To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The President nominated retired Federal District Court Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey [298] (Southern District of New York) to be Attorney General of the United States, replacing Alberto Gonzales [299]. Based on Mike's public record and reputation, I believe he is a good choice to repair the injury to the Justice Department.
-- The transcript of Tom Ricks’ most recent, on-line interview regarding the Battle for Iraq:
“The War Over the War”
Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Military Reporter
Tuesday, September 18, 2007; 12:00 PM
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W8RH0159B1751059C0E393699C8250
Some goodies in this one.
-- French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner proclaimed that the world should prepare for war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, while negotiations for a peaceful solution continue. With the Iranians continuing to press their nuclear weapons program [301], it is nice to see the French getting realistic and serious. Of course, such talk drew considerable attention, and Bernard sought to downplay his words in the following days. Regardless of the diplomatic nuances, I think Bernard was spot on the money for this issue.
-- The Islamic Republic of Iran decided they needed to raise the ante on the brinksmanship game they are playing, so the commander of the Revolutionary Guards publicly threatened to strike U.S. targets in the Middle East with their medium range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. If the Iranians seek a military confrontation with the United States and our allies, this is a pretty good way. And then, Columbia University invites Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. Isn’t it interesting that we afford him far more freedom than he allows his citizens?
[HUMOROUS NOTE: Whoopi Goldberg came up with a great mnemonic to remember the name of the Iranian president – imadinnajacket. Say it aloud. Not bad, huh?]
-- After the Louisiana Appeals Court struck down the conviction of Mychal Bell [301], Louisiana District Court Judge J.P. Mauffray Jr. refused to release Bell from jail. The public protestations of LaSalle Parish District Attorney J. Reed Walters [300-1], denying racial motivation for prosecution of six (6) Jena High School students and pleading to remember the victim, are so bloody lame as to be laughable. I hear the Jena folks talk, and what I hear is . . . there is no racism in Jena, as long as the blacks know their place. I could be wrong, but that is what I hear. Fifty years ago, this nonsense went unrecognized, except by the folks involved. Today, world-wide instant communications can expose racists and hypocritical bigots in a flash. Let us not forget that it was students with a paucity of skin pigmentation who declared the “hanging tree” for whites only; it was white students who brandished lynching ropes on that tree; and it was white students who taunted the others. I would be pretty damn angry if I had dark skin and lived in that town . . . oh hell, I don’t have dark skin and don’t live in that town, and I am still angry. When will these damnable Neanderthals ever learn that “equal justice under the law” means just that? I do not condone violence for conflict resolution, and I certainly make no attempt to justify the actions of the Jena 6. However, I most emphatically condemn the racial bigotry, overt or otherwise, of J. Reed Walters and his lily-white, sanctimonious brethren. This will end . . . the easy way or the hard way; their choice. Yet, one positive consequence of the Jena 6 fiasco . . . the racists and bigots are in the spotlight again; we can see them. American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and kids brandishing lynch rope nooses on their pickups; now we can see them and deal with them. The insanity of racism is nauseating, vile, disgusting and otherwise repugnant.
The fog of speculation and conjecture persists regarding a probable, Israeli Air Force, deep penetration raid on a facility located in Northeastern Syria, near the border with Turkey and Iraq. Both Syrian and Israeli governments have remained eerily silent and obscure, relative to a major event that apparently occurred on 6.September.2007. The few snippets collected from various sources that seem to gain coherence remind me of another interesting historic date – 7.June.1981– the daring, surgical, Israeli Air Force strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor complex at Osirak. Israel and the United States have been watching Syria for quite some time. Some sources point toward a large weapons cache destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Several other sources suggest the precipitating event was the arrival of a North Korean freighter at the port of Tartus, Syria, three days prior to the strike; the public hypothesis being that the North Koreans were delivering nuclear components and materials prior to dismantling of their nuclear weapons program. With all the war talk associated with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, this apparent Israeli-Syrian event deserves close scrutiny, but substantive information has been hard to come by so far.
We are returned to the homosexual rights debate; this time by the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case of Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane , et al. [No. 44, Sept. Term 2006]. The case is actually an appellate review of the original judgment of Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock – Deane v. Conaway [case No.: 24-C-04-005390]. The Appeals Court rejected the decision of Judge Murdock and upheld the state’s traditional marriage law. As the applicable law is confined to state law, this Maryland Appeals Court decision cannot be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of relevance and significance in this latest contest, Judge Murdock argued that the current marriage restriction violated the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, in that the heterosexual marriage definition discriminated against homosexuals on the basis of gender. The Appeals Court soundly rejected the argument and rightfully so. The use of gender bias in this debate is weak at the very best. The court also noted, "It is undisputed that the right to marry, in its most general sense, is a fundamental liberty interest that goes to the core of what the U.S. Supreme Court has called the right to ‘personal autonomy.’” {citing: Planned Parenthood v. Casey [505 U.S. 833 (1992)]} Then, the judges go to extraordinary lengths to deny that liberty to some citizens. While the circuit court did not delve into the Due Process and Equal Protection aspects, the Appeals Court did, and the reasoning used by this panel of judges is shallow, myopic and verging on ludicrous. The court literally acknowledges the gross societal discrimination based on sexual orientation and at the same time, denies that homosexual citizens are a suspect class under the law. The Appeals Court contorts itself to the point of convulsions as it tries to avoid any interpretation that might remotely be deemed precedent. So much of this ruling hangs upon the requirement for immutability in the classification of a suspect group, i.e., a person is born in a location (ethnicity or race) with a defined gender and skin pigmentation – elements they cannot control. While this court has not been convinced that homosexuality is genetic, they acknowledge the possibility; and yet, I find such reasoning verges upon ridiculous, in that sexual orientation is a very personal, internal, private trait. The public can and should only see reflections. I am flabbergasted that the court would present such a notion regarding sexual orientation, since religion, language and to some extent disabilit(ies) are not genetic either. This case represents the challenge faced by the courts and our society in the main in the application and interpretation of law. So many of these cases, Conaway now being another one, can be understood, interpreted and viewed in the light of one window -- the primacy of the People or the State. The court turns to established legislative law and narrow interpretations of judicial law in search for a definition of rights. Prima facie, the precedent of existing law remains a comfortable basis. The court claims no law exists “granting” homosexuals equal treatment under the law. In this sense, they are precisely correct. Yet, such logic fails to recognize or even acknowledge the 9th Amendment’s rights “retained by the People.” The court continues to search for the basis of fundamental rights when there is no definition of such rights. We, the People, grant certain rights to the government to act on our behalf – not the other way around. Perhaps the most illuminating sentence in this regard from the Conaway court is: “If the [Supreme] Court in Lawrence {v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)]} was unwilling to declare that the right of two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual intimacy was deeply rooted in history and tradition, we are not disposed to accept that the Lawrence Court intended to confer such status on the public recognition of an implicitly similar relationship.” The fallaciousness of such reasoning is staggering, and specifically ignores the potential for rights “retained by the People,” or even “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Maryland Court of Appeals uses 244 pages of exhaustive legal reasoning in their attempt to rationalize the State’s dominance without saying so explicitly. This incessant search for some fundamental right to homosexual marriage is legal subterfuge at its very worst. There is NO such fundamental right, and there never will be. However, there is the MOST fundamental right for every citizen to be treated with dignity, respect and “equal treatment under the law.” And, the most fundamental right means recognition and respect for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice . . . except where the interests of the State in the public domain intrude or conflict. What is so bloody hard to understand about the equality? The mounting number of state court cases demonstrates one primary, common, irreconcilable element – they are trying desperately to avoid the essential root cause. Now, Conaway can be added to that sorry list.
Comments and contributions from Update no.301:
“Much has been said already about the mistakes of WMDs, oil, and so forth. Even so, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about RIGHT over WRONG. It is not about how our leaders blew it or how stupid we appear to be to the rest of the world in the media. It is about RIGHT over WRONG, a cornerstone of what it means to be an American.
“We should reserve the right to get smarter everyday. Some days I even take my own advice. Because our leaders may have followed the wrong path for too long, fighting and killing Islamo-fascists remains a war of RIGHT over WRONG for the western world. Unfortunately, too many of us are missing the point – they will kill or enslave us if given the chance regardless of the traitorous public stand some of our citizens take against our honorable military leaders like General Petraeus.
“To run and hide because of past mistakes will be our undoing. We can debate it all everyday. But, at the same time we must confront the enemy, fight the enemy, and win for our survival.”
My proto-reply:
No comment necessary or possible. Yet, when will we ever learn?
. . . round two:
“If history repeats itself on the dark side, the next generation of freedom fighters will have to learn from our mistakes. Let's hope not and we can learn before it is too late.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yet, just as our parents began the Cold War and we finished it, so to I suspect the War on Islamic Fascism is a generational war. I suspect we’re talkin’ 20 perhaps 50 years before the bad guys figure out it is better to live in peace and tolerance. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
A contributor sent an article:
"Duty, Honor, Country 2007 -- An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation"
by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.)
I will not provide a link or a copy; if you want to read Bowman’s words, you can find them.
My reply was quite simple:
This is talk of treason!
. . . round two:
"Well hopefully the 1st Amendment is still strong enough in our country that this guy, whoever he is, can still write his stuff and put it on the 'Net. The difference is when he actually plans or takes actions, or tries to incite others. Of course just writing it could be interpreted as inciting others I suppose, especially since he is retired military. Do you think it is for real?
"Do you think there is a group within our military that would/could accomplish something like this?
"I think the bigger problem we have is Pakistan, now that is where another coup is likely. However, before Iran I believe Syria could be in the sights of Israel and/or USA first, then Iran, and possibly something happening in Pakistan. That is worst-case-scenario and then dealing with the fact North Korea may have recently supplied Syria with capacity to use against Israel, is problematic."
. . . my response to round two:
Of course the 1st Amendment is strong enough. I believe I was very careful in my choice of words. I did not accuse Bowman of treason, but his words suggest and encourage serving officers of the Armed Forces of the United States take illegal offensive action against our Commander-in-Chief. That suggestion is the advocacy of treason. The Constitution provides specific, definitive steps for remedy of a rogue president. Nothing in his essay could be construed as constitutional, regardless of his assertions. Treason is indeed the action; conspiracy to commit treason is likewise a crime. However, Bowman’s suggestion is not conspiracy or treason, but his notional suggestion is! He walks a very fine line.
Might there be a group in the military capable of such action? Sure. The military is a very broad slice of American society. Just as there are folks who HATE George W. Bush for whatever their reasons may be, so too there are folks in military service who do not hold W. in high regard. BUT, I hope, pray, trust and believe that the preponderance of military officers are loyal professionals, like Colonel Martin 'Jiggs' Casey (Seven Days in May, 1964). Bottom line, Bob Bowman is dead wrong! And, I condemn his words.
Pakistan is indeed a far bigger problem for a host of reasons. Usama bin Ladin’s latest fatwa being prime evidence. Yes, numero uno, bar none, has been, is and most likely will remain the Islamic Republic of Iran – the hands down biggest state sponsor of world wide terrorism on the planet. The Israeli deep penetration strike into Syria two weeks ago is also a measure of how serious and precarious the situation is with those rogue states . . . and the ever-unpredictable Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa scurrying around in the background. I just do not see the path to defusing the nuclear confrontation with Iran or Syria, and the DPRK remains a worry, but a further destabilized Pakistan would not be helpful . . . although it might give us the excuse we need for dealing with the unrepentant tribal regions and the protectors of Usama.
Another contribution:
“How is it we can refuse the minutemen to speak at a university, refuse the former President of Harvard to speak at another university, and invite this generation's Hitler form Iran to speak at our expense? Last time I looked the minutemen and former Harvard President were not killing our military warriors in the desert.”
My response:
Rhetorical question, correct? I am not sure whether we shall see the reception the university will give Ahmadinejad. I suspect it will be far better and more respectful than they gave the others. Ahmadinejad has shown considerable skill in delivering his bellicose bravado for Islamic consumption while painting himself in the colors of the abused underdog – one of the lone voices standing up to the Great Satan, the evil capitalist United States. For true socialists and communists, he has to be a savior figure, just like Adolf Hitler was to the virulent anti-communists of the 1920’s & 1930’s. We shall see.
. . . along with this follow-up comment:
“Rest assured the reception the bad guy from Iran receives from Columbia University will include adulation making it a traitorous cliff to reside. And you note accurately in that the bad reception will be hidden if they can pull it off. Perhaps someone will be able to expose the truth for those of us who cannot and will not hold hands with the enemy as long as our troops are in harms way from his weapons.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- The President nominated retired Federal District Court Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey [298] (Southern District of New York) to be Attorney General of the United States, replacing Alberto Gonzales [299]. Based on Mike's public record and reputation, I believe he is a good choice to repair the injury to the Justice Department.
-- The transcript of Tom Ricks’ most recent, on-line interview regarding the Battle for Iraq:
“The War Over the War”
Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Military Reporter
Tuesday, September 18, 2007; 12:00 PM
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W8RH0159B1751059C0E393699C8250
Some goodies in this one.
-- French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner proclaimed that the world should prepare for war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, while negotiations for a peaceful solution continue. With the Iranians continuing to press their nuclear weapons program [301], it is nice to see the French getting realistic and serious. Of course, such talk drew considerable attention, and Bernard sought to downplay his words in the following days. Regardless of the diplomatic nuances, I think Bernard was spot on the money for this issue.
-- The Islamic Republic of Iran decided they needed to raise the ante on the brinksmanship game they are playing, so the commander of the Revolutionary Guards publicly threatened to strike U.S. targets in the Middle East with their medium range Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. If the Iranians seek a military confrontation with the United States and our allies, this is a pretty good way. And then, Columbia University invites Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak. Isn’t it interesting that we afford him far more freedom than he allows his citizens?
[HUMOROUS NOTE: Whoopi Goldberg came up with a great mnemonic to remember the name of the Iranian president – imadinnajacket. Say it aloud. Not bad, huh?]
-- After the Louisiana Appeals Court struck down the conviction of Mychal Bell [301], Louisiana District Court Judge J.P. Mauffray Jr. refused to release Bell from jail. The public protestations of LaSalle Parish District Attorney J. Reed Walters [300-1], denying racial motivation for prosecution of six (6) Jena High School students and pleading to remember the victim, are so bloody lame as to be laughable. I hear the Jena folks talk, and what I hear is . . . there is no racism in Jena, as long as the blacks know their place. I could be wrong, but that is what I hear. Fifty years ago, this nonsense went unrecognized, except by the folks involved. Today, world-wide instant communications can expose racists and hypocritical bigots in a flash. Let us not forget that it was students with a paucity of skin pigmentation who declared the “hanging tree” for whites only; it was white students who brandished lynching ropes on that tree; and it was white students who taunted the others. I would be pretty damn angry if I had dark skin and lived in that town . . . oh hell, I don’t have dark skin and don’t live in that town, and I am still angry. When will these damnable Neanderthals ever learn that “equal justice under the law” means just that? I do not condone violence for conflict resolution, and I certainly make no attempt to justify the actions of the Jena 6. However, I most emphatically condemn the racial bigotry, overt or otherwise, of J. Reed Walters and his lily-white, sanctimonious brethren. This will end . . . the easy way or the hard way; their choice. Yet, one positive consequence of the Jena 6 fiasco . . . the racists and bigots are in the spotlight again; we can see them. American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and kids brandishing lynch rope nooses on their pickups; now we can see them and deal with them. The insanity of racism is nauseating, vile, disgusting and otherwise repugnant.
The fog of speculation and conjecture persists regarding a probable, Israeli Air Force, deep penetration raid on a facility located in Northeastern Syria, near the border with Turkey and Iraq. Both Syrian and Israeli governments have remained eerily silent and obscure, relative to a major event that apparently occurred on 6.September.2007. The few snippets collected from various sources that seem to gain coherence remind me of another interesting historic date – 7.June.1981– the daring, surgical, Israeli Air Force strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor complex at Osirak. Israel and the United States have been watching Syria for quite some time. Some sources point toward a large weapons cache destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Several other sources suggest the precipitating event was the arrival of a North Korean freighter at the port of Tartus, Syria, three days prior to the strike; the public hypothesis being that the North Koreans were delivering nuclear components and materials prior to dismantling of their nuclear weapons program. With all the war talk associated with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, this apparent Israeli-Syrian event deserves close scrutiny, but substantive information has been hard to come by so far.
We are returned to the homosexual rights debate; this time by the Maryland Court of Appeals in the case of Frank Conaway, et al. v. Gitanjali Deane , et al. [No. 44, Sept. Term 2006]. The case is actually an appellate review of the original judgment of Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock – Deane v. Conaway [case No.: 24-C-04-005390]. The Appeals Court rejected the decision of Judge Murdock and upheld the state’s traditional marriage law. As the applicable law is confined to state law, this Maryland Appeals Court decision cannot be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Of relevance and significance in this latest contest, Judge Murdock argued that the current marriage restriction violated the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, in that the heterosexual marriage definition discriminated against homosexuals on the basis of gender. The Appeals Court soundly rejected the argument and rightfully so. The use of gender bias in this debate is weak at the very best. The court also noted, "It is undisputed that the right to marry, in its most general sense, is a fundamental liberty interest that goes to the core of what the U.S. Supreme Court has called the right to ‘personal autonomy.’” {citing: Planned Parenthood v. Casey [505 U.S. 833 (1992)]} Then, the judges go to extraordinary lengths to deny that liberty to some citizens. While the circuit court did not delve into the Due Process and Equal Protection aspects, the Appeals Court did, and the reasoning used by this panel of judges is shallow, myopic and verging on ludicrous. The court literally acknowledges the gross societal discrimination based on sexual orientation and at the same time, denies that homosexual citizens are a suspect class under the law. The Appeals Court contorts itself to the point of convulsions as it tries to avoid any interpretation that might remotely be deemed precedent. So much of this ruling hangs upon the requirement for immutability in the classification of a suspect group, i.e., a person is born in a location (ethnicity or race) with a defined gender and skin pigmentation – elements they cannot control. While this court has not been convinced that homosexuality is genetic, they acknowledge the possibility; and yet, I find such reasoning verges upon ridiculous, in that sexual orientation is a very personal, internal, private trait. The public can and should only see reflections. I am flabbergasted that the court would present such a notion regarding sexual orientation, since religion, language and to some extent disabilit(ies) are not genetic either. This case represents the challenge faced by the courts and our society in the main in the application and interpretation of law. So many of these cases, Conaway now being another one, can be understood, interpreted and viewed in the light of one window -- the primacy of the People or the State. The court turns to established legislative law and narrow interpretations of judicial law in search for a definition of rights. Prima facie, the precedent of existing law remains a comfortable basis. The court claims no law exists “granting” homosexuals equal treatment under the law. In this sense, they are precisely correct. Yet, such logic fails to recognize or even acknowledge the 9th Amendment’s rights “retained by the People.” The court continues to search for the basis of fundamental rights when there is no definition of such rights. We, the People, grant certain rights to the government to act on our behalf – not the other way around. Perhaps the most illuminating sentence in this regard from the Conaway court is: “If the [Supreme] Court in Lawrence {v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)]} was unwilling to declare that the right of two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual intimacy was deeply rooted in history and tradition, we are not disposed to accept that the Lawrence Court intended to confer such status on the public recognition of an implicitly similar relationship.” The fallaciousness of such reasoning is staggering, and specifically ignores the potential for rights “retained by the People,” or even “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Maryland Court of Appeals uses 244 pages of exhaustive legal reasoning in their attempt to rationalize the State’s dominance without saying so explicitly. This incessant search for some fundamental right to homosexual marriage is legal subterfuge at its very worst. There is NO such fundamental right, and there never will be. However, there is the MOST fundamental right for every citizen to be treated with dignity, respect and “equal treatment under the law.” And, the most fundamental right means recognition and respect for a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice . . . except where the interests of the State in the public domain intrude or conflict. What is so bloody hard to understand about the equality? The mounting number of state court cases demonstrates one primary, common, irreconcilable element – they are trying desperately to avoid the essential root cause. Now, Conaway can be added to that sorry list.
Comments and contributions from Update no.301:
“Much has been said already about the mistakes of WMDs, oil, and so forth. Even so, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is about RIGHT over WRONG. It is not about how our leaders blew it or how stupid we appear to be to the rest of the world in the media. It is about RIGHT over WRONG, a cornerstone of what it means to be an American.
“We should reserve the right to get smarter everyday. Some days I even take my own advice. Because our leaders may have followed the wrong path for too long, fighting and killing Islamo-fascists remains a war of RIGHT over WRONG for the western world. Unfortunately, too many of us are missing the point – they will kill or enslave us if given the chance regardless of the traitorous public stand some of our citizens take against our honorable military leaders like General Petraeus.
“To run and hide because of past mistakes will be our undoing. We can debate it all everyday. But, at the same time we must confront the enemy, fight the enemy, and win for our survival.”
My proto-reply:
No comment necessary or possible. Yet, when will we ever learn?
. . . round two:
“If history repeats itself on the dark side, the next generation of freedom fighters will have to learn from our mistakes. Let's hope not and we can learn before it is too late.”
. . . my response to round two:
Yet, just as our parents began the Cold War and we finished it, so to I suspect the War on Islamic Fascism is a generational war. I suspect we’re talkin’ 20 perhaps 50 years before the bad guys figure out it is better to live in peace and tolerance. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
A contributor sent an article:
"Duty, Honor, Country 2007 -- An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation"
by Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF (Ret.)
I will not provide a link or a copy; if you want to read Bowman’s words, you can find them.
My reply was quite simple:
This is talk of treason!
. . . round two:
"Well hopefully the 1st Amendment is still strong enough in our country that this guy, whoever he is, can still write his stuff and put it on the 'Net. The difference is when he actually plans or takes actions, or tries to incite others. Of course just writing it could be interpreted as inciting others I suppose, especially since he is retired military. Do you think it is for real?
"Do you think there is a group within our military that would/could accomplish something like this?
"I think the bigger problem we have is Pakistan, now that is where another coup is likely. However, before Iran I believe Syria could be in the sights of Israel and/or USA first, then Iran, and possibly something happening in Pakistan. That is worst-case-scenario and then dealing with the fact North Korea may have recently supplied Syria with capacity to use against Israel, is problematic."
. . . my response to round two:
Of course the 1st Amendment is strong enough. I believe I was very careful in my choice of words. I did not accuse Bowman of treason, but his words suggest and encourage serving officers of the Armed Forces of the United States take illegal offensive action against our Commander-in-Chief. That suggestion is the advocacy of treason. The Constitution provides specific, definitive steps for remedy of a rogue president. Nothing in his essay could be construed as constitutional, regardless of his assertions. Treason is indeed the action; conspiracy to commit treason is likewise a crime. However, Bowman’s suggestion is not conspiracy or treason, but his notional suggestion is! He walks a very fine line.
Might there be a group in the military capable of such action? Sure. The military is a very broad slice of American society. Just as there are folks who HATE George W. Bush for whatever their reasons may be, so too there are folks in military service who do not hold W. in high regard. BUT, I hope, pray, trust and believe that the preponderance of military officers are loyal professionals, like Colonel Martin 'Jiggs' Casey (Seven Days in May, 1964). Bottom line, Bob Bowman is dead wrong! And, I condemn his words.
Pakistan is indeed a far bigger problem for a host of reasons. Usama bin Ladin’s latest fatwa being prime evidence. Yes, numero uno, bar none, has been, is and most likely will remain the Islamic Republic of Iran – the hands down biggest state sponsor of world wide terrorism on the planet. The Israeli deep penetration strike into Syria two weeks ago is also a measure of how serious and precarious the situation is with those rogue states . . . and the ever-unpredictable Grand Dear Leader Umpa-Lumpa scurrying around in the background. I just do not see the path to defusing the nuclear confrontation with Iran or Syria, and the DPRK remains a worry, but a further destabilized Pakistan would not be helpful . . . although it might give us the excuse we need for dealing with the unrepentant tribal regions and the protectors of Usama.
Another contribution:
“How is it we can refuse the minutemen to speak at a university, refuse the former President of Harvard to speak at another university, and invite this generation's Hitler form Iran to speak at our expense? Last time I looked the minutemen and former Harvard President were not killing our military warriors in the desert.”
My response:
Rhetorical question, correct? I am not sure whether we shall see the reception the university will give Ahmadinejad. I suspect it will be far better and more respectful than they gave the others. Ahmadinejad has shown considerable skill in delivering his bellicose bravado for Islamic consumption while painting himself in the colors of the abused underdog – one of the lone voices standing up to the Great Satan, the evil capitalist United States. For true socialists and communists, he has to be a savior figure, just like Adolf Hitler was to the virulent anti-communists of the 1920’s & 1930’s. We shall see.
. . . along with this follow-up comment:
“Rest assured the reception the bad guy from Iran receives from Columbia University will include adulation making it a traitorous cliff to reside. And you note accurately in that the bad reception will be hidden if they can pull it off. Perhaps someone will be able to expose the truth for those of us who cannot and will not hold hands with the enemy as long as our troops are in harms way from his weapons.”
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment