Congrats Redsox

Congratulations, Red Sox, on beating the Bambino Curse. Let's just hope no one else from Massechusetts wins anything for another week.

America's Choice: Don't Turn Iraq Into Vietnam

After Vietnam, people all over the world, including Americans, thought that America would not fight. America would not invade. America did not have the stomach for it. Saddam thought that in 1991. He believed it even more after we stopped on our way to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait. The conventional wisdom in the Middle East and in Middle America was that America just did not have the stomach to go all the way and to lose more than a handful of men.

September 11 changed that perception and countries were afraid. After we invaded Iraq, people in other countries have had to face the new reality: America will send in troops if we need to. Lots of troops. And America's military power is very significant.

Now it is apparent to Saddam and others like him that they cannot just thumb their noses at America and do whatever they want. They have to take our military threat seriously.

Now, in comes Kerry. If we elect Kerry, our new found respect will disappear. If we elect Kerry, the world will begin the believe again that the heartland of America doesn't have the stomach to send its boys to fight, because a vote for Kerry is a vote against the war. Two-bit dictators and terrorists will be emboldened. They will once again thumb their noses at us and do whatever they want. They will again commit human rights abuses. The threat of the big stick by the United States will become an empty one.

So we'll have to prove ourselves again in 20 years time (or perhaps sooner) when the next paradigm shift comes and some other country thinks they can take us on. Teddy Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and Carry a Big Stick." A vote for Kerry makes the big stick look kind of small to some. If that's true, we can speak all we want and no one will listen. If it doesn't look like you have a big stick, you have to use it a lot more.

A vote for Bush means fewer 911s and fewer wars in the future. A vote for Kerry means uncertainty for a long time.

Where the Republicans Keep Going Wrong?

The Republicans could win easily if they find easy ways to explain things. Why is it wrong to be a tax and spend liberal? Because taxes make jobs go away and take money out of your hands and the government is terribly inefficient at fixing problems, so it is better to have jobs and a small government than few jobs and a big one. Big government means more poverty. Why not say that? Supply side economics and free markets have prevailed. Communism is destroyed. I seem to remember the Soviet Union and the communist bloc imploding.

Kerry has a plan. Has anyone asked him what it is? More diplomacy? Make sure the UN approves of our actions? If we waited for the UN to approve our actions everytime we wanted to do something, we'd be waiting a long time. Look, France, Germany, and Russia (two of those countries had veto power in the UN Security Council) were not going to vote yes to go into Iraq. They weren't. We tried to go the UN route. Bush got a final UN resolution, but it still wasn't enough.

Things are not as difficult as people think. People are not as stupid as people think. Yes, the Republicans should cater to our patriotism. But they don't need to be so simplistic that we can't understand. Talk some economics. Speak the truth. People like that. If we speak like real people and explain things, people will respond. If we speak like real people as opposed to saying things like "Do it for the children" people will see the true difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?

Social Security-Will Someone Take the Rudder?

Look, somebody needs to do something about Social Security. Kerry says it's a covenant between the American people and the government. Geez, liberals are so conservative when it comes to keeping entitlement programs from changing. At least Bush is talking privatized. He's talking about fixing it. Kerry is doing nothing. He can afford to. He'll be dead and safely out of office when my young daughter and I have to start worrying about it. I'm already going to have to wait until I'm 70 to collect anything. But one day, 40 to 50 years from now, or maybe less, if we don't do something, the economy is going to implode, there will be a major revolt among those who will have to support it, or there will be a major decrease in benefits taking seniors by surprise who did not pay for it.

Kerry's two arguments against privatization are these: 1. We can't change a sacred covenant. 2. We don't want to put money in the hands of greedy bankers and mutual fund companies.

Greenspan thinks its a good idea and that's good enough for me, but Kerry is against it. He, like his liberal (dare I say socialist) friends, don't like people making money I guess unless they are the hard working Americans. Well, I'm a hard working American and if I can get a bank or mutual fund company to make me money, then I'm all for them making money, too.

But we have to start now when we can afford to put a little aside in these funds. 25 years from now, it will be too late. Why are Kerry and the Democrats so afraid of change when it comes to government programs and so for it when they want to encourage gay marriage (I don't believe Kerry when he says he's against gay marriage) and discourage traditional western religion and culture?

Whatever you political bent, we are heading for a crisis and Kerry doesn't want to do anything about it. He's too scared to mess with Social Security. If he takes a stand away from the status quo, he'll lose votes. Frankly, he's too scared to do anything. That's why he flip flops.

To take the rudder of the biggest ship in the world, Social Security, so as to change course when there are so many nay-sayers and so many people who are frightened takes tremendous courage and leadership. Obviously, Bush has it. Kerry does not.

Yes, jobs are disappearing, but causes may surprise

Thu Oct 7, 8:09 AM ET Op/Ed - USATODAY.com

When John Kerry talks about the economy, he invariably focuses on the anemic employment gains of the past two years. As anyone who has struggled to find work knows, jobs have been the key missing ingredient in an otherwise-healthy economic expansion.

Kerry's chief villain is the corporate "outsourcing" of American jobs to countries that pay lower wages. In Ohio on Sunday, he vowed to close $40 billion in tax loopholes that he says encourage companies to move jobs overseas. Tuesday night, John Edwards (news - web sites) hammered home the point again in his debate with Vice President Cheney: "They're for outsourcing jobs. We're against it."

The outsourcing offensive may appeal to disenchanted voters who have seen companies shut plants and move abroad. And it certainly plays on broader worker fears about layoffs in a fast-changing global economy.

But one thing it doesn't do is address the primary reasons why the job outlook these days is so uncertain.

Studies show that the migration of U.S. jobs overseas is a tiny factor in weak employment growth. A Labor Department (news - web sites) study of job losses in the first three months of the year found that only 2% went overseas. Other studies have put the figure closer to 1%.

In truth, several factors unrelated to outsourcing have kept total employment below where it was when Bush took office, something that hasn't happened during a president's term since the Great Depression.

They include:

Productivity gains. Technology lets companies do more with fewer people. In 2002 and 2003, output for each U.S. worker increased by more than 4% a year, the first time productivity was that high two years in a row, according to the Labor Department.

Health care costs. Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Board surveys show rising medical expenses - more than 10% annually for four years running - are dampening hiring as firms worry about paying for new employees' benefits.

Terror insecurity. While hard to quantify, fears of another major terror attack may be prompting companies to be conservative in hiring. A survey by the National Association for Business Economists rated terrorism as the biggest threat to the economy, above government debt and rising interest rates.

Some of these factors are beyond a president's control. And in the case of productivity gains, short-term bad news is good news over time; more productive workers are more competitive globally. Productivity is also the key to raising living standards.

The next president can have an impact, however, by focusing on proven ways to spur job growth. One is to boost U.S. exports. Both candidates have sound pro-trade records, but Kerry needs the courage to make the case that trade leads to more U.S. jobs, not fewer. And Bush can avoid popular but counterproductive protectionist moves, such as his imposing steel tariffs in 2002.

Another solution is to do more to restrain out-of-control health costs. Yet neither candidate has a plan that is comprehensive and goes beyond shifting costs from the private sector to government.

Free-trade critics cite studies that predict millions of jobs will be moved overseas in the next decade. But past dire warnings about the dangers of expanding trade have proved false. In the past 20 years, the economy has seen a net increase of 36 million jobs, as new companies crop up to replace others that have withered and died.

Decrying outsourcing attracts votes, but it diverts attention from the real problem of worrisome job growth - and the solutions. Today's debate: "Outsourcing" jobs Productivity, health costs, terror fears hurt more than foreign flight.

The VP Debate

This sums up the debate:

You aren't telling the truth. No, YOU aren't.

In other words, nobody won. This was a non-event. But it does sum up the fact that there is no monopoly on the truth. Rather, the truth depends on your point of view. I do not think that one can make a truly good argument that Bush lied to get us into war, but if you are a peace-nic, then you hate Bush and what the Kerry campaign says is the truth. But it's not the truth. It's just rhetoric.

Why a Kerry Win is good for the Terrorists and other bad guys around the world.

Kerry could form a team that could make all the right decisions in Iraq. Maybe his team could be smarter than Bush's team. Kerry isn't stupid. The people around him aren't stupid. Kerry's intelligence and the intelligence of his people is not why I think a win will be very, very bad for Iraq, the US, and the rest of the world.

The reason why I am voting for Bush is because Kerry can't possibly do the things he is saying he is going to do. (1) He says he can run a smarter war. He doesn't give any specifics, but he says that. (2) He says he will get other people around the world to do some of the work, so that the US doesn't have to do all the heavy lifting. Again, he doesn't give many specifics, but that is what he says. However, he is wrong on both points.

I'll start with number (2). First of all, there are about 30 nations helping us in the War on Terror and numerous nations helping in Iraq. I cannot name one reason why they would want to send troops to Iraq. The US bales out other nations. Not the other way around. Nevertheless, nations are already helping. Even nations like France, Germany, and Russia are cooperating significantly with the War on Terror. In particular, these three nations are cooperating with intelligence and immigration. They may not be sending troops anywhere, but they won't be sending troops for Kerry either. How is Kerry going to get France, Germany, and Russia to send troops to Iraq? Or any other nation for that matter? This summit he is talking about is just a meeting. Without some new reason to send troops or money, those nations won't do anything more. They may "like" Kerry better, but "like" doesn't equal money or troops. The countries that have sent money and troops had political reasons for doing so, such as either having fears of their own or wanting to make nice so they could join NATO. Kerry's "likability" will achieve nothing. Frankly, George Bush is a very likeable guy in person. He could do better.

However, there are other reasons why Kerry can't get other nations to do more and why he can't run a smarter war than Bush. This goes to his "flip-flopping", too. The fact of the matter is that it is hard to be a Democrat. There are numerous types of Democrats. It's not that Kerry is a flip-flopper, he just has to say different things for different democrats and for the independents. He has to say he is against the war to the anti-war crowd and he is for the war, but can do it differently to others. He is inconsistent and he might have to change what he does in the war or even pull out depending on what the polls say. And a Democrat president is always more concerned with polls than a Republican president.

The anti-war crowd may ask that Kerry get out ASAP. Kerry may feel pressured to put a date certain on a pull out. If that doesn't happen as he plans (and it never does in a war), he will take a lot of heat. Yet the Republicans will not stand by him. The anti-war democrats won't stand by him. His base is made of people who just want to oust Bush. If Bush is gone, where is Kerry's base? The fact is that Kerry does not have a strong enough base to carry out this very difficult war. Any plan he creates will depend on the winds of politics and, when politics guides the war, the war gets messy and you might lose it. That's what happens in Vietnam (but Kerry isn't seeing this).

Countries like Britain, Australia, Poland, and others know that Bush will stay in Iraq come Hell or high water and will make the right decisions regardless of politics. They know they can stand in a certain position and things won't change even as the tactics of the war do. Who knows what Kerry will do? Will he pull out in Six months, 1 year, when the job is done? Who knows? Other nations who are sending money and troops do not want to waste their time and money on a very hard undertaking if they cannot be sure that the US is going to stay. And if the US leaves, no country in its right mind would stay to take over the roll of the US. Those other countries don't have the power or the money.

With Kerry's inconsistency, he won't get any other countries to send troops or money. And the ones that have won't send any more. The ones that have may decide to cut their losses not knowing what Kerry is going to do. It's bad enough with the uncertainty of the enemy. If you are uncertain about your allies, you suddently have two fronts to watch out for.

The terrorists may be evil, but they are not stupid. If Kerry is elected, the Terrorist know that his base won't stand behind him if things get bad. If too many Americans start coming home in body bags or if the violence gets too intense, Kerry's base will demand the US pull out. And the Republicans won't support Kerry no matter which decision he makes (they will pretend to support keeping troops there, but they won't put their muscle into it) and they will use the failed war against Kerry in the next election. Kerry will have some supporters who will want him to keep the troops there, but the Democrat party will be split and Kerry will do something to save face like Nixon did in Vietnam. A Civil War will start and we will be much worse off than before.

The terrorists and insurgents know that Kerry can't survive too much violence hitting out TVs. The terrorists and insurgents know that Kerry won't be able to approve needed military action where civilians might be put in harms way or that might damage a mosque.

The terrorists and insurgents know that Bush is strong, but Kerry isn't. That is why the terrorists and insurgents are hoping for a Kerry victory. A Kerry victory means a victory for the enemy. For them, a Kerry victory means they can see the light at the end of the tunnel. If Kerry wins, there is be a little peace for a short period of time, but then you will begin to see violence and eventually civil war. If Bush wins, the terrorists and the insurgents know the fight will be too hard to win. The terrorists and insurgents know that they can't destroy American military power. They can only destroy America's will to fight.

A Kerry win means they have done that.

Polls-Did Kerry Pull Ahead?

It's bad news in the Newsweek poll released on 10/2/04. Kerry is up by 5 points in a poll with registered but not likely voters. Of course, that is just one poll and there are others yet to come out. Previously, Bush was ahead by double digits in some polls. Other polls had a statistical dead heat.

It seems to me that polls in previous elections agreed with each other to some extent. The polls this time around are all over the map. One poll probably doesn't make any difference. We have to see what the other polls say to make any sense of what is going on.

However, I do feel a slight dread in this Newsweek poll. If Kerry wins, we are screwed.

U.S. Commander Claims Success in Samarra

U.S. Commander Claims Success in Samarra

By ZIDAN KHALAF, Associated Press Writer
SAMARRA, Iraq - Afraid to stray from home, residents buried the dead in their gardens Saturday as U.S. and Iraqi forces battled pockets of resistance in this former insurgent stronghold, where the American military said 125 rebels were killed and 88 captured in two days of fierce fighting.

The American commander declared the operation a successful first step in a major push to wrest key areas from insurgent control before January elections.

Elsewhere the rebels struck back, wounding at least five U.S. forces in three separate bomb attacks. In the latest in a string of kidnappings, militants claimed to have abducted and beheaded an Iraqi construction contractor working on a U.S. base.

U.S. and Iraqi commanders said they controlled 70 percent of Samarra after some 5,000 troops — including 2,000 Iraqis and 3,000 Americans — swept into the city early Friday. Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan claimed success, telling the Arab television station Al-Arabiya: "It is over in Samarra."

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division, said he was "very confident that the future of Samarra is good."

"This is great news for the people of Samarra, 200,000 people who have been held captive, hostage if you will, by just a couple of hundred thugs," he told CNN.
Batiste praised the performance of Iraqi troops, saying they "really handled themselves well" as they secured the hospital, a revered shrine and centuries-old minaret.

Building a strong Iraqi force that can take over security from American troops is a cornerstone of the U.S. strategy to restore peace in Iraq (news - web sites). But during April offenses in Fallujah and Najaf, the fledgling Iraqi troops melted away at the first sign of confrontation, either fleeing or joining the insurgents.

"The more operations they conduct, the more confidence they will gain, and the better they will perform," said Maj. Neal E. O'Brian, a military spokesman who was in Samarra Saturday.
The city, 60 miles northwest of Baghdad, appeared mostly calm Saturday, but pockets of resistance persisted, with heavy tank shelling and exchanges of machine gun fire erupting in early evening in the northern part of the city.

Batiste said U.S. forces would conduct mopping up operations for at least the next few days before handing over primary responsibility to Iraqi police and National Guard units.
A car bomb targeting a U.S. Marine convoy also exploded east of Fallujah, another rebel-held city west of Baghdad, the military said. One Marine was wounded.

Later, U.S.-led forces attacked a building where they said insurgents were receiving military style training on the outskirts of the city.

The attack — the latest in a series of strikes aimed at insurgents believed to have links to Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — killed one man and wounded his wife, brother and two young sons, the family told an Associated Press photographer.

Another car bomb exploded Saturday near a U.S. convoy outside the northern city of Mosul, wounding two American soldiers, the military said.

U.S. forces also clashed Saturday with Shiite Muslim insurgents in Baghdad's Sadr City, police and witnesses said. Two U.S. soldiers were wounded when a roadside bomb hit their armored personnel carrier, the military said.

The vast slum has been the scene of almost daily clashes and U.S. airstrikes against armed followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, since three weeks of fighting between his Mahdi Army militia and U.S and Iraqi troops ended last month in Najaf.

But aides to the cleric have indicated in recent weeks that he has started to organize his followers to join Iraq's political process as agreed under a peace deal brokered by Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Several political parties have begun courting the influential cleric to forge possible alliances. These include the Shiite Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the largest Shiite groups. There have also been approaches by Ahmed Chalabi, the controversial former exile who heads the Iraqi National Congress.

Late Friday, a U.S. soldier was killed by small arms fire in Baghdad, the military said.
An army general under the fallen regime was captured Saturday during an operation by Polish, U.S. and Iraqi troops south of Baghdad, the U.S. command said. It did not give the general's name but said he was among 10 suspects detained, five of whom were later released.

Insurgent groups have increasingly turned to bombings and kidnappings in a 17-month campaign to undermine the U.S.-backed interim government and drive the United States and its allies out of Iraq.

A video surfaced on the Internet Saturday purporting to show the beheading of an Iraqi hostage identified as Nafie Dawoud Ibrahim. The Ansar al-Sunnah Army, a Sunni militant group, claimed responsibility for the killing, saying the man was an Iraqi contractor at the U.S. military base of Al-Taji, north of Baghdad. It vowed to hunt down others helping the U.S. military.
The authenticity of the tape could not be verified. The same group has claimed responsibility for the killing of 12 Nepalese workers and three Iraqi Kurds.

More than 140 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq since April, some as political leverage, others for ransom. At least 26 hostages have been killed.

Residents in Samarra said American snipers on rooftops in the center fired at anybody appearing in the streets below on Saturday.

"There are dead people that we cannot take for burial and they are being buried in the gardens of their homes," said Ali Abdul-Latif, a 19-year-old high school student.

Marine Maj. Jay Antonelli, a command spokesman in Baghdad, said U.S. soldiers did not fire at civilians. "We had snipers firing at anti-Iraqi forces who were armed and those observed at mortar positions," he said.

At Samarra General Hospital, Dr. Khalid Ahmed said at least 80 bodies and more than 100 wounded were brought to the facility Friday, but it was not immediately clear how many were insurgents.

"Dead bodies and injured people are everywhere in the city and when we tried to evacuate them, the Americans fired at us," an ambulance driver told Associated Press Television News. "Later on they told us that we can evacuate only injured women and children and we are not allowed to pick up injured men."

Wounded people, mostly women and children, lay on beds at the Tikrit Teaching Hospital.
"His pregnant mother was killed," said Sami Hashem, standing over a young boy whose belly was covered in bandages. Nearby was a young girl who lost her left foot.

Shaalan, the defense minister, said Iraqi forces carried out most of the fighting and U.S. troops "only provided cover for our operations." He said up to $40 million was being allocated for reconstruction and compensation to residents of the embattled city.

U.S. and Iraqi officials have promised a series of major military operations to retake other parts of the country ahead of the elections due by Jan. 31.

Ramadi, Samarra and Fallujah form part of the Sunni heartland, where resistance to the U.S.-backed government has been the fiercest. It is feared that inability to stage balloting in the so-called Sunni Triangle would severely mar election results. Baghdad's Sadr City, a Shiite stronghold, is also on U.S. commanders' hit list.

Still, Pentagon (news - web sites) officials and defense analysts have said a U.S. military offensive into difficult-to-capture cities might still be delayed, or avoided altogether, if the United States and Iraq decide to settle for partial participation in elections.

The Arab news network Al-Arabiya reported that Sheikh Khaled Hmood al-Jumaili, who has been mediating between some leaders in Fallujah and the government, held negotiations with Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan Saturday, but said that no solution was reached on how to bring peace to the city.

Iraq's Interior Minister Falah Hassan al-Naqib said that Iraqi forces "came out of a defensive position to an offensive position" during the Samarra operation.

"We want to protect our citizens and to have all Iraqis participate in the elections in Iraq by the end of January," al-Naqib told reporters in Samarra.

Italy's deputy premier Gianfranco Fini, meanwhile, suggested that his country could withdraw its 3,000 troops from Iraq after the elections, saying they will no longer be needed when a representative government is in place.