Inside and out, of the Capital Dome

What happened to body counts?

2008-08-25T07:11:00.004-05:00

I just finished reading the newspaper this morning and most of all was attracted to an AP article. The article was about how the Taliban have killed over 100 Americans in Afghanistan this year. Not suprising news but I understand the thought process and realize the stories appeal.
The reason it is not suprising however is because in 2007 the Taliban killed 210 NATO troops. Now 2008 isn't over yet but there are only a few weeks of good weather left for the Taliban to score media victories this year, so the number may be much lower this year.

However, apart from everything else, I noticed something strange while trying to find numbers for an accurate Taliban death count for 2008. I couldn't find any numbers. All I could find was a 2007 figure of 4,000 Taliban dead. Everybody knows that the Taliban and al-qaeda have been consistently losing both wars, yet they have succeeded in getting media attention for the casualties they cause thus creating a situation that gives the appearance of them being successful when they actually are not.

The point i'm trying to make is that the Taliban keep track of the number of kills they get, and i'd bet even send those figures to major news outlets in the United States. Meanwhile I couldnt find any cumulative figures for Taliban death totals, excpet for the 2007 figure of 4,000 I stated earlier. If that doesnt summarize the war I dont know what does. With one side relying on casualty reports(and small ones at that) to score victories, when the other side doesn't even publish such weekly reports(because it's politically incorrect), I think it's rather easy to see who is really winning and if I wanted to argue it who is more right in their cause.

We've come a long way since Vietnam, well some of us anyway.

And now the end is near

2008-05-09T08:01:00.005-05:00

It's now time to look forward to troop reductions(notice I didn't say withdrawls) in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been largely defeated with only the luckiest few still alive, though their abilities are really too weak to cause serious problems, except for the innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Al Qaeda in Iraq no longer threatens U.S. soldiers because they can no longer accept the kind of losses they take when facing Americans.

The other threat, the Mahdi army, is now trapped in Sadr City, facing either defeat or surrender. Surrender creates an unknown future for Mahdi Army leader, Moqtada al-Sadr. However surrender may be his best option as defeat creates a certain future.

Best of all is that the Mahdi Army has been defeated in Basra by Iraqi forces. The Iraqis planned and executed Operation Knights Charge on their own. The only negative result from battle for Basra was that over 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen(most of whom just completed training) ran during the fight, still they reinforced the area and won the fight. The Iraqis have learned several lessons from this experience and now possess confidence that didn't exist even in Saddams military.

The success of Operation Knights Charge puts the Iraqi Army in the small company of Middle Eastern militarys that have actually accomplished something. Best of all is that Knights Charge was also a political victory. The Iraqi government finally showed some backbone and dealt with the biggest thorn in their side.

Now for the troop reductions. First of all, it's a fliud situation with many dynamics that can only really be underatood by the people in charge, lucky for us General Petraeus is the best man, sorry person, for the job.
Secondly it's hard to do anything until Sadr makes a decision regarding the future of his Mahdi army. Either way the drawdown could potentially be quite large, but it might still take some time, initial numbers maybe small with larger numbers coming at a benchmark(so the politicians can have some glory too). The other possibility is a consistent number of troops being reduced periodically until they are to the established minimum.

Either way, i'll be looking forward to everybody returning home.

Force the Vote

2008-05-07T08:08:00.003-05:00

With the general election just six months away, we are sure to soon be facing the issue of low voter turnout. We all know the problem; nobody shows up to vote. The reasons for this are numerous, the most common reason is that young people don't vote, which data tends to support, but all age groups have significant nubmers of no-shows.

Why don't young people vote? Then becomes the question.
As a young person myself, I feel the reason young voters don't participate is that the differences between the candidates and viable options are almost non-existant. Perhpas we're just more cynical?

Part of the problem lies within the system. Neither the Republican or Democratic party has a sense of urgency because they tend to just go in and out like a revolving door. They take turns screwing things up for a few years, then switch and play the good-guy(really just the lesser of two evils), and the process continues, benefiting those involved at the expense of everyone else.

The parties are so similiar why do bother distingushing them. Even if the candidates differ on an issue there's no feeling that they'll do anything. The process is so political and beauracratically bogged down, it's rare for any politician to keep his or her promises. The political process needs a viable third party(sorry Green Party, you just don't cut it). Most people tend to be middle of the road anyway and are turned off by the candidates they are forced to pick from. With a few tweaks and another election cycle or two the libertarian party could be that party.

As for voter turnout, lets force the issue. Everyone must register to vote within two weeks of their 18th birthday, if they don't it's a $100 fine and maybe some community service just because; that choice can be left up to each district. The fines are administered at registration of licenses, passports, college or during tax season, potentially anything could be used to collect the fines. When an election comes around, simply check the voter records to see who voted. Whoever didn't vote receieves a $500 fine, in local or off-year elections the rate could be lowered, but high enough nobody will skip the vote.
I know the ACLU will say this is unfair to poor people, but it's free to register, so go to the nearest secretary of state, post office or school and pick up a registration form.

Last semester I took an International studies class, "Intro to Latin America", and I learned that in Latin America they hold elections on Sundays and close everything down except essential public services. Put voting centers in every neighborhood, or retirement center, so people can easily gather to vote.

The process is a win-win. Not only does particapation reach new heights, but knowledgeable participation increases too. If people have to vote, they will be less apathetic and be more interested in exactly what their options are, which would *GASP* make politicians actually accountable for their actions. Knowing they couldn't as easily slip something past voters they might start behaving themselves.

Pointing the finger at you

2008-05-07T07:39:00.003-05:00

The mortgage crisis is a joke. Who in their right mind would even agree to an adjustable rate mortgage(ARM). The name says it all. Who cares if the introductory rate is lower than the fixed rate, it's introductory, it's not going to last. The reason they call it adjustable rate, is because they're going to adjust it. So its no suprise that most of the time they adjust upwards(that's how the lenders make money). To agree to an ARM you must be either naive or stupid.

An example of stupid appeared in the Detroit News a few months ago. The story was about a construction worker making $15 an hour buying a home some around $600,000. I remember something about him buying the house from his bosses brother, so it sounds like his boss is a jerk, but that is no excuse for his plain stupidity. I don't remember whether this had anything to do with ARMs, but it's still a great example. There is no way that someone making $15 an hour could afford a home like that, especially if they intend on eating and paying taxes, let alone the interest on a mortgage of that size. 600,000/15=40,000, it would take this guy 40k hours of work to buy that house, or 1000 weeks which is equal to 19.23 years and again that's pre-tax, pre-food, pre-everything. With people making moves like this it's no reason we're in the midst of a mortgage crunch.

The blame can't be blamed solely on the consumers however. The truth is the banks screwed themselves while trying to screw everyone else, but these people voluntarily agreed to be screwed by not knowing what they were doing, so they only have themselves to blame.

Don't get me wrong it's a terrible problem that will and is having widespread affects. A bailout, however, seems so wrong. These people weren't swindled. The government should do something to help these people get back on their feet, mostly just so these people don't act as an anchor on the entire economy. But in a twist of irony lets give them government loans, and see if they learned their lesson or if they just repeat the same mistakes and carelessly spend/waste their money again.

Iraq surge

2007-08-20T09:41:00.000-05:00

The surge in Iraq is working. This is no suprise to any one who has observed the war without a bias. However after the surge is complete there will be a problem with battalions available for deployments.
Basically since there are more troops on deployment "now" as part of the surge that means their are less troops to available to replace them when their deployments are over. What it comes down to is the law of averages. You're using more assets "now" and sometime in the near future, because you've used an extra number of troops, you will have to make due will less later on or not give them as much time off as you had done before.
Certainly, if this happens it will create a political uproar. The Democrats will claim that the war cannot be fought under these conditions... However it is the Democrats who already put more stress on the troops by withholding the last budget bill, which forced the DOD to extend tours to 15 months in order to save money on the preparations and logistics bills that come along with deploying troops.

Does Murder Help?

2007-08-08T20:20:00.000-05:00

Regarding the murder of journalist Chauncey Bailey in Oakland, California.
The "alleged" suspect, Devaughdre Broussard, called himself "a good soldier" for murduring Bailey. Obviously that statement is degrading to real soldiers throughout the world.
My question is, How is murdering someone who was reporting about the Muslim Bakery, where Broussard worked, accomplishing anything? Seriously, what an absolute idiot this kid must be. Someone reports on legitimate issues and instead of, I don't know maybe debating the issue, you decide to murder him. I don't know how much of a devout Muslim this kid was and I'd like to beleive he's a outcast, but i'm having trouble. I'm suprised how little this story is being covered by the MSM, naturally this is typically a sensitive issue to journalists.
It wouldn't suprise me if they don't want to "offend" muslims by covering the story; i.e. PBS's recent documentary. What I don't get is why this still happens, and why don't any moderate Muslims ever appear on the news denouncing these sorts of things. It'll soon be six years since September Eleventh and since that time you only see muslims denouncing this behavior about as often as the seasons change. I cannot believe how many people in this country can't see that we're bending over backwards to give this country to Muslims who would be more than happy to change things to fit their lives.

Government failure?

2007-08-06T19:12:00.001-05:00

As the main topic in the news since it happened last week the bridge collapse in Minnesota has spawned something interesting.
Throughout the news reports their have been little snippets of blame placed on the government, both state and federal.
I truly wonder if either did anything wrong?

A bridge has never spontaneously collapsed before, how was either level of government supposed to know such a thing could happen. Since the idea seemed rather distant until last week how can anyone be blamed. The idea of a bridge collapsing here in Michigan seems as distant today as it did last week, before it was of concern. So in the inevitability of increased DOT funds I wonder if it will make any difference. I assume it will just be done out of necessity to show that the bureaucrats care that much.

My justification is that nobody could have foreseen this event and that is how things will continue in the future. Example; here in Michigan the joke is that we have two seasons, winter and construction. This joke defines the annual suffering of having half of our roads and highways lined with orange barrels from memorial day to labor day. With that in mind no Michiganian would ever suspect a bridge would collapse in Michigan. Why? Well let me assure you it's not because of our superior methods of roadwork. It would be a complete suprise because they're always working on the roads, so how could any of them be in disrepair(at least enough to collapse) when they're worked on almost constantly. And i'm tempted just enough to say that the situation in Minnesota was probably not much different.

When did it become wrong to accomadate customers?

2007-07-27T17:25:00.000-05:00

I just read an article on breitbart.com"Liberals going after FOX advertisers", and I must say I wasn't suprised in anyway by the story, but I am once again suprised by the stupidity of Liberals.

The article say that the certified nut-bars at two prominent liberal blogs(which I refuse to mention by name) are monitoring who advertises on Fox News, in order to annoy them with telemarketer tactics and hopefully have the advertisers pull out with Fox. These liberals claim it's because "FNC claims to be a "fair" news organization and is consistently conservative", you know that old chestnut. Obviously they're intending to put a dent in FNC's budget and figure that will somehow prevent them from airing "conservative commentaries".

I'll tell you right now, it wont work. This isn't like Don Imus, where you had a quote/unquote controversy, and the Reverend Al Sharpton grandstanding and making a spectacle of everything. There is no logical explanation for this. I'll bet in the end these liberal groups end up looking worse than they did before and Fox comes out better if not unscathed as well as their advertisers.(If Home Depot has a down quarter it's because of it's pseudo connection to Mike Vicks dogfighting case than because of its choice in advertising oppurtunities.

Aren't the Liberals the ones who always scream the loudest when something is about presonal choices/freedoms(even if they're hypocrites about it). Which is exactly what we have here. One line from the breitbart article says "Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming".
OK let me explain, Home Depot is a business that sells things and therefore will meet the demands/desires of its consumers in order to maintain profitability. So selling eco-friendly products is a way they can satisfy customers who are looking for eco-friendly products(profit).
The company doesn't have to have a position on global warming because thats not what it does, it sells products that appeal to a wide range of customers and then advertises in places where it can catch the attention of millions of consumers at once.
It has nothing to do with global warming, its called running a business. Home Depot could offer nothing but white paint if it wanted too, but they offer an incredibly diverse range of colors of paint, why? Because people want more than white paint. It would be a heck of a lot easier for Home Depot to offer only white paint to their customers but then it wouldn't matter because they'd have no customers.

Business in the case of Home Depot and thousands of other businesses across the country rely on selling the products/services their customers want to as many customers as they can get. I'm so sick of this liberal crap, just because Fox News is successful and doesn't believe all this wanton liberal bullshit they've got to throw a fit like a bunch of whiny little kids every other week. I would talk about what John Edwards said in Iowa, and just who are "they"? But I don't think I have the temper to handle anymore for tonight.

Bickering

2007-07-11T12:58:00.001-05:00

Cindy Sheehan has recently declared that she is going to run against Nancy Pelosi in the 2008 elections.
The suprise in this is that Pelosi was Sheehans wingwomen leading up to last elections, in which Pelosi became Speaker of the House with the Dems gaining control.

It's obvious Sheehan, like every liberal, has a grudge with the President, but she's a one-trick pony. The Democrats only dealt with her for the publicity they received, and she was niave enough to believe they were serious. They used her and now that they got what they wanted they let her Ass hung out in the wind. Problem is when your Ass is hung out for that long it gets chapped.

Sheehan wants out of Iraq, not to mention everywhere else, and the Democrats are falling way short on campaign promises and it's because they would rather politicize everything and maintain a longer career and not compromise themselves than actually get down to the nitty-gritty(This practice is as old as politics itself because that is politics).

Now to qoute some history "I fear we have only awakened a sleeping giant". That's what the liberals are saying, or should be saying anyway, about this.
The problem isn't that Sheehan can defeat Pelosi in the election, like I said she's a one trick pony. Though it would be nice to have someone in office who won't deal with the usual crap that goes on in Washington just to avoid making people mad, we need a breath of fresh air, even if it is a far-left nutbar.
Anyway back to my point, Sheehan doesn't have much hope of beating the all and powerful OZ, I mean Pelosi. What she will do is detract power from the Democrats, even if she is a bit of a nutbar she is still a part of the Dems playbook. The Dems will lose face if they are seen running against, or running from, what was their bread and butter play last time out.
Mention the 2004 Presidential election to a liberal they'll claim Ralph Nader lost it for them by taking votes from John Kerry. They have a legit point, and the same thing could happen again in 2008. Sheehan isn't running for President so she won't directly lose voters for the Dems candidate but in a sort of roundabout way it will hurt them to have a "friendly" voice smacktalking their currently most powerful person.

She doesn't seem like the the type of person who gives a damn about constituents, which is what I like about her, it also means she probably won't give in to the Democrats attempts/pleas to stop her from running. Their best hope is to end the war as soon as possible, which is what they want to do anyway so Hillary won't have to deal with it(damn those campaign issues!). But if they can't get her to stop they'll have to come up with something good, because I really don't think she cares about the betterment of the party and its image as long as troops are deployed anywhere.

More Irony from Live Earth

2007-07-09T10:16:00.000-05:00

Now we find out Madonna, who sang at the London Live Earth, is being criticized for owning stocks in companies which are labeled as unfriendly to the enviroment.
The companies included Alcoa, Ford Motor Company, Weyerhaeuser and Northrup-Grumman.

Why should anyone be suprised. It's the same with every liberal celebrity, "do as I say not as I do". They don't understand why average people don't like having their taxes raised to pay for another government program. They don't understand because they are too shut out from the real world, they make millions of dollars and rarely have to worry about paying bills, only when they spend their money like total morons(Mike Tyson) does that became an issue.

Celebrities figure it's probably better to have millions of people stop commuting than have themselves live slightly more modestly. To them the day-to-day real world is Global Warming(or whatever the current "Hot" issue is) and paychecks. They don't realize that the majority of people don't concern themselves daily with global warming, but are more concerned about providing for their families and surviving. If global warming could be 100% proven real i'm sure everyone would be concerned and want to correct the problem, however the problem couldn't be fixed if the entire planet were starving from lack of production. What would be the point of saving the planet for future generations if they led meek abysmal lives. I doubt Madonna or anyone, no matter how rich or how poor wants their children and grandchildren living in huts and forraging for food.

Have you ever seen a celebrity not willing to support/promote something that seems like a good cause? Even if something is completely disproven celebs will attach their names to it if it gives them an oppurtunity to sell something.

As for Madonna and her investing, I actually don't care. I don't care whose stock she owns, it's her money she can do with it as she pleases. The hypocrisy is what annoys me. If you really beleived in something you wouldn't tarnish it by being hypocritical would you? The fact that you're going to perform at a concert for global warming and still invest in companies that people see as obstacles to the cause is plain ignorance.(For another excellent example go read about Michael Moore).

However in defense of these types people, I must admit that I think things should be done for foster children and inner city kids and a million other causes. And if I were wealthy I probably wouldn't want to part with all my money either, that is unless I felt I had enough saved that my family would still be well taken care of long after i'm gone, so maybe somewhere north of $50 Million. Problem is most of these celebrities have way more money than they'll ever need and continue to make more and more and still think it's easier for 10,000 people to give $100 than for themselves to give $1 million

Oh the irony.

2007-07-08T08:11:00.001-05:00

Although I don't believe in the global warming hysteria that Al Gore has so annoyingly brought into the spotlight, I still can't figure out how a concert is supposed to help anything. Don't get me wrong I love music, but how is a concert supposed to raise awareness for global warming?
Here is a tasty quote from the Washington Post "We would have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth," he said, speaking by telephone. But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic." That was John Buckley of Carbon Footprint. I must say WOW! that really is brilliance at its finest. Come on, even if you live in a cave you've heard about global warming, it's simply everywhere. You can't outrun it, you can't hide, you just cannot escape global warming, it has perverted itslef into everyones life everywhere on earth.
Find me someone who hasn't heard about global warming and I've got some property on Jupiter you might be interested in.
It's like an intellectual...no wait I'll do one better, it's a common sense epidemic. I really don't think the ends justify the means. Hitler thought the world would be a better place when he was done too. I know it's a different example but it proves the point, killing for peace makes no sense, and neither does polluting for enviromentalism.

So is a concert to raise awareness really necessary or even practical? I for one find it quite ironic that some of the most excessive consumers on the planet are the ones trying to tell us "common folk" that our lifestyles are harmful to the enviroment.
Call me crazy but i'm seriously having a difficult time understanding how my 1998 Chevy Cavalier is worse for the enivroment than the Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Private Jets and whatever else is owned by Bon Jovi, The red hot chili peppers, Kanye West or whoever else performed.
And we can't forget about the cost(enviromentally) of this concert. The cost of organizing and setting it up certainly burned some fossil fuels. The artists getting to their venues, which we're undoubtedly stocked with bottled water and brown m&m's, and also the fact that the concert-goers had to arrive at the venues as well, which i'm guessing also burned more fossil fuels.

One last thing, the only reason I know this concert happened yesterday is because while I was watching the Tigers go to extra innings against the Red Sox, I changed the tv channel during a commercial and there I saw somebody prancing around on stage and became thoroughly confused for several seconds until I realized what was going on. It was at that point I switched back to the baseball game, and didn't care any more about global warming than I had before, which is not at all.
My point is it may have been a good idea to promote the concert a little. I never heard anything about when the concert was actually happening until I saw it last night. Even Eddie Money, who comes to Detroit every year promoted his show more than this concert, and this thing is supposed to save the earth? Either somebody is really lazy, dumb, both or just plain ran off with the advertsiing dollars.

I thought they were just kidding!

2007-07-07T10:10:00.000-05:00

I didn't think the fairness doctrine was actually up for reconsideration, then I saw it was defeated 309-115. What I want to know now is who are the 115 airheads who actually voted for it?

Loony-Left

2007-06-21T10:34:00.001-05:00

If you're looking for a good laugh check out thinkprogress.org. It's an interesting look at inner-workings of the nutty liberal mind.

I don't understand.

2007-06-12T20:16:00.000-05:00

Call me old fashioned but I don't understand how the Senate has the ability to vote, sorry attempt to vote for "no-confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Eight attorneys were fired, legally. There is nothing to be found proving this was illegal. Was it political? Obviously, but that doesn't matter. No laws were broken so how can there be a problem with that. Why is it the Demoroncrats think that their $#!t don't stink? They do the same thing too when they're in power.
In essence they are doing it right now, trying to use party politics and the power they have to make their opponents lose face and power.
Honestly what's the difference? It's like fighting terrorists with terrorist tactics, it does more damage than it does good. People see right through the BS and are more upset with the schoolyard bully tactics that are being used in order to obtain revenge than with the original "offense"(for lack of a better word).
If you are going to go after a power position in the other party, fine, but don't use the same tactics you are accusing the other party of using.
It's not really a difficult concept to understand, but I guess the Democrats don't give a lot of thought to this sort of stuff, after all it wouldn't the first time.

More positioning by Iran.

2007-06-04T11:15:00.000-05:00

While you may or may not think Israels war with Lebanon last year was justified, one thing is for certain, not much has changed.
Now let me explain why Iranian President Ahmadinejad is saying things like "With God's help, the countdown button for the destruction of the Zionist regime has been pushed by the hands of the children of Lebanon and Palestine" and "By God's will, we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future."

Simply put, he's saying these things because the support he gains for himself at home outwieghs the offense the free world will take to these remarks. By saying these things, as well as the idea that America is waiting for the right moment to strike Iran, he can make himself appear to be the great defender and hero of Islam. If Ahmadinejad claims the United States and Israel are planning to invade Iran, and they don't, it will appear as though he scared them off. If the United States and Israel do attack(although most likely to prevent nuclear arms proliferation), Ahmadinejad will be justified in his remarks, even if he overexagerates or provokes the attack himself.

It is almost a joke for Ahmadinejad to say "Leabanon and Palestine", as though they are the same people. The Lebanese aren't currently engaging the Palestinians in Tripoli right now for nothing. The Lebanese do not like the Palestinians any more than Iran or any other Middle-Eastern nation. If anybody in the mid-east truly liked the Palestinians they would take them into their own nation, instead of leaving them as displaced refugees living in scattered refugee camps. Problem is if they did that they would no longer have the convenience of the excuse that Israel is keeping the Palestinians from having someplace to call home. And this is all on top of the fact that Iran doesn't care for Lebanon either, see when Ahmadinejad refers to "Lebanon" he is not refering to the actual nation of Lebanon, no, he actually is talking about the Iranian backed terror group Hizbollah which is based in Lebanon.

At best Ahmadinejad is simply trying to deflect interest from the fighting in Tripoli and fool the poor citizens of his nation that "everything is fine, there's nothing to worry about, Israel and the United States are our enemies." As someone who wants to destroy Israel and lead his country into superpowerdom, he must maintain the apperance that everything is fine.
Contrary to popular belief not everyone in Iran is, well let's just say "bad". There are a lot of people who realize the government is full of B.S., unfortunately they are outnumbered by the government(40% percent of the population is government employed). The government also controls the money, and in a poor country that goes a long way. The clerics who run Iran think that the best to way to run a country, for their own self-interest, use corruption and coercion just as much as politicians here in the United States use special interests and speeches. Another unfortunate result is that the religion of Islam is degraded worldwide, because of the perception that if the leaders are this bad so must be the people who support them, whether they are legitimately supported or not.

The effect is that the average Iranian is forced to accept what happens, for fear of their lives and the lives of their families. However as 2000 years of history has regularly proven people who are routinely viciously abused in an illigitimate fashion will eventually rid themselves of their slavelike domination to achieve their freedom.

More liberal hypocrisy

2007-05-24T06:27:00.000-05:00

I wish I could say I'm suprised at the liberal hypocrisy over the immigration bill, but sadly i'm not.
While the republicans indeed flaked out to appease their pro-business constituents, but who didn't expect that. It's laughable when you hear the frequent liberal cries about big business.
Generally the libs don't like big business because the support republicans support them, tax-cuts, etc. Since defaming their "opponents" is what liberals do best we frequently have to put up with cries of "businesses (and republicans) don't care about the middle class" and of course "the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer".
So the great liberal idea is to give millions of cheap working illegal aliens jobs, so that they can undermine the American working class. Party of the people my eye.

If this hypocrisy weren't so destructive, it would be funny. The way liberals claim to stand up for the middle class, yet do more to hurt them than help them. It reminds me of another issue where the Democrats use the "divide and conquer" strategy, race issues. But thats going to have to wait for another time.

Future liberal hypocrisy, regarding Iraq

2007-05-19T13:23:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking about liberal hypocrisy quite a lot lately, and no doubt the Iraq war has its problems. Surely now you're wondering, what do the two have to do with each other? Everything I tell ya, everything.
You see after our withdraw from Iraq, there will be a period of uncomfortableness between the United States and the Middle-East of epic proportions, forget whatever happens to other nations in the region. Right now I am thinking about the future.
In a generation or so. What do you think liberals will say when asked "Why do muslims hate us so bad?" I'll tell you exactly what they'll say and it goes something like this, "Well you see back in 2003, George Bush, invaded (Wait let me correctly phrase that) "illegally" invaded Iraq and destroyed their country for oil. Now after this generation has grown up they hate us for ruining their lives and their country".
I must be pyschic because you know thats exactly what they'll say. Forgot the taliban style presence of al qaeda or the now no longer "secret" involvement by Iran. "They hate us because we ruined they're country". Right, because it's impossible to think they'd be downright pissed that we started something we couldn't finish, abandoned them and left them to take the abuse and and now want revenge.
It's entirely sad but it's the truth. The withdraw is the liberals best idea(mostly to gain voter support) and when history proves it to be not only disastrous but downright stupid, they will pull out that stupid line "Bush lied, blahblahblah..."
I can hardly wait.

Click on the title for a clear picture of the future.

Welcome to my blog.

2007-05-19T13:00:00.000-05:00

I have read many blogs and I have posted many comments, but I have never written my own blog. This blog is about anything that interests me in the world of politics.
I decided to start this blog because I am sick of seeing politicians be idiots and not being held accountable. I am not a member of any party, but I am conservative more often than I am liberal. This blog knows NO party and it will toe NO line. This is a warning to politicians, and anyone else for that matter, who does not realize how badly they are screwing up.