Give Him Something Broken

I continuously resist the urge to break out into a full scale Science Fiction / Fantasy topic. While I have not read much new SF in years, it is something near and dear to my heart - as R2W can attest. I would love to start an SF blog, but I hardly have time for this one so today I will simply drop a reference.

One of my favorite SF series is The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant The Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. He wrote the first and second chronicles and is now on a slow path to writing the third. As he is no spring chicken, I am biting my nails that he will finish. I also am waiting until he finishes to begin reading it. I had a long haul wait when he was writing the second set. In fact I did not even know it was a second series until I read the last page. I have been in the same camp with some of Terry Brooks books and others, so no thanks - I'll wait.

All that to point out that in the war between the "protagonist" (read it to find why it is in quotes) and the antagonist, it is stated that "The only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken".

While George W. Bush is far from having lost everything, he is a lame duck so it fits in a way. The nomination of Michael Mukasey for AG was a clear attempt on the part of Bush to avoid controversy. Many across the aisle had a favorable opinion of Mukasey including Chucky Schumer. The confirmation should have been a slam dunk. Then, as always, the Dems began playing games. They threw in the red herring of waterboarding demanding that Mukasey declare the treatment to be torture. The choking hypocrisy of the Dems is apparent as we have yet to see any real attempt to outlaw the use of waterboarding by non-Pentagon agencies. As usual the Dems blubber and bluster about this or that, yet do not do anything about it. They do not want to be in the position of waking up to news of a terrorist attack where tactics like waterboarding were not used because they passed a law against it.

In the case of Mukasey, if they really had a problem with waterboarding they would not have confirmed him. Yet Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of 53-40. In short, the Dems could have praised Bush for the nomination of a mutually acceptable candidate, instead they threw a fly in the ointment by demanding action of the nominee they are unwilling to do themselves. The goal here as always is to avoid EVER, EVER giving Bush even the slightest word of having done something good. No matter the area, no matter big or small, the Dems and their water carrying media cannot allow the notion that Bush did something good or right to ever pass their lips unless it is well contaminated with offsetting criticism.

The Dems have taken a bipartisan, compromising nomination and returned Bush something broken. Instead of allowing him to begin his AG duties with an excellent reputation and moral authority, they have branded Mukasey with a mark of Cain and primed the public for the slightest criticism of Mukasey's actions if he does not do their full bidding. At the slightest controversy the media will immediately toe their party line and take the side of the Dems in undermining Mukasey's character and reputation.

After looking at the continuous behavior from both sides of the aisle, it never ceases to amaze me how the GOP has alone been the saddled with the reputation of "dirty tricks". The Dems never, ever miss a dirty trick and this is just another one.

Bush Tries to Save United Nations From Irrelevance

I have long pointed out the utter worthlessness that the United Nations represents. I cannot state one thing that the United Nations has actually done that justifies the incredible amount of taxpayer money to sustain it. I cannot point to one thing the United Nations has done to deserve a modicum of respect from the world body. The most kind word I can think of to describe the UN is "joke". They are anti-American and anti-Israel. They waste much of their time and energy trying to get their hands into the back pocket of the United States scaring the world with the Global Warming farce. Leaders use the platform for their own selfish benefits for their interests.

President Bush's speech to the United Nations contains similar sentiment. He recognizes that with all of the money, people and resources this body could actually rise to the occasion and address some important world problems. George Bush states:

"This great institution must work for great purposes: to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and diseases, illiteracy and ignorance and poverty and despair. Every member of the United Nations must join in this mission of liberation," he said.

Bush states examples of tyranny around the world that the UN could join together to fight: Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Darfur, Belarus, North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela.

Of course with all of these countries representing serious human rights violations, in supreme irony there were about 700 protesters outside chanting against Bush and Cheney and critics pointing to Guantanamo Bay. I have noted before that the treatment of Gitmo at most could be considered uncomfortable and not torture. The fact is that even if critics had a valid point about Gitmo, we would be comparing how the US treats its enemies to how these other countries treat their citizens.

Bush is correct in his challenge to the United Nations to look for worthy causes to target. The question is whether the UN will continue to waste itself on frivolity, or if it will actually take the steps necessary to become relevant.

Ever Give Advice to an Opponent?

Have you ever given advice to somebody who was an enemy or an opponent? There are several ways to do this: sincerely, deceptively or sarcastically. You can give advice that will help them if they take it, or you can give advice that will really help you. Why do I bring this up? Apparently, President Bush is "quietly" providing advice to Hillary Clinton and other Democratic presidential contenders. The advice centers around their position on Iraq as a candidate and actually as President should one of them make it. An article in the Examiner begins with this opener:

President Bush is quietly providing back-channel advice to Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to modulate her rhetoric so she can effectively prosecute the war in Iraq if elected president.

One could glean from the article that Bush is simply serving himself by trying to influence decisions by the next President. The article states:

Bolten said Bush wants enough continuity in his Iraq policy that “even a Democratic president would be in a position to sustain a legitimate presence there.”

“Especially if it’s a Democrat,” the chief of staff told The Examiner in his West Wing office. “He wants to create the conditions where a Democrat not only will have the leeway, but the obligation to see it out.”

Bolten is the White House Chief of Staff and is the source of the claims of advice. Some could read this and claim that Bush is just trying to control things during the election cycle and beyond. Those with good motives can have the best reasons for wanting to influence an outcome. The article points out how different it is to be a candidate vs. actually being the President. The candidate is shooting for enough popularity to get elected. Hopefully a President is looking to do the right thing regardless of popularity. The most insightful section of the article states:

To that end, the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory in November 2008.

“It’s different being a candidate and being the president,” Bush said in an Oval Office interview. “No matter who the president is, no matter what party, when they sit here in the Oval Office and seriously consider the effect of a vacuum being created in the Middle East, particularly one trying to be created by al Qaeda, they will then begin to understand the need to continue to support the young democracy.”

To that end, Bush is institutionalizing controversial anti-terror programs so they can be used by the next president.

“Look, I’d like to make as many hard decisions as I can make, and do a lot of the heavy lifting prior to whoever my successor is,” Bush said. “And then that person is going to have to come and look at the same data I’ve been looking at, and come to their own conclusion.”

A Democrat candidate is either going to be sincere in their campaigning or they are going to say whatever they think will get them elected. Either motive, once elected they would need to live with their words on the campaign trail. A senior White House official states it well:

“One of two things will happen if a Democrat gets elected president,” he said. “They will either have to withdraw U.S. troops in order to remain true to the rhetoric — in which case, any consequences in the aftermath fall on their heads. Or they have to break their word, in which case they encourage fratricide on the left of their party. Now that’s a thorny issue to work through.”

The Democrats in Congress so far know the heavy price they will pay if they take the necessary action to pull us out of Iraq and the horrible consequences are laid at their feet. All of the games they have played this year have been targeted at getting enough spineless GOP Congressmen and Senators to join them in order to insulate them from the results. If a Democrat is elected President, there will be no political cover against the consequences. There will be no hiding place for one that runs on pulling out of Iraq and then stays.

Take it or leave it, this is strong advice for the Dems to really think about.

George W. Bush is One Illegal Border Crossing Away From Being Branded By Both Sides as the Worst President Ever

We all know that the left has already laughably turned a blind eye to Jimmy Carter and labeled George W. Bush as the worst president ever. While I believe that certain circumstances could take place that would make a convincing argument that Bush made good decisions after all and was a very good president; in my mind just the right (wrong) person illegally crossing the US-Mexican border could not only erase any chance of a decent legacy, it could make the "worst" brand stick to him from both sides. One terrorist individual or group could slip through the swiss cheese and pull off a successful attack that kills thousands. If that happens while the Bush Administration continues its reckless stance on border security; the best legacy he can hope for is to be branded the worst president ever. At worst, Bush could be branded a traitor due to his willful negligence.

Bush has some flaws that can be absolutely maddening to both sides of the aisle. He can be stubborn in his policy and refuse to communicate any message supporting his policy. If you agree with his policy, you tend to overlook his stubborness. In fact you can view it as a strong will to do what is right. If you disagree, then it is foolish stubbornness. Either way you cannot overlook the fact that he refuses to defend himself and his positions.

The immigration bill that was declared dead is again being revived and some think likely to pass. Before Bush began fighting for its return and passage, I was certain we would wake up one morning to hear that it was passed in the dead of night. But Bush is insistent upon standing in the gap and championing this manure pile. He does not explain himself. He does not defend the bill with any details. It is all generic mish-mash that shows complete myopia on the border problem. Bush was prepared to go to war with two countries, spend billions, risk his whole reputation in order to keep this country safe. However, he is equally stubborn in throwing away the hard fought and expensive safety of this country by keeping a porous border.

If Bush or anyone else wants more immigration from Mexico, why does it have to be a support of illegal immigration? Why cannot those who want more immigration from Mexico work to seal the border and then double or even triple the immigration quotas. With a sealed border we could have as many or more people from Mexico immigrating to the US, but they would be verified with background and health checks. If if some disagree on the Mexican immigration quota, we could all have more confidence that those who come have at least been checked out
and that the rule of law has been followed.

We keep hearing of many OTMs (other than Mexican) being caught at the border. It is a certainty that terrorist groups around the world are aware of our Achilles heel when it comes to border control. It is only a matter of time before we pay the price for such irresponsible behavior. After such clear and strong arguments being presented to Bush during this debate, the buck will certainly stop at his feet when we do.

September Will Determine Fate of Iraq and 2008 Election

President Bush is poised to make some concessions on benchmarks in order to obtain funding for Iraq until September. There are several points to observe with this seeming change in position. First, it will apply a lot more pressure on the Dems to actually provide the funding. The Dems have been dancing for months now with activity that is solely targeted at appeasing the anti-war crowd that put them back in power. Of course, there will never be enough appeasement until they see the troops coming home and Iraq falling into a slaughterhouse without the US there to stop it. I guess the anti-war crowd thinks war is bad but butchery is fine.

Second, unless there is a drastic improvement in Iraq by September support for staying in Iraq will crumble. The Dems and the Media have been hammering away at the resolve of the American people since we first entered Iraq and it is becoming obvious that too many are throwing in the towel. Too many want to leave Iraq, even if it is the right thing to stay. The attention span of half the nation evaporated early in the conflict. The remaining half wants their celebrity worship and entertainment addiction unsullied by constant news from Iraq.

It is obvious that President Bush has held the benchmark card in his hand until it was absolutely necessary. If the September report in Iraq does not show irrefutable evidence (even for the reality deniers) that the troop surge is working, it does not matter.

Both sides are drawing a line for September. Each side will be promoting their side of the propaganda war. The Dems will be setting up September to do what they cannot do now: force a pullout in Iraq without OWNING the massacre that will surely follow. Without OWNING the terrorist state that will be formed there and bring terrorism to the doorstep of the US. September gives the Dems and their water carrying media enough time to brainwash people into uncoupling that nasty concept of ownership.

Bush on the other hand seems optimistic that the surge will produce clear and undeniable results in Iraq by September. Such a report in September will be a shot in the arm for the effort and produce a political change with a return by many back to a supporting decision.

The September report will determine the fate of Iraq. If positive, it will grant the reprieve necessary to finish the job there. If negative or not positive enough, support will be irrevocably pronounced dead. Without the US to stop it, the slaughter of many innocents will occur. Whichever radical faction that comes out on top will certainly support terrorist activities that will hit our shores. They will be able to act with impunity knowing that the US will never choose to go back into Iraq.

The September report will also decide the political winds that will blow to the 2008 election. A positive result will bode well for the GOP (if they will have the spine to align themselves with it). A defeat in Iraq will increase the fortunes of the Dems. Does anybody wonder which outcome the Dems are hoping for?

Gold Standard of Environmentally Friendly House and the Gore Hypocrisy

Jason over at the Texas RainMaker blog has a very interesting post on the subject of the environmental hypocrisy of Al Gore. Recently Sean Hannity and the conservative think tank have been drawing attention to the massive carbon output of Al Gore's 4 houses. Hannity has also been pointing out Gore's many travels on private jets while preaching to the great unwashed about their greenhouse gases. Jason quotes a liberal blog to describe the house of "the 2000 Presidential Candidate":

The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.

Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this “eco-friendly” dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

Wow, somebody really cares about the environment here. Why are they knocking Gore around so much with that house to wear as a green badge of honor. WAIT! That's not Gore's home. That is the OTHER 2000 presidential candidate's home - George W. Bush. Glad to see at least one liberal source is giving Bush a thumb's up on something.

But wait, Al Gore makes up for all of his waste with papal indulgences -I mean carbon offsets. When I first heard about the carbon offsets my first thought was "Wow, that sounds just like the papal indulgences of the 16th century Catholic Church. You could sin all week and buy forgiveness on the weekend. You could even buy forgiveness for dead relatives. I was going to post on the need for a modern day Martin Luther to post 95 theses denouncing the carbon indulgence offsets. I guess others have also thought about it and have been writing about it. In my delay it is no longer original. So I have come up with another analogy. It is like somebody with an eating disorder gourging themselves on food and then running to the toilet to stick their finger down their throat to make themselves throw up. I think I am the first to coin the term Environmental Bulimia to describe carbon offsets.

Next Jason points out that even with the carbon offsets, Al Gore is playing games. Guess who he buy the carbon offsets from - himself. He buys the offsets from an organization he helped found and has a personal stake in. Wow, what things these political "rock stars" can get away with. Is anybody on the left embarrassed of their champion yet? If not, they have some major blinders on.