Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Polling in Iraq, a Cesspool of Journalistic Intent

Many polls have been conducted in Iraq over the course of the last three years. It is a rare news cycle that we don't hear about how Iraqi's want the U.S. out, or that they support attacks on American forces. Inevitably, I get emailed articles touting how horrible the war is progressing, how we have become the evil imperial occupiers of Iraq. Today is a mixed bag, but I find the actual poll amazing. Lets begin with the article and its corresponding liberal comments. We are looking at Jim Lobe and the piece "Biting the hand of friendship", which you can view at the Asia Times Online. An aside, if you thought the NYT oped was liberal, you haven't been reading the Asia Times. Here are the relevant passages and the snippy lib ad-ons:

Large majorities of Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention of ever withdrawing all its military forces from their country and that Washington's reconstruction efforts have been incompetent at best, according to a survey released here on Tuesday.
Gee, ain't that a surprise!

This is some fancy dancing! Lets look at the origin of the first statement form the question itself, number fifteen out of twenty: "Do you think the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq or to remove all its military forces once Iraq is stabilized?" In response roughly 80% said the U.S. planned on having a permanent presence. Ok, it looks a little less garish in this light. And consider, we have forces in many Arab states, in a pretty permanent condition, so the question is wide open as to what form the permanent presence takes, whereas the bias in reporting is pretty clear. How about the "incompetent at best" reconstruction effort? That comes from question number thirteen, which is a multiple part question, where each part has four answer choices: approve and U.S. doing a good job, approve but U.S. doing a poor job, disapprove, and no opinion. So, if we just look at the approval rating for reconstruction we get around three quarters of all Iraqis in favor of the U.S. reconstruction, with a little less that half saying the job was being done poorly. Do I need to point out the sever difference between the poll itself and the reporting? Let us move forward to the next obfuscation:

At the same time, however, only 35% of Iraqis - most of them Sunni Arabs - believe coalition forces should withdraw within six months, although if they did so, a majority said it would have a beneficial impact, as many prominent Democrats and other war critics in the US have argued.
Small wonder that it's the Sunni…they know what's coming after the occupying powers are chased out.

What is the obvious twist here? Oh, that it would be beneficial for us to cut and run, the socialist liberal peacenik's stated policy on Iraq. And don't forget, it will be a civil war between Shia and Sunni factions! what interests me, is that this question comes directly after ones dealing with the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. The respondents do not think their own security is ready, and predict at least one or two years of additional help to maintain effectiveness, yet then proceed to say the security situation would improve if the U.S. left in six months? I would gage this as very confused sentiment, but it certainly is not an endorsement of the journalists bias. The next statement from the article we will discuss concerns attacks on U.S. forces. Regarding the Sunni population:

...a whopping 88% of the community approves of "attacks on US-led forces" in Iraq, with 77% voicing "strong approval"...
But, but, we saved them from Saddam!! And we only killed about 100,000 of them to do it, destroyed their fragile infrastructure and want to steal their oil…..how can they be so ungrateful?

Now its interesting that the author groups "strongly approve" and "somewhat approve" to make a point, but that is irrelevant. Of course the Sunni contingent doesn't like us. They were in power, and received the benefits of that power at the expense of other groups. Tough luck. But if it is only 80% of one fifth of the population that is on the sidelines cheering attacks on U.S. forces, thats a pretty small number. And this follows a question asking whether they support terrorism, and across the board it was a resounding no. Of course that brings into question what they consider terrorism, but I would still view this as extremely favorable. At this point lets dispense with the sniveling journalist, who for good measure tosses in (regarding GWB):

His approval ratings in the US have fallen dangerously over the past year, ...

I guess he missed the recent up-tick in the approval rating. And what pray tell, does "dangerously" mean? Typical socialist liberal drivel. Now that we've gotten that out of our system, lets return to the numbers. I want to emphasize two major results from this poll, first how positive the response was regarding the future of Iraq and whether Saddam's removal was a good thing, and second, the attitude towards the U.N. In the first three questions of the poll roughly two thirds of the country have a favorable outlook on the direction of Iraq, the governments future, and the viability of the recent elections. That is a remarkable statistic, and indicates a national desire to participate in a fair and democratic country.

The second interesting quirk I see in the numbers is the sentiment displayed toward the U.N. Here is the organization that went to bat for Saddam in a big corrupt way, yet still is perceived in a semi-favorable light. The U.N. is split 38% for, 38% against in regard to being a positive influence on Iraq. But when it comes to question sixteen and whether it would be better for the U.S. or U.N. to rebuild Iraq, 59% of Iraqi's would prefer the U.N. What? This one I can not explain. But it may just reflect the current sentiment, and nothing more. If they don't like the current efforts in rebuilding infrastructure, it may just be a vote for change.

My overall assessment of this poll is very positive. There is a clear reflection of positive outlook, and what seems to be a increasing national unity. With that said, it is amazing that doom and gloom Moonbats will paint any poll in a negative hue. The standard peacenik journalist can not seem to crawl out of the slime, and there is no deviation in this case. Of course everyone is biased, myself included, but objective journalism has shrunk away to nothing in this age of opinion, yet late to the party in realization is the current crop of journalistic offenders.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Inflamitory Defined

I get questioned from time to time about the apparent misspelling of the title for this repository of peaceful correspondence. "Hey, Carlos, don't you know how to spell?" To be perfectly honest, I have serious issues with spelling, due to the combination of ADHD and Dyslexia. The later prevents me from remembering how to spell many words, and the former makes me not care. Fortunately, for geniuses like myself, there are computers to augment our engorged brains. Another vile symptom of the above combination is the propensity for creating words that don't exist. In this very spirit was The Inflamitory born. It's a place of flaming rhetoric. And to keep my head from exploding over my own brilliance, I retain a obvious flaw, a garish and glaring error. Or maybe I just didn't want all the traffic from arthritis sufferers looking for relief.

Does heated rhetoric in this context benefit society? It's a open question, but it sure provides maximum entertainment for connoisseurs of sarcasm. Much like the master Indian basket weavers, who leave one small error, just in case they had achieved perfection, for fear of God's Wrath, I too must bear a mark of flawed humanity. It is truly humility that balms the swelling brain, yea, the inflammation of the brain. So for all who have asked, thank you for caring. And for those who never noticed, I guess my phonetic spelling has achieved its intended purpose of subtle deviancy.

Unbelievable Hypocrisy and Blindness at the E.U.

Do I read this correctly? "Lets keep funding the Palestinians..." was the message today from the BBC concerning the landslide Hamas victory last week. Great! Now we can officially put some of the socialist liberal opponents of freedom on the list of 'States that Officially Support Terrorism'. Can we say France is a supporter of terrorism now? Or Germany? I mean, they were willing supporters of a Stalinist Dictator, so why not make the plunge to global terrorism. And for that matter, we must cut off aide completely. Even in the face of the predictable duplicity that will be coming from Hamas, about how they are willing to work towards peace now. Right, just like Yasser was 'all about peace' and did his best. Well, he did his best to make himself insanely rich and thwart every possible step towards peace. Does anyone believe that Hamas will change its fundamental reason for existence? To illustrate my point, they are already asking that aide not be cut off. Of course, they are willing to have monitors and such. Oh that should make us relax...

More fundamentally, what is the point of screaming about the humanitarian tragedy of the Palestinian camps if the residents of the same are full supporters of terrorism? Why are we obligated to support those who are not for freedom, peace, or security in the world? In a piece from last week, a question arose that I think needs to be highlighted. Irregardless of the method of governance, we still have those opposed to the principal of freedom. Democracy itself is not a prescription for freedom. If the base that uses democracy as its form of governance is populated by people who believe in a philosophy that is exclusionary, they will be our enemy. And that is certainly the case for Muslims who are apologetic to the fascists. Will we see a merge of governing principals here? "We vote for a Fascist King to rule over us!" Whatever the outcome, it is telling that the E.U. response has no vision, and continues the great tradition of veiled anti-semitism.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Dissecting the Dialectic of the Postmodern Threadjack

A very interesting social phenomena is taking place as we speak. Conversations are occurring throughout the world in the form of new media, and specifically within blogs. There are many reasons why this will fundamentally change the nature of human history, but the most prevalent is the simple fact that everything is recorded. There is no re-assessment of what transpired, no creative recall at a later date. We have access to our own conversations, and the conversations of millions of others. I predict this will fundamentally separate human society. But let us look at a small tidbit of the new dialog.

In this post at my favorite group blog, redstate, a opinion is stated regarding the nature of those participating in some of the threads. Principally, we observe participants with opposing philosophical viewpoints interjecting their presence in a less than constructive manner. The mature and reliable moderators cleanse the profane, and the creative conservative sharks feed upon that which does not get banned. However, the nature and intention of commentators is only discernible from their words, past and present. Sometimes this leads to comments of the humor noir as in the thread of the above post. If this abject sarcasm is self referential in its implication, yet the reference is duplicitous to start with, I hear-by state this should be called a 'postmodern threadjack'.

The principal would be surrounded by key phrases which steer the conversation off topic simply to emphasize the nature of the phrases themselves. The new topic becomes the comments initiating the threadjack. This is close to the highest form of postmodern dialog. For the neophyte, here is a primer on interjecting some postmodernism into your own dialectic. So, to reiterate, a postmodern threadjack transits the epistemic certainty of a thread to create a pseudofucus upon the facade of the jacking comments themselves. Foucault would be proud...

The Inevitable Light Shines in a Dark Place

It is so very hard to keep secrets. Doubly hard if you are a journalist. As predicted, the Libby Witch Hunt Perjury Case is going to be back in the news. Evaluate for yourself my humorous predictions on news cycles from last November. It appears that Libby's legal team has informed the court of the necessity to introduce evidence now considered secret. Especially fun is the possibility of discovering Supper Secret Agent Girl's actual duties in the shop. We know many of the details, but none of the official status and projects. At least it will be established conclusively that said agent was in no way NOC over the last few years (an absurd conjecture to begin with, but popular). Such was my wish in the days before Fitzmas. For the current news cycle, what is more important seems to be getting a knife into the back of traitorous leaker's and their willing accomplices in the cesspools of rag journalism. On one hand, its a free country, and a free marketplace, so actively attacking these morons legally is a difficult road. Hopefully, the people will speak clearly with their wallets, and punish the main press perps financially, but that is not enough when it comes to the scum in Washington, both on the elected side and the civil servants. If some bureaucrat has leaked information simply because of their political views, they should be doing time. If some Senator, and the corresponding spiderous staffers, have disseminated information for political purposes, string them up as the traitorous scum the are. Get out the flood-lamps and kill some mold.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Freedom, Bombs, and Libs

I really appreciate one of the messages of Martin Luther King. The content of character is the most telling aspect of a mans worth. Yet, judgment is what he was commenting on. Don't judge things based upon appearance. Verify the content of what you see. That brings us to a little mail in celebration of MLK day.

Man, I tell ya… Not only is today Martin Luther King Day, enough to make any CCCRW cringe, But the news is so great… A lefty elected in Chile, and a woman at that! Another nitwit Republican on the way out the door in Congress for taking bribes, And, there are nationwide demonstrations in Pakistan against the crazy warmonger Americans who killed dozens by bombing a house.

Is General M on his way out! And why are American!!! Planes bombing in PAKISTAN!!! I MEAN, are we at war in Pakistan too? Who gave permission for this??? When Pakistan has it’s revolution, then: A. How do we get into and out of Afghanistan? (Speaking of which, notice the rise in bombings there? ) B. What happens to the atomic weapons WE helped Pakistan build? (Guess where they will go!) Scrub is gunna go down as the only president (yuk) who will have lost THREE wars! OK Scrub, Stay the Course!!! Don’t change a thing, no matter what the evidence or the outcome! Because GOD told you too! What an ass!

Well, what can I say. The complete discourse identifies well the attitude of the left, and their fatal addiction to Bush hatred. But I bring this out now, because today, a few days later, we find that the air strike in Pakistan was quite useful. By this report, we erased Al Qaida's bad boy bomber Midhat Mursi, well know for running Afghan terror training camps, especially the one with pets tied up to stakes for chemical weapons testing. Hey, that reminds me, where is PETA's condemnation of this guy? Anyhow, this appears to be a very nice outcome. I guess there was a nasty little meeting at the house and not some innocent tea party.

Liberals historically stood up for injustice, and MLK was one of the pinnacle examples. But socialism infected the movement, and now they stand for economic enslavement via government entitlement. They stand against the effort to rid the world of scumbags like the above terrorist. Their efforts are directed at hindering the US government, opposing this administration in every respect, except one. There is one non-partisan issue in Washington, and that is spending as much money as possible. And that brings us back to character. Where are the men of character in our leadership? If the Alito hearing was any clue, it is not within the party of the left. Can we judge the character content for the following: Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Feinstein, Durbin, Schumer? Read their "questions" and tell me they aren't spineless hacks pandering to a screaming far left constituency. Disgusting.

The final comment here is simply in response to the first statement of the liberal. Equating the rise of leftist leaders in South America to MLK is not far off. He was a socialist liberal. Unfortunately, the most telling point when we come to judge his character, is his choice of clothing. What I mean by this is the abuse of organized religion to further a political agenda. What you ask? Yes, he was not likely a Christian, and simply used the pulpit as a ready made media resource. But, even with this stain, he would be ashamed of those "carrying the torch" in the modern day. Liberalism retains very few elements of the philosophy in the sixties apart from free love. Lets end with a chant of "Freedom, freedom for the people!"

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Liberal Crook in Twilight Land

Our favorite British whipping boy has really done something with himself. A prime beneficiary of Oil for Food, and darling of the left in his criticism of the Iraq War, George Galloway has now joined in the celebrity edition of Big Brother, a top rated UK reality television show. Ever the one for antics, George gets on the floor and mimics a cat (warning: the transcript will churn your tum). However, the part to note in this story is the apparent censorship of Georgie's political comments by the producers. Yes, they feel that his rhetoric, if un-defended by a different perspective, violates broadcast rules! Hopefully, curiosity will kill the cat. Oh, and a side note, his lib comrades in Parliament are ticked, and petitioning to get him back to work. Yep, you heard correctly, Parliament is in session, but Georgie is elsewhere. Not to worry, he has promised to refund to the taxpayers that portion of his salary due him while away. Has not yet promised to refund his oil for food millions however.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Groundswell for New GOP Leadership

It looks like the voice of the people is reaching Washington again. We do not want any sign of complicity with lobbyists and special interest. So, if you have not seen this yet, a statement has been well crafted by N.Z. Bear here, as well as the extensive list of those in agreement. I concur and give my mind numbed conservative robot rubber stamp the go ahead. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this movement, and the reaction to how quickly we organized and made our voice heard.

Update: I commented at the above around the 200 level, and it appears now to be pushing past 300. That is a lot of bloggers, who all agree on at least one thing. If one conservative blogger represents around fifty active conservatives (not a stretch), we could be seeing a swift response come Monday.

The Schizophrenic Members of "The Left"

Its a mark of good exposition to be attacked by your philosophical foes, but what is it when the disjoint ill constructed maunder is like this? Make of it what you will, the only response I could come up with is lightly veiled sarcasm. The pertinent quote:

"I was about to dispute this pop-psychiatric assessment, but then I thought to myself: if I've really gone insane, thanks to the treasonous enablers who comprise my readership, maybe I don't even know it."

I love this! On the light side, it meshes so well with my own self deprecating sarcastic sense of existence, yet contained within is the darker truth, "The Left" does not recognize its own psychological disconnect with reality! Brilliant. And so postmodern, as the statement itself reveals the pervasive nature inherent in the liberal socialist philosophy regarding collective shortsightedness. Each mouthpiece reinforces adjacent members with the message of "how Enlightened your views and opinions are" while lambasting any threat to the "liberal holy script". In layman's terms, they have become schizophrenic, and they don't know it.

Of course I found inspiration to respond. As the theme revolved around psychiatry, the response became a suggestion from Carlos, great nephew of Sigmund Freud. If you need help with the hacked up German, you can seek assistance here. I see a door opening, slowly... Amidst the clatter of a locomotive, a shadowy figure appears in the mist beyond the door, "Mother? Is that you?"

Carlos replies:
Guten tag! (with thick Austrian accent...) Danke sehr for za kind verds. I vould be giving to you da spottbillig psychiatric assessment! Vith your inner kinder zupprezing za anal abführend stage of ze development, ve thinks you may have 'die verstopfung of ze brain', iz not de totenähnlich condition, but must be attended to! I vould prescribe ze drei stunden un day treatment... Der Großonkel Freud vould zee zis as de proper zolution!

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Liberal Poll Worries?

I sure get some interesting mail. Now there is a liberal worried about poll numbers. Something is amiss with this from the start, but lets investigate:

Getting worried about "government by poll". If "92%" of the American people believed that lynching were right, that still wouldn't make it "legal", would it? And, if "92%" of the American people believed that the earth were flat, that wouldn't make the earth flat, would it? In the same way, if "92%" of the American people believed that Muslims should be rounded up and jailed, that doesn't make it moral/ethical, would it? So… Polls don't seem to be the best way to answer questions of fact, of law, or even of morality. So… What ARE polls good for?

That is, does an elected or appointed official have an obligation to "do what the majority wants done", or is the obligation for that official to apply their best judgment, or the law, or, well, what? What constituted the 'will of the people' anyhow? Suppose you are convinced that 'the people' are wrong? Than what do you do?

I am assuming most of this is rhetorical. I mean, what was the Clinton method of Campaigning and Governing other than a constant adjustment to popular sentiment? And the Clintons represent the glorious left, don't they? Furthermore, Hillary has swallowed, at least now, her antipathy for the military and has become a veritable hawk, in public. Does anyone wonder why? To ice the cake, it seems the Bush legacy will include staying the course when popular sentiment waned, to the betterment of mankind.

So, let us address this apparent wandering of a liberal. Augustine is quoted, "A thing is not necessarily true because badly uttered, nor false because spoken magnificently." Well, in this case, the authors statement intends to project his own personal version of morality, also the assumption that the author is aware of the 'absolute' moral/ethical philosophy. Gee, nice to see that libs have such a high regard for their own ethics. But this implies there is no room for anyone else's. And, I thought it was a grand liberal precept that democracy resulted in the superior form of government, yet it appears that if a 'poll' (democratic sample presumably) does not concur with the liberal philosophy, the whole system must be questioned. I would not call this utterance positive, but it does bely the liberal world perspective.

A majority of the people spoke in the last election, condoning the actions of the government. That was not a 'poll', it was a declaration of how badly the liberal philosophy has strayed from American values. And in that case, the government has an obligation to execute the will and intention of the people. But if we are not considering an election, but simply a assessment of the sentiment of the people, I do not believe our representatives in government should bend and sway under the pressure of such. However, if we ponder the egregious statement of the author, concerning the incarceration of Muslims, we can easily see biased liberal inflammation of the brain. National security does not select for creed, color, or religion. It selects based on apparent threat. And if it does happen, that a whole religion becomes a threat, then lock them all up. But that is arguably absurd, and so is the authors contention.

My conjecture, though not magnificently scripted, is valid nonetheless. And it is pleasant to continually notice how vapid the arguments of the left have become. Or could it be conservatives are in a jovial mood due to the possible recovering of the Supreme Court? Time will tell if we have, but I anticipate seeing this issue of 'questionable' incarceration appear before the court, and have renewed confidence that the verdict will not be favorable to socialist liberal Moonbats.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Disgusting Mentality in Central American Governments

I will make it quick. The absolutely disgusting behavior by our neighbors to the south is only matched by our own governments total disregard for the citizens of this country. In a recent conference among Central American Leaders the attitude communicated showed how sickening this situation about immigration has become. A quote from the article:

"Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals..."

I'm about to snap on this one. Who the hell are these people? Criminals are criminals! They break our laws, that makes them criminals! You're own Central American governments are corrupted, the society is full of class separation, and there is little effort to reform, and all you can do is complain that the US treats your illicit source of cash with the contempt it deserves? Close the borders now! I don't care if lettuce cost six dollars a head and people will have to clean their own houses. Close the damn border!

Now for those who are thinking I have gone harsh, get a clue! Alternatively, I would not be opposed to increased legal immigration from Central American Countries. But this supreme lie is a travesty. We pay for the education, health, and welfare of hundreds of thousands of people who do not deserve to be here. And more are coming every day, instead of less! What incredible hypocrites our government has become. Messages of increased security, no tolerance, and vigorous enforcement have become punchlines for a twisted comedy. Add to this dark humor the idiots to the south who refuse reform, and you have the makings of a true B-rated straight to video special. Unfortunately, the well meaning, compassionate, and law abiding legal residents in this country are forced to buy and watch the drivel.

Friday, January 06, 2006

No Enlightenment Possible for Islam?

I was listening to a fascinating interview yesterday of Father Joseph Fessio by Hugh Hewitt. I am not a Catholic. In fact, I view parts of the Catholic structure as very strong hindrances to an individuals Christian growth. But I have many Catholic friends, and their savior is my savior. It is not to drive a wedge between believers that I say these things. Simply to provide a foundation for discussion later. In my perspective there is only one leader of the Church, and it is not the Pope. In essence, calling for a man to lead us, instead of personally looking to God for leadership, is an structure based on a dispensation that God disposed of with the perfect sacrifice. Yet, amongst Catholics, are many very devout people, as well as some extremely astute scholars. The wisdom that is brought to the political table by such is significant, and should be considered with great care.

In this interview a question arises as to whether a Reformation is possible within Islam. One presenter at a conference proposes the idea, and it is discussed. At the conference is the current Pope and some of his former students. The Pope opines that it is not possible due to the nature of the Koran, that the word of Mohamed is absolute, and is not able to be reinterpreted. He contrasts that with the Christian Bible, in that interpretation of said tome lies always with the believers, and is in constant application to the present.

For a moment let us consider the Bible. One could make a argument for it being 'peer reviewed' at various times throughout history. There are many letters and writings, holy in nature, and from the time period, that are not included. Even the source of each of the letters and messages is different. There are many prophets, and the disciples separate contributions. Is not it paramount to have multiple sources for verification of principles? But here we do not argue for the rightness or wrongness of a text. We are interested in the philosophic principle that guides large groups of people in this day. Specifically we want to know weather Islam is capable of an Enlightenment reform. I say this instead of 'The Reformation' because the principles of democracy and individual freedom were solidified in the Enlightenment period, even though their source is earlier.

I have made the argument previously that Islam is easily capable of reform. Now, I can say, it appears to be far more difficult than I previously thought. If in fact, the underlying method of moral justification in Islam is based on the exactitude of Mohamed's utterances, they are incapable of reform. I say this not to denigrate any Muslim, but this is a perversion of God's intention for the individual. We have been given a free will, an intellect, and a conscience. Are we to suppress our reason? Ignore our conscience? And simply choose to believe the words of one man, to the exclusion of primary witnesses? The Christian principle of the living word of God is far removed from this. Yes, to study and contemplate the historic records is edifying. Certainly meditating on the allegorical writings of the past will build discernment and wisdom. These alone will not grant new life. Without the reality of the guiding Spirit of God illuminating a path in the word, all that is created becomes dogmatic, yielding not fruit of life.

If a individual decides to restrict the scope of what is possible down to a single man's utterances, the end result is inevitably legalistic servitude to a dead structure. Within Islam, the avenues to reform appear to be very few. I predict that there will be great conflict within Islam itself in the near future, simply due to the principle of non-adaptable interpretation. This is the greatest hurdle they will face initially. Even the incredibly over structured Catholic Church survived such an upheaval due to the inherent nature of changing how the scripture is applied. And this change and adaptability is built in. There were twelve apostles. There were many prophets foretelling the ultimate sacrifice and change in dispensation. There were many scholarly believers who agreed upon the best texts and letters to preserve and collect.

It may seem a fine point to some, and the atheist will equate any religion with blind belief, but I contend that in this instance the current Pope has provided us with a enlightening view. Whether you agree or not, it would behoove you to read the transcript of the interview, and empower yourself with the opinions contained within. Time will not stop in the eleventh century for Islam, and much as some try, you can not go back. Western history contains a significant amount of toil and travail in the emergence of our free society, it would be safe to assume that the Arab states may be experiencing the same fate. We must be required to make ourselves aware of the possibilities, so we can plan for a safe future, not just for ourselves, but for every realm of human life we influence.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Dance of Injustice

I am at a loss to comprehend the mentality of liberals who fight tooth and nail against the Bush administration. On one hand, it makes perfect sense for them to have a defeatist, contrary, oppose everything stance politically, but to extend this constantly into our national security is incredulous. The further they stray from social issues, the more distance they put between average Joe voter and themselves, because no one is going to buy the drivel pouring fourth now. So what are we considering today? More screams and cries for justice, but not justice as we have ever seen before. No, this is the idiotic extension of American courts to cover enemy combatants. A ploy of the misguided left, who are perversely working in many significant ways, to help our mortal enemies. Yes, Bin laden and anyone following in his footsteps can place their trust in the socialist liberal Bush hating left.

We have a piece of news today on topic, which has drawn some enjoyable flame mail. It appears the Administration has made some progress in an attempt to remove 187 cases pertaining to Club Gitmo residents. We can only hope for success. On to the mail:

A question:
Why is Scrub so anxious to prevent these people from being heard? Might it be that he is concerned about what they would say about their three year stay in Amerika's Cuban prisons? Might it be that the government can't prove any criminal behavior by these people? Might it be that almost all of them were simply swept up in a nervous frenzy and are just victims? How about we have the military fight the wars and the courts determine the laws.

An answer:
No, not to concerned about what they will say. The socialist leftist press that you're addicted too has already said worse. No, its not criminal behavior, its war. Yes, why don't you leave the military to fight the war and keep the courts out of it? Yes, nervous frenzy, perfectly describes the irrational leftist peacenik wacko....

The Liberal Retort:
Yes, he is concerned what they would say, IN COURT. If it's a war, then they are prisoners of war and should be treated accordingly. But it's not a war, is it; as long as Scrub can get away with confusing terrorism with the war in Iraq, it's a form of legal limbo. And that's what they want..confusion. That way nobodies sure what the law is or isn't, what the rules are or aren't.

What is the role of "the courts". Well, enforcement of the law, interpretation of the law, and constitutionality of the law. Now, the executive, acting in the capacity as C in C of the armed forces, wants the military to act as a tribunal. Seems to me a perfectly reasonable thing that the real judicial power should have an interest in that process! Do I have to keep reminding you CCCRW's that we are SUPPOSED to have a checks and balance system in this government?

The Real Truth:
Before I get to the inanity of the liberal position, I notice that Bush is feeling quite pleased with the progress in Iraq today. No wonder the libs a ticked off. What if regular people in America feel like its is winding down? What if they think we might be reducing our involvement? What will happen if our foreign policy actually appears to protects us? Yes, its the unthinkable demise of peacenik politics. They will have to scream louder than ever, and keep this thing on the burner, because mid term elections draw nigh! But I digress, back to the liberal sense of justice.

First problem, why would he care what they say in court as opposed to what they say in the press? Its the same thing. Propaganda. The object of these peacenik leftist liberals is to undermine our ability to fight a war which they oppose. It doesn't matter where, or how, the leftist agenda marches forth. the claim is made continually, "Its not war..." That is the scary part of the left. They really don't believe it is war. Al Qaida thinks its a war. Hamas thinks its a war. The Iraqi insurgents think its a war. Patriotic Americans think its a war. The amazing American military is fighting it as a war. The British military is fighting in what they claim to be a war. The only people who can't see past their hatred of Bush are the Moonbat leftists, hence, no war.

So we get back to the idiotic way to combat terrorism as proposed by the left. Arrest them and try them in some court. Make sure you have evidence, and do everything proper. Have to play by the rules or else we have to let them go. That was Clinton's strategy in excusing himself from dealing with Bin Laden, "I didn't have the legal justification to take him from the Sudanese." Playing 'by the rules' brought us the Gorelick wall between intelligence agencies, thus preventing us from identifying the 9/11 hijackers before they perpetrated their act of war. Oh, wait, leftist don't see that as an act of war...

As for the final ridiculous suggestion that military tribunals are not appropriate, they seem to work for members of the military. I think any sane person with an i.q. above the speed limit could recognize that military tribunals would be efficient mechanisms for disposing of enemy combatants. But the left is not sane. And as smart as they want to appear, they have forgone reason for hatred, and replaced objectivity with emotional politics, all to the detriment of our fine Nation. Fortunately there is a check and balance system in this country, and it has given us a strong military, with a appropriately strong C and C, who has the power and discernment to protect us from those who have pledged themselves to evil. This being so, a new threat to our Nation has evolved, those elements of the left that in action align themselves with the purpose of our enemy, and pervert Justice in a unholy dance.