Well, another terrorist plot has been averted over the Atlantic. Ho hum. Just another day at the office and all that. The forces of good have triumphed once again over the forces of evil. Or have they?

I can't help but have a dark thought or two about it though - that maybe the terrorists should have been allowed to succeed in killing thousands of more Americans. Maybe then, the dumb liberals who are now talking crap will simply shut up. I mean, either we are committed to fighting terrorism or we are not. Maybe if more American lives are sacrificed, then maybe an opening would be there for some Democrat to run to the right of Bush, and actually propose a worthwhile policy or two. Instead we have the same old tired voices saying the same old tired 'Bush is the problem' crap.

I'm sick of it - and maybe we should vote the democrats back into power somewhere - just so we can see who they really are.

Joe
Boise

As I watch the military conflict going on now between Israel and Hezbullah, Hamas, Syria, and Iran, I can't help thinking that the situation sure looks familiar. A country, who has been giving ground to the terrorists for years, is finally reacting to the actions of terrorists.

Just like when Bin Laden underestimated the United States response to 9/11, the muslims around Israel have again underestimated their foe. Israel is set to to clear out the area that was Hezbullah's home:

One of the lessons America, and the world, drew from the lightning campaigns of Gulf Wars I & II was the importance of battlesplace preparation. That is, the conditioning of the battlefield's environment prior to initiating full scale military operations.

What we are witnessing in southern Lebanon is concurrent with actions designed to prep a battlefield for the insertion of ground forces. So far, Israel has relied on its dominance in sea and air forces to isolate Hezbollah, rather than focusing their brunt of their superior forces on actual enemy positions. By blockading the coast, neutralizing Beruit's airport, and damaging roads and bridges into and out of Lebanon, the IDF has cut off Hezbollah's supply routes by land, sea, and air, and blocked all lines of escape.

The end result is a battlespace that traps the now ill-equipped enemy force, the ideal environment for Israel to crush Hezbollah forces.

Of course, as the muslims get their butts kicked again, they will in fact claim victory - as if they meant to have their forces wiped out in the region. Yeah, right, as if anyone will actually fall for that line. (hmm, actually the American liberals have swallowed that one on a regular basis)

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Israel is burdened with a liberal political party like the American democrats, who in effect, run interference for the terrorists. And unlike America, I believe the Israeli public is much less likely to shriek like little girls when they receive casualties - so are very likely to make some significant strides against the terrorists.

So please, everyone join me in encouraging Israel to stay on the offensive till the job is done - all the way to Tehran.

Joe
Boise, Idaho

The Middle East has been a violent place for a long time; for at least the last 40 – 50 years or so. American policy has been to try and make the different factions there ‘get along’ with each other. America’s stance in regards to the different violent groups like the Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah – or even the countries that support them like Syria and Iran – has typically been to accept at face value their claims of peace, despite any evidence to the contrary.

The Bush Doctrine has changed all of that, and it’s about damn time. The Bush Doctrine can be summarized this way:

1. Unilateralism can replace multilateralism, when preventive war is required to protect American interests and those of allies;
2. The role of the United Nations is de facto considerably reduced;
3. International conflicts can be resolved through the use of military force, when diplomacy fails;
4. The result would be the advent of a ‘Pax Americana’;
5. End of the policy of nuclear mutual deterrence;
6. Initiation of a worldwide spread of liberty and democracy;
7. Pursuit of a policy of American military supremacy;
8. Introduction of the ideology of moral absolutism in American interventions abroad;
9. Nations are to be ranked according to American standards;
10. Active promotion of American economic interests around the world.

I believe that it may take a few more years before Bush is heralded as one of our best presidents, but that the day will come to pass when he is recognized to be just that. He has taken the leadership role in confronting the terror menace, and I for one will never forget that.

Joe
Boise, Idaho

I've been watching CNN on television and its coverage of the Middle East 'crisis' this Saturday morning (only because FOX News has its regular financial line-up on) - and I'm completely disgusted with the outright bias that CNN displays.  Every story is about the poor Lebonese, and all their guests talk about the poor Lebonese. The only mention of Israel is when they talk about how the Israel bombs make people suffer, or about the missing Israel sailors. At one point CNN put a graphic on the screen showing all of the reporters that they have staged in the area to bring us their wonderful coverage - and not a single reporter was in Israel.

Why doesn't CNN talk about Israel having to put 200,000+ people in bomb shelters because of the terrorist attacks on them?  Or why don't they tell their viewers about how the terrorists are so proud of the events they are causing? Why is there no mention of Iran and how Iran is the root cause of the Middle East problems? Hmm, I think I know why.

I know why CNN only shows one side of the story. CNN and everyone in that whole organization are terrorist sympathizers. CNN doesn't want anyone thinking about why the whole thing came about and who is backing the terrorists - they only wish to build sympathy for the 'poor lebonese' and to make Israel look bad.

The CNN view of the Middle East - the liberal view - is to try and maintain the status quo. CNN wants to keep things just the way the are in the region, and they don't wish to see any solution take shape (that is, unless the solution includes blaming America some how). That terrorism has become a way of life in the Middle East is everyone's fault except for the terrorists themselves. For anyone, America or Israel, to actually try and do something about it is seen as a bad thing by CNN.

Is it any wonder then that no one is watching CNN anymore?

Joe
Boise, Idaho

I’ve been reading in the news lately that John McCain is going to be the next republican nominee for president – which is likely to make him the next president of the United States.

Let me just state my opinion now concerning the election of John McCain: there is not a chance in hell that I will vote for the guy. I’ll either sit at home, or vote for an independent, but there is simply no way that I can vote for him in good conscience. Sure the guy is a real American war hero, but then so was John Kerry (sort of) – so it just goes to show how much that is worth.

There are several reasons why:

1. The republican party has lots of young superstars out there to choose from, relatively speaking, and I think the republicans should refrain from nominating another retread like the democrats tend to do. Can you say Bob Dole?
2. I think McCain has a chip on his shoulder concerning Christians. Personally speaking, I’m not a ‘rabid Christian fundamentalist’, but I do attend church regularly, and I resent some of McCain’s comments about Christians.
3. As a general rule, any candidate the MSM likes, I don’t. I mean, what is up with all them liberal journalists fawning over the guy?
4. As a general rule, any politician that goes around undercutting President Bush, I dislike. McCain has been an ally in the war on terror – but I get the distinct impression that the support is forced. McCain seems to back Bush on the issue in a calculating sort of way.

My personal favorite to be the next president of the United States is George Allen. I don’t know a whole lot about what the guy stands for yet, but I like the way his head is screwed on. He strikes me as a strong, unapologetic conservative.

Joe
Boise, Idaho

After a very brief consideration for what the first blog post should be about, the New York Times is the clear winner.

The NYTimes published the details of a secret government program that was tracking the flow of money to terrorists. It was an international operation and had proven to be successful. The NYTimes published the details of the operation on its front page, after being told by the administration that doing so might cause irreparable harm to the effort.

My opinion is that many liberals today have lost all perspective on what matters in the world today: 1) First comes your family, 2) Next comes your country, and 3) then comes your hatred for the guy sitting on the other side of the aisle. Someone let the NYTimes know - pronto!

Absolutely anything goes apparently, even placing Americans at risk.  Every adult knows the NYTimes has an issue with the Bush administration, so would the paper publish simply as an attempt to make Bush look bad?  It seems like tortured logic, especially since most everyone who is serious agrees that the program was legal and successful.

I've been reading what the liberals have been using as excuses for 'outing' the program, and I'm left wondering about the people making the arguments:

1. "The terrorists already knew about it." 
   Really?  This liberal claim is really amazing when you think about it, since no one in America knew - no one 'connected the dots'.  I mean, the story rated a front-page above-the-fold story in the most influential newspaper in the world, so they must have thought the outing would make a splash.
2. "It's in the Public Interest to know." 
   I would argue that there are many things that are not in the public interest to know. Certainly the secret programs to defeat our enemy fits this category, right along with troop movements.

The NYTimes has really been struggling lately; their circulation is way down, they've had to lay off a whole bunch of people.  I think the NYTimes is headed towards extinction, or at a minimum towards being relegated to one of the 'unserious' papers - like the one of those gossip papers.

I live in Idaho, so I've never actually seen a physical copy of the paper outside of a library - but if I do, let me state publically now that I plan on doing my part.  I'll gladly pay for one of their papers - and then take every copy in the box and throw them all away.

Joe
Boise, Idaho