Rummy for life

Ex Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards used to joke that the only way he could be convicted in Louisiana was if he were caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. It seems that Don Rumsfeld might have the same deal.

Bush said he wanted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the top architect of the war, and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain with him until the end of his presidency.

"Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them," Bush said.

Because of his stellar performance at the helm of the Pentagon, President Bush has promised that Rumsfeld will serve out the rest of the term with him. He's on the record pledging Rumsfeld's job security. Now, no matter what Don Rumsfeld does, he stays. Not that he could do any worse at this point. After all, the generals in the field are really the ones in charge, right?

So...the dead girl, which felled Gary Condit, or the live boy, which downed Mark Foley, will be no match for Rumsfeld.

By the way, Edwin Edwards eventually got convicted and is serving out the rest of his life in prison. Hmmm.

WWAD

Because the line between real life and fiction isn't blurred enough, CNN had to run this piece:

What would Alex P. Keaton do?
POSTED: 6:13 p.m. EST, November 1, 2006

By Thom Patterson
CNN

(CNN) -- After a nearly 20-year absence, Nixon-loving, Reagan-worshipping Alex P. Keaton is again slinging his political views on television.

Michael J. Fox, who played the conservative teen on the 1980s sitcom "Family Ties," says that if the right-wing, tie-wearing Keaton were a real person, Alex would disagree with the Republican stance against increased embryonic stem cell research.

"I was recently asked what my character, Alex P. Keaton would think of me campaigning for stem cell research," Fox said Monday during a speech in Kea-ton's TV hometown of Columbus, Ohio.

Up next, What would President Bartlett of the West Wing do about Don Rumsfeld? Let's get Martin Sheen to channel him. And later in the newscast, traffic..and what would KITT of the Knight Rider do about your commute home? Maybe CNN could do a series.

It's the course, Stupid

In the debate over the debate in Iraq, it's come to this: Americans must now choose between Stay the Course and Staid with No Course. Both sides vocal and venomous. Wrestling with the political and the patriotic. And not a reasonable plan in sight -- only the course.

Neither side can offer a reasonable plan forward because they are both looking backwards. And so rather than having an honest debate about the future, both sides justify decisions past and disguise them as visionary.

Stay the Course
By now we all know the oft repeated refrain. Thousands of Americans killed in Iraq. Stay the course. Many more thousands are maimed and lie in hospitals. Stay the course. The image of Americans occupying Iraq has been a virtual recruiting poster for terrorists. Stay the course. There’s no WMD in Iraq after all. Stay the course. It turns out Sadam wasn’t much of a threat to us. Stay the course. Osama is chilling in a cave somewhere watching American Idol with contempt. Stay the Course. For two years, stay the course has meant that any mention of changing courses would be construed as an acknowledgment that we were on the wrong course, even if all evidence suggested we were. We couldn’t even send in enough troops to do the job properly because that would be off course.

You’d think a situation like this would be easy pickings for an opposing party. An administration marching mindlessly down what appears to be the tragically wrong path. Parading soldiers to their death, like sheep to slaughter, chanting stay the course. Of course…not.

Staid with No Course
From day one in this debate, the opposing party has been too worried about how they might be portrayed. Too worried that Americans might not like them if they told the truth. Too conservative to take on a popular president in his war of folly. Too unsure of themselves to clearly and convincingly speak their minds. Too busy pointing fingers to pen their own plans. Too calculating to stake out a strong position without offering every other viewpoint some consolation.

For instance, here’s John Kerry’s speech on the floor during the first war debate. Some have trotted out this speech as evidence that Kerry has some predictive powers:

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

"Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with al-lies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

In other words, I am voting against the war before I vote for it. What was the point of all of that gas bagging if you were going to authorize the president to go to war? Did anyone seriously doubt at that time that George Bush planned to go to war? Seriously? It was Congress' authority to declare war. If you have serious concerns about the way we should go to war, then you keep that power of the checks and balances to make sure that the president cannot act unilaterally. For a senator to hand his responsibility over to the executive branch with an ominous warning is irresponsible not visionary.

And now most Democrats spend an inordinate amount of time explaining nuanced statements like Kerry’s. Three years later, still no clear alternative plan to victory only “we told you so’s” when actually they didn’t.

It's clear both sides are shackled by their past mistakes. I'd like to just forget what everyone said way back when and focus on the course. From the reason we invaded to the way we occupy, it’s become increasingly clear that this course is a wrong one. We've spent too much in dollars and lives while the other side of the balance sheet offers very little to offset it in the way of what we've gained.

But, there appears to be good news on the horizon. The American public has stopped hitting the Iraq snooze button and is waking up to the reality of our situation -- we're off course. I think the time is right to start a new chorus. It isn’t nuanced and complicated. In fact, in light of the current situation, it is rather simple.

Change the course.

Does God hate Pat Robertson?

We always knew Pat Robertson was crazy, but this week we found out how low he could stoop.

Run a Google search on Pat Robertson or scan any of the hundreds of articles that have been written about him in the last couple days, and you can scroll through pages and pages of foolishness he has spouted.

Of his most quotable quotes: the Constitution is a document only for Christians; he would keep non Christians out of government; and that the white people of South Africa’s apartheid needed protection for their vote.

Here is one of my favorite Pat Robertson quotes, “You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.”--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991.

But this week he went a step beyond foolish. He pranced around ridiculous and teetered on dangerous. What makes this so disgusting was that he did this while claiming the mantle of a man of God.

NO RIGHT TO LIFE?
Like most people, I was aghast and shocked to hear — and see — Pat Robertson, from the set of a religious TV show, smirk into the camera, look us right in the eye, and proclaim that a human being should be assassinated. Killed. He even suggested the military could do it covertly. And then he offered the rationales that it would be cheaper than starting a war and that the oil would still flow. Convenience and economics.

Even the most hardened criminals with mountains of evidence have to undergo a formality called a trial before they can be put to death in this and most coun-tries. But not in Pat’s world. Pat Robertson has decided that Hugo Chavez is dangerous and that is enough to sentence him to death. Innocent until proven guilty? Not anymore. Any preacher can pronounce you guilty and call for your head.

Is Chavez a bad guy? I would say the jury is still out, but there hasn’t even been a trial. Under our legal system, the accused gets to live until someone presents evidence, the accused has an opportunity to refute it, and a jury of 12 returns a verdict. If Scott Peterson could get that much, shouldn’t a head of state?

And whatever happened to their precious right to life? Is life in its begining stages any more sacred than after a lifetime of choices?

PRIDE GOETH BEFORE DESTRUCTION
What would make Pat Robertson think he had the right to call for another per-son’s life? Imagine the arrogance it would take to not only think it, but also to say it into a camera that you know is beaming into millions of homes. He has said so many outrageous things over the last 20 years, without consequence, that he felt himself invincible.

And lest we be fooled into thinking it was the slip of the tongue, he went an entire day while this story brewed without a comment. He didn’t rush back out to apologize or straighten the record if he was misunderstood. For almost 24 hours while people gasped in horror, Pat Robertson was silent. He meant it.

LYING LIPS ARE AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD
To make things worse, he came out the next day and claimed that he didn’t even say it. With the benefit of reflection and I’m sure a few calls from his colleagues begging him to recant, Pat Robertson looked into the same camera and said it didn’t happen. As if we didn’t witness it the first time?!

Now that couldn’t have been a slip of the tongue either. He had an entire day to plan what he was going to say. He thought about it. Meditated on it. Maybe even prayed about it. And then lied about it.

He knew what he said. To say otherwise is just a deliberate lie. That’s what he would tell any of us.

A COWARDLY RESPONSE
As if advocating violence and compounding it with lying wasn’t enough, he al-lowed other preachers to go out and fend for him. An even more disgusting dis-play was watching pastors like Rev. Ted Haggard, from the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, tap dance around issues of law and morality while trying to defend Pat Roberts.

Some pastors denounced Pat Robertson. Others tried to cover him in the cloth – the First Amendment cloth. Pastors were defending his right to call for a man’s death while saying they didn’t believe in killing. It was a sad day for Christian-ity.

And Pat did nothing but watch.

THE APOLOGY WILL NOT BE TELEVISED
Finally, Pat Robertson issued an apology of sorts on his web site. The accusa-tion and the cover up happened live on TV. The apology needed to be down-loaded. He’s a killer (encouraging someone's death is no different in my book), a liar and a coward.

The actions we have seen this past week are clearly counter to any Biblical teaching. The same Bible also teaches that God's love is unconditional, but some things piss Him off — just as they do to us.

“These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:16-19

Count them up, and draw your own conclusions. I won't sentence Pat Robertson to death, but he does have to live with this.

What honor?

I am tired of hearing Bush’s latest talking point about troops killed in Iraq. The president keeps repeating that we honor their service by completing the mission.

Honor?

Where is the honor in continuing an engagement that everyone now agrees was based on erroneous information? Where’s the honor in sticking to a strategy that clearly doesn’t seem to be working? Where is the honor in continuing down a road that seems to be costing Americans far more in lives and money than anyone foresaw, without any effort to re-evaluate the approach?

According to this thinking, we honor the dead by ensuring more fall to the same fate.

Here’s a thought. If you want to show respect, address the issues that led to the soldiers being killed in the first place. Make sure they have enough troops to defend themselves, enough armor to protect themselves, a clear strategy for engagement and withdrawal. I'm sure that is a form of honor all the troops would appreciate.

Honor: a : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION b : a showing of usually merited respect : RECOGNITION example: pay honor to our founder.

A supreme pick

What’s a disgruntled Democrat to do when the president nominates a respectable Republican to the highest court?

We learned last week when President Bush nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court.

Bush introduced his choice for the nation’s 109th justice July 19 in a prime time East Room ceremony and, as they say, flipped the script.

A portrait of Roberts emerged as a lawyer and jurist who earned solid conservative credentials but built a strong resume. His profile exposes him as man with a sharp legal mind who knows how to temper his views with a dose of practicality. He is affable, charming, and most of all, fully qualified. He also passes the Norman Rockwell test, with a family that includes two precocious toddlers.

“Qualified and likeable, what do we do with that,” Dems wondered aloud.

I learned the next morning when I received this email dispatch from John Kerry:

“Dear Nate (Why does John think we are on a first name basis?),

This much is clear already. Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O’Connor (Don’t you like it when politicians point out the blatantly obvious?).

Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v. Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America.”

He “argued against Roe v. Wade” — there was the totality of John Kerry’s objection to Judge Roberts. We were expecting the second coming of Robert Bork and got a man who “argued against Roe v. Wade.”

Here is some free advice for John Kerry and his party: you won’t do any better than this. President Bush is not going to nominate a liberal or even a Sandra Day O’Connor. If you got a nominee who is known for being fair, you should be celebrating.

Here’s what you do, confirm Judge Roberts unanimously. Practically speaking, you won’t defeat him, and strategically it could pay dividends for you.

The Republicans have been doing a moderately successful job of painting Democrats as obstructionists. They have been hammering “liberals” for not giving nominees to lower courts an “up or down vote.” Confirm Judge Roberts unanimously, and you can silence all that nonsense.

Save your weapons for a candidate you know that you really can’t live with. If you confirm Judge Roberts, you will have credibility to wage appropriate battle against the next Robert Bork. No longer will anyone be able to paint you as an obstructionist because you will always be able to point at Judge Roberts and say, “give us a decent candidate and we have proved that we will do the right thing.”

Spend your political capital fighting someone that everyone acknowledges is fair and qualified, and Americans will shake their heads every time you object to a nominee. “If we couldn’t trust you to be fair to a guy who was a good pick, how can we trust you on any others?”

The fact that John Kerry doesn’t have the good sense to see this and fall in line is probably only one of many reasons he isn’t the person picking the nominee.

Bombs and stones may break our bones but our web-site...

Someone created a website, www.werenotafraid.com, as a response to the latest terrorist attack in London. Now do-gooders on both sides of the Atlantic are rushing to post pictures of themselves, their pooches, their parents and kids...all with the headline "We're not afraid."

I, too, paused with a sentimental, yet defiant smile until I thought about folly of this symbolic stunt. First, do terrorists really care if we post our pictures on a web site? Perhaps they will be hunkered down in their safe house, wearing their FREE SADAM t-shirts when they'll see the Jeanie Moss piece on CNN. They'll gasp in horror, pop open their laptops and log on (using their neighbor's wireless signal). They'll see pages and pages of defiant Brits and Americans boasting that they aren't afraid, curse Allah that the infidels have responded in such an unexpectedly strong fashion, and immediately convert to Christianity. Or... they'll chuckle and strap another five pound bag of fertilizer on the newest recruit and wait.

What makes the site even more ridiculous is that it simply isn't true. We ARE afraid. Terrorists strike a continent away, and we immediately ratchet up the terror alert to Orange. Up until last week, your bladder could explode during the first 30 minutes leaving from or last 30 minutes arriving to Washington's Reagan National Airport, but your fanny could not leave the seat. If so, you'd be gang tackled by all the undercover marshals and perp walked to the nearest federal facility.

Try and board a plane without stripping down to your bare feet lately? Now they want to do the same thing for Amtrak trains. You don't even have to travel to feel the effects. The federal government wants to be able to see all the books you check out of the local library, as well as the web sites you've visited.

All this doesn't sound like the reaction of people who aren't afraid, and we aren't fooling the terrorists by emailing our pictures in. We seem to be fascinated with symbolic feel-good gestures: wearing the flag pins on our lapels, the yellow ribbon magnet on our cars, and now posting our pictures on a web site. If we could only get that kind of support to change the policies that make us such attractive targets.