as though who are going in their name. You don't see any large scale veteran protests, and we have a huge number of soldiers reenlisting and volunteering to go back, maybe that should tell you something. At the very least do not presume to protest this war on our behalf, when it is so obvious that a vast majority of the military supports this war. Quite frankly its, disingenuous, offensive, and exploitive, so please knock it off.

I hope this debate has been beneficial for those of you have followed it.

A big thank you to Meagan for debating me, Jack and Tina for hosting, and all of you for having to settle for reading without comment for a week. I know that can be very frustrating.

Thanks again,

Nick

Posted by Post Scripts at 04:20 PM | Comments (1)

Independence Day Observance

Posted by Tina Grazier

National Review Online features “Why We Fight-a gathering of patriots” to commemorate this 4th of July Holiday. I thought you might enjoy reading what good men have to say about their motives for defending our nation. A sampling:

One of my very first military operations was flying into Grenada on the first day of President Ronald Reagan’s bold intervention to stem Communism in the Caribbean. I had fellow Americans depending on me, and I was mutually dependent on them. It’s a bond that defies description, a kinship and an understanding that only those who share common experiences and common losses can understand. If I didn’t have it before, I certainly had it from that point on — an overwhelming pride in my country and in my fellow servicemen and women. Whether it was through operations in Somalia, Bosnia, or Haiti, I was honored to lead the finest Americans I have ever known and it was my privilege to serve our nation for the betterment of peoples everywhere. - Robert “Buzz” Patterson is a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force

On July 4, 1776, our Founding Fathers set in train a series of events whose outcome, it is always essential to recall, was not preordained. Enormous effort and endless sacrifice eventually secured victory. Today these same qualities are required of every American in the face of a sinister enemy who kills without mercy. The Revolutionary War was fought for independence. The War on Islamic Terror is waged to defend our liberty, and all that is decent in democratic life. - Joseph Morrison Skelly is a history professor in New York City. An officer in the United States Army Reserve

Iraq and its people have a special place in the heart and psyche of many American Marines and soldiers. For those Marines and soldiers who are “outside the wire” or work with Iraqis daily, the bond gets tighter every day. Marines and soldiers see themselves as protectors of the Iraqi people until such time as they can collectively protect themselves. *** While we are here, we will do everything to prevent the evil and the wicked from taking this country and its people because they are worth fighting for. - Tony Licari is a captain in the United States Marine Corps, currently serving in Iraq.

Posted by Post Scripts at 01:35 PM | Comments (0)

Independence Bell

Author Unknown - July 4, 1776

There was a tumult in the city,
In the quaint old Quaker town,
And the streets were rife with people
Pacing restless up and down --
People gathering at corners,
Where they whispered each to each,
And the sweat stood on their temples,
With the earnestness of speech.

As the bleak Atlantic currents,
Lash the wild Newfoundland shore,
So they beat against the State House,
So they surged against the door;
And the mingling of their voices
Made the harmony profound,
Till the quiet street of Chestnut
Was all turbulent with sound.

"Will they do it?" "Dare they do it?"
"Who is speaking?" "What's the news?"
"What of Adams?" "What of Sherman?"
"Oh, God grant they won't refuse!"
"Make some way there!" "Let me nearer!"
"I am stifling!" "Stifle then!
When a nation's life's at hazard,
We've no time to think of men!"

So they surged against the State House,
While all solemnly inside,
Sat the Continental Congress,
Truth and reason for their guide,
O'er a simple scroll debating,
Which, though simple it might be,
Yet should shake the cliffs of England
With the thunders of the free.

Far aloft in that high steeple
Sat the bellman, old and gray,
He was weary of the tyrant
And his iron-sceptered sway;
So he sat, with one hand ready
On the clapper of the bell,
When his eye could catch the signal,
The long-expected news to tell.

See! See! The dense crowd quivers
Through all its lengthy line,
As the boy beside the portal
Hastens forth to give the sign!
With his little hands uplifted,
Breezes dallying with his hair,
Hark! with deep, clear intonation,
Breaks his young voice on the air.

Hushed the people's swelling murmur,
Whilst the boy crys joyously;
"Ring!" he shouts, "Ring! Grandpapa,
Ring! oh, ring for Liberty!"
Quickly, at the given signal
The old bellman lifts his hand,
Forth he sends the goods news, making
Iron music through the land.

How they shouted! What rejoicing!
How the old bell shook the air,
Till the clang of freedom ruffled,
The calmly gliding Delaware!
How the bonfires and the torches
Lighted up the night's repose,
And from the flames, like fabled Phoenix,
Our glorious liberty arose!

That old State House bell is silent,
Hushed is now its clamorous tongue;
But the spirit it awakened
Still is living -- ever young;
And when we greet the smiling sunlight
On the fourth of each July,
We will ne'er forget the bellman
Who, betwixt the earth and sky,
Rung out, loudly, "Independence";
Which, please God, shall never die!

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:11 AM | Comments (0)

July 03, 2007

ACLU v. Founders

by Tina Grazier

Look in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and you will not find the words, “separation of church and state” anywhere. Still, the phrase has been used and abused in legal matters and the media for a very long time.

A story in “SFGate,” “ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting” by Michael Kunzelman, reports that the ACLU (and one offended citizen) is at it again:

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. *** The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." The ACLU says the portrait — an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament — is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.

I guess it is if you happen to be a member of an Eastern Orthodox branch of Christiasnity. If not it might represent a fine work of art. And I suppose now that democrats are courting the Christian vote they have to qualify “Christian”…now only “orthodix” Christians are a BIG threat! Only “orthodox” Christian "art" is unacceptable:

"We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion ... We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law," said Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter.

The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. Named as defendants were the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish and City Judge James Lamz. St. Tammany Parish is being sued because it partially funds the court, the ACLU said. *** On Saturday, Lamz said the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed. He said he didn't believe the portrait violates the Constitution, but the issue should be decided in federal court.

I wonder how much this will cost the community both in time and money because one person was “offended” and also, I thought progressives were all about majority rule. Clearly a majority of folks in St. Tamminy Parish don’t mind having this particular piece of “art,” a painting of Jesus, in their courthouse lobby.

In any case I think we should hear from the founders...you know, those folks who did not include the words, "seperation of church and state" in the founding documents:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry

"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison, chief architect of the Constitution

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." - John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798 Address to the military

And here's another indication of the "intent" of these men:

Be Thou present; O God of Wisdom, and direct the councils of this Honorable Assembly: enable them to settle all things on the best and surrest foundations: that the scene of blood may be speedily closed: that Order, Harmony and Peace may be effectually restored, and Truth, and Justice, Religion, and Piety prevail and flourish among the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and the vigor of their minds, shower down on them, and the millions they here represent, such temporal Blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world, and crown them with everlasting Glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ Thy Son and Our Savior. Amen The First Prayer in Congress - Held in Carpenters Hall - Philadelphia - September 7. 1774

Sounds positively subversive and dangerous doesn't it? Especially when contrasted with, oh say, "wipe the infidels from the face of the planet."

Good manners and intelligence, not to mention "tolerance" require that religious art continue to be a part of our social fabric and used to inspire moral decency and self-governance...even in court or our schools...even for secularists or athiests or petty little busy bodies should they choose to be so inspired. God bless America.

Posted by Post Scripts at 11:03 PM | Comments (4)

Declaration of Independence - The Lesser Known Story

by Jack Lee

by Jack Lee

Before the Continental Congress, on July 2nd, 1776, a gentleman farmer and Representative from Virginia submitted a resolution explaining the justifications for separating from British control over the colonies. The author was a patriot by the name of Richard Henry Lee and although today history rarely mentions his name, he was well known in his own time for his eloquent writing and political leadership. It was only natural then that Richard Henry Lee was asked to draft an expanded declaration which could be ratified by Congress. Instead, Lee encouraged his colleagues to offer this important task to his young friend, Thomas Jefferson. Of course Jefferson accepted and two days later the 2nd Continental Congress signed into being the Declaration of Independence. At the time it was called, "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America."

In 1776 the American colonies were only uniting in defense of a cause to separate from Great Britain and become a free nation. The actual formation of the United States of America as a country was still a few years off, but the Declaration of Independence is still considered to be our founding document. Although, few realize it all really began with a resolution by Richard Henry Lee that would be expanded and articulated in the Declaration of Independence and now you know the rest of the story.

President Abraham Lincoln would later explain the grand importance of the Declaration of Independence to a small crowd gathered at a civil war battlefield in his Gettysburg Address of 1863 when he said:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

America's First Family, The Lees of Virginia

As a side note of historical interest, Frank Grizzard wrote of the Richard Lee Family, "More than 5 dozen members of the Lee Family of Virginia appear in Washington’s Papers. (See Appendix.) That is about half the number of Washingtons who appear, but by far greater than any other group of people with whom Washington ever associated. The list of Lees that came into Washington’s sphere include, of course, the more famous Revolutionary War Lees—Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee, Jr., brothers Francis Lightfoot Lee, Arthur, William and Richard Henry Lee—as well as their siblings, children, parents, uncles, aunts, and cousins."

Arthur Lee's contribution to America was also quite unnoticed even though he was chiefly responsible for France's financial support to the colonies during the war of independence and without that funding the war would have likely ended in a dismal failure. History has credited Benjamin Franklin for Lee's work because it was Franklin who closed the deal that Lee had worked so extensively to complete while serving as the colonial Ambassador to France.

Another decendant of the Lee family would later be the reason that President Lincoln gave his speech at Gettysburg and why we have the Arlington National Cemetary.

This story is dedicated to young Miles ...be proud of your country, be proud of your heritage. "Non-incautious futuri."

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:29 PM | Comments (2)

Equal Rights for Plants

by Jack Lee

Progressives are sounding the warning, humankind is consuming up to 24% of the energy captured by plants! This is far more than any other species, and we're doing it for no other reason than to simply to meet our needs and wants. How incredibly selfish of us. Did you realize, more than half of this greedy energy abuse was due to humans harvesting plants?

According to the article, "An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource." he earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

If you are going to be a good progressive, I suppose you shouldn't eat meat, that's cruel and you shouldn't eat plants, thats energy abuse.

Thanks to Coffeesnob for bringing us the original article.

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:11 PM | Comments (1)

Kamikazis Muslims

By Dan B.

The idea that Islamic kamikazis were just a few misguided youths oppressed by poverty and ignorance was mushy-headed Liberal thinking, a global counterpart to the view that violent street crime in America was caused by poverty, racism, and underpayment of teachers, rather than by criminals. It is not strictly a Liberal error either. Remember Bush giving speeches about how all people love freedom and would embrace liberty and democracy if only set free from their evil dictators? What a crock. Muslims want nothing to do with freedom, liberty, democracy, or any of that heresy. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. It is not a religion of moderation and tolerance. Make no mistake about it, Muslims hate Christians and want them dead. They also hate Jews, Buddhists, atheists, and anyone who is not a fanatical Muslim.

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:10 PM | Comments (4)

Quote of the Week

"The conflicts of the future will occur along cultural fault lines seperating civilizations" Samuel Huntington

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:43 AM | Comments (0)

July 02, 2007

The Alarming Truth

By Jack Lee

Update: “At least six doctors or medical students were among the eight under arrest last night over plots to bring death and carnage to London and Glasgow. “

We tend to think of the of terrorists as some struggling young person, living on the edge society, poorly educated, unemployed, isolated from all the good things we take for granted; A desperate person carrying out a desperate act! Then you read about an Islamic terror plot to kill hundreds using car bombs in London and discover two of the plotters were medical doctors.

These (alleged) terrorists were well respected members of British society. One was from Iraq, the other from Jordan. They were well educated, worldly and able to enjoy and participate in every aspect of British society. So much for theory of poor and hopeless kid with a bomb strapped to his body. And if we could only reach out as a caring people, engage the fringe people, give them hope through a responsible, dialog, then soon we could hold hands and go skipping off into the sunset as we sing songs of love and peace.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were not poor, uneducated people, they were ideologs and they were motivated by a cultural clash, not foreign policy, not ecomics and not about what the USA did or did not do somewhere to somebody. These people have been on a bloody rampage longer than the USA has existed. They are part of a culture of death.

Time and time again, the evidence points to a dysfunctional society that holds a vision of the future that is wholly incompatible with the idealisms commonly found in free and democratic nations. The Islamic culture denounces western society as evil and decadent and theirs as pure and superior. This is not a fundamental social division that can not be easily mediated away. What freedoms shall we surrender and what parts of the Koran shall they dismiss so we can all live peacefully together?

In 1997 interview with the Pope Benedict, just before he became the Pope, he addressed the polarizing differences between Islam and Western society when he said, "Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything," he said. "There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society. One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society."

He went on to say, "An important point, however, is ... that the interplay of society, politics and religion has a completely different structure in Islam as a whole. Today's discussion in the West about the possibility of Islamic theological faculties, or about the idea of Islam as a legal entity, resupposes that all religions have basically the same structure, that they all fit into a democratic system with its regulations and the possibilities provided by these regulations. In itself, however, this necessarily contradicts the essence of Islam, which simply does not have the separation of the political and religious sphere, which Christianity has had from the beginning. The Quran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic...."

About four decades ago there was a scholarly article on world cultures and it analyzed 8 basic components identifiable within each culture. All the world cultures were essentially compatible, save for one. Need I say it?
The changes that are necessitated for resolution are therefore incumbent on that one society. They are relentlessly forcing change under penalty of death on all other societies to that we will yield to their vision. That is the brutal, ugly truth we are reminded of every time we see insane acts of mass violence against innocent men, women and children, in Madrid, London, New York or Washington DC, to name but a few.

Posted by Post Scripts at 09:03 AM | Comments (4)

What’s Happening in Iraq?

by Tina Grazier

Special thanks to Meagan for bringing this subject to the fore.

A serious aspect of the war in Iraq is our support of the Iraqi people. It has been contended that we are bombing innocent people and that the people are worse off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. Are we just blowing people up over there or are we uplifting the people and their new government, acting as a supportive force? It’s an important question and the answer deserves more attention than our media has apparently decided to give. We can find reliable answers to this and other questions about our progress in Iraq at the website “Operation Iraqi Freedom-Official Website of Multi-National Force-Iraq.”

A recent Defense Department briefing, “An Update on Health Care Issues in Iraq” delivered by Dr. Quraish Alkasir, President of the Society of Iraqi Surgeons and Advisor to the Deputy prime Minister of Iraq and Brigadere General Michael Walsh, commanding general of the Gulf Region Division of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers offers some insight into our efforts and the Iraqi efforts in the area of healthcare. The report includes the following information:

The United States has contributed 22 billion dollars to reconstruction efforts in Iraq and 376 million dollars of that money has gone to the healthcare sector.

Renovations and construction of health facilities:

We are renovating 20 hospitals across the country and constructing 138 primary care clinics and one specialty hospital dedicated to maternity and child health care. One of the hospitals is a teaching hospital, a seven story building with 13 operating rooms. It includes residency and ancilliary buildings and the necessary systems of heating, electrical, oxygen, etc. These projects were completed by local Iraqi-owned business. Eighteen clinics are completed, eight are open and seeing about 250 patients a day. More than 80 clinics are 90% completed. We are also building a 94 bed state-of-the-art pediatric oncology teaching hospital along with “Project Hope.” The Basra Children’s Hospital will be the first hospital built since the 1980’s. It is the desire of the Iraqi government that this hospital become a center for excellence in technology, practice, training and administration.

Dr. Alkasir explained that the strategy for reconstruction was “looking for the best things to give to the people.” He reported that an important part of his job has been to contact friends that had left Iraq, colleagues, who might be willing to come back to Iraq to practice and teach. He concluded by saying, “Really at this moment, I want just to present my really thanks and gratefulness to my friends, the Americans in the JPC and the JROC, for what they have done and for what they are doing now.”

I don’t think we could ask for a more eloquently delivered “thank you” than that. I don’t know why none of this ever gets reported by our media. If I can find it surely they can. I invite you to visit this site often for updates on our progress with our friends, the Iraqi people.

Here’s another item, from the “Freedom Update” section on the site”

Completed Gulf Region Division water treatment projects have provided the capacity to serve an additional 2.2 million Iraqis with potable water. At the end of the program, the added capacity could serve approximately 5.2 million Iraqis with potable water.

Posted by Post Scripts at 12:08 AM | Comments (0)

July 01, 2007

Iraq War Debate Part III

by Nick Freitas

I have to disagree. September 11th proved that it is the people close to you who can cause you the most harm. Although American people have been saddened by multiple terrorist attacks against various U.S. military buildings and ships – the attacks that happened close to home brought our country to mourning. The closeness of our enemies is very significant. From 100 yards away, with a rifle, you could easily kill me. From 8,000 miles away, even with a really big bomb, you don’t pose that much of a risk to me. It would not be until you began to move that really big bomb much closer that I would consider you a threat!

Meagan, you have missed the point entirely here. If you want to stop an enemy from being able to attack you, you don’t try to guard every possible target. You attack them in their in their home base. If you fail to aggressively pursue your enemy to where the train and plan, then you can never defeat them. They will simply go to their safe haven and choose another time to attack utilizing different tactics techniques and procedures. Let me make this point very clear, “The logical end to defensive warfare, is in surrender.” Napoleon

You can never hope to defeat an enemy if you are unwilling to take the fight to them. Although the target of a bombing, or any other military action for that matter, may not have been the people who have done no wrong – you can read in the paper, on almost a daily basis, about the “collateral damage” from such actions.

Meagan, once again you have failed to address the point I was making. Collateral damage ALWAYS takes place in war. We take great efforts to minimize it, and have done an outstanding job, given the context of history. You’re not questioning whether the war is just in this remark, simply stating that collateral damage has taken place. There is nothing new about this, and if you believe that war is sometimes just than you must accept the fact that it is an unfortunate by product.

I do not believe that violence is never necessary – I believe that violence is a necessary evil. But, it is an evil, and should only be used when there is no other choice. Bringing about the downfall of a regime that we just don’t happen to like at the moment, does NOT – in any way – constitute "no other choice" in my opinion! And, when you get down to it, that is what the war in Iraq is about, bringing down a regime that we don’t like – not that we feel threatened by or that may cause us harm – just someone we don’t like.

Meagan, this is your opinion, not a fact. This was the problem I had with most of the statements you posed as “facts”. How can you say that our attack on this Regime that had utilized chemical weapons on the Kurds, attacked its neighbors, supported terrorist activity, constantly violated UN resolutions, was simply a case of us having a personality conflict. You have to blatantly ignore the last 20 years to make a statement like that Meagan.
You question my facts throughout your response, which is not a bad thing. I just wonder on this one, what would constitute a legitimate fact to you? I obtained these statistics from the Department of Military Defense. These are the statistics the United States Government is releasing to the public in regards to their own military personnel. So if you would like to know what constitutes a serious mental illness, you would have to ask them. My personal guess is the people presenting these statistics more than likely thinks like you do – having come from the same background – and would not be reporting P.T.S.D. or mild temperament change as a serious mental illness. But I can not speak with much authority on that.

Actually Meagan, if you are the one presenting the “fact” then it is incumbent upon you to defend it. And I wonder why it is brought to the forefront so often that these troops volunteered to serve in the military? Because they signed up for it are their lives somehow worth less? Would my argument be more valid if they had been drafted? This is a silly point. These men and women have volunteered their lives to serve their country. They should be held in the utmost respect, not placed in harms way unnecessarily. As an American who is not serving in the military, I feel it is important for us to question the legitimacy of our governments reasoning to send troops to fight and die. Not sit back idly and hope for the best. My point by sharing these statistics was not to show that war is bad, or that we should never go to war, my point is that this war has had a drastic negative impact on our military. And because I seriously question our need to be there, this information just gives me another reason to ask, why?

Meagan, again you are missing the point. A volunteer is different than a draftee. A volunteer makes a decision to serve understanding the potential consequences. Once again you are quoting a statistic which says nothing about whether this war is worth fighting. There are a great many ways you can deal with the stress of war, but you are using it as an example of why we should stop the war. So what is the magic number? At what point to we determine if a war is worth fighting or not? We cannot base our reasons for fighting a war based off of the fact that there will be some who are traumatized by it. That is a constant. Furthermore, as one of those volunteers, I am a little tired of people telling me that they are acting on my behalf, when it is so abundantly clear that I find it counter-productive.

I always wonder when I debate on this site what will constitute a legitimate fact, it constantly changes. My line of reasoning is this: The study was done by the British Ministry of Defense, who considers us their ally. I seriously doubt they wanted to prove the Iraqis don’t want us there, especially since they are part of the “coalition” that is mentioned. Do you seriously think they wanted to prove they were doing a bad job?

I don’t know how, or when, or even why the British Ministry of Defense decided to take this poll. I simply found them to be the most reliable source from which to pull data.

Great…then tell us why you felt it to be the most reliable, if you don’t know any of the circumstances in which the poll was taken. Please don’t tell me that you found it to be the most reliable, only because it is the most in tune with what you perceive the situation to be based off of what you have seen reported on CNN.

This is a little misrepresenting. The ISG urged the Bush administration to change course, in particular to begin the phased withdrawal of coalition troops and draw Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, into international consensus on the way forward. It also recommended that U.S. troops “evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army,” and to withdraw U.S. troops not involved with Iraq security by 2008. Although this may not be an announcement of a withdraw time, it is a suggestion, and it dose make sense – military or otherwise. I will concede, as dose the ISG that a full withdraw would be detrimental to the Iraqi government, and may cause us to have to return in the future, but as I said (and the ISG agrees) we need to begin supporting, not aggressing. “It’s clear the Iraqi government will need U.S. assistance for some time to come, especially in carrying out new security responsibilities. Yet, the United States must not make open-ended commitments to keep large numbers of troops deployed in Iraq.” This is a report that was created by 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats who unanimously approved “every word” of its Report, which strongly recommends that most U.S. troops leave Iraq by 2006.

And once again I wonder, what is good enough for you? These two men, whose OPINIONS seem so unreasonable to you are highly qualified and intelligent people. Peter Bergen is a journalist who appears as a terrorism analyst on CNN, he is also the man who conducted the first television interview with Osama Bin Laden in 1997. He is not just some shmuck that I chose to take at face value. This guy knows his stuff – and may arguably have more “real world experience” than you do. Paul Cruiskshank is a research fellow at the Center on Law and Security in the NYU School of Law. Again, pardon me if I feel he knows what he’s talking about.

They say:

Indeed, though what we call “The Iraq Effect” is a crucial matter for the U.S. national security, we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain. In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the fist such study, using information from the world’s premier database on global terrorism. The results are being published for the first time by Mother Jones, the news and investigative magazine, as part of a broader “Iraq 101” package.

This is not an attempt to sensationalize data and make the war look bad. This is a journalist saying, look, there is some fallout from our attacks in Iraq, and this “has some implications for American security in the future.” Maybe we should take a look at it.

What is good enough for me? Well It is simple, facts are verifiable places, things, events, etc. Presenting someone’s “cause and effect analysis” of those events, things, events, etc. is certainly pertinent, but it is NOT a fact. If however you want to use that as criteria…ok, I am a counter-insurgency specialist with 5 years active experience to include combat operations in the Iraq Theater. I disagree with the analysis that the going to Iraq was a bad choice. The End. Is that really good enough for you Meagan? I mean after all, I am a specialist, on active duty with combat experience. So if my opinion of those events, things and places, isn’t good enough for you….what is? My problem was not with you presenting their analysis as evidence; my problem was your attempt to present it as fact and therefore beyond reproach.

Nick(former post)- Otherwise this whole argument is simply a dressed up form of the “violence only begets more violence” argument, which I think is absurd.

Basically what your saying to me here is, ‘I don’t agree, therefore it is not factual.’ I hope in the future you can look past the fact that you don’t agree, and see the points I am presenting to you. These are not made up, or exaggerated, I made sure of that – these are the facts, choose to believe them or not, but there they are.

No Meagan, what we have here is a classic case of confusing analysis of facts with facts themselves. As I just demonstrated in my last response. You are not presenting verifiable figures as facts, you are presenting “cause and effect analysis” as factual, because it is based off of facts. I have clearly demonstrated how easy it is to use “cause and effect analysis” using verifiable facts, to come to a “bad” conclusion.

Nick (former post)-Since the war in Iraq has started there have been no successful terrorist attacks on our soil. Therefore we should continue the war indefinitely to ensure this trend continues.

Ahhh, interesting logic!?! But it begs the questions: How many successful terrorist attack were there on our soil before the war in Iraq? What years did they take place? Were the Iraqi people responsible for any of these attacks? And most importantly, do we think this war is going to stop, or prompt, future attacks?
Meagan, this whole comment was an illustration of why you cannot present analysis of events as fact. Your very questioning of the statement I posed proves the point I was trying to make.

Nick (former post)-The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to the killing or capturing of over 15,000 enemy combatants. Before these wars the United States had only been able to kill or capture terrorists and their supporters in small numbers.

Alright. But don’t you think the number of people the United States considered “enemy combatants” may have increased since we decided to occupy another country in a hostile manner? Could the increase in those labeled “enemy combatants” explain the increase in the United States ability to capture or kill them. And while we are on the subject, what is an “enemy combatant”? Is it the same as a terrorist? And I like the way killing is listed first, and capturing is second – as if the first mission when dealing with “enemy combatants” is to kill them, but if you can’t do that, just capture them instead.

Meagan, you will be interested to know that we put our own sons and daughters in a great deal of danger to ensure that we only kill those combatants who are actually shooting at us. Unfortunately the enemy is not bound by such absurd moral equivalency regulations, and gets to kill us all the time. Furthermore, we have been able to kill more terrorists because we are going after them in their safe havens, not waiting around for them to attack us. There has never been in the history of conflict a war that was won by purely defensive measures.

Nick (former post)-The Normandy invasion was a complete success due to the fact that it provided a foot hold in an area which was needed to bring about the eventual collapse of a despotic and fascist regime.

And why is the eventual collapse of a despotic and fascist regime our goal? Our duty? Any of our business?
Well because Islamic Fascists have declared war on us Meagan. Is your solution to really just ignore this until we are hit again? If you choose to view your security so lightly, feel free, but when it affects the security of my family, I’m afraid I’m just not going to lie down for such flippancy.

Nick (former post) The “facts” I presented you, represented by the events, numbers and data, are accurate. The conclusion I came too changed. Therefore to present opinions as fact, because they are supported by data, is simply not enough. You must impartially look at the data presented and determine if the conclusion is a fair one.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to impartially look at anything. They talk about this phenom in all research and statistic classes. A person comes to the table with thoughts, feelings, opinions, and dispositions that are going to affect the way they view something. It is our duty to try our hardest to be impartial and use our experience to determine if the conclusion is a fair one – something I don’t feel you did. You assumed that because I am a liberal, and speaking facts that you don’t want to hear, that I was being biased and jumping to conclusions. I don’t mind if you question my facts, but I told you where I got them from, they were reliable sources, and if you still doubted them you should have gone and checked them out, not acted as if I was being unreasonable!

Well then as someone who is well educated in the difference between facts and analysis, why did you choose to present opinions as facts? You then state that I ignored your facts because you are a liberal. I did nothing of the sort. In fact when I did the same thing you did (present analysis as facts) with my Iraq war statement, you immediately called me on it. Furthermore, it is not my job to validate your facts. Otherwise you could say anything you wanted, and the burden of proof would be on me. That doesn’t make any sense. If you present something as “fact” it is up to you to adequately support it, is it not?

I would love to know where you got your definition. It is very good. Mine was just a plain old Webster Dictionary dumb speak, yours sounds more grown up. The point is still the same though – what the United States has done, and is doing, flirts dangerously close with the definition of terrorism.

You are confusing a direct translation with common understanding once again. The terrorism we are speaking of is a tactic. We do not deliberately target non-combatants for extermination and terror, our enemies do. We have not even come remotely close to flirting worth that definition.

• The United States attack on Iraq was premeditated:

o Prior to January of 2001 Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein
o Since 1992, Cheney has endorsed a “bold foreign policy” that includes using military force to “punish” or “threaten to punish” possible aggressors in order to protect the United State’s access to Persian Gulf oil and to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction o In January of 1998 Rumsfeld and seven other future Bush-Cheney administration appointees signed a letter sent by a conservative policy institute named “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) to then President Clinton, which called for U.S. military action to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. o Around September 2000, 12 future Bush-Cheney administration appointees, including Wolfowitz, “Scooter” Libby, Stephen Cambone (long-term aide to Rumsfeld), participated in drafting “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” a PNAC policy statement which asserted that the “need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” PNAC acknowledged that its goals would o On February 11, 2001, Bush ordered the fist air strikes since 1998 to be conducted outside of the United Nations agreed upon No-Fly zone, to get Saddam Hussein’s “attention.” o Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, United States intelligence agencies determined that 9/11 was the work of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from Yemen, and two from Lebanon. This information, along with the conclusion that no evidence linked the attacks to Saddam Hussein, or al Qaeda was immediately communicated to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and others o Bush-Cheney administration members began discussing an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11. Bush, Rumsfeld and others also assigned various subordinates, including former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and General Richard Meyers to look for intelligence that could justify attacking Saddam Hussein’s regime. On September 17, 2001, Bush secretly ordered the formulation of preliminary plans for an invasion of Iraq, while admitting to his aides that no evidence existed to justify an attack.

• The attack was clandestine – since parts of the truth were kept from the American people, and arguably sub national, since it was not with a knowing consent that Congress declared war

• Our motives in war with Iraq are definitely politically motivated and violent

This is interesting, because before we began this debate we had agreed that debating the “Bush Lied, Kids Died” position was fruitless. But since you insist, allow me to retort.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

So if we can have a little intellectual honesty here, we can both acknowledge that pointing a finger at the right is as about as disingenuous as it comes.

• And even though it may not be our intention, there have been 106,069 journalists killed (37 by acts of war and 14 by US Forces), 7,010 Iraqi Police and Solders have been killed, and a UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian causalities have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. [These statistics were taken from the British Ministry of Defense poll preformed in August of 2005] - Which seems to me a whole lot like perpetration against a noncombatant target.

Really? It sounds to me like out of 106,069 journalists killed; only 14 were by us. It sounds like the people who need to hear your message about respect for human life are the very people were fighting. Why does everyone on the left feel it is appropriate to blame us for every civilian death in this war? Why is it that when Saddam starves his own people during the embargo, the left blames us instead of Saddam?

That’s my point Nick, we are not instilling terror in the opposing “army” – in fact their activity is increasing. The only people feeling the terror we are trying to instill are the Iraqi people who lived under the horror of Saddam Hussein and are now living under the horror of a war torn country. And although I don’t feel the United States is targeting non-combatants, they are being affected, and it is in an attempt to bring about a result we cannot hope to achieve by engaging the opposing force. I am sorry that you feel this is a bit calculation and insulting. I feel the way Americans are viewed by most of the world because of the actions of our own regime in charge.

The main reason we have failed to instill the level of “terror” in the enemy we would like to, is because every move we make is scrutinized by people back here who make these utterly ridiculous moral equivalency debates. Let me tell you something, If I torture a terrorist (which I don’t), that doesn’t make me his moral equivalent. If I went to his house, and tortured his wife, THAT would make me his moral equivalent.

Nick (former post)-You cannot honestly believe that there is no difference between the “terror” a combatant feels in the course of battle, and the act of terrorism which is directed against non combatants in order to get ones way.
I do not, just like I don’t feel killing innocent people just because they live in the vicinity of “strategic and tactical military objects” is a effective way to instill fear in a combatant.

There you go again debating something that NO ONE is advocating! We don’t deliberately kill innocent people because they live next to strategic targets. But what would you have us do Meagan? Not bomb any targets that happen to have innocents living close by? Well if that was our stated policy, and I was the type of guy that thought sending 25,000 dollar rewards to suicide bombers was appropriate, maybe I would move allot of innocent civilians next to my bomb making factories! Don’t you understand the 2nd and 3rd order effects of what you are suggesting?

I am sure the terrorists of 9/11 felt that the twin towers and the Pentagon were “strategic and tactical military objects”, and I am sure we could all agree their objective was to instill fear in our military, our nation. What they succeeded in doing was really pissing off the United States, prompting us to fight back with a frightful vengeance.
I am just worried that we may be inciting that same vengeance.

I accept the pentagon as a legitimate target. I do not accept the world trade center as one, nor do I accept the Hi jacking of a plane full of innocent people in order to carry out your attacks. This is the sort of moral equivalency argument that I simply do not understand.

Nick(former post)-Make no mistake Meagan, the only people really confused about the morals and culture of our military reside solely in America and those countries to which we do not fight. Our enemies in Iraq recognize our benign nature towards non-combatants and exploit it every chance they get. They do so with the full complicity of western media which is more than willing to ignore statements from the military at the same time that they report the statements of terrorist organization.

Here is something I can speak with some personal knowledge about. Having traveled a far bit in other countries, I can tell you there are many people throughout the world who are confused about the morals and culture of our military.

There are many people, both inside and out of the United States, asking the same questions that I am. And there are many people in Iraq who are morning the deaths of their loved ones from one bombing or another that don’t feel our military forces are benign in their nature towards non-combatants. I do not mean to demonize the military, even though it may not sound like that – what I am saying is there are people out there who have experience very different from yours.

Let me illustrate the most telling example of how our enemies see our military’s attitude toward non-combatants. Our enemies regularly use non-combatants as human shields. Do you have any idea how telling that is?

Yes Nick, there are some pretty compelling and sound arguments that the “pretenses” were false. Bush is a member of the Executive Branch of our government – whose employees hold their position as a public trust – are expected to fulfill trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principals. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests. They are also subject to Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue is a form of fraud.

Bold statements such as these are usually associated with evidence. Are you honestly going to argue that a despot with the wealth, history, and stated intent posed no legitimate threat to the US? The evidence flies in the face of such an argument. You can debate that we went about it the wrong way, but to suggest that there was no threat defies the imagination. He was shooting at our planes in the no fly zone, we was refusing to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, etc. etc.

In September of 2002, Bush staged a photo opportunity with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, after which he announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the United States and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts that he has no reasonable basis for this accusation, he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from Iraq, he had not requested an update intelligence assessment on Iraq and the United States intelligence assessment then in effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program, and the IC had consistently reported that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda.

1. Actually, Iraq had no involvement with 9/11, but did have involvement with Al Qaeda. 2. What degree of review, would you have considered appropriate Meagan? The same amount of review that the liberals aforementioned got when they made their decisions to go to war? 3. You do realize that intelligence is an ongoing action, which is constantly updated, correct. 4. The reasons for going to war with Iraq were laid out, and debated on by members of both parties, with access to the information for over a year, before we went into Iraq. I will also point out that it was Clinton that made the stated objective of the United States government Regime Change in Iraq.

On September 4, 2002 Bush also claimed he was beginning an “open dialogue” with the American public, with Congress, and with United States allies to decide how to respond to Iraq, while concealing the material facts that he had requested a formal plan to invade Iraq nearly a year before, had been conducting significant military and nonmilitary planning and attacks against Iraq for a year, had directed significant military deployment to areas around Iraq, and was planning a massive air assault against Iraq’s air defense facility for the next day.

I find your argument here completely disingenuous. Are we supposed to only plan a fight when it is upon us? Isn’t the greatest accusation directed toward Bush now, that he did not plan enough!!! And as far as your statement that he [planned a major air strike for September 5th when did that take place? Meagan, you are trying to have this argument every which way. “Bush didn’t plan enough”, “Bush planned before the war started!!!” I’m afraid you’re going to have to pick a complaint and stick with it. We had plans for full scale war against the Soviet Union as well, was that wrong, or just precautionary strategy. Are you suggesting that we should not have war plans for potential conflicts, until the war is upon us? “…the legal question is not whether the President lied. The question is not whether the President subjectively believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The legal question that must be answered is far more comprehensive: Did the President and his team defraud the country? After swearing to uphold the law of the land, did our highest government officials employ the universal techniques of fraudsters – deliberate concealment, misrepresentations, false pretenses, half-truths – to deceive Congress and the American people?’ ~ de la Vega . Nope, unless it was the only time in history that the far left in congress and the far right decided to get together to defraud the country.

We attempted to impeach a president for a blow job. How embarassing is it to let a president get away with blatently lying to their coutnry.

Speaking of the “facts” and “Law” that you have claimed admiration for, maybe you could be a little more specific as to the actual charges against Clinton.

Now, before you go questioning and breaking down my “opinions” listed above, please do a little research. This is all documented by the United States government, I am not reading the facts the way I want to, this is documented actions of members of our government.

Meagan, this is a condescending remark. But I will try to control myself. Do you honestly believe for one second that you have conducted more research on what is to you a side note to your day to day life, than I, who am actively fighting this war? Please tell me which of my statements suggest that I have not done sufficient research on this topic? You set out on this debate declaring a love for the law, rationalism, facts vs. opinions etc. But your statements have been the opposite. You have listed cause and effect analysis as facts, which by your own admission is wrong. Those issues which you have brought up, I have attacked with logic, you have responded mostly, by presenting more statistics and analysis, which you then condemn me for calling into question. Much of what you have stated above IS NOT the position of the United States government.

To move on and answer some of your other questions:

It has never been our duty to decide that a leader of another country is harming its people so we should throw them out of power. That was the duty of the United Nations, and when they did not agree with our faulty logic, we decided to ignore them and move on to war without the support of most of the world. We are not the world police. And even if we were, there are nations out there who are doing a lot more harm the Iraq could have ever hoped of doing. There are countries still practicing genocide, infanticide, and ritualistic rape. Do not be fooled, we did not go to Iraq to put and end to his human rights violations. We went to Iraq because they were standing in the way of something we wanted.

I have answered the legal questions in a different post, and eagerly await your response. I do wonder what your position was on our mission to Kosovo though.

There is not any proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in support of terrorists who wanted to attack America. His terrorists preyed mostly on his own people, who are living in worse conditions since Saddam was overthrown.
Saddam himself was interested in attacking the United States and demonstrated this desire by firing on our planes in the no-fly zone and attempting to assassinate Bush Sr.! What makes you think using terrorists as a conduit for these activities is a reach?

Meagan, you say that violence is a necessary evil. You say that you understand that PTSD, collateral damage, etc. is a part of that necessary evil. Then you offer as the bulk of your argument against this war statistics laying out the very events you have already acknowledged as a part of war!

Can you not see the frustration that causes? If you accept that there will be collateral damage in war, than you cannot use that damage as an argument against the war, only the way it is being fought. You have finally attacked the justness of this war on a legal basis, which I have responded to, and a moral basis, which I have responded to.

Posted by Post Scripts at 07:09 PM | Comments (2)

Contaminated Counterfeit Toothpaste Alert

It's always somethin'.

AP-Washington - Counterfeit Colgate toothpaste has now turned up in Canada, where testing has found dangerous bacteria but not the poisonous chemical previously detected in four U.S. states, a health official said Saturday. In addition, store owners and police say they have discovered that the bogus Colgate was sold in Michigan and Virginia. …the products are fake, citing in part misspellings — ''SOUTH AFRLCA'' is one — on the packaging. Its true origin is unknown

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:51 PM | Comments (0)

Huh? What? Dunno!!

The Telegraph [London, UK], by Richard Gray

It failed to bring Jim Carrey happiness in the award-winning film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but scientists have now developed a way to block and even delete unwanted memories from people's brains. ** By injecting an amnesia drug at the right time, when a subject was recalling a particular thought, neuro-scientists discovered they could disrupt the way the memory is stored and even make it disappear.

Hmmmm…gotta be a whole bunch of evil uses for this one!

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:18 PM | Comments (3)

Government Sponsored Healthcare

If you’re in favor of it, this one’s for you:

Herald Sun [Melbourne, AU], by Kamahi Cogdon

A pensioner who cares for her invalid husband while hobbling around on crutches faces a three-year wait for ankle surgery. Jennifer Haffenden, 65, says she is barely able to care for herself because of an excruciating arthritic ankle. /snip/ she went to an orthopaedic specialist as a private patient a few months ago. The specialist told her she could operate within two weeks. But with the bill expected to hit $4000, Mrs Haffenden was forced to go on the 14-month waiting list to see the same specialist as a public patient.

Government run programs create multiple layers of expensive bureaucracy, waste, diminished care, and waiting lists…none of which make healthcare less expensive or better.

Posted by Post Scripts at 06:07 PM | Comments (0)

Facing the Enemy

A Gathering of Courage and Will

by Tina Grazier

It’s difficult to sustain a strong will when doubt enters the picture. Doubt will cause the heart to grow faint and the mind to play tricks. Our enemy knows this and uses the appropriate rhetoric to encourage distrust of our leaders and uncertainty about the mission. It is unfortunate that we have among us certain politicians and citizens who, either unwittingly or knowingly for self-interest, model, mirror or inspire this rhetoric.

Meagan asked: Did the President and his team defraud the country?

We will attempt to answer Meagan’s question, and more, with reason and evidence. Information will provide a welcome tonic against the ravages of doubt. It will aid in the development of a solid grounding, a grounding that's necessary if we wish to accomplish this difficult endeavor. We seek the power of certainty. So, let us begin this courage developing journey with just a little taste...a few pertinent quotes from another administration in another time:

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (2/18/98)

"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers." - AP story in the Washington Post (2/14/99)

"The liberation of Iraq is inevitable. When that day comes, and the whole truth about Saddam Hussein's regime spills out, we will be proud of the stand we took. And if our post-overthrow support of Iraq aids a transition to democracy, our pride should double. For democracies do not wage war against one another. Democracies do not allow their people to starve." - Sen. Bob Kerrey (9/29/99)

The removal of Saddam Hussein was one of several options and plans considered by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. We will see that nothing was “secretly” planned in a clandestine manner by the Bush administration and that, indeed, that plan was already in existence. All presidents necessarily engage in multiple alternative plans, many of which contain top secret information…for the sake of our nation’s security.

The recent debate on Post Scripts sent me scurrying across the web in search of appropriate material. I needed confirmation that my view had been formed on sound information; information that provided a broader world view of the war. Meagan’s postings failed to present an accurate or complete picture of the reasons (including WMD) for removing Saddam Hussein from power. They failed to accurately assess the motivations of our leaders (past and present) or the connection between Saddam Hussein and terrorists, specifically Osama bin Laden.

It is imperative that we make this assessment accurately, especially as we look toward the upcoming election. We must arm ourselves with as much information as possible so as to make wise decisions. To that end I have compiled a group of significant quotes, links, and references that I hope you will find interesting, informative and useful as you try to decide which party accurately represents the true nature of this war and which candidates will most likely be best to lead our nation. This post is long but, I hope, worthy of your attention. In difficult times we must find a way to sustain the will to face the enemy.

I will begin with a few reminders of Meagan’s assertions:

*******

Prior to January of 2001 Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein

In January of 1998 Rumsfeld and seven other future Bush-Cheney administration appointees signed a letter sent by a conservative policy institute named “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) to then President Clinton, which called for U.S. military action to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, United States intelligence agencies determined that 9/11 was the work of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from Yemen, and two from Lebanon. This information, along with the conclusion that no evidence linked the attacks to Saddam Hussein, or al Qaeda was immediately communicated to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, and others

Bush-Cheney administration members began discussing an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11. Bush, Rumsfeld and others also assigned various subordinates, including former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and General Richard Meyers to look for intelligence that could justify attacking Saddam Hussein’s regime

In September of 2002, Bush staged a photo opportunity with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, after which he announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the United States and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts that he has no reasonable basis for this accusation, he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from Iraq, he had not requested an update intelligence assessment on Iraq and the United States intelligence assessment then in effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program, and the IC had consistently reported that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda. (Note: Underlining was added for emphasis. This ends the Meagan segment)

***

Long before there was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby et al...there was Clinton, Gore, Berger, Albright, Tenet et al. I will demonstrate that the proof we seek falls from the lips of those who served prior to Bush and Cheney…"like fruits from a jar.” I do hope you enjoy this ride:

"The United States has actively and consistently opposed Saddam because he has demonstrated the intent to threaten the stability of a region vital to our interests. A stable Middle East means we can better protect the free flow of oil, fight terrorism and build support for a comprehensive Middle East peace. There is no greater challenge to the region's stability -- and to America's security in that region -- than Saddam's reckless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. As President Clinton has said, the spread of these weapons to outlaw states, and from them to terrorists and international criminals, is one of the most dangerous security threats our people will face over the next generation. Other countries have weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam Hussein, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Not only against combatants, but against civilians. Not only against a foreign adversary, but against his own people. And I have no doubt he will use them again if his capacity to rebuild his arsenal is left unchecked." - National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (2/13/98)

"Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action. In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton (2/17/98)

"Now, the alternatives some have suggested that we should basically turn away; we should close our eyes to this effort to create a safe haven for weapons of mass destruction. But imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983." * "There is no question that the Iraqi people and the world would be better off without Saddam. And we would gladly work with a successor regime that is ready to live in peace with its neighbors and resume its place in the family of nations. We have worked with Iraqi opposition groups in the past and we will continue to do so in the future." - National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (2/18/98)

"The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program." - John McWethy, ABC News correspondent, after the al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed by six Tomahawk missiles (8/25/98)

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others (10/9/98)

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." - U.S. Grand Jury Indictment against Osama bin Laden (11/5/98)

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. "And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them." - President Bill Clinton (12/16/98)

"Here's what is known so far: Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer. U.S. intelligence has had reports of contacts between low-level agents. Saddam and bin Laden have interests--and enemies--in common. Both men want U.S. military forces out of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden has been calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." - "Saddam + Bin Laden," Newsweek (1/11/99)

"Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings. While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is 'sure' that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas. "Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan. "Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president 'would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility.'" - Washington Post (1/23/99)

"U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ... In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden." - San Jose Mercury News (2/14/99)

"Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was lanning attacks on American targets." - NPR reporter Mike Shuster (2/18/99)

"A major worry is that Iraqi reconstruction of WMD-capable facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and continued work on delivery systems shows the priority Saddam continues to attach to preserving a WMD infrastructure." - Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet (2/2/00)

"Iraq under Saddam Hussein remains dangerous, unreconstructed and defiant. Saddam's record makes clear that he will remain a threat to regional peace and security as long as he remains in power. He will not relinquish what remains of his WMD arsenal. He will not live in peace with his neighbors. He will not cease the repression of the Iraqi people. The regime of Saddam Hussein cannot be rehabilitated or reintegrated as a responsible member of the community of nations. Experience makes this conclusion manifest. That is why the United States is committed to containing Saddam Hussein as long as he remains in power. But at the same time, we are also committed to working to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people who are forced to live under a regime they did not choose and do not want, and to supporting Iraqis who seek a new government and a better future for Iraq." - Edward S. Walker, Jr., assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (3/22/00)

"The Vice President reaffirmed the Administration's strong commitment to the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and to bringing him and his inner circle to justice for their war crimes and crimes against humanity. Saddam's removal is the key to the positive transformation of Iraq's relationship with the international community and with the United States, in particular." - Joint statement from Vice President Al Gore and the Iraqi National Congress (6/26/00)

"Saddam's actions over the past decade lead us to conclude that his regime will never comply with the obligations contained in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. For this reason, we actively support those who seek to bring a new democratic government to power in Baghdad. We recognize that this may be a slow and difficult process, but we believe it is the only solution to the problem of Saddam's regime." -The White House, "A National Security Strategy for a Global Age" (12/00)

"We were convinced money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it places Iraq wanted it to go. There certainly is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had pretty strong ties to bin Laden while he was in Sudan, whether it was directly or through intermediaries." - Dr. Stanley Bedlington, former CIA senior counterterrorism analyst, USA Today (12/3/01)

"Certainly there's a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda." - Gen. Wesley Clark (10/02)

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (10/10/02)

"But Saddam Hussein, for 12 years, has defied the will of the United Nations and we contained him effectively, but I think it's fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office."- Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (2/9/03)

"Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions." - Bill Clinton, Larry King Live (7/22/03)

"I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us." - Sen. Joe Lieberman, MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" (12/03) (Tina's Note: This man, at least, has not changed his rhetoric!)

*******

Documents found in Baghdad in April 2003 showed that Saddam funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden since the 1990s. Saddam openly funded the Iraqi Kurdish Group and its leader, Melan Krekar, admitted that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan. George Tenet testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq had provided training in forging documents and making bombs. Farouk Harazi, a senior officer in the Iraqi Mukhabarat reportedly offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq. Salah Suleiman, an Iraqi intelligence operative, was arrested in October 2000 near the Afghan border, apparently returning from a visit to bin Laden. One of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, Abdul Rahman Yasin, reportedly fled to Baghdad in 1994. Iraq ran an extensive intelligence hub in Khartoum; Sudanese intelligence officers told me about dozens of meeting between Iraqi Intel and bin Laden. Tellingly, reports that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague several times in 2000 and 2001 have not been disproved. *** The Clinton administration was in the dark about the full extent of the bin Laden menace because (of) the president's decision to treat the 1993 World Trade Center bombing as a crime. Once the FBI began a criminal investigation, it could not lawfully share its information with the CIA — without also having to share the same data with the accused terrorists. Woolsey told me about his frustration that he had less access to evidence from the World Trade Center bombing — the then-largest ever foreign terrorist attack on U.S soil — than any junior agent in the FBI's New York office. Why did Clinton treat the attack as a law-enforcement matter? Several reasons. In the first few days, Clinton refused to believe that the towers had been bombed at all — even though the FBI made that determination within hours. He speculated a electrical transformer had exploded or a bank heist went bad. More importantly, treating the bombing as a criminal matter was politically advantageous. A criminal matter is a relatively tidy process. It has the political benefit of insulating Clinton from consequences; after all, he was only following the law. He is not to blame if the terrorists were released on a "technicality" or if foreign nations refuse to honor our extradition requests. -Richard Miniter, author of “Losing Bin Laden.” (Tina's Note: What was in those papers in Sandy Bergers pants?)

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq.

On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan.

On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying."

Able Danger, a highly-classified U.S. Army intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, supports information from the Czech Republic’s intelligence service that Mohammed Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador at the Prague airport on April 9, 2001.

On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York." (Tina's Note: Evidence of failure to share information.)

After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

On October 16, 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was signed into law. The authorization (Public law 107-243) had passed the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. This resolution stated, "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" and "Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens."

Babil, an official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, published information that appeared to confirm U.S. allegations of the links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. In its November 16, 2002 edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan."

On April 25, 2003 CNN reported that Farouk Hijazi had been captured by U.S. forces. Farouk Hijazi was a former intelligence official who may have plotted the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush in 1993. He was also a contact between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden. Farouk met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 and is also believed to have met with bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990's.

While sifting through the Iraqi Intelligence Service's [Mukhabarat] bombed ruins on April 26, 2003 the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

On September 13, 2006, a deputy prime minister of Iraq by the name of Barham Salih gave a speech in which he said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime."

*******

The remarkable politicization of this war by “our friends on the left” and others is frankly quite disturbing. Instead of joining with their fellow Americans to continue the fight against this very serious threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all peoples around the world they have chosen to use the emotional trappings that always accompany war to try to sway public opinion to their personal advantage and away from the life or death mission. They have chosen to ignore and lie about events of the past…many in which they were active participants. It is a selfish and despicable way to approach politics and a shabby betrayal to our nation and other nations regarding international concerns and responsibilities. I’ll leave you with one last bit of information and one more of Meagan's thoughts:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998) stated "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." This legislation also allocated $97,000,000 to aid Iraqi democratic opposition organizations.

Meagan said: There is not any proof that Saddam Hussein was involved in support of terrorists who wanted to attack America. His terrorists preyed mostly on his own people, who are living in worse conditions since Saddam was overthrown.

As we have seen, a whole lot of folks, including those in the Clinton administration, have had plenty to say on the subject of Iraq and the threat Saddam posed to the world including his support of terrorists. (Tina's note: The people in Iraq are not today living in worse conditions…but that’s another argument)

Lesson: Always pay attention, arm yourselves with accurate and complete information, and please, choose wisely in the coming election.

******* The quotes from Richard Miniter, a Brussels based investigative journalist, were from an interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online, “Clinton’s Loss?”

Quotes from the Clinton Administration and news reports during his term in office and beyond were found HERE and HERE. (includes sources, published works and video)

Posted by Post Scripts at 04:20 PM | Comments (0)