So let me get this straight. Informing the people/animals we are at war with exactly when we are cutting and running is a good thing???
Apparently, not only are we ignoring even the most basic lessons of the past, we're supposed to be happy about it, too?
It just seems so idiotic that Nancy Pelosi could be beaming over this utterly ridiculous bill that clearly makes no sense and will inevitably be vetoed anyway. I don't know if she's just so full of herself, or if she truly has no idea what's best for this country. People like her are very dangerous because they have no idea how much damage they can do.
There was a lot of hoopla last week over John Edwards announcement that although his wife's cancer has returned, he will continue to run for President.
I have no idea if this is a smart move or a dumb one. But if his wife is okay with it, there should be no discussion. However, what strikes me as somewhat odd is why make any announcement at all? Sure, I understand it if he decided to end his campaign to focus his time on his wife. That makes lot of sense.
But since nothing has changed in that aspect, it comes across to me as if he's using his wife's illness to secure the "pity" vote.
Please understand I am mot belittling her cancer - not at all. But it just appears that his motive to make such an announcement - at least in a hastily called press conference - was political. But then, what should we expect from a politician?
After researching both sides of the issue, I can find no serious fault in the firings made by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. I admit it is possible he bent the truth in order to make the issue just go away. But the heart of the problem was not his explanations. It was whether or not a sitting President has the right to dismiss U.S. attorneys. Clearly, as precedent goes, he does. End of story.
Like the Valery Plume kerfuffle, any possible issue that could somehow, someway stick to President Bush to make him look bad will be seized upon by the mainstream media. It isn't even the least bit amusing anymore. I think the MSM should go back to doing what they do best - dedicate all of their time and energy to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton.
Does Great Britain have the stomach to fight? As our biggest ally that isn't Israel, Tony Blair has been steadfast in his support of the U.S. war effort. But the sheen had worn off many Brits and they have since shown to be more aligned with their brethren in the E.U.
Now here come Iran, flexing what little muscle they have. What does Blair do? I suppose he could be another Chamberlain and do nothing. Or, he could become another Churchill and fight back. London's reaction to this crisis will be a very telling story when we look back ta the demise of Europe. For England's sake, let's hope Blair is up to the task.
BTW, why are "peace activists" so not-peaceful? I believe it's time for the "peace movement" to find a new name. How about "the surrender movement"? I have a hard time considering someone to be peaceful when he/she burns an effigy of an American soldier. It would be like someone telling he that if you don't believe he's a pacifist, he'll kill you.
There are a lot of terms than no longer mean what they used to. But that's for another day...