Gag Me!!!

By BARRY SCHWEIDThe Associated PressWednesday, July 27, 2005; 9:29 AM
Begin Quote
WASHINGTON -- An independent panel headed by two former U.S. national security advisers said Wednesday that chaos in Iraq was due in part to inadequate postwar planning.
Planning for reconstruction should match the serious planning that goes into making war, said the panel headed by Samuel Berger and Brent Scowcroft. End Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether you agree with the inadequate postwar planning statement or not, for [ anyone ] on this earth to take the word of one Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor during the Clinton administration, is beyond my comprehension. The man should be in prison with the keys destroyed! This is the criminal who stuffed classified information into his socks and spirited it out of the archives, never to see the light of day. In his socks for crying out loud!!! Leavenworth Kansas is where he should be. Not much makes me madder than to see a high administration official (of either party), get away with a crime of this nature.

The Ladies Bush and O'Connor

Sandra Day O'Connor and Laura Bush both commented on who the president selected to replace Justice O'Connor - the Justice 'after' the recent appointment and Ms. Bush 'before'. The media heard their comments totally differently than I and the media missed entirely the twinkle in their eyes.

Justice O'Connor was asked what she thought of Mr. Roberts - she said he was a "fabulous" selection but that he was not a woman. She was not angry in any sense - at least she did not portray herself that way. What did we hear on the news??? Justice O'Connor upset Bush did not select a woman. Balderdash!

Laura Bush was asked if she wanted the president to select a woman to replace Justice O'Connor - she replied - "Of course". And her eyes were just a twinkling and she had a lovely smile on her face. The media said The President had no choice but to name a woman, blah blah blah. Balderdash!!

I happened to have liked Justice O'Connor - I have no clue how prospective judge Roberts will be, and I would suggest neither does President Bush. He tried, umm, just like he said he would, to pick someone who will interpret law on the bench and not make law. That is the best he or any other president can do. Who knows whether or not Roberts will be a swing vote. If he is a steady deliberator, "I" will be happy.

One more time - President Bush has done (again), what he said he was going to do. The other side continually appears to be caught off guard by someone who says what he intends to do and follows through regardless polls etc.

The Court

So - what is one to think? Is Judge Roberts going to be acceptable? Is he going to be conservative enough - will he turn back Roe v. Wade? Arrgh... I am so sick of that argument it nauseates me. First of all, none of them can turn it back. They could take the first step one could argue... but, if turning back to the states themselves is what the argument is, then I concur. The media portrays it as ending abortion... it won't, no matter what the court decides.
Regardless, I suspect he will be confirmed with some ease. His nomination nigh on guaranteed. There will be the usual group who will vote agin him, but the are becoming more and more insignificant. If they would just come up with something different, some new criteria, perhaps the dissenters would get the ear of the people, but the same thing over and over and over again? No longer resonates, at least with me.
So once again Mr. President, it matters not whom you have picked this time, or whom you will pick the next time, you will not please them all... in fact, as stated oft times in the past, you may not even be pleased yourself when the 'decisions' begin coming down. All one can do as President is make a pick, hopefully after a thorough investigation and hope for the best. Sorta like raising your children... show them the way and hope for the best. :)

Karl Rove and The Agent

This is getting good - "I" however, am betting Karl did nothing. The memo they released said he told the reporter basically to 'go easy on Joe Wilson as his wife works for the agency'. This is nothing, and did not reveal she was, as they say, undercover. Lots of people work for The Agency and can be viewed daily going to work.

This reminds me of a job I had years ago. For many of my fellow employees, it was their first experience in the sort of secretive work we were doing... accordingly, they would fall for anything their superiors told them, thinking one had to be extra careful because of what they were doing.

We were told once we walked out the door of the office to not associate with each other... so, if we walked out the door and walked down to the bowling alley for lunch, we could not sit together nor acknowledge each other....this of course made my blood boil, having worked in that level of security for approximately 15 years at the time. I said... um, do you think if Ivan sees us walk out the door together, he might just realize we know each other? What nitwits. Ah well, this Karl Rove story as it pertains to The Agency reminded me of the absurdity that goes on in that world. If, again, if the memo is nothing more that Rove told the reporter Valerie worked for The Agency, then Rove did absolutely nothing wrong. ON THE OTHER HAND - if Rove DID reveal Valerie was undercover, send him to JAIL post haste.

In The End

In the end, and there will be an end, the civilized world will rise up and squish this terrorism. I think that time is going to come in due course. The Americans can't do it alone. I keep waiting for the Muslim world to rise up and take care of the militant Muslims but for whatever reason that does not seem to be happening.

Over time, the rest of the world 'will' get tired of waiting and action will be taken. Eradication comes to mind. Pleasant thought? No it isn't. Think Hiroshima - this has been going on for at least the last three presidents... Reagan (Beirut), Bush I (Lockerby), Clinton (World Trade Center 1 and USS Cole)... nobody did 'anything' in response. President Bush deemed it time to take some action. Me? I'm grateful for his response.

I get the biggest kick out of those that say the attack in England was because we and they are in Iraq. Hmm, I wonder why we were attacked on Sep 11 - were we in Iraq then? No, I don't think so. The simple fact is, and it is really very simple. The Islamic terrorists want to wipe us out, and by us it is not just Americans... it is the entire civilized world. We are infidels and that means we must die... yup, in the 'end' and there will be an end. there will be one giant squish. I see no other way out.

What It's All About

Justice O'conner retires... this is the event that make elections important. Were one to take the time to go back to Oct/Nov 2000 and or those months in 2003 you would see I said the same thing. It is still a crap shoot but it is an opportunity to put someone on the court who does not 'make' law, but 'interpret' law.

I have found it very interesting the different descriptions used for Justice O'conner. Generally people talk of her moderation, being the swing vote, blah blah blah. When she was the swing vote resulting in the electin of President Bush in 2000 she was every rotten name in the book. When she was the swing vote in some abortion votes, she was a moderate. It always comes doen to whose ox is being gored.

As for me? All I really want is a judge who will make decisions based upon LAW, and the constitution of these United States. The liberal bent in this country has for many years been able to use the courts to make their gains. How many politicians run for office espousing their liberalism? Not many... why? Because they can't win by 'advocating' their beliefs... BUT, the courts have in effect made law based on their decisions. That is why The Supreme Court is so important... it (at this point in history), the only avenue the liberals have of getting their way.

The Congress is showing signs of FINALLY taking back some of their power... being one of the three branches of government and in fact being the branch who is SUPPOSED to make the laws, they are rebelling about the recent court decision on eminent domain. Congress controls the purse strings, so they are trying to make it LAW that if a local government snatches one's property for business development (the recent decision), then the government will not contribute any monies for said development. I think this is a good thing and hopefully will put back some of the power of congress. The fact the court said a local government could take someones property is making law, not interpreting current law. Not the courts job.

It will be a rowdy few months... I know a couple of things: 1) it matters not who the president nominates - they will be villified... 2) The Chief Justice should go also 3) This president, who up to this point has scorned the polls, will continue to show backbone and nominate someone who he at least 'believes' is an interpreter of the law, and one who will not 'make' law.

One more time - THIS is what we elect presidents for, not much else matters when one considers 'the rule of law'.