State of the Union

Last night's State of the Union delivered by President George W. Bush gave us nothing that we were not expecting; especially since many of the major networks and newspapers received excerpts of the speech in advance. However, here are some of my observations that I will share with you.

Basically the theme out of Washington, D.C. lately is that we should not get fooled again as we have before. The current rhetoric is very similar to what we saw before the invasion of Iraq and I'm none to happy about it. I support the Iraq war then and now. However, I do not feel that we should be invading another country before we have finished the job in Iraq or Afghanistan. Spring is just around the corner and we should all expect fierce fighting in Afghanistan. So ferocious - as the mujahideen (holy warriors) come out of their caves to fight in more ideal conditions - I bet you that it exceeds what we experienced in the fall of 2001, because al-Qaeda is getting great support from Pakistan.

Nice touch by Bush giving props to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and congratulating the Democrats for their November sweep. I like Bush, but it's a little bit late in the game for him to all of a sudden be interested in working with the "other party." I think that there is just too much of a great divide between the two parties at this point, that a new voice is needed to rally the politicos. But Bush was successful as Governor of Texas in working with both parties, so hopefully he will duplicate that type of diplomacy.

I like how the Democrats have transmogrified Pelosi from a San Francisco liberal to an Italian-Catholic grandma. Nice job! But why was she blinking so much? I read that she was blinking 20-30 times per minute. A record for a Speaker of the House, perhaps?

Here's what I love about the Dems; they have no plan. This non-binding resolution next week that will have Democrats and many Republicans not supporting Bush's surge in Iraq is a joke. It is nothing more than symbolic. But God are those folks going to have egg on their face if the plan works. What will they say then?

If Congress does not support the surge or the war, put some teeth into it. Support cutting off the monies for the troops. It's the same old song in D.C., on one hand they don't support the war, but their actions indicate they do support the war. Hey folks, Bush isn't twisting your arm is he?

I think the President has done OK considering all he has had to go through and the fact that there really are people in this country that rooted against America in Iraq. I used to think otherwise, but now, I have no doubt that there are many politicians who could care less about our soldiers and see it only as a political football. If the Iraq war was an overwhelming success, they would not give President Bush any credit and would probably take it as "business as usual." You may recall that when the United States was really kicking some serious tail at the beginning of the war, Senator Clinton said it was because her husband left Bush with a military that was so superb and could fight under any conditions.

Here's another little tidbit about Hillary: She said that she is not going to be bound to any viewpoint and that ideology is what has made this country so "impotent the last few years." I kid you not she used the word "impotent." Well, Mrs. Senator that sounds like a thing between you and Bubba and not something fit to print. But seriously, her point is that she does not have to stick to any idea. She supports the war until it goes bad, and then she is against it, but not for getting out. Classic! You know she sounds electable as President to me!

Any good news that has occurred throughout our time in Iraq has been met with some sort of whining. When we caught Saddam, it was not soon enough. When Zarqawi got killed, it would do little. I wonder how our brave men and women feel about all of this negativity coming from Washington.

This leads me back to Tehran, I will say that with another fleet being sent to the Persian Gulf in order to put a scare into the folks in Iran, we are asking for big trouble. Terrorists see those giant carriers as potential targets and God knows what they have in mind. But here's my main reason: We did not find WMD in Iraq, and the same people who are saying that Iran has WMD are the exact same people who warned of nukes and such in Iraq. I have not read or seen any evidence that our intelligence community has been brought up to a higher level that would enable the apparatus to fight today's War on Terror. If anything, it is worse than before 9/11.

We shut down the bin Laden unit which was in charge of finding UBL and the resources were never redirected. Also, John Negroponte moving over to work in the State Department, means that we had someone on the job as National Intel Director for a year and a half. J.N.'s credentials are very impressive, but I hardly believe that he accomplished much in that amount of time. So why should I believe anything about our intelligence?

What is positive is that Bush seems to have stepped things up globally, launching airstrikes against al-Qaeda types in Somalia again today. But let's see how his plan in Iraq goes. Can we all just hope that it works, is that a possibility. Again, I repeat, failure in Iraq will have very long-lasting implications that I believe will gravely impact this country and her allies for decades to come.

Anyway enough serious stuff. Go check out some more of the beautiful Kelly Kelly of ECW.