Some Up-Close and Personal Observations...
In the last couple of months, I have had some very close encounters with Arabs. I'm not talking about the guy who runs the gas station or the newsstand, I mean up-close, personal, and business contact, which has caused me to re-evaluate what I guess one would call personal beliefs.

At one time (actually at several points in the recent past) I have wavered on the moral question of whether or not the Muslim world should survive. I mean that in the literal, actual life-and-death sense. My previous experience with Arabs and Muslims, was, indeed,very limited, and most of it was negative; after all, I had witnessed the terror attacks of September 11th, and the sight of 3,000 people murdered in the name of religion and misguided political nonsense will do that to you.

As the horror of that day was fresh in my memory, and my anguish and fear were my primary concerns, I did advocate the genocide of the Muslims. I'm not afraid to admit that, and I think, given the circumstances, it would be understandable, if still disgusting. As the fear and pain subsided, I recognized such ideas to be despicable and impractical and came to the conclusion that it would solve nothing vis-a-vis the problem of Islamic terrorism. I probably wavered between advocacy of outright butchery and some sense of morality.

However, recent history and events have made me reconsider this position (once again!). And this time, the decision is FINAL. No more wavering for me.

The Muslim world is diseased. To any casual Western observer, this should be obvious. Forget the nonsense that we cannot judge a non-Western society by Western values, because this now seems to me one of the dumbest fucking platitudes ever invented. We damn well SHOULD view the non-Western world through the lens of Western values, because when we don't, we give every asshole on the planet an excuse to take advantage of the irrational guilt and stupidity that created the problem (cultural non-judgementalism) in the first place. The disease that runs through the Muslim world is has an entire smorgasbord of symptoms: rank stupidity, cultural backwardness, an irrational fear of women, devotion to a cult of death dressed up as a "tolerant" religion, arrogance, and a by-now genetic inferiority complex.

The individual events which caused me to change my mind are too numerous to list here, and I won't. Just suffice to say that every Arab/Muslim I've come into contact with the last few months reinforces my belief that the Middle East requires an injection of new DNA. Probably something genetically-engineered to eat sand and crap oil, with about the same level of awareness common to the amoeba. That form of life would be far superior to what calls itself a human being in that part of the world.

This idea was finally crystallized for me last night at, of all places, a minor league baseball game, which I attended with my family. There was a fireworks show at the end of the game, and people had lined up around the stadium to view it. Being on the NYC waterfront, it was also an incredible vantage point to catch the annual Macy's fireworks show, as well as shows in neighboring New Jersey.

I never saw so many headscarves in one place in my life. I never knew there were this many of them on Staten Island, and all of them had a minimum of five kids in tow. They were rude, they were smelly, they were disgusting examples of the selfish human archetype on full display. They had no manners. They acted as if they owned the planet and demanded courtesies they would not even dream of extending to anyone outside their group. There must have been at least 70 women in headscarves in the crowd outside the stadium, and near to the gates where I was that night, and so I guess, were 70 potential suicide bombers (their husbands). Many of them attempted to enter the stadium where the game was being played, without buying tickets, so as to get a better seat for the fireworks show, and some even attempted to crash the gates, complaining loudly of racism and prejudice when they were denied entry just because they hadn't bought a ticket. One moron even commented, upon seeing an Orthodox Jewish family in seating near to the gate, that "Of COURSE they'll let Jews in and keep us out!" Stadium security and New York's Finest kept things in check.

They came in droves, because, well Muslims are enamoured of things that go BOOM, I guess.

I have changed my mind, this time for good. The problem of Islamic terrorism can ONLY be solved when there are no more Islamics. The issue is NOT the West, or Western culture -- the issue is that these folks are outright INSANE . The West has a duty, not only to itself, but to the rest of the planet to advance our system and our values, because these are the only circumstances under which humankind may progress, prosper, and ultimately survive. No more pussy-footing around it; Islam must be dismantled, it must be shown, in unmistakable terms to be morally, ethically, politically, scientifically, economically BANKRUPT. Until that happens, any attempt to bring "democracy" to the Middle East will fail, and we will continue to have 9/11's and Glasgow-style truck bombings.

We should also stop importing these degenerates in such large numbers. Stop the immigration spigot, right the fuck NOW.

This is not hyperbole: the survival of all we hold dear depends directly on whether or not these insane scumbags can be kept in check.

Bill Richardson: The Snowball and the Infernal Regions...
Bill Richardson is the latest democrat (small 'd' intentional) to throw his beret (they all wear them, ya know) into the ring for the race to the Presidency in 2008. The current Governor of New Mexico has a stellar resume: Former cabinet-level post (Secretary of Energy), former U.N. Ambassador, former National Security Advisor (I think), spent a term or two in the Congress. All-in-all, being fair, the best-qualified (in terms of actual work) of all the candidates of both parties, to be a nominee.

Unfortunately, he'll never make it.

Because qualifications no longer matter. What matters is that you are able to vilify your political opponents in a way which "energizes your base" while avoiding the pitfall of making people so disgusted that they tune you out. In other words: what really counts in American politics today is which candidate can walk the tightrope between being sort-of-offensive and being too- obviously-offensive.

In the offensive department, we have a whole string of democratic party second-stringers, most of whom (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Joe Biden) most people have never heard of, nor care about.

In the too-obviously-offensive category we have the democratic superstars; Edwards and Clinton. Barack Obama, despite the fact that he's an obvious pandering, lying sack of you-know-what, at least comes across as a genuinely nice man. Edwards and Clinton can lie to your face, pretend to be whatever you want them to be, say whatever you need them to say, and it's perfectly obvious that they're lying and pandering, but it doesn't matter; the hand-picked crowds love it. They love it even more when they're in full-throttle attack mode, and it never gets more full-throttle then when it comes to Bush-hatred, which goes beyond politics and ideology and is evolving into a mental disorder.

And here is where a guy like Bill Richardson has the proverbial snowball's chance: The political left has become so unbalanced, so infected by pathological-hatred on individual personalities (Bush, Cheney, Gonzoles, Libby, etc), that there is no longer a point at which a candidate can become too-obviously-offensive. The worse picture you can paint, the better.

Bill Richardson is not that kind of guy. He doesn't have that sort of mean in him. He's not programmed to spew venom 24/7 and then claim victim-hood afterwards. He's not constructed for the ad nauseum repetition of absolute lies. He's a decent man.

And that's what will end his run. He can't keep up with the slime machines of Clinton and Edwards. He can't compete with the media-made-sexiness of Obama.

And it's a crying shame, because while he might be a democrat, I can recognize a pretty good guy when I see one, and Bill Richardson seems to be one. As far as government service goes, he's got the pedigree. The only person I can think of who's had that sort of resume in recent times has been Bush pere, and in retrospect, he seems damn-near regal, never mind presidential.

We are about to set a dangerous precedent in this country; this country will probably, in all eventuality, will have been presided over by either a Bush or a Clinton for the last two decades, depending on the outcome of the dimwit's beauty contest. Which is what makes a man like Richardson all the more valuable (and attractive as a candidate), because there's more Bush's and Clinton's in the pipeline, and Edwards and Gore won't go away until someone gives them a final death befitting the undead (a stake through the heart and immersal in holy water).

There's an opportunity here that I'm afraid we just might miss; the opportunity to re-inject civility and intelligence back into our politics, and the chance to avoid the dynastic rule of two incredibly incompetent families.

Unfortunately for you,Bill, we'll probably never get the chance to see you in action.

John Edwards: The Gift That Keeps on Giving...
I've never liked John Edwards. I've always felt he was a hypocrite and an empty suit, and above all, an arrogant bastard, who's considered opinion is that everyone else on the planet hasn't the same sense that God gave to a retarded Irish Setter.

The phony populism was always easy to spot: the "Two Americas" routine, the "do as I say, not as I do" sort of conspicuous consumption, the hypocritical (and public!) rebuke of Wal-Mart at the very same time he was twisting arms for an X-Box, or whatever it was.

I could hardly believe it could get worse. I was wrong.

By now, we've all heard about the famous $400 haircut. That caused a bit of a stir; a man claiming to be a champion of the poor avails himself of an expensive coiffure and still demands to be taken seriously. It just didn't wash. Especially when Edwards, in defending that haircut, makes a ridiculous statement about his staff making the arrangements and polishes it off with this humdinger (paraphrased):

"I was not personally involved in that haircut. I had nothing to do with it."

That's how stupid he believes you are. The man sat in the barber's chair. It was his hair that was cut. But he wasn't involved.

It's "I didn't inhale" and "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is", all over again.

Now we find out that Mr. Edwards, stalwart defender of the poverty-stricken, makes speeches at 40K a pop (twice the official "poverty level" yearly wage, for a family of four, no less!) and was recently paid $55,000 for speech on (what else?) poverty at the University of California, Davis. I rather doubt Mr. Edwards sees the logical problem here. It turns out by the way, that UC Davis is a public university (meaning it is supported by the taxpayer) which has plans to up it's tuition by 7% next year because, well, at 55k a pop for bullshit, it can't afford to educate folks at the old levels of funding.

This comes on the heels of the discovery that after being soundly whipped in his bid for the job of President and John Kerry's lap dog in 2004, Mr. Edwards went to work for a hedge fund. A job for which he was paid (I believe) $2 million a year. He claims that he took the job in order to study the economics of poverty. Let me repeat that -- the economics of poverty. He said that with a straight face, too -- give him credit for balls, at the very least.

He's also got a proven record of utilizing personal tragedy for personal gain. The tragic death of his son in an automobile accident vaulted him into a Senate seat (which he barely sat in, because he began campaigning for the Presidency five minutes after he was sworn in). He's used his wife's recurring cancer to garner sympathy and push his "health care plan" which basically amounts to "band-aids and eyedrops for thee...I can afford real insurance, thank you".

John Edwards: the answer to the question that no one has asked. If someone has asked it, please shoot them -- they cannot be allowed to reproduce.

More "All the News"...
Just a quick thought on this subject; how is a newspaper supposed to make money when it gives the news away for free on the Internet?

It should be the first question asked when it's an almost-daily occurrance where a major, print news organization in this country announces a new round of lay-offs, or decides to outsource it's 'local' reporting to a foreign country.

Now, I've blogged a bit about something along these lines in the past, and so has John Derbyshire of the National Review Online. I don't put myself in the same class as Derb, but we had a similar problem;

When I lived in Charlotte, NC, I used to receive the Charlotte Observer, which wasn't much of a newspaper unless you loved NASCAR, seventeen pages of inane church tattle, interspersed with Wal-Mart advertizing. Anyways, I found myself receiving the Observer, even though I never ordered it. Never asked them to deliever it, they never called to ask me if I wanted a subscription --- it just showed up on my doorstep. At first, infrequently, and then with more regularity. No one ever came to my door to ask me to pay for it, and the notes I left to the carrier who was mistakenly delivering it went unheeded.

Wouldn't you know it? At about the same time I was having this issue, so was Derb. New York Newsday (I believe) was showing up on his doorstep under much the same circumstances. Derb, being a much more dynamic and driven individual, actually took the trouble to find out why. Turns out that in many instances, newspapers will print far more newspapers than they can sell, knowingly, and then just distribute them, to boost circulation numbers in order to set advertizing rates. In this regard, it doesn't matter whether the Charlotte Observer actually sells 300,000 copies a day, so long as it can be said to distrubute that many.

That the practice is, one the one hand, wasteful, and on the other, dishonest, apparently doesn't enter into the equation. In the end, it's counter-productive. But then again, counter-productivity is management's job.

So, in a day and age when newspapers are being produced in order to be given away (for free), when news is given away online (for free), why should we be surprised when the same idiots decide that getting Indian reporters to cover City Hall in Pasadena, California, via the Internet, from the comfort of Calcutta, is such a bad idea?

I'll say this much for the idea; those Indian City Desk writers probably have a better command of English than their American counterparts.

One other thing about the stupidity and hypocricy of the American press; whenever I attempt to read an article that originated in the New York or Los Angeles Times, I am asked to sign on to their site with my e-mail address, presumably so the Times can monitor my reading habits and e-mail me about similar articles which might be of interest (the idea being that if the Times can increase internet hits by bringing back people who can read, and who wish to be semi-informed, their advertizing dollars increase). I can honestly say this; neither the New York Times, nor the Los Angeles Times have ever e-mailed me with a notification of a particular article I might find interesting, nor have they ever made an attempt to contact me to as much as to just say "hello".

My mailbox, both the one online and on the front stoop, however, are full of spam and junk mail. If I had to guess, the sign-in registry for Times articles has nothing to do with news and everything to do with selling my name and address to a bulk-rate spam operation.

I wonder how the Press in this country would react to a little of thier own medicine, and had a little 'investigative journalism' performed against them. The main thrusts of this investigation should be:

- What makes anyone think artificially inflating circulation numbers in order to fleece advertizers is legal or ethical?
- Why is it bad for the government to know my online habits, but the New York Times fairly demands it before I'm allowed to see it's product in a format which is free? The Times has spent years railing about the government using people's online habits as a means by which to invade privacy, but the Times should be allowed to invade my privacy so that they can make money?

To see John Derbyshire's July, 2004 Diary where he mentions the Newsday brouhaha, click here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTVhYmQzZTRmNmZlOTViNjZlN2UzMjM1ZDA5ZDY3Nzg=

It doesn't take much to see why print media is dying in this country.

Time to Choose?
Appropos of nothing at all, the theme of John Edward's presidential campaign (the Two Americas, redux) entered, quite unbidden, into the darkest recesses of my deviant mind.

The premise as put forward by Mr. Edwards: there is a great divide between rich and poor in this country. The divide is growing on a daily basis, and it is causing much of the social unrest and dislocation that we witness in American life. If only the dividends of the rich could be somehow redistributed (through force, naturally) more equally, then perhaps we'd live in a more peaceful, prosperous society. It's for certain that the American middle class has been sold out, betrayed by it's politicians, it's business leaders and it's own sense of comfort (achieved at the cost of eternal personal debt).

This is standard socialist boilerplate, to be certain, with a dash of southern populism added for spice.

Now, as to what I've been thinking about it;

To begin with, perhaps John Edwards is not the best messenger. After all, the man is a multi-millionaire who made his fortune (allegedly) defrauding the medical and insurance industries, so when John Edwards speaks about universal health care and such, perhaps he's not the best person to ask how it's to be done. His expertise in the health care field is limited to figuring out how to fleece the system for personal gain, not in re-inventing it to provide service for others.

Then there's the matter of Mr. Edward's home. A man who lives in a mansion (and this is not an exaggeration; it is a palatial estate, by any definition of the word, and I haven't seen a political figure with such luxurious digs since Saddam Hussein). Now, the republican right-winger-free-market-capitalist in me says, "Well, Matt, he earned the money to pay for it, we can assume legally, and therefore, why shouldn't he be required to enjoy the fruits of his labor?" Well, true. But then Edwards starts running his mouth about 'the rich" this, and 'the wealthy" that, and it never occurs to anyone that he IS rich. That he IS wealthy. And then it begins to sound hypocritical, because you know that when it comes to redistributing wealth to pay for whatever he wants to give to the lower classes, his wealth will be the first to be protected.

Don't even begin to think otherwise.

And then we come to the second part of my thought process:

Given my personal experiences of the last four years, there is a certain appeal in what he has to say. You do have to make an effort to apply logic to it in order to avoid falling into the trap of believing that a) he actually means it and, b) that the American taxpayer can afford what he speaks of without inciting a second Revolution. Which brings me to the point of this screed.

There is no way to avoid it, but, at some point, the people in this country are going to have to make a choice about their long-term financial security. This choice will be based upon a very simple proposition; at current rates of growth, the Federal tax base will not be able to support both Social Security and some form of extended health care system (Medicare) without tax hikes that will ultimately destroy the tax base, and leave the federal government incapable of doing anything else but providing free Viagra and cutting social security checks for the two wealthiest generations in American history (the remnants of the "Greatest Generation" who have milked the system for far more than they ever paid in, and the selfish "Baby Boomers" who believe the world owes them a living because they went to Woodstock).

Now, it's bad enough that our "economic geniuses" on Wall Street and in the hallowed refuges of the Executive Washroom are shipping our jobs overseas, making those who can find employment work longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits, and bribing our government to allow unfettered illegal immigration in order to re-establish what true liberal policies once eliminated; slavery within the borders of the United States. Eventually, there will be no jobs, for anyone, no paychecks being collected, no taxes generated and all of our wealth shipped to China, Bangladesh and Singapore. And then what will we do? No money for defense, no money for bribing the unproductive, no cash to keep Grandma in Claritin, ultimately, no money for the rest of us. For anything.

So, it's time to make a choice; if you're one of those who believes, like John Edwards, that the government should provide health care to the masses, then you must be prepared to give something up. Like Social Security, perhaps. If you're one of those who believes Social Security has outlasted it's usefulness to American society and should have a stake driven through it's black heart, then you should also realize that it will soon be impossible for any American (except the shrinking ownership class) to afford to have an eye exam or get a cavity filled, and that it is now inevitable that some form of national health care is in the offing. And that it should be paid for...somehow.

In lieu of the Sturm und Drang of the Iraq imbroglio, I have yet to hear anyone bring this topic up. Probably because it isn't 'sexy' and because both sides would rather have the issues left ambiguous in order to gin up grievances for electoral purposes.

but eventually, that sort of choice is going to have to be made. America, start thinking about it; you can be mollycoddled in your old age, or you can be kept healthy enough (perhaps) to reach old age, but not both.

As for John Edwards, brazenly hypocritical doesn't even begin to describe him. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

All the News That's, Yada, Yada, Yada...

Check out this blurb from FoxNews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271577,00.html

Then ask yourself this; at what point does it become impossible NOT to laugh at today's corporate manager?

Outsourcing your LOCAL reporting to Bombay? I shake my head in disgust at both the need to maximize profits, at all costs (including that of credibility), and at the fact that the people who made this decision are also the people who decide what we read in their paper.

It's a sad commentary on the state of the media, at the very least.

No More Debates, Please...
We've had two Presidential Debates thus far. That is one adjective and one noun too generous, in my estimation.

We had 9 or 10 (it's hard to count people that intellectually small as actual human beings) democrats the week before last, and this week, it was the turn of the 10 or so republicans. This is the state of American politics; 19 people are vying for the chance to spend an estimated $1 billion (of other people's money, of course) to be publicly humiliated, to have every aspect of their lives pried into in a manner which makes a proctological examination seem like a good way to spend the off-evening or two, to run themselves ragged attending prayer breakfasts in Iowa before jetting off for the hog-wrestling in Alabama, and then off to the Jackhammer -Iron Man-Face-Rodeo in San Francisco (all in the same day), all for the purposes of obtaining a job that pays $200,000 a year, and comes with the added benefit that it will age the hell out of you, probably destroy your health, and drive you insane with the amount and vigor of the criticism aimed at you.

But you do get the swanky address and that really boffo helicopter. Oh, and the nuke privleges. Anyways...

What does that tell you about the Presidency, and more specifically, the type of people who run for the office? I could start at "shameless", move on to "hypocritical" and then really get all warmed up with "narcissistic", and I truly wouldn't even be getting started.

But what really gets my goat about this process thus far, is that the quality of candidate seems to have sunk to all-time lows. We can expect the usual nonsense; which democrat can adequately convince you that he or she is the second coming of Lenin (only with compassion and a better wardrobe), as opposed to which republican can convince you with a straight face that they understand concepts like responsibility and propriety. Neither side apparently knows anything about the Middle Class, which they all "speak to", but who are being tossed aside faster than panties on Prom Night. What was totally unexpected, by me, in both debates, was the general lack of anything appealing ---- in all 20 individuals. Never mind ideology, give me someone who isn't molded, reshearsed, focus-grouped and demographically-approved!

Personally, I think instead of debates we should hold steel-cage matches --- first one to emerge with a serious brain injury gets inaugurated.

Sean Hannity: Unhinged...
Can we finally stop? Please? It hurts too much.

Raw, unbridled partisanship, unfortunately, permeates every nook and cranny in our society. It's beginning to become counter-productive and detrimental to our continued existance as a unified, democratic state. Nowhere was this more vividly on display than on last night's edition of Hannity&Colmes, which despite the war in Iraq, despite the Republican nominee's debate, despite a million other important things. started it's show with a...ahem...debate...about Time magazine's list of the Hundred Most Influential people in the Universe.

I watched Sean Hannity in full, excruciating, near-menstrual dudgeon over the fact that Time's readers managed to compile a "100 Most influential" list that had Usama Bin Laden on it, but not George W. Bush. This sent Sean into paroxysms of panty-bunching as he debated (snicker, snicker) Juan Williams over who is more influential; a has-been Terrorist leader who might be dead already, or a soon-to-be-has-been President who might sometimes wish he were dead, given the criticsm (deserved or no) heaped upon him? Ex-Senator Rick Santorum came along, apparently to add 'gravitas' to Sean's position, or maybe because the guy from the BudLight "Rock, Paper, Scissors" commercial wasn't available. In any case, Santorum did nothing but echo Sean, while Williams floundered attempting to answer questions that are, in effect, about style and personal tastes, rather than substance.

In terms of informative, provacative television that makes you think, I think I would have preferred it if FoxNews just televised the activity in Britt Hume's fish tank for that sixty minutes (assuming Britt has one),or pehaps ran re-runs of "Love Boat". It would have been far more entertaining, vastly more informative, and overwhelmingly less childish.

It wasn't all that long ago that I got fed up with Bill O'Reilly, and now Hannity&Colmes is headed down the toilet too. I never watch Greta Van Sustern because, well, who gives a damn about what she "investigates", except people who can't tell a tabloid from their butthole?

FoxNews is getting progressively worse, not better, as time goes on. Bill O'Reilly is allowed to pollute the airwaves with 60 Minutes of narcissism every night (when he isn't playing Trivial Pursuit with Steve Doocey) and now Sean Hannity is allowed to go ballistic for 20 minutes on a subject that in the world OUTSIDE narrow, hyper-partisan-eight-second-sound-bite-gotcha-tea-cup tempests 'political debate' , means absolutely shyte.?

Don't get me started on the waste of airtime that is "Red Eye".

Sean, buddy, relax. Deep breath. Calm down.

Now go get an enema...

George Tenet is a Big, Fat Liar...
Former CIA-director George Tenet is in a snit recently, having just found out that words can, indeed, come back to haunt you.

Mr. Tenet claims that his use of the phrase "slam-dunk" relating to pre-war intelligence of Iraqi WMD potential was used, improperly, in the justification of a war against Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. Apparently, Mr. Tenet (three years AFTER the fact) is claiming that his reputation has been unfairly tarnished because anytime someone asks "Why did the United States undertake what seems to be a losing war in Iraq?", the answer involves the fact that Mr. Tenet said, at some point, that the intelligence was airtight that Saddam had WMD's, the capability to produce more, and that he had the information to prove it. Thus the use of the colloquial phrase "slam-dunk". He now claims, in hindsight, that perhaps his information was not exactly airtight and that in any case, members of the National Security apparatus (in particular Dick Cheney) had war against Iraq in their heads from the first day of the Bush administration, and that they were just waiting to hear something in order to justify it. The implication is that they (Bush and, especially, Cheney) heard only what they wanted to hear, and damned the rest.

His contention is that "the fix" was in, and whatever he said is irrelevant, so, could we stop all this foucs on "slam-dunk" and get back to the real problem at hand, which is how to surrender as quickly as possible and leave millions of Iraqis who might support us hanging in the breeze, so that he can get back to perhaps lobbying for another job in a possible democratic administration in 2009?

What Mr. Tenet still refuses to answer, however, is how his agency could have been so wrong in the first place on 9/11, terrorism in general and Iraq specifically, and why it all happened on his watch? What was he doing when he was giving assurances which later turned out to be erroneous? What the heck does CIA do besides hand out plum intelligence assignments to non-intelligence types based on apparent nepotism (the entire Plame fisaco)?

Until Mr. Tenet answers those questions, without his whining about his repurtation and the uttering of a phrase he now claims was innocuous, I'm not exactly motivated to a) listen to him or b) believe him on anything.

Iraq and democrats (small 'd' intentional)...
Benchmarks. Timetables. Metrics.

Amazing how the party that typically pooh-poohs things like "accountability" and "evidence"
suddenly wants both, post-haste, huh?

Look, I'm not going to defend the Bush Administration on the Iraq fiasco (and that's exactly what it is). I've probably posted this before, but there's a host of reasons why Iraq has not been a glowing success for the Administration to date. They are:

1. No actual "war" was fought. The Iraqi army was not defeated on the batlefield, bayonet-to-bayonet; it was allowed to run away.

2. The rather simplistic plan (i.e. bumrush Baghdad, get Saddam, open a Stock Exchange, poof! Instant Democracy!) wasn't exactly realistic. It neglected an awful lot of cultural and religious issues, and took it for granted that Iraqis not only knew what freedom meant, but would understand what to do with it once it was provided.

3. Neglected to remember that after every dictator has been deposed there is a host of would-be dictators who would love to take his place, and are willing to fight for it, too.

4. the American government is far too easily persuaded by small groups of expatriates that their homelands are fairly screaming for democracy and that the population is straining at the leash to try MTV and free-market economics.

5. Democracies are not created in a few months. Purple fingers do not a deocracy make. They are the end result of a complex process of cultural, legal, and political amalgams that requires time to work themselves out. What works stays, what doesn't gets chucked, but everything typically gets a try.

Now, as to the democrats and all this blather of not funding anything if they don't get their checklist of "prerequisites for surrender by other names"; umm, you all voted for it (this war) at some point, did you not? You can forget about the semantic arguments of 'giving the president the authority to use force, if necessary' and then making the case that Iraq was not necessary. Doesn't hold water. The American public was behind this effort when it was a three-walk cake walk, and you voted accordingly. Some democrats claim there wa sno time to debate military action; I seem to recall 18 months of debate, including a large portion of it in front of the United Nations.

Get this through your skull; the United States, for better or worse, broke Iraq (or made it even worse than it was). We (and that includes YOU) are responsible. You moreso --- you voted for the war and you voted to pay for it. Repeatedly. You can't run out on the Iraqi's and if you do, you will be rightly accused of cheapening the sacrifice of 3,500 Americans. You don't have the right to have a clean slate for your presumptive president in 2009, which is what all this crap is about. God forbid President Hilary has to actually handle a war! That's not the Clinton M.O. ---Clintons like it nice and quiet, so that they can do nothing and then take credit for everything.

Then again, Mrs. Clinton will only see the inside of the White House again when her Senate days are over and she has to take a job as a chambermaid because the Social Security money ran out, so I guess that's all wishful thinking on your part anyways.

As for the present occupants of the White House; how come you haven't made this case? How come you haven't fessed up to the mistakes you've made? How come you haven't put the case before the Iraqis that they should get off the stick? You know, you can sit here and cry that democrats beat you on an issue that should have been ironclad for you (national security and war), but you're not exactly instilling confidence in anyone, either.