Cynical Nation

But Howard? That was three State of the Unions ago, pal.

I get the same emails from Dean and I agree that they can be redundant. In fact, I did not even bother to read the one you mentioned. BUT I think it is good to remember that this president LIED in the state of the union address 3 years ago. Why? For a simple reason: He may be lying again and again. If you lie for things so big that take a whole country to a disastrous war, you can not be trusted. Sorry Barry, but this republican president is a failure and an embarassment to the republican party. There have been some great republicans in history but he is a failure. At least that's what I think. What do you think?

Well I think you know what I think. This administration has been a real disappointment to me. And mind you, I didn't expect *much* from it in the first place. I also think the mindless, enraged repitition of the "Bush lied!" mantra is getting very tiresome. But OTOH that's what you do with mantras, I guess. You repeat them.

Ironically enough, I remain a registered Democrat to this day and yet...I have never been able to vote for a Democrat for National office.

From my perspective, here's some of the problems the Democrats have; that Party veeered sharply Left after John F Kennedy's death. JFK went after Communism with almost as much zeal as his brother Robert, who proudly worked with Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn in the 1950s, took on mobsters in big Labor and slashed the income tax rate, from the high then of 70% to under 40%.

In the wake of 11-22-63, LBJ's administration waged a war against Communism 5,000 miles away, while virtually ignoring its presence only 90 miles from Florida, began an absurd and unworkable "War on Poverty" here at home, that resulted in the transfer of some $2 Trillion from working Americans to those classified as "impoverished" over the next thrity years.

Since that time the Democrats have embraced a view of criminal justice that sees the predator/thug as a "victim of society," poverty the result of "a failure of society," rather than individual lethargy and sees a "government solution" (itself an oxymoron) for virtually every problem, thus their unshakable defense of ever higher taxes and ever more government. In the 1990s, it was two Democrat controlled Congresses that expanded GATT in 1991 and passed NAFAT in January 1994, which allowed for thousands of America jobs to be exported offshore.

Post-9/11, the positions of both Parties couldn't be more stark. Many Democrats reflexively opposed America's rightful invasion of Afghanistan that October, then caved in, when they realized that nearly 90% of their fellow Americans supported that initiative and immediately began regrouping for the next fight.

At the time, America could've taken its pick among Syria, Iraq & Iran as to which nation had to be dealt with first. At the time, I was surprised and still am, that those three nations, branded as "The Axis of Evil," didn't band together to attempt to fight off the invasion of any one of them.

But right from the start, many American Liberals seemed poised to make a ridiculous stance, "Afghanistan was ENOUGH revenge, there's no need for America to re-make the Mid-East over in its own image and for its own gain. Better we should figure out what we did that helped bring the events of 9/11/01 about."

That stance amounts to "bullsh*t therapy."

As to the "lie" about Iraq's seeking Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger, the British (MI-6) STILL stand by that account and even Joe Wilson now claims, he never said that Iraq didn't approach Niger (which his own report acknowledges has "only two exports, Uranium and goats"), only that he couldn't know for sure, what they approached them about.

"A Senate Intelligence Committee report found inadequate evidence that deposed Iraqi President Saddam had been rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. It cited various reports, however, that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. Thus, although Bush cited only British evidence that was determined to have been inconclusive, other intelligence files clearly contained other inconclusive evidence of the truth of the claim."

At the current time, we have about the same amount of HARD EVIDENCE that Iran is really building a nuclear WMD project. There is sketchy evidence that they may be trying to enrich uranium to make it "weapons grade," but not much HARD EVIDENCE.

Iran is GOING TO BE DEALT WITH.

At this point, it's just a matter of whether that intervention is going to Military or not. Since the U.S. has done ALL the heavy lifting in the Mid-East to date, it rightly expects that Europe step up to Iran.

Iran HAS TO BE DEALT WITH, hard evidence or not, just as Iraq HAD TO BE DEALT WITH, as Saddam's Iraq was the world's primary State sponsor of international terrorism.

At every turn, post-9/11, the Liberals in this country have shown themselves to be America's enemy within the gates. From assailing the Patriot Act, to exposing and slamming the NSA wiretpas program, insinuating that communications between Americans within the United States might have been "spied upon," when it turns out the Congressional Democrats were briefed at every step along the way and KNEW that the only "new wrinkle" was that along with foreign calls (from suspect portals) into the U.S., NOW communications origniating FROM the U.S. to suspect foreign portals would also be examined.

Four federal courts AND the FISA court have ALL ruled that the latter (foreign communications from suspect portals INTO the U.S.) can be considered "gathering foreign intelligence" and require NO warrant...the traitor Aldrich Ames was caught in exactly that way, via legal warrantless searches.

Even when it comes to the border issue, the National Democrats can't get it right. So tethered to that fictional and ridiculous concept of "ethnic diversity," they can't bring themselves to support, or even consider closing our borders.

On a national level the Democrats can't seem to get anything right.

Good points, JMK.

As for the ignoring of Cuba, the CIA never forgave Kennedy for accepting the Bay of Pigs invasion, drawn up during the Eisenhower administration, but then refusing to allow critical air coverage which rendered the invasion DOA. I know this from many conversations I had with a dear friend who was with the CIA during that time.

As to Iran, I am not as certain that it will be dealt with the way it needs to be.

First, I have no faith in the UN mustering the nerve to impose anything resembling significant sanctions with teeth. China and Russia would both stand to lose $$$ were that to happen and both have veto power in the SC.

Second, this country cannot afford the expense, in terms of manpower and dollars, in replicating what we have done in Iraq while we still have a major investment of both in the latter.

Third, the consequences would be dramatically higher than the Iraqi War as the effect that the loss of Iranian oil would have global implications which I fear even the Saudis couldn't make up for. Chavez would doubtlessly cut back on Venezuelan crude creating a major energy crisis not to mention the implications of invasion which would be spun as a defense of Israel by the Arab states.

It isn't a pretty picture.

One side note about Iran. The hairy little bastard (HLB) who is making all the noise is being reviled and rightly so. But, and if I am incorrect someone please tell me, the real power in Iraq is Khameni (sp?), the high ayatollah. He and his fellow ayatollahs run the show there, not the HLB as former president Khatami found out numerous times during his presidency.

Why is it nobody points this out?

The HLB is merely a figurehead with no powers unless passed on by Khameni.