Back with a Bullet, It's Brandy!

Yep, Brandy who posts here from time to time is posting and we'd all like to welcome her.

First off, I agree that Hilary's book sounds dull...I don't think it's full of 'lies' just rhetoric...check out the NY Times review...almost funny.

Second...those infamous weapons of mass destruction...are you seriously suggesting that you don't think there were any there??? Come on Bryant...The UN reports (and lets remember here these are NOT American reports) CLEARLY stated the weapons Saddam had that he was NOT suppose to...many of which are under that ridiculously large cover of 'WMD'...we ALL know he had them! But since Powell wasted so much time with the UN he moved them...it's like telling a kid -"ok, in 3 weeks I'm going to come check your room for the pot that I saw you bring in there"...even the dumbest of kids is going to move it to their friend Syria's house. And lets not forget the scud missiles he fired on our troops, or the gallons of liquid saraton (I'm sure I misspelled) that were found . . . what 'exactly' do the naysayers think they are going to find??

Lets look at this from another angle...let's 'say' Saddam never had any of the stuff reported from the 90's UN inspections...why wouldn't he let in the inspectors again?? Why would he have risked being over thrown or given away the chance to make the US look stupid...is he really that much of an idiot. And the last thought...Where is Saddam, oh, wait, we can't find him...hmmm, I'm beginning to think he was never really there, just something Bush made up so we could attack poor Iraq.

Now, then...I actually have other concerns about Iraq...ie, what is the next step (remember this was my concern 'before' the war) I feel our military will be unnecessarily harmed due to lack of the administration setting up a better plan for post-war. And What the hades is up with Bush criticizing Sharon for targeting a 'known' terrorist....Bush really gets me upset the way he half helps Israel and then ties their hands...I thought Bush said 'you're on one side of the line or the other...helping terrorists or getting rid of them'...and then he pulls this??

A few comments.

First, Powell did not go to the UN by himself--he went at the direction of President Bush. It's inconceivable that he would do what he did without the full knowledge and approval of President Bush, and if there is to be any blame for the delay it should be appropriately ascribed to President Bush.

As near as I can tell the "Saraton" that they found (I don't know the correct spelling either) was found at a munitions depot, and on further testing turned out to be chemicals used to maintain their rockets (story here). In addition, the mobile laboratories recently found are not clearly weapons factories either. Of course there for a while we found weapons of mass destruction every couple of days--if they definitively found them would Ari Fleischer be back peddling, claiming now that President Bush was using the terms "weapons of mass destruction" and "weapons of mass destruction programs" interchangeably?

I do applaud your concern over Iraq--The Bush administration seems torn between the absolute necessity of rebuilding Iraq and the conservative's long-standing animosity towards "Nation-Building." Makes what they are doing sort of half hearted, in my eyes.

From Brandy

Here is Brandy's response to the Kathleen Parker article from earlier in the day.

I completely agree that everyone has become sooo one sided that key issues and understanding are being missed...I too have fallen into this, and its all about pride! I am a huge fan of Rumsfeld and so want to be supportive in all the man says and does (and because I have been so vocal about supporting him its added prideful pressure to ALWAYS stay supportive), but the truth of it is he has frightened me with some recent ranting, and although I still admire him, I have to vocally NOT support him on SOME issues. I think if we all could just say, yes, everyone/party/political view has good and bad points and work together -wow, how much good could be accomplished.

Now then that being said, it will NEVER happen.

I remain a bit more hopeful, but recognize, like Brandy, that combativeness may be in our nature.

Some Thoughts

The war will likely either start today or tomorrow--I guess it is supposed to start at 8:00 pm, eastern standard time, making the end of the 48 hours, but I would be surprised if they held exactly to that. Here are some thoughts, the first suggested by Brandy from President Bush.

"In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth. Terrorists and terrorist states do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations. And responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self defense. It is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."
President George W. Bush

And here from Pat Buchanan, in an article today;

". . . .once Saddam is dead or gone and Iraq is disarmed, the Bush Doctrine -- "We will not let the world's worst leaders threaten us with the world's worst weapons" -- seems to require new ultimatums to Iran and North Korea.

Who will be with us in these wars? Will Tony Blair, after his near-death experience, be up for fighting another war? Where does the last superpower go after Baghdad? Those questions are ahead of this nation and this president.

But today's imperative is that the United States win this war we are in with as little bloodshed as is consistent with swift and certain victory, and make good on our commitment to liberate the Iraqis. The time for debate will come again. It is not now. Now, we should pray for our brave men and women, and commander in chief. God bless and keep America."

We'll get back to being snarky and funny later on, but for a little bit, let's consider our troops and wish them well and pray for them if so inclined.

A Rebuttal

Earlier today, we had a comment from Caleb. It's down the sheet--you can scroll down and see it, if you don't believe me. Although I don't know why you would doubt me; I'm very believable. Anyway we have a rebuttal from the Brandy, most brilliant in all the land.

Commentary to 'Caleb's comments: its apparent that he has NOT studied war. One does not even have to go that far back; study the US soldiers of WWII. These were boys who were all but anti-war, drafted at the last minute, 'soldiers of democracy' that Hitler 'knew' he could defeat on the same thought process as Caleb. . . However fighters fueled by freedom, honour, and a semblance of thought (NOT generals...Normandy and Utah beach are hard evidence of this as MANY of the officers where killed and troops/ young boys really, took command and fought an amazing fight) are the ones that history tells us, win the wars/ NOT generals.

Well, to be fair to Caleb, a war he might have brought up to counter the World War II example was Vietnam, where the situation on the ground was unfocused and chaotic at best. I personally think you need both solid soldiers who know their business and who love this country, and smart generals with solid well thought out objectives.

More to come from Brandy.

Brandy Chooses a Side!!!

So I have chosen a side!!!

The truth is, for me, it comes down to do I trust my President. This is a republic (as much as NPR wants to say we're a democracy...we are not, we elect officials and then THEY do the governing), so do I trust Pres. Bush to handle the position of safety of this nation? I closely listened to his press conference last night, and it comes down to -I DO trust him. I think he is handling this soberly, I think he is giving Iraq EVERY opportunity to disarm. I think he knows things we don't as to why he feels Saddam is a 'threat to our nation'.

As logical as I try to be, it comes down to a 'feeling' (kind of like you 'feeling/believing' that [President] Hickey is a prophet...there is no proof of that, you simply watch, listen, pray and then belive). Well, I've watched and listened and I 'belive' Bush takes it seriously when he says 'my job is to protect this nation, I take that seriously'.

So, if at the end of this Bush says we go to war -I back him.

For those unaware, President Gordon B. Hinckley is the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormons), which church both Brandy and your humble narrator belong to.

In Which Brandy Asks Herself "Have I switched to the 'anti-war' group?"

The story so far, Brandy wrote several well-written and passionate articles in support of the upcoming invasion of Iraq. As we join her she is considering her position.

"So as I have said MANY times, I long for a reason to be against this war...I have now found 2 reasons to, in the very least, be supportive of waiting quite a bit longer/ possibly being AGAINST attacking Iraq. The first of my -oh, I shall stop and contenplate on this for awhile is from: US Senator Robert Byrd's comments on the Senate floor,

Feb. 12, 2003
WE STAND PASSIVELY MUTE
"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter."

I know this has been stated before...the whole "but Iraq hasn't done anything yet" ideaology...but Byrd has stated it in a way that makes me think...in America one is not jailed for 'thinking' of doing a crime, that until a crime is committed the individual can not be held -even IF everything points to him being a criminal...not sure if I'm making any sense...but the whole Minority Report thing. Now then, this isn't to say that this reason ALONE would work -if one could go back in time would they assassinate Hitler BEFORE he did anything? And Saddam is by no means innocent...but this certainly has made me stop and think.

The second reason I think we should wait is in what Pres. Bush had to say last night....I mean what the F was that all about?

He clearly stated that he does NOT have a completed plan on dealing with post-war Iraq...now then I love this country, but we suck at establishing foriegn governments, as a matter of fact I can't think of a single success story...maybe Germany? I can NOT support Bush if he has not planned this ALL the way through...this really scares me. This is a REAL reason to be anti-war."

I will say that although I thought Bush's speech was a bit too pat, particularly in relation to some of Paul Krugman's articles on the recent failure to initially budget money for Afganastan. But there is a success story in our history, namely Japan. The Japanese economy was devestated by the war. General MacArthur essentially rebuilt the country, making it a strong and productive democracy in the far east. At the time it was believed by many that the Oriental mind was incapable of understanding and practicing democracy.

Make me a Commentator!!!'s Military correspondent Justin commented that he felt that MacArthur's success was more a reflection on the nature of the Japanese people, rather than the US. The Japanese people's acceptance of a stratified and highly organized society let them accept MacCarther's commadns in a way that perhaps the people of Iraq might not.

Brandy's Bemusings

Here are Brandy's comments on the marches over the weekend.

"Come on people...lets just be honest here about what these 'anti-war' demonstrations are about. they should be called Anti-Bush. first case in point, I have heard SO many of these marchers say they would support the war if the UN sanctions it...well then, um how exactly are you anti-war? Oh, I see, only anti-war if it is Bush.

Second...and please pay attention here, don't think on what you are going to say next or what you should have for lunch, just really really listen...Bush has NOT gone to war, yes, that is right, not a missile has been fired, no soldier has stepped foot on Iraqi land, and are you ready for this...he IS waiting to see what the UN says. Those who say...'well we all KNOW what he is going to do, what he wants regardless' are either amazing future tellers and we should just have them tell us who is going to win and award the victor now, or maybe, they just have a pre-conceived idea and don't want to pay attention to ACTUAL EVENTS (ie after Powell's statement the US is STILL waiting on a UN approval).

*quick side note on UN approval, specifically France. Loving how the anti-war regime (some, not all) are saying the US is doing this because of oil...when in fact only 16% of our oil comes from the middle east, the rest comes from south America. But guess who gets over 80% of their oil from Iraq...dinging that's right boys and girls France. And who is the other nation not wanting to go to war against Iraq...could it be Russia, that's right, the very same Russia who signed a nice little treaty with Saddam less than a year ago.

And by the way, we do have the support of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and depending on the day Saudi Arabia...that's right, the MUSLIM countries that will be quite effected by a war...lets sit back and think on that a moment please.

I see most of these anti-war lemmings as followers who don't want to think for themselves...Or then where were they when Clinton was bombing Serbia, Bosnia and Mogadishu (quite sure I spelled that wrong), because once again...lets all say this together BUSH* HASN'T STARTED FIGHTING...and Clinton was bombing the crap out of little defenseless places...oh where oh where were the anti-war marchers then?

*littler side note, I did not vote for Bush, am not a huge fan, but how can ANYONE say he is not trying to handle this diplomatically. I have been impressed with the diplomacy and restraint shown.

And just one more comment, for anyone who is against taking Saddam out before he has nuclear capability I have one name for them to ponder on; Kim Jong Il

Thank You for allowing me to comment, I actually AM open to listening to 'true' anti-war patrons...there should always be another side, however I have yet to hear a real argument against it. (the only two I agreed with was if the other middle-eastern nations did not back us...which they do now, and in giving Saddam a chance to get rid of his weaponry in agreement to the treaty of 91'...which I think is obvious he has no intentions of honoring) And I actually would support those that are truly anti-war...meaning they are against it ALWAYS, that at least would make sense (not to me personally, but one can see the logic) any other well thought out anti-war ideas are welcomed...just once again...PLEASE THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!

Brandy

In response to your letter, let me say that a lot of the protesters feel that their efforts are at least part of the reason President Bush didn't unilaterally invade Iraq. There is a sense that the Bush administration wants this war--perhaps it is a false perception, but there a certain amount of evidence for it. Look at the comments of those conservatives who seem to share President Bush's outlook.

Take Rush Limbaugh. Vice President Cheney has appeared on his show. Secretary of Defense Rumsfield appeared in Rush's newsletter. It's hard not to believe that Rush doesn't have some tap on how the administration feels. He is clearly furious that we are delaying this war, as are about half the columnists at townhall. com. (Though not all. Doug Bandow wrote today, "The best evidence that Iraq can be deterred is that we are alive today. Unfortunately, seeking to oust Saddam removes any leverage to prevent him from conducting the sort of attack that the administration claims to most fear. Attacking Iraq will make more, and more dangerous, terrorist attacks more likely."

Did you go to the protest and talk to people? The ones I talked to didn't seem like Lemmings. They knew most of the issues and seemed to have pretty strong opinions. And there were peace protests during the Clinton Campaigns. They were smaller, but the issue was a bit different. For one thing Serbia and Bosnia were UN operations, and I think Mogadishu was too. They weren't protesting a war we were inflicting on another nation (that had done nothing to provoke us recently) because we worried that they might attack us in the future.

Someone opposed to all war is full of crap in my opinion. Force is sometimes necessary. I mean I guess I can appreciate the moral purity involved, but we don't live in a morally pure world. The only way to stop Hitler was through force. The better arguments against the war deal with the world the way it is.

The Wisdom of Brandy

Here are some more comments by Brandy, reacting to the article by Ben Shapiro from last week.

"I agree with Shapiro (of course -us Jews must stick together).

The media tells so many ignorants what 'history' and 'religion' REALLY are, and for the most part they follow. . . . So not only do most people think what Shapiro was arguing against [that the Wailing wall is the most important holy spot to the Jewish faith, rather than the Temple Mount], but most people actually think there was a Palestinian nation. They think the Jews took the land from the Muslims (oh wait, didn't that religion start THOUSAND of years after Judaism?) When in fact the Western Strip and Gaza were owned by Syria and Jordon respectively (both countries threw out Arafat and his faction) and then lost those sections of land in the 6 day war. Israel, being understanding toward Arafat’s group (ah a blunder that will haunt them forever) said 'hey, we know what its like to be pushed around, come, share, you can live on this land'. Anyway, the whole thing sickens me, there are 2 things allowed to be hated and loathed in this PC world. Jews and fat people. (of course maybe I'm taking things too personally) . . .

Viva Israel!"

I asked Brandy to clarify her comments in relation to Arafat’s group.

"I agree that in the making of Israel people who were living there were unfairly pushed off the land...however, after the 6 day war it is ISRAELI land. Once someone has won a war it is theirs.
And everyone else should shut-up about it or take up arms and take it back (without the US tying Israelis hands).

If we are going to start with 'who's land is it really, just by who inhabited it first' then there are a lot of Americans who need to move off the Indian land. Look, its harsh and some people don't like to face the real world, but here it is, the stronger survive, the harder workers win and when the smoke has cleared those left standing are the victors, whether 'we' think they are the good guys or not. And the last note on this - I didn't know what to call Arafat's faction, cause the term ‘Palestinian' wasn't used for this particular group of Arabs until AFTER 1968."

Brandy also commented on the rise of anti-Semite attacks in France in the past two years. An article at the Guardian Unlimited confirmed the general thrust of her remarks. These attacks include a burning of a synagogue in France, and the stabbing of a Rabbi January 5, 2003. The French Authorities have belatedly acknowledged the problem, but claim that the incidents are on the decline. President Jacque Chirac stated, "There is no room in our country for anti-Semitism, racism, xenophobia or for manifestations of religious intolerance." France has a large and growing Islamic population as well as a fairly large Jewish population, and there is some concern that if hostilities break out in Iraq, there will be another spike in anti-Semite violence.

The Wisdom of Brandy

Sorry for the light posting yesterday, for those who follow this site closely. In response to yesterdays posting on the Peace Movement we have comment by the entirely unreticent Brandy.

Ok, I MUST comment on the topic of these ignorant 'peace people':

First off, YES some people are hurt. Talk to any Vietnam vet who was spit on after arriving home or couldn't get a job because they fought. Whether or not one agrees with the war, these boys go and put their life on the lines and then because so many of these ignorant protestors can't separate the two, the military boys do get injured.

Second, did you LISTEN to what any of the peace ralliers said? I heard ONE thing on WHY we shouldn't fight. Everything else was on blacks, bush and bullshit. I have yet to hear why we shouldn't fight. (And believe me, as the love of my life is sent to Iraq, I would LOVE to hear a reason to not have our military over there.)

Third, does nobody study history? In the mid 90's Saddam was putting together nuclear weapons...if you watched the History channels program on 'After Desert Storm' they SHOWED the evidence. Do people REALLY think that once Saddam kicked the UN out he got rid of all that stuff...oh, I'm sorry, I'm sure he kicked them out and hasn't let them in till now because he wanted to clean house without anyone watching...yes, he IS a good, man. (sorry for the sarcasm, but nothing gets me going more than ignorance).

And last...This is why we are going to war...Saddam is close, or does have nuclear capability. Is he going to hit American soil? Of course not. Is he going to hit Israeli soil. YES (by evidence of him bombing Tel Aviv in Israel in 1991. Well let me tell you something about the Israeli army -they are FIERCE. They will NOT allow this to happen. Saddam just has to aim his weapons at Israel and they will DESTROY Iraq...then the rest of the Arab nations will turn on Israel...BLOODBATH!, both sides fight dirty. Now then, whose side will the US be on? How about other world powers? This is NOT a war ANYONE wants to be involved in. Therefore, by ousting Saddam we SAVE so many people.

PLEASE PEOPLE, pick up some history books, don't be so naive, and LEARN for yourselves what's going on, really LISTEN to what people are saying...most of those talking were SO ignorant it was frightening.

Brandy

A few responses from yours truly, Resident to a Friend.

1) Some protestors are stupid, and equate the soldiers fighting the war with those within the Bush administration and Congress who are pushing for war. That being said, I don't see widespread attacks on our soldiers. And it's not right to equate the entire peace movement with those few morons who choose to attack Soldiers.
2) I didn't actually attend the rally so can't comment. It's true that Bush is a rallying figure for the anti-war movement--his arrogance in pushing for war unilaterally is very polarizing. And any political movement is hip deep in bull****.
3) Although it is often said on both the left and the right that Saddam kicked the inspectors out--but that is not actually accurate. The truth is that President Clinton was planning on bombing Saddam, and so the head of the UN inspector team pulled his team out for safetys sake.

Further thoughts on Cloning

Here are some thoughts from Brandy, an exceedingly clever lady who reads this site and wrote me a letter on cloning. Enjoy.

Here is my 2 cents on the cloneing subject: I could really care less if people are cloning themselves...people who shouldn't reproduce at all, let alone mix 2 bad DNA together to do so have been having kids for centuries...the world seems to go on. My problem with the cloneing issue is what will happen to all the babies born deformed? In animal cloneing the number of deformed babies is so much higher than any that aren't. And even Dolly...one of the more successful clones has many problems.