Looking for something good to read? Let me help you out…

Hand it to the neocons droids- y’all win elections. Wrap yerself in da’ old flag and whistle dixie…me thinks the electorate, however, might be smelling a LOT of chicken hawk froam that group now…

Regards

Teach, I think that goes for both sides of the aisle (generally speaking, of course).

They get all their talking points from the big wigs. All their blogs tend to look the same, nothing truly original.

The other lesson is that Dems, even when bold facing lying about what they stand for, still cannot win an election. Though they some how take it as a win.

The lesson for the Democrats is basically to pick likeable candidates (when was the last time you actually liked a Democratic politician?) who are seemingly straight shooters (”aw shucks, just being myself”) who determine their own stances on the issues (not poll-tested), stances which they then stick with.

Good luck.

14 marines killed Wednesday, added to 6 from the same Ohio unit killed
Monday. 1820 lives is a very small price to pay for keeping America safe
from “terrorism”.

http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20050803/42f04140_3ca6_15526200508031076690351

Whoops!!! over the weekend the Pentagon (Myers and Rumsfeld) indicated there
will be a shift in semantics. It will no longer be called “The War on
Terror”, from this past weekend forward it shall be referred to as “The
Global Effort Against Extremism”. These subtle and sudden shifts in
language deserve some scrutiny, don’t you think? Any insight as to why the
Pentagon would alter their phraseology about Iraq? How about this as a wild
guess: “You can lose a war on terror but you can’t lose a Global Effort
Against Extremism?” In that context those that lose wars become liable for
their loss and those that fail in Global Efforts merely share the
responsibility with others in their attempts to be “Do Somethings”. Not sure
the artifice can work, how can those that started the debacle and defined
the effort with the American people suddenly try to alter what they said
about it with other words? Americans can’t be so easily manipulated a second
and third time can they? I guess we’ll see.

An interesting event occurred Tuesday. A marine veteran from Iraq ran for a
congressional seat in Dayton, Ohio and lost a close vote. He appears to have
run a campaign not so much against his opponent as George Dubya Bush.
Throughout the campaign he called Bush upon his folly in Iraq. He stated
that he did not like that son of a bitch in the White House, but that he was
prepared to die upon his order. He stated the single most dangerous man in
the world to world peace was George Dubya Bush. He called Bush a
“Chickenhawk” for being a chicken when it was his turn to serve and for
asking young men to die for a hawkish vision of middle eastern “democracy”.
He also said that Bush’s challenge to the insurgents to “bring it on against
U.S. troops” was the single most irresponsible thing a President has ever
stated. He lost the election but the interesting thing is that he ran as a
democrat in a solidly republican district that had been won by a republican
in 70% landslides in the three previous elections. The election went 52%-48%
against him.

Despite statements by the White House that “We will leave Iraq only when
Iraq is secure and not upon a timetable” we now hear a draw down is planned
beginning with the new year.

http://start.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20050803/42f04140_3ca6_155262005080396618426

Could the semantics shift and the draw down have anything to do with the mid
term elections in 2006? Bush wouldn’t possibly sell out on principle and
endanger America over political shenanigans would he? He’s a Christian now
isn’t he? and he is guided by God, the Bible, concern for life and doing
what is just, correct?

There are people that think this White House is incompetent in foreign
affairs. That despite reputations of having some degree of acumen that they
never analyzed the risks and long term consequences of their current
endeavor. That they relied upon a vision of “Doing Something” and succeeding
at it and that’s as far as it went in the context of analysis and that if
you didn’t share their rose colored perspective of how it would go you
weren’t on board. You weren’t in lock step. After all, they already had a
plan to invade Iraq before 9-11. The day after 9-11, despite telling America
Osama bin Laden was our assailant, they were talking in cabinet meetings
about going after Iraq. Sort of like FDR trying to convince America China
had bombed Pearl Harbor.

Well, now its come undone and none of it was remotely foreseeable, at least
to the “Do Somethings”, but then they never entertained any debate upon the
consequences of their actions.

Its time to put the debating gloves down and pick up the authority of Billy
Graham. Its not about party issues any longer. It never really was. Its
about what America’s position in the world will be. Will America lead by
example or will it attempt to coerce through force? There are consequences
to how we choose.