Too Little Too Late on the Border?

After five years the Bush Administration is moving to do something at our southern border in the name of homeland security. We forget, however, that the terrorists who drew blood on America in 2001 and before entered the US from the Northern border.

Everyone agrees the immigration situation is out of control. 11 Million illegals in the US, most of which are working and sending an estimated $15 Billion home each year to Mexico. The Mexican government's policy on immigration encourages Mexicans to cross the border, bring their families, retain their culture and language and send all the money home. The US then cares for their ill and elderly, provides food to their poor, educates their children and receives no taxes from the illegal immigrants. That's a pretty sweet deal for President Fox and the Mexican nation.

Today Michael Chertoff the Secretary of Homeland Security said his department is drafting a plan to determine how "once and for all" to deal with illegal immigration, migrant smuggling and gang violence in states along the U.S.-Mexican border. What?

How about a deportation, a "worker program" or amnesty for the 11 Million. Apparently - THEY WON'T WORK. Chertoff said he wanted to take time to analyze the immigration problem before sending more agents to the border or buying "a lot of newfangled gadgets" without taking a broader look at the problem. However, he sent a letter Sunday to Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, pledging some immediate help - mostly in the Phoenix area - to try to halt what he called "the violent human smuggling trade."
Chertoff said federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would work with Arizona public safety officers to share information, investigate human smuggling rings, patrol the city's bus station and highways, and transport migrants.
He told Napolitano that the department is "moving forward quickly and aggressively" and those working on the more comprehensive plan have "ardent goals and short deadlines."
Napolitano called Chertoff's letter a good start toward better federal-state coordination. But "clearly this is not going to be enough," she said.
Of the 1.1 million border arrests nationwide so far this year, 516,109 have been in Arizona. The state has struggled with increased illegal immigration in recent years because of stepped-up border security in California and Texas.
Earlier this month, Napolitano and New Mexico Gov. Bill , I'm running for President in 2008, Richardson each declared states of emergency for four counties in their states. The declarations allowed the governors, both Democrats seeking re-election this fall, to spend a combined $3 million in state emergency money for more law enforcement and security along their borders.
The Homeland Security Department says that since Sept. 11, 2001, Arizona has seen a 25% increase in the number of federal agents policing its border. Arrests have increased dramatically, the department said.

We will see what happens, but the liberal left wants as many Mexicans in the country as they can find to "do the work Americans won't do" and to secure the Hispanic voting block - a block they lost much of in the 2004 Presidential election.

For me, I say build the fence as proposed in Congress. Fly the spy drones. Work out a way for all of the Mexican nationals in the country to remain here if they want, but make them register, pay taxes and keep their money here in the US. $15B would pay for the fence many times over and might add to the GNP that Mexico is currently enjoying without any outlay of funds. UNtil then Mr Bush:
Sr. Presidente crece un elemento principal y para la inmigración ilegal. Ellos roban el dinero y los recursos las personas buenas que eligieron usted ganan y pagan por cada día.
Translation:
Mr. President grow a backbone and stop illegal immigration. They are stealing the money and resources the good people who elected you earn and pay for every day.

Pat Robertson May Be America's Worst Example

You know, I like Pat Robertson. I never voted for him. I watch the 700 Club from time to time and respect "Operation Blessing" and some other parts of its broadcasts, but Pat Robertson my have fallen off the cliff.

In a stunning statement Robertson called for the US to assassinate Venezuelan President Chavez (discussed here http://scjhawkshawksnest.blogspot.com/2005/08/paranoia-in-south-america.html last month) . Pat Roberston said Chavez needed to be killed "because we have the capability do those things (in the U.S). "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop. This man is a terrific danger, and this is in our sphere of influence." Thanks Pat! It was incredible. It was so blatant, it forced the State Department to make a statement discounting Robertson's interjection and even the most conservative in Congress were running from the hills.

CNN - the world's more liberal network - is using Robertson as a posterboy for what is bad about the American tighht. Chavez called Robertson a Fascist (but he called President Bush a Fascist as well so I guess Pat is in good company). CNN basically agreed in almost 12 hours of coverage today. If you can believe it, this farce was a bigger story to CNN than the Iraqi constitution, Israel out of Gaza, a Peruvian plane crash, and even Cindy Sheehan. Incredible!

In a political season when there is little going on, folks like Pat Robertson really need to keep his mouth shut. Statements like this could hurt Judge Robertson's vote, add fuel to anti-war protests linking the Iraqi war with oil, or even hurt the chances of some 2006 candidates. It is rhetoric like this that costs the Republicans moderate votes.

Pat stick to fundraising - you ran for President once and failed. Leave politics to the professionals.

Bush Finally Addressed Cindy

A couple of interesting things happened this week so far. Cindy Sheehan is no longer in Crawford. A small group of protesters decided to follow President Bush to Idaho where he is vacationing for a couple of days. Small protests popped up across the country (primarily in Liberal cities and in college towns) yet could not muster much support. In Knoxville, as an example, fewer than one hundred anti-war types assembled to condemn the war. The most interesting thing may be that President Bush finally addressed Ms. Sheehan directly. Here is a excerpt from an AP article:

"Bush said he understood the anguish of the woman whose son was killed in
Iraq last year. But he said he disagreed with her assertion that U.S. troops
should be brought home before more die in a "senseless war."
"I think those who advocate immediate withdrawal from not only Iraq but the Middle East are advocating a policy that would weaken the United States," Bush said.
The president said U.S. troops in Iraq are keeping Americans safe and that Iraqis
are making progress toward democracy. He urged patience as officials in Baghdad
struggle to complete a constitution."The fact that they're even writing a
constitution is vastly different from living under the iron hand of a dictator,"
Bush said.
Bush met Sheehan last year at a similar series of meetings with families of
the war dead. But Sheehan says there have been developments since then and she
has more she wants to say to Bush."Well, I did meet with Cindy Sheehan," Bush said Tuesday. "I strongly support her right to protest. There's a lot of people protesting. And there's a lot of points of view about the Iraq war."
He added: "She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it."
Bush spoke once before about Sheehan, during a foreign policy summit at his
ranch on Aug. 11. He said then, too, that he sympathized with her but disagreed
with her call to bring the troops home immediately.
He said Tuesday, "She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with."

I think the President's last statement is more accurate across the country. There is a pro-military counter protest going on right now. It is picking up steam and is headed for Crawford, Texas. it is sponsored by Move America Forward http://www.moveamericaforward.com/ and is called "Cindy,You Don't Speak for Me." It has many parents of fallen soldiers in its ranks who support he country and the military.

Cindy Sheehan is an agrieved mother and should be allowed to feel the way she does. The problem is, she is being manilpulated by groups like moveon dot org and folks like Michael Moore. Her message of grief is being scripted by the "hating wing" of the Democratic party and will further polarize the debate heading into the 2006 congressional elections.

When You Have Friends Like Chuck Hagel You Don't Need Enemies

Sitting this morning with my coffee, I heard Chuck Hagel, (R) Nebraska, on the television. I made a double take because he sounded more like John McCain than John McCain. It is clear the Senator from Nebraska is eyeing a 2008 run at the presidency. What he doesn't already understand is that there is no chance a politician from a state the size of Nebraska will ever become president. He does not have the political base. Three of the four surrounding states are primarily Democratic in their voting (except 2000 and 2004) and he has no message that will cut through the clutter of the Giuliani, McCain, Clinton circus.

That rant over, Hagel said today that Iraq is like Vietnam. What? Have you been reading the San Francisco Chronicle or the LA Times too much? If you have followed this blog you will already have seen the casualty rate statistics and the reality of the war as it stands today. Hagel is trying to paint a 1973 picture of the world. This is not Vietnam and Bush is not Nixon.

In reality, if Iraq is allowed to have its constitution and to begin a free and democratic society - AND that society is protected so it can grow, democracy will replace theocracy in that part of the world. The insurgents are not Iraqis. They are representatives from Iran and Syria. We need to close the borders, nurture the rule of law in Iraq, and begin some positive reporting from that part of the world. I am sure many of you don't know that nearly twice the number of schools have been re-built in Iraq than there are US dead. More women voted in the last Iraqi election than at any other time in that country's history.

As an aside, Hagel and Russ Feingold, (D) Wisconsin, are peas in the pod. Feingold says the US should pull out entirely by Christmas next year. He says it would "take the wind out of the sails of the insurgency." What? Remove any independent protection the Iraqis have for political expediency in the US. Hmmmm sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Unlike 1973, the bulk of the US population is no longer between 15 and 30 years of age. Many of us now have the gift of perspective and the loss of the fog of illicit substances. This is not Vietnam, nor is it WWII or Korea. It is Iraq and the Iraqi people are winning their freedom. We should be proud of our contribution as a nation and not cowards who are afraid of what others who do not and would not support us in the world think.

Has Politics Replaced Baseball as the National Pass-time?

This is a brief post to pose a question. Has Politics replaced baseball as the national pass-time? In every article you read, in every news broadcast you hear, every statment is prefaced by "Republican Senator....." or "Liberal leader...." or Conservative strategist..." It all seems absurd.

I am as much a political observer as the next person, but since when is every issue a political one? I thought 9-11 would never become political, but in the span of a mere four years, the 9-11 has become a political football like abortion, tax reform and other issues.

It is sad really, when you see a country like Iraq, on the verge of becoming a US-like democracy (or more accurately a representative republic) and this is the example we set.

My former brethren in the news industry just can not avoid turning everything into a controversy or every incident into the biggest event of the year. Let's be real. Our time on earth is a fleeting one. When today's headlines are history, they will be re-written in the words of the prevailing scholars of the age. Look at how history is perceived now. America is being painted by its own academics as the villan of the world.

One last question. In what dictionary do you see the word "imperialist" and then equate it to a regime or country who does not annex or conqure additonal lands or nations. That is what I mean.

Cindy Update!

In an not all too surprising turn of events, Cindy Sheehan is apparently having second thoughts about her bed fellows. The Washington Post (that bastion of liberalism) reports today in a piece by Michael Fletcher a couple of interesting points:

...." The same wave of publicity and political anger that she rode to become a nationally known symbol of the anti-war movement threatens to crash down on Sheehan herself Cindy Sheehan hugs a supporter at her protest site in Crawford, Tex. Conservatives have criticized her, and she says some sympathetic groups have agendas she does not share. Conservative commentators and Web sites are taking aim at Sheehan with the same ferocity she has aimed at President Bush. In part, they are using her own words against her -- reciting such controversial comments as her vow to refuse to pay taxes to a government waging an "illegal" war and her desire to see Bush impeached."

"The backlash is becoming a new object lesson in how saturation media coverage and the instinct for personal attack are shaping political debate. Some independent commentators said the pushback on the right has succeeded at scuffing the public sympathy and deference she had earned as the mother of a fallen soldier, and has shown how virtually any subject relating to the Iraq war and Bush's presidency is viewed through a partisan lens.
"Cindy Sheehan has emboldened the progressives who oppose the war and caused the conservative diehards who are behind the war to go into a defensive mode," said Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers magazine, a trade publication for talk radio. "Cindy Sheehan is going to be a target, and they'll probably go through her past to find what they can to discredit he. 'It's obvious Cindy Sheehan has become a political player, whose primary concern is embarrassing the president,' Fox Television personality Bill O'Reilly wrote Tuesday in an online column.'She is no longer just a protester.'"

It will be interesting to see what happens. Despite the poling data showing a lack of support for the war, there are many more conservatives and moderates in the nation who will not stand for a continued barrage of criticism aimed at the armed forces, the president and the nation. This is not 1973 and George Bush is not Richard Nixon. The old hippies and the extremists on the left need to give up the move to try to make this like Vietnam. That is history.

The saddest footnote to this may be the epitaph of Vietnam. The US never lost a firefight or military action. They descimated the Vietcong but if you read a paper between 1970- and 1975, a text book now, or listed to an average college professor lecture on the war in Vietnam you'd never know it. The US won the war, but the media and the liberals lost the peace. We can not let that happen in Iraq.

A Poll with an agenda? Never on the AP!

Newsbusters dot org has done a masterful job researching the Ipsos poll on the President's approval rating. it proves what I have said for years, news people, for the most part, are lazy. producers and researchers especially are incredibly lazy. They never leave their cubby - they eat whatever food happens to be in the newsroom or the food that was cooked on the noon show - whenever that was. I know - I was one. Here's the info and the link. This is good stuff.

AP Running with Skewed Poll Results
The main political headline from the AP today is the results of an AP-Ipsos poll taken a week ago. Bush Approval a Low for Recent 2-Termers reports that President Bush's job approval is down to 42% with 55% disapproving. That certainly sounds disturbing, or at least it would if he were running for anything again. But looking at it again, something suspicious jumps out.
The partisan divide for Bush is stark -- 80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve.
For the past several years, the conventional wisdom has been of a "50-50" America, a country divided evenly between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have beaten Democrats at the National level in the last several election cycles. If the numbers are fairly close, and the Republican approval rating is higher than the Democratic disapproval rating, how can his approval rating be that bad? If 38% of the sample is Democratic, and 38% is Republican, then he'd have to have a 0% approval rating among independents to have an overall 42%, and that's not realistic. So I went digging around the Ipsos web site, and found the topline results. What they've got is a sample of adults, rather than registered voters. And they've sampled 39% Republicans and 49% Democrats. So that 42% approval rating that they're flouting is a fake number, a number that doesn't represent political reality. But it certainly sounds bad for the President, which seems to be the AP's raison d'etre...
To add your comments, go to: newsbusters.org

Cindy's Big Kiss Off or Cindy's Tune has taken a Left Hand Turn.

This little tid-bit from MRC:

After Sheehan went on at length about how the U.S. is "building bases the size of Sacramento, California in Iraq. They plan on never leaving" and "I see
Iraq as the base for spreading imperialism. And if we don't stop them now, our
babies and our unborn grandchildren will be fighting this," Matthews suggested:
"You sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should
run." In contrast, Cooper hit her with her own words, pressing her to re-affirm:
"Do you really believe the President of the United States is the biggest
terrorist in the world?" Cooper pushed her several times, but she wouldn't back
off her claim.

The quote set me to thinking about Sheehan and the agenda behind her. Cindy Sheehan had a terrible tragedy in her life and is being used by the extreme left. She blogs for Michael Moore. She welcomed a vigil by Moveon dot org in Texas. She is becoming mere and more shrill. She is out Howarding Howard Dean. She has in fact changed. She said publicly that she was unsure of the President's reasons for the war, but always wanted to "act in the way Casey would have wanted." All that has changed now.

World net daily dug up this telling piece of information from only a year ago. It appeared in the Vacaville, CA Reporter June 24, 2004: http://www.thereporter.com/republished/ci_2923921

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.
"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.
Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting.
Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.
"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."
The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush,
Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

Interestingly, her family is no longer backing her. Her husband has filed for divorce you can find those papers here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0815051sheehan1.html The co-called mainstream media will not speak to her husband or the rest of her family, because it would ruin the illusion.

The saddest part of this whole story is that Cindy Sheehan is being used. She will become more and more bitter as she is fed more and more hate speech. She will become more and more tired and sunburned sitting out in the Texas wilderness because there is no way any PR person with half a mind would let President Bush speak to her. That is a lose lose proposition. He spoke with her little more than a year ago and she came away believing the President - but after the Michael Moore's of the world got a hold of her story has changed and she is singing a new song from the left side of her mouth.

Is Bad News Too Good?

This is an interesting tid-bit from the folks at the Media Research Center.

NYT Admits Good Iraq News May Be "Crowded Out" Safely tucked away on Page
two of Monday's Business section Monday is Katharine Seelye's "Editors Ponder
How to Present a Broad Picture of Iraq," in which editors from the Associated
Press admit that they are hamstrung from covering good news in Iraq.Seelye
describes an email received by Rosemary Goudreau, editorial page editor of The
Tampa Tribune: "'Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their
embassies in Iraq?' the anonymous polemic asks, in part. 'Did you know that
3,100 schools have been renovated?'….'Of course we didn't know!' the message
concludes. 'Our media doesn't tell us!'"Ms. Goudreau's newspaper, like most
dailies in America, relies largely on The Associated Press for its coverage of
the Iraq war. So she finally forwarded the e-mail message to Mike Silverman,
managing editor of The A.P., asking if there was a way to check these assertions
and to put them into context. Like many other journalists, Mr. Silverman had
also received a copy of the message."Ms. Goudreau's query prompted an unusual
discussion last month in New York at a regular meeting of editors whose
newspapers are members of The
Associated Press.

Some editors expressed concern that a kind of bunker mentality was
preventing reporters in Iraq from getting out and explaining the bigger picture
beyond the daily death tolls."Silverman makes an admission the Times and other
media organizations have been reluctant to make: That their readership isn't
getting the whole story about Iraq because, according to Silverman, "the wire
service was covering Iraq 'as accurately as we can' while 'also trying to keep
our people out of harm's way.'….The main obstacle we face,' he said, 'is the
severe limitation on our movement and our ability to get out and report.

It's very confining for our staff to go into Baghdad and have to spend
most of their time on the fifth floor of the Palestine Hotel,' which is home to
most of the press corps."

Their assertion is that the media do not have enough "space or time" to cover the good news in Iraq. As I posted earlier, there is a lot of good news there, but the media is not printing it for one specific reason: bad news sells. It's the question between "drivers" and "satisfiers." Bad news and tragedy drives one to the television or the newspaper. Good news is interesting, enlightening, uplifting even, but it is not a ratings grabber. That is why we have suffered for months of Natalee Holloway and other tragedy. It is why we get a death count every day and not a re-building count.

It is killing the main-stream media like the NY Times that the constitution in Iraq will make its deadline. That is good news. They would rather talk about deaths of soldiers "who shouldn't be in Iraq anyway because Bush lied." You know the line, "Bush lied and men died." You can see that specifically in the Sheehan story in Texas. It is one that Bush has handled poorly from a PR standpoint, but its anti-war sentiment would drive media coverage regardless.

The old addage in the newsrooms across America has been "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story." It is happening in Iraq and it is happening with Gas prices.

Peter Jennings, You will be Missed

I waited a week to collect my thoughts about Peter Jennings. I worked for ABC and it affiliates for about 15 years. I met Peter Jennings twice. He was personable. He was larger than life. He was a professional, but more importantly, he connected with the viewers.

For those of you who are keeping score, all three of the main anchors from "Network News" are gone now. They are replaced by pretenders, "posers" as the kids call them. The best of the lot is Charlie Gibson, in my opinion. As he filled in for Peter, he still signed off for his colleague. That was a classy act. More than that, Gibson is solid, seemingly un-biased (a trait Jennings' competitors could never share) and a consummate professional like Peter. It's all too bad that "Network News" is dead. It died, finally, with Peter. Even former ABC News correspondent Sam Donaldson proclaimed that network news is “dead,” replaced by the 24-hour cable news networks. Donaldson appeared at an NAB panel with two other TV journalists, Jeff Greenfield and Charles Osgood back in April shortly after Jennings retired. Now there is little chance of it returning to brilliance.

What I will miss about Peter Jennings is his intelligence. For a man who never graduated from High School he was the best in the business at extemporaneously adding to conversations live on the air. As someone who has been on live television for extended periods, I can tell you it is not easy. You can run off at the mouth, sure, but to say something pithy and meaningful is the difficult thing. Peter did it with ease and without making his co-hosts or interviewees look foolish.

I respected his ability to be a "citizen of the world." As a Canadian he had a unique perspective on the United States. The most conservative of Americans criticized him because of his heritage, but the more intelligent among us saw his strength. He has experience. That experience led to perspective and thaperspectiveve was revealed live on television for millions to see.

Peter's track record at ABC allowed him to gain that experience. I could not imagine being the host of the national news broadcast on ABC at the ripe old age of 26 - you probably couldn't either. He was fired and he traveled the world as a correspondent. He was, in my opinion, one of the best Middle East correspondents of all time. He scored big interviews and gave perspective. No one will ever foget the perspective he gave Jim McKay in 1972 when Black September killed the hostages in Munich.

What the news folks are going to miss in the upcoming love-fest is this intelligence and the fact that you can learn all your life. You can make a difference if you look at all sides and try to stay a-political. What we will see is a litany of shows on cancer, smoking, the impact of smoking on the public etc. What we will miss is the real story: What Peter meant to Journalism.

Since Jennings left, ABC has become the most liberally biased Network news Broadcast. Its stores took and anti-Bush or pro-liberal stance a whopping 70% of the time. The next closest network was CBS at just under 50% according to the conservative media watchdog group the Media Research Center. During Jennings's tenure, CBS was always way ahead with Dan Rather un-apologetically reporting from the left, and NBC coming in second.

The bottom line is this picture shows the end of an era - one that will never return.

Much to the chagrin of Journalism regulars like the NY Times, Boston Globe, CNN and NPR, Fox News is the highest rated network on cable with Bill O'Reilly replacing every anchor as the most watched combined. The O'Reilly Factor is the number one show on Cable period - entertainment, news, information, music - you name it.

The times have changed. Peter, you will be missed.

Iranian Threat Vs. North Korea

I am not sure who wants their powderkeg to explode first. We all know that there is little chance of the US moving on Iran any time soon because the troop strength in the region and very low public opinion of the current Middle Eastern conflict. Korea may be a different story. We have significant troop strength there, but you have a leader in Kim who is certifiable. If President Bush is not willing to go all the way, there could be another quagmire burdening US Troops. In a worse case scenario, that conflict could spark the use of "theatre specific" nukes.
The good news is it looks like the 6-party talks will resume on August 29th with similar issues to Iran - a consumer-based nuke program with a potential for light water reactors for power. Don't expect the US to allow it in the Middle East or on the Korean peninsula.

AP's take on Iran:
In a stern warning to Iran, President Bush said "all options are on the table" if the Iranians refuse to comply with international demands to halt their nuclear program, pointedly noting he
has already used force to protect U.S. security.
Bush's statement during an interview on Israeli TV late Friday was unusually harsh. He previously said diplomacy should be used to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program and if
that failed then the U.N. Security Security Council should impose sanctions. The U.S. government and others fear Iran's nuclear work is secretly designed to produce nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders deny that, saying it is only for the generation of
electricity.
In the interview, Bush said the United States and International Atomic Energy Agency, responded by issuing a warning to Iran on Thursday
that expressed "serious concern" about Iran's intentions.
Bush welcomed the warning, which signaled that the West wanted to give diplomacy time to ease the standoff.
In Vienna, Austria, where the IAEA is based, diplomats said Iran faced a Sept. 3 deadline to stop uranium conversion or face possible referral to the Security Council, which has the
power to impose crippling sanctions. The diplomats spoke on condition of
anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the IAEA board's proceedings. Iran, which insists its nuclear program
is peaceful, responded with indignation to the IAEA warning.

Perspective on the War's Casualty Rate

I want to be clear - I am in no way minimizing the value of a life or the sacrifice a person has made in the name of freedom, nor the impact the loss has on families.

All we hear, day after day, in this blood thirsty media environment is the death toll for the day. We don't hear about the good works our soldiers are doing in Iraq. The building of schools and rebuilding of mosques. Only the count. The number of times the Reaper's scythe has swung in the hands of cowards.

I recently had some journalists from State TV in Iraq visit my business. They have been fighting for freedom on the airwaves since the US invasion and may be instrumental in the high voter turnout near Mosul because of a program they created called Terrorist Confessions, Their work has landed them on the death list in Iraq. They havemoved from their homes and are now being guarded by US troops in their television station. Their families have either fled or are moved on an almost nightly basis to keep the insurgents at bay. I use the word insurgents purposefully. They say that 95% of the people trying to create havoc are from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. They say in their experience, no Iraqi is a homacide bomber - there are some Iraqi's helping with information and the like - but none in their estimation are fighting against the US. The Iraqi's are victimizing their own people. So regardless of what you read on the AP or in the NY Times, be proud of our soldiers. They are doing incredible work.

Now the comparisions.

Since the begining of the conflict in Iraq there have been 1,843 deaths in 875 days of occupation. If you go back to the begining of the conflict, that is approximately 3 deaths a day. If you take into account the anecdotal evidence from two free Iraqi journalists that the insurgents are not Iraqis, you are looking at a free country with surrounding Theocracies in the Middle East that do not want Democracy to prevail.

In Vietnam, the US losses totaled: 47,378 KIA + 10,799 other = 58,177 (Official US DoD, 1964-73) during an inserection that lasted nine years or 3,285 days. That averages nearly 18 deaths per day. Total dead for that "war" reached 1.7 Million people on both sides.

In Korea, the US losses totaled: 33,629 KIA + 20,617 other = 54,246 (Official US DoD, 1950-53) during an inserection which lasted 3 years or approximately 1100 days. That average is 50 deaths a day. Just as a point of order, the UN (Korea was a UN "Police Action") lost only 2,186 men from 12 countries. The total killed on both aides was 2.95 Million.

In World War Two, the US mobilized 16 Million people. Of those, 295,000 were killed in both theatres between December 7th 1941 and September 16th 1945. This does not include the deaths which occured in Germany in what are very similar circumstances to what soldiers are experiencing now. The average deaths per day in WW2 were 202. Total killed on both sides is estimated at 55 million.

In World War One the US mobilized 4,355,000, of which 126,000 were killed in roughly a 18 month period or 540 days; 234,300 were wounded; 4,526 were missing or POW's. That is roughly 2.89% of the doughboys mobilized or an average of 233 dead a day.

My point, is, well, perspective. We live in a society who thinks that TODAY is the most important day in history, but it isn't. We have the best army in the world and the best equipment. This about this: the average reported murders per month in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City are 48.7, 51.9 and 49.3 deaths per month. The murder statistics in the US cities are for hostile deaths only — whereas the death toll in Iraq includes both hostile and accidental deaths. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report of May 24, 2004, the number of murders reported during calendar years 2002 and 2003 show a comparable death toll exists in several US cities. Los Angeles, Chicago and New York City reported 1,168, 1,246 and 1,184 murders during the subject 24-month period. It is statistically more dangerous to live in America's three largest cities than to be stationed on active duty in Iraq.

It's something to think about when you pick up the paper, turn on the TV or radio and hear the death count for the day. It's propaganda really. Anti-American propaganda spun by America's own media.

Paranoia in South America

South America has long been the bastion of the world's social trash. From ex-patriot Nazi's and SS members to the drug dealers who pollute the streets of the world with cocaine and other drugs.

Now the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez needs to get his nose out of the Coke bag and into some clear air. At a youth conference this week, Chavez said the US is the worst imperialist regime in the history of the world. Huh? Imperialist? The US has never invaded and taken over the sovereignty of another nation in its 225+ year existence. The US is the largest benefactor to world aid anywhere on the planet by any measurement - total money, per capita, etc. This guy is a kook.

He keeps strange company. Here he is with Castro:

I mean a world leader who meets with Castro in this world climate - come on. He also has purchased 100,000 assault rifles from Russia to "defend itself" from American imperialism. This week he also told those impressionable kids that if the US came to Venezuela they would "kick the US back in the dust," whatever that means.

This dictator is a frightening. He said:

"The rifles are defensive weapons, " Chavez said, adding Kalashnikovs are nothing to the array of weapons wielded
by U.S. forces, such as "transatlantic missiles."
"If I were buying one of those devices, with which we press a button to travel, arrive at the White
House, then they could worry," he said.
"They have thousands of those
devices."

Wha? it is like reading a Democrat's Blog about Carl Rove or WMD's a complete freak with no basis in fact. A device that allows travel at the push of a button? Is he watching too much Star Trek?

He continued his attacks on the Catholic Church calling a Cardinal a "bandit and coup-mongerer" after the cardinal said in a newspaper interview the president was running a dictatorship. he was calling a spade a spade in my estimation.

I have read many stories on this "gentleman" and the best depiction I have read shows Chavez as Castro's "mini-me" in a series of jousts against windmills.

Al-Qaida Threat

Someone please tell me if the second in command of Al-Qaida can be filmed and broadcast via satallite then why can we not shoot and kill these guys? I understand this was not a western style media conference, but come on, these guys are media whores and would gladly go in front of a CNN camera or a Ny Times reporter. It is time to stop being surgical and to cut off this snake's head.

Good week for the President

It was a good week for President Bush, but the Republicans do not know how to score points when they are ahead. I understand the philosophy of keeping your head down and moving forward, but the leadership in the Republican Party need to start looking farther ahead than the ends of their noses.

Roberts: Good choice below the radar. It made the Dems have to do some research. The problem now is that he is so squeaky clean that the hate mongers in the Democratic party (Biden, Kennedy, Moveon.org, etc.) are now attacking the family in earnest. The adopted kids for cripes sake?!? what is next? Tripping little old ladies crossing the street?

The Energy Bill: Good for some, bad for others. It was a priority of the term but was missing the biggest piece that can help the country - drilling in Alaska.

The Transportation Bill: bad for everyone unless you live in a district with a lawmaker who pulle din some fat. $23B in pork. That has to be a record.

Boulton: I applaud the President. He is a good pick who will not take any crap from the UN. They are trying to control the Internet for cripes sake and we invented it! The effor tin the UN is led by China the largest technology thief in the world.

The Markets: They are up and the economy looks strong with the GNP up another 3points although you would never know it if you read the NY Times, Boston Globe, Watched the big 3, CNN, MSNBC and the new ALL GORE CHANNEL

We'll see what happens next week.