Was President Bush Right?

I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and this is one of those moments. Most of you know I am a pretty strong partisan when it comes to politics. But I try to be fair. I can't stand it when the two sides of our political divide are guilty of some horrible behavior when the other party is in office, but get chagrined when it happens to their guy. To me that is part of the problem in politics today. We need an atmosphere that will allow each side to celebrate the accomplishments of the other side, simply because it is, or even may be good for our country. Let's face it, Republicans are about as likely to be Worshipers of Satan as Democrats are to be part of the Sons of Hitler Facebook group. So let me say this. While I am not sure it will all work out as we might wish, President Bush was an early voice calling for democracy in the Middle East, something perhaps we are seeing in the earliest stages today in places like Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia. Additionally, let's give Bush and his administration credit for the work they did in curtailing the nuclear ambitions of Libya and their leader, Mr. Qaddafi. [ Read more about it here ] You might remember it was in 2003 that then President Bush and his administration announced the removal of the remnants of the Libyan nuclear program. Can you imagine what we might be looking at today in that country had that not come to pass? George Bush, it looks like ya done good!

It Ain't Skateboarding!

Lately there has been a lot of talk about waterboarding. This is a little technique that the CIA has reportedly used in the past to interrogate people who are suspected of having knowledge that could save American lives in the "War on Terror." In the past few weeks we have had a lot of discussion on the matter for a couple of reasons. First we had the Senate Confirmation Hearings of Michael Mukasey. Senators were upset when Mukasey refused to say whether he believed waterboarding was in fact torture. Then we have the upcoming Presidential elections. On the Republican side you have John McCain, the only current presidential candidate who has actually been tortured, defining the practice as such, and then calling for the US to stand against it, condemn it, and move on. Most of the other candidates have tried to stay out of the discussion, lamely claiming to not have an opinion, or desiring to know more facts. As most of you know, I lean to the left of the political ledger. I don't think you should be president if you cannot, in this day and age, make a decision about whether waterboarding is torture. I may not like your decision, but c'mon, you've got to have an opinion. Is McCain the only GOP candidate willing to stand up for what he believes? But lest it seem as if I am being harsh on the Republicans, allow me to cite a report that has recently surfaced. I am not sure how many of you know the names Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, and Jay Rockefeller. They are three leading Democrats and frequent critics of the Iraq war, torture, overseas CIA detention centers, and who knows what else. The reason I bring these names up is because while they have been publicly hammering the Bush Administration on the waterboarding issue, we now know they were aware of it and even pushed for harsher tactics in the days after 9/11. This is the kind of stuff the turns people off in regards to politics. The GOP will not speak out against the practice for fear of alienating their political supporters on the right who believe the US gov't could never do something wrong and that the ends justifies the means if the means are what you want. The Dems, hammer away at Bush publicly, totally for the benefit of their supporters who belive Bush is Satan incarnate, and yet in private, to his face, they agree with him. This stuff is incredible. Is it any wonder participation in the electoral process is down? The Mission Update. Bob Sheer from Truthdig.com has weighed in on this. His perspective is important because Scheer is known for his decidedly liberal viewpoint. In the second half of his article, he works through the Pelosi issue and finally calls on her to answer the "What did you know and when did you know it" question. Astounding.

It's TIME

I just received my copy of this weeks Time magazine. How many of the people on this weeks cover can you recognize? Most people in the U.S. can readily identify the faces of Al Gore, Tony Dungy, Leonardo DiCaprio, Barack Obama, and of course, my favorite, Tyra Banks. Now I have nothing against these people. I'd love to sit and talk with most of them for an afternoon. Okay, with you Tyra, maybe more than an afternoon. But seriously, does anyone with a full working brain think they are more influential in the world than President George W. Bush? Get real! Most folks know I am not a real fan of W, or his administration. But this is ludicrous. Memo to Time, your title is "Most Influential in the World." Not the United States. Not Hollywood. Not the N.F.L. Could you please explain to me how people like Tina Fey, Tyra, Elizabeth Edwards, or even Nancy Pelosi are transforming the world? I would wager all of my meager salary that most of the world has never even heard of these people who are supposedly influencing and shaping their world. Okay, maybe they have heard of Tyra, but you can be sure they are aware of President Bush, his policies, and the war in Iraq.. In one cover story, Time has confirmed what conservatives have been saying for some time. There is indeed a liberal bias in our media and it is difficult for a conservative to get a fair shake. Shame on you Time Warner!

Not Appeasers After All?

I am posting today from “The Funky Door,” a small coffee house about three blocks from Reed College in Portland, Oregon, listening to Joss Stone's first album. For the uninitiated of you out there, Reed has a reputation of being one of the most liberal colleges in America. So since I am here in the middle of this liberal bastion, I felt it would be appropriate to post a little left of center opinion. One of the things the Bush administration has been pretty consistent in saying is that any public discussion of war policy different from their official stance hurts American interests, sends a mixed message, and is used by the enemy to harm American Soldiers in Iraq. We have frequently heard that those that offer public dissent from the Bush Administration’s view of the war and how it should be conducted are guilty of appeasement and treason. This language has been used in campaigns, speeches in congress, and before numerous groups as the Republican Party has looked for donations of money for their candidates. It has become what is known as a “red meat” issue. A sound bite line that is always sure to whip up a frenzy amongst the conservative faithful. Allow me to offer into the record a piece of perspective from AP Writer Lolita Baldor that was published today in the Houston Chronicle. I have highlighted the most salient parts of the article. AMMAN, Jordan — The push by Democrats to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has been helpful in showing the Iraqis that American patience is limited, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday. At the same time, Gates renewed his opposition to Congress actually approving any such timetable. Both the House and Senate have passed bills calling for an end to the war, and President Bush has said he will veto either version if it is given final approval. "I've been pretty clear that I think the enactment of specific deadlines would be a bad mistake," Gates said. "But I think the debate itself, and I think the strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable ... probably has had a positive impact — at least I hope it has in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment," he said. How about that? No hyperbole, no accusations, just an open honest analysis that perhaps the discussion of a troop pullout, initiated by the Democrats, (Defeatocrats to some in the Republican Party) has indeed been helpful. Now before the right-wingers get all up in a fuss, I can read that he does not believe this is the way to go, and I am not claiming he does. I am just saying that it is refreshing to hear a top level Bush Administration official say that you can share an idea that is contrary to the official line and not be labeled a crazed, left leaning, appeasing, fascist, treasonous idiot. Thank you Secretary Gates. A voice of reason. technorati tags: Bush Administration, Free Speech, Appeasement