Bush: The Next Four Years

Mr. Harley Sorensen previewed what he thought the next four years under Bush might be like.

I know it is a season for joy, but I don’t think Mr. Sorensen should get our hopes up so much about President Bush. Four more years of lower taxes and dead terrorists is enough to ask of any man. Privatizing Social Security and freeing Iran would be too much to hope for. But we can always dream. Sometimes wishes DO come true.

Why we are REALLY in Iraq ...

WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion from the Australian by Frank Devine

1. Sure we thought Iraq had WMDs. But there were also critically strategic reasons why we had to take Iraq.
2. America has identfied the jihadist campaign as a "Saudi Problem".
3. There are serious problems with attacking Saudi Arabia directly, but notice that the US now has bases surrounding them.
4. Iraq borders six countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. Think about it.
5. The US/Jihadist war hangs in the balance in Iraq.
6. We are winning.

From the Article:

The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: "Not a single regime has fallen to al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The war goes on."

Good Stuff. Read my excerpts from the article here if it disappears from before you access the main article.

Europe's Muslim Question

I replied to the CS Monitor which said:

"Nov. 2 - the day provocative Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered ..."
"How could such a crime occur in one of Europe's most tolerant countries?"

My letter to the editor:

It isn't a perplexing question at all. The Van Gough murder happened in part BECAUSE of Dutch 'tolerance'.

Immigrant groups do not cease to lead seperate lives until they integrate. The problem is that many or most of the Muslim immigrants to Europe did not come with the intention of integrating.

The first EU challenge is they don't believe in a melting pot at all. America has been enriched by immigration due to our melting pot. Europe, which had immigration without the melting pot (and in fact celebration of the fact no melting was required), will find that immigration destroys them.

If Europe doesn't Europeanize Islamic culture then either it will expel its Islamic immigrants or be Islamicized.

The title of your paper is "Christian Science Monitor". Here is a prediction: The great Cathederals of Europe will be Mosques in 50 years. I don't believe the Europeans believe in their heritage enough to defend it and insist on Europeanizing their Islamic immigrants.

But it is wrong not to encourage them to try. Wrong for Christians. Wrong for Civilization itself.

Another side of Marine / Mosque story.

From MSNBC.

Kevin Sites, the reporter who shot the footage of the Marine incident, has taken a lot of heat.

He acquits himself well in his 'open letter' to the Marines.

My bottom line conclusion on this is that the Marine should walk. The troops should be told to be careful, but they should continue to err on the side of their own preservation.

The Marine appears to have shot someone he shouldn't have. He also appears not to have had a good reason, as seen by someone else in the room, to have made his decision.

BUT it is clear that the Marine DID believe he shot someone who was a danger. Part of the issue might simply have been exhaustion and stress. We won't ever fully know that, but we do know from what he said before he pulled the trigger: "He's f------ faking he's dead -- he's faking he's f------ dead." -- that he thought there was a good reason to pull the trigger.

And that is all that matters, legally.

You could also say that the fact these people were unlawful combatants and monsters shouldn't make a moral difference. I don't quite believe that. Although I hope our forces follow the rules, these guys don't. So I'm not interested in enforcing the rules on our troops unless the situation is unambiguous and clearly without justification.

This doesn't meet that test, either.

Left calls for killing Republicans

From PowerLine, a link to Maher's site. I pulled these rants off.

Can anyone find something similar from the Right?

---

(Go to the link under rants for all of them. I only reproduce a few.)

At this point in time, would it be morally defensible to apply a "final solution" to republicans?

I hope the whole lot of them [our soldiers -- ed] are decapitated... but getting the butts blown off will suffice.

Is it my imagination or is this trully something new?

Why do they hate the Dutch?

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2655656?htv=12 is the film which got van Gogh killed. It is in English but you have to wait about 2 minutes before the English starts.

For a link about what the man who made the movie was talking about, http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/october/izadi_301004.shtml is only a few weeks old.

Further fallout in the Netherlands here: http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2109523/

So … Why do they hate the Dutch?

Let Specter have his chance.

Powerline is willing not to oppose Arlene Specter any more.
This is at least partly based on the opinions of Hugh Hewitt.
I respect the opposition of NRO. I contacted three Senators concerning 'Stop Arlene'. However, given Arlene's WSJ article I'm willing to relent.
When I get a chance I'll recontact those Senators plus Senator Specter and express my support for Senator Specter.
The important thing is changing the Supreme Court. Senator Specter put forth the following proposal:

Specifically, my protocol provides that all nominees will have a Judiciary Committee hearing within 30 days of nomination, a Judiciary Committee vote within 30 days of the hearing, and a floor vote 30 days later.

If he gets each nominee a hearing within 30 days, a vote within 30, and a floor vote within 30 he will have done all I ask. (This means I want his vote in committee and support of an up or down vote. If his beliefs mean he votes against a nominee in an up or down vote then I have no complaints.)

Litmus Test

I argue (go here for the full post):

If it is ok for Kerry to have his litmus test, it is also appropriate for Bush to have the opposite litmus test. And Bush won the election.

Republicans are more likely to get 60 votes before Democrats do (just look at the map). If Republicans have no right to an anti-Roe v. Wade judge unless they have 60 votes, Democrats have no right to a pro-Roe v. Wade judge until they get 60.

Is that really the game people want to play?

Response to Dionne

I deleted a comment which linked to E J Dionne in its entirety, arguing that Bush was not a uniter but a divider (my paraphrase). This was prompted by me saying that, basically, Osama supported Kerry.

Osama did support Kerry. That is not to claim that Kerry supports Osama, I’m quite confident Kerry would shoot him personally if given a chance. But sometimes looking at who your enemies prefer is a good way to judge an issue.

I don’t tend to respect E J Dionne. He writes that Bush should have been like Eisenhower. What he doesn’t write explicitly, is that Bush should have abandoned his beliefs in favor of the Democrats in order to buy their loyalty.

That price is too high.

The nation had a right to expect the Democrats to place loyalty to our country ahead of loyalty to their party. They failed to do this.

The Republicans have a very long history of this. Modern Democrats are unable to meet this test.

Kerry Conceeds!

Bush Wins.

He wins by 3.5 million votes, the first candidate to win more than 50% since ...

... Since his father beat another MA liberal.

How Sweet it is.

Bush Wins.

He wins by 3.5 million votes, the first candidate to win more than 50% since ...

... Since his father beat another MA liberal.

And Kerry is going to fight anyway, despite being behind more than 100,000 votes in OH. Doing that, I believe, will do lasting damage to his party.

Bush: Congrats.

Kerry: Go for it.

Bush Wins -- Kerry might challenge anyway

Bush has won. He is the first person to get more than 50% of the vote in a presidential election since, well, his father in 1988.

When an earlier Bush beat an earlier MA liberal.

Behind by 3.5 million votes and over 100,000 votes in OH, Kerry can't overturn this election. He can, however, do lasting damage to his party.

Go for it, Mr. Kerry.