« Community | Main | Heavenly »

May 15, 2006

The Moral Fog of War

What an absurd war we are fighting. Often, after perusing the WaPo or the NY Times in the predawn hours, it all becomes just too surreal.

At such times, I reluctantly trade my morning bowl of Wheaties for a flaky croissant and a smoldering Gauloise with a soupcon of anomie and stroll the mean streets of Fredneck, savoring my own despair and pondering the essential meaninglessness of existence in a universe where exit polls are ignored in clear defiance of the Constitution and instead of Kedwards (who would have given us endless Plans for bringing The Strong Strength Of Strongness Back to America) we get four more years of the Odious Twig.

Now it turns out the NSA is collecting all our phone numbers in a humongous Uber-Database. Can you imagine?

This makes absolutely no sense to anyone of even minimal intelligence. Americans don't mind spying on al Qaeda outside CONUS, mind you. It doesn't bother us a bit if the NSA listens in on phone calls terrorists make while plotting to blow us all to kingdom come.

But as soon as one of those rag heads connects to an American phone number, law enforcement should waive off IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner). The NSA should be able to screen out all calls ending up inside the US. Furthermore, spy agencies should be able to draw a firm line between internal and external calls without looking at the totality of calls made. Because if they observe calls coming into the US - even to exclude them - they are "spying" on US citizens! There really ought to be some way to keep an eye on those nasty terrorists without watching American citizens who might be talking to them.

That is just plain un-American. Just ask Leaky Leahy.

When you come right down to it, the answer is obvious. The NSA should profile non-US Muslims: this way, they ensure no US citizens are spied upon. Even the ACLU cannot object to this, seeing as they've never demanded that American Constutitutional protections be applied to non-US citizens.

And another thing that's been bothering me: why shouldn't every American have the right to reveal classified information? It's absolutely criminal the way President Bush selectively "declassified" old intelligence data about a deposed regime used to justify the decision to go to war. So what if this was information the Left had been demanding for months? What "right" did he have to release it during wartime, just because the regime it pertained to had already been removed from power and the decisions the information was used for had already been made? How completely irresponsible of him! Lives could have been lost! Our national security could have been compromised!

Contrast the brave decision of James Risen and the New York Times to bypass the Congressional oversight committee formed especially for reporting suspected abuses of intelligence and publish classified information on the front page of the Times! How laudable! I mean, sure, the press has no authority to handle (much less declassify) intelligence. And admittedly his actions violate the Espionage Act of 1917, not to mention the fact the press is not accountable to the American people, nor were they elected by us.

But shouldn't any American, at any time, who decides they have something "important" to say, be able to bypass the official chain and just publish our national secrets on the front page of the NY Times? Why the heck not? Shouldn't we "trust" their judgment, though we didn't elect them and they could have accomplished the same thing by turning over the information to the oversight committee instead of breaking the law? Of course we should - after all, they say so!

Graves_Najaf.jpg It is, after all, the press who told us all during the 1990's that America was morally culpable for ignoring the horrors inflicted by Saddam and the Taliban. Our failure to stop the killing was inexcusable, up to the point where we decided to act. And then our action became inexcusable: an outrage.

In retrospect, I often wonder if there is anything the Bush administration could have done right. Before 9/11, he was accused of being too isolationist, not being willing enough to exert American power on the world stage. Then we were attacked, and the media and a host of largely masturbatory commissions feverishly asked why we had failed to "connect dots" they are adamantly opposed to preventing us from collecting to this day. The answer is simple: we lack the will to impose the measures that would truly keep us safe.

Almost five years after 9/11, America continues to scurry in disarry like a nest of cockroaches disturbed at midnight. We can't tolerate profiling, so we insist on silly security measures that target everyone equally and ignore rational risk factors that could be used to narrow the field of suspects under scrutiny. Then the media and politicians object that "innocent" people are being subjected to needless scrutiny!

Well of course they are. They are being subjected to scrutiny to prove we don't target certain racial, religious, and ethnic groups. You can't have it both ways.

We fight a "civilized" war with one hand tied behind our backs, in which our own Congress constantly calls for withdrawal dates and demands assurances we won't build permanent bases or field an "occupation" force, only to complain we don't have 'enough boots on the ground'. No wonder an insurgency developed.

War is an ugly business.

If you mean to win it (and win it decisively) things are going to get broken and innocent people are going to be killed. This is unavoidable, especially when the enemy doesn't wear identifiable uniforms and hides among the civilian populace. If you wish to minimize innocent casualities, the civilian leadership must have patience and realize that things are going to take far longer to accomplish than if we just went in and busted heads. But our own Congress don't possess the fortitude to fight such a conflict. They want a deniable war they can boast about to their constituents. One in which the decisions are made by other people; in which no mistakes are ever made, no people are ever killed, our allies have complete freedom of action yet paradoxically America remains in the drivers' seat.

Wake me up when that war is discovered.

Nauseated by my own freedom of action, I wander over to the New Republic to recover my sense of outrage:

Never again? What nonsense. Again and again is more like it. In Darfur, we are witnessing a genocide again, and again we are witnessing ourselves witnessing it and doing nothing to stop it. Even people who wish to know about the problem do not wish to know about the solution. They prefer the raising of consciousnesses to the raising of troops. Just as Rwanda made a bleak mockery of the lessons of Bosnia, Darfur is making a bleak mockery of the lessons of Rwanda. Some lessons, it seems, are gladly and regularly unlearned. Except, of course, by the perpetrators of this evil, who learn the only really enduring lessons about genocide in our time: that the Western response to it is late in coming, or is not coming at all.

The notion of force as a first resort defies the foundations of diplomacy and also of common sense: A willingness to use hard power abroad must not become a willingness to use it wildly. But if you are not willing to use force against genocide immediately, then you do not understand what genocide is. Genocide is not a crisis that escalates into evil. It is evil from its inception. It may change in degree if it is allowed to proceed, but it does not change in kind. It begins with the worst. Nor is its gravity to be measured quantitatively: The intention to destroy an entire group is present in the destruction of even a small number of people from that group. It makes no sense, therefore, to speak of ending genocide later. If you end it later, you will not have ended it. If Hitler had been stopped after the murder of three million Jews, would he be said to have failed? Four hundred thousand Darfuris have already been murdered by the Janjaweed, the Arab Einsatzgruppen. If we were to prevent the murder of the 400,001st, will we be said to have succeeded?

Four hundred thousand Darfurians. By some estimates, that is the rough number of Iraqis in Saddam's mass graves, yet we are told there was no humanitarian justification for going into Iraq.

It is inexcusable, TNR argues, that the West should sit back and do nothing in Darfur. Why do we not intervene? Where are the institutions formed to prevent such slaughters? Where were the institutions formed to prevent the slaughter in Iraq?

Then there is the other alibi for Western inaction, the distinguished one: the belief that salvation will come from blue helmets. After the slaughters of the '90s, all of which numbered the fecklessness--and even the cynicism--of the United Nations among their causes, it defies belief that people of goodwill would turn to the United Nations for effective action. The United Nations is not even prepared to call the atrocities in Darfur a genocide. Kofi Annan says all sorts of lofty things, but everybody knows that he is only the humble servant of a notoriously recalcitrant body.

The answer, as it has always been, is for America to get involved. To take charge, unilaterally if need be. To use force. And even this admittedly liberal organ can see it. But if America were to get involved, if we were to intervene in Darfur tomorrow, how long would it be before the moral fog of war would close in, obscuring our actions and dogging our footsteps? How long before the quagmire of regret and recrimination and obfuscation and defeatism would begin dragging at our heels?

Shrugging my shoulders, I crush my cigarette and walk into the night.

Posted by Cassandra at May 15, 2006 05:59 AM

Comments

That Galois was a bit stronger than usual, wasn't it? Are you getting them from Seattle 'Hemp?'

I think the Times has been reading 'The Balcony.'

Posted by: Cricket at May 15, 2006 08:41 AM

"At such times, I reluctantly trade my morning bowl of Wheaties for a flaky croissant and a smoldering Gauloise with a soupcon of anomie"

Oh yeah..just keep rubbing that in, why doncha??

Okay, now I'll finish reading the post.

Posted by: Carrie at May 15, 2006 09:20 AM

Cass,
What you discuss is something I have wondered about myself. Do we actually go in with a plan for leaving? After all, we are still in Germany after HOW LONG? And now, it is because of the war in Iraq, not because of any Cold War issues or security of the German government and its people.

I think we need to stay the course and finish the fight, but I also believe that since Der Zweig has only two years left, what will happen should we get the Beast From New York (I would have put The Beast From The Bronx has it had better alliterative value, but it was not geo politically correct) into the Oval Office? Or someone like Jean Fraude Kerrie?

I am seeing this from the two party system and agenda, not the ennui of the Left.

Posted by: Cricket at May 15, 2006 09:50 AM

It's nation building by other means (extermination of Black African Muslims by the Arabic Muslim Janjaweed). The Janjaweed are Arabs on horseback, a whompin' and a shootin' men, women and children, for the color of their skin.
'Course when the fly MiGs and drop bombs, what's up with that, huh?
And it went on for years in the south of Sudan, when the government bombed the Holy Hell out of the Christian Sudanese there (hey, they bombed churches repeatedly on Sunday during services, even on Christmas). It's just our fundamental mis-understanding of nation-building and the Religion of Peace.
There were 15-20 million Christian Sudanese in the south of Sudan 25 years ago. Now there are less than 2 million. Figure it out. It's nation-building!

And the band plays on....

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 15, 2006 09:53 AM

Don, you are just a mean spirited poopy head party crasher. No one is concerned about the rights of the Bible thwackers since it is because of our existence on this planet that the Religion of Peace has to kill us. Not only that, you mentioned Christians in Far Away Places. Bombing African Christian churches in Africa is one thing, but doing it here with arson is racist. There is no such thing as religious intolerance by the jihadim. Just ask historic fiction writer Philippa Gregory. Read one of her screeds the other day and it put me off reading 'literature' of that genre forever.

Posted by: Cricket at May 15, 2006 09:59 AM

My dear Sovay, with whom I spoke about this NSA business over the weekend, tells me she is "shaking with anger" over it. I feel very odd about this -- as Mark Steyn said in his piece this weekend, I yield to none in my antipathy for the government. Yet, that said, I've devoted my life to the service of the Republic; and the vehicle for that, normally, is the government. I don't want them involved in my life, and yet I end up supporting and working with them at every point.

Sovay, meanwhile, is a committed liberal; she has genuine empathy for the government. She speaks in glowing terms about Senators (amazing to me, that -- how can anyone like, respect, or even tolerate the kind of Senators we have today?). Yet she's the one who's upset about the NSA program, and considers it a threat.

The models are broken, Cassidy. I had a post on the topic today, but... increasingly, none of it makes sense any more, because the ways in which we've been thinking about the great problems of the world have ceased to apply to the world in which we actually live.

Posted by: Grim at May 15, 2006 10:35 AM

I wonder how the NSA would handle it if Americans started making frivolous phone calls as a protest of their illegal spying efforts? Let's see, if just half of the country's 295 million people made 5 extra phone calls a day, that would be an extra 487 million entries in their database everyday. A small effort for quite a bold statement, perhaps.

Posted by: libertyforall at May 15, 2006 10:42 AM

I had a very odd conversation - strangely, the one I've been wanting to have for years - with a few relatives who are of the liberal persuasion and whom I love and respect very much.

Our family - on both sides - has a long tradition of service in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence. Some of us are liberals and some conservatives. This has on more than one occasion made for some interesting family discussions, and it has driven me nuts when writing because there are things I'd really like to say, that I can't.

I couldn't agree with you more. I am always struck by how my liberal friends and relatives have what I can only see as a naive trust in government, punctuated by periodic dislike of, and distrust for various individuals in and of that government. But they're one and the same in my view: people, and government. You can't separate them.

What I can't for the life of my understand is why they don't see that government IS US: it is composed of essentially fallible human beings. It is *not* benovolent, nor is it necessarily malevolent. At best it is neutral.

At the same time they seem to think rules are evil, where I as a conservative tend to see rules as a necessary evil, having been instituted as a response to problems introduced by human frailty. No one starts out building a complicated system with too many rules. It evolves as people push the boundaries over and over again, and of course if people would only behave themselves, we wouldn't need all those dumb rules, but they *don't*, do they? It's not the rules that are at fault, it's human nature.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 15, 2006 10:46 AM

Mark Steyn has a column in the Washington Times about this very thing.
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060514-094345-5932r.htm

It's almost like a civil war in THIS country because on the one hand, we have conservatives and pro military groups supporting the gov't and supporting the military. On the other hand, we have gov't types who leak classified information, major newspapers printing the classified information (and winning Pulitzers for such bwavery). We have major newspapers defending Zarquawi's apparent lack of gun knowledge. We have major newspapers writing about Abu Graib and ignoring the good news. Hell, they can't even find the cojones to call a spade a spade.
Note to the NY Times, they're called terrorists.

That email jerk who was bugging me last week, told me in sanctimonious terms that US servicemembers are terrorists, knowing what my husband does.

These two groups seem to wish for different outcomes. I know what conservatives want.
I'm just not sure what the other group wants.
Or maybe I do and I'm in denial.

I just don't think that those in the other group see reality. They're not engaged. The dead are just numbers. The families are naive. Bush is an idiot..and on and on and on ad nauseum.

Well, not sure it this rant makes any sense at all but now I have indigestion and it's not even 11:00 am.
Yeesh.

Posted by: Carrie at May 15, 2006 10:47 AM

Okay, so we have the rules to protect us, as we seem to run to government to solve our problems. What I am curious about then, is the lengths to which we have to let government and the courts determine our lives? I don't particularly care about the cell phone spying thing because *I* am not planning an attack. What worries me is that someone might decide to interpret my conversations as such.

What then? The adage of "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you don't have anything to worry about" rings false for me because government is NOT perfect and abuses do happen. They can use anything against you.

Posted by: Cricket at May 15, 2006 10:56 AM

Cricket,
Phillippa Gregory?
I'll be hauling her books down to the used bookstore today.

Posted by: Carrie at May 15, 2006 10:58 AM

Sovay is not the only person "shaking with anger".

But that is not a response that does anyone any good. I am "shaking with anger" that unelected jerks break the law with impugnity and lie to the American people every day. I am shaking with anger that they endanger people they are not fit to shine the shoes of, when they know damn well there are oversight committees set up to handle the type of thing they publish on the front pages of the paper.

I am shaking with anger every time I hear an American citizen talk of their "outrage" over "breaking the law" and they don't have a similar "outrage" over unelected media twits breaking the law. The difference is plain: the President, whether or not they are smart, or well-read, or engaged enough to bother to find out about it is charged with keeping us safe and fighting a war that was declared on us by al Qaeda in 1997. He has that Constitutional charge. He cannot lay it down because James Risen is writing a book.

The President, whether the Democrats like it or not, has at least some Constitutional authority for what he is doing under Article II. A statute does not supercede the Constitutition, nor does Congress supercede the Executive Branch in authority. We have three co-equal branches of government under the Constitution, and the very difficult argument we are having now is one the Founders fully intended us to have, all the demagoguing aside. THE PRESS IS NOT A BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT AND HAS NO OFFICIAL ROLE IN THAT BATTLE. The CIA leak should never have been "leaked" in the first place, but if it was, it should have been promptly handed over to Congress and the battle should be BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT, NOT THE NY TIMES AND THE PRESIDENT.

The New York Times has ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA authority to handle CIA information. So just where in the hell is the outrage about their egregious lawbreaking?

I'll tell you - there is none. Because the end justifies the means if the Democrats can bring down a President by illegal, immoral, unConstitutional means. And it's wrong. And the real crime of it is that Nancy Pelosi and the Dem leadership have already admitted they have NO INTENTION of impeaching Bush because they know they have no grounds and it would be a loser with the voters. So this is all politics.

And all the more inexcusable when we have people dying half a world away for a war our own Congress is daily undermining with their lying rhetoric.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 15, 2006 11:00 AM

And people wonder why I post pics of guns.

I can't write stuff like this, so I just sublimate.

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at May 15, 2006 12:10 PM

libertyforall,

Please do. Having a larger sample of mundane/innocent calls will only make it easier to identify the suspicious ones. It will help lessen the false positives.

Posted by: Masked MenaceĀ© at May 15, 2006 12:24 PM

*sigh*

And I can't even get a post out anymore without all sorts of editing errors, John. I've been so distracted lately. Sorry. I need to proof more carefully but I've been in too big a hurry.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 15, 2006 12:28 PM

My take on all of this, in case anyone really gives a flying f***, is that we have an intentionally vague Constitution so that there WILL be give and take between the branches. So that the Executive CAN act quickly and decisively and Congress CAN reign him in if needed by screaming bloody murder, but NOT removing him from office unless his does something pretty damned bad (and the bar is intentionally set HIGH, for a reason). The problem is that the press have now set themselves up as a fourth branch of government and have upset the balance. They are ratcheting up the dialogue, and it is not having a positive effect.

We have seen that the information that gets out is not any more accurate. It ought to be, but the medium itself is partisan and flawed because the press is not an unbiased actor. This is because, unlike the three branches of government, they have ZERO accountability when they act in an immoral fashion or break the law. The fact that Scooter Libby is indicted for obstruction and Judy Miller is free speaks volumes. Maybe someone can tell me what he did, that she did not?

Someone? Anyone? Why is it a crime for him to "forget" and not for her?

Oh. Journalistic immunity.

I get it.

Posted by: Cassandra at May 15, 2006 12:54 PM

Cassandra,
What's up with that? Are your itinerant Eskimos on strike? :)

Seriously, why didn't the NY Times, et cetera, do a big expose on the ability of the Allies to de-crypt the Enigma codes that the Germans used to route U-boats in WWII, because they (the Germans) used the same codes to route the extermination trains, and run the extermination camps, organized to eliminate the Jews and other 'undersirables'? Churchill actually told the de-crypters from Bletchly Park (home of de-crypt analysts) to stop bringing him the de-crypts of the Enigma transmissions regarding the 'Final Solution', which they intercepted (I think it was preying on his conscience).

Why? Why? Because if the Germans had known we could read much of the Enigma transmissions, we might have 'lost' the Battle of the Atlantic, and maybe, the war (you know, WWII, the 'good war').
Winning, losing, whatever. What's that got to do with today's problem? Doing traffic analysis on phone calls, numbers, and all that, to find supsicious or suspect phone numbers of our friendly Jihadists here in the US of A? Is the NSA allowed to read the Greater Detroit White Pages?

This is all distracting me from watching "Lost" and "Desparate Housewives".

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 15, 2006 01:00 PM

Don's ruining the war, for all of us!

Posted by: Hotlips Houlihan at May 15, 2006 01:37 PM

And go read Liberal Larry's take on it. I nearly
had an accident reading it. Not a pretty sight, I tell you, but the bratwursts are fine...didn't spill nary a one.

Posted by: Cricket at May 15, 2006 01:40 PM

From the ABC Online news page, "The Blotter":

quote/
A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation./unquote

And there's more there to read. The link is on "Instapundit". No wonder the news-guys are upset about telephone number data-mining!

Let's match the phone numbers of:
1) the telephones at DIA, CIA, NSA, etc. to phone lists
2) Home and cell phones of said employees
3) Phone numbers of say, the top 20 or 30 reporters from the networks and the big papers.

Let their Cray supercomputers chew on those lists for a few hours.
At the very least, those people with leaky cheese-holes will shut up for a few months, until the Democrats win the majority in both houses and impeach Shrubbia (fond wish of many in the John Kerry Patriotic Front).

Posted by: Don Brouhaha at May 15, 2006 03:11 PM

Get new cell phones quick? Please. If Streisand, Johnny Depp and Alec Baldwin haven't been hauled off yet, it ain't happenin'.

Sometimes the news media needs to get over itself.

Posted by: Cricket at May 15, 2006 04:25 PM


Cassandra, take heart!

Speaking of delusional, Ahmadinejad provides Bush with a letter stating Iran's clear goal to impose dhimmitude subservience on the west or die by the "Sword"!

The Caliph Umar, in 636 A.D., instructed his commander in Basra to issue a letter to the those pesky Iraqis to "Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the toll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If the refuse this, it is the sword without leniency."

For the sake of argument let us define tolls in modern terms as support for the Palesinians and humanitarian aid to those who support terrorists, and general capitulation (France, Italy) to those who routinely burn planes, trains, and automobiles.

The problem will not be resolved by sending so-called misunderstood jihadists to a weeklong seminar at Esalan on the California Coast. Sharing a hookah pipe with free range hippies in a hot tub overlooking Big Sur will not cause them to see the multicultural light.

Ahmadinejad is calling us out to accept life on his terms or face the "Sword" of retribution. How big a stretch is it to equate sword with a nuclear capability?

We, as a society, must rid ourselves of the New Age notion that our foreign policy should reflect touchy-feely nostroms that appologetically and belatedly acknowledge "I feel your pain". The illogical outcome of this attitude is wrapped up in the tidy package of BDS (Bush Derangment Syndrome).
Listen to the man in Iran. He is telling us what he intends to do. He has 72, brown-eyed virgins to look forward to if he fails. We have a society that will begin to see what it is like to live like Israel as these same psychos start urban renewal Jihadi style in the nearest Starbucks.

The military and our national resolve is all that stands between us and a life of fear and subjugation currently in European vogue.

Soldier on and I believe we will be singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" with renewed passion one day soon.

Posted by: vet66 at May 15, 2006 05:03 PM

Cass, I dislike being told what to do by men who think nothing of beheading one at the drop of a hat.
I do not think for one minute that the jihadists are less that serious, but I also worry about the apathy we have fallen into since 9-11. We have not forgotten, but we have not kept faith.

We have not strengthened our borders. We have not profiled our professed killers. We have not shown them that we mean business. All they can do is ratchet up the tempo.

Why is it that we must not allow ourselves to make it illegal to own certain items if the profile fits? In Israel, gun control is enforced very simply: No Palestinians own guns. Not a difficult concept.

Posted by: Cricket at May 15, 2006 06:43 PM

Ennui and hopelessness is the expected result when you make the mistake of listening to the bitter, angry, america-hating Left. This is why I usually ignore the MSM.

I get my news from the Net, and occasionally Fox. I haven't read a newspaper in years. The MSM is the Joseph Goebbels of the Left. Its the same mantra over and over again when you listen to propaganda, whether from the Left or Right.

Listening to Goebbels, you pretty much knew what you were going to get. It was always "beloved Fuhrer" this, or "superiority of the Master Race" that. Anyone who believed they were going to get truth or objectivity was crazy.

Same thing with Pravda in the Soviet bloc. Although the word means "truth", we took this as an Orwellian sick joke. It was always "inevitable triumph of the socialist revolution" this, and "decadence of the imperialist, capitalist West" that. Like the New York Times, Pravda's motto should have been "All the party-approved Truth that is permitted to be printed, at the moment."

Listening to bombastic propaganda can be very wearying, I have found. This is true whether listening to one of Hitler's tirades, or a Soviet-style stalinistic rant. The MSM is no different. It is the same Leftist propaganda over and over again. Why subject yourself to it?

I used to play a game with some of my politically active friends. I called it "spin the topic". They would give a topic from the paper, and I would give a summary of the MSM approved "spin" on that issue. We would then read the article to see if I was correct. My success rate was over 90%. They were surprised, but I thought it was brainlessly easy.

For the MSM, like any good propagandist, any topic must be "spun" to achieve the approved political agenda. Since their Left-wing agenda is obvious, it is simple to guess their take on an issue. In other words, once you know their desired goal or ending-point, there are only so many paths they can take to get there.

As an immigrant, I completely fail to understand the bitter, angry, america-hating Left. Having emigrated from a Soviet bloc shithole, I know what true oppression is like, not the Disneyland version whcih the Left always protests here. I used to laugh at the lefty protestors, partly because nothing upsets those wannabees and trust fund kids more than not to be taken seriously, but also because if they ever achieved their purported dreams of the socialist revolution here, they would be the first ones lined up against the wall and shot. Idiots.

Is there any way we could arrange a population transfer of these left-wing morons? We could exchange them for an equal number of former victims of Soviet oppression from eastern Europe, Cuba, North Korea, China, and so on. I guarantee there would be no shortage of volunteers from outside the US. These people would be so grateful for the opportunity to be free, they will kiss the ground and weep with joy upon arrival. Wouldn't you rather have such citizens than the moonbats and spoiled brats of the american Left?

Well, Cass, I got a little carried away there. Back to my main point, though, is that I am not surprised that you would get down after an endless barrage of leftist propaganda from the MSM. Just say no. If people start seeing the truth of their bias, and more and more appear to be doing so judging by their rapidly declining viewership and circulation numbers, then maybe they will finally go out of business. The marketplace, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and new companies will start up that may learn that unbiased reporting is the way to go. Anything is better than what we have now. Plus, turning off the MSM, in my experience, gives you a much better disposition:)

Posted by: a former european at May 15, 2006 07:34 PM

Great friggin' post Cass.

If I had a cigarette I would crush the crap out of it and walk into the night myownself.

Posted by: Pile OnĀ® at May 15, 2006 10:14 PM

Yeah, me too :D

Posted by: Cassandra at May 16, 2006 06:44 AM

Cassandra,your last post,how magnificant it was,you voiced my exact thoughts on this matter!You are a very talented lady you know that?!Former European,you struck a nerve with me too,but,tjhe only way we could do it,is if we get rid of the do-nothing and no-thing bums in positions of power,they think that this is an entitlement,although these losers haven't earned it,and infact,are to weak to handle it.There are two things that I believe this country is in dire need of now.1.Wisdom;we have two many in power who are severely lacking this virtue.2.Courage;which speaks for itself.

Posted by: Lisa Gilliam at May 16, 2006 05:04 PM

Lisa, you are very kind :)

I enjoy a lot of your comments too, here and at Grim's place. You're a strong and gutsy lady and you have a lot of class. I have a feeling nothing will keep you down in life for very long and I admire that tremendously.

Posted by: Chinese-Jewish-Mexican-American Lawn Chica at May 16, 2006 05:10 PM

Hey Birthday Girl, fix your tag, honey, before somebody mistakes you for an ilegal.

Posted by: spd rdr at May 16, 2006 06:20 PM

You are incorrigible :)

Posted by: Cassandra at May 16, 2006 06:24 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)