IRAQ: WHEN WILL WE LEARN?

The madness that is enveloping Iraq this week was predicted by nearly all the war critics years before we invaded. Overthrowing Saddam would just lead to a bloody, violent civil war that could last for over a decade. It was not difficult to predict, all one had to do was to pick up a history book to learn that the Shi'ites and the Sunnies have been killing each other for around fifteen hundred years, and would never agree to live together in peace.
No one really knows what to do now, although some have suggested in half jest that the best option is to give the country back to Saddam. However, I have a feeling that he is smart enough to give it right back. If I were him, I'd definitely rather spend the rest of my days in prison than to have to try to fix this mess.
To be honest, he did do a good job of keeping the peace between these two sects while he was dictator, but his means were somewhat questionable. Basically, agree with him on everything, or else die. Literally. The Iraqi's were too busy being oppressed, tortured and killed by Saddam to stage any type of civil war. Like I said, very effective.
So what to do now? There is no good answer to that question, but I do think that a one should learn a bit about the history that exists between these two religious sects before one even attempts to provide one. I'm pretty certain that if anyone of the neo-cons within the Bush/Cheney administration did this, they never would have invaded.
The argument started around fifteen hundred years ago immediately after Mohammad died. There was a debate within the Muslim community over who should be his successor. The Shi'ites wanted his son, and believed that the leader of Islam should be chosen by royal succession. The Sunni's believed the new leader should be elected from one of the elders who served with Mohammad, with Islam being run like a parliament. This is the basic difference between the Shi'ites and the Sunni's. The Shi'ites wanted a monarchy, and the Sunni's wanted a democracy. (You can see the irony of the present situation. The Sunni's became a monarchy (Saddam) and the Shi'ites voted them out of office. )
Back to fifteen hundred years ago. The Sunni's fought and defeated the Shi'ites, thus giving them their name. Shi'ite literally means "The Defeated." However, since the Sunni's represented modernity and progress and the Shi'ites conservative fundamentalism, slowly the Shi'ites, not believing in birth control, started to outnumber the Sunni's. Eventually this lead to the Shi'ites taking control of most Muslim nations, however Iraq was not one of them. The main reason for this is that Iraq was not even a unified country until around a hundred years ago when Great Britain decided to combine three provinces of the Otterman empire (one Sunni, one Shi'ite and one Kurdish) into one country and call it Iraq. A few decades later, Saddam forced his way into power and took over the entire country.
So one can see that anyone who takes even a basic look into Iraq's history will quickly understand that the Shi'ites and the Sunni's are like a fool and his money, they were never meant to be together in the first place. Only once one understands this basic fact can one even begin to attempt to solve this mess.

BREAKING NEWS!!

BUSH TAPS OSAMA BIN LADIN AS NEW HOMELAND SECURITY CHIEF

In order to prove that his choice of the United Arab Emirates to guard out nations naval port's was not a fluke, President Bush today announced that he has chosen Osama Bin Ladin as the United States new Homeland Security Chief. "He certainly knows a lot about terrorism, and has plenty of experience in this area." the President was quoted as saying. Bin Ladin at first turned down the job, prefering to stay hidden in his cave rather than working for the "evil, western, white devil," but changed his mind when he learned that the job included a full health care package, including dental.

LEGAL VERSUS CONSTITUTIONAL


So I guess all those times when the government was making sure Vice-President Dick Cheney was in an undisclosed, secure and safe location it was OUR safety and security they were worried about.

On a more serious note, the Senate, lead by the Bush administration's lap dog, Pat Roberts, has voted on party lines NOT to investigate the NSA domestic spying program. Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio said it best on Fox News when he said that, "“We Don'’t Want To Have Any Kind of Debate About Whether Its Constitutional."” At least he's honest about it.

The real problem with this quote is what he says right before this statement. Here is the quote. "You know, there'’s been some controversy about whether or not this program is legal or is not legal....But we don'’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it'’s constitutional or not constitutional." Senator DeWine demonstrates that he did not pay very close attention in seventh grade social studies, for if he did, he would know that the question of whether an action is legal or illegal is a completely different question from whether or not it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The legality of an action deals with whether or not it adheres to the laws passed by Congress or one's State Legislature. The constitutionality of an action deals with whether or not the Constitution allows it. An action can be legal and unconstitutional, or it can be illegal and constitutional, or any other combination.
For instance, if I murder my neighbor, that would be illegal, but constitutional. There is a law passed by my State Legislature making murder a crime. However, the Constitution never mentions murder. On the other hand, if the President anoints someone a Supreme Court Justice, without getting the consent of the Senate, that would be unconstitutional, but perfectly legal. The Constituion clearly states that the President must get the advice and consent of the Senate for all Supreme Court Justice appointments. There is no law written that regulates the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

So Senator DeWine is making a mistake that nearly everyone is making in the case of the NSA domestic spying program. He is conflating legal with constitutional. And with his vote this week, he is making sure that the Senate will never even get to ask the questions, "Is this program legal?", and "Is this program constitutional?" I wonder why?

THE POLITICALLY CORRECT RIGHT

There is so much going on that needs to be commented on, I don't know where to start, so I'll start on a small, yet very hot topic, Coretta Scott King's funeral.

Rightwing bloggers like Drudge, Matlin and Redstate are aghast at the improper, offensive, political statements that were made at Mrs. King's funeral this week. They could not believe that anyone would have the rudeness to make statements critical of the President, especially when the President was in the room.

Oh my! How insulting. This behavior is without a doubt, completely and totally politically incorrect! So I guess all the rightwing bloggers and commentators who were offended, actually are in favor of political correctness afterall, since that is what they are professing. They think it is wrong for anyone to say anything that is offensive or could hurt anyone's feelings, even the President's. That is the very heart of the politically correct movement. We must be careful of what we say and where we say it, lest we offend someone. It is clearly politically incorrect to bring up politics at a funeral, even the funeral of a highly political American icon.

Except of course if the icon is a Republican like Ronald Reagan. Try to guess which politically incorrect politician said the following at Reagan's funeral:

"Ronald Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name. There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American President had dared to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor meetings, where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald Reagan."

Answer: President George W. Bush himself. But I guess it's okay for him to be political at a funeral, it's not like he's black or a Democrat.

SORRY FOR THE LONG ABSENCE

I apologize for the lack of new posts these past few months, but I have been been preparing for a kidney transplant, and much too busy and tired to do much of anything else. However, there has been so much to write about, that I’ve decided to start posting articles again, if not as frequently as before.

Also, I’ve switched to blogspot to host my site, which should really only affect the look of the page, and change the URL officially to http//theunbloger.blogspot.com. You should still be able to reach it by going to unblogger.com, it should redirect you to it, but I’m not much of a techie, so I’m just hoping it works. I should have a new post up very shortly, there is so much to write about I don’t know where to start, so my first few posts may not be very timely, but I promise to get caught up shortly. Thank you for your patience.