William Arkin must go!

As you well know by now, William Arkin an employee of the Washington Post has created a firestorm in his blogs insulting, attacking the integrity of the American Soldier, questioning their motives for serving and berating them for craving the support of the American public.

I have been going to his blog since Feb 1 every so often to read responses to his hate filled diatribe and it can only be described as a circus.

I would caution anyone thinking about accessing his blog to see the responses, you will probably be disappointed. It is now dominated by five or six morons who have turned the comment's page into a running verbal abuse contest, not worth your time.

And as I pondered this issue, the thought occurred to me that Arkin may have created this controversy on purpose for the sake of ratings and attention. It seems like a strange way to go about it, but then again, Arkin is an avowed liberal lunatic, a hater in the first order who doesn't let facts get in the way.

I would urge Americans to respond in a way that Arkin, the Washington Post, NBC and General Electric will actually feel it.

Believe it or not, I subscribed to the Washington Post as a way to keep tabs on what the wacky left is up to, but two days ago I cancelled my subscription.

I will boycott NBC, if I could I would remove that channel from my television. Be that as it may, I will never tune to NBC again, or, until Arkin appears on national TV to admit his stupidity and apologize or, he is fired.

I have written an email to the CEO of General Electric, which is the parent company of NBC and the Washington Post and in that email I urged Jeffrey Immelt to have Arkin fired. I also informed Mr. Immelt that I'm dumping my shares of GE stock this week. I have procured a fair amount of GE stock as part of my kid's stock portfolio's that I intended to use to help pay for their college. But, there are plenty of blue chip stocks out there performing better than GE, it's no sacrifice to dump it.

I urge you all to stand up and be counted. This is something that you can do to really put some meaning in the statement "I support our troops."

Do it now people.

Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO
jeff.immelt@corporate.ge.com
General Electric Company3135
Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828-0001

DUNCE!

Rockheads, below, you will find a blog entry from William Arkin of the Washington Post. I must give credit where it is due, I have read some of Arkin's writings and found them to be generally well informed, articulate and sometimes interesting, others not.

But, in the case of his blog "Troops Should Also Support The America Public" Arkin strikes me as a big baby. As a man who "got mad" at the troops because they had the nerve to express an opinion about the lack of support from the folks back home. As you read this incredibly ill advised blog, keep in mind that Arkin is a professional journalist, working at newspaper with a global readership and a good amount of influence. I think that Arkin's blog is more damaging then he realized.

One thing that I hoped that America would be able to avoid regarding the war in Iraq is an us versus them mentality i.e. an anti military movement against Soldiers. It appears that intended or not, Arkin's ill advised words have moved us one step closer to that catastrophe.

I would advise Mr. Arkin, that the I believe the vast majority of America does support the troops in so far as they will not tolerate a journalist using his position to attempt to discredit them. In fact, I think a good number of Americans are downright protective of their troops. From the number of responses his blog prompted, I'd say that is logical assumption.

If you are going to blog about the troops Mr. Arkin, weigh your words carefully and never presume, assume or guess.

I might add that this has turned into a running event. William Arkin has updated his blog in the attempt to explain why he was so critical of our troops and why he used the pejorative term "mercenary" to describe them, but I'd say he has a lot more to answer for than that. For his blog was more than inflammatory, it was divisive and even hurtful. If your going to blog like this Mr. Arkin, you should expect such responses, like they say. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

I recommend reading his blog entries of Jan 30, 31 and Feb 1. His original attack on the troops, his condescending response to the hundreds of angry responses he received, and his attempt to explain why he did it.

William Arkin's blog

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naive and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

Pretty incredible stuff huh? And some people wonder why the main stream media has such a terrible reputation.

We are going to defeat the Iraqi insurgents, and we are going to accomplish what we set out to do!

My fellow Rockheads. That movement you have been detecting underfoot over the past few days is the earth shaking. And the reason that the earth is shaking, is because some are beginning to say that we can achieve our goals in Iraq. Finally, people are beginning to think about Iraq in a logical manner, leaving politics and personal feelings out of the equation.

Can it be? Is America beginning to understand the consequences of leaving Iraq undone? It must be so. I'm beginning to see articles offering hope.

It is far too early to tell if this idea will catch on, and of course there is that stubborn, reflexive, unthinking element on the far left determined to relive the "glory days" of the anti Vietnam War movement. Never mind the fact that we were beating the shit out of the enemy in Vietnam, and the ONLY reason we did not win there is because we gave up. Lets hope the America is coming to that realization about Iraq.

Insurgencies take a long time to put down because the insurgents objective is so easy. All they have to do is create doubt long enough that the counter insurgents give up. Some car bombs here, a few midnight murders there, and they have the American public ready to throw in the towel in no time. But maybe, people are coming around to the President's way of thinking.

George W. Bush, while maybe not the most intelligent president we have ever had, certainly is the most determined since Lincoln. I admire his determination and his ability to keep faith while those around him crumble, criticize and complain.

What folly it would be to give up on Iraq after investing what we have to date! My friends, we are winning in Iraq. The insurgents control very little ground in Iraq, they have to hide and operate in secrecy. They have to threaten and murder to stay in the game. They have no conventional Army to speak of, how are they going to control the urban areas? All insurgencies have to move from the insurgency and guerrilla operations into conventional military operations sooner or later, the insurgents in Iraq don't have such a force. We will out last them if we have the will to see it through.

The newspapers tell of an insurgency getting the hell beat out of it over the past week, with hundreds of enemy killed and captured. And of the cleric Muktada Al Sadr ready to cooperate with the realization that with the additional troops on the way the handwriting is on the wall. Rather than giving up and going home as the insurgents were counting on, and as the mindless anti war cabal has been screaming about, when all is said and done George Bush is sending MORE troops? I think that maybe the insurgents are beginning to realize that they miscalculated the determination of President Bush and the United States Military!

My friends, the fastest way to bring this operation to a close and to get our troops back home is to get on board and support our troops, support the president and bring Operation Iraqi Freedom to an historic and successful close.

How to solve Iraq.

My fellow Rockheads. My Holiday hiatus at an end, it is time to begin posting to my blog once more.

Over the Holiday break, the war in Iraq weighed heavily on my mind as it always does. With the Democrats taking over the majority in Congress it is time for the Bush Administration to do something bold or the Democrats will most assuredly doom any future attempts to bring the operation to a successful close. The mindless anti war crowd in America continues their inane screaming, and it's giving me a headache. So, here is my proposal.

What do we have in Iraq today? Who are we dealing with? Well we are essentially dealing with the same groups. We have the Kurds in the oil rich north and their region is relatively peaceful but for tension with Turkey, nothing that level headed people can't deal with.

In central Iraq we have the Sunni, Saddam Hussein's people. They are the ethnic minority in Iraq, but enjoyed most favored status while Hussein was in power. The area of Iraq in which the Sunni live however, is resource poor. The Sunni made up the bulk of the insurgency, at first because they actually harbored the illusion that Hussein would come back. Now, they are fighting for their survival.

This brings us to the Shia. For over four decades they were governed and abused by Hussein, Hussein's tribe and his fellow Sunni Muslims. Now, the Shia (in my opinion) want to be the only real power in the new Iraq government, I don't think they are into any kind of power sharing with the Sunni. The Shia have the Sadr Army, militias and death squads who are prosecuting a sort of ethnic cleansing of Shia neighborhoods and towns of the minority Sunni. This isn't good. While the Shia are the majority in Iraq, it is the Sunni that are the majority in the whole of the middle east. The Shia simply are in no mood to relinquish a thing to the Sunni and I think Prime Minister Malaki is one of those people, but that's just me, and I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

We are reaching the limits of the American publics support for the effort in Iraq. I have to confess that as a supporter of the effort my will has been tested too. But, it is the essence of war to have ups and downs, victory and defeat. But like a football game, you don't know who the winner is until it is over. For the anti war crowd to say we are not winning is to forget this concept because you can also make the claim that we are not losing either. A classic case of is the glass half empty or half full?

Nobody had presented to me a good case for why we should leave Iraq now. Or that we are losing. And I'm still of the opinion that most of the anti war crowd is composed of people who hate President Bush. And I think they hate him because they have not been able to put the 2000 and 2004 elections behind them. In 2000 the election results were contested and we waited weeks for ballots to be examined, we saw the election issue go to the US Supreme Court and Bush prevailed. 2004, most of the main stream media was forecasting a Kerry victory, but by next morning Bush had made a furious comeback; he won by a hair. Losing elections that way has to be disappointing but it is no reason to turn into a Bush hating moron. And due to this and more it is my opinion that the left simply can't stand to see Bush get credit for anything and they are willing to suffer defeat in Iraq to prevent it.

But what to do about Iraq? The most basic component that is missing is resolve from the folks on the home front. But it is also a fact of history regarding counterinsurgency operations that the local populace must get involved. We seem to be missing both in Iraq. So, I must admit that we have gotten to the brass tacks of the issue. Prime Minister Malaki is going to have to prove he is serious about sharing power with the Sunni, he is going to have to take on his Shia militias, the death squads, insurgents and terrorists that are feeding upon the people of Iraq. Malaki must preside over a national reconciliation process and spread around the oil revenue. Short of that there is always the option of creating three autonomous sectors in Iraq, Sunni, Shia and Kurd with perhaps a central government in Baghdad.

We must put training and equipping the Iraqi Army on the fast track. The Police force is an unmitigated debacle and I think General Patreaus will have to address that issue with a clean slate, because the police are key to ending the insurgency, more so that the military.

Let me close by saying that this effort would be over more quickly if the American public stood shoulder to shoulder. It is our infighting that is encouraging the enemy to continue the fight. To be quite honest about it, I'm ashamed of the American people. We have our kids over there in Iraq trying their level best to accomplish a mission that we approved of initially. We shouldn't have (we don't deserve) the luxury of changing our minds in the middle of the fight or when the going gets tough. Americans used to be made of tougher stuff. I think we can all agree that our troops have proven their mettle. How about you?

My fellow Rockheads, today I write to vent my frustration. I've had it with liberalism. I'm tired of their condesending, arrogance, their anger, and their meaness.

It is plain to see, there are examples of it all around you. The latest example of course is that woman, Rosie Odonnell. Has she every said anything nice about a conservative? Has she? Oh maybe if there were money involved, but I mean other than that?

Donald Trump is her latest target, and he is not standing for any of it by the way, and it's about time somebody slapped her fat jowels. You see, Rosie O'donnell is a raging lesbian, a radical lesbian, a feminist, in short, she is everything unattractive in a women today. Brash, confrontational, mean, loud, rude, arrogant, ugly, condesending, but the thing is this, she thinks that because she is a woman, and a lesbian that nobody can challenge her. You see, according to the unwritten rules of political correctness, nobody should be allowed to stand up to her, due to her various minority status she enjoys, she thinks that puts her off limits while allowing her to viciously attack others with impunity.

Why is it that liberals cannot debate based on the merits of the facts? Why is it that liberals cannot debate without calling their opponents nasty names? Why must liberals wallow in the mud like that? I'll tell you why, because conservatives aren't willing to go there, it is the liberal sanctuary. Why is it that liberals cannot defend the tenants of their philosophy? Hell, do you even know a liberal who can describe their philosophy to you? Bet you don't. Because they don't have one. It seems to me that liberalism is a ghost movment, a loose conglomoration of single issue radical groups pushing their particular cause and all falling (thankfully) under the Democratic umbrella. My friends, a simple experiment can demonstrate this for you easily. Ask a conservative to explain conservatism to you, and he can do it in about thirty seconds. Ask a liberal to explain theirs and you'll never get the same answer twice.

I know conservatives who have had their cars egged for no other reason that they have a George Bush bumper sticker on their car. I know conservatives who have had their yards toilet paperd for no other reason that they had a campaign sign touting a Republican in their yard.

In some liberal internet discussion boards I participate on I have read some of the most offensive, inaccurate, mean statements about President Bush that I can scarcely beleive an American wrote them. I never saw such inflammatory things written about President Clinton, because conservatives refuse to stoop to that level.

My friends, I'm planning on writing about this topic in detail after Christmas and New Years. Untill then, remember the reason for the season. Thank the Lord above for your life and your family, thank him for being blessed to live in this land. And don't let the liberal cabal get you down. Feel free to post some comments describing some of your experiences with liberals and progressives and I'll incorporate them into my next blog entry.

Merry Christmas friends.

World War III?

Well, here we are, a month after the Democratic "blue tidal wave of change" swept the nation.....yaaaawn. And so far, I'm not impressed, not a bit. The thought occurred to me the other day that, regarding Iraq and the middle east at large, events have been fairly easy to predict. In fact, I've made so many correct predictions that I scare myself. Surely I thought to myself at this epiphany, I'm not the smartest man in the United States am I? If I am, we're in serious trouble. No, of course I'm not the smartest American, intelligent, yes, I am. But I think what separates me (and most Americans) from our politicians is that we aren't afraid to, or we aren't prevented from using our logic and common sense to stay ahead of international events. And because we don't have to reach consensus, we are able to see these things and speak our opinion, while our government needing to reach consensus before taking action is always behind the population in this regard.

As usual, I'm going to make some comments about Iraq, and the middle east because frankly I'm more than a little bit concerned. When I was stationed with the 11th ACR in Bad Kissingen Germany, on the East/West German Inter zonal Border, I often received phone calls at 0200 (2:00AM) notifying me of an alert. This was during the height of the Cold War, and with Soviet and East German troops just thirty minutes from the border we had to stay ready for anything and the balloon could have gone up at any moment. Consequently, whenever I got one of those early morning phone calls and I'd begin racing around the house grabbing my gear and some pogy bait, my wife would instantly begin to worry, and my standard answer was, there is no need for you to worry unless I'm worried. Having been through many of these alert exercises I could tell when something was out of the ordinary. I have kind of developed that knowledge from experience. As far as the middle east is concerned, having been in the region myself, having fought a war there and having participated in writing On Point, and studying the war, and small wars in general, I'm afraid that the region is not drifting toward war; it is running. Don't throw yourself off a cliff Rockheads, it's just my opinion, and in this case I wouldn't mind being wrong for a change.

How do I support this contention? Fair question, first and foremost, I have to say that Rumsfeld quit two years too late. There was most definitely a window of opportunity for us to quash the insurgency in it's infancy. When the Hussein regime fell, the time was as ripe as it would ever be to consolidate the support of the average Iraqi family. Instead, we dillied and we dallied. Rumsfeld; loathe to admit he was wrong about anything in Iraq, specifically in admitting that the General Officers who urged him to deploy more troops initially were right, well, he just kind of shrugged his shoulders and said shit happens (my words, not his). I will spare you the laundry list of terrible decisions, costly blunders, lapses in judgement and even condescending arrogance that emanated from OSD. Suffice to say, OSD blew the every real chance we had to end this operation quickly. And, the weeks and months passed, the situation became more fluid, new players and organizations seeking power emerged. But we stayed the course when we should have been seriously altering our operations, tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP).
Don't get me wrong, our troops have performed magnificently, and the successes that have been realized in Iraq, has been due to the bravery, sacrifice and the ingenuity of our troops. Their ability, their drive to succeed even when poorly lead has been inspirational and in the spirit of everything that is great about our military. Our troops performance thus far measures up to anything that any generation of past American fighting men and women have ever done in the history of our country in any war.

I worry about a regional war in the middle east, not because I give a rats ass about the region or the people, but because I worry about the welfare of our troops and the possibility that we will one day find ourselves over there again, a participant in a much bigger, more costly and deadly war involving many nations. For the life of me, I can't understand how liberals cannot understand and accept that fact. I have come to the conclusion that the first priority of the left is the denial of any semblance of success attributed to the Bush Administration, I think their mindless opposition to the war comes from the 2000 election and the stolen election conspiracy theory, they haven't gotten over it after six years! Isn't it ironic how the left is silent regarding stolen elections when they win? Yeah, ironic. And note, Republicans aren't making the claim either, you win some, you lose some. Anyway, back to the middle east. I have always given allot of credit to the Generals who have been speaking in public about the war. And I still give them credit. For example, a speech that was not covered by the main stream media, a speech that General Abizaid gave at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge. I what General Abizaid calls "the Long War" he likens radical Islam to the rise of Nazi Germany and says that if we can't muster the courage to stand up to radical Islam now, we could find ourselves fighting World War III tomorrow. I agree.

Take the comments from President Amadinejahd of Iran over the past year. Can we afford to believe him when he says his country is not seeking nuclear weapons? What if Iran does become a member of the nuclear club? How long do you think it will be before Iran uses nuclear weapons on Israel? I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if they can, they will. Take a look at some of the things he has said, and remember, he actually said these things, they are direct quotes:

• "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
• "We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
• "The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless."
• "The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?"
• "If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
• "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
• "Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
• "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
• "If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."
• "Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."
• "Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."
• "[There is] no significant need for the United States."
• "Iranians possess delicate characteristics. They introduce their merits, which are extremely attractive to whole the world."
• "We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime."
• "Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes."
• "We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?"

Iran is funding, equipping and training Shia militiamen who then enlist in the Iraqi Police Force and who execute Sunni Iraqis in a revenge killing campaign, but the Sunnis are fighting back and thus, the sectarian violence we hear about. But where are the Sunni getting their support? Are they getting outside assistance? Yes, I believe they are, and it is coming from Saudi Arabia. You see, Sunnis are the majority in the middle east. The Shia are the majority in Iran and Iraq. And if we leave Iraq before we finish the job, how long do you think it will be before Iran and Saudi Arabia find themselves on a collision course that neither can avoid? The likely scenario goes like this. We leave Iraq and Iran moves in overtly, in response, Saudi Arabia floods the oil market causing an oil glut and the price per barrel on the world market decreases by at least half. Saudi Arabia can survive such a drop in oil revenue, but Iran can't. That puts the ball in Iran's court, what will they do? And, rumor has it that Saudi Arabia has already begun construction on some hard surface roads that will expedite the transport of military equipment in the general direction of Iran, given the location and direction of these new roads, there is no other conceivable use for them. If Saudi Arabia and Iran become belligerents in an open war, how long will it be before other Sunni nations join Sauid Arabia? How long do you think it will be before Iran gives the green light to terrorists all over the world to set their long standing plans of attack into motion? And, when the oil pipelines are destroyed, and the world's demand for oil cannot be met, how long before oil consumer nations get involved? And what if Israel is attacked, for this would surely happen if warfare broke out in the middle east. The Palestinian Territories will become a blood bath, Lebanon will also re-ignite, prompting the entry of Syria into the war. And if a nuke is used by Iran anywhere, I promise you that the US will respond militarily. Possibly using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy nuclear facilities buried too deep to be reached by conventional weapons.

You get the general idea. And although this is only my personal opinion and, I hope I'm wrong I don't think I am. This scenario might not play out exactly as I have described, but I'm confident that it will be something along these lines.

So, before we rush into a hasty decision in leaving Iraq, lets think this thing all the way through this time and make the correct decision. And in my opinion, the correct decision is to stay and fight. Stay and finish the job and ignore that warm breeze, the hot air coming from the liberal left insisting that leaving Iraq tomorrow. Leaving Iraq prematurely will only ensure that we end up back there in the near future fighting a regional war that has the potential to ignite World War III. Think I'm nuts? That's what the anti war folk were saying prior to World War II, it isn't our fight, stay out of it. We couldn't stay out of it then and with the world now a global village how can we stay out of it today? Unfortunately we can't live without oil and we will fight to have access to it. You remember that the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor precisely because they were starved for oil?

Don't vote for a Democrat!

Good Day fellow Rockheads. Today is voting day, and right after work I'll be making a bee-line to my polling station to cast may ballot. Now, as you know I'm a registered Independent voter, but I will probably vote for Republicans in most elections. Why? Because I'm so sick of the Democrats that I can hardly keep from putting a combat boot through my television screen upon sight of Rangle, Murtha, Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, Cuomo, Conyers, you name the Democrat and I probably want to kick in his teeth, and I could too, no problem. I'm sick already of the allegations of Republican operatives committing voter fraud! The election isn't even over and already, they are setting the stage for either contingency, win, or lose. And yet, Democratic operatives like ACORN are out their conducting their black ops, and not a peep from the main stream media.

This will be a short blog entry, short but sweet. The world wide web is full of bloggers who try and write like PhD's they try to emulate journalists, etc. Not me, I'm just a veteran grunt who has something to say. If you vote for Democrats, and they take control of the House of Representatives, stand by for gridlock the likes of which we haven't seen in fifty years, look for funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to dry up in an effort to force the redeployment of our troops. Other than that, who in the hell knows what the Democratic plan is? If anyone does know, please send it to me, I'd like to see it.

As to the endless, whining about voter fraud, lets not forget which party invented it. Voter fraud has been around since the beginning of our Republic. I abhor it no matter what party affiliation is involved, it erodes the integrity of our voting process and it is in the pursuit of naked power that it is committed. It's a national travesty; a disgrace! But if you were paying attention the the main stream media only, you'd think only Republicans are doing it, and you'd be wrong. Ever hear of a little group called ACORN? Check out this report, and be sure to view the video.

The reason that Republicans get the nod on my ballot in most cases is because I know their platform, I know their plan. They have core values and I can recite them for you in thirty seconds. Not so with the Democrats. Now, don't get me wrong, I vote for the person I think is best qualified for the office. And today, election day, I know nothing more about the Democrats than I did two years ago. And I'm not the only one, even a die hard liberal like Michael Kinsley doesn't know what the Democrat plan is, see his latest editorial on the topic in the Washington Post. The Democrats might come away with the House of Representatives, and if you vote for a Democrat for the sake of change, excuse me, but your an idiot. You are choosing a unknown for a known. And my fellow Rockheads, your going to get the exact government you deserve. A government that will be less effective than it is today.

The Democrats have offered nothing but doom and gloom, demonized Republicans, and insulted the intelligence of average Americans, and if you vote for them your wasting your vote. Now, let me be clear, I'm far from pleased with the performance of President Bush, his cabinet, or the Republican dominated Congress. But, I'm not going to reward the Democrats for running such fear mongering, negative campaigns. If the Democrats ever return to their Blue Dog roots, perhaps they will get my vote, but as long as they continue the shrill, radical screaming, they don't get the time of day from me.

Go and vote my fellow Rockheads, by all means, the more people who vote the better. But before you punch a hole in your ballot, before you touch that interactive screen give it some thought. And let reality sink in, think about what you are voting for, not what you are voting against, because in voting against something, you are opening the door for the unknown which could very well be worse than what you have.

Are you brave?

My fellow Americans. It has come to my attention that support for the war in Iraq is falling. Why? I ask you to sincerely reflect upon this in your quiet moments.

During discussions I've participated in with people who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq I have attempted to understand their point of view. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that we should withdraw from Iraq. But nobody has convinced me. I have yet to hear a war opponent give me a good argument for leaving Iraq. And now, I'm beginning to think that their opposition to the war is grounded in the selfish, short sighted and possibly disastrous desire to oppose anything and everything that comes from the Bush Administration; in other words, their opposition to the war is based on politics. Since the presidential election of 2000, I've heard people claim that the election was stolen by Bush. And in 2004, sure that they would see John Kerry win only to see him lose in another close election, the opposition to Bush has grown into irrational hate. When I cruise the World Wide Web, and I come across chat boards in which I find images of George Bush photo shopped into grotesque images of Adolph Hitler, or a chimpanzee or any number of childish things, I automatically tune them out. I refuse to listen to anyone devoid of the self discipline to participate in a discussion in an adult, civil manner.

The war in Iraq is an unconventional fight. It is a kind of war we have little experience with. It is not quite an insurgency, and it is not quite a fight against terror, it is something else, something in between, it is a hybrid war, a war with the hallmarks of several different kinds of war, but for the sake of this entry I refer to it as an insurgency. It will take us some time to figure out how to fight it effectively, the history of warfare tells us that. To expect the insurgency in Iraq to be put down by now is unrealistic. Historically insurgencies have always been lengthy efforts, requiring patience and determination from the counter insurgent. But in the society we live in, where we routinely receive instant gratification our ability to stay focused, our willingness to accept delayed gratification seems to have gone the way of the Do Do Bird. My friends, the only way we will lose in Iraq is if we allow it. Our military has had a steep learning curve, but they've figured this out and now, they need our unwavering support. Indications are, that our government has finally figured it out as well, and they need our support as well. This will not require any sacrifice on the part of the average American family, all it requires is for America to stop being hyper critical.

And now my friends, what will happen to Iraq if we leave? First, you must answer this basic question; do you care? It seems to me that in listening to the war opponents lament the loss of innocent Iraqi lives, that America does care. And since that is the case, pulling out of Iraq now makes no sense at all. Because if we do, Iraq will become a blood bath. If you think the sectarian violence is bad, consider this. If we leave, an all out civil war will erupt in Iraq, pitting the Shia majority with the active support of Iran, against the Sunni and Kurd minority. The killing will be countrywide, it will be Kosovo all over again only worse, ethnic cleansing on such a massive scale that it might be better described as genocide.

Do any of you trust Iran? Why would you possibly support our withdrawal and hand Iraq over to Iran complete with gift wrapping and ribbon? This my friends, without a doubt, will give international terrorism a home base, a sanctuary the likes of which they have never had before, complete with military arms, ammunition and equipment sitting around unattended ready to use. If we leave, who will be left in Iraq to prevent this? The Iraqi government is not strong enough, the Iraqi military isn't strong enough, there will be nobody to oppose the bad guys and the Iraqi people will be at their mercy.

The basic problem, most Middle East experts agree is the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. If we leave Iraq, our credibility or whats left of it, will be in tatters. It was bad enough that upon driving the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm that President Bush told the Iraqi Shia that if they took up arms against Saddam Hussein that we would assist them, and then to have abandoned them allowing Saddam to massacre them by the thousands. What will remain of our credibility, if after overthrowing Saddam, allowing chaos to ensue, only to leave before the job was done? Who would possibly take the chance in trusting us again? Iran will become the sole dominant force in the Middle East, along with a much weakened Israel. Israel, still smarting from the Lebanon conflict, and with the prospect of unilateral withdrawal completely discredited, will have little leverage with Iran. And my friends, it would only be a matter of time. A simple matter of time if we left, that the sectarian violence in Iraq turned into all out civil war, drawing in Iraq's neighbors, igniting a regional conflict and ultimately resulting in a military attack against Israel. And then, guess what? We will be back in the Middle East, participating in a bigger, more costly, more deadly war as an ally of Israel.

It is time for Americans to find their backbone. It is time to draw from the well of the generations of Americans past. For, they had the courage, discipline, the basic understanding that if they did not do the hard thing now, that they would be required to do a much harder thing later.

This fight is more important than perhaps most of the war opponents think. This fight isn't about oil or imperialism, those are just meaningless buzzwords used cavalierly by the opponents. It is a fight for our survival. This is a fight to change the attitudes of future generations of Iraqis, Arabs, and muslims. If we do not defeat the enemy in Iraq, they will have virtual free reign to recruit, finance, plan future terrorist operations and to train future terrorists for generations to come. Is that the kind of prospect that you want to leave to your children and grandchildren? Radical Islam is on the march. Who is going to oppose it if we do not?

My friends, it is far too early to give up. You defeatists out there who lack the courage of our ancestors, you need to educate yourselves and you need to wake the hell up. For all of the talk of how grim the situation is, to those of your prone to believe the politically motivated doomsday sayers I say; think for yourself! We overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, liberated more the 50 million people from these two murderous, oppressive regimes. Don't you feel good about that? To write off the effort in Iraq as lost at this point would be like writing off the possibility of democracy in Europe because the failure of the revolutions in 1848. The problem in Iraq isn't that the people reject democracy. It is that there is not enough democracy there yet.

The enemy is getting support from Iran Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Do you note any democracies in that bunch? For all the yammering about how democracy doesn't stand a chance to grow in Iraq, has a credible alternative been offered by the anti war crowd? That's my whole point. The anti war crowd isn't thinking this through! Are we to return to the pre 9/11 paradigm and supporting our "friendly" dictators like Mubarak or the Saudi Royal Family? If our support for the Shah of Iran or of Yasser Arafat taught Americans anything, it should surely be that a secular strongman cannot keep the lid on indefinitely. We have to fix this, just like we did in Europe and Japan.

Again, we will not win overnight so stop acting like we should people! The President has told us from the outset that this fight would be a long one, and since the American people aren't suffering in support of it, whats the beef? Do not forget my friends many Americans were in utter despair at the prospect of the Cold War. In the late 1940s, communism appeared to be an unstoppable force, just as Islamism does to us today. Our enemies then; China and the Soviet Union were far, far more powerful than Al Qaeda and Iran are combined today. When Whittaker Chambers publicly broke with the Communist Party in 1948, he declared, "I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side." Yet the West ultimately prevailed. And just as the Soviet Union collapsed in record time, with the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the Inter zonal German Border Fence, so, the cancer of Islamism in the Middle East could fall apart even faster than any of us expect! It could be, that all that is required is for a functioning model of democracy in a major Middle Eastern country. There is a little talked about fact of the Middle East the main stream media doesn't tell you about, there is a huge, underground, grass roots hunger for democracy among the younger generations in the region, yes, it's true. In Egypt, Iran, the people of the region yearn for change, to modernize, the dissatisfaction is palpable in the streets from Cairo to Tehran and the spark these people may only need is for Iraq to succeed and they will set themselves free.

My fellow Americans, as we well know, only democracy can satisfy the deepest desires of human nature. The question is not the outcome in Iraq now, it is how many people on both sides will die in the intervening decades? As our historic fight against communism and fascism suggest, determined American leadership can lower the death toll and speed up freedom's victory.

A retreat from Iraq now, will only serve to delay the inevitable emergence of democracy in the Middle East, it will only prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people and the people of the Middle East (for they are indeed suffering) and it will almost preordain, a major conflagration in the region, a conflagration that will draw us back to the region only under much more dire circumstances.

Think about it.

Ahmadinejad; Graduate of the Adolph Hitler School of how to win friends and influence people.

Ahmadinejad; Hitler reincarnate.

In my previous blog I commented on Hugo Chavez's speech before the UN. I can't comment on that babbling monkey without commenting on his partner in crime, the current President of Iran.

Like Chavez, Admadinejad addressed the UN recently. Although Admadinejad attempted to present himself as a genuine, enlightened, worldly politician, the reality of his deeds do not jibe with the picture he attempts to paint.

Ahmadinejad is attempting to remake his image in the west. He would like us to forget the prominent role he played in the Tehran Hostage Debacle during the Carter Presidency. Unfortunately, Americans have a short memory so it serves us well to examine this sorry excuse for a human being.

Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN was overflowing with lies and illusions that were designed to capture the imagination of the UN membership. So, he conveniently left his Islamic-fascist ideals back in Iran. Missing from his UN speech was his call for the outright destruction of Israel. Relying on his penchant for revising history, which appeals the the left of America. He continues to try to deny the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

Also missing from his UN speech? His declaration that "Islam will conquer all the mountain tops of the world." In it's place he called for "justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity." But who are the enemies of these universal values? According to Ahmadinejad, certainly not Islamic fundamentalists such as himself! After all, Islamic fundamentalists kill most non-muslims with equal vigor and elan, be they Christian, Hindu or Jew in the name of muslim supremacy and who also murder their own people for crimes like political dissent. Of course, the enemies of these universal values are the United States, and the United Kingdom, isn't that obvious? The guilty parties are the "hegemonic powers" who abuse their "privileged" status on the UN Security Council to escape accountability for their "aggression, occupation and violation of international law."

By comparison to Chavez's clownish performance before the UN, Ahmadinejad tried to present himself as an enlightened leader, modern and inclusive. But it is exactly this hypocritical posturing that makes this megalomaniac such a dangerous man. Ominously Hitler-like, Ahmadinejad is attempting to lull the world into appeasement and passivity while he plans behind closed doors to develop nuclear weapons and finances global terror with his nation's oil profits.

This man is intelligently playing the Palestinian victim hood card before a willing international audience. But his stand boils down pretty much to this. Why should a group of European survivors of the Holocaust (which he denies ever occurred) have any right to occupy a land thousands of miles from Europe "at the expense of driving millions of rightful inhabitants of the land into homelessness? To anyone with even a general understanding of history, Ahmadinejad is telling lies wrapped in a sympathetic package of bogus claims.

If I could speak to Mr. Ahmadinejad I would tell him I'm sorry to pop your delusional bubble, but the Holocaust did happen. It is beyond disingenuous for him; in the face of overwhelming evidence to deny it happened. To deny the Nazi slaughter of six million innocent Jews, demonstrates a true madness, a calculating evil temperament and an sinister motivation.

His accusations that the Israel has no right to exist stems from his delusional mind. The Jews preceded the muslims in that region by centuries. The Jews have been living in Israel for over three millennia. The Persian, King Cyrus recognized Jew's claim to their homeland. After King Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon (central Iraq) in 539 BC, he liberated Jews held captive in Babylon for three generations and encouraged them to return to their homeland in Israel and rebuilt the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. About a thousand years later in 641 BC, the Caliph, Umar decreed that Christians and Jews should be removed from most of Islamic holy lands of Arabia, and resettled them by force in lands assigned to them in Syria and Palestine. During this time in history, followers of Muhammad themselves believed that the Jews belonged in Palestine.

In 1948, Israel was recognized as an independent state by the UN . But the Arabs rejected the presence of an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinians already living inside Israel could have stayed, as some did and became Israeli citizens. Yet it was neighboring countries who encouraged the Palestinian inhabitants to leave their homes, with the promise that they would be allowed to return in short order after the Arabs attacked and drove out the Jews. For over twenty years the Palestinians could still have had their own state on the West Bank. Israeli forces were not driven out, from there or in Gaza until the 1967 when war convinced the nation of Israel that for their security the needed to be there out of necessity.

All Israel has ever wanted is to be left alone to live in peace and openly as Jews in their own lands without interference, and they were forced to fight for it on several occasions. In so doing Israel has never suppressed the rights of others who lived in Israel to practice their own faiths, which is exactly what Islamic fascists like Ahmandinejad have refused to tolerate in muslim controlled lands regarding non-muslim faiths. Instead of peace, Israelis have faced escalating campaigns to wipe them out. His words on justice, peace and human dignity before the UN runs hollow in the face of his actual intentions. If Iran ever procures a nuclear device he will use it on Israel, I guarantee it. And that will only be the opening act of his cause of global conquest in the name of Islam.

The United States and United Kingdom have proven to be responsible members of the UN Security Council and that international peace is their prime motivator by the blood and treasure our peoples have sacrificed for those causes. The US and UK championed the formulation of the UN from the destruction of WWII and together we have kept it together with financial contributions over it's life span. The US alone pays 22% of the UN's annual regular budget and billions more for other UN functions and programs. Guess how much oil rich Iran has contributed? .15%. No member of the Organization of Islamic Conference or the African continent are even in the top ten list of contributors to the UN's 2006 budget. Considering Ahmadinejad's repeated call for the destruction of Israel, a member in good standing in the UN, Iran should be expelled immediately from the UN altogether for violating this basic UN Charter! Rather, Iran is rewarded while Israel is penalized and vilified for protecting herself. Israel pays three times the amount that Iran pays, even though Iran is rich from oil sales and it has three times the share of the world's Gross Domestic Product than Israel.

The US and other functioning democracies in the world have consistently displayed compassion for the world's poor with massive public and private donations of aid. While the pretenders like Ahmadinejad of Iran seek to exploit their plight for political advantage, it's repugnant! While the US has acted as a leader in trying to prevent new genocide, such as Dafur in the Sudan, Africa, while members of the Non-Aligned Movement and Organization of Islamic Conference have either sat on their money or have aligned themselves with those who are committing genocide against their own people.

The history of WWII must be re-taught again and again to new generations of Hitler wannabes like Ahmadinejad. But alas, it seems the world democracies who lived through that horror and conquered fascism are the only ones who possess the courage to display the moral authority to rise and challenge fascism again, in our own lifetimes.

In a revealing editorial called "Sleeping with a devil in Islamic clothing," by a Somali journalist Bashir Goth, he describes the new Islamic fascist regime in Somalia, we get a taste of the Islamic-fascist idea of peace, justice and human dignity. It is not a pretty picture. The Somalians' native culture, identity, including their language is being wiped out before their eyes, much as the Taliban did in Afghanistan and the Arab muslims have done for centuries in Persia where Ahmadinejad is the latest in a long line of Islamic fundamentalists who have tried to stamp out the native Persian language, religious beliefs and culture.

Basic human rights are being denied in Somalia, as radical Islam has done in every area it has managed to take root. "The warlords use brute force to coerce people and the Islamists use brute religion to dehumanize people" wrote Bashir Goth. Islamic law (Sharia) is being applied through brute force. People who do not dutifully pray five times a day face the death penalty, he reports. Women are shackled at home.

Bashir Goth concludes: "Allowing them (the Islamists) to fulfill their agenda under the pretext of returning Somalia to peace is not only myopic but also foolhardy and sleeping with a devil in Islamic clothing." (Source: The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatches Series - No 1290, September 15, 2006, from Awdalnews.com, August 26, 2006).

This is the kind of world that this little man, (Ahmadinejad) has in store for the world if he gets his hands on a nuclear weapon. You are a FOOL if you believe this Islamic fascist nutcase when he boldly lies and manipulates the vocabulary of Western enlightenment and democratic values as he did in his pack of lies and accusations at the UN last week.
Ahmadinejad is an evil man bent on bringing about the Islamic version of the apocalypse. He desires to hasten the appearance of the hidden Imam which is supposedly to usher in an era of Islamic domination of the world.

I say, if you give this man an inch, he will take a mile, and then you will discover too late, you were a willing fool. He will lead you to slaughter. He will smile at you and shake your hand if it brings about the downfall of everything non-muslim in the world. Ahmadinejad is as evil as they come. He is trying to use our open, freedom loving society, our compassion, our freedom of speech and our tolerance to bring about our own destruction.

THE DEVIL!

Hugo Chavez is the devil!

I watched the President of Venezuela deliver a speech to a virtually empty UN a couple of days ago. A speech in which he called President Bush "The Devil" no less than eight times. I sat on my sofa doing a slow burn as I watched theatrics the likes of which have not been seen since the days of Adolf Hitler. Somehow I think Fidel gave him some tips on his delivery during Chavez's visit to old Fidel a few weeks ago.The few UN members who bothered to stick around and listen to this chattering monkey were given quite a treat, but it was not a speech befitting the UN. It was a display of arrogance, it was the epitome of self righteous indignation. It became obvious to me that the UN members who stayed in their seats to listen to this idiot were of the same mind as Chavez, for I heard laughter, chuckles and applause throughout his inane, baseless diatribe and I took solace in the fact that most of the UN members knew that he wasn't worth their time. In short, Hugo Chavez made an absolute idiot of himself in front of the entire nation. He should have painted his face with clown makeup.

Hugo Chavez had the audacity to criticize the United States and our president, as though Venezuela is perfect. Lets just take a moment to take a look at the wonderful state of Venezuela under the dictatorship of Hugo "The Devil" Chavez shall we? Who knows, maybe we'll learn how to govern a proper democracy?

The members of the UN who graciously sat through Chavez's speech against President Bush are among the very same UN members that have urged Venezuela to repeal laws that allow for the prosecution and imprisonment of it's citizens who disrespect certain state officials, naturally including El Presidenta Chavez for up to 40 months. Additionally, Chavez's Venezuela may also prosecute citizens for "defaming" the government as well. The UN and Human Rights Watch have urged Venezuela to repeal such laws as Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru have done already. Chile and Panama are in the process of repealing such laws.

Human Rights Watch has also expressed concern as the Venezuelan Congress dealt a sever blow to independence by packing the country's Supreme Court with 12 new justices. Five years ago Presidential Candidate Chavez promised to enshrine the principle of judicial independence with a new democratic constitution. After his election, the Chavez government betrays that promise by expanding the court from 20 to 32 members with the 12 new members all being members of Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement. This court packing law also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the court without the two-thirds vote required under the constitution.

The state effectively controls television and radio broadcasting. Through the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television the state, through loosely worded rules on incitement of breaches of public order can penalize broadcasters legitimate expression of political views.

The people of the United States should be outraged by Chavez's remarks. His criticism should ring hallow for every day, he increases his power through abuse of his authority.

Chavez is a socialist, claims to embrace democracy while totally rejecting the claim he's a dictator. But if you'll recall your history, Chavez eventually was elected president after his failed coup attempt in 1992 which resulted in the deaths of 14 soldiers and over 100 civilian and military injuries. Ever wonder why Venezuela is even more divided that the United States? Chavez and his allies took it upon themselves to circumvent democracy with their coup attempt! And he now has the audacity to claim he believes in democracy? Where were his beliefs in 1992? Ultimately the president they were trying to overthrow was removed from office the next year as a result of charges of corruption, which makes it abundantly clear, the Venezuela political system was healthy and capable of dealing with such abuses through legal means, his coup was a complete waste of time, and unfortunately people died as a result.

In 1994 after serving two years in prison for his coup attempt, he was graciously pardoned as was his main ally Francisco Cardenas. In 1998 he ran a populist campaign that was funded in large measure by millions of dollars in illegal contributions by two foreign banks. During his campaign he swore to abolish the traditional political system, put an end to corruption in government and eliminate poverty in the country. In 1999, the Venezuelan Constitution was rewritten by a group of Chavez supporters. This new and "improved" constitution tremendously increased the power of the president and weakened the power of the legislature.

In 2000, Chavez was not surprisingly re-elected under the new constitution. Amazingly enough, his opponent was his chief ally, Cardenas, and between the two of them, they captured 97% of the vote. Surprise of surprises, Cardenas is now the Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations. This would seem to indicate that the voters of Venezuela had to choose between the lesser of two evils that had a mere eight years prior, been traitors to the country.

In 2004, Venezuelans attempted to recall Chavez was impeded by the government, recall supporters were subject to intimidation but eventually a recall referendum was held. Chavez, allegedly survived with 60% of the vote in his favor. That recall was endorsed by President Carter, but exit polls indicated the opposite; that Chavez was effectively recalled by 60% of the voters. The vote was marred by a lack of transparency and obstructionism during the process that led to the US News and World Report to agree that there was compelling reason to believe that Chavez only retained his presidency due to massive voter fraud!

Has Chavez made good on his campaign promise to improve the lot of the poor in his country? It seems doubtful according to most UN and Human Rights Watch reports. Chavez seems to be spending the bulk of his time and effort in office in rigging a way for him to stay in office longer than the constitutionally mandated two terms. Time will tell in that regard.

Chavez undoubtedly engaged in traitorous acts against his country, was imprisoned, accepted illegal campaign contributions from rich multinational companies while claiming to being interested in helping the poor, he created a new constitution handing him more and more power. His only subsequent election was against a coup co-conspirator of his 1992 coup attempt who is now ambassador to the UN, it is likely that he was recalled by the voters of Venezuela in 2004, his government is rife with the exact corruption as previous governments and he is already attempting to rewrite the constitution so he can continue as the president.

Chavez deserves nothing from Americans but our contempt. Over the past few years, Chavez has made headlines not through anti poverty campaigns or fighting corruption in the government, but through a domestic was-the-dog campaign in which he has attempted to convince the citizens of Venezuela that an American attack is imminent, and by a more recent international campaign that is characterized by an inflammatory anti-American message. His domestic agenda is clear, to unite Venezuelans against an imaginary American military strike, in this way he distracts the people from whatever complaints they might otherwise voice against him as the move ever closer to the election in December. His anti-American rhetoric seems to be focused on gaining prominence in the eyes of the world and to gain support for his call for Venezuela to be given a seat on the UN Security Council; which is laughable and would be an utter disaster.

If it were not bad enough to have an idiot, tinpot dictator in the western hemisphere to step into the role of Castro, Chavez is supporting Iran in their nuclear program. He has also allied himself with Syria and hopes soon to meet with the pot bellied pig in North Korea. He has threatened to stop selling oil to the US. Chavez is clearly an irrational man conducting a dangerous foreign policy that borders on brinkmanship. He is attempting to solidify a bloc of anti-American nations to oppose and undermine the US. He even went so far as to recommend that the UN be moved from the US to some other location, and naturally he offered Venezuela as an option. While he obviously hates our President, he has also made it abundantly clear that he is opposed to the "American Empire", and that does not refer to President Bush alone, he's talking about America proper. I predict that Chavez is going to be the President of Venezuela for decades, when Bush is long gone.

Many countries may not be fond of our President, but there is a difference between disliking our President and creating an anti-American alliance that will in all probability be in existence long after Bush leaves office. I tell you here and now, the only way Chavez will relinquish office is through death or political uprising at the hands of the people of Venezuela.

Americans should understand and remember that Chavez is not our friend. He is a liar who will stoop to any means necessary to bring about our downfall. Not only is he actively engaged in creating an anti-American alliance, he is forming that alliance with the most brutal and irrational governments on the face of the earth, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba. At least two of these unstable countries is in or about to join the nuclear club. And all are safe haven to state sponsored terrorists. This week for example, Iran and Venezuela signed an agreement to produce gun powder and small aircraft in Venezuela, why gun powder? Does Iran intend to use it for their peaceful alternative power program too?

My fellow Americans, we have our differences, and regardless of how you feel about President Bush, that fact is Chavez is opposing him to curry the favor of those who do not support him. Do not let Chavez fool you into thinking he is your friend. Remember the reality of how Chavez got to the presidency. Remember he is a socialist, his lack of attention to his campaign promise to alleviate the suffering of the poor, who constitute 50% of the population of Venezuela by the way. And remember the fact that he is trying to recruit rogue states into an alliance against our country.

Think about this, Chavez hangs onto his power by using the tactics that many accuse Bush of using regarding election fraud. It is reasonable to conclude that those who make these kinds of accusations against the President of the United States should hold Chavez to the same standard, should they not? Yet, some who accuse Bush excuse Chavez. In so doing, they do a disservice to the democratic principles they claim to hold in such esteem.

In the 1980s the US treated an Iraqi dictator as a friend because he was opposed to the US's enemies in the region; Iran. Ten years later, he became our enemy and the conflict that ensued has torn our unity apart. Some Americans that approve of Chavez are the same ones that accuse past administrations of stupidity in supporting Saddam in the early years. But these same people have not learned an important lesson from that mistake; That the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Just because Iraq stood against Iran did not make Saddam any less brutal. Likewise, certain Americans need to come to the realization that the fact that Chavez opposes Bush does not make him a friend of the American opponents to Bush.

We have far more things in common with one another than we do differences. One thing, one man that should unite us, is that cackling monkey, Hugo Chavez.