Mr. Carter's Peanuts
I usually ignore silly people, especially an ineffectual former president who was vilified for years by his own party. Can you guess who it is? Wait for it... wait for it... the suspense is building... okay, here's a hint: he's a former peanut farmer and a nuclear scientist. Give up? Yes, it's none other than Jimmy Carter, who was trotted out yesterday evening under the banner of the Democratic National Convention after years of being persona non grata at these soirees.
I got a bit enraged listening to Carter's speech. The man who emboldened the Soviets sufficiently that they rolled into Afghanistan, who led America through more than 400 days of suffering during the Iran hostage crisis, who singlehandedly helped destroy the economy with record-setting interest rates... well, I'm getting upset again. Here are some snippets of his speech in bold, with my remarks interspersed throughout.
Today, our dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America—based on telling the truth, a commitment to peace, and respect for civil liberties at home and basic human rights around the world.
George W. Bush, by destroying Saddam Hussein's genocidal regime, did more for basic human rights around the world than any 'commitment for peace' you could name. Tyrants only bow to power, a lesson, Mr. Carter, that you never learned but Hitler and countless other brutal dictators did. And millions of Iraqis thank us, despite an insurgency that no more represents the Iraqi people than you represent us. And a million dead Rwandans wish that the last Democratic administration had had the guts to act in this way.
After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united.
After 9/11, America was anything but proud! America was stunned and angry. And, then, even the left was angry enough to clamor for war against anyone who harbored terrorists. Guess what, the left has forgotten the pain of that day already. They've forgotten who harbored terrorists like Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. Forgotten who had a Boeing 707 designed to train hijackers. Forgotten who funded numerous terrorist attacks. And forgotten who used WMDs on his own people. That would be Saddam Hussein, for whom the left now acts as apologists, because he didn't have a laminated 'al Qaeda' card in his pocket.
Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism.
So we should consult France if we want to pursue a war on terror? Your failed policies would say yes, but I would err on the side of caution, especially when a mistake could mean the detonation of a WMD in one of our cities. But you neglected to mention the real risks of failing to act... didn't you, Mr. Carter?
Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support.
Wow! I'll say this. You've got some cojones. You and John Kerry opposed everything Ronald Reagan fought for. Kerry, as an example, claimed that our military buildup was, what was it he said? Oh, that's right, "The Reagan Administration has no rational plan for our military. Instead, it acts on misinformed assumptions about the strength of the Soviet military and a presumed 'window of vulnerability' which we now know not to exist."
And you call that bipartisan support. That's what we call a 'whopper'. And I'm damn glad you and Kerry weren't our key strategists then. The Cold War might still be underway. Thank God for Ronald Reagan and his approach to dealing with the Soviets. You should never mention the Cold War again - that's an abomination.
Recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world's most admired champion of freedom and justice. What a difference these few months of extremism have made!
Here's a better definition of extremism. Flying four planes into civilian targets as guided missiles and killing 3,000 innocent people. That's extremism. We didn't declare this war. But if we are to survive, we better fight it. And if you can't figure out that Afghanistan and Iraq were only stepping-stones in the war, well, I've got even less respect for you than I had before. Although I don't really think that's possible.
... we need John Kerry to restore life to the global war against terrorism.
And, do tell, this is the same John Kerry who spent over twenty years (when he attended Senate votes, that is) opposing every major weapons system and intelligence funding effort? With a track record that earned him the coveted title of 'most liberal Senator'? Yes, I think you're describing the same John Kerry. And counting on someone with that track record to wage a 'global war on terrorism' is akin to putting Pee Wee Herman in charge of Special Ops.
Elsewhere, North Korea's nuclear menace—a threat far more real and immediate than any posed by Saddam Hussein—has been allowed to advance unheeded, with potentially ominous consequences for peace and stability in Northeast Asia.
I wonder which administration tried to appease the North Korean government while they secretly stoked their nuclear weapons program? I'm having trouble remembering who. Oh, that's right, it was the Clinton administration led by the naive 'negotiation' techniques of Madeline Albright. That's who we have to thank, and it will take a Republican administration another few years to clean that mess up.
Ultimately, the issue is whether America will provide global leadership that springs from the unity and integrity of the American people or whether extremist doctrines and the manipulation of truth will define America's role in the world.
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. So, in other words, you're telling us we should vote for George W. Bush. Clever how you wove that into a speech at the DNC! Well done!
By the way, as I write this, I'm listening to keynote speaker Barack Obama. Now, that's a democrat who truly could be president someday (you heard it here first). Kerry's personality, charm, and charisma are running on empty. Mr. Obama appears to be pegging the meter. He could be a democratic Schwarzanegger.
The Company that protects your network
I guess you could call it ironic. Perhaps just an honest mistake. But the company that protects so very many networks has left itself open for a... well, you be the judge.
Google search on - "confidential" "do not distribute" site:cisco.com
Actually, they are probably better (by far) at network security than most other technology vendors. It's just a tiny example of how hard execution of a cohesive strategy around authentication, authorization, access control and document management truly can be. And, yes, I ended that sentence with a preposition. Because it just sounded better.