Whoops

Wait a minute...I thought everyone just wanted to be loved. Isn't that one of the core liberal beliefs that keeps criminals on the street and disruptive students in the classroom? Well now Obama is applying this silly notion to world diplomacy and the result it hardly surprising. It blew up in his face. Obama's touching offer to give Iran a back rub and let bygones be bygones is being dragged through the streets of Tehran in humiliation. It is being used by the leaders of Iran to argue that we are weak. I recall being warned that this would happen for the past eight years. It looks like unpopular decisions can often be the right ones. Ever try being a parent?

Bush Calls Defese Sec. Gates a "Wuss."

I'm sure you've all heard about Bush going to Israel and mocking those who want to talk to Iran (the Nazi's in this little analogy-always classy).

Honestly, OK, cool. If you think talking is a bad move, you're the President, you're the chief diplomat so that's your call. But you would think you would get your cabinet on board before you go about running them under the bus.

Since the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said that it wasn't talking about Obama,

there are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president... thinks that we should not talk to".

"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you," she added.

"That is not always true. And it is not true in this case.

So, if it's not Obama who could be included in the nameless masses that W was referring?

Could it have really been a way to attack Defense Secretary Robert Gates? After all, Gates was on record the day before saying we need to engage Iran in talks. Maybe this was W's way of chastising his Secretary of Defense. I mean what good is a Secretary of Defense who's an appeaser?

What about McCain? McCain also mocks Obama for wanting to talk. From Yahoo!

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: "This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama's position was a serious error. "It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?"

Excellent point. What kind of a jackass thinks its a good idea to talk (Gates) and more importantly for the American people, what kind of jackass would support that jackass? Not John McCain, that's for sure. Wait, what? McCain voted to confirm Gates? Well, surely it was reluctant. Let's look at the transcripts from the hearing.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Gates, thank you for your willingness to serve this nation again. We're very grateful. We know you left a very comfortable life in Texas to serve this nation again, and we are grateful. And I would like to offer my congratulations and condolences for your appointment.

MCCAIN: ...I wish you every success. I know that all of us on this committee and in this country have nothing but the interests of our nation's security and the men and women who serve it as our highest priority.

And I hope you will help us gain consensus so that, as a nation, we can move forward and make sure that the American people are not subjected to more sacrifice as a result of the failures that we've experienced in the past in this conflict.

And again, I thank you for serving, Doctor.

Hmmm, well that doesn't look good. I guess McCain will be calling for national attention on why the Secretary of Defense wants to sit down with terrorists. I imagine he'll be calling for W to fire Gates for beings such a stupid sissy. I'll be right here waiting...

300

Saw 300 last night. Loved it. No, it was not historically "precise," especially, especially the battle scenes. Spartans would never break rank and fight one on one like in the movie, the phalanx was life (even the phalanx depictions aren't right, the front guys used swords). And at one point Mrs Blogger leaned over and asked if "Xerxes was really a drag queen?" (which was a bummer because I was hoping she was leaning over to neck). And there's a throw away line about the Athenians being "boy lovers," when its the Spartans who, famously, took up with boys (my bet is that line's meant to counter that unpleasant fact, and throw "which Greeks slept with boys again" into the coversation). There's more, but it was a movie and movies are meant to entertain. If you want to get really historical, the Greeks were famous back in the day for taking "liberties" with actual events, soooo you could say that 300 pays homage not only to the Spartans, but to the Athenians and their theater.

300 Graphic novel was pretty good too, but the book "Gates of Fire" blows both away.

What I find really interesting is that I keep reading how this is a "Bush" movie, or that it really appeals to the "Bush" crowd. Granted, I bet that most movie reviewers are pretty liberal (read anti-war), and that most supporters of the Iraq War voted for Bush, but I'm not sure this is a good movie for Bush. Yes, it's very pro combat, its very pro leadership, and very pro fight to the end, but its also, repeatedly a conflict about reason v. mysticism aka religion. It's a very, very anti-religion movie. The Greeks mystics are deformed beyond recognition, molest young girls and are corrupt to the coin. The Persian mystic is a man who thinks himself a God and is both humiliated and defeated. Somehow Frank Miller manages to offend both the peacenicks (good for W) and the religious (bad for W). As much as this is a movie about fighting for actual freedom, its a movie about fighting religion in the name of reason. If anything its key group is the prowar, anti-religion crowd (or teen-age boys, take your pick).

Finally, Iran banned 300 from its movie houses. 3000 years later and my people are still sticking it to the Persians. OPAH!

Is Congress a "Potted Plant?"

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) made the following statement about Congress,

"We are not a potted plant watching the administration function, we are part of the decision-making process"

Proving once again, that when you have to tell people you're important, you're not. A little history.

In 2002 Congress passed HJ 114 and SJ 45, or as their collectively known, the "Congress is a potted plant" bills. See these were the bills that gave W unobstructed ability to do whatever he feels necessary as long as its a "national security" issue. And what are the parameters of national security? Let's take a look at the docs. "National security" is hereby defined to include the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace and security", and such interests will now include the entire "Persian Gulf region."

So Rep Lantos, Congress is, in fact, a potted plant. Like the old saying, if it sits and does nothing like a plant and if its as smart as a plant, its a plant. Your a plant. You gave up all your rights to advise, consent, shape, command, etc when you passed those bills. My bet is that, like the Patriot Act, few in congress actually read the bills (absolutely kills me), but someone wrote them, and whoever did (I'm looking at you White House) knew what was in them.

I'm pretty sure SOH Nancy Pelosi didn't read them. She keeps running around saying,

"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

The way I read the above bills, he does. See Iran lies within the area called "The Persian Gulf" and W has unfettered authority to do whatever in that region. I get that US high schoolers are famous for not knowing geography and low reading scores, but I expect better from the SOH. Maybe no president before could go into Iran without explicit congressional consent, but no president before was lucky enough to have a congress filled with one group of people who put party above all and would never dream of countering W, and another who were so incompetent and afraid that they would never dream of countering W. And as I pointed out in earlier post, it will take 2/3 votes to over-ride W's veto of any bill taking this authority away.

To make matters worse for the dems, if possible, is that every week or so they get all vocal about taking control, setting time-lines, linking progress, holding back money, limiting W's ability to go into Iran, and every week they back off all that and just pass the bill the White House wants. It seems like the only courage they have is the courage to continually go through this humiliating song and dance.

The latest retreat, where the dems stripped a bill of language requiring W to come to congress before attacking Iran sums up how confused they are about what W can and can't do given previous bills.

One, if, as Pelosi asserts, W doesn't have the authority to act without congress' consent, why was this language even necessary? Second, its yet another example of the Dems talking tough, then retreating when it looks like it won't be a cake walk. So either Pelosi is running around trying to sound like her congress is relevant when it isn't, or she enjoys pulling tough sounding provisions out of bills, maybe even both. I dunno, maybe she likes looking weak and uniformed to the American public and to the White House. Bottom line, the Democratically controlled congress has yet to put any pressure on either its Republican members or the White House. When the GOP had control they did a masterful job of putting pressure on the dems, and the dems always caved. Maybe my conservative friends are right. Maybe the dems have no guts. They didn't have the guts to stand up to GOP pressure when they were the minority, and they haven't shown the guts to withstand any pressure from the GOP now that the dems are the majority. It just looks like anything that resembles a "stumbling block" causes the dems to retreat.

Maybe Lantos is right. Maybe the dems aren't a potted plant, a potted plant can at least get in the way occasionally. The dems are more like mice. Just scrambling to stay alive, nibbling the left-overs in the pantry, and running whenever something enters the room.

Boycott Shell Oil for deal with Iran!

Shell Oil has just announced a deal with Iran, despite pressure from President Bush to forgo said deal. Keep in mind Shell has every right to do business with whomever they want, and that Shell is not an American company. So while Iran is a likely a direct threat to the US, it not a likely a direct threat to either England or Holland. However, Shell does do business in the US, and that makes their actions accountable to the us. Given that there was talk, and action (maybe) around a boycott of Venezuelan gas company Citgo, why no call for a boycott of Shell? While Chavez called W a "devil" (is that better or worse that Democrat Party?), Iran is both a much bigger future threat, and a very real current one given their support for those in Iraq who are killing US soldiers.

Soooo, I'm officially calling for a boycott of Shell Oil. Buy BP, they've made the commitment to not invest in Iran (no word on whether they'll divest, and the decision may be because they don't have anything going anyway - but enough cynicism), or better yet buy Sinclair which imports from Canada, and Sunoco which import from Canada, Nigeria and Angola (all figures from 2005, for more info on which oil companies import from where click here).

And yes I know Shell has already faced a boycott due to its facilities in Angola and Nigeria (two places on the H-Blogs "approved" list). Look, I'm not a big fan of this situation, but since Iran may, at some point, have the ability to nuke the US, and is currently killing US soldiers I'm OK with the trade. Clearly the best place to buy gas is Sinclair, plus they have that neat little dinosaur logo.

We Are Going to Slap Your Wrist SO HARD

The UN has just realized that Iran wants nukes for geopolitical power and not economic power. Welcome to the party, boys. Sadly, it's the US Undersecretary of State Scott Burns who said, "If they think they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure, then they are badly mistaken." Oh no! Not another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure! Who could possibly withstand that? What's next? The fluffy pillows with all the stuffing down in one end?

I really hope the impotence of the international community in facing a soon to be nuclear Iran does not lead to tragedy. I really hope people like me who see mushroom clouds in our future, and more immediately Israel's future, are just extremest Chicken Littles. I truly hope it really doesn't matter who has nuclear weapons because no one will ever use them as the international community must believe since they do nothing to seriously stop their spread. But if not, the UN and the rest of the fat, dumb and lazy modern world will have the blood of possibly millions of people on their hands. Because they did not have the courage to face Iran when they had the chance.

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!" - Winston Churchill