So I watched the UN speech by Ahmadinejad, which was surprising more confrontational then I expected; then I made the fatal mistake of watching the pundits after the speech. What I came away with shocked me on so many levels. Rather liberal or conservative, most Americans have no idea who their enemy is. I watched talking head after talking head expound on how Ahmadinejad was trying to play to the America people, trying to take his case straight to the general populace to undercut the president. What kind of hubris do we as a nation suffer to think "Oh, he is criticizing the president in a slick way; he is trying to persuade Americans to turn against our leaders." Give me a break! George W. Bush was the best thing that has happened to people who had a beef with America. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that every time a foreign leader criticizes this administration, the majority of the American people, however slim that majority is, rallies behind the president. Bush's approval numbers goes up with each terrorist threat. Ahmadinejad was not talking to Americans, though he no doubt hoped America was listening. The Iranian leader's speech was aimed at every nation adversely affected by corporate imperialism, every country torn apart by strife, every person suffering under a yoke of a government propped up by outside forces. He does not want nor does he need the understanding of the American people. If he and those like him can unite the disenfranchised nations, those truly left out or left behind on the international stage, he could cause a major power shift, not only in the Middle East, but on the world stage. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Those of us in the West love to believe we are more intelligent and more powerful then "Third World" or "Developing" nations and we conveniently forget that those nations constitutes the majority of the world population. What happens if all those nations unite?

Tom Delay called Chris Matthews (according to Matthews on Joe Scarborough's Show) and told him he's dropping out of the race. Poor Tom! We barely knew ya!

I was cruising soldier's Live Journals this morning and an entry caught my eye:

" `This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you'll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of loot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we're here for something new. I don't...this hasn't happened much in the history of the world. We're an army going out to set other men free. This is free ground. All the way from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow. No man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by what your father was. Here you can be something. Here's a place to build a home. It isn't the land -- there's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value, you and me, we're worth something more than the dirt. I never saw dirt I'd die for, but I'm not asking you to come join us and fight for dirt. What we're all fighting for, in the end, is each other.' BG (of Volunteers) Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, 1863"

So I wrote to him and asked what he and his fellow soldiers (enlisted, not officer mouth pieces) are fighting for. I was surprised by the replies:

From soldiers Live Journal today:

      "Across the countryside I've been watching black flags go
       up, replacing or supplementing many of the green ones. For
       those interested in such things. It seems to be a pretty
       bold statement to me.
       Shoot straight. Drive on."

It has taken me a while to write this diary, not so much because I didn't know what to say as much as I was unsure how others would take it. I am not by any means an expert in military affairs or foreign relations. I am merely an observer, and I would have to say that from early 1990s, I have been at first perplexed, and than incredulous of what has been going on in my government and in governments around the world. The following is an excerpt from a live journal of a soldier in Iraq.

posted 2/20/06...
"I started reading [omitted] LJ [Live Journal] because he recently came to Iraq and he's the husband of [omitted]. In his LJ he talks all about the so called "AIF" which really got me to thinking. I haven't seen the term AIF since Fort Stewart nearly a year ago. They never dropped that term at the NTC and I haven't seen it here, in Iraq. But it seems the Army still likes to use the term 'Anti Iraqi Forces' somewhere, because that guy certainly believes in it. And I'm not picking on him.
        I really don't understand the term AIF. I guess there are people here that would be 'AIF', but they are very few. Care to follow a list of my enemies?
Outright Enemies:
*  AIF = foreign insurgents that don't want to see an Iraq and hate America, true AIF
*  AIF = foreign insurgents from Syria or Saudi Arabia that support the secular Sunni a regime of Saddam Hussein.
*  AIF = foreign insurgents from Syria or Saudi Arabia that don't support the secular Saddam Hussein but are supportive of fundamentalist Wahibbism
*  AIF = foreign insurgents from Syria or Saudi Arabia that don't support the secular Saddam Hussein or fundamentalist Wahibbism, but hate Freedom
       Lets not forget that though we have either a truce or alliance that we have these enemies; I'll put 'AIF' on them for fun, but they're just as likely to be coalition forces:
*  AIF = so called 'Kurdish ethnic group' peoples wanting their own country
*  AIF = so called 'Kurdish ethnic group' peoples wanting their own place in the government
*  AIF = Shi'ite Militants that are local
*  AIF = Shi'ite Militants from Iran
*  AIF = Shi'ite Militants with "their own agenda"
*  AIF = Sunnis 'Arabs' for Iraq but not with America
*  AF = Sunnis that aren't 'Arab' for Iraq but not with America
      And of course the ones here in Iraq that don't play to outsiders, and also are my enemies:
*  AIF = Sunni Arabs native to Iraq
*  AIF = Sunni Arabs native to Iraq that hate the Shi'ites but want an free Iraq
*  AIF = Sunni Arabs that are Baathist and like Saddam Hussein
*  AIF = Sunni Arabs that are Baathist and don't like Saddam Hussein but like Syria
*  AIF = Sunni Arabs that are native to Iraq, don't like Shi'as
*  AIF = Sunni Arabs that are native to Iraq that don't like Shi'as and other Sunnis
*  AIF = Sunni Muslims that don't associate themselves as Arabs but associate with a group above
*  AIF = Sunni Muslims that don't associate themselves as Arabs OR a group above
The Sunni list goes on and on.
      Should I start with the Tribal list that could constitute 'AIF'?
     Perhaps it helps the simple, letterless Regular Army soldier. The E3 and E4 in the Army that is 20 years old and doesn't know shit about the world. Maybe that's what the AIF thing is all about. But really, I do hope that isn't getting to the Captains and Majors that run our S2s and S3s.
Right?
     It's President's Day. George Washington could have been king. He wasn't though. And because of that one man, Freedom and Democracy rule half the world today. Had he been a religious man perhaps it would be another Saint George, but he was a deist, and just another man. Today you should have been celebrating his birthday. If you didn't, you're wrong, but you still can fix it because I'm many hours ahead of you. Without George Washington, Freedom would be a misnomer. They came to George and said, "So do ya' want to be King?" And Georgie, the man on the Dollar, the man who had defeated Empire, he said, 'No. No, I didn't do this thing to be a king. I believed in Freedom, and Liberty. Our LAWS say that it is the People that lead Our Nation. Let them choose Another. I shall go home, to Virginia.'
Selah."

Just out on CNN John Kerry is calling for a filibuster of Alito. Apparently, he is not getting much support from fellow Senate Democrats. Call your senator; tell them to support the filibuster. It might force the MSM to focus on something other than a crying wife.

So I wrote both of my senators in opposition to the confirmation of Judge Alito. Here is part of his reply...

Dear Mrs. :

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

According to Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the United States Senate must advise and consent to each of the president's judicial nominations. In this role, we have a great constitutional responsibility to ensure a strong and qualified judiciary.

The position of Supreme Court justice is one of the highest and most respected in the land. The decisions of this Court resonate at the very foundations of the beliefs upon which our nation is built. In Judge Alito, I believe President Bush chose an individual with impeccable academic credentials, an extensive background as a lawyer and jurist, and seasoned experienced in handling arguments before the United States Supreme Court.

It never ceases to amaze me that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are acceptable targets to the Religious Right with no repercussions whatsoever. Whatever their faults, whatever their sins, as long as they profess Christ, as a Christian, people like the "good" Reverend Dobson or Robertson, or Hutcherson have an obligation to go to them and talk to them like brothers with honest differences. While I can understand (not excuse or agree with, just understand) why it may be so for these people to dismiss Reverend Sharpton over his past, the animosity directed toward Reverend Jackson I just don't get. Yeah, he had an affair, but the Bible refers to David as a man after God's own heart, and not only did he sleep with and impregnate a married woman, he had her husband killed. If God can forgive David, why is it these so called righteous people can't seem to but Reverend Jackson's sins behind him? Do these men know more than God?