A Question

The Libby indictment has nothing to do with Iraq, but it seems as if reporters, democrats and anti-war kooks want it to be. They see as this entire investigation as an investigation into the rationale and reason for the war. An inqury into the 'lies that took us to war'. Nevermind that Fitzgerald said that it had nothing to do with the war. To those people, I have one question: So, should Saddam still be in power? Is that what you would prefer? Because if not, I see no reason to be so rabidly against the Iraq war. It comes to the point where many come off as Saddam supporters, even if they say they are not--and that impression is only boosted by some of the trial coverage.

It really makes one wonder. Bush didn't lie, for starters, and how could anyone really want Saddam back? How is it possible to be so angry at the removal of a brutal dictator?

UPDATE: David Horowitz is brilliant as usual:

Reid’s analysis has the other shoe on the wrong foot, too. It’s Democrats who have attempted to destroy to the character, reputation, and credibility of George W. Bush for more than two years and to criminalize their political differences with him over the war. Recall that the removal of Saddam Hussein was demanded by two presidents, one of them – Bill Clinton – a Democrat, and was authorized by a majority of Democrats in multiple Congresses. The last three Democratic presidential candidates have considered Saddam’s WMDs a major national security threat. Recall that the authorization for the use of force to remove Saddam was passed by Democratic majorities in both houses and that John Kerry – a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to all the intelligence information that the Bush administration had – spoke eloquently on behalf of the authorization to remove Saddam by force. Recall that full membership of the Security Council voted on November 8, 2002, to give Saddam a 30 day ultimatum to report on what he had done with the tons – that’s thousands of pounds, Harry – of nerve gas and other WMDs that UN inspectors had already established he had manufactured; and that Saddam failed to do so. That’s why we went to war. Recall that even Russian and Jordanian intelligence said Saddam had WMDs, as did the intelligence agencies of a dozen other nations (and the Russians should know).

After his national temper tantrum, Harry Reid faced a crowd of reporters, where he thundered, “If the administration had all the information that they have now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote.” What would Sen. Reid have us do – reinstate Saddam as president of Iraq? Reopen the rape rooms and fire up the plastic shredders? The United States has toppled a monster, given a captive people their freedom, and sunk the dagger of democracy deep into the heart of the Muslim world. Millions of Iraqis – including members of the Sunni Triangle – voted for a pluralistic, democratic future, a major setback for the terrorists. Libya came to an unexpected arms agreement, thanks to the threat of force in Iraq. Lebanon demanded its right to self-determination. Syria initiated a pullout after 30 years of occupation, and Egypt began democratization of its own. In the face of these developments, the best foreign policy the Democratic Party’s Senate leadership can offer is: Ba’athists forever.

We know nothing about the cargo trucked by an ominous-looking Russian-led caravan across the Syrian border before the beginning of the war. Reams of intelligence ties Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda before the war, not least including the fact that its terrorist affiliate Ansar al-Islam conducted training in northern Iraq during his reign of terror. And the White House has consistently stated there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

What we know is that the Left’s military alternative would have ended in disaster. There is no way we could have maintained 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in perpetuity, as Ted Kennedy proposed. The American people’s complacency after one of the most rapidly successful military campaigns in modern history is troubling enough. If terrorists pouring in from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia had begun sniping at U.S. soldiers stationed on the border – as we know now they would have – it would have made Nick DeGenova’s dream of a million Mogadishus come true. Popular support would have imploded, as it did in Beirut and Somalia, and the Left would have forced us to retreat yet again, emboldening the terrorists, and leaving Saddam Hussein further in their debt. How would he have rewarded their service when he finally acquired WMDs, as the Duefler Report confirms was his long-range plan?

And this was also posted in his blog:

As I have often said (and resaid) the inexcusable element in the Democrats' attacks on their President in the midst of a war is that they are betraying a war they authorized in the first place. In the wake of Harry Reid's unhinged accusations the Republican National Committee has posted a collection of statements by Democratic Party leaders reminding us why we went to war.

DEM OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ FOR YEARS

Former President Bill Clinton:

President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)

President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

Former Vice President Al Gore:

Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Gore: "[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):

Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

Sen. Edwards: "Serving On The Intelligence Committee And Seeing Day After Day, Week After Week, Briefings On Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Plans On Using Those Weapons, He Cannot Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons, It's Just That Simple. The Whole World Changes If Saddam Ever Has Nuclear Weapons." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)

Sen. Edwards: "The Question Is Whether We're Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who's Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We're Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It'll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/6/03)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

Reid: "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):

Bayh: "In My Opinion - And I Do, As You Know, I'm Fairly Hawkish On Iraq. I'm Inclined To Support Going In There And Dealing With Saddam. But I Think That Case Needs To Be Made On A Separate Basis - His Possession Of Biological And Chemical Weapons, His Desire To Get Nuclear Weapons, His Proven Track Record Of Attacking His Neighbors And Others." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/4/02)

Bayh: "The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?" (CNN's "Live Event/Special," 12/1/01)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

Biden: "First Of All, We Don't Know Exactly What He Has. ... We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):

Richardson: "The Threat Of Nuclear Proliferation Is One Of The Big Challenges That We Have Now, Especially By States That Have Nuclear Weapons, Outlaw States Like Iraq." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 5/29/98)

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):

Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):

Durbin: "One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):

Feingold: "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):

Nelson: "And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)

Nelson: "Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He's Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):

Sen. Byrd: "The Last U.N. Weapons Inspectors Left Iraq In October Of 1998. We Are Confident That Saddam Hussein Retains Some Stockpiles Of Chemical And Biological Weapons, And That He Has Since Embarked On A Crash Course To Build Up His Chemical And Biological Warfare Capabilities. Intelligence Reports Indicate That He Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons ..." ("Threats And Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA):

Harman: "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)

Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO):

"Gephardt Said He's Seen 'A Large Body Of Intelligence Information Over A Long Time That He Is Working On And Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Before 1991, He Was Close To Having A Nuclear Device. Now, You'll Get A Debate About Whether It's One Year Away Or Five Or Six." (Morton M. Kondracke, "Gephardt Pushes Consensus Action Against Iraq Threat," Roll Call, 9/23/02)

Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright:

Madeline Albright: "Iraq Is A Long Way From [Here], But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk That The Leaders Of A Rogue State Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)

The Failing American Economy?

This was too flabergasting to pass up. In browsing some discussion forums, I came across this inexplicable statement:

The American dream has always been just that, a dream. Compared to other industrialized nations only very few Americans who are born poor end up rich. About the American economy: I predict it wil be over in about 15 years.It's simply not sustainable and wil collapse when people stop lending money to AmericaAbout 400 billion a year is needed from forreign investors, and they are rapidly becomming more reluctant.But what is most worrying is that American don't seem to worry at all, so they aren't interested in changing their way of lives.This I heared somewhere and found it a very good metaphore for the US economy:"We are racing towards a brick wall, but we are doing so in a luxery car"

Where does one start? Virtually every line in the paragraph is factually wrong. Talk about delusional.

For one, the poorest Americans are better off than Europeans. Not the poorest Europeans, Europeans in general:

The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

Plus, the supposed lack of income mobility in the US is simply false. Statistically those who start off in the lowest braket do not end their lives their. And overall being "poor" is hardly what would be considered poor in the past. Poor people today are rich by yesterday's standard.

Income mobility in the US is probably the greatest of any nation in history and yet the denial continues.

About that 400 billion in investors: Why, exactly, does he feel that the investors are going to stop? What that really indicates is how good our economy really is. People are investing more and more in our economy, and they are not becoming "reluctant". It is an indication of how far behind everyone else really is.

But, I guess none of this matters. The stagnant, death-sentance welfare state of Europe is king. Or better yet, Socialism!

Right. I'll take my American Dream, thank you very much, and you can have your welfare state.

Raise the Driving Age?

The American Thinker usually has some great articles, but somehow a particularly dreadful one got through to the website.

Nearly all of the arguments have inherent flaws. Perhaps he should have read Jeff Jacoby's recent article on the myth of saving gas. Besides the absurd "national security" it would (not) bring with reductions in oil usage, the author makes some rather amazing and rather obnoxious claims: "Fewer hours fritered away on the road means more hours studying." Right. This is a remarkable fantasy land claim. Kind of like socialism. Too bad it doesn't work. Cars plus teenagers does not mean worse grades. How can he even write that with a straight face?

Also, cars make girls pregnant! Of course, the more teenage boys with cars the more pregnant girls! So, let's just raise the driving age. Maybe this is true, but to raise the driving age because of this is just plain stupid. Let's get to the heart of the problem here: cars don't make girls pregnant.... I think we're looking in the wrong direction here.

Then of course there's drug and alcohol abuse. Raise the age? That doesn't solve much, because far more older persons than teenagers are going to drive drunk. So I guess that means....ban cars!

And finally, the one with the most concrete support, but probably the one that is the most flawed nonetheless. Teenagers represent a higher percent of accidents and damage than their percentage of drivers should suggest. Therefore, raise the age, right? Wrong. That will just make the next age group have the highest rates. Think about it. What is it that teenagers have in common? They're new drivers. There's a novel idea. Teens are more accident prone because they have no driving experience. That is the real probem: teens are new drivers. They have only a few miles under their belts. Experience is everything, age, I am willing to bet, really has little to do with it.

Raise the driving age? There really is no logical reason to do so.

The New Sociallism

There is in my area a new proposal on the table: One city one school.

The idea is that it is logical to have one school district in charge of one city. Currently, there are numerous, from former small towns and some that are just independent. One of the disctricts wants to anex all of the others. They want to take over, calling it "logical".

For starters, this is not logical, except in a socialist welfare state mentality. If you are a parent, and you want the highest quality school you can get, you don't want one school disctrict. what you want is choice. If one school disctrict is corrupt and not up to your standards, you can go somewhere else. This currently happens. And what will it force? It will force the others to reform. What is going to make the one school district reform or continue in excellence with no competition? Well, essentially nothing. It goes back to the old socialist problem. There are no penalties for inefficiency or poor production. And that is why it is such a poor proposal, to the point of being anti-capitalist.

Hands off UN

Nice article on the UN's attempt at taking over the internet:

The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats?) Keep your U.N. off my Internet. BY ADAM THIERER AND WAYNE CREWS Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Kofi Annan, Coming to a Computer Near You! The Internet's long run as a global cyberzone of freedom--where governments take a "hands off" approach--is in jeopardy. Preparing for next month's U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) in Tunisia, the European Union and others are moving aggressively to set the stage for an as-yet unspecified U.N. body to assert control over Internet operations and policies now largely under the purview of the U.S. In recent meetings, for an example, an EU spokesman asserted that no single country should have final authority over this "global resource."

To his credit, the U.S. State Department's David Gross bristled back: "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over management of the Internet." That stands to reason. The Internet was developed in the U.S. (as are upgrades like Internet 2) and is not a collective "global resource." It is an evolving technology, largely privately owned and operated, and it should stay that way.

Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.

While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights.

Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials--with examples too numerous for this space--continue to seek to censor Internet search engines.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.

A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Mr. Thierer, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Mr. Crews, vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are the editors of "Who Rules the Net?" (Cato, 2003).

Whining and Moaning

Well, some international commitee is trying to "break America's grip on the net." The question I want to know is why should they? Why should we give it up? We invented the internet. Does anyone think it would exist if not for us? Yes, lets give it up to third world nations and commitees, lets see what they do with it. Apparently they're mad that we have control of the internet. Well, I've got news for those representatives. We invented it, we pioneered it, and there is no reason we should give it up just because they want control of it. They can shove it for all I care.

On Gays, Pt. 1: "Marriage"

The most basic thing to understand about gay marriage is that it is not a civil rights issue. It's not surprising that many black Americans get pissed off with comparing the Gay movement to the Civil rights movement. Gays don't have to sit at the back of the bus, they don't have to use different drinking fountains, they have every right that you and I have. I cannot marry anyone I want either. No one can marry whoever they want. Men cannot take more than one wife; there cannot be any father-daughter marriages; there are restrictions on marriage, and those extend to everyone. There are reasons for certain things, and gay marriage is not something that has ever been the equivalent of heterosexual marriage: "In fact, until the last blink of an eye in human history, there has never been any civilization, any religion, or any culture that has treated homosexual relationships as the full equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Marriage is not simply a religious institution, nor is it merely a civil institution. Instead, marriage is a natural institution, whose definition as the union of a man and a woman is rooted in the order of nature itself." Gay marriage is simply not a right. It is not a civil rights issue. That's all there is to it. Let me say that again. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Gay marriage is also detrimental to society. We can all agree that domestic violence is not desirable. Homosexual relationships are often very violent and abusive. The fact is that homosexual relationships are not more tender and loving--they are more violent.

Such couples experience by far the most intimate partner violence, and this brings rise to another issue. That of adoption and effects of gay marriage on children. The gay community, which accounts for approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population (no, its not 10 percent) accounts for up to 1/3 of all sex crimes against children. Homosexual males are dissproportionately responsible for child abuse, and many males are pedophiles, finding themselves attracted to young boys. Despite claims of some, that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, studies suggest there is significant overlap between the two. Such themes abound in gay literature, and gay men are often attracted to underage boys, pedophiles are often attracted to older men, and other studies even suggest that pedophiles exhibit wide ranges of sexual behavior, including with women. Pedophiles are not solely attracted to young boys. It is something that abounds in homosexual themes, and many homosexuals find themselves attracted to young boys. Homosexuality also brings with it negative health effects. AIDS may not be a singularly gay disease, but it is in fact rooted and primarily a disease considerably more prevalent among gay men. Even in Africa, despite whatever the PC institutions say, the epidemic is due not to heterosexual sex, but rather to homosexuality and contaminated medical supplies and needles.

The problem with Gay marriage is that it is simply a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is not something that the government created, it has always been around. It is very much a natural institution, with the purpose of uniting one man and one woman into one flesh. This is simply not possible with gay marriage. Which is why there are restrictions in marriage. Legalizing gay marriage for the satisfaction of a few activists is both dangerous and repulsive to most people--and why not? Most people know what marriage is supposed to mean, that it is an ancient institution that should not be altered to appease someone else's agenda.

Even if you don't agree that marriage is a natural institution, the fact is that gays do not see marriage in the same way as heterosexuals: "Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter."

They do not want to enter into lifelong relationships, and may have hundreds and even thousands of partners in a lifetime, and regard other partners outside of a relationship to be the norm, regarding monogamy as oppressive.

Homosexuals may or may not be "born that way", but it looks more and more like they are not. The gay gene has not turned up anywhere, despite looking very hard for it. As a matter of fact, one of the most recent studies "undermines gay gene theory" Add this to the fact that, hmm, the human race would become extinct if homosexuality were in fact correct and natural.

Another problem with allowing gay marriage is that it will normalize such behavior and lead to higher incidence of homosexuality and simply confuse children. Consider this example. Normalizing such destructive and unhealthy behavior is neither wise nor commendable.

Some myths abound concerning gay marriage, such as the following:

Gay marriage is centered on love, so they will be more committed and good for children to grow up in

Well, after reading what I wrote before, this one sounds ridiculous. Gay marriage is not about love at all--it is about sex, and gays have no illusions of having a relationship, with only one other person. Also remember, gay marriage is often quite violent, and anything but loving.

Another one compares it to the past racial problems and marriage, concerning inter-racial marriages and bans thereof. This simply does not get to the heart of the issue. Interracial marriages are still the union of a man and a woman. The reasons for the wanting to not allow such marriages was due to racism. They regarded blacks as sub-human. This is a purely racial matter, and does nothing to marriage--it changes it in no way, it is not even comparable to gay marriage activism, as these are attempting to redefine marriage, which is something such civil rights movements never sought to do.

Krazy Krugman

Paul Krugman has got to be one of the biggest liars in all of journalism. It's a full time job writing corrections for his collumns. Hopefully 4th time's the charm on this particular one. I think they're going to need to start devoting a column to corrections.

NEW YORK Just days after it ran an editors' note--under pressure from outside and within--that sort of admitted it had erred in a blast at Fox News' Gerald Rivera during the Katrina tragedy, The New York Times finally ran a full correction on Sunday, on its editorial page, for a miscue by columnist Paul Krugman, while announcing a new policy on noting errors on that page.

Krugman had three times previously admitted getting wrong part of his Aug. 19 column about media recounts of the 2000 Bush-Gore race, but critics kept claiming that he still hadn't gotten it quite right. Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins wrote on Sunday that it had turned into a "correction run amok."

After publishing his third correction on the Web, Krugman asked Collins, she wrote, "if he could refrain from revisiting the subject yet again in print. I agreed, feeling we had reached the point of cruelty to readers. But I was wrong. The correction should have run in the same newspaper where the original error and all its little offspring had appeared."

Collins also announced that the paper would henceforth be running regular corrections and "for the record" explanations under the Times' editorials. Today she published several in the "for the record" category. One notes that Krugman, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich all incorrectly stated that former FEMA director Michael Brown went to college with his predecessor Joe Allbaugh. Another corrects where Mick Jagger made a certain statement about economics.

And here is what one hopes is the final word on that Krugman column, in the Sunday correction:

"In describing the results of the ballot study by the group led by The Miami Herald in his column of Aug. 26, Paul Krugman relied on the Herald report, which listed only three hypothetical statewide recounts, two of which went to Al Gore. There was, however, a fourth recount, which would have gone to George W. Bush. In this case, the two stricter-standard recounts went to Mr. Bush. A later study, by a group that included The New York Times, used two methods to count ballots: relying on the judgment of a majority of those examining each ballot, or requiring unanimity. Mr. Gore lost one hypothetical recount on the unanimity basis."

The "Peace" Movement

Christopher Hitchens has absolutely nailed it on the so-called "peace movement."

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation—these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake—would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

The two preferred metaphors are, depending on the speaker, that the Bin-Ladenists are the fish that swim in the water of Muslim discontent or the mosquitoes that rise from the swamp of Muslim discontent. (Quite often, the same images are used in the same harangue.) The "fish in the water" is an old trope, borrowed from Mao's hoary theory of guerrilla warfare and possessing a certain appeal to comrades who used to pore over the Little Red Book. The mosquitoes are somehow new and hover above the water rather than slip through it. No matter. The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel. Thus, the existence of the Taliban regime cannot be swamplike, presumably because mosquitoes are born and not made. The huge swamp that was Saddam's Iraq has only become a swamp since 2003. The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism. While the attack on the World Trade Center—well, who needs reminding that chickens, or is it mosquitoes, come home to roost?

There are only two serious attempts at swamp-draining currently under way. In Afghanistan and Iraq, agonizingly difficult efforts are in train to build roads, repair hospitals, hand out ballot papers, frame constitutions, encourage newspapers and satellite dishes, and generally evolve some healthy water in which civil-society fish may swim. But in each case, from within the swamp and across the borders, the most poisonous snakes and roaches are being recruited and paid to wreck the process and plunge people back into the ooze. How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."

PC Gone Wild

If there was any lingering doubt in your mind about the state of the world currently in terms of "PC", political correctness, this latest issue leaves no doubt. Political correctness is reaching new extremes, extending its latest reach to new levels, namely, American sports teams.

The NCAA (National College Athletic Association) has banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during the playoffs. Apparently the only reason it did not go further is that it did not have the authority. "The NCAA's executive committee decided . . . the organization did not have the authority to bar Indian mascots by individual schools, committee chairman Walter Harrison."

The reasoning behind this ban? The NCAA is concerned with mascots that are "hostile and abusive." This always seems to be the reason for taking politically correct action. If it could conceivably offend anyone on the planet, obviously it is wrong and needs to be changed.

Probably the most visible player in this game is Florida State University, with its Seminole mascot. Interestingly, groups calling for such changes, deeming such mascots as "racist", ignore the positions of the Indians themselves. The Seminole tribe in Florida passed a unanimous resolution in support of the Florida State mascot. Some, however, feel that such names are "demeaning".

Obviously, some American Indians are going to feel that the names are demeaning. But most don't. In a national poll (the only one to date), 83 percent of Indians are not offended by such mascots, even ones such as the Washington Redskins, which, in my view, is perhaps the only one that should even consider a name change. What it comes down to is that Indians are OK with such mascots in sports.

And if we are going to get rid of some Indian mascots, what about other offensive mascots? Perhaps the Minnesota Vikings is offensive to some Norse descendant. Or perhaps the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame is an offensive mascot to some Irish. So where does it end? What about the other groups who might be offended? Clearly something needs to be done to chastise the abusive behavior of these schools.

It is rather disturbing that political correctness has seeped into society to such levels as the NCAA, a sports organization. The NCAA needs to get over it, and allow the schools to keep their mascots. This latest ban is both stupid and misguided, yet another attempt to sanitize every aspect of our lives, and prevent anyone, anywhere, from being offended by any possible thing.

It's About Time

Well, it certainly does take the media long enough. This should be old news by now, but this is one of the first stories of its kind I've seen:

Insurgency 'hijacked' by terrorists
Washington Post

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The top U.S. military intelligence officer in Iraq says foreign terrorists, long an element of the insurgency, now have essentially commandeered it.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist who leads the al-Qaida in Iraq group, has become the driving force of the insurgency, taking over that leading role from Saddam Hussein's loyalists, said Army Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner.

"I think what you really have here is an insurgency that's been hijacked by a terrorist campaign," Zahner said.

U.S. intelligence, always keen to know the enemy, has long struggled to understand the inner workings of the insurgency, a constantly shifting mix of Iraqi and foreign elements. Zahner's remarks reflect a shift in view among U.S. military commanders since this spring, when violence - especially against civilians - began a dramatic rise.

Even though al-Zarqawi's role has grown, Zahner and other officers stressed that the insurgency remains a complex mixture of factions, not all of which have the same goals.

The "Saddamists," as military reports call them, are now considered less a military threat than a longer-term political danger, because of their desire to return to power and their potential to subvert democracy.

By contrast, al-Zarqawi's group, although its numbers are small in the insurgency, is said to orchestrate a large share of the violence. Its suicide bombings in particular have killed the most and done the most damage to American public support for the war, the U.S. officers say.

U.S. commanders see an opportunity to exploit a split they see between al-Zarqawi's approach of inciting Shiite-Sunni warfare and the main current of Sunni opinion, which appears to favor participation in the politcal process.

On the other hand, intelligence officers have noted such divisions before. So far, the insurgency has suppressed its differences enough to carry on.

President Bush, in recent speeches about the war, also has sought to capitalize on al-Zarqawi's rise within the insurgency by depicting the U.S. effort in Iraq as an essential war against international terrorists, not merely local guerrillas.

Say What?

My university is certainly not typical, meaning it is not this bastion of leftist anti-American preaching, but it does still have some of it. In the school paper, there was recently a story about some anti-war protests that I found rather revealing in terms of what it showed (unintentionaly) about the protesters. Two quotes in particular caught my attention.

The first was from an "international speaker", or something to that effect. And what did he say about the US in Iraq? He feels that the US is hindering democracy there. That's right, the US is hindering democracy. Hello? I believe Saddam was a fairly big democracy inhibitor. This is perhaps the most ludicris thing I have heard, maybe even worse than Cindy Sheehan's "Reich-wing" remark. (Plus all her other bone headed ones). In fact, I don't think I should even have to explain this one. Any rational person can see how blatently moronic the statement is.

The other was by a professor. In effect, he was upset that the anti-war movement wasn't getting enough press. They weren't covering it. This, too, shows considerable detatchment from reality (as does the professor's resume). The anti-war movement is getting press way out of proportion to its influence. Cindy's Sheehan's protest down in Crawford was essentially a media creation, and the AP chronicled her activities in Washington virtually minute by minute. Contrary to not covering the movement, they are in effect creating the movement. They crop pictures so that you don't see that its mostly reports at these protests. Here we have a professor illustrating the absurdity of the movement for all to see.

Democracy is the Key

The democracy in Iraq may not be coming along to the liking of some, but the fact that it is a democracy and it is coming along is in many ways more important.

Despite Bush’s initial insistence on finishing the Iraqi constitution by the deadline, such deadlines are not essential and in many ways may be detrimental. The United States constitution took much time to complete, and considering the situation in Iraq as compared to the situation faced by our founding fathers, a deadline seems rather unwise, if it is necessary. In the end what is really important is that Iraq has a constitution. Meeting the deadlines would be a bonus, and is certainly something to strive for, but an unsatisfactory completion of the document for the sake of the deadline is something no one should want. It will not be a perfect constitution, and may not be satisfactory to most United States observers. However, everything needs to be taken in context.

The role of Islam in the document is drawing some criticism from groups, most notably in terms of women’s rights and their role in society. Such criticism is certainly valid, and the best case scenario would be a secular constitution very liberal in nature, giving women rights similar to those found in the United States and elsewhere. But with these aspirations we must keep something in mind. In our own beloved democracies, women did not get the right to vote until after WWI, and in a few cases such rights did not come until much later. Now, under Islamic law the women would have more restrictions imposed on them than simply no voting rights, but it shows us something nonetheless. Democracies in their inception are rarely perfect. In the United States, the issue of slavery was not resolved, but rather a compromise was eked out in which slavery still existed. The key to democracy is time.

The thing about democracies is that they have a tendency to progress toward what is right. And by “right” I mean freedom, and freedom for everyone, not just a select few. To do as one pleases, to worship as one pleases, to pursue one’s own happiness. But in its initial stages, a perfect free democracy may and probably is too much to hope for. The region’s almost total lack of any kind of democracy throughout its history does not point to a quick and painless transition.

The promising note is that in a democracy, these things have a way of working themselves out. If women truly what rights and responsibilities, they are more likely to get those rights in the lowest form of democracy than in any of the alternatives. Was there any hope for women under Saddam? Is there any hope under any Islamic dictatorship for that matter? No, there is little to none. Under a democracy, however, there is that hope. That is also something we have to consider here. What are the alternatives? When one looks at the other possibilities, some form of democracy looks every bit superior, and in terms of these individual freedoms and rights, it is superior in every way.

When we look at the democratic progress in Iraq, we rightly encourage and hope for one similar to our own. We want women there to have all of the rights that our own women enjoy. We want it to be secular and free from Islamic law. But it may or may not be too much to ask all at once. What is important is that Iraq remains a democracy. More often than not, with a democracy such equality and freedom will come in the future. That is why it is most important to establish some stable democracy in Iraq. So that the Iraqis can look to the future.

Iraq as Vietnam?

From boortz today:

IRAQ NOTHING LIKE VIETNAM

Alleged "Republican" (in name only) Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is wringing his hands again. Never really a supporter of George Bush or the war in Iraq, Hagel has been preaching doom and gloom at every turn and to anyone who will listen. As a matter of fact, he sounds just like a Democrat. Let's take a look at his latest proclamations, shall we?

The good senator says the United States is getting bogged down in Iraq, and the more time that passes, the more the conflict starts to resemble the Vietnam war. Chuck also tells us that the whole effort is doomed to failure, complaining: "The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop, meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States." Really...does he mean that everybody has to be on board with the war for it to be successful? There are always people protesting any war.

But we'll play along for a minute here and do the comparison with Vietnam. Here's a brief overview of what we know about the war in Iraq so far:

--The war has been going on for 2 1/2 years.
--The government was overthrown, Saddam Hussein is sitting in prison.
--Control was handed over to the new Iraqi government early, elections were held and a new Constitution is being drawn up.
--We won.
--In 2 1/2 years, there have been just under 2,000 casualties...1,861.
--The war is being fought with an all-volunteer force.

Now, for the sake of comparison, and for the benefit of people like Chuck Hagel whose memory is a bit rusty, here are some Vietnam War facts:

--The conflict lasted, depending on how you look at it, 10-20 years.
--The ultimate result was the fall of South Vietnam to the communists.
--We lost.
--There were some 58,000 casualties.
--The war was fought with the presence of a draft.

Yeah...Iraq is just like Vietnam...not. It's interesting how the pro-appeaser defeatists want to throw in the towel just because some Islamic terrorists don't like democracy and the rule of law.

Hagel as Pres? Don't Bet on It

Chuck Hagel, Senator in my homestate of Nebraska, has decided that troops need to be pulled out of Iraq starting in six months.

Living in Nebraksa, Hagel just makes me sicker and sicker. He seems more and more like a John McCain, wanting reporters and Democrats to love him. He is not in my district, but it is certain I will never vote for him, in any office. There have been rumors of him running for the presidency in 2008. Well, any chance he had of winning it have pretty much faded. I doubt he could even win the party nomination. He's just another John McCain. It looks like he might win, but that's only because of the positive media coverage, which is not reflective of the voters actual feelings. If he is serious about winning another election, he needs to stop the calls for cutting and running, and let things play out. Setting such deadlines is absurd.

Patton: The Real Genius

Patton was most certainly the most brilliant of the allied generals, with a better understanding of how to win the war than even Ike or Monty. Patton was without a doubt the most experienced and knowledgeable general of modern armor and infantry tactics at the time, with prior experience in battle in Sicily and North Africa when the time came to plan Operation Overlord, and yet he was passed over, mostly for political reasons, such as his expressed worry over the Soviet alliance and the slapping incidents.

The Sicily campaign, which Bradley sited as proof of Patton's incompetence, was in fact anything but, as even Ike said:

He has conducted a campaign where the brilliant successes scored must be attributed directly to his energy, determination, and unflagging aggressiveness. The operations of the Seventh Army in Sicily are going to be classed as a model of swift conquest by future class in the War College in Leavenworth. The prodigious marches, the incessant attacks, the refusal to be halted by appalling difficulties in communications and terrain, are really something to enthuse about.

Patton's Third Army achieved incredible things when it was allowed to, which wasn't often, and it is really remarkable it achieved what it did with Patton wearing several leashes and being halted numerous times when advance would have crushed the enemy. As it was, the Third Army killed over 144,500 of the enemy, which was 5 times more dead than it had suffered, and in total casualties caused the enemy ten times the casualties it suffered, not to mention 81,522 square miles of land conquered and over 12,000 cities and towns liberated. Over the nine-month course of action of the third army, it took on average 2,724 Germans per day.

Patton was forced to halt his rapid advance into Germany, causing him to complain to Bradley: "Damn it Brad, just give me 400,000 gallons of gasoline and I'll put you inside Germany in two days." This is probably truer than Patton is given credit for. As Victor Davis Hanson Notes: "A final drive over the Rhine would create such terror among the remnants of the defeated armies that Hitler's resistance would cease. The dreaded West Wall . . . that constituted Germany's last line of defense at the end of August was essentially undefended, the doors to the pillboxes rusted, the keys lost."* Even more telling is this statement by the German chief of Staff in the West: "There were no German forces behind the Rhine, and at the end of August our front was wide open." There never should have been a battle of the bulge.

"The reason for Patton's halt was explained away as 'lack of supplies'. Another great lie. There was no lack of supplies. There was, however, a 'diversion of supplies'." (18)** This was due to many things, including John C.H. Lee, who used innumerable supplies for his own lavish relocation to Paris. Of course, Patton's supplies were also diverted to Monty for his Market Garden operation, which turned into a complete disaster--Allied forces suffered more casualties than in the invasion of Normandy. Monty had gotten everything he could have hoped for: Patton halted, priority in supplies and weapons, and over 30,000 troops. It did not reflect well on the high command, and it is obvious that Ike's appeasement of anything the British wanted had caused a great waste of lives and supplies. As Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands said: "My country can never again afford the luxury of another Montgomery success." After all, the reason Monty was given what he had asked for was simple. In Patton's words: "Bedell Smith . . . says that the reason everyone yields to Monty is because Monty is the National Hero and writes directly to the Prime Minister; and that if Ike crossed him, Ike would get canned." So much for the coalition. This brings up another point, which is that Ike held the coalition together in one way: whenever a dispute arose between the British and the Americans, the British always won. Even Bradley came to realize this. As Patton recalled, Ike had said to him: "George, you are my oldest friend in the world, but if you or anyone else criticizes the British, by God, I will reduce him to his permanent grade and send him home."

The real folly of halting Patton is the simple fact that allowing your enemies time to regroup, especially after they are beaten and broken, is one of the most fundamental follies of warfare. Be that as it may, this is exactly what the high command did. By stopping Patton, they did not finish the job. The broken and demoralized German armies were given a breather, and they took advantage of it. Instead of terror-stricken and broken troops, the Germans regrouped and attacked. In war, morale is everything. A broken army cannot resist, regardless of numbers or equipment. Patton's drive annihilated the German morale, and would have won the war many months and thousands of lives sooner. "With German forces in total disarray at the end of August, a virtually undefended Lorraine beckoned like the Rhine sirens of mythology." (330-by D'Este) In the Lorraine region, Patton simply ran out of gas and sputtered to a hault. The Germans took advantage of the sudden and unforseen respite from Patton's attacks to offer a stubborn defense at Metz. It brought back the static warfare reminisinet of the early campaign, of which kind the Germans desired to make a return to. What once would have been possible in a few days took 16 weeks, as the German army was reinvented on the western front. The weather turned bad, the days shortened, thus shortening flying time for support aircraft, and the roads were soon muddy and booby-trapped. Consider the statements of General Westfall, new chief of staff to von Rundstedt:

"The overall situation in the West was serious in the extreme. A heavy defeat anywhere along the front, which was so full of gaps that it did deserve the name, might lead to a catastrophe, if the enemy were to exploit his opportunity skillfully. A particular source of danger was that not a single bridge over the Rhine had been prepared for demolition, an omission which it took weeks to repair. . . . Until the middle of October the enemy could have broken through at any point he liked with ease, and would then have been able to cross the Rhine and thrust deep into Germany almost unhindered." (335)

Also,

I would like to state unequivocally that we would have been totally incapable of putting up any serious resistance and foiling a drive across the western boundaries of the Reich had General Eisenhower decided upon a truly determined, concentrated and ruthless advance at this point. At that time, headquarters of OB West was located in the vicinity of Koblenz. Whenever after sunset we could hear the rattling of chains in the street where the Field Marshal had his quarters, he would ask, "Can this be Patton?" The question was posed in jest, of course, but it did not lack the most serious undertone. (451n57)

Even Bradley, no friend of Patton's, came to a similar conclusion: "Three months and many casualties later we were to be forcefully reminded that in war, opportunity once forsaken is opportunity lost forever." (452n63)

Many historians have come to see the folly of halting Patton.

As British military observer Ian Hogg said: "There can be little doubt that Eisenhower's decision was wrong in every particular, and if Patton had been given his supplies, and his head, there is every likelihood that the war could have been shortened by six months. It is a matter of record that two-thirds of all the Allied casualties in Europe were suffered after the September check." (333)

Patton favored outflanking and racing through the enemy heartland. The gradual head-on push which was the initial plan would cost too many men's lives. There was no need to slowly inch forward, arriving in Germany in 1946 after a series of brutal head-on confrontations. Rather, the best course was to seek an opening, and drive thousands of armored troops through it on a narrow front, into the heart of Germany.

The most common argument against this is that Patton's army would be swallowed up by the Germans and that there was no real point in him driving into the heart of Germany. This assumes that Patton is not destroying enemy resistance. In fact, the opposite is true. Such an advance destroys the morale of an army, and sets off a chain reaction of defeat. Patton racing through the German lines absolutely destroyed the enemy's morale, and set off a chain reaction of defeat. Carving up the enemy homeland was a catastrophic morale buster for the Germans. And Patton attacked on a narrow front and lightning fast, making encirclement of him less likely than the eventual collapse of the German army. The same arguments were put to Sherman when he was proposing his march during the Civil War. He would be swallowed up, cut off, the resistance would be stiff, etc. Sherman is in all probability the general who won the Civil War.

Patton's successes were not simply mopping up a beaten army, either. Despite the feelings of some, the Western front was in no way lesser or subsidiary to the Eastern front. On the western front, the Americans destroyed a veteran army--just because they were able to do it with fewer casualties and much quicker does not make it any less important. It makes it more impressive. The Russians killed millions, but also lost millions. The Americans lost thousands, and had millions simply surrender. Making things more impressive is the fact that the American army in the west was fighting on many more fronts and much further from supplies, all the while more effectively than the Russians, who were fighting on a linear front and with supplies in their immediate rear.

German potential had hardly been tapped, and in June 1944 there were some 850,000 Germans in the West alone, and there were more Germany infantry divisions available to defend the normandy beaches than the initial Allied invasion force. In August 1944, the Germans were adding 300,000 new troops, and in September and October 200,000. At the time of the Allies greatest successes in August 1944, there were roughly 800,000 Germans facing the same number of Americans. In the north, perhaps even more were pitted against 600,000 allied troops. In November 1944, German munitions production was at all time highs. Considering that it usually took the Russians an advantage of anywhere from 5 to 15 to 1, the Germans had every reason to believe they could halt the Allied advance.

The fall of 1944 saw the German and Allied forces as roughly equal, and as the German Ardennes offensive wore down, there were still 70 German divisions to 73 Allied.

[Patton] raced through Normandy, charged to Bastogne, and dashed across the Rhine not because the German army was either intrinsically weak or dispirited, but rather because his mobility and tactics left them troubled as to where he was going and what he intended. That he travelled faster, farther, inflicted more casualties, and suffered less harm than other Allied armies bears out this assertion--he certainly had no more advantages than the French army had in 1940, the British army in Egypt, the American army in Italy, or his own associates in Normandy. (328)*

As Roger Nye said, "The Patton mind that emerged from this crucible of private study was capable of creating a kind of warfare that was so fast and so destructive of the the enemy that the battle could be won with a minimum of friendly casualties and expenditure of materiel."

Nor was that the only time when halting Patton was a disastrous move. The Falaise Gap was a perfect example of general incompetence by the Allied command, where at least 50,000 Germans escaped to fight and kill GI's at a later date. 175,000 to 200,000 surrounded German troops were given another week to escape when Patton was ordered to stop. Here, the main reason for stopping Patton was political. Monty demanded that he be allowed to close the gap and get the glory for Patton's brilliant leadership. Of course, as Patton predicted, the British were unable to close the gap in time and thousands of Germans escaped. The reasons given publicly for what was perhaps the biggest blunder of the war of course could not relate this. First, it was claimed that the British had sown the area with time bombs, and secondly, Bradley claimed he feared a head on collision with the British and that Third Army would be trampled by the fleeing Germans. The first claim is, of course, purely fiction. The second is is nonsensical. Had proper orders been issued, for the British to hold their position, there would be no possibility of a collision. Bradley's other concern is almost a mockery to military history. A routed enemy would not be able to trample two infantry and an armored division. Surrender would be the most likely outcome.

Another thing I find remarkable in Patton's achievements is the fact that he had covered 260-plus phase days of territory in only 19 days. (phase days are the expected positions at any given day, i.e. D + 50) "In the nearly two months of warring under Bradley and Montgomery, the Allies had advanced not more than twenty miles from the beaches. By the end of the first thirty days of the Third Army's deployment, the Americans were nearly four hundred miles away from the French Coast, approaching Verdun and barreling forward less than a hundred miles from Germany itself."*

When the German counter-offensive came in 1944, the Allied high command was caught off-guard. All except Patton, that is, who nearly three weeks before had noted: "First Army is making a terrible mistake in leaving the VIII Corps static, it is highly probable that the Germans are building up east of them." Oscar Koch, PattonÕs intelligence officer, had sensed rail movements and a buildup of forces, so that even before the Germans attacked, Patton ordered his staff to draw up plans for a northward march in case of a German assault in the Ardennes. Patton was ordered and prepared to do in a few days what had taken months for the Germans to accomplish: the transfer of entire armies from their own sector to another. Ike even later claimed that PattonÕs incredible shift was proof of the Allied flexibility, though it was more evidence of what Patton could do if allowed.

Patton had a remarkable sixth sense in combat. He proved time and again that he could see what actions the enemy would take. This is an exceptional quality in a commander, and some of the greatest commanders of all time have been marked by such an ability, for instance Alexander. It is an absolutely invaluable ability. Some examples of this "sixth sense" include the following:

In North Africa, the Allies were planning to attack the Germans on the 25 December at Tunisia. Patton regarded this as unwise, and that there were not enough forces at the front. Eisenhower was eventually forced to admit that it was a mistake and to call of the attack because of rains, congested railroads, insufficient trucks.

Patton was shown the plans for the invasion of Salerno, Italy, and he pointed out a flaw. He said that the Sele River, which served as a boundary between the British and American forces, but actually had no forces on or near it, would be the place where the Germans would strike. Artillery was supposed to be ashore, but as Patton had said, plans rarely work out in war. In the event, the Germans did exactly what he had said, and it nearly split the Allied army in two.
When the Italian armistice was declared, Patton feared that telling the troops would put their guard down, and resistance to the landing at Salerno would have a very bad effect. The troops were informed of the armistice, and immediately assumed there would be no resistance. The soldiers ignored reports of Germans on the beaches, and needless lives ending up being lost.
Concerning the Anzio landings, Patton had grave doubts: "[The operation] is pretty dubious as the beaches are bad and largely unknown . . . It seems inconceivable that the Germans will not guess that we are coming ashore at Anzio . . ." Of course, this came to pass.

While Patton was without doubt a superb field commander, he was also much more, capable of the highest strategic thinking. Other than operation Torch, he was never officially consulted in planning of operations. In private, however, Bradley heavily relied on his advise. He would "borrow" Patton's thoughts, which would later turn up as Bradley's ideas. This became so frequent that Patton got quite fed up with it: "I do not want any more of my ideas used without credit to me, as happens when I give them orally." Other officers were advancing up the ladder and building their careers off of Patton, while Patton himself remained under wraps with those of lesser ability being promoted over him. Patton's aide, Charles Codman, wrote to his wife: "As of August 1st, General Bradley has adopted practically all of General Patton's plans." Patton was the best planner of them all in Europe, and his knowledge of strategy and tactics unparalleled. "Without exception, his intuitiveness and perceptiveness was never equalled by any of the "masterminds" at SHAEF." (20)**

For some reason or another, Patton was continually overlooked and had credit taken away. At Bastogne, Hodges and Bradley both received a Distinguished Service medal, despite the fact that their poor leadership was also one of the chief causes of the crisis in the town. Patton did not receive a thing for his and third army's monumental part in the relief of the town.

Eisenhower's actions with regard to Patton were almost always political in nature. Market Garden is a perfect example. Simply enough, each army was not given enough for basic operations and that alone as Patton was told. Instead, Eisenhower sent supplies off to Monty's disastrous Market Garden fiasco. The irony is hard not to see. Ike had taken Patton's supplies and given them to his most conservative general for a concentrated thrust. Sadly, Ike had chosen the wrong thrust, and it cost thousands of lives. The decision is particularly inexplicable, considering that Patton had proven what he was capable of doing.

Much is made along the lines of Ike "saving" Patton but it was usually the other way around. Ike had to deflate the unfavorable press accounts of Patton once it became clear that his superiors in Washington wanted him to remain. Patton's skill on the battlefield allowed Ike to claim that breakouts were part of the plan all along, even though such was not the case. The incidents were often so trivial and insignificant that they never should have called into question Patton's right to command. "The more difficult course would have been to come forward immediately and explain to the press and the American people why both incidents had been misinterpreted and blown way out of proportion--and why such vigor and brazenness that Patton had previously displayed was invaluable in leading an American army against the Nazi."* Once Eisenhower sensed the support of his superiors, of Roosevelt, Marshall, Stimpson, he would belatedly step forward and claimed Patton invaluable.

Montgomery made some equally noisy statements in the aftermath of the Bastogne, to the effect that he had saved the Americans, and during the speech one would get the impression that the word "colonists" could be substituted for "Americans". It was too much even for some of the British. Churchill publicly repudiated Montgomery when speaking before the house of commons. And yet, this led to no action from Eisenhower, and no calls for Montgomery's head or removal in shame. Simply enough, Patton came under some undeserved heat, which had its origins in the politics of the high command.

That was not the only instance when a distinct double standard could be seen. For instance, take these examples, in Patton's words:

It is noteworthy that had I done what Coningham did, I would have been relieved. Ike told me later that he could not punish Coningham [for calling the Americans cowards] because he was a New Zealander and political reasons forbade it. Unfortunately, I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican--just a soldier.

Lt. General Cocran, the s.o.b., publicly called our troops cowards. Ike says that since they were serving in his corps, that was O.K. I told him that had I so spoken of the British under me, my head would have come off. He agreed, but does nothing to Cocran.

In summary, even though Patton had started farthest from Germany in the beginning of the month of August, by then end he was 100 miles nearer than any other allied force. The Germans understood how dangerous he truly was:

The greatest threat . . . was the whereabouts of the feared U.S. Third Army. General Patton is always the main topic of military discussion. Where is he? When will he attack? Where . . . ? How? With what? Those are the questions which raced through the head of every German general since the famous German counteroffensive last December. . . . General Patton is the most feared General on all fronts. The successes of the U.S. Third Army are still overshadowing all the other events of the war, including the campaign in Russia . . . The tactics of General Patton are daring and unpredictable. He is the most modern general and the best commander of armored and infantry troops combined. (298)*

He understood the best way to defeat the Germans, and the Germans feared him for it. They could deal with the static, methodical front, but not with Patton piercing it and racing into Germany.
--------------------
*The Soul of Battle, by Victor Davis Hanson
**The Unknown Patton, by Charles Province

Catholic: Democrat v. Republican

Today in my local paper, there is a rather strange article about abortion, Catholics, and Republicans. (see here). It basically goes that "The political reality is that ending or even limiting abortion is not a priority for the Republican Party." The article basically then goes on to say that Democrats are in fact a better fit for Catholics, due to other issues, plus there is a "growing pro-life movement within the Democratic Party." Which is to say one of two things. It actually has some pro-lifers, which it probably does and always will, so it is most likely meaning the illusion of a pro-life democratic wing. It is not getting any bigger than it ever has been, but some key players are trying to come off as more pro-life for the elections. (read: Hillary).

I have some issues with this article, and not just that the entire premiss is essentially wishful and makes a mockery of the issue. I'm sure the abortion issue is not a priority for the Republican party. But is the answer to go Democrat? I think not. Just because its not the issue does not mean its not an issue period. And the fact is that Republicans are far more pro-life than Democrats. Why would you go from the pro-life party to the pro-"choice" party? It is not logical to me. So you join a party that seems to hang it's very existence on the continuation of Roe v. Wade because Republicans are not single-mindedly hunting down abortion? This is the opposite of logic.

The writer does not himself come off as particularly pro-life, either. Why he takes issue here I cannot even fathom: "the Bush administration has simply taken the position that abortion is wrong without paying any attention to its root causes - poverty, unemployment, skyrocketing health-care costs and teen pregnancy, among others." So Bush is bad because he feels abortion is wrong? That should be the Catholic position--regardless of circumstances, abortion is wrong. Whether the author feels such is not even clear.

Most likely, the author takes this position not because of the abortion issue, rather, it is just a lead-in for his other issue of why Catholics should be Democrats:

"Faithful Citizenship," issued in 2003 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, applies Catholic social teaching to major political, social and economic issues and provides Catholics the "consistent moral framework" necessary to responsibly participate in our democracy.

A consistent pro-life message resonates throughout the document. The bishops make clear the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty. But they do not stop there.

"Faithful Citizenship" extends its pro-life position to a wide array of issues concerning human dignity: supporting the right of workers to a just wage, decent working conditions and the right to organize without reprisal; ensuring adequate and affordable health care for our most vulnerable populations; eradicating hunger and poverty at home and abroad through government aid; fixing the problems of the judicial system to reduce crime and violence; eliminating discrimination through affirmative action; and promoting peace in the Middle East and Africa through proactive diplomacy."

For one, this is only a US Bishop conference, but it is still to be taken seriously, to be sure. I have serious issues with some of the statements, however, and shall look in-depth.

First, the "right of workers to a just wage" is laughable. The inference here is that Democrats are the ones who promote "just wages", therefore Catholics should be Democrats. This is of course absurd. The Democrat position is that the government can determine what a just wage is. Wrong. Minimum wage does not ensure just wages--what is really a just wage is one that a worker agrees to work for. A just wage should be left up to the worker and the employer. After all, not worker has to work anywhere. In this, Republican clearly lead the way.

The next, concerning healthcare, is just stupid. For one, every person in this country has healthcare. I suppose the key here is "affordable". Yes, we should just revert to Canada's style of "affordable" healthcare. This is of course the Democratic position. And if not Canada, something close. The problem is, it does not make health care more affordable. The reason it might not be affordable now is due to too many laws and restrictions and bureacracy. The answer is not more of same, but a freeing of the system.

I'm not sure if "eradicating hunger and poverty at home and abroad through government aid" is the actual statement from the Bishops, but if it is, then it is fairly obvious this document is political in nature. This is certainly a democratic position. It sounds noble and good (like all Dem. positions) but in reality this statement contradicts itself. For one, you just simply do not and can not irradicate poverty with goverment aid. It just does not work that way in real life. This is more of a feel-good statement than anything else, because goverment aid, at home and abroad, does one of two things. Mostly, it goes into dictators pockets abroad, and at home, it makes it affordable to be lazy and unemployed, thus empoverished. I'm not going to go in-depth on this issue, but it is a very in-depth one nonetheless. Simply put, the only way to irradicate poverty and hunger is to free up the market economy as much as possible, and export that system to other countries. The Republicans have the real-world upper hand here, if not the rhetorical one.

The one that goes "fixing the problems of the judicial system to reduce crime and violence" is one that I don't think even goes to the Democrats in any sense. When you have liberal judges letting criminals go and liberal organizations assaulting Christianity and promoting cops as more dangerous than terrorists, the clear winners here are the Republicans.

Looking at this and the final tennet, I get the feeling this is either the author's interpretation of the Bishops words, or the Bishops were making a political document for the democratic party. Consider the next: "eliminating discrimination through affirmative action". This is something of an oxymoron. You cannot eliminate discrimintion by AA, because it is a discriminatory policy. It takes into account the color of someone's skin. How, exactly, is that not discriminatory? I thought the goal was for a colorblind society? The exact opposite is the case with AA. Skin color is looked upon as another entrance consideration. They are basing their policy of entrace standards on the color of a persons skin. This is racism. What Democrats really what with this is not equal opportunity, but equal results. Making policy based on skin color is to take this country back several decades in the wrong direction.

Finally, "promoting peace in the Middle East and Africa through proactive diplomacy" This, too, is just as much wishful thinking as anything, and sounds like it came right out of the UN. So I am hearing correctly, that it is the position of Catholic bishops that we should be diplomatic and reason with heartless killers? Am I to assume this means we should have pursued such a policy with Saddam? Republicans win on this issue, too. They want to be diplomatic, they want to exhaust those means first, but if it does not work out, you simply can't roll over and let some murderous thug off the hook. Ofentimes these are people you simply cannot reason with, and as a Catholic, you should hardly want to do so in the first place. They are not loving people. Simply loving terrorists is not going to make them better people. It comes to a point when you need to decide--do you want to just simply love someone and turn a blind eye when they oppresse their own and murder innocents? Because that is often what diplomatic means come to. And I assume that this is an extreme in the article--it is all that should ever be used. If not, this supports the Republicans just as much as the Democrats. Republicans are for diplomacy too. They just don't limit themselves to peaceful diplomacy.

Overall, this article seems to me to be confused, and not alltogether against abortion either. The stance of the author comes off as unclear. It's confusing and in fact conflicting statements serve only to befudle the reader, and for me, to reaffirm my Catholic, republican position. In the end, what it seems to lay out most is not why Catholics should be Democrats, but rather why Catholics should be Republicans.

ID

Bush's recent remarks have lit a firestorm of media frenzy, and not all of it from simply left-wing outfits. Even those on the right are having their say, and often coming down against the President. The almost universal line of thought is religious. This whole "Intelligent Design" thing is religiously motivated, presumably by the religious right. Some on the right have called it a new way of saying Genesis Creationism. All around, the focus is on it as if it is a religiously based movement.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The failure is in making distinctions. The movement is not religiously based. It is not founded on any religious belief. It does, however, have religious and theological implications. The thinking must go that if it has theological implications, it must have theological foundations. This is absurd. Anyone who knows anything about the ID movemtn knows that it is founded on science, and the arguable founder of the movement, Michael Behe, is a microbiologist. His earth-shaking book, Darwin's Black Box, is based on his observations in microbiology.

The simplest way to think of the design movement is to think of an analogy. Take Mt. Rushmore. Just looking at it, you know that it is designed. You do not have to know anything about it's history, the designer, or anything related, you still know that it has specified complexity , in the words of William Dembski, perhaps ID's leading theorist. You know that an intelligent agent made it, that it was not the result of random rock formation. This is in many ways the ID movement. It detects design in nature. Like Mt. Rushmore, some things in nature exhibit design, and intelligent design at that.