Republicans and Democrats shouted, howled and slung insults on the House floor on Friday

Uproar in House as Parties Clash on Iraq Pullout

- NYTimes 11/19/05

Bush Attacks Iraq Critics

A little "edit" on Bush's speech to congressional critics of the war in Iraq yesterday:

Original: "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges," Bush said in his most combative defense yet of his rationale for invading Iraq in March 2003.

Edit: "The stakes in the US war on terror in the Middle East are too high, and the administration's interest is too important, for politicians to throw out opposing views or conflicting charges."

Another interesting fact in the article: Bush's speech was part of a coordinated White House effort to bolster the president's waning credibility and dwindling support for the war, in which more than 2,000 U.S. troops have died. As casualties have climbed, Bush's popularity has dropped. His approval rating now is at 37 percent in the latest AP-Ipsos poll, an all-time low point for his presidency.

However -- and this is a HUGE concession on my part -- he had a great point:
"When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support," Bush said in a Veterans Day speech at Tobyhanna Army Depot. "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

More from the article:
In a speech in Philadelphia, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., criticized how the war has been presented to Americans _ both by the media and the White House. Afterward, Santorum said the war has been "less than optimal" and "maybe some blame could be laid" at the White House. "Certainly, mistakes were made," Santorum said.

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who is weighing a run for president in 2008, has said he agrees with Democrats who are pressing the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee to move forward with an investigation into whether the administration manipulated intelligence.

Bush [also] said: "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

Ok... here's where I have a problem. A ruthless enemy? Made up of civilians in a country that whose originally cited crime was "harboring known terrorists." Yes, what the terrorist organizations have done is ruthless and some of the Iraqi insurgency is accurately described thusly as well. But "determined to destroy our way of life"??? How's that?! The bombers of the World Trade Center were TERRORISTS: men that have no country and whose sole mission is to create chaos in a powerful country and its infrastructure. And if we're fighting a war in Iraq against the WTC bombers, we're killing the wrong people.

We are not fighting for the freedom to live our way of life (not anymore, if we ever were), we are fighting to make Iraq live by our standards and "our way of life." We are forcing our hand in the Middle East to create a mimic of our mockery of democracy. We (the United States) have never (going back past the current administration) fought for the FREEDOM of opinion or speech or way of life... it has always been a fight to live a certain way. I.e. the freedom of religion often is a euphemism for the freedom of Christianity. Or Freedom of Speech but only if it's not a dissenting opinion in the time of war. Thank goodness even President Bush (yes, I actually called him that) has recognized the public's and politicians' rights to freedom of dissenting opinion.

Associated Press, 6am Saturday Nov 12, 2005

Obama Criticizes Media Companies for 'Coarsening' the Culture

Study Finds TV Sex Content On the Rise

Lead: WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- The Kaiser Family Foundation today unveiled a report saying one of every 10 TV shows features or implies sexual intercourse and the number of sexual scenes on TV has soared since 1998.

"Jarhead"

Post when you've seen this movie.

If you have family or friends in Iraq, see the movie at your own risk.

Oh, Hollywood...

Did anyone happen to catch this week's episode of Boston Legal? It was extremely well-played out on both sides and brought up not only issues involving support for and against the war, but the fact that it is fundamentally "a mess" and not being solved as it should be, regardless of whether or not we should be there.

The concept of suing the US Army, let alone in a time of war, seems blasphemous even to me (a democrat, in case you haven't noticed). There are bound to be deaths in war; in fact, it seems to be a proviso in defining "war." If you don't want to die, get a part time job to pay for college instead of signing up for the military.

However, James Spader's character (the prosecuting attorney) makes a few good points. Such as: if we want to honor our troops, how about giving a damn when they're killed due to lack of appropriate preparation and equipment. Or the questions he posed: "Are we trying to win this war?" and "Why don't we send more troops over to get the job done?" Interesting.

I also think the comparison between this war and Vietnam, but "without the outrage" of the American people is great commentary. He also mentions a noticeable lack of media coverage -- note the part on CNN spending hours covering a missing girl in Aruba, but moments on war updates.

Lastly, William Shatner (who is avidly opposed to the suit against the Army, to the point of being personally offended, and provides some great points/counterpoints in the ongoing debate) mentions that he believes in a war that will prevent the situation in Iraq from ever happening here. James points out that as long as dissenting opinions are encouraged, what is happening in Iraq will never happen here.

Please note *any republicans that are reading* that the commies in Hollywood did NOT side with the prosecution, but rather with the US Army. Despite the democratic sway of Hollywood, they put on a good showing on both sides and ended up dismissing a suit that tried to put a monetary value on the dispute over the war. I don't think anyone should have gotten money out of the deal, and therefore a civil suit was somewhat uncalled for, but if only to hear a judge make commentary and hear the debate presented with so many points from different angles...

I liked the damn show.