Is There Really a Cheney Controversy?

So VP Cheney shot his hunting partner (Harry Whittington) accidentally while hunting. I wish Harry Whittington well. But besides for his well being...who the hell cares? Why is the media treating this like Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff? The Dems have unlimited ammunition on this administration. Why are they fishing (or hunting) for humdrum and, frankly, unimportant controversy? Because he may have waited a few hours to report the incident so it would not be on the cover of every Sunday paper in the country? Please. The Dems and their media buddies have got to regroup and focus if they want to win in 2008.

Political Attacks at King's Funeral

Former US President – Jimmy Carter – spoke at the funeral of Coretta Scott King and took advantage of the podium to criticize the current president’s political policies. He directly compared the embarrassing wire tapping and surveillance of Martin Luther King, his family and his friends – to the NSA’s controversial semi-domestic wire tapping and surveillance program of suspected terrorists. This is wrong and despicable on so many levels. Firstly, no former president should ever criticize the policies or actions of a current sitting president – especially to his face. Secondly, to capture attention for your own politic agenda instead of honoring the dead at a funeral is outrageous. I want to offer an excerpt from an article by Neil Cavuto from Fox News on the incident. He hit the nail right on the head:

“They're [funerals] not about the people looking at the box, but the person in that box. They're about the voice now silent, not the voices still loud. It's not about settling scores, but settling on a life's meaning. Not yours, but theirs. Not your speeches, their memory. Not your digs, their depth. The dead cannot speak for themselves. So tread carefully when thinking you can. You do the dead honor, but acting honorably, not selfishly. Don't assume you speak for their views, when you prattle on about yours. Funerals aren't about prattling. They're about soul-searching. All I know is that when you walk into a church or a synagogue, you aren't a Democrat or a Republican, a conservative or a liberal. You're a human being, there to remember another human being. This is their moment, not yours. Their life, not yours. And their message, not yours. So save the stump speeches for the rabid fans who might care. Not the dead, who clearly do not. I think the one thing worse than speaking ill of the dead, is assuming you're speaking for them at all.”

Well put.

My political analysis of the event is that Carter is definitely one of the worst president’s in US history and arguably THE worst. Since 1981, he has been positioning himself with groups that unequivocally hate the US – the UN, Nobel Peace Prize, selected European countries, and totalitarian regimes throughout the world. Not our allies. And more recently, he has been trying to gather support from the younger generation within the US – since they either were not alive on the 1970s, or too young to remember what a disaster of a leader Carter was. He seems to be trying to have the anti-US world praise him to drown out the traditional US folk who really know him. He is now a poster child for anything anti-American. Should he be proud? Well, I guess his conduct at the late King’s funeral recently is consistent.

One last point: Can you imagine Carter managing the war on terror for the US? Scary thought.

The Terrorist Mindset on CM8

This is an interview with three former terrorists, that have reformed and are active in spreading the word about the evil of the current state of Islam, and trying to create reforms within communities. Facinating.

http://tinyurl.com/dl2dm

The Bush - Murtha Political Spectrum on Iraq

John Murtha - a PA democrat, has turned from an unknown politician to an American (and international) political celebrity. Murtha is the forerunner of the 'cut and run' approach in Iraq - which basically provides a short time frame to get out and give over the reins to the Iraqis. Bush's approach is that we must stay until it is over - which translates into ensuring the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet and ensuring that the threat to the US and our allies has been decimated. In Bush's fifth state of the union address, Bush again mentioned Iraq, labeled it as one of the front lines in the war on terror, and that there is still a lot of work to do. Murtha responded to Bush's fifth state of the union - regarding the Iraq situation.

His argument is basically broken down as such:
1) The US invaded Iraq to overthrow an evil and threatening regime. This mission has been accomplished.
2) Iraq is not the center of the war on terror and Al Qaida has a small presence, which will disappear, once the US pulls out.
3) The Iraqis do not want us there and will get along better without us.
4) The US military is good at destroying, not building.
5) We must allocate our monetary and military resources towards the real global war on terror and other domestic issues (like Katrina).

Bush's argument for staying indefinitely is more or less the following:
1) Iraq represents one of the front lines of the global war on terror.
2) We cannot leave Iraq without ensuring that the people can sustain the country without the US. Even if the polls show that the Iraqis do not want us there, we cannot respond to that by leaving and placing the population in a terrible reality.
3) We can only leave once the Iraqi government is self-sustainable and the Iraqi security forces are self sustainable. This is far from reality today.

In my opinion, it seems that both Bush and Murtha (and mostly everyone in between) were on the exact same page during the invasion of Iraq. The question was not to invade or not; it was whether the US should only invade with larger allied forces. But every law maker identified Iraq as a threat. (I am putting aside the useless democratic bickering on the level and accuracy of intelligence received, since clearly they had access if requested).

Now that we have overthrown Saddam; destroyed most of the country; acted on false US, UK, Israeli, French, German, Russian, etc. intelligence; and realized that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - what should the US do? In other words, if we knew then (before we invaded) what we know now (no WMDs), Bush and Murtha would not have invaded. So how should the US handle the damage control? That seems to be the disagreement.

I am frankly not sure which way is best, but I do respect Murtha's general opinion, and I do respect Bush's general opinion. What I do not respect are the democrats like Hillary, Kerry and many others that have only criticized Bush and really have no idea how to do it better. At least Murtha criticizes with a plan.

Bush's 5th State of the Union Address

There were a few points in George W. Bush's fifth state of the union address last week that I would like to highlight:

1) The US must continue in Iraq until the Iraqis can take care of themselves:
Did not present a strong agrument and strategy for the most sensitive issue on the table in America today. I was quite disappointed. Until recently, the anti-war movement was smaller and had no better idea of how to run things over there. I think that all that changed when John Murtha (Democrat from PA) not only strongly criticised Bush, but offered alternative strategy. Since then, the political spectrum in the US has bee Murtha on the Left and Bush on the right (I am only including politicians, not opinions) - and a lot in between. The American people need a micro-strategy in Iraq, not a Macro-strategy about policing the world from Tyranny. I will post another article on the Murtha - Bush spectrum.

2) The US government must maintain professionalism and only disagree with other members of the government with respect and constructive dissent:
This, I believe is important and am glad that it was mentioned by Bush. I believe that this is an important differentiating factor of American politics. And the US should cherish it. The disagreements between parties is generally done with respect and with a constructive approach. Lately this has not been the case. Primarily because few politicians really know what a good alternative is in Iraq. Regardless, politics in the US should remain constructive a less mud slinging.

3) The NSA controversial surveillance program is legal and necessary.
This was my favorite part of the speech. It showed the president's integrity and resolve. He showed us his confidence in his policy and I believe he is right. I hope to have a separate post regarding the republican vs. democrat approach to this program.

4) The US must invest in alternative energies and lower oil consumption.
This is pure lip service. Especially coming from a texas republican. It is a good thing that he has placed such long time tables, because it nothing will get done during his administration.

Hamas wins the election in Israel

After Hamas won the election in Israel, the question arises - is that a valid expression of democracy, or is the ability of an anti-democratic party to run in an election the antithesis of democracy itself? I believe that voting is in fact an expression of democracy, and not the definition of democracy. I do not think that the architects of the Palestinian Authority democracy (namely the US, EU and Israel) should of allowed a recognized terrorist and totalitarian organization run in a democratic election. It is counter intuitive and undermines the democracy that the architects are trying to create. I believe that the US and Israel may have allowed it to happen, to prove that the Palestinians are ALL terrorists.