Thursday, July 28, 2005

Seahawks Need Love Too

Where is the love? All off-season, indeed from the very moment that Bobby Engram dropped a game-tying touchdown pass in the final seconds of a Seahawks' playoff loss, I have had to endure a litany of reasons for why the Seahawks are done. I have read the list of free agents they had to sign. I have heard the impossibility of replacing such fantastic Defensive Ends as Chike Okeafor. I have been repeatedly reminded of the lack of cap-space for the signing of the Quarterback, the Offensive Line, the Running Back, Draft Choices, and indeed, the badly needed Free Agent Defensive Specialists. Now that the Seahawks have answered these questions, I would like to know where the sanctimonious story about this Northwest Miracle is? Where is the gushing John Clayton article describing the great achievements this off-season by the Seahawks? Apparently lost forever under the pile of Ricky Williams tabloid material…

All winter the Seahawks were under the weight of 16 free agents. The very number itself seemed to doom the club, with theories of Alexander going to Miami, Walter Jones going back to the buffet line, and Hasselbeck going to Green bay to finally take over for Favre. So what happened?

Resigned with the Seahawks

Shaun Alexander RB

Walter Jones LT

Matt Hasselbeck QB

Floyd ‘Pork Chop’ Womack OL

Robbie Tobeck C

Itula Mili TE

Chris Gray RG

Alex Bannister WR

Moving On…

Ken Lucas CB Car

Brandon Mitchell DE Atl

Orlando Huff LB Atl

Chike Okeafor DE Atl

Brock Huard QB

Jerry Rice WR Den

Heath Evans FB Mia

Tom Rouen P Car

Looking at this list, we can see the Seahawks kept out of the 16 unrestrictive free agents 6 starters, 4 pro-bowl players, and no defensive players. Considering the defense was rated 26th in the NFL last year, not keeping the guys who weren’t earning their lunch money doesn’t sound like too bad an idea. Those moving on as free agents include; one poor guy who isn’t listed with a team right now, 4 starters (one of whom is a punter), an over 40 hall-of-fame candidate who asked for his release, and a fullback with a loud mouth that couldn’t replace an undrafted veteran of 13 years. As an aside to the uninitiated, 34 year-old fullbacks aren’t common. It has something to do with slamming yourself headfirst into 300+ pound defensive linemen 30 times a day on Sundays during the fall and winter. Why a young stud couldn't replace him is beyond me, except that just maybe, his butt can't cash the checks his mouth was writing. To say that the Seahawks kept the wheat and dropped the chaff this year really goes without saying. But the spring-cleaning didn’t end there…

Don’t let the door hit you on your way out…

Anthony Simmons LB

Chad Brown LB NE

Damien Robinson S

Koren Robinson WR

Bobby Taylor CB

Of this group of non-hackers, we find only Chad Brown could find a job thus far, and the Patriots better get the leg specialists ready for this oft-injured former pro-bowler. Really, Chad is the only player I miss from the team, and unfortunately, I missed him for the bulk of he last two seasons. He simply couldn’t seem to stay healthy, and seeing him play without concern for himself it is easy to see why. His recklessness made him great, but his inability to play for an entire season made him a luxury the team simply couldn’t afford. Not when they were 26th in the NFL on defense. By the way, that would be worse in the Division that they won. Yes, Worst Defense in the NFC West. That’s really saying something…

Attention NFL fans, Koren Robinson may be driving to your hometown, which should be a warning to keep your children off the streets, as he is undoubtedly driving there drunk. For whomever signs this guy, be wary, and DON’T BUY HIM A DRINK!!! He has enough Seahawks bucks to drink himself to an early grave as it is…


Joe Tafoya DE from Atl

Kelly Herndon CB from Den

Joe Jurevicious WR from TB

Jerome Paython WR

Jamie Sharper LB from HOU

Bryce Fisher DE from StL

Kevin Bentley LB from CLE

Andre Dyson CB from TEN

Looks like we brought in some Wide Receivers, who can hopefully catch the ball, and a bunch of Defensive specialists. I think I have heard that mentioned as a need somewhere, but where? We now have both of the Rams’ Defensive Ends from two years ago, and keeping one's fingers crossed, they will remain healthy this season. Most of the players on this list are the ‘Blue Collar’ level of NFL players. They don’t have car dealerships or major media deals selling McDonalds or shoes. These guys have to work hard to collect paychecks. They are precisely the type of players the Seahawks have needed.

In short, the Seahawks have replaced a roster full of no-loads with hard workers, kept the pro-bowl offense that was good enough to overcome a horrible defense and win the division last season, and they've added new talent through the draft. All of this occurred during an off-season that also saw the long awaited firing of Bob Whitsitt as President of Football Operations, and the departure of the VP to Green Bay. While the media was pulling out their hair and screaming in insanity about the eminent doom of the Seahawks, the organization calmly hired a new Boss, resigned all of their most important free agents, avoided a training camp holdout by their ‘superstar’ RB, and also showed wisdom enough to avoid signing a bunch of losers to overvalued contracts. They didn’t even cave and give a 29 year old running back a 7-year deal they would regret.

It is time for ESPN and the world to wake up and smell the coffee. This isn’t going to be ‘that Division’ again this year. It isn’t going to come down to the last week of the year. This year, the Seahawks will dominate those lesser teams (whose Quarterbacks have either seen too many winters, or too few) and be the run-away Division Champs with an 11-5 record.

Offense: WR improved, all other positions the same as last year.

Defense: Can’t get much worse, large-scale changes at most positions.

While I recognize I am a suspected kool-aid drinker, I will remind you, it isn’t like there is a cacophony of voices proclaiming what I have written here, and without good reason. While it might not make Front Page news to proclaim the steady leadership and wise off-season of a franchise that has been mostly laughed at, it does make one a great writer to notice it. It is also better than blathering on about a lying Wide Receiver’s contract holdout or a Pot Smoking Running Back’s punching of a million dollar time clock.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Supreme Court Nominee

What do you think about the nominee?

I’d like to thank my anonymous friend for asking me a question that immediately opened a can of worms in my mind. Where to begin with this question? I could go on and on and on…

I write to remind everyone that my write-in campaign for Congressman Cox’s seat continues, only so that the Democrats I know can have the pleasure of voting for someone who has no chance to win for once. As a Congressional candidate, I think the Supreme Court Nomination is the surest sign of the decay and rot within the United States of America. Never during the Constitutional Congress did someone argue for the Supreme Court to wield the power that it does today. If you listen to the Democratic Senators, it’s as if we’re in the process of naming a King. Well, Lord of the Realm might be a better title. I for one am in opposition to the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice, any justice for that matter; I am in favor of letting them all die off.

Our Government is designed to react slowly, even in the weight of enormous public pressure, for very good reasons. Alexander Hamilton’s greatest fear during the revolution was the mob mentality it produced within the colonists. He wanted a government that could resist public pressures and that would not be beholden to the sway of public opinion. No matter how wise we feel our ideas and beliefs are, we are undoubtedly incorrect just as often as our Government has been, if not more. Others feared the Government would become a Monarchy, with the President refusing to hand over power to his successors. So the Government was designed to limit both the effects of the mob and the possibility of despotism. The Legislature was designed to be the voice of the people, with the Senate thrown in to be a more thoughtful legislature and a fop to small states. The President was to act as the leader and to provide leadership and direction to the nation. The Supreme Court is simply that, designed to be the final arbiter in legal arguments. The three branches were designed to be able to check the activities of another (preventing despotism), elected popularly (rewarding good service), and to require consensus (limiting the influence of the mob). The founders recognized that the passage of time would require changes be made to the document, and included multiple amendment procedures to accomplish this. The amendments have included making Senators and Presidents popularly elected, allowing women to vote, granting legal emancipation and freedom to the slaves, and lowering the voting age to 18. The Supreme Court is created in Article III, which I have copied in its entirety from the government website, linked below…

In comparison to the Articles regarding the Executive and Legislative branches, the founders seemed to have enormous faith in the nomination process, in that they provided no limitations on this courts power. After all, there are no Supreme Court Police; there is no Militia of the Supreme Court and certainly no Ambassadors to the US Supreme Court. These nine old men (one woman) only have authority when an executive branch decides to enforce that authority. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has become a powerful branch of government and every member of this Union feels its authority.

The Supreme Court justices serve for life. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, allowing the two bodies that have the least responsibility to the mob, at least in the minds of our founders, to look forward and name someone responsible. Sadly, many of our representatives serve the DNC or the RNC rather than ‘We the People’. Check that, the Democrats serve Move-on, NOW, NAACP, and ACLU. The Congress has power over the body, and can pass laws that determine the structure of the Supreme Court. It only came up politically during the ‘New Deal’ when FDR wanted to pack the court with nominees who liked his programs. Fortunately (?), two of the justices began switching their votes to being in favor of the ‘New Deal’, and the court-packing scheme faded away.

Important words to familiarize yourself with, as far as Supreme Court nominees are: Conservative, Liberal, Activist, and Strict Constructionist.

Conservative: Right Wing Nut-Job. Likes guns and oil, hates trees and surrender.

Liberal: Left Wing Weenie. Likes trees and surrender, hates guns and oil.

Activist: A jurist who believes that he can interpret the laws in such a way as to actually create legislation. This person ‘finds’ laws or rights already within the Constitution even if they are not specifically enumerated.

Strict Constructionist: A jurist who believes that the Constitution is a document and that no laws or rights that are not specifically stated within it apply.

The problem with the Supreme Court is that the American public views it positively when it has acted in an Activist manner. Those who proclaim the wisdom of Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education stand on the same shaky ground as those who applaud dictators for their economic accomplishments: because they ignore the greater harm and danger these situation imply.

Kelo v. City of New London

Activist judges have recently proclaimed that a local government can take your property, home for example, and after giving you ‘fair compensation’ can give it to a developer. They have always had this power, for rights of public domain. However, they have extended public domain to include situations where the property in question could provide more tax money to the government if used by the developer than the homeowner. I guess you homeowners had better start selling a lot of cigarettes from your front porch.

Right wing nut-job and ‘Conservative’ Supreme Court Justice Thomas wrote…

"So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes."

The eminent danger in the Supreme Court is not in Activist decisions regarding a Woman’s Right to Abort (or murder, if you prefer); it is in decisions against the people and for the Government. While Liberal Activist justices may find ‘rights’ within penumbras of the Constitution that let you make lifestyle choices including Gay marriage, they will also find ‘rights’ within the Constitution that vastly empower the government against the people. There are groups within this country, advocates for a Nanny-State you might say, that want to strip my rights to gun ownership, restrict the rights of Talk Radio, remove my rights to free speech, and indeed, they have already done so. This is not the road to freedom; it is the road to bondage and helplessness against a government grown fat with power. The language of the Constitution is emphatically clear on all of these rights, and yet they are being slowly stripped away by the Supreme Court and Activist Liberal judges.

The opposition states that Activist Conservative justices will enslave the blacks, outlaw women’s suffrage, and declare open season on immigrants and abortion clinics, indeed, will decriminalize the burnings of black churches. While I find these arguments ridiculous, I will for the sake of argument consider them 100% TRUE. Thus, the solution to this problem is not in trying to determine whether or not a Supreme Court Justice will be Activist/Constructionist, especially as it relies on Ted Kennedy to determine this, but to remove Activism from being a possibility. We cannot endanger ourselves further by placing our very lives in the hands of 9 unaccountable justices. We cannot allow un-elected men and women to decide our fate before a crowd of media and lawyers. We must stand up and change this institution before it grows further out of control. We don’t need another justice; we need a new Supreme Court. One that decides on the law, not one that invents it. I don’t believe any judge has the authority to command a legislature, or an executive for that matter. They only have the right to act as an arbiter, to decide who is correct from a legal standpoint according to the rule of law. They don’t have the right to say:

“I don’t think the framers meant blacks when they said ‘All men are created equal.’”

“I think public domain means anything that benefits a mayoral incumbent election.”

“Free Speech doesn’t mean you can speak for/against a candidate for office. That’s reserved for newspapers and political parties only.”

“You can have a shotgun, or maybe something that wouldn’t be dangerous, but you can’t have anything that could logically be used to defend yourself. That’s what the right to bear arms means…”

“Militia? No, no, no. The framers intended the people to be powerless in the face of standing armies…”

“I think they meant there should be a freedom of privacy that will let someone kill an unborn child if they want, just like it lets them do drugs, commit sodomy, commit incest, burn flags, burn crosses, kill small animals, defecate on religious artifacts, so long as they do it in their own home. You know… privacy.”

Activism is bad. Senators can’t tell if someone placed in an office will be tempted to use that office to advance personal policy decisions to affect legal rulings. They shouldn’t have to. We need to state with a loud and clear voice:

“Judicial Activism is an Impeachable Offense.”

Not only is it bad, it creates greater laziness in our elected representatives, who at last count were all too busy spending time on lobbyist paid vacations to care. If they couldn’t depend on the Supreme Court to decide important issues, they might actually create laws that decide them.

Some help obtained from these additional websites.

Letter from a Useless Senator

You Arabs are just not worth it

Just a quick note regarding some mail I got a while ago. Senator Boxer took some time away from her Germany and Japan pay US for their Defense amendment and responded to the butt chewing I gave her in my published letter. I promised to post the whole letter, so in spite of my wish to keep this concise, I will allow you to bask in its glory.

Dear Mr. Sears:

Thank you for contacting me about the war
in Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you.

I recently traveled to Iraq and would like
to share my thoughts with you regarding my
experiences. Meeting with our nation's brave
service men and women was truly inspiring. I
admire and appreciate their courage, skill, and
devotion to duty. In order to best support our
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, I voted for the
2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill
to get them the equipment and support they need.

However, my trip to Iraq confirmed my view
that the United States must set a timetable to
withdraw our forces. I agree with retired
Marine Corps General Gregory Newbold, one of the
prime planners of the war in Iraq, who proposes
that we set a goal for withdrawal. I believe
our long-term presence in Iraq is becoming

I recently joined with Senator Russell
Feingold (D-WI) in sponsoring a resolution
calling on the Bush Administration to provide
Congress with a timeframe for achieving its
military goals in Iraq and withdrawing U.S.
troops from Iraq. I believe that it is time
that the Administration disclose its plan for
Iraq so that we know what our mission is and how
we will accomplish it. It is time that we stop
fighting this war with no plan and no end in
Please know that for as long as our troops
remain in harm's way, I will continue to push
for an international effort to reduce the
hardship on our troops while increasing the pace
of training Iraqi Security Forces.

Once again, thank you for your letter and
for caring deeply about this critical matter.


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Here Boxer performs the standard trick of quoting someone who probably disagrees with her, and using it as support for her weasel argument. There is a difference between a ‘goal for withdrawal’ and a ‘timetable’. For example, Ann Coulter famously opined that we should bomb Arab nations, kill Arab leaders, and convert Arabs to Christianity. That is a ‘goal for withdrawal,’ some measurable event which can be achieved. After they’re all Christian, we leave. As I remarked at length, a timetable is different for the precise reason that it only depends upon time. It’s like a prison sentence. It doesn’t matter whether or not you’re still a despicable rapist after a 20-year sentence; you still get to go free. Thus a timetable implies that, whether we’re successful or not in Iraq, we’re going to go home. Was there a timetable for Dwight Eisenhower and the invasion of Europe? Did Ike have to get the job done by Christmas or come home? No. Ike also didn’t have the ACLU breathing down his neck for torture, but that is an entirely different issue.

Boxer also makes excellent use of the ‘Sherlock Holmes method’ of stating something woefully obvious. Our long-term presence in Iraq is counterproductive. Thanks Sherlock! Too bad she doesn’t realize her treasonous statements about the War in Iraq are also counterproductive. I will credit Boxer for responding quickly, and for thanking me for my thoughts, however, I like you doubt she even saw them. At least her taxpayer-funded staff is large enough to handle mean e-mails from right wing nut-jobs like myself in California. [Whoa, that was a lot of hyphens.] Not to mention she fails to identify any plan of her own that will succeed, she just wants the President to adopt her ideas and create a plan for her. I think Barbara Boxer should pay me a $200k salary as a consultant for her Senatorial seat, and I demand that she come up with the paperwork justifying my position and compensation.

Issues that I rose that Senator Boxer failed to respond to:

· USA as a World Protection Racket, extorting money from Germany and Japan

· The insignificant numbers of American casualties in the War on Terror or in Iraq

· The fact that the war has been an overwhelming success in every stage

· Her own role in the propaganda war, on the side of the enemy

· Any way to create a timetable or plan that wouldn’t result in catastrophic loss of life vis-à-vis Vietnam

· Whether or not she is actually going to shut up, however, I sadly believe she has implied that she will not

I conclude this post with a notion; not only do I have better support for my arguments, I think I write better letters then Senator Boxer.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Letter to a useless Senator

Dear Senator Boxer,

I recall with great clarity the beginning of your Senate career, dodging the House check-writing scandal to become a successful Senate candidate for California. I remember your commercials, how you promised California that you would get Japan and Germany to pay us for their defense. I remember laughing at it. How preposterous, that you would turn America into the great protection racketeer of the world. Nevertheless, you continue to confound me with your latest foreign policy blunders regarding Iraq, and I write you now to entreat you to shut up. I read your speech to the commonwealth club and your remarks in the San Francisco Chronicle. In your own words you continue to wring your hands regarding the war in Iraq: the loss of lives, the loss of the 'propaganda war', the failure to get Osama Bin Laden and the lack of a timetable.

First, I recognize that you are merely a politician; your words are carefully measured to impact the audience in a way so as to appeal to their own beliefs and ensure they donate a bunch of money to your campaign 'war chest.' I realize that you are a naïf when it comes to successful foreign policy, especially since there hasn't been much of it since the end of World War II. However, I think you should ask an aid to read you the casualty statistics for the wars America has been involved in. While you might be "distressed, angry and frustrated" over the mounting toll the war in Iraq has taken on our soldiers, our losses in Iraq are insignificant in comparison to those lost in previous conflicts. What are 2,000 dead in comparison to our losses in World War II? In comparison to Vietnam?

You have also bemoaned the loss of the 'propaganda war' in this speech. Have you looked into how we lost this supposed propaganda war? Have you noticed that your own colleagues, and indeed yourself, have provided aid and comfort to our enemies while seeking political gain? Perhaps if the ACLU was not out trying to gain privileges, normally reserved for American citizens, for enemy combatants, illegal aliens, indeed anyone save an American citizen, we could win this war on terror. Perhaps if you and the Democrats would stand behind the Commander-in-Chief and the soldiers for longer than it takes to get a photo-op, the terrorists would recognize that they were facing a strong and united America. Instead you stand up behind the surrender-now-crowd and score cheap political points with people who were going to vote for you anyway. Instead you turn your back on the nation and the soldiers who defend it to take shots at the President. You have second-guessed him, called him a liar, impugned his skills at leadership, and indeed told other nations to ignore him since he will be out of office soon, to the extent that our enemies are strengthened against us.

Finally, you derail any attempt to win the war on terror by your incessant demands as to the location of Osama Bin Laden. War isn't a complex game of Where's Waldo! Even if we captured Bin Laden, and put him on trial, and all that you hope for comes to pass, the war would go on. Al Qaeda isn't a World War II Germany, capture Hitler and everyone will surrender; they are a loose affiliation of religious madmen. You hope we "capture those responsible" for 9/11, the bombings in Madrid, and now the bombings in London. I don't. I hope we annihilate them. I hope we go out and kill every single terrorist and terrorist abettor out there. Simply because I know that if we captured them, the Democrats and the ACLU would ensure they were released or acquitted, so that they might get an edge in the next election. If we kill them all, then we certainly won’t have to worry about them attacking us, recruiting others, or training more terrorists to attack us. You also want a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq. If that aide of yours is still blathering on and on about the thousands more Americans that have died in foreign conflicts than in Iraq, ask him to tell you about what happened after our timetable in Vietnam. You will learn that our enemies waited until we left, and then pounced on the poorly defended South Vietnamese and slaughtered them and as many Cambodians and Laotians as they could get their hands on. So no, a timetable is really a bad idea. Besides, shouldn’t you be asking former President Clinton for a timetable regarding our troops in Bosnia first?

In conclusion, I find that the biggest difference between you and the people you have sworn to represent is that your concern is what is best for your political future and ours is what is best for our future. Rather than try to win the war on terror, support the President, support the troops, and support legislation to keep America safer, you have chosen the terrorists. You choose more dead Americans as long as it makes the Republicans look bad. You choose political innuendo and cheap attacks over intelligent leadership and strong values. Your cheap attacks and constant badgering of the war effort is doing everything it can to lose the war in Iraq, when it has been nothing but a string of lopsided victories thus far. Your words of derision, doubt, and dishonor are doing everything they can to lose the propaganda war to Al Jazeera and a man hiding in a cave. Your constant cries of 'Where's Osama' do nothing but strengthen the resolve of the terrorists and make us seem weak in the eyes of the world. Thus I beg and plead, badger about health care all you want, decry the lack of education for illegal aliens, demand more liberals on the Supreme Court, indeed, push all the liberal/socialist legislation through Congress that you can, just stop talking about foreign policy. Unless you someday want your service to America honored in an al Qaeda museum, a la John Kerry in Vietnam, leave the war on terror to the people who want to win it.


Clayton Sears

My thanks to and for their contributions. This letter was sent on July 7th, 2005. If I get a response, I will post it as well.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Some Perspective on Rove v. Durbin

Let’s Set the Record Straight.

Karl Rove: “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war. Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks, and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers.”

“Why that dirty bastard. He just called half of the country a bunch of cowards! A bunch of traitors! Therapy and understanding for terrorists? That’s not what I believe!”
-Fictional and Imaginary Liberal Source

What DO you believe? This is all about birds of a feather, trying to color the Democrats as being the same as the people who fund them and support them. After all, the Democrats do that all the time with the Republicans, right? Democrats say the GOP had that segregationist in our party, Strom Thurmond, therefore all Republicans are segregationists. So the nature of Rove’s comments is political, indeed is business, not personal. What is surprising is the response of Democrats who have been behaving as if they were slapped. I guess this merits further investigation on my part.

‘prepare indictments’

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of the United States of America and of countries around the world, appeal to the President of The United States, George W. Bush; to the NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson; to the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi; and to all leaders internationally to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States. We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.

The preceding is the opening paragraph in its entirety from a petition for peace, created days after the 9/11 attacks. It is sponsored by the founder of (now or some such lawyer nonsense). This is what Karl Rove is talking about, liberals wanted ‘moderation and restraint’ as well as ‘to bring justice to those responsible for the attacks.’ Now I recognize that the American military has managed to kill many of those involved in Al-Qaeda and many of the senior leadership, yet they have not yet brought justice to Osama bin-Laden. Nevertheless, a logical analysis proves that depending on the Taliban to hand him over would have been at least as fruitless, without the satisfaction of killing so many of those terrorists right where they were hiding. Plus we’ve hopefully established a Democratic government there! We’ve already established capitalism, unfortunately the kind that flourishes in Columbia as well, but it’s a start.

‘therapy and understanding’

It is easy to appreciate the sentiments in the photo, but it is also important to be open to learning something about those we consider the enemy.

The book's author [Michael Anthony Sells]: "'There's a large undercurrent out there that did not believe President Bush when he said Islam is not our enemy,' Sells said. 'We don't need to condemn those people, or dismiss them. We should talk with them and really talk this thing through…'"

The only real question about this stuff, and that website is chock full of baloney, is does it reflect the liberal ideology?

Perhaps that is the real question in all of this. Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan, liberalism has disappeared. Whether politicians have distanced themselves from it, whether Rush Limbaugh has too successfully demeaned it as a ‘tax and spend’ ideology, or whether there are any liberal ideologues arguing its strength. The last man I heard asserting his liberalness was George McGovern, and I don’t think he remains a force in national politics.

Clearly there are people out there who do not support the war on terror; who did support utilizing therapy, understanding, and indictments as the solution to the September 11th attacks. What do these people believe? Even assuming they all voted Democratic, that doesn’t make them liberals. Or does it? Conservatives are all over the airwaves proclaiming their ideology and their beliefs, support for the war on terror, support for President Bush, and support for Karl Rove’s remarks. The problem arises when Democrats are silent in regards to anti-war remarks made by their members. This creates an environment in which they are vulnerable to being associated with the indictments, therapy, and understanding crowd.

The other big problem is Howard Dean’s presence as the DNC chair. This guy came to power largely because of the support of liberal groups like Moveon. Here is a collection of his recent attacks on the Republican Party, apparently because they are out-fundraising him…

The GOP is "pretty much a white, Christian party"

Most Republicans "never made an honest living."

"brain-dead" Republicans

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,”

“Dean has suggested that [Republicans] are "evil." That [Republicans] are "corrupt."”


I don’t remind you of this because I am a big Dean hater or a big Bush backer. I do it to clarify these things. These remarks, whether Dean, Clinton, Pelosi, Durbin, or Rove are all politics. They are business, not personal. Unfortunately, because these people are important leaders of this nation, these remarks are widely reported. When this occurs, the individuals slighted ARE personally affected. Republicans don’t like being told they have never worked, are evil, or brain dead any more than Democrats like being told they are sissies or treasonous. The problem is when Durbin compares our troops to Nazi’s; the Islamic fundamentalists use it as proof of their righteousness in attacking American soldiers. I realize it would be impossible for Democrats to think about what Osama might think before launching into a tirade against the administration, but I think they could stop and think about the soldiers.

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings," –Dick Durbin from the floor of the Senate

People have told me that Rove’s comments are 500 times worse than Durbin’s. Rove implies Democrats are traitors and sissies that want to placate terrorists. Durbin implies our soldiers are imprisoning Muslims in Soviet-style gulags or exterminating them in Nazi/Khmer Rouge death camps.

1) While Democrats can run to CSPAN, ABC, NBC, CNN, and FOX demanding apologies and retractions, our soldiers cannot demand a Durbin retraction through the media.

2) While Republicans can defend/refute Rove’s charges before the Congress, our soldiers cannot demean Durbin as a corrupt and self-serving politician.

3) While the American people are free to support the war or protest against it, our soldiers are stuck in Iraq fighting it.

On the day after my 18th birthday I went to boot camp to begin my 6-year Navy enlistment. I’d love to say that I served under Presidents that I agreed with and that made good decisions regarding foreign policy and the future. Sadly, I served from Oct. 1992 until 1998. I recall with great clarity the deal Clinton made with North Korea, granting them Nuclear technology and fuel for a promise to not build Nuclear Weapons. I did not need hindsight to know this foolish treaty would only guarantee difficulties for our future. Fortunately for Clinton, the North Koreans waited until after Clinton left office to own up to their nuclear weapons program. Even though I disagreed with both the man and the policies of my Commander in Chief, I still fulfilled my obligation. When my aircraft carrier flew escorts to assist in the bombing of Iraq, I wasn’t protesting or refusing orders, I obeyed because it was my duty to do so. Had the bombing of the USS Cole instead occurred to my ship, causing my death, I would have died for an administration and a policy that had failed me. That doesn’t mean that I signed up for that administration or that policy.

Our soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world do not need Durbin demeaning them. There are plenty of people in the Bush administration for Durbin to attack. Rumsfeld perhaps? Indeed, many of our soldiers in Iraq may oppose this war, so please don’t demean them as the mindless robots of past evil regimes, because they do not deserve it. They are simply fulfilling their duty as they swore an oath to do, in many cases long before the War on Terror.

The reason conservatives attacked Durbin wasn’t because he is a self-serving politician (he is), it is because even if everything Durbin accused the troops of Guanatamo Bay were 100% accurate, they do NOT reflect the actions of ‘Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others.’ The AC left on too long doesn’t bring the temperature down to the level of a Siberian winter. The AC turned off doesn’t result in the temperatures of the Nazi furnace that incinerated the remains of millions in the Holocaust. Being forced to listen to rap music isn’t quite the same as the mass executions committed by the Khmer Rouge.

Dick, please save your moral equivalencies for things that are at least in the same ballpark. Even My Lai, a massacre of perhaps 504 Vietnamese civilians by American soldiers doesn’t even come close to the murders committed by Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Ze-Dong, or even Saddam Hussein. Especially considering those regimes supported and desired those foul murders and the United States of America, even the Bush administration, does not.