This story is quite old, but I’d never heard it, so I figure many of you have not. In August of 2003 US forces found Iraq’s Air Force buried in the desert. We’re talking a real jet fighter, buried in the sand.

Naturally this leads to a question of whether or not WMDs could be buried in Iraq, but we have no way of knowing. What I think this example does though is show the reality of Iraq, something that few Americans grasp. People watch their TV and read their newspapers, and it all seems so easy. There is no human element to even concern themselves with. If WMDs were there, they should have been found. Nevermind that they could be buried like these jets, or flown to Syria. Nevermind that Bill Clinton, Jacques Chirac, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Al Gore, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, and many others said prior to the war that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (here and here). Their TV news and newspaper haven’t had a picture of a barrel with "WMD" on the side, and that’s all that matters. People are so quick to forget the names mentioned above and label the President a liar.

I found an exceptional Op-Ed piece at a very unlikely location: the LA Times. The writer, Jonah Goldberg, says "The fact that Hussein turned out to be bluffing about WMD isn’t a mark against Bush’s decision. If you’re a cop and a man pulls out a gun and points it at you, you’re within your rights to shoot him, particularly if the man in question is a known criminal who’s shot people before. If it turns out afterward that the gun wasn’t loaded, that’s not the cop’s fault." Excellent analogy showing that the burden of proof was on Saddam Hussein, not the President. Read the whole thing, not too long but very enlightening.

Are your beliefs about the war in Iraq based on facts or rhetoric? Determination or emotion? Strength or pacifism? Body counts or lives liberated? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Pandering to Blacks at a recent Martin Luther King Jr. Day event, Senator Hillary Clinton made the following remarks: The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about," said Clinton, D-New York. (See the full article here via CNN.) Update: Video at PolitcalTeen. I could go many directions from here (inspiration via Larry Elder).

I could talk about how most Black voters are taken for granted by the Democratic Party, and sadly a remark like this will do little to affect support among Blacks. The oddest thing of all is that Clinton was using this to rally the Blacks she was addressing. To even suggest that the House of Representatives is comparable to a plantation is ludicrous. Blacks should be outraged that Clinton would suggest such a thing, and even more upset that she is using it to promote her political adgenda.

I could talk about how Clinton is confused about where to position herself leading into 2008. She doesn’t know if she should position herself as a centrist or a far-left liberal. If she positions herself in the center like John Kerry, someone far-left like Dean might give her problems. However, if she goes too far-left she won’t appeal to those in the middle.

I could talk about how the mainstream media is going to give her a pass like they always do. Trent Lott was crucified over his comment to Strom Thurmond, which in and of itself was not racist (it was interpreted as an endorsement of Thurmond’s political stance at the time, though it’s likely Lott was simply saying he was a good man for the job.) Why isn’t the NAACP making an uproar and denouncing Clinton’s comments?

I will leave you with another quote from Senator Clinton from the same speech (this is for those of you that didn’t actually read the article). In two years when Clinton is running for office and promising to bring the country together, don’t forget this mean-spirited foaming at the mouth remark:

"I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."

I’m going out with Stacie and some of her friends from school tonight, but I’ll be sure to catch a video feed of the debate later tonight. I think President Bush will do better in this format, and since he “lost” according to some people in the first debate, I think he’ll come out extra strong tonight. I’m sure much time has been spent on his appearance despite how unimportant it really is.

The whole Iraq issue has been beaten beyond recognition. Bush is doing it one way, Kerry would do it “better,” but nothing new has been said in weeks. Sean Hannity suggests Bush focus on Kerry’s senate record tonight. Kerry has years and years of voting a certain way and for certain things that can’t be erased by a couple debates, or shouldn’t be anyways. He loves tax increases, he’s voted against defense and intelligence bills numerous times, and he voted against the first Gulf War. John Kerry can talk tough in the midst of a debate, but it doesn’t change his record. What the Bush camp needs to do is effectively remind the public that he is indeed a flip-flopper.

The debate wasn’t too exciting. Kerry attacked Bush the whole time for waging the “wrong war at the wrong time,” and Bush stuck to his “stay the course” type message.

What really bugged me were all the dopey media people afterwards. Oh how I long for cable TV and Foxnews. ABC had a “quick poll” that showed about 15% more people thought Kerry won the debate, but that President Bush’s lead on Kerry held (they both received 1% more vote than pre-debate). Then of course the crazy media people went on and on how it was some big win for Kerry, but completely ignored that it didn’t change anyone’s mind. I’m not really sure why they think Kerry was the winner…because he was on the “offensive” more? So whoever criticizes the other more wins? John Kerry doesn’t have any plan for Iraq except that he would do it “better,” whatever the heck that means, and he wins?

I love talk radio and the blogosphere, and not so I can here opinions and points of view that are similar to mine, but so I can hear some sanity in the midst of such doofs.

Kurtis sent me this awesome sound montage of John Kerry and all his positions on Iraq. Send this link to your friends, because everyone who is of age to vote needs to hear this. It will open their eyes.

John Kerry Takes EVERY Position

In case you haven’t heard or seen…John Kerry was a little more "orange" this week than usual. People are speculating that there might be some pre-debate "prepping" going on. The Kerry camp’s explanation? He was playing football for one hour the day before. Should be interesting to see what color he is come Thursday, the first Presidential Debate. I can’t wait.

The story at Drudge.

This recent story about John Kerry really struck me as odd. If you read it, you’ll see that John Kerry is claiming President Bush will call up more troops after he gets elected in November. The article goes on to show several people who have no idea what he’s talking about, and one person who claims he’s heard about this. Not surprisingly that person is a Democrat, but we’ll come back to that.

I’ve found it to be a constantly recurring theme that I must decipher and critically think about everything people say this election year. If John Kerry says President Bush is fighting the “wrong” war, what does that mean? John Kerry supported the war at one point, so does he just not like the way it’s turning out? Or is he trying to separate himself from Bush? What the evening news doesn’t tell you is that Kerry has had a 100 stances on the war in Iraq. It stems all the way back to the Democratic primaries. Good ‘ol Howard Deam was completely anti-war, so to distinguish himself from Dean, Kerry was pro-war. Well, Kerry won that battle…but now he’s got a problem: Bush is pro-war…and he can’t have the exact same stance on one of the most important issues to voters. Therefore, like he did in the Democratic primaries, he’s trying to find a new stance to “market” himself. If you don’t believe me check out www.kerryoniraq.com.

Something else in that article that blows me away is when Kerry says “Doesn’t George Bush watch the evening news?!” In other words, doesn’t President Bush see the body count reported every night?. This is an important point, because I think it’s what separates Liberals from Conservatives. Liberals think primarily with their emotions, and Conservatives think primarily with their brain. A Liberal can’t look at Iraq, see a death toll, and then decide “is it worth it?” Instead they just gawk and wail that a US Soldier died. I’m not demeaning the value of life, and in fact I’d say that is what the liberals are doing. I say when a soldier dies they have served their country and worked to secure freedom in Iraq. A liberal on the other hand will say they died fighting a pointless war and it’s all President Bush’s fault. They can’t even support our troops now because that’s indirectly supporting Bush.

Ultimately I think the majority of voters will be able to decipher all the coded messages being transmitted this election year. Democrats have been hoping for Iraq to turn into Vietnam, but that’s not happening. Republicans have been wanting the economy to boom like crazy, but I’d say it’s just in a regular recovery. In the end, look at what people say and decide for yourself if it’s the truth. You’ll be smarter for it.

A recent DrudgeReport headline reveals that kerry co-sponsored a ban on the very type of gun he is holding in this picture. But I’m sure the mainstream media won’t tell you that. *Shhhhh* John Kerry is a liberal, and one of the things they do is try to get rid of guns, *shhhhh*. It’s pretty funny, check it out.

Kerry and his Shotgun