Fireside Chats on Iraq? Why Not?

Senator John Warner recently made a very interesting suggestion. He wants President Bush to give the American public frequent updates about how the War in Iraq is going; as he noted this would be very similar to FDR's 'fireside chats' during World War II. But would this really be a good idea? The honest answer is yes. What does the President have to lose?

It seems that people want to hear what he has to say, or at least need to, since they are begining to become more unsure and unsupportive of the War by the day. Furthermore, it would provide an antidote to all the biased mainstream media coverage in Iraq these days. Instead of stories focusing on the bad, Bush would be able to focus on the positive, and give the American Public a new perspective on the War that they don't get from CBS. In fact, a 'fireside chat' type deal would play to Bush's strengths by enabling him to be more personable and casual with ordinary folks. Indeed, the perception of Bush as the 'average guy' has always proved to be an advantage for him, and this would be a great opportunity to play that card.

Part of what FDR was so good at during his Presidency was creating the right P.R image, a task at which the Bush administration has failed miserably this past year. 'Chatting' with the electorate about what is going on in Iraq would be a great opportunity to re-create the image. And quite honestly, how could it possibly hurt the President? The media can't spin the War any worse than they already have, his support for the War won't diminish any farther, and his P.R image can't really get much worse.

George Patton once said that success is a measure of how high you bounce when you hit the bottom. Mr President, you've hit the bottom, and maybe this 'chat' idea will get the bounce going.

The Real International Virus

Not that I was worried about the bird flu anyways, but another story I saw today showed me what the true international viral infection is: Trial Lawyers armed with bogus cases. In Australia, lawyers are currently arguing a case before the High Court to get a 24-year-old disabled woman compensation for 'lifelong suffering'. Yes, that's right, a 24 year old female, who was born blind and deaf with rubella is suing, with the help of her mother, the doctor who misdiagnosed the rubella in her Mother's first trimester 25 years ago. The woman, Alexia Harrington, is suing saying that her Mother, Olga, would have aborted her had she known that the child was going to be retarded. And as one final note, the family says that the trial is not about money, but that it is about getting compensation for a "rubella afflicted life".

Okay, there are, oh so many ways in which this case has problems, but I will try to deal mainly with one. However, I will say it is quite odd that a mother is helping her 24-year-old daughter sue for not being aborted. It must be an Australian form of a Mother-Daughter relationship too complex for a simple American like me to understand. Of course, this brings up the whole issue of abortion itself, but that requires it own full post at a later date.

First of all, why in the world did these people wait for 24 YEARS to do this. Surely the mother knew from birthday number one that her baby was disabled and was going to require intensive, costly care. If not, then perhaps the mother should be checked for some form of 'Reality Comprehension' Syndrome. Unfourtunately, I think it is much more likely that this mother, and her daughter, suffer from the 'Trial Lawyer sees a potentially good money-making case' Syndrome. It is dispicable that these lawyers are using this mother and her handicapped daughter for some sort of publicity, money-making stunt.

Oh, and please don't say that the lawyers are doing it for the poor, rubella-struck woman's good. If she was truly so unhappy with her life that she wishes to have never been born, there are plenty of ways to solve that; a shotgun or small handgun might provide a quick and easy solution. Secondly, if this is for the money, why does the Doctor have to pay off hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) in damages? Blaming your local Obstetrician for an unfourtunate act of God, doesn't do you much good. And to be honest, his mistaken diagnosis doesn't merit the amount of money the case will be for, especially when you consider that the actual woman of the prosecution will only get maybe half of the money, and her lawyer the rest.

Furthurmore, the question of whether or not a child may be disabled isn't quite black and white. Many times a Doctor will indicate to the parents that there is a high probability of a child being physically or mentally retarded, and the child turns out just fine. The point being, a diagnosis of retardation made in the first trimester of pregnancy is hardly as concrete as, say, the Laws of Gravity, making it extremely difficult to fault the Doctor for 24 years of 'pain and suffering'. The simple fact is that disability is something that comes at the fault of no, one, particular human being, so it is quite childish of this family to blame all this on the Doctor.

What is really sad about this case is that it so closely resembles malpractice cases here in the US. Trial Lawyers here seem unable to comprehend that, 99% of the time a doctor has as much to do with the disabilities of a child as they do with the eye color of the child. They are unable to understand that Down's Syndrome, the subject of more than a few cases here in the U.S.A, is actually a genetic disorder, or that that rubella is a microscopic virus, not an full-grown, human Obstetrician.

Which is why it's time for the Trial Lawyers of the world to stop spreading their 'virus' around the world, because Obstetricians really need a break. They would prefer to spend their week in the ER, not the courtroom. And for the sake of women all over the world, let's hope that they stay in buisness instead of retiring from rising malpractice insurance premiums. Better yet, let's hope we find a vaccine for the highly contagious 'bogus lawsuit' virus.

Is Zarqawi's Gig Up?

Today in Amman, Jordanians hit the streets in full force, armed with a fierce protest. But there was something unusual about this one. It did not contain the typical anti-semetic hate, or even the anti-Americanism; rather, it was filled with ire directed at Iraq's terrorist leader Musab al-Zarqawi. The novelty of the situation paints an intriguing picture.

First and foremost, it's good to see Muslims finally standing up to al-Zarqawi and his ruthless gang of terrorists. The fury with which they protested is, hopefully, a sign that ordinary Muslims and Arabs are not going to stand for this kind of crap anymore. They appear to have grown weary of Zarqawi taking out his frustrations with America primarily on Iraqi and other Arabic peoples (innocent civilians at that). They are finally coming to see that Musab's Machiavellian-like tactics don't achieve a 'just' or, if I may say so, an 'Allah-happy' end.

However, the response of these Jordanians demonstrates something else that is far more important to American citizens. In the Muslim world, al-Zarqawi is loosing support. His numbers dwindle, and the vanishing of popular support is spelling out his eventual defeat. This is in stark contrast to the 'quagmire' that was described by Liberal sages not to long ago. One of the chief components of this 'quagmire' was the fact that the people there would never support us. That our actions fueld the terrorists, and strengthend not just their numbers but their popular support as well.

Yet, as the War in Iraq continues, we are informed by men on the ground that the terrorists' numbers are shrinking; and now we are seeing that the Muslim public is begining to view them in a not-so positive light. Indeed, now it appears that the Terrorists' actions, and not our's, are the ones provoking a sour attitude amongst the Arabs. In fact, Zarqawi was so dimayed he felt the need to personally explain what exactly his bombers were doing the other day at the Hyatt. That Zarqawi is now having to come out and depict the 'holiness' behind his murders simply does not bode well for his organization.

Most importantly for al-Zarqawi, the continuation of this type of public outcry will force him to change his tactics. Recently, his men have begun to include more civilian targets in their attacks, in an attempt to create a sense of anti-war sensationalism with the media. The massive backfire that this has created in Jordan today should cause much concern in Zaqawi's rat-hole tonight. And of course this begs the question: is a massive public 'Death to Zarqawi' cry the begining of the end for al-Qaeda Iraq?

I'd have to say that the answer is most definitely 'Yes'.

Muslims Get Taste of 'Down Under' Jails

Just in case you didn't notice, or were watching CNN complain about the lack of French compassion instead, something absolutely astounding happened today in Australia. 16 Muslim men, 7 from Sydney and 9 from Melbourne were arrested for plotting a terror attack. As it turns out, these men were apparently plotting a 9/11 type attack (at least in magnitude) in Melbourne. According to authorities, they had bombs made and ready for use, and were operating a 'mini-factory', of sorts, that they were using to produce more. Additionally, these terrorists are under the leadership of Abu Bakr, a man who is well noted in Australia for his extreme devotion to jihad and Osama bin Laden.

The fact that this plot has not only been discovered, but stopped, speaks volumes to the anti-terror forces in Australia. A great deal of praise and credit is owed to Australian authorities and police forces for their superb work in uncovering this plot. It is victories like these that demonstrate to us that the War on Terror is indeed winable; and that also help add to the sense of desperation that our enemies are rapidly begining feel.

Since late 2001, Australia and Prime Minister John Howard have been perhaps the strongest American allies besides Tony Blair and Britian. The fact that they can put a halt to this type of terror plot speaks highly of thier ability to be brilliant allies in the War on Terror. Furthermore, with the current debacle in France, it is extremely comforting to see a country that can actually deal with, and solve, its own problems. So kudos to John Howard and his government, and here's to many more succesful 'outings' of al-Qaeda plots, where ever they so happen to be.

The Not-So 'Gai Paris'

It seems that everyone's favorite Socialist Nation is again being put in the hot seat by its Muslim immigrants. For 10 days now, specific suburbs of Paris have been rocked by violent uprisings of young Muslim men. Cars have been blown apart, hundreds have been arrested, and buildings have been burned. On top of all this, the French government has demonstrated utter ineptitude in its attempts to halt the violence. Unfourtunately for France, it isn't just the current problem of curtailing the violence that the French Government faces. It is much deeper than that.

The root of the problem is, of course, France's abominable immigration policy. Muslims stream in daily, undocumented and unchecked. Many of the people involved in the Paris rioting aren't even French citizens, merely illegals who have no place being in France in the first place. And of course this problem is caused by another, much bigger, problem: socialism.

The immigrants come in the first place because they are assured of free health care, and the possibility of making large sums simply from welfare checks. However, the world is a rather imperfect place and so unlike the Frecnh citizens, these Muslims dont get the sums of cash. They get unemployment instead. Another side effect of the French governemnt's socialist policies and economy is an ever skyrocketing 12% unemployment rate. Furthurmore, as would be expected, this rate most affects poor men and women in France; such as Muslim immigrants.

Additionally, the current problem the French are having stems from their beloved 'multiculturalist' attitude. France is so afraid to come off as anti-muslim, racist, or, worse yet, oppressive. In doing so they have placed Muslims above the law. As is apparent in Paris these days, Muslims dont think they have to comply with the law. The reason for this is simply that Muslims have been given preferential treatment for so long in France, they think it will never end. France is afraid to say that certain radical Islamic ideals are unacceptable, because the French don't want to insult anyone, unless they live on the other side of the Atlantic.

The French need to grow up, or at least develop some guts. My only hope is that this rioting will expose certain glaring defficiencies in the French system, and spark change. Immigration is something that the French had better do something about fast, or they may quickly become Francistan. As for socialism, the Frecnh economy has been stagnant for months now, and if Chirac and all the other monsieurs in Paris don't make changes fast, the French may find themselves in a Great Depression-like state.

France is a wonderful country, and they make the best 'vin rouge' in the world; but the people in the suburbs of France's most famous city are in serious need of authoritarian aid right now. And I, for one, sure as hell hope they dont have to call 'Team America' to come save their asses again.

To Filibuster, Or Not to Filibuster?

With the recent nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, the Democrats in the Senate are facing a decisively uphill battle. Clearly, parts of the Democratic Party do not like Alito, he has already been called a wingnut, an idealogue, and perhaps most telling 'Scalito' or 'Scalia-lite'. The A.C.L.U, N.O.W, and the other big name liberal organizations are, after recovering from their convulsion fits, probably preparing to launch a full scale war against the confirmation of Judge Alito.

Unfourtunately, the likelyhood of this doing any good is virtually non-existant. The harder they fight the bigger and more impressive the victory is for the Republicans. And the Republicans will win this one, make no mistake. They have that 55-45 advantage in the Senate, and it looks like the gang of 14 is not going to butt in and screw around. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the semi-Republican from my home state, has already said the "filibuster will not stand", and it appears the other 6 RINO's are falling in step with him. In other words, all the Republicans will likely be voting to confirm Alito, and could very well invoke the 'nuclear option' if the Democrats try to use the filibuster. Furthurmore, it appears as though the 'gang of 14' Democrats, such as Sen Mark Pryor, do not seem to consider this an 'extraordinary circumstance' and thus have shown little intrest in a filibuster.

So the bottom line is this: Democrats just need to let this nomination happen, because bickering and fighting only hurts them. Bush now has his base strongly behind him, and the plan is apparently to win a nice victory and then launch into a new part of the agenda. For instance, the high tide from an Alito confirmation would be a great launching pad for, say, Social Security reform. So the Democrats may want to save their ammo for later fights.

But now that I think about it, Karl Rove probably has an extra plan ready, just in case the Democrats don't take his bait......