We have been treated to a steady and often violently angry stream, from the media and from the left side of American politics, of the following: "Hussein had no WMD's; therefore Bush lied; deposing Hussein wasn't necessary; deposing Hussein wasn't a good thing."
For many of us able to think and recognize evil when it's blatantly obvious, that position has long been transparently ludicrous. It is constantly amazing that the Left in U.S. politics has a stunning blindness to genuine, proven evil. Let's recount a quick list of Hussein's evils: he used poison gas (those would be WMD's, which he had en masse in the 1980s) on his own people and on the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war; he had stocks of poison gas that were verified after the first Iraq War after the U.S. kicked Hussein out of Kuwait; he invaded Kuwait; and he publicly, since the 1990s, said that he would provide the families of suicide bombers who "kill Americans" with $20,000 (a sizeable wealth to most in the Middle East). The last time I checked, paying people to commit suicide attacks on Americans... constitutes the support and blatant encouragement of terrorists. I'm utterly unclear how the American Left reconciles its statements that there "was no proof that Hussein backed terrorists" (and of course that Bush lied about that, too). No Proof? How about his own words? Paying people to commit suicide with bombs, if they kill Americans while they do it? If that isn't backing terrorists, what is?
And therein lay the greatest tragedy of the American Left: a persistent denial of reality. Confronted with this simple proof, Hussein's own words (see above), the Left simply ignores it and repeats its mantra, as though by saying over and over again that Hussein never did anything to support or encourage terrorists would somehow magically make it factually so.
Let's move beyond just Hussein's own words. General Georges Sada, Iraqi General under Hussein and one of Hussein's advisors in the 80s and 90s, has released a well-written and, more importantly, well- and heavily- documented book that should put an end to the Left's idiotic mantras. General Sada documents, complete with accompanying testimony of the pilots involved (for instance), how Hussein took advantage in 2002 of a natural disaster in Syria to -- very important point coming, read carefully -- move jets loaded with WMDs of all sorts out of Iraq and into Syria. How he used the natural disaster to send the planeloads of WMDs there under the guise of "humanitarian support" to the Syrian people. General Sada doesn't just say it's so (which is firsthand testimony, since he was part of that operation to move WMD's out of Iraq), he provides additional testimonies and the documentation so other people (like, say, reporters who are actually interested in the truth) can find all this out for themselves.
So let's look at this. Some of us have been arguing all along the very obvious proposition: Hussein was proven to have WMD stockpiles in the early and mid 1990s; he used earlier stockpiles against his own people and the Iranians; and he had plenty of time to figure out that it would suit his purposes to hide his stockpiles. Where might he do that? Hm. Rational human beings sit back and think and say, hm, how about Syria or Iran?
The Citizen was utterly unsurprised when the U.S. found no stockpiles in Iraq. Why would I be? It was transparently obvious that: by going over and over again to the U.N. we had given Hussein two things -- the notice that we were coming into Iraq, and the time to prepare for that eventuality. That far too much of the American Left can't put two plus two together and get four -- we gave Hussein time to move his stockpiles into sympathetic Syria or Iran; we told him ahead of time we were coming, by spending months and months stating so before the U.N.; therefore Hussein will move his stockpiles out and proclaim his "innocence", which will convince only the American Left and far too much of Europe.
So now we have additional proof to back up what most of us had already surmised. Proper journalism requires an in-depth examination of an article, if that article proves false. So let's see the mainstream media, which has banged the drum of the Left's mantras for years, now do the proper and honest thing and actually run stories pointing out how FALSE they were before, how their earlier positions were NOT ACCURATE, and what the facts actually are turning out to be.
Don't hold your breath, America. The mainstream press has little interest in going back over their years of falsehoods and assumptions, and the American Left will certainly continue to bury their collective heads and refuse to admit reality. I'm not sure which is the bigger tragedy, since by refusing to acknowledge proven reality, by refusing to admit facts when the facts contradict their assertions, the American Left just cedes the argument to the Republicans.
What we should be concerned about should be obvious to all: since Hussein moved stockpiles out of Iraq and into Syria, that means... hold your breath.. that Syria now has those stockpiles of chemical weapons and other WMDs. The Right has already expressed their concern about this, with the typical reaction from the media and the Left (Syria doesn't have anything, anything more than Iraq did, etc.).
One of these days, the Left will wake up and realise that the testimony of Georges Sada and others actually involved in the goings-on in Iraq at the time is far more valuable than the delusional rantings of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and their ilk. Until then, they'll continue to lose elections, as they've done in the past half-dozen election cycles (most notably, the 2002 midterm elections, where the Left lost hugely, when history almost universally has the party out of power gain seats). And they'll continue to rant and rave and deny reality. I just wish they wouldn't. The world deserves better.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Short thoughts for a Monday...
A few quick thoughts:
1) excellent press conference with two senators, both Democrats, and one of them Mr. Murtha. I particularly like when the one Sergeant stood up in the back and thoroughly debunked all the B.S. Murtha and his fellows are spewing. He had just come back from Iraq, and was returning, as were all the troopers whom he led; their morale, and the morale of the troops in Iraq that he visits, is excellent; and not once did they receive any call, letter, or visit from the other Senator sitting beside Mr. Murtha (cannot recall the Senator's name, my apologies) - despite the fact that the Sergeant was one of the Senator's constituents. No visits, nothing -- but a lot of B.S. about how morale stinks, the troops hate their jobs, etc. My congraluations and appreciation to the sergeant for proving how glaring and blatant the hypocrisy of Mr. Murtha and his ilk is -- and for standing up for yourself and for your fellow soldiers against them.
2) Same topic - of course, I could only find that press conference on Fox News and a few mentions here and there on other news sites (that took effort to dig up the stories). I suppose it makes sense that they cover Mr. Murtha when he's in a controlled environment and the "message" isn't distorted by something as horrific as actual experience and actual facts -- and ignore reality when it's slammed into the faces of those who deny it. Liberal bias, perhaps; but a definite bias nonetheless. If that sergeant had stood up and agreed with Murtha, we'd have heard about it on the front page of every newspaper -- and when he stood up and rebuked both Senators, that also should have been front-page news.
3) Corruption. Interesting, isn't it, how Republican corruption issues are front-page news... and the corruption scandal involving Democrats (this time in Louisiana!) that came to light last week was nowhere to be seen, except on back pages and buried on pg. 38? One of these days the newspapers are going to remember that the issue isn't one party's corruption or the other -- it's corruption as a whole, and should be addressed as such, particularly when evidence piles up implicating BOTH parties. But again, whenever someone asks about bias, remember the rule: if the standards are unbiased, the stories will be covered fairly, and a front-page article on one party's corruption charges will be followed appropriately with a front-page article on the other party's corruption/scandal problems when those arise. Otherwise, basic reading-for-comprehension learning tells us that there's a bias or slant involved -- and it's not hard to figure out that bias/slant.
4) Interesting, isn't it, how we're now seeing evidence coming out of Iraq -- ledgers, written documents, and physical set-ups, evidently -- that Hussein did provide for the training of terrorists on Iraqi soil prior to the invasion. It's also interesting that these little facts are being ignored by the mainstream media, who would, I suppose, have to undo four years of the B.S. they've been spouting about how there's "no proof". Try again. Personally, the fact that Hussein, on the record in the 1990s, stated to the world that he would pay any terrorist who blew himself up and took any "godless Americans" with him would be paid $25,000 (to his family, obviously) -- which in the middle east is a massive sum -- is more than enough for me. It puzzles me that anyone would say he wasn't "supporting terrorists" when making this public statement -- since the statement itself is blatant, outright, and well-covered by the international press, and expresses clearly his support and encouragement of terrorist murders. One of these days, the mainstream media... nah. Never mind. It's almost pointless, wishing that the mainstream media would report facts instead of ideology, the truth about things instead of their own slant. Leave editorial opinion and world-view to the editorial page --and report NEWS, which is to say FACTS, in the rest of the paper.
Until tomorrow!
1) excellent press conference with two senators, both Democrats, and one of them Mr. Murtha. I particularly like when the one Sergeant stood up in the back and thoroughly debunked all the B.S. Murtha and his fellows are spewing. He had just come back from Iraq, and was returning, as were all the troopers whom he led; their morale, and the morale of the troops in Iraq that he visits, is excellent; and not once did they receive any call, letter, or visit from the other Senator sitting beside Mr. Murtha (cannot recall the Senator's name, my apologies) - despite the fact that the Sergeant was one of the Senator's constituents. No visits, nothing -- but a lot of B.S. about how morale stinks, the troops hate their jobs, etc. My congraluations and appreciation to the sergeant for proving how glaring and blatant the hypocrisy of Mr. Murtha and his ilk is -- and for standing up for yourself and for your fellow soldiers against them.
2) Same topic - of course, I could only find that press conference on Fox News and a few mentions here and there on other news sites (that took effort to dig up the stories). I suppose it makes sense that they cover Mr. Murtha when he's in a controlled environment and the "message" isn't distorted by something as horrific as actual experience and actual facts -- and ignore reality when it's slammed into the faces of those who deny it. Liberal bias, perhaps; but a definite bias nonetheless. If that sergeant had stood up and agreed with Murtha, we'd have heard about it on the front page of every newspaper -- and when he stood up and rebuked both Senators, that also should have been front-page news.
3) Corruption. Interesting, isn't it, how Republican corruption issues are front-page news... and the corruption scandal involving Democrats (this time in Louisiana!) that came to light last week was nowhere to be seen, except on back pages and buried on pg. 38? One of these days the newspapers are going to remember that the issue isn't one party's corruption or the other -- it's corruption as a whole, and should be addressed as such, particularly when evidence piles up implicating BOTH parties. But again, whenever someone asks about bias, remember the rule: if the standards are unbiased, the stories will be covered fairly, and a front-page article on one party's corruption charges will be followed appropriately with a front-page article on the other party's corruption/scandal problems when those arise. Otherwise, basic reading-for-comprehension learning tells us that there's a bias or slant involved -- and it's not hard to figure out that bias/slant.
4) Interesting, isn't it, how we're now seeing evidence coming out of Iraq -- ledgers, written documents, and physical set-ups, evidently -- that Hussein did provide for the training of terrorists on Iraqi soil prior to the invasion. It's also interesting that these little facts are being ignored by the mainstream media, who would, I suppose, have to undo four years of the B.S. they've been spouting about how there's "no proof". Try again. Personally, the fact that Hussein, on the record in the 1990s, stated to the world that he would pay any terrorist who blew himself up and took any "godless Americans" with him would be paid $25,000 (to his family, obviously) -- which in the middle east is a massive sum -- is more than enough for me. It puzzles me that anyone would say he wasn't "supporting terrorists" when making this public statement -- since the statement itself is blatant, outright, and well-covered by the international press, and expresses clearly his support and encouragement of terrorist murders. One of these days, the mainstream media... nah. Never mind. It's almost pointless, wishing that the mainstream media would report facts instead of ideology, the truth about things instead of their own slant. Leave editorial opinion and world-view to the editorial page --and report NEWS, which is to say FACTS, in the rest of the paper.
Until tomorrow!
Thursday, January 12, 2006
New Year thoughts... Alito confirmation, etc.
Well, the New Year's here, and the Citizen apologizes for his absence over the past month and promises to be more regular with his thoughts.
To-wit, today's thoughts:
1) Watching Democrats during this confirmation hearing didn't even make good entertainment, though it would make an excellent teaching tool: "how not to make good arguments".
-- To Senator Dick Durbin, who chastised Alito for not having a "clear" position on abortion and flip-flopping on it, goes the "look in the mirror" award. Fact: Senator Durbin for the majority of his lifetime, up to the 1990s, was pro-Life and went so far as to write many letters to his constituents promoting the overturning of Roe V. Wade. He "flip-flopped", to use his words, on the issue and now is pro-Choice -- making him scarcely one to criticise anyone else's positions on the issue, particularly when he describes his own process on making that change as "heart-wrenching" and "not simple". I guess applying the standard to himself would make him equally unsuitable, wouldn't it? Then again, that would require the Senator to be fair and honest, and judging from his behavior during the confirmation, I wouldn't expect either of those things anytime soon. And, as a citizen of Illinois, this is particularly disgusting to me, since this man represents me in the U.S. Senate.
-- To Senator Edward Kennedy, who couldn't come up with a policy or philosophical issue with which to fairly attack Alito, goes the "world's greatest hypocrite" and, in a double-win, also the "damn-the-facts-full-speed-ahead" awards. Senator Kennedy led the charge against Alito's brief involvement in an alumni association (involvement = paid dues; witnesses and records have already shown he wasn't active, didn't have any involvement in the management of it, nor did anything to promote it), calling the association "anti-woman" and "racist". First, as we've pointed out, it took ten seconds to look up the facts of the case on the internet and to discover that Alito had no role in the organization, did nothing to promote it, nor had any say in the formation of its activities. Kennedy's argument seems to be, if you pay for something, you're bound by whatever anyone else does who runs the organization -- a logic that would, for instance, require that all subscribers to a newspaper be held accountable for the editorial page of that newspaper and therefore be labelled as supporting and being liable for the opinions of that page. And that doesn't even pass the "smell" test. It's ludicrous on the surface and worse, both liberal and conservative (and media) groups had already looked into the group and found NOTHING untoward that could tarnish Alito. So, the good Senator from Massachussetts ignores all of this and uses this is as his line of attack -- which says more about Senator Kennedy's judgment and fairness than anything else. Secondly, the "documents" that Kennedy wanted, which he claimed would show the "racist and sexist" nature of the group and of Alito... had already been examined by the media and other groups and, as before, had already been put down because there was nothing there. But again, the absence of fact never stops the good Senator Kennedy from using non-existent facts to slander and malign someone. But let's not stop there. Alito is criticised for his actions in college and is required to remember every detail of everything back then -- I submit, let's find out the truth, finally, about why Senator Kennedy, back in his "bad old days" when he was that young, left the young lady to drown in Chappaquiddick. That story? Kennedy, drunk, was driving home with a young woman. He drove off the road and into a lake. He escaped the vehicle himself, made no effort to rescue her, walked home, and didn't contact the police until THE NEXT MORNING. By which time, the citizen would point out, he had already "lawyered up". Let's repeat this, because it's vital: he left a young woman to die, he made no effort to rescue her, he made no effort to contact the police for a dozen hours later and only then after he'd gotten legal advice. THAT is Edward Kennedy's judgment. If we hold Sam Alito to his actions as a young man, let's finally hold Edward Kennedy to his actions, too. I don't expect Edward Kennedy to actually hold himself to the standard he pushes on other people -- that would be fair, and honest, and decent.
-- to the Dems on the Senate panel (and the Republicans): go to a dictionary. Look up the word "brevity". Now look up the word "succinct". Now go re-read the Gettysburg Address. The point: learn how to make your point without the ludicrous bloviating that goes on whenever a Senator opens his/her mouth. I am far more impressed by someone who makes their point and does it succinctly, than when someone like Joseph Biden runs on for almost eighteen minutes while asking his first question.
2) Republicans in Congress and President Bush. Ah, the glory of the party that pushed through a Bankruptcy Bill that screwed over anyone who is in actual danger, who suffers a medical catastrophe that drives them into the poor house -- they passed a travesty of a bill that makes it more difficult on exactly those people. Couple that with the push to get the credit card companies to raise their minimum payments by as much as TWICE what it had been, which went into effect this month, and you've got Republicans behaving exactly as Democrats say they do: all about big business, and screw the individual citizen. A pox on the Republicans in Congress and on President Bush for behaving like this (and I might point out, throwing this sop to the credit industry as it reports record profits year after year WITHOUT this bonus).
3) Repeat after me: saying we went to war "for oil" is nonsensical. If we wanted oil cheap, we would have pushed to lift sanctions on Hussein and gone back to being buddy-buddy with him -- that would have gotten oil cheaply. We didn't do that. If we'd gone to war "for oil", and we ignore the logic of what I just said, then we must certainly have nationalized the Iraqi oil industry and moved to have U.S. oil companies upgrade the Iraqi oil infrastructure, to make it pump oil more efficiently and safely and quickly -- except, we didn't do that, either. We left the control and profits of Iraqi oil in Iraqi hands. So, please, grow up and stop using nonsensical comments like "war for oil". It just makes you look stupid, which is to say, as illogical and stupid as the statement itself.
4) Lesson to Democrats: reclaim the past and find better spokespersons. Gone are the day of such notable thinkers and speakers as Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Instead, the Dems offer up blatant hypocrites like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and that paragon of virtue and pristine philosophy, Howard Dean. Gone are the rational, measured, intelligent spokespeople for the Left, replaced by these bomb-throwers who evidently don't care how hypocritical they are or how empty of logical consistency their arguments are. The tragedy is, they don't seem to care, either, if they say something that isn't factually accurate. The absence of information, as in Senator Kennedy's case, is enough to savage another human being and slap labels on them -- even though there's no information to justify that behavior.
5) Basic lesson to all: do basic research before opening your mouth to make a point. Case in point: Senator Kennedy talking about how the Princeton group Alito was a dues-paying member of was "sexist" -- which ignores the fact that, at that time, the organization was run by Laura Ingram (that would be a woman), who was followed by an African-American gentleman (that would be a black man).
Hopefully, we'll see a New Year, 2006, that ushers in a politics that actually PROMOTES the exchange of ideas (instead of one side preaching to its side, and the other to its side, and both sides ignoring the thoughts of the other side... and in many cases, blindly saying that the other side's thoughts don't matter); one that brings in civility (that would require the firing of Howard Dean, among other things), since rational human beings are able to discuss and debate issues without ranting, raving, name-calling, etc. One that sees the Democrats in Congress doing the smart thing for these upcoming elections: 1) rage against the Bankruptcy Bill and make a campaign to undo it, in the name of the "people" and of "Fairness to the people", using rhetoric that talks about "helping people instead of hurting them" -- this is the ideal situation for Democrats, and since it's so obvious I'm equally as certain that they won't do it and will instead keep ranting and raving mindlessly as they've been doing for the past few years; 2) remove Nancy Pelosi and put in an effective leader for the House Democrats, one who actually listens to people other than those who parrot her own thoughts and opinions; 3) admit that, as the Republicans did on many ocassions in the 1990s and the Dems did in the 1980s, the President might actually have a point sometimes, instead of blindly and reflexively opposing each and every step or move. All that the last behavior achieves is to make Democrats look dedicated not to the country's best benefit ... but their own political benefit.
I can pray for civil behavior and measured, rational discourse -- pray for it, but the Citizen is not so blind as to expect it.
To-wit, today's thoughts:
1) Watching Democrats during this confirmation hearing didn't even make good entertainment, though it would make an excellent teaching tool: "how not to make good arguments".
-- To Senator Dick Durbin, who chastised Alito for not having a "clear" position on abortion and flip-flopping on it, goes the "look in the mirror" award. Fact: Senator Durbin for the majority of his lifetime, up to the 1990s, was pro-Life and went so far as to write many letters to his constituents promoting the overturning of Roe V. Wade. He "flip-flopped", to use his words, on the issue and now is pro-Choice -- making him scarcely one to criticise anyone else's positions on the issue, particularly when he describes his own process on making that change as "heart-wrenching" and "not simple". I guess applying the standard to himself would make him equally unsuitable, wouldn't it? Then again, that would require the Senator to be fair and honest, and judging from his behavior during the confirmation, I wouldn't expect either of those things anytime soon. And, as a citizen of Illinois, this is particularly disgusting to me, since this man represents me in the U.S. Senate.
-- To Senator Edward Kennedy, who couldn't come up with a policy or philosophical issue with which to fairly attack Alito, goes the "world's greatest hypocrite" and, in a double-win, also the "damn-the-facts-full-speed-ahead" awards. Senator Kennedy led the charge against Alito's brief involvement in an alumni association (involvement = paid dues; witnesses and records have already shown he wasn't active, didn't have any involvement in the management of it, nor did anything to promote it), calling the association "anti-woman" and "racist". First, as we've pointed out, it took ten seconds to look up the facts of the case on the internet and to discover that Alito had no role in the organization, did nothing to promote it, nor had any say in the formation of its activities. Kennedy's argument seems to be, if you pay for something, you're bound by whatever anyone else does who runs the organization -- a logic that would, for instance, require that all subscribers to a newspaper be held accountable for the editorial page of that newspaper and therefore be labelled as supporting and being liable for the opinions of that page. And that doesn't even pass the "smell" test. It's ludicrous on the surface and worse, both liberal and conservative (and media) groups had already looked into the group and found NOTHING untoward that could tarnish Alito. So, the good Senator from Massachussetts ignores all of this and uses this is as his line of attack -- which says more about Senator Kennedy's judgment and fairness than anything else. Secondly, the "documents" that Kennedy wanted, which he claimed would show the "racist and sexist" nature of the group and of Alito... had already been examined by the media and other groups and, as before, had already been put down because there was nothing there. But again, the absence of fact never stops the good Senator Kennedy from using non-existent facts to slander and malign someone. But let's not stop there. Alito is criticised for his actions in college and is required to remember every detail of everything back then -- I submit, let's find out the truth, finally, about why Senator Kennedy, back in his "bad old days" when he was that young, left the young lady to drown in Chappaquiddick. That story? Kennedy, drunk, was driving home with a young woman. He drove off the road and into a lake. He escaped the vehicle himself, made no effort to rescue her, walked home, and didn't contact the police until THE NEXT MORNING. By which time, the citizen would point out, he had already "lawyered up". Let's repeat this, because it's vital: he left a young woman to die, he made no effort to rescue her, he made no effort to contact the police for a dozen hours later and only then after he'd gotten legal advice. THAT is Edward Kennedy's judgment. If we hold Sam Alito to his actions as a young man, let's finally hold Edward Kennedy to his actions, too. I don't expect Edward Kennedy to actually hold himself to the standard he pushes on other people -- that would be fair, and honest, and decent.
-- to the Dems on the Senate panel (and the Republicans): go to a dictionary. Look up the word "brevity". Now look up the word "succinct". Now go re-read the Gettysburg Address. The point: learn how to make your point without the ludicrous bloviating that goes on whenever a Senator opens his/her mouth. I am far more impressed by someone who makes their point and does it succinctly, than when someone like Joseph Biden runs on for almost eighteen minutes while asking his first question.
2) Republicans in Congress and President Bush. Ah, the glory of the party that pushed through a Bankruptcy Bill that screwed over anyone who is in actual danger, who suffers a medical catastrophe that drives them into the poor house -- they passed a travesty of a bill that makes it more difficult on exactly those people. Couple that with the push to get the credit card companies to raise their minimum payments by as much as TWICE what it had been, which went into effect this month, and you've got Republicans behaving exactly as Democrats say they do: all about big business, and screw the individual citizen. A pox on the Republicans in Congress and on President Bush for behaving like this (and I might point out, throwing this sop to the credit industry as it reports record profits year after year WITHOUT this bonus).
3) Repeat after me: saying we went to war "for oil" is nonsensical. If we wanted oil cheap, we would have pushed to lift sanctions on Hussein and gone back to being buddy-buddy with him -- that would have gotten oil cheaply. We didn't do that. If we'd gone to war "for oil", and we ignore the logic of what I just said, then we must certainly have nationalized the Iraqi oil industry and moved to have U.S. oil companies upgrade the Iraqi oil infrastructure, to make it pump oil more efficiently and safely and quickly -- except, we didn't do that, either. We left the control and profits of Iraqi oil in Iraqi hands. So, please, grow up and stop using nonsensical comments like "war for oil". It just makes you look stupid, which is to say, as illogical and stupid as the statement itself.
4) Lesson to Democrats: reclaim the past and find better spokespersons. Gone are the day of such notable thinkers and speakers as Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Instead, the Dems offer up blatant hypocrites like Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and that paragon of virtue and pristine philosophy, Howard Dean. Gone are the rational, measured, intelligent spokespeople for the Left, replaced by these bomb-throwers who evidently don't care how hypocritical they are or how empty of logical consistency their arguments are. The tragedy is, they don't seem to care, either, if they say something that isn't factually accurate. The absence of information, as in Senator Kennedy's case, is enough to savage another human being and slap labels on them -- even though there's no information to justify that behavior.
5) Basic lesson to all: do basic research before opening your mouth to make a point. Case in point: Senator Kennedy talking about how the Princeton group Alito was a dues-paying member of was "sexist" -- which ignores the fact that, at that time, the organization was run by Laura Ingram (that would be a woman), who was followed by an African-American gentleman (that would be a black man).
Hopefully, we'll see a New Year, 2006, that ushers in a politics that actually PROMOTES the exchange of ideas (instead of one side preaching to its side, and the other to its side, and both sides ignoring the thoughts of the other side... and in many cases, blindly saying that the other side's thoughts don't matter); one that brings in civility (that would require the firing of Howard Dean, among other things), since rational human beings are able to discuss and debate issues without ranting, raving, name-calling, etc. One that sees the Democrats in Congress doing the smart thing for these upcoming elections: 1) rage against the Bankruptcy Bill and make a campaign to undo it, in the name of the "people" and of "Fairness to the people", using rhetoric that talks about "helping people instead of hurting them" -- this is the ideal situation for Democrats, and since it's so obvious I'm equally as certain that they won't do it and will instead keep ranting and raving mindlessly as they've been doing for the past few years; 2) remove Nancy Pelosi and put in an effective leader for the House Democrats, one who actually listens to people other than those who parrot her own thoughts and opinions; 3) admit that, as the Republicans did on many ocassions in the 1990s and the Dems did in the 1980s, the President might actually have a point sometimes, instead of blindly and reflexively opposing each and every step or move. All that the last behavior achieves is to make Democrats look dedicated not to the country's best benefit ... but their own political benefit.
I can pray for civil behavior and measured, rational discourse -- pray for it, but the Citizen is not so blind as to expect it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)