I have written posts that surely have offended my friends on the left and some on the center. I hope we can all realize that we have more in common than separates us. We all have the same goals of a just society, peace, economic opportunity, a cleaner environment, less crime, etc.  We just have differrent ideas of what will get us there.

It seems that instead of debating what will get us there, we get caught up in the "worst this" or "worst that" or "stupid" or "crooked" hyperbole and push our friends with a different viewpoint into a defensive mode where they attack back. 

I know Hillary wants what's best for America.  In her mind, it's a storng military, focused advancement of women and universal healthcare.

I know Obama wants what's best for the country.  Whatever he stands for.

And, my friends on the left, the Republicans aren't really conspiring to destroy our country.  They actually have some time-tested strategies that should be given an ear.  They should also be critiqued - and I'm sure they will be.

But I struggle mightily with leaders on both sides (just as with other posters and myself) when we spend time simply attacking the other point of view.  I'm continually convinced of misrepresentation by the left of our viewpoints and actions and, particularly motives, but I'm sure they would say the same about us.  Still, far too many politicians vote for or against something in order to gain an advantage for themselves or their party rather than for the good of the country.

These are useless and should be expelled from Congress.  By my count, that's about 3/4 of the members.  It really wouldn't hurt to just vote them all out in a single election and start over.  No seniority.  No alliances.  No debts owed to major contributors (or power brokers).

Wouldn't that be terrific?  For a while anyway.

sharp

The blistering response of Al-Maliki and those in his government to the continued insults heaped on them by Democrats (mostly) should help us understand exactly who should lead us beginning in 2008 and who should not.

Harry Reid is the most ungracious buffoon at the party.  But the unopposed attacks on Iraq's government and President Bush have encouraged many other erstwhile cowards to aspire to boasting and insults.  It shows that none of them is fit to lead.

By not recognizing that humiliation delivered by their intentionally-public insults leads to hostile reactions, those on the left side of the aisle show recklessness that will lead to enormous disaster should they be given the keys to the car.

And they're pushed ever harder by a left in this country that spews words like "neocon", drenched in hatred, in lieu of a debate or logical argument.  They call Bush stupid (the equivalent of the right calling Clinton a rapist), they call anyone they disagree with liars and fools and they have a general "bull in a China shop" grace about them that demonstrates a clear lack of trustworthiness amid its soaring emotional arrogance.

There's an 800 lb. gorilla in the room that America must acknowledge before we choose our next leadership.  Those who insult the Iraqi's and other Arab leaders will be very costly choices for us for generations to come.

sharp

According to the AP on 7/12, the Iraqi government has confirmed that a truck was intercepted coming from Syria with 200 suicide vests.

Question for the Iraq study group authors: Just how do you negotiate with that?

sharp

ABC News asked Harry Reid a simple question. It's one that all those who push for withdrawal have an absolute moral obligation to answer. In fact, it's purely immoral to suggest withdrawal without addressing the question. The Washington Times captures it here from ABC News:

They still have no plan

"Is there not a moral obligation of the United States to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe before the U.S. withdraws?" ABC News' Jake Tapper asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday. As Mr. Tapper summarized the exchange, "I tried to get an answer... I did not succeed."

Tapper later notes that Reid has dodged the question and Reid responds emptily with, "This is not a debate".

Well, it had better be. 

Many are speaking out against the President's plans and that's a good thing.  No leader should have his direction unchallenged.  But Reid was surprisingly unprepared for the question and had clearly not given it any thought.

Which brings me to an interesting point.  The Democrats are feeling their oats right now.  They see political victory and are willing to do anything to get it.  Anything, that is, except have an open debate.  Just like a recession to an economy, these kind of down periods for the Republicans are beneficial because they force them to reexamine their ideas and plans.  But the Democrats are deep into an expansion and are getting quite fat.  And lazy.

If you can't stand up to ABC News as the Democratic leader, your party is in a lot more trouble than you think.  Sooner or later, it will blow up.  And quite publicly.

sharp

Peggy Noonan supported the President's reelection.  So did I.

Peggy supported the argument about Weapons of Mass destruction.  So did I.

Peggy aligns well with Republican values - life (anti-abortion); strong defense, low taxes. So do I.

And Peggy can't wait until this term is over.  Neither can I.

We can't fire the President, so we're waiting it out

While I believe that the President's strategy was very well-thought - which was to create a democracy in the middle of the Middle East that would then pressure other nations to adopt more freedoms and break the lock that terrorists have on places like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, Lebanon and the Palestinian territory - the execution has been horrible.

Far, far too many unnecessary deaths from a tin-eared leadership unwilling to recognize reality.  A horribly inept Iraq war plan on the front end with too few troops to provide security and then a series of decisions that have led people to question (legitimately) his decision-making ability (Katrina, firing of federal prosecutors, etc.).   And two of the worst-planned initiatives he could have pursued - the Medicare Bill and the Immigration bill.  We didn't want, for different reasons, either one.

It strikes me that this President is precisely like his father.  His father took good advice on the first Iraq war and didn't overextend America's interests and commit that fatal sin of removing an enemy dictator without knowing who would follow (horrible mistake of Jimmy Carter that we're still paying for 30 years later).  But then he used his "equity" to do what?  Raise taxes.

This President Bush had a hugely succesful economic revival to his credit and he had united the world to fight terror in Afghanistan.  But then he used his equity to do what?  Create a massive and unsustainable (potentially) socialist drug plan, launch a war on a premise that proved false and push for an incredibly unpopular immigration bill.

I believe John Kerry would have been a horrible President.  I believe the surge strategy is working and that the vision of a free and democratic Middle East is our best option to fight terror.  And I believe that the President's stalwart support of low taxes and free trade have benefited this country and it's citizens tremendously.

But I'm not confident in the day-to-day decisions anymore and I'll be ready for someone else to take the helm.

Waiting it out.

sharp