My response

Here is my response to Fatma's column.


I want to thank the Daily for publishing Fatima Asamarai’s column, “Finding Empathy and Commonality in the Debris of Iraq.” If it wasn’t published we would be unable to see the irrational, uninformed and loony views of the Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan mindset that is pervasive in modern liberalism.
Asamarai makes one of the most jumbled, incoherent arguments since Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquiddick.

It’s easier to pick apart Asamarai’s column than it is the Gopher’s pass defense.

But I’ll do it anyway. She starts off with claims that the United States dropped bombs on homes and schools in an effort to “snatch the oil,” from Iraq.

While it is true that a home or school may have been struck in error, in no way would the Air Force intentionally target them.

She also fails to mention all the homes and schools U.S. troops have built in Iraq. And where is all this oil he claims we “snatched” from Iraq? Iraq still remains sixth in oil exports to the United States. And their production is down more than 1 million barrels per day from 2000. If we “snatched” all this oil from Iraq, as Asamarai claims, then why don’t we stop importing oil from other countries and just use all the “free” oil from Iraq?

If we are getting free oil why are gas prices so high? You would think with all this stolen oil flowing into the country gas would be dirt cheap.

Asamarai asks, “Why when Iraqis defend their country are they called terrorists, but we … are called liberators?” The answer is easy, because we don’t drive cars into crowded markets and blow them up.

We don’t strap bombs to ourselves and detonate them next to lines of Iraqi civilians looking to become police officers.

Yes, it is true that some civilians have been killed by U.S. forces. But their deaths are unintentional. Unlike the suicide bombers and the terrorists, we don’t target noncombatants. Apparently that isn’t obvious to some people on the left.

Next Asamarai tries to say that, because the United States used nuclear bombs during World War II, we should not prevent other countries from acquiring these bombs. This is a completely ridiculous assertion. Does she really think that we should not try to prevent Iran, North Korea or Libya from gaining nuclear weapons? Would the world be safer if only a handful of responsible, accountable nations have the bomb, or if any dictator or terrorist who wants one gets one?

Asamarai’s most egregious and treasonous comment is that, “The U.S. government owes the American people an apology for what happened on (9/11.)”

This is insulting to the victims of the terrorist attack and the people of this country. She is giving murderous cowards a pass for killing innocent civilians.

This type of thinking is what allows terrorism to exist in the first place. But she doesn’t stop there. Asamarai contends that, “If you treat the world peacefully they will return peace to you.”

History has proven her wrong. What did the Jews do to Germany during World War II to deserve to be massacred? I believe it was Japan’s first strike on Pearl Harbor that killed 3,000 U.S. servicemen. Kuwait was invaded by Saddam prior to the first Gulf War, yet they had not attacked Iraq.

History is full of peaceful nations being attacked by aggressors. Asamarai should take time to fit in a history class while she is getting her liberal education.

Although I disagree with everything that Asamarai said, I’m happy that the Daily published it. Now everyone can see what the MoveOn.org, elitist, blame-America-first crowd really thinks. Without people like Cindy Sheehan or Fatima Asamarai, mainstream America might believe that liberals really want to take the fight to the terrorists.

It is obvious from their rhetoric that they want to retreat to dreamland where everything is peaceful. Well, it’s time for liberals to take off the tinfoil hats and stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is not Vietnam, it is a war against people who will kill innocent men, women, and children to achieve their goals.

My challenge is for the College Democrats to publicly denounce Asamarai’s column with a letter to the editor. This should be easy to do unless they truly believe that the 9/11 terrorists were justified in killing 3,000 American citizens.

MN Daily column

Below is a column that ran in the U of M newspaper.



Try to understand non-American people and their struggles. Try to hear their distant voices.

This is in response to Jordan Rockwell’s Sept. 16 “U.S. doing what it can in Iraq.” This war on so-called “terrorism” in Iraq is flawed from practical, factual and humanitarian aspects. Indeed, a country who’s people lived under an embargo (in place by the U.S.), under the rule of a dictator, need to be saved. But how? Maybe we should drop some bombs on homes and schools, snatch the oil, give them curfews, cut off phone lines and raid their homes. Iraqis should thank us for the liberation. Now, Iraqis don’t have the freedom to leave their homes after 7 p.m.
Concerning these “cowards in Iraq” killing American men and woman, may I remind Rockwell that American men and women signed up to be in the army knowing they would have to fight any war Bush chose to wage. The Iraqi “cowards,” didn’t go to their doorstep and fight them.

Iraqi people are defending their country from an occupation. They are innocent people, who never asked for the trouble. American soldiers crossed the world and fought them. This is not to say that I don’t feel any sympathy for the soldiers or their families. It’s unfortunate that they’re fighting a hard-to-win war; it’s also unfortunate that they’re fighting one they don’t understand. It’s our president’s “crusade,” as he said himself. Oh yes, it is sad that they left families behind. What is sadder is the Iraqi people’s state. They never asked for what is happening to them. They never signed up for the life they’re living, the occupation they’re fighting, and never hurt anyone to deserve it.

Now, about the “insurgency.” Rockwell must know that the Sunnis were not supporters of Saddam. I can safely say they were harmed by Saddam’s regime more than the Shiites. All of the songs that were sung for Saddam, all of the dancing and clapping was done by Shiites. They were given free cars and money for doing it.

If Rockwell talked about the number of Sunnis in the Baath party, 90 percent of the members were forced. The truth of the matter is that there were just as many Shiites in the Baath party. They were not the only people hurt by Saddam.

Let’s assume Sunnis really ran the country, did they choose to bomb their own cities, cut off electricity, under-fund their schools, and cut off phone lines? Every Iraqi was a victim of Saddam in one way or another.

If Saddam was prejudiced and was out there to protect “his Sunni clan,” he would be called discriminatory, not a dictator. He honestly didn’t care about the Sunni/Shiite difference; he wanted supporters and admirers.

I will also tell Rockwell that there are no Saddam loyalists, there is nobody fighting for him. He’s not really liked (although many would rather pick those days over today’s occupation).

Let’s talk about the “holy war.” I think it was our president Bush that said this is a crusade … (dictionary definition of crusade is a holy war).

So you think “Jihadists,” (by the way, it’s Mujahideen) are fighting the American soldiers because they are from the West? Perhaps it’s true, these patriot Mujahideen don’t mind that the soldiers came in their country, dropped bombs over their homes, raided them and imprisoned innocent people.

Has Rockwell considered that a war being waged against their country in the name of “freedom” may have upset them?

Maybe they don’t enjoy watching their country being destroyed, guns being aimed at them, elderly people getting bags placed over their heads, schools being bombed, and at the same time being told they’re getting freedom and liberation.

Why is it that when Americans defend their country they’re patriotic, but Iraqi’s get called “cowards?”

Where is the empathy and humanity? Many others have failed to see that Iraqi people are humans too, that they are innocent.

They are not aliens; they are people just like you and me. They have families, careers and valuable lives; they just want to live in peace.

I will ask again, why when Iraqis defend their country are they called terrorists, but when we go and invade their country we are “liberators”? That is the double standard I don’t understand. Maybe everything the American government does is inherently good, and everyone else is evil.

Perhaps if we examined our government’s foreign policy we could figure out why most of the world hates us. No, they’re not “jealous of our freedom,” as Bush would say. We learn as schoolchildren that not everyone’s jealous of us, that is not the reason people may dislike us.

Sept. 11, 2001, was indeed a very sad day, but it’s doing our country a disservice when we don’t try to understand what would make people so angry with us. The U.S. government owes the American people an apology for what happened on that day. If you treat the world peacefully they will return peace to you. Are the Iraqi people not as innocent as the Americans that went to work on that day? Do they not have loved ones?

I urge people to understand empathy. Try to understand non-American people and their struggles. It’s too bad there’s not an adopt-a-heart organization.

Being a patriotic American does not mean nodding a head to everything the government says, and echoing their words. It means using your head and thinking. This country was built on the principle of freedom and free speech, sadly few exercise the right of free speech and freethinking.

The war in Iraq reminds me of Hiroshima-Nagasaki, (which some try to justify to this day) the occupation of Iraq is being justified in the same way. Nuking a country is not saving their lives, because more could have died. Everything we do is in the name of “liberation” and “freedom.” It’s only terrorism when we get hurt, not when we throw bombs over other people’s heads.

We are the only country that has used nuclear bombs, yet we take the liberty to police the entire world, making sure they don’t have any. While we’re at it, we can put on the Superman vest and be on the lookout for “terrorism” … and scoop up oil on the way. They should make a cartoon about our foreign policy … “It’s an oppressor, it’s selfish, it’s heartless … it’s the world’s Superman.”

With regards to the “government creating process” as Rockwell called it, it’s not a “creating process.” Iraq is an extremely civilized country, and to many people’s surprise they had some of the most developed civilizations in history.

The first person to come up with the concept of a “law” was an Iraqi, his name was Hammurabi … (you can Google him if you’d like).

Finally, I’d like to know what the grounds are for Rockwell’s claim that Sunnis aren’t being shut out. During the voting process, most of the Sunnis couldn’t get out to the polls because they had curfew in their area and the American soldiers were patrolling the streets making sure nobody left their home.

Not Fox 9 news or even ABC aired that. They only had stories on the Iraqi version of our American Idol.

Let me guess, Rockwell will want to know where I get my information. I get it from my distant family that lives in Iraq; I hear from them firsthand, the struggles that they go through. I get my news not only from the 5 o’clock news, but I drag myself off the couch and get news from many diverse sources.

I strongly suggest that the first item Rockwell add to his to-do-list (right after Googling Hammurabi) is try empathy, education and stepping out of an ill-informed mind-set.

MSM miss the point on terrorism

This column was originally published on Sept 13th 2004 in the Minnesota Daily.


This past weekend, we remembered those who were killed by terrorists three years ago. Most Americans think the last terrorist attack happened on Sept. 11, 2001. That is not because they are unaware of the beheadings, car-bombings and suicide bombings that have taken place since then.
It is because the mainstream media are afraid to call a spade a spade. What I mean by that is that they are afraid to call a terrorist a terrorist.

USA Today called the men who beheaded Nick Berg “captors.” On Sept. 1, 16 Israelis were killed when two men exploded bomb belts on two separate buses. CNN called them “fighters.” Chris Matthews, of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” calls the men who detonate roadside bombs in Iraq “insurgents.”

Last Thursday, our own Daily used these adjectives to describe the men who murdered innocent women and children in Beslan, Russia: rebels, hostage-takers and freedom fighters.

The editorial “Lessons Beslan should teach us” even said the word “terrorist” has become overused. The point of the Daily’s editorial piece was to condemn the murder of innocent civilians. That’s fine, but calling these men freedom fighters is like calling Michael Moore skinny.

The ABCs, CBSs and NBCs of the world must want Americans to think that the war on terror is over. The harsh reality is that there are terrorists plotting to kill us every day. Some people on the left will say that the United States has created these terrorists by invading Iraq. That’s ideological nonsense. There were terrorists before we invaded Iraq, just as there are terrorists now.

In fact, because of the Bush administration’s pre-emptive policy, we have killed or captured two-thirds of al-Qaida. But there are other terrorists other than just al-Qaida, and this is what the mainstream media don’t want you to know.

The media doesn’t want to label terrorists as such because it helps the Bush administration. Recent polls show that President George W. Bush has a commanding lead on the question of whom the U.S. public trusts to protect us from terrorism. But if the media keep terrorism and the word “terrorist” out of national headlines, then there is a greater chance that people will vote on other issues.

People need to be reminded of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. They need to know that the people we are dealing with don’t care about Republicans or Democrats. They don’t care if they kill a soldier in uniform, a civilian contractor or a 5-year-old school child. They will kill anybody to get what they want.

This war is waged, not just on far-off battlefields, but also at home in the form of public opinion. Those who think the war in Iraq is not a battle against terrorism are just plain wrong. We know Iraq was not involved with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But, what we also know is that al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi traveled in and out of Iraq with Saddam Hussein’s knowledge.

Who is to say that Saddam wouldn’t help him at some point? After Sept. 11, 2001 we can’t take that chance. When the war in Iraq is done, the war on terror will not be over. That is why the United States must have a firm commitment in fighting this war. We can’t do that, if people think that the war has subsided.

The media must be responsible and not scare the public. But they also must be accurate. People who kill innocent children are not freedom fighters. People who detonate roadside bombs or behead civilians are not insurgents. They are terrorists.

Before Sept. 11, 2001, we had our eyes closed to the threat of terrorism. Every time the media replace the word “terrorist” with “insurgent” or “freedom fighter” they help close our eyes a little bit more.

Black History Month

Being that February is Black History Month, I figured I would peruse the NAACP Web site to gain insight on the importance of this month. I found out that new Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., will receive the Chairman’s Award at the annual National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Image Awards. I thought this was quite the achievement for the freshman senator. That was, until I saw that past winners included the Dave Matthews Band and actor Danny Glover.
I don’t know about you, but when I think about champions of civil rights, drug-induced rockers and Cuban President Fidel Castro’s best buddy don’t come to mind. Does the award really bear the same merit for Obama given its past winners? It’s like having the “husband of the year award” given to you by previous winners former President Bill Clinton and Scott Peterson.

In addition to Obama’s award, Oprah Winfrey will be inducted into the NAACP Image Awards Hall of Fame. Personally, I love Winfrey. Her show about maternity makeovers was especially moving. Even more noteworthy was her show asking, “Single women: Why are you alone?” Not only was that episode informative, it was touching as well (does anyone have a Kleenex?).

These awards themselves are not that offensive. Given the partisan behavior of the NAACP, it’s not shocking to find out that it would give an award to noted communist-sympathizer Glover. What is shocking is its glaring omission of a person who has brought a considerable amount of diversity to the forefront of our way of life. That person is President George W. Bush. If all Cabinet nominees are approved, Bush will have a more-diverse group of top advisers than any president in history.

Donna Brazille (former Al Gore presidential campaign manager and a black woman) said, “President Bush has opened new doors for minorities and women to consider the benefits of joining the ranks of the Republican Party.” She couldn’t be more correct.

Bush named Alberto Gonzales to be the first-ever Hispanic to hold the position of attorney general. Condoleezza Rice has been confirmed as the only black woman in history to be the secretary of state. Alphonso Jackson is secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cuban-born Carlos Gutierrez has been tapped to lead the Department of Commerce. The list goes on and on.

What does not is media coverage of this cabinet’s diversity. Did you know that during four years Bush has named five women, seven blacks, three Hispanics and two Asian Americans to cabinet positions? Prior to Bush, no minority had ever been nominated to any of the four most-prestigious cabinet positions. Bush has named three. You won’t find those stories in the Star Tribune.

Detractors might say Bush is only paying lip service to minorities, but that is an insult to the achievement of these nominees. They are some of the most-qualified, educated and talented people we have to offer. They earned their jobs because they were well-equipped to fill the position, not because of the color of their skin.

Having women and minorities close to him is not something new for Bush. Throughout his time as governor of Texas and his two presidential campaigns, he has always had a diverse group of advisers and confidants. Some Democrats even complained that in last year’s presidential election, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had fewer blacks and Hispanics as top advisers than Bush did. There are more minorities at a Celine Dion concert than there were in Kerry’s campaign.

Not that having a campaign full of rich white men is a bad thing; it’s just surprising coming from the party of diversity and inclusiveness. Only after a CNN reporter wrote a column criticizing Kerry for the lack of diversity in his inner circle did he introduce more minorities into his campaign. It seems that the Democrats were the ones using minorities as window dressing.

It’s also ironic that liberals often stereotype the Republican Party as racist. Then, when Republicans appoint minorities to high-level positions, those minorities are often criticized and attacked by liberals.

Bush should get attention and accolades for his diverse nominations. More media coverage of the diverse group of nominees would be a positive influence on minority groups and show that the United States is coming together. Bush is furthering the idea that the Republican Party believes that hard work will be rewarded regardless of race.

In 2001, Clinton won the NAACP’s President’s Award, which is determined by the organization’s president, currently Dennis Courtland Hayes. Bush is not asking for any awards, but clearly deserves them. Maybe Bush will get more recognition if he gives everyone in the White House press corps a new car like Winfrey did with her audience.

Another Protest part II

Gregg-- Democracy spreading--yay, that sounds warm and fuzzy--I'm all for it. I'mabsolutely certain the local populations are so starved for freedom and libertyour troops will likely be met by the spreading of rose petals, AND oil-revenueswill pay for the reconstruction. At the very least such an invasion will beseen as a helpful action, not intermeddling, and will make recruitment ofterrorists more difficult by diminishing anti-American sentiment worldwide. Huh. Turns out none of these things are true. Anyway, let me tell you aboutthe horrible things the Baathist regime was doing. It will be easiest if youpretend this makes it particularly unique amongst its regional or socioeconomic(geo-politicially speaking) peers.

"President Bush said we should engage our enemies before the threat becomesimminent." Yes he did, and I can't tell you how thrilled I am you've brought upthe doctrine of preemption. Just a few questions: (1)If not imminent threat toUS interest, upon what principled basis should the determination to commit UStroops rest? (2)Having formally announced no restriction upon US militaryintervention abroad what moral authority has our government to avoid similarmoves by others (e.g. When India and Pakistan next stand on the brink of nuclearwar)?

So lets see if I've got this straight: the opening of Eastern bloc markets tocompetition from Western capitalist democracies was neither a necessaryprecondition for perestroika, nor played an integral role in demonstrating thefalsehood of communist propaganda vis-a-vis the relative strength of command v.market-based economies to the peoples of these countries? It would be exactlymy argument that detente, by incorporating competition and concrete examples ofcapitalist economic superiority into communist countries began these nationsupon a course of inevital collapse. One may speculate, in trying to keepastride with US military buildup this time of collapse was sped up--and I'd behard-pressed to disagree with this speculation. On the other hand, that thiswas accomplished by means of military spending is no proof that different routeswould not have led to the same conclusion. Detente is further in no way related to "laying down arms and talking nicely." Its a fundamental truth that in aggregate markets lead to more efficientconclusions that the speculations of the most enlightened central command. Thus, engaging command-based economies into competition with one's market-basedeconomy will inevitably cause the command economy to overtax itself to theextent one can maintain its desire to stay astride. Here, I'll hand you thepro-Reagan argument--its not clear the Soviets could have been counted on toremain engaged to their destruction, except when faced with military-basedeconomic competition. Finally, I've no interest in instituting communism here. It is unassailablytrue that the reliance upon the market is both the most efficient, andsuccessful means of organizing one's economy. But markets are also incrediblypowerful and destructive. Much like a river rushing down the mountainside, itsneither good nor evil--it simply moves in the least inhibited direction withoutconscience. Thus, I support using the strength of government to build bridgesdirecting the on-rush from particularly fundamental damaging interests andtoward those of common benefit.

War is not never a valid option, its merely a last option. The threat posed byGermany--a country actively engaged in a hostile campaign against its neighbors,warranted military response (as I might add, did Iraq's invasion of Kuwait). There is no parallel between Germany circa 1942 and Iraq 2002. The allusion isdemagoguery pure and simple. My thoughts on Iran, Iraq and North Korea: Iran should have been the focal point of our democracy spreading campaign--itspopulace most possesses the preconditions (in terms of infrastructure,education-level, and popular dissatisfaction with theocratic rule) necessary tobring democracy to the middle east. North Korea most deserved immediate military intervention because its locationposes the greatest strategic threat to US interests (unless of course oneconceives ready access to oil reserves a more tantamount federal interest thanthe safety of US citizens stationed within the Pacific Rim, or living in our50th state). Of course this factor cuts both ways--i.e. the strategic necessityof underming Il Jong's goals makes confrontation with him the most difficult. As the situation currently stands, I relatively certain ignoring the growingthreat for 3 years has improved little, but the threat to our allies in theregion posed by invasion hardly argues in its favor. I'm honestly notparticularly sure what the best course regarding N. Korea is...does the CIAstill do assassinations?

As for Iraq, the regime of containment and sanctions clearly was quitesuccessful in limiting any threat the Iraq posed to its neighbors or us. The rampant corruption within the "Oil for Food" program no doubt necessitatedreform. My opposition to war with Iraq has been premised from day one upon a)itposed no imminent threat and b)invasion would make the case for anti-Americanismstronger no weaker, and c)focus upon it would diminish our focus from therelevant targets of the war on terrorism--namely non-state actors. Republicans are like ostrich, they latch onto simple solutions and stick theirhead into the sand to avoid the complexities which might undermine their smugcertitude.

MY RESPONSE:

Clint,
In regards to your first paragraph I would say given that we now live in a post 9/11 world we can't be concerned with whether or not the French, Iranians, or Germans have anti-American sentiment. We have to do what's in our best interest. And, NEWSFLASH, there were terrorists before we invaded Iraq and there will be terrorists after the war is over. Liberals love to claim that our invasion has increased terrorist recruiting. How do they know!? Are they out givng surveys to the terrorist? If so, maybe they should shoot a couple while their at it. I also love the complaint, that Iran and N.Korea are just as bad or worse, as justification for not invading Iraq. Just because they are worse regimes out there means we should do nothing with Saddam?? We've got to start somewhere. And give us time, we'll take care of the rest.
"What principled basis should the determination to commit US troops rest?"
That decision lies with the President and the Congress. If they decide a country poses a threat to the U.S. it is their responsibility to take action. What is our alternative, wait until we are attacked and strike back? Ask the 3000 people who died on 9/11 how well that works.
"What moral authority has our government to avoid similar moves by others..."
We can't stop other countries for warring. All we can do is protect our interests. Obviously it is in our best interest if major actors in the region are not involved in war or nuclear war. But it is not our responsibility to be world police. I hate that the U.S. gets involved in every conflict possible. We should limit our involvement to areas that protect our national security. Aid missions to Somalia are a world problem, not a U.S. problem, and should be handled by the U.N. I'm sure if a conflict were to arise between Pakistan and India the U.S. role would be that of a facilitator of the peace. I seriously doubt that we would intercede militarily.
Communism is a slow death, and I'll agree that if you strand 10 people on an island and give them communism it will eventually fail regarless of what type of economy the people on the neighboring islands have. But we could still be involved in the cold war today if it were not for the arms race of the 60's - 80's. The people didn't revolt because they saw the East Berliners buying levi's and pepsi. They revolted because the government spent billions of dollars on the military and no money on infrastructure, social programs, heat, or food for its people. But, given that the Soviets and the U.S. were locked in a cold war, and a spending war, the Soviets had no room change without appearing weak or inferior. Thus, the catalyst that brought about the end of the cold war was our military buildup and our unwavering resolve to hold firm against communism even in the face of liberal opposition.
"Those of common benefit" seems pretty communist to me. That's just a euphamism for "we'll take from the rich and start more social programs for the people who are unwilling to earn a living for themselves." The thing I don't understand the most about liberals is their desire to take other peoples earnings and redistribute it among the less talented, less skilled, uneducated masses. I'm all for helping people that want to help themselves, but I find it utterly ridulous to continue to fund programs that perpetuate vicious cycles of poverty, fatherless homes, drug abuse, and teenage pregnancy.
You said, "the regime of containment and sanctions clearly was quite successful." Successful in what? Continuing sanctions was a recipe for disaster. Do you think the better option would have been to wait until Iraq made a move, then react? Given that we now know that terrorists and terrorists regimes can act quickly and without warning, we can no longer be reactive. Our military actions have to be proactive to any potential threat. Imagine that you are president in the months following 9/11 and the CIA comes to you and says we have proof that Saddam has WMD’s. Do you attack first, or wait until NYC has been leveled by a nuclear strike. As president, George W. Bush had to make a decision based on the info he had. How would people have reacted if we did nothing and Saddam had attacked, or given weapons to al Qaida to use?
Final Points:
"It [Iraq] posed no imminent threat"
This is blatantly wrong. They posed a continual threat since the end of the 1991 Gulf war. It has been proven that Saddam was just trying to wait out the sanctions so he could rebuild his weapon systems. He gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He allowed al Qaida free roam throughout Iraq. Removing Saddam was the only sure-fire way to ensure he would not be able to hurt America.
"Invasion would make the case for anti-Americanism stronger"
As I stated earlier, many in the middle-east and the world already hated us. Do you really think countries would like us more if we had stayed out? What liberals don’t understand is that America has enemies. And we must defend ourselves no matter what others think. All I know is that prior to 9/11 we did not invade Iraq and we were attacked. Since the U.S. invasion in Iraq there have been no attacks on U.S. soil. Don’t you think that if thousands of new U.S. haters suddenly emerged after our invasion of Iraq that they would want to attack us on U.S. soil. Think of it this way: I already hate the Vikings, just because they won on Sunday does not make me hate them more, and it is doubtful that new Viking-haters emerged because of the game.

"Focus upon it would diminish our focus from the relevant targets of the war on terrorism--namely non-state actors."
How do you know what covert operations the CIA or special forces are involved in. If we announce that we are sending 100,000 troops into Afghanistan then the terrorists would run for the caves and hide. But if we pull out and send in secret, under-cover forces then maybe the terrorists will come out of hiding. Besides, many terrorists have migrated to Iraq to fight U.S. soldiers there. We set up a ‘giant roach motel’ in Iraq, now all we have to do is step on the cockroaches.
You say that Republicans "latch onto simple solutions and stick their head into the sand to avoid the complexities which might undermine their smug certitude." But if anything our simple "You’re either with us or against us," helped Bush win the election. The public wants clear, concise, honest answers especially in the realm of national security. With Bush, they know exactly what they are getting. Liberals "ask the French first" simply does not cut it in todays world.

Another protest against the President to "support" the troops

Clint, How's it going? I thought you Madison guys were able to take a joke. Just because "my party" does or says something doesn't mean that I agree with it. I have plenty of disagreement with the Republican party, but I feel their ideas are better for the country overall. I think we should spread democracy to places such as Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea because that is the only way to ensure our safety. Yes, it is true that the CIA'sintelligence on WMD's was flawed. But, if you remember, President Bush said that we must engage enemies 'before' the threat is imminent. That means we should strike enemies before they are able to acquire WMD's or export terrorists.
Speaking of revisionist narrative, your claim that detente was at least partially responsible for the collaspe of the Soviet Union is purely speculative. It is often a fantasy of those on the left that our enemies could be defeated by laying down our arms and talking nicely with them. I'm sure Hitler would have fallen for this. Do you think that our military buildup and, the Soviet Union's penchant for buying weapons instead of food, to try to keep up with us, had anything to do with their collapse? Or was communism destined to fail? If so, why are liberals so hell-bent on starting communism here.
Also, you don't say anything about wars ending slavery or Nazism. Germany didn't attack us first during WWII. Yet, after Pearl Harbor, we went right after them because we knew they were a threat, just like Iraq and countries of their ilk. Should we have engaged in the Civil war or WWII? Better yet, how would you handle the situation in Iraq, Iran, or N.Korea? Liberals are like Randy Moss, they don't know that they are bad for the team.

~Best, Gregg



On 11 Jan 2005, clint muche wrote:>
Gregg, This is a really mature and well thought out response...In case you'd conveniently forgotten the humanitarian rationales for war are merely the most recent justification-- a rationale I might add which your party has roundly rejected as a valid basis for US military intervention. Maybe we could have "not one damn shred of integrity day." Better yet, it couldbe a continuous theme for eight years!
FYI, detente and economic engagement ended communism. The wars we fought "against it" were unsuccessful (see Vietnam), and the proxies wesupported as enemies of our enemy have come to roost as our enemies of today (see bin Laden, Hussein). Its a compelling revisionist narrative though--I seeyou've> got a future in Republican politics.
--Clint Muche

My response to the protest:
Not spending money for a day should be pretty simple for most pothead-peacenik-hippies, since they don't have jobs anyway. Maybe you could call it "not one damn job day" Where the few anti-war protesterswith jobs call in sick. Millions of coffee shops, hemporiums, and art supply stores would be without employees for a day. That would really show those capitalist pigs we mean business!
Even better, we could call it "Not one damn rape room day." This could remind the world that without U.S. involvement, women in Iraq could face the joys of rape by Oday and Qusai Hussein. Or, "Not one damn beheading day." On this day we could sympathize and understand the feelings of the terrorists so that we can have a better world view of the situation. This way all the Islamo-fascists terrorist would learn to love us and the war would end in a flurry of rose petals. Actually I envy, the peaceniks...ignorance is bliss and I haven't beenthat ignorant since 4th grade. Except for ending slavery, fascism, nazism, and communism, war has never solved anything.

Peace-out

~Gregg



This is the original email I received:

Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for anything for 24 hours. On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Walmart, KMart and Target. Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down. The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.
Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200+ brave young Americans and (some estimated) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan -- a way to come home. There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Packers/Vikes rematch

Yahoo! Sports

It is a good week because the beloved Packers have another NFC North Division crown and they play the lowly Vikings at home in the first round of the playoffs. Being that I live in Minneapolis, I have to listen to Vikings fans boast about how great their team is...for the first 5 weeks of the season. Last year it was Nate Poole's catch as time expired that ended their chance at a playoff spot. This year the entire team decided to not let that happen again. So, about mid-season, they decided to lose enough games to not even qualify for the playoffs. They lost 4 of their last 5 and still made the playoffs. Right now they are about as hot as a Janet Reno sex tape. They can't do anything right. Anyway, this Sunday we will welcome the Vikings to town and put an end to their miserable season.

Freedom From Religion Foundation Loses in La Crosse

La Crosse Tribune - News

There has been a monument of the Ten Commandments in a park in La Crosse, WI since 1965. And, for now, it is going to stay there. A recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision has upheld the sale of a plot of land, in which the monumnet rests, as legal. The city sold the plot of land containing the monument to the Fraternal Order of Eagles, who orignially donated the monument. The city got creative when local groups challenged the city for endorsing religion on government owed land. The 22-by-20-foot plot of land is now maintained by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and enjoyed by the residents of La Crosse.
After years of attacks and lawsuits by anti-religion groups it's good to see a victory on the side of the people who are just trying to make the city a better place to live. Anti-religion groups have attempted to remove God from public view in efforts ranging from taking a cross off of a city seal in L.A. to trying to remove "Under God" from the pledge. I'm just happy to see that the city of La Crosse got creative and found a way to keep the monument in place.

MSNBC -Stingy?

MSNBC -

David Shuster, of MSNBC, has joined the ranks of Jan Egeland with his thoughtless comments on the United States contribution to the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia. Shuster claimed this, about a billion dollar donation that he thinks the U.S. should have given, "It would immediately give people across this earth a reason to be thankful for the United States." Where has this guy been for the past 60 years. The United States has always been more than generous when it comes to giving aid to disater victims. Look at Africa. We give 15 billion dollars to fight AIDS in Africa, more than all other nations combined, and this guy has the guts to call us embarassing. On top of that the world still hates us. What's embarassing is Shuster's failed ability to see the big picture. Does he really think the world will stop hating us if we give a billion dollars to tsunami victims? Will the world really be "thankful" for the United States if we give more money? Not likely. Maybe instead of offering a reward for Bin Laden we should offer a billion dollars in aid programs. Then maybe the Islamic terrorist would have a reason to be thankful for the United States. Giving a billion dollars could solve all the U.S. problems. Maybe we could give Paris Hilton a billion dollars and she could go away too!

Throwing gobs of money at a problem seems to be the mantra of the left in this country. It doesn't always solve the problem (I.e. welfare). I would be willing to bet that if we sent a billion dollars to Southeast Asia, a good portion of it would be siphoned off in a sort of "Oil for Tsunami" scandal (probably involving the U.N.) Every news report that I have read still shows the U.S. as giving the most money so far. And on top of cash, we are sending military vehicles and personnel to the region. We don't just write a check and turn our heads away, we send our people in harm's way.

Calling the U.S. stingy looks like another way for the media to criticize President Bush. That may seem far-fetched to some but, my own Star Tribune editorial board had this to say, "The Bush Administration's handling of this crisis has been inept beyond belief." What was the editorial board's solution? You guessed it, Donate a billion dollars! What is it with liberal attack dogs and a billion dollars?

I don't want to seem insensitve to the tragedy but, this whole affair of comparing who gives what (we gave the most in case you hadn't heard) is kind of like watching people put change into a Salvation Army Kettle and complaining when the well dressed people don't put dollar bills in. Lets not forget that this is a donation and therefore voluntary. Every country should be praised for its contribution, not criticized because they have not given enough. Besides I don't remember the French writing us a check when Florida was devastated by four hurricanes. Not many people in Florida died because our government was prepared and, had the proper warning systems. Maybe our country isn't so bad afterall.

Reminder...

That I am not terribly out of date on my postings. I am posting several columns of mine that have appeared in the "Minnesota Daily." I will post on current events in the near future.

Unfit for the oval office

In case you weren’t aware, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry served in Vietnam. He also received three purple hearts and several other medals. I applaud him for his service. President George W. Bush also served in the military during Vietnam. Bush flew fighter jets for the Texas Air National Guard. I also applaud his service.
I don’t believe the conspiracy nuts who say Kerry’s wounds were self-inflicted. Just the same, I don’t believe the people who say Bush was absent without leave from the National Guard. But, to tell you the truth, I don’t care what they did 35 years ago. It has no bearing on my decision to vote for either one Nov. 2. I am going to vote based on their accomplishments in their respective positions: Kerry; a senator; and Bush; the president.
Let’s start with Bush. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks Bush and 98 senators, including Kerry, signed the Patriot Act. In 2003, Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, supported by Kerry, which ended the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein and subsequently freed millions of people. Also in 2003, he signed the Amber Alert bill to help find kidnapped children. Later that year, Bush signed one of the largest tax cuts in history. To close out the busy year, Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the prescription drug benefit. Just last April, Bush signed “Laci’s Law” to protect unborn victims’ rights .
Those are some pretty major pieces of legislation, some of which have not had improvements for quite a while. Now, some people will say the Patriot Act encroaches on our civil rights, or the tax cuts were for the rich. That is partisan rhetoric. The Patriot Act is vital in our fight against terrorism, and the tax cuts were instrumental in reviving the economy. The fact is that Bush has accomplished a lot in his first term.
Now let’s move on to Kerry, who has been in the U.S. Senate for 20 years. Kerry has been the lead sponsor on eight bills that have become laws. In 1991, he sponsored a bill to finance marine research. In 1994, his bill to protect marine mammals from being taken by commercial fisherman was passed. Former President Clinton signed a bill of Kerry’s that provided grants to small businesses owned by women.
The remaining laws of his that were passed were ceremonial: designating Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day, National POW-MIA Recognition Day, recognizing World Population Awareness Week and renaming a federal building. As a comparison, our own Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., has been lead or co-sponsor on several bills, including one to pay travel expenses for troops returning home and one to increase Pell Grants. Coleman has done this in only two years in the Senate, compared with Kerry’s 20 years.
Kerry has done other things in his 20-year Senate career. He was also on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years but missed 38 of the 49 public hearings. Kerry also missed 87 percent of the Senate roll-call votes in the second session of the 108th Congress. In addition to that, Kerry voted against most of the major weapons that we are now using in the war on terror.
Some of his votes included: a vote to cancel the B-2 bomber (H.R. 3072, CQ Vote #203), a vote against $87 billion in additional funding for our troops (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400) and a vote to cut $6 billion from defense (S.Con.Res.106 CQ vote #73).
Kerry did sponsor several bills, including one in 1995, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, to cut intelligence spending by $1.5 billion over five years (S. 1290), but it never made it to the floor for a vote. Does this sound like someone who should be the leader of our country and military during a war?
Not only is his list of accomplishments short, it also seems he is habitually absent from voting. Now, I know it is important that we recognize World Population Awareness Week and having dolphin-safe tuna is crucial to many people across the nation.
But, Kerry has had 20 years to make important legislation, and he has dropped the ball. Kerry had a chance to show himself as a leader, and he failed. On top of this, Kerry has been ranked the most liberal senator in all the Senate. Does that sound like someone who has the best interest of all Americans in mind?
The reason the Kerry campaign has resorted to attacking Bush is because he has no record to stand on. He must divert voters’ attention from his poor record to something else. And the polls indicate the public is not giving these attacks much of a reception. I encourage all voters to take a long look at Kerry’s Senate record. Once you do, you will see why he is not fit to be president.