I work in an office. It’s a typical office, full of bad fluorescent lighting, soothing pastel cubicles, and no windows. For eight hours a day, I sit in a room with a group of men as we go about our daily lives, earning a living. And it is quite a variety of people that I work with. I am the youngest person in the office, 25 years old. The next youngest is a man who’s in his late 30’s. We run the gamut, from ultra conservative to ultra liberal, and even though we all get along, we can occasionally break out into a heated political discussion.

Like the discussion we had today. On September 12th, 2003. The day after the two year anniversary of 9-11. The anniversary of the day after my world changed forever.

In my office, there’s a man. He’s a good man, quick to joke, good at his job, and kind to me. In his youth, he was drafted into Vietnam. He fought in that war, saw his buddies die in front of him, felt the bullets whiz by his head. He fought in blood and mud, and he survived. He’s a Democrat. He’s anti-war. He doesn’t like Bush. He thought we should have stayed out of Iraq. He thinks we were fighting for oil. (Cont)

Now President Bush, being a "compassionate conservative" -- as if conservatism needs a modifier -- would NEVER go for what I'm about to suggest. As a matter of fact, I don't know of a single politician who supports the position I'm about to advocate. Heck, off the top of my head I don't even know of a conservative pundit who supports it although I'm sure there are some. Yes, I am against the school breakfast and lunch program.

I was prompted to write this after reading about what's going on in New York City...

"There's no such thing as a free lunch, but Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said Friday, starting immediately, there will now be free breakfast for the city's more than 1.1 million students.

It's all part of an effort by the Department of Education to encourage eligible families to apply for the school meal program."

First off, there is no need for a school lunch program in the United States of America. Nobody starves to death in this country, not even the homeless. So whether these kids get free food at school or not, they are going to be able to ultimately get enough to eat one way or another.

"Yeah, but John, but John there are poor people out there who might not be able to get enough food for their kids. What about them, do you want them to go hungry? Huh? Huh?" No, but where do you draw the line? We're giving them free breakfast, and free lunch -- should we have the school pack them a dinner too? Clothes are pretty important, should the schools be giving out a clothing allowance? My grandmother once told me that there were kids back in her day who had long hair, because they couldn't afford haircuts. Should they set up barbershops at school? What if these kids have parents without healthcare? Should the schools set-up hospital wings just in case some of the students need long-term care? Where do we draw the line? Where does this end?

"Oh come on Hawkins, what's it hurting to give these kids free food?" Wait a second, aren't we constantly being told that teachers are being underpaid and that they have to buy their own supplies? Well how many trapper keepers and sheets of notebook paper can you buy with what it costs to give 1.1 million kids free breakfast every school day? How about instead of giving those kids free breakfast, we save the money and pay out bonuses to teachers whose kids have excellent test scores? When these kids grow-up, I think they'll appreciate being informed, educated, citizens more than the extra Cheerios.

Even if you don't want to get rid of the school lunch and breakfast program, we should at least make the kids work to earn the food. Let the older kids spend some time beating out erasers, sweeping the hallways, or doing something else to pay for their food. Even the little kids could at least -- I don't know -- make macaroni pictures dedicated to the US taxpayers who are paying for the free pizza they're getting at lunch. Let them learn that there is no "free lunch" or "free breakfast" for that matter and that you should have to work for everything you get. Even that would be preferable to putting these kids on the dole and teaching them that the world owes them free food...

***Update***: There are a lot of links to this one and predictably, most of them are demagoguing my position and saying some variation of "that's mean". But being the open-minded, Bushlike, compassionate conservative that I am, I have learned from what they've had to say.

Therefore, I'd like to announce that I now support the school breakfast and lunch program, for all kids, just as they're doing during breakfasts in New York. Sure that means the children of billionaires are going to be getting free breakfast too, but we can't take the risk that any child might go hungry. After all, there still are people in America, most of whom seem to be posting at A Small Victory (how they can afford computers, but not food for their kids is beyond me), who believe that everyone else has a responsibility to pay for their kid's food.

But I do still have one problem with free school lunches and breakfasts for all children and that is: it simply doesn't go far enough. After all, shouldn't these kids be eating 3 meals a day? How can we as responsible people who care about the children live with ourselves knowing these kids don't eat a good dinner? So we'll need to start handing out food as these kids go out the doors every day.

Then there's the week-end -- do we not often ask these kids to do homework over the week-ends? How can we ask them to learn when they're obviously fasting every week-end because their parents can't afford to feed them? What sort of people would we be if we let these kids go two days without food? So how can we call ourselves "caring people" if we don't feed these kids on the week-ends as well?

Then -- to our eternal shame -- there's the summer "vacation". We should call it the summer "starvation". Oh the horror, the tragedy, the shame we Americans should feel that we send these kids on summer vacation knowing that their parents aren't going to feed them. Then after a long vacation, with no school breakfasts, no school lunches, these kids come back to school -- the ones who live that long without starving -- with ribs poking out, some of them crawling because they're too weak from hunger to stand, so they can get their free food. Oh wait, that doesn't happen, does it? During the summer, the kids somehow get fed without the school doing it, don't they?

But this is no time for cold-hearted, cruel, logic; it's a time for, caring, loving, fuzzyheaded demands that we do it FOR THE CHILDREN! So I appeal to hard hearts out there, to people like Michele Catalano & Allison Kaplan Sommer, can't we have taxpayer supported food sent out to all the children for dinner, week-ends, and summer -- for the kids? Sure, we might have to get rid of a few -- well actually a lot -- of teachers to pay for it, but isn't it worth it to make sure no child in America is ever at risk of going hungry? What do you mean no? What are you, some sort of sick, cruel, twisted character from an Oliver Twist novel who thinks children should spend their days living off of half a cup of gruel while they toil away in the acid mines? HMMM -- is that what you're saying? Oh -- you're for it now? Good...

Now about clothes, some kids can't afford nice clothes and they need them to go to school. After all, they can't go to school naked, can they? Is that what you want? A bunch of poor kids going to school naked? What are you, some sort of sick, cruel, twisted character from an Oliver Twist novel? You're not? Great, that's why we want you to support our "free clothes for kids" initiative, etc, etc, etc....

I think you get the point...

Rachel Lucas seems to be building a pretty good sized audience by being known as "that belligerent chick who rants about guns, dogs, & Michael Moore". In an effort to blatantly steal the "dog demographic" from Rachel, I've decided to talk a little more about my dog -- Patton. Of course, nobody could possibly mind me talking about my dog anyway since all goodhearted people love dogs. Only weird & twisted members of our society, like MEChA supporters, serial killers, and people who fantasize about getting backrubs from Yasser Arafat could possibly dislike man's best friend. So here are a few fun facts about Patton...

His Name: His first owners named him Sully. I decided to name him Patton not only because I've long planned to name my dogs after my favorite US generals (Sherman & Mac will be the names for my next two dogs), but because I didn't want people to think I named him after Andrew Sullivan.

Heritage: He's a pure blooded Jack Russell Terrier on his fathers side & a Pomeranian/Husky/Beagle mix (don't ask) on his mother's side. However, he barks furiously if you call him a "terrier-American" so don't go there.

Likes: Small furry toys that squeak, doggie ice cream, belly scratches, playing fetch, chasing cats, birds, and anything else that moves, and of course America, motherhood, & apple pie.

Dislikes: The Vacuum cleaner, riding in the car -- especially since I flipped my car over with him in it, being told he's a "bad boy", crapping outside, and like his namesake general Patton, I'm certain he loathes Commies and Nazis.

Arch-Enemy: A German shepherd from upstairs, who outweighs him by about 50 pounds, and is sometimes allowed to roam around without a leash. Patton has jumped on him twice and once actually ran him completely across a parking lot. Patton has yet to find a French Poodle who he can force to surrender, but give him time.

Cute Habits: Sleeping on my shoe so he can tell when I move, sitting at the window watching for me to return, tossing his toys into the air and running after them, "accidentally" dropping his toys and then staring at me until I pick them up and throw them across the apartment so he can chase them down, & putting his paw over his heart when the pledge of allegiance plays.

Not So Cute Habits: Barking furiously at brown haired women, refusing to crap outside, deliberately destroying things in the house when he's separated from me, biting me on the chin as a greeting, tearing any paper he finds into dozens and dozens of tiny pieces, eating cat litter, & secretly watching "Bowling for Columbine" on the DVD player when I'm not home.

Things He Has Destroyed: 3 pairs of shoes, 4 network cables, 2 pillows, a quilt, part of a doorframe (I kid you not), & while he hasn't quite "destroyed" one of our couches YET, he has defiled it to the point that a pig would look at that couch and go, "OMG! You don't expect me to actually sit on that do you????"

'People Skills': Barks incessantly (and I do mean incessantly) at one of my roommate's girlfriends, loves to run full speed towards people and then jump through the air and land at their feet, likes to wait for other people to pass him and then jump on the back of their legs, he scares some of the kids next door so much that they literally crawl on top of cars when he gets within 50ft of them (despite the fact that he is always on a leash and weighs 18 1/2 pounds soaking wet), and he also growls ferociously at telemarketers -- but then who doesn't?

Don't you love Patton? I hope so, because I'm trying to figure out some way to put his mug on an RWN T-shirt.

Now that a U.S. District Judge has cleared the way for lawsuits related to the 9/11 attacks, the first such filings have begun.

"We want to demonstrate that the terrorists were just accomplices of grossly negligent American businesses," said one unnamed attorney. "Our own business people opened the door and invited the killers to come in. We shouldn't blame the peaceful Muslim devotees. They were victims as well. "

At the heart of most suits is the claim that Boeing, United Airlines, American Airlines and the New York City Port Authority could have stopped terrorists from crashing planes into the World Trade Center (WTC).

Here's a quick summary of allegations being made by attorneys on behalf of their clients.

-- Boeing made the planes too aerodynamic, too fast and too easy to steer.
-- Boeing should have installed a tranquilizer gas system which would 'knock out' all passengers in the event of a hijacking attempt.
-- The airlines should have used non-flammable liquid as jet fuel.
-- Airport security should have conducted pre-boarding psychological evaluations.
-- Flight crews should have worn iron coats-of-mail, and other body armor.
-- The Port Authority should have equipped the WTC towers with huge airbags, or electromagnetic shields.

If enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

One thing I've hit on a lot since 9/11 is the fact that we have to understand that every nation isn't friendly to America, our values, and our goals. This is not new. It has been going on for a long time, but it's all coming out into the open now because this is the first we've had to ask for favors since the Cold War. Without the Soviet menace to hold it all together, the long simmering anti-Americanism and ingratitude of many of our "allies" has moved to the forefront. Just read this article by Andrew Gimson about the attitude towards America in Germany...

"Last Sunday I attended a very odd and unpleasant meeting at the Tempodrom in Berlin. The several hundred people who were present believe the American government is to blame for the attack on the World Trade Center, which it either carried out itself, or else allowed others to carry out, in order to have an excuse to invade Iraq and establish world domination. Michael Meacher has recently argued in our own dear Guardian that Washington deliberately failed to stop the attacks, and a number of American conspiracy theorists had come to Berlin to peddle this line. Many people in this milieu — though not, one can be certain, Mr Meacher — further believe that the American government is in turn controlled by a Jewish world conspiracy, and that Mossad is behind the suicide bombings in Israel.

...The period of good behaviour by subservient Germans has ended, to be followed by a period of bad behaviour which can only be understood as a kind of belated adolescent rebellion against the long and humiliating tutelage of Washington. The Germans want to be taken seriously. They want to be treated equally, and any hint that they are not equal is more than they can bear."

Now you tell me after reading that -- why are we surprised that the Germans aren't cooperating with us in the war on terrorism?

Yesterday, Lawrence F. Kaplan published an editorial in the WSJ subtitled, ""How did fighting terrorism become a Republican cause"?

Some Democrats may think that's unfair, but honestly I think Kaplan's right on target. For whatever reason, about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the Democratic party, maybe even more, seem to almost dogmatically opposed to every attempt that's being made to defend America. They battle even the mildest security measures because they claim it'll create a police state. They incessantly complain about any increases in military or intelligence funding. Furthermore, they are dead-set against attacks on America's enemies, although they're clearly not pacifists given that they happily back using America's military in places we have no interest, like Somalia, Bosnia, & Liberia. In fact, their positions often have more in common with those of America's enemies than people concerned about our national defense-- at least when it comes to defending our country. Even the shock of 9/11 was only enough to shake them out of their stupor for a short period of time, just long enough for us to go after Afghanistan.

Fortunately, there are a lot of Democrats who are as nauseated by these people as the rest of us. I think of Democrats who are willing to cross party lines to vote GOP based on national security as Christopher Hitchens Democrats. Well, you can add another name to the ranks of the "Christopher Hitchens Democrats" -- former NYC mayor Ed Koch. Listen to what he had to say on CNN today...

KOCH: ...But also, there you've got the media attacking Ashcroft for wanting to have the Patriot Act, which gave him additional tools extended. Now, you can discuss individual provisions that you may think are not worthy of being extended, but the people who are smearing Ashcroft and smearing the law, they're nuts. Their lives are in danger, too, but they don't care.

KOCH: ...Howard Dean is "McGovern 2," the worst. And I believe that his support comes from that one-third of the Democratic Party that is ultra-left. And everybody knows that.

BLITZER: Well, what about Joe Lieberman?

KOCH: I like Joe Lieberman. He came to see me when he was deciding whether or not to run. And I said, I love you, you are the conscious of the United States Senate, go back there because if you run for president you're going to lose. I'm voting for Bush. I told him that.

BLITZER: All right, that's good. Ed Koch, we heard it here.

KOCH: And I don't have to agree with the domestic program of Bush. I don't.

As Koch said, he probably disagrees with Bush on most things not related to the war on terrorism, but he understands that Bush is determined to defend America and the Democrats aren't. That's a fundamental difference between Bush and someone like Howard Dean or John Kerry and I have to think that there are a lot of Democrats who understand that and are going to vote accordingly in 2004.

Fark has posted a thread about WTC & Pentagon attacks from 9/11. You can actually got there and see what people had to say as the event unfolded. Here are a few choice comments that I picked out of the thread, most of which came within 2 hours of the first attacks...

CharlieBrown: This is our Pearl Habour. The gloves are off, now.

Albert: ITS TIME TO FACK SOME PEOPLE UP! WE WILL TAKE 1000 LIVES FOR EVERY AMERICAN LIFE LOST!

ExcessiveForce: This is completely insane! Amazing! someone's really going to get their @sses kicked.

bigpeeler: Find this son of a biatch Bin Laden NOW!!!!! This smells like him all over. We must retaliate and hard. I hope everyone keeps their head.

Grumman: Bin Liden...Again...I would guess, I am infuriated

BurnKateDrumGuy: Death to Bin Laden.

overlord: The Democratic Front for the Liberatin of Palastine has claimed responsibility. -- BBC

fb-: Pentagon was just hit by a helecoptor

Sethor: I've heard word on local radio that the south wall of the White House is on fire as well, but have yet to see anything else to verify that.

I'm gonna have trouble sleeping tonight.

vd0man: D@mn...NBC just reported a THIRD plane crashed at the Pentagon! WTF it's a terrorist conspiracy?!?

Wallythecat: Why is anyone suprised? We can go off and bomb whoever we want but when someone has the nerve to attck us.... It's all out WAR! No one seems to mind that there hasn't been a war on american soil since the civil war, yet all the other wars in all the other countries just gets a shrug and is dismissed entirely.... Innocent people are killed all the time. It's just happening to us this time. Get over it...

NexR: Get war out of your heads people. There is no one country at fault for this. It one or more terrorist organizations united in a common effort. I'm not going to start beating the war drum. Who would we declare war on? Its a thousand people responsible at most.

Gasolia: War mongers take it up the @ss. This is great. Too bad civilians were involved.

melf: Ive been watching the news all day, this's insane. You know Bush is probably going to try and attack someone to look all righteous in the people's eyes...yuck...

...Im shocked that a plane crashed into the Pentagon, that's a slap in the face to our country, I hope we dont have some big war...that's it, Im moving to Canada

monkyman: This is so completely messed up. One of my co-workers sisters work in that building

squinth: Man oh man. Casualties in the buildings and both planes. This is an awful day. I am shaken.

wagoneer: my brother used to work with about 80 people in that part of the tower that collasped. can someone post a picture?

On 9/11, 2001 America was attacked, and not for the first time by an implacable and radical enemy bent on our destruction. There is no negotiating with the likes of Al-Qaeda, there can only be a global knife fight that will end with either Western civilization or the terrorists & their allies face down, breathing no more. We didn't ask for or want this fight, just as the American public had no desire to get involved in WW2. But Pearl Harbor, like 9/11, demanded a searing response. As Winston Churchill said,

"What kind of a people do they (Japan) think we are? Is it possible they do not realise that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?"

Then it was Japan and the rest of the Axis, today it's the terrorists and the rogue states who back them. (Cont)

-- Wow, the Jerusalem Post (Free Registration Required), for the first time I believe, is calling for the death of Yasser Arafat...

"The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative."

Not only do I agree, I can't understand why it took them so long to come to such an obvious conclusion. Yasser Arafat is quite possibly the foremost living terrorists on the planet (I still think Osama is dead) and he has been an implacable foe of Israel for his entire life. The sooner he dies, the better off everyone will be.

"Oh, but John, he'll be a martyr then." So what? How many "martyrs" are there already? Moreover, what can the Palestinians do about it that they're not already doing? They've made it clear that they have no interest in peace and Israeli civilians and government officials are fair game as it is. Who cares if people who are blowing themselves up on your buses every other week get even madder at you?

"Oh yeah smart guy? What happens if the surrounding countries get involved?" They're already involved. Syria, Iran, Lebanon, & Saudi Arabia are all openly supporting the terrorists who are attacking Israel. When Hizbollah launches a rocket attack at Israel from Lebanon, Israel should be treating it as an act of war by Syria and Lebanon. Not only should they respond to the terrorists, but they should be threatening to bomb Beirut and Damascus in response attacks as well. That can be a successful strategy -- ask the Taliban about it -- if you can find any of them.

If the Saudis & Iran keep sending money to terrorists, the Israelis should let them know that they believe bombing their oil fields to be an appropriate response. If and when the UN complains, Israel should just quit the UN. Quite frankly, the UN has been more of a hindrance to Israel than a help for the last fifty years anyway, so what would they have to lose by leaving?

On top of all that, Sharon should come out and explicitly say that if the surrounding countries ever achieve their dream of driving the Israelis "into the sea," that Israel will respond by nuking the major population centers of every nation in the region that's hostile to Israel.

Now I know you think that sounds like a really belligerent policy, but that's the point. Israel has this "tough guy" reputation, but it's not deserved. I can guarantee you that we in the United States would never put up with 1/10th of what Israel does from its neighbors. In fact, I'm confident that if the US was in Israel's position, surrounded by hostile nations that were sponsoring terrorist attacks against us, within a few years the whole region would be nothing but puppet dictatorships and parking lots.

Contrary to what many people think, since Israel became a nation, their major problem has been that they've been too restrained, not too belligerent. Their entire history has been little more than almost unending terrorist & guerilla attacks punctuated by four attempts at genocide by nations Israel has offered olive branches to time and time again without success. Enough is enough already. Israel is not going to achieve peace via futile peace negotiations or through UN Resolutions. But if Israel were to respond to provocations with lethal and devastating violence, far beyond what they've done in the past, they might actually be able to finally convince their neighbors to leave them alone.

Within a few weeks of 9/11, most conservatives had grasped something that the anti-war left still can't comprehend to this very day; that wiping out Al-Qaeda isn't enough, we have to go after all terrorist groups with global reach. Want to know why? Just look at this snippet of the script from the hilarious -- yet sacrilegious, don't say I didn't warn you -- movie, The Life Of Brian and you'll start to understand. In this scene, Brian tries to join a terrorist group...

"Brian: Are you the Judean People's Front?
Reg: F*ck off.
Brian: What?
Reg: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea. Judean People's front, caw.
Francis: Wankers.
Brian: Can I join your group?
Reg: No. Piss off.
Brian: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PFJ: Sssh. Ssssh, sssh, sssh, ssssh
Judith: Are you sure?
Brian: Oh. Dead sure... I hate the Romans already.
Reg: Listen. If you really wanted to join the PFJ, you'd have to really hate the Romans.
Brian: I do.
Reg: Oh yeah? How much?
Brian: A lot!
Reg: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f*cking Judean People's Front.
PFJ: Yeah
Judith: Splitters.
Francis: And the Judean Popular Peoples Front.
PFJ: Oh yeah. Splitters.
Loretta And the peoples Front of Judea.
PFJ: Splitters.
Reg: What?
Loretta: The Peoples front of Judea. Splitters.
Reg: We're the Peoples front of Judea.
Loretta: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
Reg: Peoples Front.
Francis: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
Reg: He's over there.
--------[A single old man sits on a lower seat.]
--------{Some POPULAR front, eh?}

You see what I'm saying? We could get the world to ban Al-Qaeda, but then they'd just show up with a new name and then we'd have to go through the whole process all over again. Think that could only happen in the movies, but not in real life? Well, this article about what's going in Pakistan should dispel that notion...

"The five Pakistani militant outfits, including Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Tayiba, banned last year by President Pervez Musharraf following mounting international pressure, are back in business with changed identities, a media report said on Wednesday.

A report in Herald magazine said four of Pakistan's top sectarian outfits have effectively regrouped and are operating their networks as openly as before. The report quoted Pakistani intelligence reports."

That's why just going after Al-Qaeda alone wouldn't accomplish much in the end. It's entirely too easy for these terror groups to simply reform with the same goals and a different name...

Usually, after some catastrophic event occurs, you can head over to Democratic Underground and see kooks galore blaming it on Bush. If there's a terrorist attack, it's because Bush planned it or let it happen. If a Republican does something that's undeniably good, like stopping to help injured boaters or motorists, it's all a Karl Rove set-up. Did your girlfriend just dump you? It's probably because Bush is seeing her on the side -- in short, they blame Bush for EVERYTHING.

But even I didn't think that there would be people at the DU who blamed Bush for the idiotic Lyndon Larouche supporters who were trying to yell over the candidates at the debate last night. But apparently, it must be a pretty hot topic since I ran across a post titled, "Why Rove/FOX didn't plan the disruptors". Of course, the guy who wrote the post comes off like a kook who just doesn't believe that Rove planned the disruptions THIS TIME....

"Ok, the biggest arguement that the disruptions were plants is the "they all didn't stand up at once, so Rove hired proffesionals"

besides, the commentators only said, in passing, "we're sorry about the disruption" and "some overzealous larouche supporters managed to sneak in"...had they planned this they woulda made a much bigger deal of it."

So normally, if there are multiple people interrupting a debate, but not all at once of course, it's because they were hired by Republicans? O...K...but most of the DU, to their credit, doesn't buy into the idea that Karl Rove actually hired people to disrupt the debate. That's actually quite understandable given that the only evidence apparently being offered is that the people making the assertion hate Karl Rove. But naturally, there were a few DUers who do think this whole cockeyed "theory" sounds credible...

Doug Decker: Do you have evidence that the disrupters worked for or supported LaRouche? How do you know that? Do you have any evidence for that or is that just your opinion?

It wouldn't have been very smart for Rove to have them yell out "Bush is God", would it?

TheYellowDog: I agree. I personally believe that Rove/Fox planted them, and that they weret told to say LaRouche slogans, because of course they can't say Bush for president or Bush for god, like doug said above.

oasis: Who wins when Democrats are discredited in front of a Fox audience?

Chimpy has $200 million to spend. Rove could easily hire operatives to study LaRouche tactics, show up and the debate, and carry out a plan.

Of course, maybe these people I'm quoting here are really dupes paid by Karl Rove to post on DU and make Democrats look bad. Then I guess you could say that it's theoretically possible that there is no such person as "John Hawkins," and that Karl Rove actually runs RWN. Think about it, the Karl Rove plants on DU make their posts and then tell Karl to post about it on his front site, RWN which was specially developed using millions of dollars of Richard Mellon Scaife's money. It all makes sense if you think about it...or more accurately, don't think too hard about it...

In a move that surprised a number of his supporters, California Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante has announced he will advocate strict border enforcement in California.

"Our studies indicate that the entire Oregon border is unguarded, and invading groups cross with into Aztlan (California) with impunity," says Bustamante. "The whole northern border is lousy with pasty gringos. Some of my people said we should put water and food at the crossing places, but I say we should put land mines at the border and require people to apply for permission to enter. The forms will be in Spanish.

If you enjoyed this satire by Tad Hayworth, you can read more of his work at Broken Newz.

Here are a few things I wanted to touch on that didn't quote merit full posts....

-- I know a lot of people want McClintock to drop out of the California Gov's race, but if I'm McClintock, I hang on for a while. I say that because Arnold doesn't just have skeletons in his closet, he has a whole graveyard crammed in there and more and more of it is going to become public. If Arnold's numbers starts to drop as more of his baggage becomes public -- which is entirely possible -- maybe Arnold drops out instead of McClintock. Stranger things have happened and I think it would be a mistake to write off McClintock at this early date.

-- I only caught the last 30 minutes or so of the debate because I was taking a nap (and no I didn't fall asleep after listening to Joe Lieberman talk for 2 or 3 minutes). I can't say I was terribly impressed. All the candidates, except for Sharpton, were boring and I'm sure they must have sounded fairly radical to Americans who aren't part of their base. All this whinging about how bad Bush's civil rights & environmental policy are, the 2000 election, etc, just seems so eighties, so incredibly stale. The Dems are just not going to win by acting as if Bush is some kind of monster, because nobody buys into that gibberish except for the most rabid members of the Democratic base. I can't say that what I saw changed my impression of any of the candidates, but I have come to the conclusion that it would be a lot of fun to interview Sharpton even if I don't agree with anything he has to say...

-- I've been an advocate of ending our military support of South Korea after we settle the nuclear issue with North Korea and ive South Korea a year or two to prepare. Stories like this one are a big part of the reason why...

"South Korean television, including state-owned and semiofficial channels, is portraying North Korea in an increasingly positive light; one recent program, for instance, favorably compared Pyongyang's state-run day care system with child care in the South. There has been a rise in the popularity of Internet chat rooms where South Korean youths share warm feelings about their North Korean counterparts on the other side of the most heavily militarized border in the world, according to political analysts who have studied the phenomenon. And a South Korean tour company is poised to start commercial flights to Pyongyang from Seoul for eager South Korean vacationers.

Meanwhile, South Korea's so-called 3-8-6 generation has become the nation's latest in-group. They are professionals in their thirties, who entered college in the 1980s, were born in the 1960s and participated in student movements opposed to right-wing regimes in the South. Today, many of them share more sympathetic views of the North and have risen to positions of influence here. For example, they make up the core of key advisers in the six-month-old administration of South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun."

Look, the only reunification Kim Jong-Il is interested in is at the point of the gun. He's a belligerent psychopath with nukes who runs his country like a prison and has zero interest in freedom or Democracy. Yet, we have all these South Korean utopian idealists running around mooning over the North Koreans. Hey, newsflash South Koreans -- just because you consider someone "your brothers" and want them to reciprocate doesn't mean they will. Personally, I don't think we should be putting out troops in harms way to protect these people when they're easily capable to doing it themselves and much of their population, perhaps even a growing majority, doesn't appreciate it.

-- There are a lot of Democrats who want America to drop to its knees and beg France, Germany and the rest of the UN for their help in Iraq, no matter what the consequences are. Here's the price they're demanding we pat...

"France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country.

...France doubts a solution lies in extra troops, but says the governing council needs to be given a clear impression of a timetable leading to democratic elections and a constitutional assembly."

Let me translate for you. France and Germany would get their share of the booty in Iraq even through they opposed us all the way, Britain, Poland, Australia and the rest of our allies would get shafted even through they risked and blood and treasure to support us, the Us would still have to supply the overwhelming majority of troops in Iraq, and France and Germany would try to undermine Democracy in Iraq so they could install a puppet dictator who'd give them sweetheart deals and who would be acceptable to the surrounding Arab governments. Then as a bonus we'd get to listen to snooty French and German diplomats sneer at the United States and talk about how, "we've been taught a lesson about the importance of the UN".

Not every nation shares our goals folks or wants us to succeed. Trying to give nations like that, nations like France & Germany, a say in important issues that are essential to our national defense is a terrible idea.

***Update #1***: Canadian lefty Tim writes in the comments section, "France doubts a solution lies in extra troops, but says the governing council needs to be given a clear impression of a timetable leading to democratic elections and a constitutional assembly"

what horrible b@stards those french are.. wanting to get democratic elections and constitutional assembly going in Iraq.. what horrible cowardly b@stards, right john?"

Well yes, the French are, "horrible cowardly b@stards," but on to your comments. The French and German governments care nothing about Democratic elections in Iraq. To the contrary, Saddam Hussein's totalitarian Iraqi state had no better friends than the Germans and French.

So why are they talking about Democracy now? Two reasons.

One, they know it's impossible to put a timetable on something like this and they hope that talking about it will make them look like good guys to the Iraqi people and the world. Sort of a, "Sure the French and Germans did everything in their power to allow Saddam to keep murdering, raping, and enslaving his people while the Americans freed them, but they really supported Democracy all along". Listening to the French and German governments talk about Democracy in Iraq is like listening to Kim Jung-Il talk about how much he wants to reunify with the South or a Saudi Government official talking about how much they want peace with Israel. It's pure garbage.

Secondly, the French and German governments would rather see Democracy fail in Iraq rather than succeed. It would be a humiliation for America and as a bonus, they'd have a much better chance of restoring their economic ties with a dictator than a free Iraq that remembers and resents the nations that tried to aid Saddam. If the Iraqis move too fast towards Democracy, their government will be too weak to survive and a civil war or even perhaps an invasion from Iran or Turkey could easily happen. If that sort of chaos broke out, the world would likely forget about Democracy in Iraq and would probably help another Iraqi strongman gain power in order to restore stability.

The Germans and French weren't friends to the Iraqi people when Saddam was in power and they're not friends to them now. Allowing those nations to get involved in the decision making process in Iraq would lead to disaster.

The Congressional Black Caucus and Fox News will present a debate of the nine Democrat presidential candidates tonight at 8pm ET. I am going to go ahead and make some bold predictions about the debate. Since I'll probably be playing F-Zero GX while it's on, someone else watch and tell me how many I got right.

PREDICTIONS FOR THE DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATE

* Howard Dean will set the tone for the debate by announcing at the beginning that Saddam Hussein must immediately be found and then restored to power.

* Joe Liberman will try to convince the Democrats he's crazy enough to be their nominee by biting the head off a live bat. He will somehow make the act extremely boring.

* Dennis Kucinich's tinfoil hat will be completely ineffective at stopping the mind controlling space lasers.

* John Edwards will adamantly declare that he's just a regular guy and that he will use his trial lawyer skills to sue anyone who says otherwise.

* Fox News will use when Carol Moseley Braun speaks to have commercial breaks.

* John Kerry will mention that he served in Vietnam.

* Al Sharpton will interrupt Bob Graham by shouting, "Shut up, Graham cracker!" because it's just too good a line.

* Dick Gephardt will make some sudden hand movements that will enrage Howard Dean into an attack.

* Bob Graham will try to outdo everyone in angry, anti-Bush invective and end up breaking a hip. It will be the highlight of the bloopers reel.

* There will be a lightning round France appease-off. Kerry will win with his haughtiness and French lookingness.

* Dennis Kucinich will start screaming in response to a high-pitch noise only he can hear.

* Dick Gephardt will use the Democrat's dark powers to summon Satan, who will announce that he is still undecided.

* John Kerry will mention that he served in Vietnam.

* When things get too boring, the debate will be broken up by an unscheduled ninja attack. That wacky Fox.

* When not speaking, Al Sharpton will eat a hoagie. Dennis Kucinich will start whining and crying when he realizes it was his.

* John Edwards will use his séance powers to talk to his dead political prospects.

* Carol Moseley Braun will fiercely and violently fight for her position of most irrelevant.

* Due to lax security, a stray dog will wander onto stage. Scared and confused, the dog will bite the haughtiest and French lookingest candidate he sees: John Kerry. Kerry will somehow work into his yelp of pain that he served in Vietnam.

* Since the debate will be sponsored by the Black Caucus, there will be a contest to determine which candidate is the blackest. In a surprise upset, Joe Liberman will win.

* John Kerry will mention that he served in Vietnam.

* Dick Gephardt will try and declare that Bush is a "miserable failure" but will miserably fail and instead say "mailurable fissure".

* Hillary Clinton will suddenly walk on stage in the middle of the debate, suck all the air out of the room, and then leave.

* At the end of the debate, people will unanimously declare that the winner was Clucks, the Democrat debating chicken. He will also beat each candidate at tic tac toe.

* Al Sharpton will fry and eat that chicken. Poor Clucks, the Democrat debating chicken; this world was just too much for him.

If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J, you can read more of his work at IMAO.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has confirmed that he will not remain in his current position should President Bush win a second term in 2004. But in a press conference held yesterday morning in Washington, he surprised many when he explained his reasons. Far from the widely held belief that he is at odds with the aggressive, militaristic policy espoused by the president, Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Cheney, Powell stated that he felt the current administration was not "war-mongering, brutal and jingo-istic enough." "Look," he said, with visible impatience, "I was in 'Nam, which is more than you can say for Dubya, okay? And I just think we ought to be blowing more people to kingdom come, back to the Stone Age, you know? I mean, why did it take a full three weeks to win in Iraq? Because we were trying so hard to not kill civilians! Well, bloody hell! How stupid. We should have just decimated everything in our path and let them know who was boss. We would have won in a day and a half, bloody hell."

Powell added that "when I worked for Bush Senior I was equally frustrated when he wouldn't let us go in and string Saddam up by his earlobes. Honestly! And you know, I just wanted to randomly slaughter as many people as possible, including those cowardly Iraqi soldiers who surrendered to us. We should have beaten them silly. Screw the Geneva Convention!"

Referring to the frequent press reports which claimed Powell had been insistent on trying to get UN cooperation for Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Secretary of State said that that was a "load of b***s***. I hate the UN. What a bunch of nancy-boys! I can't stand 'em. If I had had things my way I would have had us drop a MOAB on the UN! But only if I had been certain Joschka Fischer was in there at the time. And you know, you may remember that I was there with a vial of anthrax. Well, that was not just for show. I was seriously considering throwing it at Fischer, de Villepin, you name it. The only thing that held me back was that I promised the president I wouldn't."

Reached for comment about Powell's press conference, President Bush confirmed his Secretary of State's comments, saying that "in the time I've known Colin, he's wanted me to bomb India, Chile, Cuba, Canada, Mexico, Luxembourg, Sri Lanka, Guyana, Burkina Faso, Japan, Taiwan, India, Turkmenistan, Belgium, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Ohio, Arizona, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, certain neighborhoods in Los Angeles and, as he called them, 'those b@stards in Kentucky.' It's been fairly hard to control him, and I think he'll do better in private life than in the public service. I wish him the best."

If you enjoyed this satire by Marni Malarkey, you can read more of her work at Broken Newz.

Note From John Hawkins #1: If only Colin Powell were even 1/10th as belligerent as he's portrayed as being in this satire...oh I'm sorry, that must have simply been a beautiful dream...

Note From John Hawkins #2: I would give a week's salary to watch Colin Powell throw something, it doesn't even have to be anthrax, and hit Fischer or de Villepin in the head.

Note From John Hawkins #3: Oh. My. God. I. Have. Such. A. Cool. Idea. Can you imagine how awesome it would be to have a dunking booth game featuring Kofi Annan, Chirac, and Hans Blix with all of them running off at the mouth while you try to dunk them off into pools of piranhas or into angry mobs of peasants that hate the UN? IF ONLY I COULD DO FLASH.....Why didn't I take those Flash classes? Why, Why? Why? It would pull a bazillion hits -- just imagine, if you knock the first three down, you go to the bonus round with Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and Jimmy Carter. ****Sigh**** That would have been the coolest flash game ever....

"Eye on the Left: How significantly did the events of September 11th and the recent war with Iraq impact the general public's view of blogs and bloggers?

John Hawkins: Perhaps more journalists and a few more hard core news junkies discovered blogs because of 9/11 or the war in Iraq, but I don't think 99% of the public knows we even exist yet. The blogosphere is still growing and our day will come, but we're still small fish in a big pond right now." -- From an interview with me by Eye On The Left

Last week, one of my readers who was deeply concerned because he believes Russia is sliding back towards totalitarianism, asked me to write about the subject because he thought I could get the word out to the Bush administration. While I was deeply flattered by that, I didn't have the heart to tell him that I sincerely doubt that there's anyone in the Bush administration reading my blog. Heck, I'm guessing that there isn't anyone in government at all, anywhere, and I'm talking all the way down to the assistant to the assistant to the assistant dog catcher of Podunk county Arkansas, reading my blog. That may surprise some of you because you think I'm one of the bigger right-of-center bloggers. That's true, I am. But that's like being one of the hottest prospects in all of AAA baseball. It's not bad, but it still isn't the major leagues. (Cont)

Mark Dubbin, the author of "Shadow Patriot" bought a main page ad on RWN to get the word out about his book. Here's the description of it from Amazon...

"The events of 9/11 affected many things in New York and the Mafia was no exception. Business suffered for Don Remondini after the attack, but he wasn't about to let it go. The cowards who cost him would receive a message from the Family if he had anything to say about it. They would think twice about their actions in the future. That much was certain.

Jim Pearce is Don Remondini's chief of security. As an Ex-Special Forces sniper, discharged from duty with diabetes, he is assigned to send al-Qaeda a powerful message from the Family. Operating outside the law, and using his CIA contacts, Shadow Patriot is a web of action and intrigue where the guilty will be made to pay, and payback can be a b*tch!"

I have to admit, that's a pretty cool concept. In fact, this would make a heck of a made for TV movie. How sweet it would be to see some Al-Qaeda guys having their car blown up or getting shot down in a mob drive-by along with some of the Saudi Royal Family members who're paying them off...and what the heck, Yassir Arafat, who just happens to be the area.

In any case, if you're looking for some interesting, fictional, reading material, check out "Shadow Patriot."

***Update #1***: Last night, just for the heck of it, I took note of this book's sales rank on Amazon before I put up this ad. It was ranked all the way up at 1,379,367. Now what's this book's current Amazon rank after a day and a half at the top of RWN with a main page ad? 8,311. I have no idea whether they had any other advertising campaigns starting today or how many books they had to sell to get that kind of a jump, but in any case, it sure does look impressive.

I've been chagrined by all the Democrats winking at Cruz Bustamante's refusal to cut his ties to MEChA, a group that often uses the slogan, "For the race everything. For those outside the race, nothing" and that wants to reclaim the Southwestern United States for Mexico.

But no matter how loathsome the group is, many left-wingers are willing to happily hold their nose and make excuses for them if that's what it takes to put a Democrat into office. That makes me wonder -- how far is the left willing to go to get "their guy" into office? Would ANYBODY do as long as they have a chance to beat the GOP?

Nazi 4 Gov!: Hello everybody!

Liberal 1: Hey, you're a Nazi! Boo! Hiss!
Liberal 2: BOOOOOOO!
Liberal 3: Nazis SUCK!

Nazi 4 Gov!: Wait a second, I think you have the wrong idea about us Nazis...

Liberal 1: Hmmmm, well I thought you were evil monsters who hated everyone who isn't an Aryan like you, especially Jews....

Nazi 4 Gov!: We are, but did you know that we also encourage kids to get a college education?

Liberal 1: A college education?
Liberal 2: Well, education is a good thing....
Liberal 3: I don't know, supporting education doesn't quite make up for the death camps...

Nazi 4 Gov!: What if I told you that we supported education for minorities, higher taxes, and that we're all against Bush's filthy war!!!

Liberal 1: Boy, this is a tough one.
Liberal 2: On the one hand you want to kill all minorities, but you want to educate them too. So it's sort of a mixed bag...
Liberal 3: What's your stand on abortion?

Nazi 4 Gov!: Nazis LOVE abortion! It reminds us of the camps back in the good old....ehr, back in the days of war that we hope to never see again!

Liberal 3: Well, you don't sound all bad, but...

Nazi 4 Gov!: Did I mention that I'm running on the Democratic ticket and I'm your only chance to beat the Republicans?

Liberal 1: Our only chance?
Liberal 3: Hmmmm, a Republican or an unreconstructed Nazi, tough choice.
Liberal 2: Oh what the heck, Go NAZIS!
Liberal 1, 2, & 3: Nazis, Nazis, Nazis!!!

When I see the incredibly negative & biased coverage of Iraq that we're getting from the mainstream press, I almost have to wonder if something like this is about what's happening behind the scenes...

CNN Reporter: Hello, I'm CNN correspondent Wolf Streisand, live on the wild streets of Baghdad where lawlessness reigns, security is non-existant, chaos is the order of the day, the situation is steadily worsening....

Camera Man: Wolf, Wolf, we're going to have to cut & take it from the top. There's an Iraqi policeman standing behind you in the shot. We'll have to wait for him to move if...

CNN Reporter: Let's just do this later. I want to do some man on the street interviews anyway.

Camera Man: Ok, just ask anybody, how about that guy...

CNN Reporter: Excuse me sir, what do you think about the American occupiers?

Iraqi Man #1: Me? Am I going to be on television? Oh, thank God for America and Bush! Saddam's men tortured me and...

CNN Reporter: Ok, Ok, thank you very much, move along. You sir, what do you think of American occupiers? Has it been rough since Saddam fell?

Iraqi Man #2: Saddam? I can't wait until they get Saddam! I don't care what anyone else says, Americans must stay and help the Iraqi people and...

CNN Reporter: Thank you very much sir, move along.

Camera Man: Are we using any of this?

CNN Reporter: No, of course not. You, sir, how has the American occupation going in your opinion?

Iraqi Man #3: The power has been off too much and there are American troops everywhere! They should get out of Iraq! Iraq is for Iraqis!

CNN Reporter: Thank you for your time sir. Keep that, that's good footage!

Iraqi Man #1: Hey, excuse me, but that man you were just talking to was a member of the Baath party and he...

CNN Reporter: Yes, yes, your country's internal politics are very interesting to us, thank you for your concern.

Iraqi Man #1: Yes, but...

CNN Reporter: Security! Security! I feel threatened! Get him away from me! (Security hustles the man away). Now see, this is why I usually just interview whoever happens to be standing in front of the hotel. This is a dangerous country!

Camera Man: Uh....

CNN Reporter: Ok, we need to do an update on the lack of progress in Iraq, ya know, talk about the constantly worsening security situation, native unrest, that sort of thing...

Camera Man: We've been saying the situation is "constantly worsening" since about 5 minutes after they pulled down that statue of Saddam. I mean we'd practically have to see alien mantis people walking down the street, kicking in doors, pulling out small children, and eating them in the street for things to have been "constantly worsening" for that long...

CNN Reporter: Hey, hey, you let me worry about that. That's why I write the copy and you just shoot the pictures. Let's hurry up and get this done. I don't like the looks of those kids over there....

Camera Man: They're little girls, they've been trying to give us flowers for half an hour. Just listen to them....

Little Girls: Bush Good! Bush Good! Thank you America!

CNN Reporter: Ugh, they're giving me the creeps. I mean "Bush Good"! Come on, who actually says that?

Camera Man: I've heard it about 50 times since we got back into Iraq last week...

CNN Reporter: Yeah right! It sounds like an Al-Qaeda trap to me! Security, get rid of the Iraqi girls!

Security: Let me see if I understand this, you want me to run off a bunch of little girls who want to give you flowers? You are -- let's see, what is the American word for it -- a "jack@ss"! I quit! I'm leaving (walks away)

CNN Reporter: You see how hostile the Iraqis are to Americans? Hey, hey wait a second, our security is gone, run, run, back to the hotel!

Camera Man: Sigh, we're only about 50 yards from the door you know...

CNN Reporter: Quickly, before the little girls get us! Aieeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

In a show of Republican solidarity, California gubernatorial candidate Tom McClintock today offered to let Arnold Schwarzenegger borrow his ideas and plan for reviving the debt-ridden state.

"Arnold has celebrity, but no real Republican game plan," said Mr. McClintock, a state senator. "I have actual experience, and a conservative plan for California, but little celebrity. Since he can't give me his celebrity, I'm offering to give him my ideas."

Mr. Schwarzenegger responded to Mr. McClintock's offer by saying, "Don't you worry about my plan. I'm going to clean house in Sacramento, because we've been taxed and taxed and taxed and taxed. And even though I might raise taxes in an emergency, I don't like taxes. Tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax....all day long.

It was Mr. Schwarzenegger's second major economic policy statement in as many days.

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

First off, I'd like to thank all of RWN's advertisers for September...

The Bloghunter - Weblog Index, The Catholic Samurai, Celebrity Morons!, Delta Star, Electric Venom, Ghost Of A Flea, Lex Libertas, Right Wing Nut, Right Wing Stuff, VitaminUSA, Widgets, Zogby Blog

You like reading RWN? Well these blogs help make it possible. Their money pays for my hosting, software, consultants, and they put a little change in my pocket besides. If you enjoy RWN, couldn't you just take a look at a few of these blogs as a thank-you? I'd sure appreciate it if you could.

-- Speaking of advertising, I'm planning to dump the Amazon books on the left. Since I make almost as much money from the button ads in a month as I've made from Amazon this year, I figure why bother? So I'm thinking of replacing that space with some other form of advertising. Maybe a couple of 120x60 ads at $20 each or some text ads -- maybe even rotating text ads? What if I had up to 9 text ads, w/ 3 rotating in every time RWN refreshes. Do you think I could sell those at say $5 each? I'm open to ideas if you have any suggestions...

-- Then there's the t-shirts. I have been planning to sell t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc, forever and it's almost a given that I'd sell them through Cafe Press. However, I am not a graphics or design whiz and I have no idea about how to put all this stuff together. Do any of you know anything about design or have any suggestions about what sort of gear I should sell? Again, I'm open to any ideas that people have...

"Eye On The Left" -- which used to be "Blogs of War" -- did an interview with me for their grand opening today. Read it and enjoy!

I found Bush's speech last night on the war in Iraq to be fairly interesting because he pointed out some things to the American public that conservative pundits have been talking about for months. In a sense, Bush's speech last night was like the opening class of, "Conservative Foreign Policy 101". Here's some of the key points Bush hit...

After reminding Americans of why we removed Saddam, he pointed out that our perceived weakness before 9/11 encouraged the terrorists to attack us...

"For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak. And they grew bolder, believing that history was on their side. Since America put out the fires of September the 11th, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power."

Soon thereafter W. touches on the "reverse domino theory" (i.e., that a free Iraq will help encourage Democracy to spread across the region and discourage terrorism)...

"The Middle East will either become a place of progress and peace, or it will be an exporter of violence and terror that takes more lives in America and in other free nations. The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq, in Afghanistan and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. When tyrants fall, and resentment gives way to hope, men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror, and turn to the pursuits of peace. Everywhere that freedom takes hold, terror will retreat."

Bush also pointed out that almost all of the attacks are happening in the Sunni Triangle and that the rest of the country is fairly stable...

"Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The north of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the south, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups."

GWB then explicitly (and correctly I might add) tied Iraq into the war on terrorism...

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure. "

W. even addresses the idea that we have to go on the offense and kill the terrorists on their home ground...

"We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities."

Of course, W hit some other points as well during the speech including, our commitment to democracy in Iraq, that we don't want anymore American troops in Iraq & only seem to be seeking another 20k foreign troops, we're still talking to the UN, we'll need 87 million for Iraq AND Afghanistan, etc, etc.

With this speech, Bush didn't get into a lot of accounting, figures, or details. Instead he actually seemed to be trying to reaffirm what he stands for. In effect he was saying, "I'm not promising you this will be easy, but just as I said before, I'll guarantee you that I'll do what it takes to win the war on terrorism -- and make no mistake about it, Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. Here's what we're doing in Iraq and why we think this has to be done to win. Trust me, stick with me, and we will win."

I certainly liked the speech and I think it was a far more impressive foreign policy speech than any of the Democrats running for the Presidency have given (or probably will give). It'll be interesting to watch the poll numbers and see if this speech resonates with the public.