In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people

…we’re in a free society?

Another portion:

These court decisions could have an impact on our whole Nation. The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state’s definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by activist courts, then marriages recognized in one city or state might have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else.

Perhaps not.  There’s no legal statute that requires states to recognize traditional marriages made in another state.  They just simply do it.  To the best of my knowledge (and I did a few searches to double-check), there exists NO law requiring that one state recognize a man and woman’s marriage that was made in another state.  They simply do. *shrug*

By the way, in my opinion, we will not win this fight.  If the FMA doesn’t pass, this time, it will the next time, or the next.  Ultimately, marriage will eventually be legally defined, nation-wide, unequivocably as between one man and one woman.  We simply have to hope that the idiots don’t strike down civil unions, too.  The current proposed amendment, allows the states the ability to make their own choices defining civil unions.  Bush is even nice enough to say so:

The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider next week would fully protect marriage from being redefined, while leaving state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

What bothers me most about this?

A constitutional amendment is the most democratic solution to this issue, because it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

Yeah.. us, the people, have no direct vote on the ratification of the amendment.  It’s up to the people we elected to decide….

…personally, I’m already of the mindset that the instant they took office, they stopped representing us, and started representing their corporate backers, and other members of their party.

*(Note: some states do run a ballot election to determine whether or not the people wish the amendment to be ratified.  It’s been so long since the last time, I can’t remember if Texas does, or not.)

Technorati Tags: Gay rights. gay marriage, federal marriage amendment

The Not-so-Secret Foreign Energy Source

by Walter Brasch

President Bush, several years after most Americans, has decided the nation can’t be dependent upon foreign energy sources.

For much of his life, when he wasn’t stoned or wasted, and especially when he was running what came to be a series of failed corporations, Bush worshipped the power of oil, while denouncing global warming as junk science. But now, as an enlightened president who is prevented by his own incompetence and inability to deal with the insurgency and unable to drill for oil in Iraq, Bush has decided that alternative energy is necessary. He has a plan—ethanol. It’s cheap, he says. It’s available from American corn crops, he claims. It’s primarily provided by Archer Daniels Midland, which has consistently been a large donor to political campaigns, primarily Republican. But, just in case ethanol isn’t as reliable as Bush believes it could be, there’s still the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Our oil-slicked President believes killing animals and disrupting the ecological balance in the ANWR to drill for oil beneath the frozen tundra is also part of the solution to the oil crisis. By 2025, according to government projections, and assuming a ten year development during which no oil is pumped, oil produced in ANWR will represent only about 1 to 2 percent of the Americans’ daily needs; if all the oil in ANWR were successfully mined, it would represent less than a one year supply.

But, while Bush says we shouldn’t depend upon foreign energy, he really means we should depend upon foreign energy, not in the form of natural resources but in a human form.

He has no objection to American corporations increasing their compensation to executives and stockholders, most of them Republicans, by laying off American workers, most of them Democrats, and outsourcing jobs to myriad other nations.

Call for customer service on everything from a credit card dispute to a computer and you’ll probably be talking to someone in India. Want an American-made car? If you don’t mind that most of the parts are probably made in Mexico and other countries, you can have your all-American gas guzzler. Clothes? Don’t even try looking for the union label. There isn’t one in any of two dozen countries that provide most clothes worn by Americans. Toys? Games? American flags? Try China.

Most American politicians treat Cuba, an island nation about the size and population of Pennsylvania but with a higher literacy rate, as a Third Rail. They punctuate every mention of Cuba with the venomous tag, “Communist.” The U.S. doesn’t recognize Cuba, it doesn’t allow Americans to vacation there, and it doesn’t allow trade with the people of Cuba. But, every politician—it makes no difference if they’re left, right, or mugwump, slobber all over the gluttonous probabilities of trade with the one billion population Chinese Communists. Even Wal-Mart has moved into China. We don’t know how that will benefit the average American; we do know that it means the end of China’s downtown commerce.

In America, spurred by talk-show mouths, we complain about hordes of illegal immigrants infiltrating our businesses and gorging themselves on every medical, welfare, and educational benefit available. We don’t want illegal immigrants—translate that into the language of “Latino”—but we also willingly employ them, and seldom do much to the employer.

And so millions of Latinos, trying to earn enough money to send home to their own families while possibly trying to become American citizens, shed their own knowledge and skills to become this nation’s unskilled and semi-skilled laborers, to become janitors and gardeners, maids, clerks, and factory workers. Of course, employers have a scripted, ready-to wear excuse of why they must hire illegals—they claim there’s a worker shortage for low-paid no-benefit back-breaking jobs. Of course, they’re right. One full-time worker making minimum wage, with no vacations, will earn $10,712 a year. The Census Bureau has determined that the poverty line for one person is $10,160—but, for a family of mother, father, and two children, the poverty line is $19,806. Even those employers who pay illegal immigrants twice the minimum wage, still provide no benefits, and pay them less than for American citizens.

The employment of low-wage employees is addictive. Hiring illegal immigrants means that businesses get workers for low wages, don’t pay social security and unemployment taxes and, for sure, don’t contribute to pensions or health care. Illegal immigrants either have to let the illness or injury “run its course” while destroying other body systems or reluctantly go to a charity hospital where taxpayers will cover the tab, keeping the employer from losing any more of the “bottom line.”

When Americans do complain about worker exploitation in Third World countries, American corporations claim that if the overseas workers didn’t earn pennies per hour, the cost of consumer goods the corporations sell to Americans would be significantly higher. That shuts up most of the opposition. If Americans weren’t so blinded by their own greed, they would argue that keeping jobs in America would improve wages for all persons, allowing the people to afford higher-priced goods. The people could also argue that corporations could lower executive salaries and benefits, as well as the profit margins, to minimize price increases.

President Bush wants the government to recognize and permit more immigrants. He believes it will help improve the nation’s work force. He is right. Most immigrants, transient illegals or future citizens, are hard workers. However, flooding American businesses with low-wage/minimum benefit employees allows businesses to increase their profits, a goal well within the political philosophy of this Administration, but opposed by the reality that companies earn their profits not because of country-clubbing executives but from the sweat of their workers.

[Dr. Brasch's latest books are America's Unpatriotic Acts, a look into the Patriot Act and Bill of Rights violations; and 'Unacceptable': The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina. Both are available from amazon.com and other bookstores. You may contact Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website, http://www.walterbrasch.com]

Technorati Tags: Walter Brasch

Let’s look at the facts, first, before diving into speculation.  First off, on July 8th, 2003, a story – leaked by Scooter Libby – showed up in the press, exposing Wilson as a CIA Operative.  Ten days later, on July 18th, 2003, White House Spokeman Scott McClellan told reporters “this information was just, as of today, officially declassified.” (emphasis, mine).  Ten days had passed from the time the information showed up in the press, until the documents were officially declassified.

Secondly, documents released this week (by prosecution, no less) contained an assertion by “Scotter” Libby that Bush had approved the release of information pertaining to Valerie Wilson.  According to Libby, he was told by Vice President Cheney that the President had authorized the release of classified information.  Libby stated he was given the go ahead to release that information.  Again, the information was not “officially declassified” until ten days later.

Third, White House Spokesman McClellan, Friday, states that:

…the president staunchly opposes releasing classified information that could affect U.S. security.  And he pointed out that the president reserves the right to declassify material. (Source: CNN)

In regards to the Wilson case in 2003, McClellan said:

Because of the public debate that was going on and some of the wild accusations that were flying around at the time, we felt it was very much in the public interest that what information could be declassified be declassified, and that’s exactly what we did. (Source: as above)

Fourth, the court documents released this week (see above) show that Bush approved the release of said information 10 days before the White House actually said the information was declassified.  When asked repeatedly about those facts, McClellan stated that he would not back down from statements he made at the time, but also said he would look in to the time frame.  He then added, “I think what I was referring to is the fact that that was when it was made availible to the public.” (Source: as above)

Fifth, Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:

Libby told a grand jury that Vice President Dick Cheney told him that Bush had authorized the release of portions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. (Source: as above)

However, the court documents do not suggest that Bush approved the release of Plame’s identity, and the NIE did not contain references to Plame.

Sixth, the President – initially, back when all of this went down – stated that as soon as those involved were found, they would be terminated immediately.

Seventh, once it was discovered that high ranking Republican officials were potentially involved, Bush’s stance changed to the fact that as soon as those involved were found guilty in a court of law, they would be immediately terminated.

On the next page of this entry, I will dive into speculation.  In other words, I will discuss possibilities that could have happened, and what I think probably happened, as well as a rather interesting possibility voiced by my fiance.  Although it is not possible – and may never be – to say what actually happened, it is most definitely possible to speculate with some knowledge.

As expected, President George W. Bush yesterday signed budget-reconciliation legislation that includes a firm date for TV broadcasters to clear 700 MHz spectrum and $1.2 billion in funding earmarked for public-safety communications.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 216-214 to approve the budget package, which requires broadcasters to clear the 700 MHz airwaves on Feb. 17, 2009, after which 24 MHz of frequencies will be allocated nationwide to public safety. Other airwaves in the band will be auctioned to commercial operators in a bidding process expected to generate $10 billion in additional revenue for the government. Under previous law, broadcasters tentatively were targeted to clear the 700 MHz band by the end of this year, but they were not required to do so until 85% of all U.S. television sets could receive digital signals—a threshold that could take decades to reach, according to many analysts.

This has been a long time in coming.  Many had hoped that the legislature would wait until technology had caught up to current demand, but unfortunately there was no such luck.  Fortunately, the bill gives three years for technology to catch up, and become affordable.  Unfortunately, we all know that won’t necessarily happen.

I can tell you this.  Cable companies will be rejoicing, as it is currently cheaper to sign up for digital cable (which converts to be viewable on analog televisions), than it is to purchase a digital-capable television – or even converter.  Cable companies are much more capable of changing their reception frequency for broadcast television.  For those unfamiliar with how this works, cable companies receive television broadcasts via either satellite, or large antenna arrays.  Then, the signal is either converted for analog distribution immediately, or it is sent down the wires to digital converters at the customers’ homes, where the signal is converted into analog for display.

The e-mail goes on to say:

Some public-safety officials previously had expressed hope that first responders might receive more than the 24 MHz of airwave earmarked, but enacting the budget measure effectively ends such discussion, said Harlin McEwen, chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police communications and technology committee. “All the spectrum that is not going to public safety is ready to be auctioned, so it is highly unlikely [that more frequencies would be dedicated to public safety],” McEwen said. In addition to allocating spectrum to public safety, the law creates a $1 billion grant program to pay for public-safety interoperable communications systems, $156 million for national alert and tsunami warning systems and $43.5 million to help fund E-911 upgrades as called for in the Enhance 911 Act passed in 2004. Most of the $10 billion in expected auction proceeds will be used to reduce budget deficits and to fund a program designed to provide people with analog TV sets low-cost converters that will let them receive digital broadcasts.

I have to chuckle at the last line.  I have my doubts that we will ever see widespread distribution of those “low-cost converters.”

Was this a good move by the Bush administration?  That depends on who you ask.  Television companies would likely say that they knew such an event was coming, but expected the date to be further in the future.  Public safety organizations – particularly first-response organizations – will agree that this is a very, very good thing.  The general public – especially when forced to purchase a digital television, subscribe to digital cable, or purchase a supposedly “low-priced” converter – will likely disagree.  Personally?  This has been a long time in coming.  It is a good move, as we do need some frequency rebanding to support first responders and public safety; but it will cause a lot of friction and issue in the coming years.  Look for late 2008 and early 2009 to be the time period that sees sudden leaps in “affordable” television technology.  Look for March 2009, indefinitely forward, to be the time period for gross price elevation of television technology.

Technorati Tags: Bush, television, 700mhz, Bush Administration

Powered by Qumana

President Bush made some strong comments during his address. Some I agree with, some I disagree with. I want to take a few minutes and break down portions of his speech, and give me comments and thoughts. Let’s get started:

On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.

The President does not mention to which country he was referring. It is possible he could have been referring to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, even Saudi Arabi. I’ll give you three guesses which of those immediately popped into my head when I heard his statement. Yes, Iraq. I’d wager that the vast majority of the people listening to (or reading the transcript of) his speech thought the same thing. I find it amusing, especially since Iraq’s involvement in the attacks on September 11th has never been concretely proven. For that matter, it hasn’t even been limply proven. It’s much like the penis of a bodybuilder… Supposedly it’s there, and supposedly it’s quite concrete… but what if that body builder has been on steroids? I would have much preferred he picked a specific country – or even the general area – to point out, instead of leaving us to guess and make penis jokes.

In fact, I’m seeing a running theme in that sentence… Let’s check the past years, shall we?

2006: (the above, plus:) “It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy.”

2005: ” In the three and a half years since September the 11th, 2001, we have taken unprecedented actions to protect Americans.”

2004: “Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 — over two years without an attack on American soil. And it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting — and false. The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world. And by our will and courage, this danger will be defeated.”
…
“Last March, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a mastermind of September the 11th, awoke to find himself in the custody of U.S. and Pakistani authorities.”
…
“After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers.”

2003: “To date we have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al-Qaida. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September 11th attacks…”
…
“Since September 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists.”
…
“Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.” (Especially when they’re invisible. That sneaky Saddam! (Okay, yes, they found evidence Saddam was attempting to manufacture chemical weapons. No evidence he ever succeeded, but yes, he was making an attempt.))

2002: ” What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan’s camps, and so were tens of thousands of others.”
…
” Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.”
…
” September the 11th brought out the best in America, and the best in this Congress. And I join the American people in applauding your unity and resolve. (Applause.) Now Americans deserve to have this same spirit directed toward addressing problems here at home. I’m a proud member of my party — yet as we act to win the war, protect our people, and create jobs in America, we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans. (Applause)” (*cough* How quickly they forget.)
…
” The next priority of my budget is to do everything possible to protect our citizens and strengthen our nation against the ongoing threat of another attack. Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons. America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad, and increased vigilance at home.”
…
” None of us would ever wish the evil that was done on September the 11th. Yet after America was attacked, it was as if our entire country looked into a mirror and saw our better selves. We were reminded that we are citizens, with obligations to each other, to our country, and to history. We began to think less of the goods we can accumulate, and more about the good we can do.
For too long our culture has said, ‘If it feels good, do it.’ Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: ‘Let’s roll.’” (Uh, WHAT?!)

Gee. I’m noticing a trend.

Back to the commentary on the address:

Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction.

Hmmm… Nice generalization. Veeeery nice generalization. You know, my girlfriend got on me, the other day (and rightfully so), for generalizing people as not caring about history. It makes me wonder how all of the dictators in the world would feel if they heard this little sentence. See, folks, the only difference between a monarchy (true monarchy.. Not that pseudo-democratic British version) and a dictatorship is who’s talking about it.

Again, yes, I’m aware that the term “dictatorship” primarily makes people think of things like Saddam’s Iraq, Milosevic’s reign, etc… But, there are just as many people out there that believe that any body politic ruled by a single person – no matter how benevolent – is a dictatorship, and should be brought down. It’s unfortunate generalizations that help to foster this belief.

Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror.

Hmmm… Again, generalization. I particularly like the “respect the rights of their citizens” portion. Especially since Bush violated FISA. (I’m not saying he didn’t have the right to do so. That remains to be seen. But in my mind… well, my proclivities on personal privacy are well known in certain circles. I’ll make them known here, when I get around to that entry.)

Oh, and the “…join the fight against terror” portion? Hmmm.. Someone count the number of democracies that have joined us in the fight against terror, and then count the number of democracies that have not joined us in the fight against terror. I’m wagering more have not joined us, than have. I may be mistaken, though…

Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer — so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause.

Ah, good. This decade needed a cause. In the 90’s, it was health and well being. In the 80’s it was anarchy and preppiness. In the 70’s, it was disco. In the 60’s, it was weed and vietnam. In the 50’s… well, you get the idea.

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time.

Greater than the “Greatest Story Ever Told?” (That would be “The Bible” for those of you who don’t know the term associated with it.)

In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122.

Well, of course. That’s what happens when you open up the United Nations first dating service for countries.

And we’re writing a new chapter in the story of self-government — with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom.

The men and women may be in seperate rooms, and cannot use the same entrance, but at least they’re debating!

At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half — in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran — because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well.

Great. We already had North Korea and Iran pissed off at us. Did you have to go and piss off Syria, Burma, and Zimbabwe, too? Hell, just invite them over for tea and crumpets coffee and cake, and give them the map of the best targets to hit.

No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it.

…Someone show me these men that would rather live under the thumb of an evil dictator than be free. Please. Don’t point to Muslims in other countries, dangit, because we proved with Iraq that they wanted to be free, too.

And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam — the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.

Gosh, Mr. Bush. If your religion said that the things that “Radical Islam” was doing was wrong, wouldn’t you be a little pissed at them, too? Oh… wait.

Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder…

WHEEEE!!!!! Oh… wait.

and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.

I KNEW IT! See, I told you they didn’t really want Weapons of Mass Destruction. They never did! They only wanted weapons of mass murder! (*ahem*it’s-a-new-catchphrase-for-the-same-old-thing*ahem* (however true))

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world.

I have a very stupid question, Mr. President. Why go through all the trouble of seizing power in Iraq – fighting the unified forces, all those casulties and losses of buildings – when they can just go to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (although we’re supposedly friendly with them), or even hide out in the freaking himilayas, and launch the attacks from there?

Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear.

I’m sorry, but I have this image of a random guy dressed up in “traditional Muslim attire”, carrying a toy gun, and jumping out of alleyways going “BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!” to passing children. I mean, it seems to me like the fear ain’t working so well. Like a good portion of the world is standing up, levelling our rifles, and going, “you gonna do what, biatch?”

I mean, seriously. If someone (I don’t care who. A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, a Pagan, an Athiest, a purple monkey dishwasher) attacked me and my family, I’d be grabbing the closest thing that looks even remotely like a weapon, and coming after their sorry ass. Oh… wait.

When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth.

…I thought the meek were supposed to inherit the earth. I mean, that’s what the Bible says, isn’t it? Soooo….. if we stand up and fight, and try to squash anything that remotely looks like a terrorist, then we’re not really meek, right? Of course, that entire book is open to interpretation.

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders.

Funny… You’d think retreating to within our borders, and locking the thing down, would find security. Of course, that’s assuming we’d be able to protect our own damned borders to begin with.

If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone.

Waaaaiiiiittttttttttt a minute, now! We’re assuming that they attacked us because we’re Americans, free, fun-loving, womens-rights-allowing, voting, democratic, Christian, “great satan” Americans. People, please. Get your head out of your ass. We’ve been fighting this thing for more years than you can imagine. Did it all start with Daddy Bush’s little skirmish out there (*ahem* the “Gulf War”)? I sincerely doubt it. We’ve been pissing these people off for a very, very long time. I’m pretty sure that were we to trace it back, we’d find out that it all started because we stuck our nose in something that originally had nothing to do with us, and made it our business. …That’s one of the downfalls of our nation. We can’t leave the rest of the world the hell alone.

By allowing radical Islam to work its will

Fucking radical Islam, it’s all their fault. (Original quote, “Fucking Darwin, it’s all his fault!”)

by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself — we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage.

Some would say it takes more courage to know when to get the hell out, than it does to stand there and shoot at anything that moves and looks different.

But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.

Until NASA figures out how to move half a continent, it’s pretty hard for the United States to retreat from the world, anyway.

America rejects the false comfort of isolationism.

Personally, I find isolationism quite comforting. I even hooked it up to a lie detector… it was telling the truth.

We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire.

Yep. That was all us, baby. Noone helped us, not one bit. We did it all ourselves. (I’m sorry, but all I can really say here is… Idiot.)

Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace.

Someone disconnect the damned phone, already. That bill has to be enormous, at this point.

We remain on the offensive against terror networks. We have killed or captured many of their leaders — and for the others, their day will come.

Unfortunately, at this point in the address, the Presidential Orchestra missed their cue for the thympani drums.

We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy.

Afghani-wha? Oh, that other place… The one that noone ever mentions, anymore.

We’re on the offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory. First, we’re helping Iraqis build an inclusive government, so that old resentments will be eased and the insurgency will be marginalized.

…We have a clear plan for victory. I’d like to hear this plan. I’d like to hear it laid out in some sort of detail. Unfortunately, we keep being told that we can’t be told what it is, for reasons of national security.

Second, we’re continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom. And, third, we’re striking terrorist targets while we train Iraqi forces that are increasingly capable of defeating the enemy.

…Why not train the Iraqi forces and let them strike the targets. Trust me, when as many of them start dying as us… they’ll learn daaaamned quick.

Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.

I’ve got to be honest, here. He’s right. As far as Iraq is concerned, we are winning. Personally, I would have preferred we didn’t get quite this militarily involved (i.e. trained up some forces and turned it over to them, damned quick… and started bombing the hell out of anything that put up resistance… get it over fast), but since we are this far down the road… Well, Bush is right, we can’t very well turn around and walk away. We need an exit strategy, and damnit, we need one where we win. Thankfully, we’re winning, now.

A year or two ago, I was very much against the Iraq war. I was very much wanting the troops to come home, as “right now” as possible. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. I’m still not happy with the war, but even I can’t help but recognize that we’re too far in it to just turn around and go. I have no clue what the exit strategy is, and I have no clue what the full clear plan for victory is… but I do know that we need to stay, at least a little longer.

Admittedly, I feel it’s getting nigh on time to pop our tittie out of Iraq’s mouth, and let their forces start to fight more of these battles. We need to take a back seat, and let them show themselves what they’re capable of. Dare I say it? We need to freaking hunker down a bit, so perhaps there won’t be as many of us getting slaughtered. We should do this… we should come home… just as soon as we can. I just wish it could be, now.