Time for my take...

Venturing away from the sports arena for a few moments to the political arena, time for my take on subjects of note...

Couldn't agree more wholeheartedly than I do with Dan on the issue of securing our borders. For a variety of reasons that range from simple national defense to the societal implications, I think this should be issue number one, and also in the forefront of the Global War on Terror...

As time has passed, and I measure reactions to the GWOT, what hits me is how so much seems to be focused on Iraq as the centerpiece on War on Terror. I suspect the GWOT has boundaries a helluva lot further than Iraq...

The potential pluses of events in the last two days in Iraq have not avoided me. Bush deserves a place on Mount Rushmore if this all eventually works as planned. The election is a TREMENDOUS development. There is still a long way to go, however, before we can turn everything over to the Iraqis, which will be another round to be fought in this fight. As will the Iraqi society actually adapting to democracy. We can hope, but not get too far ahead of ourselves...

Since we are there in Iraq, let's do it right. But what irritates me is the thought of someday listening to Bill O'Reilly and the like ever talking about "victory" in the War on Terror based upon the outcome in Iraq, especially if everything falls into place exactly how the administration wants it to...

I recoil at the thought of the O'Reillys and Hannitys ever promoting "WWT" ("We Whipped Terror!") buttons based upon whatever the outcome is in Iraq, and having millions of Fox News watchers walking around, wearing the same, clueless that greater dangers still exist...

That's because the War on Terror extends almost everywhere. Osama and his band are still hiding out in caves. Their influence, and that of like-minded kooks, extends globally...

I acknowledge the fact we have had no terrorist incidents here since 9/11. If whatever we have done since then to prevent it from happening again keeps working, that's tremendous. But we can't be too naive to think that it won't happen again, or that it won't because of what we are doing in Iraq. How many such incidents have we had on our shores, anyway? We can finger previous administrations (and the Philanderer) for blame in the lead-up to 9/11, but if we do that, we can't exclude the administration that was in office when it happened...

I know all of the idealistic rhetoric about why we must liberate Iraq, about establishing that beach head of democracy in the middle east, eliminating any safe haven for terrorists, etc. It is all very noble, and succeeding would be an accomplishment for the ages. But even in doing so, it won't be over...

The threats to us are everywhere. They exist in the terrorist cells spread across the globe, from their underground meeting points in Copenhagen, London, Paris, throughout parts of Africa and Asia and South America and yes, even in North America. In other words, almost everywhere, except Antarctica. Let's give those penguins a seat at the UN...

Those bastards who flew the planes in the WTC and Pentagon were taking their flying lessons in Florida and sitting around together in coffee shops up and down the east coast before 9/11. They were taking orders from wherever, but they were already here...

And having a border to the south where experts estimate as many as 1 million immigrants cross ILLEGALLY every year has to be an unbelievable invitation to any mischief-minded (make that death-minded) terrorists who know that they have to be in the USA to cause the biggest disturbances...

What really worries me is that one day, after we have (hopefully) done our business in Iraq, is that we're going to get hit by some terrorist again, right here at home, and that so many people will be wondering how that could have happened, after we supposedly won in Iraq...

No, I'm not going to feel much safer from terrorism based upon the outcome in Iraq. I'd feel a lot better if we were doing a better job securing the borders, so at least any new hellions would find it near impossible to get in...

I've never quite seen the political juxtapositions that I've seen regarding Iraq. The traditional "liberal vs. conservative" lines are so blurred that you can't really make those distinctions when it comes to this subject...

I find it fascinating that many principled conservatives, like Pat Buchanan, are negative on our Iraq adventure, while the libs that conservatives love to hate, like Madame Clinton and John Kerry, are generally supportive. Which side is which?...

Israel influence?...

Often, I get the feeling that both sides are more concerned with who their opinions agree with, or disagree with, than the actual subject itself. I suspect that if Bush decided to send hundreds of thousands of troops to guard our borders, instead of to Iraq, a few years ago, his supporters would be lined up behind him if he never sent any "boots" to Iraq. Just as his detractors would be lined up against him, no matter what...

Regarding George W. Bush. Though I generally reject labels, by all accounts I would have to be considered quite conservative. Despite that, as time passes I find myself more and more disillusioned with the President. And this from a one-time solid Bush supporter and who cast a vote for him. The more I read, the more frustrated I become with his entire personna and style. Perhaps I should dismiss the negative rhetoric, throw away the Newsweeks and other publications, and stop looking at various websites that trash him repeatedly...

He has made some progress in the last few weeks, finally going on the offensive, admitting that things haven't gone as smoothly as they should in Iraq. Good re-start after lots of fumbles in the last several months. The political pendulum always swings, and I sense it might be swinging back in W's favor, albeit only slightly...

This is not to compare him to the immoral Clinton gang, who were worthy of contempt. And it pains me as a conservative to say so, but even Bush supporters have to be a bit disturbed by the things we read and hear, how he isolates himself, and seems hellbent on keeping so many "yes" men and women around him who don't want to give him any bad news. It can't all be true (can it?), but I am more than a bit concerned when I hear and read stories that make Bush seem more like a petulant office manager than the leader of the free world...

No, I am not a card-carrying Bush banger. Hardly. I do not point a finger at Bush about Hurricane Katrina, that finger instead points at the incompetents running the local and state government in that 3rd world city of New Orleans and backwards, corrupt state of Louisiana. But I am a bit rankled about a lot of Bush's doings. That he hasn't vetoed a budget bill yet, and that, after the honorable John Roberts selection, had the audacity to offer Harriet Miers as a SCOTUS nominee. Never mind that the nomination was pulled (he HAD to), and that he eventually sent the qualified Alito. That act alone regarding Miers threatened to fracture his base of support and drive a wedge into his own party that would have taken years to repair. What the hell was he thinking? Whose advice was he listening to, anyway? That has to rank with Clinton's Lanie Guinere nomination (and that wasn't for the Supreme Court) back in 1993, which similarly threatened to splinter Clinton's party (Ted Kennedy--Ted Kennedy!--even told Clinton not to send up that nomination, which must have been the Madame's doing). And that he ever could serve up a jerk like Bernard Kerik for Director of Homeland Security still bothers me. How the heck didn't he, or his advisers, see through that creep? Of course, that nomination was quickly doomed, even my mother-in-law could have seen that. But that a thug like Kerik was one step from running our Homeland Security chills me. And that has to trouble me a bit about Bush..

And I think nothing wrong with beginning to question a lot about what has gone on in Iraq. Government is much like a business, and at some point, we have to start being realistic and contemplating the cost in manpower and resources that Iraq demands. I think this had more than a bit to do with the comments of a distinguished fellow like John Murtha, whose opinions shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, and certainly shouldn't have been trashed at the outset as he was by Scott McClellan. Heck, I'm a bit disturned that Bush never apparently consults with guys like Murtha, whom his dad even consulted regularly in the Gulf War days...

I happen to believe there are limits to what even our own military can accomplish, and am more than a bit concerned that we seem to be depleting ourselves at an alarming rate. Huge numbers of reserve units have been called into action, for several tours at that. What is our military going to look like when and if we leave Iraq? Reserve enlistment is way down...what does this mean for the future? What if we eventually need them against a more immediate threat, like North Korea, which has weapons and the capability to cause more harm than Saddam did?...

As I've said, I don't equate our ultimate survival and victory over terrorists with carrying out our objectives in Iraq. Though a dream of a stabilized middle east motivates W (as noble an idea as there is), indeed I have fear that we might be creating a more-menacing Frankenstein of sorts with neighboring Iran. A subject, sadly, for another day...

Getting rid of Saddam was good for mankind, just as it was when previously dismantling the Taliban. Worthwhile all. But back in March of 2003, I don't know of anybody who was thinking about such as extended presence in Iraq. When Saddam's statue fell a month later, and Saddam's forces had been defeated, a lot of the American public thought it was all done, and that the boys would be back home soon thereafter. I suggest support for the invasion would have been a bit more lukewarm had the reality of several years presence and thousands of casualties been on the table in March 2003. Was there ever an exit strategy?...

These are all subjects worthy of debate...

And the neocons and their influence in the administration--that's a disturbing subject (make that a very disturbing subject) too big to tackle here. I would think Bush supporters (of which I might still count myself) might have to at least raise some eyebrows, no?...

In politics, unless we're Hillary, we can't have our cake and eat it, too. But in hindsight, maybe we would have been better served to send hundreds of thousands of troops to our borders, cut off the flow of illegal immigration, which not only has huge HUGELY positive implications for our society, but also for national defense purposes...

Maybe that doesn't cut off the head off of the worldwide terrorist monster that threatens us, but I hardly think that our eventual aims in Iraq do the trick, either. I do not advocate the immediate pullout (and neither did Murtha--like I said, now that we're there, let's do it right), I just don't want us to think it's going to be "over" based upon whatever result we achieve in Iraq...

Okay, maybe I am picking on Bush, but I am a lot more down on him than I was a while back. I don't think I'm the only conservative in that boat. This would all probably get me trashed by Bill O'Reilly and the like. But I can live with that, because I like to think that Pat Buchanan might nod in approval at some of the things I say...

And none of this is to endorse John Kerry as having been a better alternative. Hardly the case. Shudder to think of what it would be like with that cartoon face in the White House, who calls Lambeau Field "Lambert" Field instead. And his wife, who would have made Hillary appear pleasant by comparison (well, maybe not pleasant--but on Theresa's behalf, she was much better-looking in the day). Think of the mountains of complaints we would have about Kerry if he were President. We'd need a new blog!...