21 June 2005 Let's get it straight about Gitmo, alright? Does anyone recall that Islamic terrorists hated us before Gitmo, before Abu Graib, before Iraq, before Afghanistan? They even hated us before George W. Bush. So let's get off this crap that Gitmo is somehow causing these fanatics to hate us. That is the same bs that was thrown our way right after 9-11 by the whacko left (including Capuchin justice and peace types) who contended that the US only reaped what it sowed. For more than 10 years we refused to answer Islamic attacks (first WTC bombing, two US embassies in Africa, a naval vessel in the Sea of Yemen, etc.). Long before 9-11 these murderous creeps declared war, both by their verbal declarations and attacks. They declared war fifteen years ago, and finally after 3,000 deaths we responded.

During WWII over 40,000 nazis were imprisoned here in the US. (Several hundred of them in Ellis County Kansas) None of them were adjudicated; none of them released "to fight another day." They were released when the war ended, not a moment sooner. To be taken in by the "compassionate" left and convinced that we should release them and adjudicate their status prior to the end of a war THEY DECLARED, is ridiculous.

Moreover, what is it about the Geneva conventions that the leftists do not understand? Those standards for conducting war were agreed to so that war could be fought "more humanely." To the anti-Viet Nam war crowd, that probably sounds silly. Those conventions required soldiers to be readily identifiable as fighters. Those conventions established requirements that "harm to civilians" be minimized. The Geneva conventions are about much more than the way POW's are treated. It is about placing restrictions on the actual fighting so that LESS harm is inflicted in battle.

These terrorists were swept up off the battle fields of Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere having ignored the conventions of "humane warfare," targeted civilians, deliberately disguised themselves and engaged in tactics that are directly opposed to the intention of the Geneva conventions. No, what they do is kidnap civilians and televise their beheading. What they do is hijack civilian aircraft and fly into civilian-crowded buildings. What these scum do is strap explosives to teenagers and force taxi-drivers to deliver them to crowded city streets. To accord them the privileges of the Geneva conventions as POW's would ratify their methods of warfare. You folks who think the USA should bestow Geneva status on these terrorists are undermining the very foundations of rendering war less destructive. For you who believe we should either charge them with a crime or release them cannot possibly justify your position in light of history and humanity. The only alternative is to kill them on the battlefield and not bother with suspending their ability to fight against us by incarcerating them. They must stay imprisoned until this war ends. Listen, no one bothered to ask captured Nazis whether they were gunners or cooks. All of them were rendered useless in battle by locking them up for the duration of the war. And when you leftists get a grip on the fact that we are at war you will, even with the tiny amount of common sense you possess, come to the conclusion that we can do no other. The fact is, these scum declared and waged war. As long as it takes to end this war, keep their fantatical behinds locked up ... and, frankly, I don't care where or if it is too hot or the AC makes it cold for them. And I don't care whether they get Islamic-approved food; it's enough to make sure they don't starve. But the fact is that we do give them religiously correct food, legal counsel, air conditioning, and the list goes on. Spare me the Durbins, Boxers, Bidens and McCain's.

20 June 2005 Among other things, we need to consider what's happening in Iran. The election this past weekend may prove to be a decisive event for the people of that troubled nation. Even before the election results were publicized, the hard-line Tehran mayor announed that he came in second to the former president, Rafsanjani. The announcement embarrassed the mullahs because it indicated that the results were in fact rigged. Reformist candidate Karoubi was widely expected to come in second at least. Now the mullah's darling, Rafsanjani, will be far more preferable to the nasty mayor. More than 60% of the people of Iran are under 30, and there is widespread disgust with the mullacracy. Interestingly the short campaign saw even Rafsanjani bowing to public sentiment that Iran open up constructive relations with the US and the west. The mullahs and inevitable victor, Rafsanjani had better make sure they have a firm grip on the military or this nation will rock with revolt. They have seen the Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese take their first bite of democracy, and they will not be denied.

Speaking of Lebanon, the anti-Syrian party won big time in the parliamentary elections over the weekend. Hezbollah, the Syrian and Iranian backed Islamic terrorist organization that foments trouble in Palestine, looks like it may be sidelined and neutered in Lebanon. It would be a terrific blow to terrorism in the Mideast.

Yes, there are problems in Iraq. It has become the magnet for every Mideast Islamic suicidal nut. No doubt, it will be a while until they are wiped out, and wiped out they will be, unless the US grows weary. A growing majority of Iraqis are demanding that the internal and imported terrorists be annihilated. They have no qualms about using far more lethal force than weak-kneed US lefties would ever permit. Thank goodness the terrorists are lining up for suicide in Iraq and not here. Sadly, Iraqis are bearing the brunt of terrorism, while we here are becoming wobbly. Rather than withdrawing from Iraq or establishing a timeline for an exit, we should be shouting for more force in Iraq. Unfortunately, the left in the US is all too eager to let Iraq implode if it means bringing George Bush down. It's sad but true. The great compassionate, human rights-loving Left is so uncompromisingly obsessed with hating Bush that they are willing to see the Iraqi people suffer a horrible future should the Left prevail in convincing more Americans to abandon Iraq.

How we can be blind to the bigger picture is beyond me. It is no coincidence that Iraq was liberated from Baathist, Saddamite dictatorship and subsequently democracy begins to take root in a widening region of the Mideast. My only complaints are: a) that Bush has once again failed to repeatedly articulate for Americans the good-to-be-gained by our intervention in Iraq, and b) he has not made the case for a decisive and quick military solution to the Iraqi terrorist problem. He needs to send more troops and stick his fingers in the eyes of the hypocrite left, the US-bashing press, and disgusting republican moderates. Sorry for the stridency, but if we are to prevail against global Islamic terrorism we must win decisively and completely in Iraq. I might admit that it may have not been the case before we went into Iraq. And those who took the view that we should not have gone in, might (I stress "might") have been correct. But now that we are there and the terrorists have joined the battle there, we have no alternative but to finish them off. The only Vietnam-ization of this war will be the loss of will to win. That we cannot allow.

28 April 2005 It's impossible! Has it been this long since I've made a political entry?

I've never liked this guy, and I have mixed feelings joining up with drive-by shooting democrats to dump Delay, but here I am.

The President ill-advisedly began his second term, taking on Social Security. He should have started with revamping the tax code or replacing it with a flat or consumption tax. Now Bush makes everything more difficult by throwing a life-line to the arrogant, vicious and idiotic Tom Delay. I'll admit that Bush needs to curry Delay's favor if he is to win a few in the near term in Congress, but I fear that he mortally wounds himself in the long run.

Delay is emblamatic of the problems with a professional, full-time congress. He is the reason (along with the likes of Pelosi, Schumer, Rangel, Kennedy, etc. ad infinitum) for people's disgust with politics and government. All I need do is look at him, and my skin crawls.

Of course, Democrats are picking on him, and assuredly even hypocritically, but he has no one to blame but himself. He and his retinue of toady, elbow-jabbing, back-slapping climbers long ago abandoned the 1994 pledge that Congress will comport itself differently from the self-indulgent Democrats who ruled Congress for 45 years. And, yes, the Democrat leaders are every bit as despicable for their adolescent, brutal and take-no-prisoners implosion. It still does not give Republicans the right to descend with Delay into the ethical morass he has inspired.

We saw it coming, when GOP congressmen were more interested in pork-barrel spending than in doing what was right and necessary for the nation. Yes, it's time for Delay to go ... and if other Republicans cannot see the train wreck ahead, they deserve what is coming at them. If the only defense for keeping Delay and his retrograde gang is that Democrats will take over, as much as it pains me, we all realize that is really no defense at all.

02 February 2005 We can only be thankful and exuberant about the elections in Iraq. The joy and excitement of Iraqis has infected me. In fact, I was quite moved by their bravery, determination and their hopefulness about the future. Even better, the freedom and democracy bug is beginning to bite in other Middle East nations. Remember: January 30, 2005, will be a historic date marking the beginning of a long and sometimes difficult transformation of the Middle East.

Of course, leave it to the Bush-bashers to turn a sour face at the election in Iraq. Their determination to feed their hatred of Bush has blinded them to the facts on the ground. They couldn't bear to see Iraqis revel in determining their own future; every upheld purple thumb was a thumb in the faces of the anti-Bush left. And doesn't the left understand the import of their nay-saying? Listen folks, the alternative was the murderous oppression of Saddam Hussein. When you downplay the success you sound as though you think it would have been better for the Iraqis to still be the victims of a tyrant. You cannot split the hair on this, saying it's great they are free but they should not have been liberated, and Bush was wrong to do it.

Can all this good news be for real? This morning it was announced that Egypt has invited Sharon of Israel and Abbas of the Palestinian Authority to a peace summit. This will be quite interesting.

28 January 2005 Had the first open election in South Africa been boycotted by white South Africans would anyone have declared that election illegitimate? Of course not. But be prepared for a vicious slicing and dicing by the American press and left wing democrats. They will declare any showing of the Sunnis in Iraq's first election ever as inadequate and thus a total George Bush failure. I will declare even one Sunni who votes a person of courage and honor. In reality we should not expect many Sunnis to vote. I doubt that I would in their circumstances. As well, we can expect that Shiites will vote for Shiites and Kurds for Kurds, and thus win the majority of National Assembly seats. I can just hear the press and left wing democrats say, "See, they only vote for their own kind. Democracy cannot possibly work for Muslims!" Oh really? When was the last time these journalists and left-wingers voted for a Republican? We vote for our own kind, too. That's how democracy works, fools! People vote for people who think like themselves. We vote for people who reflect our own experiences and wisdom. In all of this, tthere is one person among these critics who is most pathetic.

The selfishness and pettiness of the democrat left wing has become tragic. Senator Ted Kennedy could hardly have been less helpful when yesterday he demanded that the US pull its troops out of Iraq. Let me get this right. To prove that Bush is an utter failure and to regain democrat control of the government, Kennedy is prepared to leave 25 million Iraqis to the murderous whims of a few thousand terrorists. He is content to rob the brave people of Iraq of this first in its history chance to try its hand at a democratic government. It reminds me of the liberal treatment of minorities in this country: they are not capable of self-determination, achievement and success. Kennedy wants to heap shame on Bush and in the process render vain the blood sacrifice of America's finest and Iraq's most courageous. He betrays his contempt for the God-given dignity of freedom for every human being. And those who find comfort in his words are every bit as shameful as he. I don't care whether one believes that the Iraqi intervention was warranted or not, to abandon the struggle now would itself be an atrocity. If your humanity has not been devoured by vile hatred of George Bush there is only one choice. Give the people of Iraq the best chance to achieve their hope for freedom and democracy. It will probably take every bit of virtue wiithin you to overcome your fear that Bush might be credited with a success. Don't do it for Bush; do it for the people of Iraq and for the future possibilities of open societies in the Middle East.

26 January 2005 The unfortunate death of more than 35 soldiers in Iraq, most of them in an apparent accident, reminds all of us of the high cost of serving our nation. Hopefully, this Sunday Iraqis will show up at the polls in numbers that pay tribute to the sacrifice of Americans and Iraqis in the weeks and days leading to this historic day. I can only imagine that every American will be rooting for the success of the elections in Iraq. Sometimes it seems that some are rooting for a failure there to feed their disgust and confirm their assessment of George Bush.

Now on to the Condoleeza Rice confirmation. Can anyone describe the democrat's strategy to gain seats in the 2006 elections? With the Boxer/Kennedy lead in the senate and Howard Dean's probable takeover of the Democratic Party, the strategy appears clear. Continue to move further and further left. It seems counterintuitive to me, but maybe they will be right. For that to happen, however, let every person who cheers them on realize this: the only way for the Boxer/Kennedy/Dean strategy to work is for everything to go wrong. Iraq must fail; the economy must fail; diplomacy must fail; attacks on the US must increase; and terrorism must increase. That's just a wonderful, attractive political view, isn't it? "Root for failure and even cause failure so we can be in charge!" The assaults on Rice are just one in a long list of democrat tactics to grab political power. Anyone in their right mind hopes their strategy fails.

21 January 2004 Bush 2: Face Lift or Extreme Makeover It is not just another term for George W., it is also a very different man from the one we knew in 2001, a mere four years ago. I had a little difficulty recalling the pre-9/11 George, but eventually I landed on the all-too-familiar handle: compassionate conservative. His major pitch in the 2000 campaign was education and government reform. Those issues are distant memories in light of yesterday's inaugural address. It was a remarkable speech for its idealism, and not the idealism of a thriving America, but a global idealism that should have warmed the hearts of every Jimmy Carter democrat and sent shudders through the spines of die-hard conservatives. Perhaps the speech was over-reaching but no less remarkable for the appearance of a very different George and a very different political landscape.

It is all the more astonishing that the very same man who eschewed foreign affairs four years ago, devoted almost his entire speech to global possibilities. He was castigated four years ago for being uninterested in matters international, seemingly ascribing to a laissez-faire, spectator approach to foreign engagement. Yesterday, he could not contain his enthusiasm and idealism for a transformed world, led by the "land of the free." But even that idealism for a global reach was a drastic departure from the old realpolitik of the 70's. Remember that? It was Nixon and Kissinger, in their turn to China (among other nations), who pronounced a policy of tolerating, even supporting less-than-admirable regimes, as long as they contained the threats and violence to their own people, assuring the West, particularly the US, of security for western interests. Bush is correct: that has turned out to be a disastrous policy. Tyrants do indeed cultivate terrorists, not least because tyranny itself employs terrorism to crush real and imagined opposition. Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy ably lays out the historical evidence. Not only has Bush been transformed into a globalist, he has radically departed from conventional approaches to foreign relations. He has turned it all upside down.

Now hold on to your seats for a surprising, even shocking twist. As Bush jettisons several decades of foreign policy, primarily developed by Republicans (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and pre-9/11 Bush 43) and conservative Democrats (certainly Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton), he has risked his entire legacy by glumming onto Wilson's vision (without its institutional face, a League of Nations) and Carter's signature philosophy (without its self-righteousness and exclusive reliance on endless talk). Yes, it was Wilson who envisioned a global end to violence and war, and it was Carter who popularized the notion of human rights. Both attempt were failures. Bush declared that it is never in the interests of the US to tolerate governments that repress their own people; and that our own future is adversely affected by the violation of human rights anywhere. I am intrigued by this transformational contortion. I agree with it, but I am frightened by its failed precedents.

One more incredible development deserves mention. Those who have continuously criticized our government for its historical support or tolerance of oppressive regimes, should today be rejoicing. And those who prefer isolationism might be heard jeering in disgust. And yet, it is just the opposite. Critics of past US policy are the loudest in condemnation of George Bush. Liberal Catholics and other such minded Christians should be declaring success; their voices have apparently been heard. But they are the most hardened of Bush's critics. Isolationist conservatives should have been seen turning their backs on their newly inaugurated leader, but they appear, for the most part, to be inspired.

What makes Bush so confounding to critics and supporters his is insistence on brutal honesty and stubbornness. One example: Bush sees the UN as completely incapable of attaining its stated goal, so he goes around it, snubs it, chides it. Who can disagree that the goal of the UN is exactly as Bush says in his inaugural address? But who can honestly say that the UN is even disposed to pursuing that goal? Conservatives love him for it; liberals hate him for it. And yet both conservatives and liberals are caught off-guard by his unorthodox vision and means of attaining that vision.

For my part, I have no doubt that Bush is correct in his assessment. Like him, I am certain this is a very long range project, requiring at least several decades, well beyond my allotted time on this earth. Iraq will be an important first-test. Despite the the murderous attempts of insurgents to derail the democratization of Iraq, there is consistent evidence that Iraqis will embrace democracy on January 30th. The most recent poll of Iraqis show again that more than 80% of them plan to vote. There is no doubt in my mind that every rational person desires freedom, even Muslims! Bush has it right; let's pray that the vision becomes reality, not to prove George Bush correct, but to extend the reality of God-given freedom to all.

19 December 2004 Bush in 2005 Those second terms are usually under-achievers, but Bush has set for himself rather bold initiatives. Reforming Social Security, taxation and immigration are gigantic pieces, fraught with instant implosion of Bush's second term. It is significant that he has taken little time off since his re-election, hitting the pavement running with very dicey propositions. No one can say that he is timid or coasting. It is in his boldness that we can see the peril. If he fails to achieve significant reform in his first choice of reform, it will be almost impossible to move on for the second and third. However, if he is successful in the first, his political capital will increase exponentially, making it more realistic that his next projects will prevail. In the end, though, I can only imagine that Iraq will be his signature success or failure. If the late January Iraqi elections are perceived by Iraqis as legitimate and significant, then a whole new day dawns for Iraq and the USA. If the elections fail, then the remaining months and years in Iraq will be a long, hard slog with diminishing prospects of success. It will be dismal in all respects. My rock-solid prediction: if the elections are successful it will be little-hailed in the American press. Unfortunately, most journalists (and many liberals) want nothing more than a failure in Iraq. Sad but true.

15 December 2004 EVENT OF THE YEAR It was horribly underplayed in the American press, but there can be no doubt that the elections in Afghanistan is a great success, not just for the USA, but so much more for the people of that beleaguered nation. The first free and open election in its history! Iraq will get there, and then the transformation of the Middle East will begin. I know there are some progressives out there who don't think those backward Muslims are up to our democratic standards, just look at these Afghan women at the polls!

10 December 2004 Democrat Mayhem Ahead Some months ago Pat Buchanan predicted that the Republicans would descend into chaos: an internal war between isolationists and internationalists, between moral traditionalists and blue-blood conservative progressives, between pork barrel politicians and fiscal tight wads. He may be right, but that party fight will pale in comparison to the fight among Democrats. We are already seeing that in the demands that MoveOn.org is making on the ruling class of the party. The flame-throwers with their chief Michael Moore will try to pull the party to the fringe left. If the democrat ruling class fights back the flame-throwers will revolt. What Peter Beinart cannot bring himself to admit is that the democrat party is in for a protracted battle that may well push it further away from electability. This will be a fight for the mind and heart of the party, and its outcome is hardly discernible at this point. The problem they must confront is that the ruling class may have the better ideas, but the flame-throwers are the ones with the passion. That passion is hatred. Reason does not play well with the passion of hatred.

I am hardly comforted by the prospect of a non-functioning opposition party. Already we can see that Republicans are playing a bit beyond their abilities and appealing to less than honorable motives.(The president will have increasing difficulty dealing with his own party on that score. GOP nativists will make it rough for him, as we see Republican Congressman Tancredo of Colorado stirring up trouble.) We need an opposition party that offers an alternative to the party in power, especially when that party begins to abuse its majority status.

09 December 2004 Jordan's King Abdullah's response to Chris Matthews on Hardball was quite revealing and convinced me that he was a key player behind the scenes in Bush's decision to invade Iraq. We had heard often that most of Iraq's neighboring leaders were supportive of the intervention but were unable to publicly consent. King Abdullah could not have been more hopeful that "Iraq would be a major stabilizing force in the mideast." He refused to criticize the decision to go into Iraq or the rough spots since, but he enthusiastically embraced future possibilities of a stable, democratic Iraq. The king provided great insight into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I was not aware that every Arab nation will embrace Israel's right to peacefully exist once the Palestinians decide to walk down that road. I was quite impressed with this guy.

Speaking of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you gotta be optimistic that Bush is making this a major piece of his second term. He just gave $20m to the Palestinians to pay their utilities. Bush apparently has some folks in the Mideast aggressively pushing for a resolution. Which brings me back to the king, when Matthews asked a jabbing question about Bush's apparent absence in the Mideast conflict in his first term. The king responded that Bush was the first US president to favor a Palestinian state, and that it was Bush who provided the road map to Mideast peace. He wasn't buying Matthew's line.

04 December 2004 In all likelihood we would not have to deal with this had we been smarter than to elect Jimmy Carter back in the mid 70's. That aside, the Iranians appear to have pulled a fast one on the EU and UN who sought to reign in the nuclear ambitions of the Persian kingdom. We have all heard about the agreement all sides signed in the past couple days. When the professionals looked at the small print of the signed agreement they noticed that Iran (with the help of France and the UN) inserted a provision that the inspectors could go anywhere in Iran except for, now get this, military bases! The Brits and Germans were snookered. This agreement makes everything worse and more dangerous. Now the attention shifts to George Bush. How will he deal with this? Of course, the critics will be anxiously craning their necks to see what happens. They will be quick to exaggerate any suggestion of power and force. And once again, France and the UN will walk away smirking that they have set up Bush.

03 December 2004 A couple years back I observed that the war in Iraq was all about oil. And I'm being proven right...again. It really was about France, Russia and the UN being greedy for Food for Oil money. It never was about oil and the USA. With every passing day, it is becoming more and more obvious that the objections about going into Iraq were all about the money that Saddam was slipping to UN and other officials, especially France. The lid of this baby will be blown off, and then, rather than the USA's insistence to invade Iraq, the focus will be on the obstructionism of Annon and Chirac. These guys would never permit the flow of money to be stopped. All of this at the same time that the USA was being blamed for the hunger and suffering of the Iraqi people during the Food for Oil dispensation during the embargo. For those who are quick to blame the USA for everything, just remember that $21 billion was taken out of the mouths of hungry Iraqi people and stuffed into the pockets of the greedy, cruel and immoral leaders at the UN and EU.

And now, even the BBC, is calling for a complete makeover at the UN or shut it down. The USA needs to serve notice that it will withdraw in five years if the UN does not completely reform itself. By the way, even the UN admits that it is dysfunctional in the report it publicized yesterday. Five Years or we're out! Enough of this hogwash.

26 November 2004 I barely posted yesterday's optimistic notes about Iraq, and BAM out comes the confirmation that I am on target. The bottom line is that international resistence to participation in Iraq is softening. Why? Because they are smelling success and want to be on board when Iraq becomes a functional nation. It was announced last evening that Canada has committed itself to "do everything necessary" to make sure that the Iraqi elections take place. At the same time, China has contributed a million dollars to help with those same elections. Both nations were opposed to the war. This is huge news which will be under-reported in the press. It's huge because they see that things are going well enough to get their hands dirty, not bloody, mind you. Their help is welcome, and their underlying assessment is terrific news for Iraq. All the pessimism about Iraq is horribly exaggerated, and it's a shame that the press has been less than honest, more interested in the heat of a feeding frenzy, rather than shedding light on a very important process.

25 November 2004 Contrary to the alarmism and defeatism of the mainstream media, democrat spin-meisters and European denial, it's looking up, and perhaps way up, in Iraq. With the Fallujah project and ensuing less prominent interventions in other cities, including Mosul, the back of the terrorist-insurgents appears to have been broken. We can expect more suicide bombings and other attacks on troops and Iraqis, but we will see a dramatic decline in the days and weeks ahead. It is very promising that the Iraq security forces are performing heroically. Moreover, recruitment of new soldiers and police continues to surge ahead despite the numerous attacks and murders of cooperating Iraqis. It is unfortunate that the press is barely reporting the normalcy in most of Iraq. Even in Baghdad, not withstanding isolated attacks, the business of life is taking a firm hold. I have no doubt that Iraqis will vote on schedule, and the whole process will be much smoother than pundits now predict. Eventually all will see that Iraq is not quite the mess we have seen on the evening news. Take heart, America. Our guys are doing a great job. In the not-too-distant future most will look back at this Iraq intervention and declare it brilliant.

Which leads me to another observation. The debate about Iraq has revealed a tragic hypocrisy of the Left. These folks have made a big deal about human rights, except when it comes to Mideast Muslims. The Left has been turned upside-down, shaken and shown for what it really is. The underlying belief of the Left is that Mideast Muslims are incapable of political self-determination. Those kind of people need ruthless dictators to suppress the religious excitability and bloodlust of the many ethnic groups they rule. These people are inherently incapable of knowing how to choose what is good for them.

19 November 2004 Over and over again we have heard that the world hates us. After limited travel in Europe I know that there is a good deal of animosity, ostensibly directed towards George Bush. But let's not delude ourselves into believing that it is all about Bush. The greater part of it is about the fact that the US is the sole super power. Compared to the US, every other nation is "the little guy." I know for my part that I usually side with the little guy, the underdog, the David facing Goliath. I can understand why there is a natural predisposition to cheering for the underdog and hoping that the big guy falls. In that Bush is simply a target of convenience. Another unmistakable factor is the religious thing. Europe does not understand our religious fervor. They find it to be unenlightened and even dangerous. And, truthfully, I can understand that as well. Europe has been subjected to devastating and long-lasting wars under the guise of religion. And I am one who believes that religion can be very dangerous; just look at fanatical Islamic totalitarianism for the most recent and most dangerous example. Christianity has its historical problems, as well, in this regard. Many Europeans, though, have become irrationally hostile to religion, particularly Evangelical and Catholic Christianity. They seem to forget that nearly one hundred million people lost their lives in the past century because of the tyranny of atheistic regimes, primarily Nazi and Communist. Anti-religious Europe (and the American Left) needs to look at the historical facts. One would think that the French would be particularly knowledgeable given their own atheistic revolution that launched a blood bath a couple of centuries ago.

18 November 2004 WINNERS AND WHINERS House Minority Leader Pelosi insists that the President, because he won, must now meet the democrats "half way." Oh really! Senator Leahy says that democrats will cooperate with the President if he "meets them half way." The Whiners' mantra is making me sick. What kind of convoluted thinking is this? Fair and square, the citizens picked not only Bush but also his agenda. People who voted for him expect him to pursue that agenda. Democrats need to accept reality and graciously acknowledge that they lost. As for Bush, he has not gloated; he has not taunted the losers; all he has done is said that he will do what he said he would do. Love him or hate him, isn't that what we have wanted in a politician for a very long time?

18 November 2004 RACISM UNCHECKED Condoleeza Rice, a remarkable and accomplished person, has been the subject of vicious, racially stereotypical characterization which has gone unchecked by the mainstream press. Had the editorialists and cartoonists been conservative and Republican, the screams of racism would have been out of control. But these leftists are given free reign without criticism. When will we hear from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters? Of course we won't.

15 November 2004 FALLUJAH EXECUTION The video clip of the execution of an insurgent by a US Marine in Fallujah is disturbing. Hopefully some verifiable mitigating circumstances will convince me that it was justifiable. However, I have a sickening feeling that it was a consequence of anger and exhaustion, and thereby completely unacceptable. I have long contended that Abu Graib was overblown by a liberal, pro-Saddam US and European press. This alleged execution, if proven, is devastating. Mostly it is disturbing to me because all focus will be on this one incident, and the herosim and sacrifice of the US and Iraqi forces will be drowned out by those who want us and the people of Iraq to lose this war. I am not looking forward to the press coverage of the next month or so.

12 November 2004 BUSH, BLAIR AND MID-EAST Notwithstanding the praise and affection heaped on Arafat by the likes of Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Jimmy Carter, there is a greater, but as yet uncertain, potential for reaching a lasting settlement in the Mid-East. Incredibly, former President Jimmy Carter expressed his grief for the "indispensable friend of the Palestinian people." This Godfather of Terrorism trained two generations in hatred, violence and anti-semitism. He did nothing to prepare Palestinians to accept responsibility for creating a viable state; instead he stood in the way of a breath-taking offer from the Israelis when Bill Clinton brought the two sides together at Camp David. Arafat stole billions of dollars intended for the relief of Palestinians. He recruited and trained children to be homicide/suicide bombers. The grief of Chirac, Carter and Annan reveal their own twistedness and stupidity. How can anyone take them seriously ever again? Carter, the "champion of human rights," is a fool of the first order.

With the welcomed passing of Arafat, George Bush and Tony Blair, however, have been handed an unprecedented opportunity on a silver platter. With Arafat gone, they can engage in a settlement process that has some hope of succeeding. Their commitment, made clear this morning in their press conference, may gain traction in the changed and changing landscape of Palestinian politics. A good beginning would be to marginalize Chirac and Annan, and engage the rest of Europe and the world in the pursuit of an Israeli/Palestinian settlement.

I found it interesting that a man by the name of Bouqtiar, reportedly a very popular Palestinian leader, is employing the language of George Bush as he looks ahead. He spoke of his and the Palestinians' desire to have "democracy and freedom," rather than condemning Israel. There is progress here. But before we get swept away with possibilities, Arafat's internment at Ramallah reminds us that the Palestinian passions, stoked for decades by Arafat, may well be an enormous challenge to whomever is chosen to lead them.

09 November 2004 ASHCROFT RESIGNS History will show that John Ashcroft did a very good job; however, his departure is one less reason for the apoplectic democrats to dangle off the sixth floor ledge. Despite his achievements he has served as a lightening rod, attracting the paranoia of the whacky left. I admit that he did not help himself in his love affair with TV cameras early in his tenure at the Justice Department, which is why I said along that former senators make for dangerous cabinet members. They tend be be more interested in self-promotion than pursuing the administration's goals. For all of her many defects, Janet Reno correctly shied away from cameras. Back to Ashcroft, I think he sobered up with 9-11. From then on he did this nation good. He has successfully prevented another terrorist attack in this country; that was his charge from the president on 9-12. Now Bush needs to appoint someone who knows the intracies of the Justice Department in a post 9-11 world. My bet is that he promotes someone from within the department.

08 November 2004 TOO GOOD FOR MY OWN GOOD In Evolving Analysis (below) we anticipated the now growing opinion that the democrats and blue-state media sought refuge and comfort in the assessment that the "stupid religious fanatic" Bush was elected by like voters. Nice try guys, but it didn't get past me. Not only are the democrats losing their grip on reality, they are unwilling to face the sad fact that they have no leader and no ideas. That leaves them with a lot of work to do before the next election cycle, which they cannot possibly begin until they first shed their denial and pull themselves together. As they insist on twisting in the wind, Bush strengthens his hand. Will the Dems deliver a legacy for Bush?

Now for the French. In a repeat of the Vichy French who appeased the Nazis, Chirac has cultivated a friendship with the ruling mullahs of Iran, promising that they will obstruct UN pressure on Iran to give up on its nuclear ambitions. Moreover, Mrs. Arafat, wife of the brain dead Palestinian terrorist leader, has successfully prevailed upon Chirac to frustrate the moderate leadership of the Palestinians, favoring instead the radical terrorist organization, Hezbollah. What do you know, Hezbollah is trained and funded by the Iranian mullahs! Chirac is playing the same French game of more than 50 years ago, banking then on a Nazi success, and now banking on an Islamic totalitarian victory. This is very troubling. The sooner France is outed for the rest of the world to see, the better. The French will make it more difficult for the Palestinians and Israelis to forge an agreement; he will then blame Israel and the US. The Iranian threat will only become worse until other nations make a final stand. It is not only a shame but a crime that France props up Islamic tyrannies for its own economic advantage. Not only is that dangerous for the rest of the world, they tragically strengthen the hands of the tyrants to oppress their own people. Perhaps we should have been wise to their ways when we witnessed their behavior in the Rwandan slaughter. And, by the way, did France "pass the global test" before they bombed and wiped out the Air Force of Ivory Coast this past weekend? Let me help you; no, they did not.