The Third World Cares

And so, leave it to another nation to take care of the United States once again.
You would think that everybody would be tired of having to rely on everybody else to fix their problems, especially since the government is supposed to look after the citizens of it's state.
But Katerina gave Bush his most stellar performance. No wonder the nation is looking outside for help; they were never going to get it from their own president and the government.

Citgo has been providing low cost heating oil for many citizens in the United States. Now most of the average people out there (not you guys who are my faithful readers) would be like : that's cool, man ! I fill up there all the time...
The only thing is, Citgo is from Venezuela.
South America is heating the frigid United States.
And why ?
Because the President is off trying to get his own oil instead. (Picture a spoiled asshole of a child seeing a toy and running off to get one from a better place and saying : "Mine's better !")
Where is the government ?
Where is the responsibility they swore by, the one that says that they are elected by the people, for the people ?
Apparently the people are getting butt-fucked and the president only cares about sand and blood. Even a dog learns from his mistakes after some training...guess Bush isn't as reliable.

If you want to know the truth, it's right there in front of everyone. The only thing is nobody wants to say it.
That's why you have me...
Here it goes :

Bush replaced Americans with Iraqi's.

He did it with Katerina, and he's doing it again during the cold winter.
Luckily Citgo and Venezuela were there, huh ?

Octavian

Ann's Big Fat Fuckin' Mouth

Wow !
A faggot ??? Really ?
Ann Coulter must've really did her research when she called John Edwards one of those (I have more respect and manners than she does to repeat it....).
But what really was the point of calling Edwards that ? Did Coulter really believe that by calling him names, that it would sway the entire nation into voting Republican again ?
The blowback from Coulter's remark has slapped her in the face, as many times as Rush Limbaugh popped a pill and ate a donut...at the same time.

It had to have been the dumbest thing she had ever said yet, but somehow she still believes she has immunity from everybody who's offended by it. I hope she doesn't think that the Republicans will be supporting her statement, because many of them don't. In fact, many of the Republicans are trying to clean up their image to the public in the hopes that they will re-elect the party to lead the nation again - especially since the majority of the Senate is composed now of Democrats.

Anybody can see that the Republican party is on it's way out, and that no matter how much shining and polishing they do, the American public has seen enough of them. If Ann Coulter was in charge of making the coffin, she just smashed in the last nail by saying a sub-human comment like she spouted at her speech to her fellow Republicans.

...oh, and by the way Ann - maybe you better start creating a third party for yourself....it doesn't look like Republicans see you as human anymore...look on the bright side, at least you have Limbaugh to keep you company...

Not Ready To Make Nice

The Dixie Chicks have won 5 Grammy's, so the world can't be all that bad.
With all of the negative, even downright threatening publicity that they've been experiencing it's nice to see that justice still has some merit in the world.

The comments made by Natalie Maines during a concert had caused fans to shun the group and caused their album sales to plummet. But through it all, the group stayed mature and regal in the way they handled the situation. And in the end, it's George Bush and his group of Hee-Haws, that have to swallow the fact that a group who spoke their mind got the majority of the votes and popularity.
What does this say about the state of affairs in America ? The standing ovation the crowd gave the Dixie Chicks when they received their awards says it all. And one thing the Dixie Chicks had learned through all of their troubles, is something that maybe the American government could learn - adaptation.

The Dixie Chicks knew by the events that happened, that if they were to stay in the same genre of music, they would disappear and never return other than as a "What happened to them ?" -deal, or a special on VH1 about musicians who ruined their careers.
Instead, they went ahead and developed a new sound, playing more to the general public, and even hiring a popular producer (who incidentally won awards with them for his work) to change up everything.
It worked.
Adaptation and seeing that remaining on the same stubborn path without failure of seeing mistakes, saved them and even brought them to the top.

But leave it to Bush and his band of backward hicks to not see that logical point brought around by an "Un-Patriotic" singing group. The only thing they can think about, is how America's troops are fighting for their freedom from the hated Iraqi's.
And who's ready to make nice with that ?
I'm sure not, and the Chicks have won the battle on that front.

Octavian

Sole Patriotic Following

Patriotism is dead. The President has seen to that.
The most asked question in the past four years has been : "Why do they hate us so much?"
If an American hasn't asked themselves that since the Iraq fiasco had begun, then they need to jump back into reality before they face a surprisingly rude awakening.

President Bush united the country under the circumstances that foreign powers want to hurt the democracy, freedom, and way of life for all American people. The flag was flapping behind him when he gave the speeches that sent thousands of men and women to a desert to fight for the so-called "American Right".....where did it take patriotism ?
Americans are now looked upon with even less respect than when they started off - and I know fans of Ann Coulter will say some unintelligent babble sounding along the lines of : "We don't care what other people think ! We're Americans ! We gave you guys the Ipod, McDonalds, and NBC....We have provided the most for the world because we own the most ! - but this statement only applies to the American population who have only seen the world as far as their land reaches....the rest of the world matters. In fact, if these Americans don't care what others think, then why are so many asking the above question ? If the rest of the world didn't matter, why is it that the international economy for the US took a deep hit after the invasion ? Why is that the dollar value of the American Dollar (which was the most powerful at the time) take a huge cut since Bush sat in the chair ? (And no, Ann Coulter fans - do not compare Dubya with Reagan; he may not have had the political background as most did, but he single-handedly raised the economy level in the 80's and stopped Communism....if anything, Bush is trying to be Reagan - trying being the operative word and failing being the correct one...)

This is the problem with patriotism as a means of waging war - it only goes so far as an ideology.
With the war on terror being so close to the Iraq invasion, it was easy to see where the overlapping could pass off as one war leading to another, with the same values and principles as the previous one. But it can only stand on its own for so long. The people need to see positive results about where their patriotism is being put to good use. If not, then it splinters and cracks on all sides, eventually falling apart.
WMD's ?
None.
So where did the nation come off as being threatened ? The state was under attack, right ? So where are the weapons that would've destroyed us ?
How is our freedom affected at all? And what was the point of rallying all of us under the flag ?
What were we after in the first place ?
When can we stop so that our people won't have to die anymore ?

Patriotism is unification built under trust. To unify people from all over under one flag, requires a reason to see what needs to be done to keep these people safe. It requires trust in the leaders to have a plan, to have a cause, to have a reason.
What Bush and Cheney (can't forget old "Big Time") don't understand is that isolation of a nation costs the people, not the government. Presidents and Prime Ministers come and go with the times, and a new person leads the country with new policies. But the stain stays with the people.

Octavian

Heil Big Brother !

The winner of the heated UK version of Big Brother was just revealed to be Shilpa Shetty, the Indian woman who had been the target of alleged racial slurs on the live show.
Now, the reason why I say alleged, is that there seems to be a discretion as to how much racism there was in the show, and how much prejudice and ignorance existed.

There were words used by the white folk in the house, but being racist and prejudiced are two separate things.
Everyone can agree that both come from the same tree - racism comes from not liking or admitting to another race other than your own, while prejudiced means you acknowledge other races but you only tolerate them because society says to do so.
Everybody is prejudiced inside, it is a given fact. We all know the stereotypes for every race, and we all say a joke or two, or stare too long. Lets just all admit it and be done with it. But it takes a special few to really be racist - we're talking about generating hate against a race of people.

In the show, I seriously doubt that the women who were involved with the incident had any inkling towards killing their housemate (at least I hope so....) They were just totally ignorant about the world around them. They aren't exactly the shining examples themselves of "best people on television" - one is an ex-overweight (but it still shows), backwards, dumb-as-a-box-of-crayons, regular on Big Brother (and when you're a regular on the show, you know you have nothing to contribute anywhere else...oh, wait she has her "beauty salon" named Ugly's - so how much do you expect from a beauty salon with a name like that ? You should see her website, it actually displays all of the stupid things she's said over the years like a medal.....at least she won't be alone, she has her high-school drop-out boyfriend/electrician/model to keep her company....), and the other is a washed up pop singer-turned dog breeder, who found her way onto a show that parallels the Surreal Life (and if you've ever noticed, all the "celebrities" in that show are second stringers who don't have anything left, and need to pay the bills with the cash they earn from the show....maybe that's why S-Club 7 broke up, Jo spent all their money...)

It was a much bigger and classier action taken by Ms.Shetty to not take the low road like the other castmates, and by telling everybody she doesn't take it personally.
Why should she ?
She has earned an estimated $16 million in magazines and appearances, and stands to earn another $2 million from new contracts. On top of that, she beat them all in the game !
Beats running an Ugly beauty salon and breeding bitches, doesn't it ?


Octavian

Let the Garbage Man deal with it.....

Is it just me, or are the smear campaigns against the current President starting early this year ?
Hillary Clinton has come out ahead by stating that President Bush should be the one cleaning up Iraq before he leaves office, mocking the President's dumb-ass comments that it will be for the next President to handle (Does he even have a Press Secretary anymore ? Isn't someone there to handle his slap-you-in-the-face-remarks anymore ? I guess even his own people are sick of hearing his Bushisms...)

Where is the logic in telling everybody Iraq won't be his problem anymore ?
Simple.
He can't run for President again.
President Bush will only accept responsibility when he's liable for it, and since everybody knows Iraq is his responsibility now, he has to live up to his decisions. But since he's already been elected on his last term (way to go everybody....), he doesn't care. And this was something everybody should have foresaw.
What, did you think he was going to have a solution ? I mean, this is the same Commander in Chief that told us that Osama Bin Laden was a priority target a few years back, and then leaves him alone when he focuses on a country with more oil than the other. (Compare this to O.J. Simpson - he's said time and again after he was acquitted that he would do everything in his power to find the killer...I don't see him moving or taking action, do you ?)

The GOP is estimating that the vote will be against the Bush Administration in sending the 21,500 troops, but Haliburton Oil Magnate Dick Cheney says they'll send them anyway. Once you lose the support of the people and your generals, your war is over. No confidence means no support. And with this war, we're looking at the 21st Century's version of Vietnam.
Do we all really want to see another repeat ? Do we really want to support that ?
Mrs.Clinton has a damn good point - if you make a mess, clean it up yourself.

Octavian

The Wit of a Model

Supermodel Gisele Bundchen has said that she has never suffered from anorexia because she has had "a strong family base" behind her. In fact, she has said that the numerous problems that anorexia has caused in Brazil, not to mention all over the world, are because of parents and family.

"...the parents are responsible, not fashion..."

Wow ! I for one am very impressed with that amazingly intelligent psychoanalysis of the disease in young women ! I should just abandon what my psychology professors have taught me in university, and tell those doctors that they were wrong, and that Gisele Bundchen has solved this growing mental illness...
How would you feel if you were the parents of Ana Carolina Reston and a supermodel blamed you for the death of your daughter, and then said it wasn't the industry that she was in that caused her death ?

Ms. Bundchen may have had the support she needed from her family, but not all families are the same. Some families work, some don't, others just fall apart. I don't think Ms. Bundchen would tell someone who suffers from Post Traumatic Shock that if his father who beat him was more supportive, his nose and ribs would still be intact. Not in the same category, but it does involve abuse of some kind. And that's what Anorexia is - it's a personal abuse of oneself due to a lack of confidence and destructive self image.
So what do you say, Ms.Bunchen when you run into a heavy-set person and s/he tells you that s/he wants to be rail thin to look like you ? Do you tell them that their parents are responsible for the genes that made them fat, and that they should blame them ?

But I'm sure that I'm wrong. I'm sure that the fashion industry has nothing to do with the way young women see themselves. I'm sure that the thin supermodel ban in Spain had nothing to do with Anorexia and Bullemia, nor the health problems and risks that many doctors are talking about concerning being underweight and too thin.
I'm sure that the numerous times we see people suffering from this terrible mental affliction, and requiring interventions and professional help, is all an over exaggeration of the reality. Everybody in Gisele Bundchen's world are all thin, rich, and happy. So there's no way that these health problems could be caused by the environment around her...
I'm sure the image that society, the fashion, advertising, music, and movie industries shoves to us has nothing to do with how we are influenced in the way we look, dress, eat, and feel.
...by the way, Ms. Bundchen, that also includes the model industry too...but you already knew that, right ?



Octavian

What about Russia ?

Iran is eager for friends, and America should be too.
With the crisis of Iraq still in the horizon, President George "Cowboy W." Bush is now looking towards another Middle Eastern threat in Iran, and with the way his first war is going, if he decides to take on this one in the same manner, we could probably expect more missiles flying over New York City.
What America needs is an ally (and no the British won't count on this one. As far as I'm concerned, they paid off their World War 2 debt by jumping into Iraq) And who better an ally than Russia.

Russia and the US have had some kind of history together. Opposing ideas that lead to the longest war in history, but that should be behind everybody by now. Barring Ann Coulter's constant reference to Communism whenever she refers to a Democrat, the Russians are now part of the twenty-first century, and while not totally embracing the idea, are more democratic than they were eighteen years ago. And in terms of pure strategy, Russia would be the best bet to deter Iran. The nation doesn't have to accept their way of thinking, hell, they don't even have to like them ! But mutual destruction can make anybody side with each other.
Deterrence by position is a very good way of looking at it.
If both the US and Russia stood together in Iran's nuclear position, this would lead China to reconsider its own. We all know that Iran wants to further relations with Russia because of its proximity and its own nuclear power. This would ensure that the US would not be able to use the area around the former Soviet Union as a jump point in getting to Iran should a missile be fired.

So if that's Iran's strategy, then why not try and beat them to the punch ? Why not try and get a partnership going before all of that happens ? Answers : Cold War and Communism.
President Bush and the nation still can't seem to get over the idea that the Soviet Union fell and that there is no more Iron Curtain to prevent relations. The more I see it, the more I begin to realize that Bush like most Americans just want to fight for an ideology and once that comes to pass, they couldn't give a shit about what happens next. Clinton did it when the Commie barrier was finally broken through (after all of the efforts by the far superior Reagan administration), and the sudden culture and economic shock brought Russia plummeting down a toilet. And where was the mighty US to help out ? They were in the same place they were when Bush Sr. told the Kurdish people they needed to stand up to Saddam.
And now Bush is asking everybody why nobody wants to follow his lead - Does he really have to wonder ?

Octavian

Round 2 - Iran

"...Fool me once, shame on you...." - you know the rest...
The Senate is now taking actions to prevent President Bush from starting another fiasco in Iran, a very smart move (even though it cost thousands of lives in Iraq for it to finally seep in) for the Senate. This is in response to the President's push in that direction by linking the Iraq Fundamentalists with Iranian supporters. Good for George ! He's finally taking this strategy thing a little bit more serious than last time ! Sadly though he still has to master the art of timing and foresight....

President Bush has been too late in calling Iran on this one, and now every bi-partisan member in the Senate is pushing for a bill that will put his Texas drawl in its place, and prevent him from waging another campaign in Iran. If people out there aren't certain he could pull it off even with an election coming up in a year, think about the 21,500 troops he wants to send out to die and that he's been quoted as saying : "The war on terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again...."(Associated Press). So Georgie, doesn't care about who follows him and what shit hole he leaves them in. This is a game with toy soldiers, tanks, and airplanes for him.

Iran will definitely be the next country to be looking at (if the next president will leave Iraq to solve it's own problems and destroy itself), especially with the threat of nuclear power in a country practically sitting on black (IE. Oil) money. And despite what the Senate thinks it should do to prevent the current President from acting on it, this problem won't solve itself and will have to be acknowledged eventually. But even great generals have to focus on the now, especially when it's a huge trash pile named "Iraqi Freedom".

I, and the American public, shouldn't be outraged at this action by the Senate, especially since this is a countermeasure against the possibility of another bloody and costly war. A strategy is finally taking place in government, and I for one am happy that somebody has at least learned from their mistakes.

"...you fool me, you can't get fooled again..."

Amen, Mr.President....

Octavian

Hillary VS. Barack

Presidential nominees are stepping up and throwing their hats into the upcoming election in 2008, and America is getting itself set to elect a new leader - and who wouldn't want that ? Everybody (for now) is really only looking at two - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Democrats have a definite advantage in both Mrs.Clinton and Mr.Obama, in that they have one major factor in their favour - and if you say they really have two, race and women, then you aren't looking hard enough - it's curiosity.
This nature of curiosity has people now wondering if a change in tradition is something that could carry the nation somewhere different and new. And though John Edwards looks to be the favour in the running for the Democrats, lets face it - compared to the star power of both Hillary and Barack, Edwards might as well run around wearing clown makeup, only dressed in the American flag (Senator McCain might as well join him too at that point). The nation is an American Idol junkie; an Apprentice-snorting, Paris Hilton/Britney Spears/Brangelina-watching group of people, who love to Dance With the Stars, and to call in to cast their votes for everything that they can watch on TV. Everything in the American public is based on star power, something which both Clinton and Obama have in spades.

Where does this leave John Edwards ? (lets include John McCain, shall we ?)
It leaves them virtually invisible. Until both Edwards and McCain really step up their game, then seeing them as much as we are seeing Mrs.Clinton and Mr.Obama, is like thinking that Lindsay Lohan really matters in the grand scheme of the planet. But these are preliminary guesses and estimates that will be a year old by the time re-election comes along, and if you study politics, then you know that the game is chess. The public should not think that Edwards and McCain are out of the race yet, remember that experience does count. Barak Obama's inexperience with office holds him at a large disadvantage, as does Hillary Clinton - though maybe not as large as Obama's; she is still a relative new comer to the scene and gets her wisdom as the First Lady. Edwards and McCain have been at this game for a long time, holding posts at different parts of the government, and to count them out entirely at this stage would be definitely underestimating them.

But for now the whole world is admiring what potentially could be the first lady President, and/or the first minority Commander in Chief. Curiosity might push the people to once again see what might become of electing one of the two, and might get others to realize that taking a risk before had paid off in big ways. It seems like the Presidents who had the least amount of experience holding a political office, or didn't even desire to be a politician, are the ones who resonate the most in the minds of the people. After all, who could forget Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan ?
...but then again, "Double-ya" was exactly a veteran either....



Technorati Profile

The Stupidity of Luck

I don't believe in luck - not entirely. This is why I could hardly believe the story the Associated Press printed about Powerball winner Jack Whittaker. How is it that stupidity and luck always seem to go hand in hand ? How is it that the fairness of luck can't be evenly distributed among the people ? (I mean, the homeless and the poor need a break too sometimes....) I guess that's why Whittaker won the $315 million dollars.

After taxes, Whittaker pocketed $113 million of his total earnings and lost it all completely. And to what did he spend this large amount of money ? SHIT !
He's said that "a team of crooks cashed checks at 12 City National Branches and 'got all of my money'..." Yes, Mr. Whittaker, an entire team of professional crooks timed the entire withdrawal scheme in order to rob you of your money, just like freedom in America depends on the deaths of soldiers, and the freedom of Iraq, and their oil.
....the morons just keep on coming.....
Did he even stop to think about how these so called thieves got the checks in the first place ? Whittaker must've been really drunk to sign off huge amounts from his checkbook to people he considers as "thieves". But that shouldn't surprise anybody since he's proven that he is a gambling alcoholic, who writes bad checks and could be a violent man capable of murderer. But yet he still insists that a skilled team of professional thieves withdrew all his money.

Wake up, Mr. Whittaker ! Checks don't write themselves ! There wasn't a highly trained force who had someone brainwash you into writing checks for large amounts, and then collaborating to destroy you in one felled swoop ! Chalk this up to a theory I call "One-Worldism"(and I will explain and use this theory in further articles) - Whittaker believes that the whole world is out to get him due to the problems and hardships he's had to deal with since he won the jackpot - the death of his granddaughter, the theft and destruction of his private property, and business. So Whittaker believes that the whole world is out to get him; him and nobody else.
That's why he lost all of his money, that's why he's a binge drinker, and that's why he may face murder and assault charges. God forbid that he would use some of the money to remember his granddaughter by donating to a charity or setting up a scholarship fund, or something to that effect....
....But I feel you, Mr.Whittaker...I really do. I know of a guy who's daddy was almost killed by a gas-wielding maniac thousands of miles away, and he reacted the same way you did....and look how good it all turned out to be !

Still, idiots like Mr. Whittaker get a large amount of money for doing nothing, while the rest of the world suffers from poverty, lack of education, and healthcare, and housing. Mr.Whittaker is nothing more than a wasted medium for a resource that so many others could've used in a fitting manner, but thems is the breaks - nothing is ever fair in this life. I think the Bible had the right intentions when it said the meek would inherit the earth, but the reality is that the morons have all the power, and don't know when to use it, right Georgie ?
The bottom line boils down to this question when pondering the mystery that is Mr.Whittaker : Why is it that we don't hear that many stories like this about previous lottery winners ?

Simple, they aren't morons.



Octavian

Profiling According to Coulter

Note : Written in response to articles found in "How to Talk to a Liberal - The World According to Ann Coulter" (Three Rivers Press, New York)

Ann Coulter is the S-Word.
Not the R-word, not entirely in that sense, but the S-Word.

Ann Coulter is a Segregationist.

Segregationists like to put things in categories to make life easier for them. For Miss Coulter, it probably looks like this :

Liberal - Conservative
Republican - Democrat
Christian - Muslim
Male - Female
White - .....everything else

Miss Coulter talked about making airports safer by using the racial profiling option that was brought to the head officials in both Washington and the FAA shortly after 9/11, and there couldn't be a more valid proving ground that her view of separation is nothing more than hypocrisy at work.
But before all you Democrats out there begin to say you have my back, I have to tell you that it's not the reason that's hypocritical, it's the content and method she presents.

If Miss Coulter were to have her way, then everybody that looks like s/he was a native of a hot, arid, desert-like country, would be held up at checkpoints, searched, and escorted off planes before take off. Being a realist/paranoid-strategist, I would have to incline in agreement....to a certain degree. If terrorists are responsible for attacks on cities and people (and they are) then there should be no change in treatment for these terrorists based on skin tone, religion, or beliefs...correct ? It so happens that today's terrorists are of Muslim belief and religion, and many of them are from the Middle East, so they will definitely be looked at closer no matter what. And they, and all of you out there, will have to accept it (sorry folks, but it was 19 lads from the Middle East who drove a bunch of 300,000 ton vehicles into buildings) You cannot argue with Miss Coulter's idea - if someone came into your home and attacked your family, there would be very little of us who would say that you wouldn't want to get even and to make sure it doesn't happen again. She's merely stating that the mistakes of a few, will sometimes impact the larger group as a whole.
So if that idea is sound, and it's been definitely proven, then lets look at it on a detailed level...

...Keeping in mind that many Aero-Terrorists seem to be from the Middle East, then most Structural-Terrorists must come from the farmland of America.
If every person of Middle Eastern descent (or Indian descent, since many of them are mis-profiled) must be scrutinized at the airport, then every white person with a southern drawl, driving a pickup truck, should be examined by heavy security when walking into a large building. After all, who could forget about Tim McVeigh and his group of Good Ol'Boys ?
Yes, I know that the first bombing of the WTC was done by Islamic terrorists, but the damage they did in that incident is a firecracker compared to Oklahoma City. Before 9/11, Oklahoma City was considered the worst terrorist act to date, done proudly by citizens born and bred in America. But Miss Coulter's satiric viewpoint does not acknowledge it whenever she talked about profiling because she knows if this was the case, then everybody (including her) would have to go through the same humiliation as honest immigrants do whenever they step foot into an airport. Imagine having to be strip searched every time you entered a new building ? Everybody (including Miss Coulter) would find it exhausting, invasive, and humiliating.
...welcome to being a terrorist.....
That isn't to say that nobody else has gone through some humiliating things in the airport regardless of racial differences (Re : The woman who had to drink her own breast milk), but the realism is that Arabic people have it much worse than us all, and if the United States stands for "Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All", then in Miss Coulter's world maybe it reads more like : "Liberty, Freedom, and Justice for All.....except if you are Arabic, Muslim, Islamic, or All of The Above....better yet, anybody who isn't remotely close to a white person....."

Miss Coulter will argue that it was because of these Muslim extremists that all three ways of the American Way must now change; they must pay the price for their actions, and that the American public has suffered enough. Isolation is the best policy. But what about the citizens of Oklahoma city ? Or the families who had to suffer with the aftermath ? We got out revenge on McVeigh just like we got it on Osama, so why don't we continue to hunt down more militia's that exist like Al Quaida ? Who's to say that another Oklahoma City won't happen again ? Shouldn't we then be searching everybody who comes into a building who drives a Dodge pick up ?
Miss Coulter will say that Muslims are encouraged by their beliefs, and that the misinterpretations of these actions in the Koran helps to fuel these extremists....and she's absolutely right. But the largest religious following in the world was responsible for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Burnings, and the Irish "Troubles" between Roman Catholics and Protestants to name a few...and they were all inspired by one little book.

Miss Coulter is just like everybody else in the country - scared of how much everybody else hates America and what they will do. And because of that fear, there is no other way to deal with it other than to get the people who were responsible for causing it...
....and if you can't get them, then get the people who most resemble them.
It's hypocrisy at it's best. I'm sure everybody, including Miss Coulter and President Bush, is happy that the troops are fighting for, and guarding, a hypocritical "freedom".


Octavian

Now is Not the Time to Break the Rules....

President Bush has lost too much in Iraq's war. As a strategist, I had already predicted this outcome of sending 20,000 more brave soldiers to their death-march this past week. If President Bush had taken the time to use the White House's resources and maybe check out a few books to study (I know, studying is not his forte...), maybe the handling of Iraq's war would've been different.

War is nothing but a campaign to carry out political motives that would push towards a goal, and allow one side to advance over the other. And so I ask, what is President Bush's goal now ? Saddam Hussein was a good goal, a perfect one, really...one that would've given a somewhat salvageable ending of the war. But after he was captured, Bush did not even realize that a perfect opportunity was on hand for him to justify his actions. He could've walked away, telling the public: "Look ! I've captured a terrorist/mass murderer who had the capabilities to hurt US citizens and others around the world..." But instead opted to "continue the struggle in Iraq for freedom." (The President did not really say these words, but he's been repeating the same spiel for a long time...) And thus, he had decided to leave out the first rule of war - have a clear goal in mind for your campaign.

The second rule, is to have an exit. President Bush had the perfect opportunity to step out with enough to keep the people somewhat pleased that they're sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers did not die for nothing - they died to get a dictator out of power. It may have not had the same affect on all of the populous, but it's a hell of a lot better than trying to justify that they died for "enduring the freedom of Americans". The worst that could happen is that the population will argue amongst themselves whether it should've been Osama they were really hunting, or Saddam - one evil murderer captured is better than nothing....

Honesty with the people would have to be the third. Any good general should give his or her people a stirring speech about how victory will be theirs, but should also tell the truth about the motives in going to battle. President Bush has caused doubt in the people because of his shady and secret objectives in the war in Iraq. When you lose the support of the people, your campaign will fail. The population is responsible for giving you soldiers, money, and support for the war - the least they are owed is whether or not your motives are for oil, plausible WMD's, ridding dictatorships, terrorism, strategic position and allies (that would've been my personal reason for waging war in Iraq...it's definitely one step closer to Iran and semi-developed nuclear weapons...President Bush probably realized it only after capturing Saddam - a very poor effort as we shall see in the last rule....)

The President losing the support of people in his own camp is number four. The people who are supposed to stand by his every decision have seemed to back out, and that is not good for a Commander in Chief. A general's advisors and captains are main keys to winning a campaign, and dissention in a general's camp means disorganization among the soldiers. This also shows that a general is only out for his own personal gain since advisors have turned their back on him collectively, despite warnings and pleads from them. President Bush should listen to his advisors, his generals and captains, since they have had the experience and knowledge that he hasn't (If Georgie would've studied, Georgie might have something credible to contribute during his meetings with his war machine....) But Bush has left his people in the dust, and more of them are coming out to the public in outrage. This just shows the people even more that this campaign was never about them, but more about his own ego and agenda.

And the final fifth rule that President Bush has already broken is that a good leader should forsee all. Not some - All ! A general who forsees what will happen with every actions s/he takes, and ever reaction s/he faces, will know when to implement the previous four rules. President Bush had tunnel vision since he only saw...um... whatever it is he saw in Iraq. If he had forseen every outcome and looked ahead, he wouldn't have continued the war past Saddam. He also would've laid the ground work ahead of time, to plan out his intentions to the people in a manner such that the people would have time to accept the motives (He has very talented speech writers, advisors, and strategists...as shown by the stunning performance he gave me on C-Span when he debated with then opponent Senator John Kerry...)

But despite all of this, President Bush has decided to be a rebel without a cause (literally) and break the rules he needed to follow, and go ahead with the ones he needed to discard. The only consolation that the people have is that Bush cannot be re-elected again....and that is a sad state to be in.....

Note : There is a sixth rule that everyone should be aware of, and has been for the past four years of war - the soldiers are the most important pieces in a campaign. Without them, there is no war. How many more can the people spare before it's too late ?

Octavian