Oct. 24 - Halliburton. That name has become a byword to invoke images of Evil Corporate America yet few actually know what it is and what function it performs.

I have come to learn one thing about Halliburton: When other agencies fled Iraq, Halliburton and its employees stayed and continued to perform their duties in the best tradition.

FoxNews looks at Halliburton's subsidiary KBR, which supplies food and supplies to US troops in Iraq, and calls those employees America's Unsung Heroes. It looks to me that the KBR employees have found a higher calling in Iraq other than the high pay, and it's time they were recognized and applauded.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:25 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

Oct. 23 - Canadians will be able to see Stolen Honor (or, in Canadian, Stolen Honour) the film that has stirred so much controversy because it brings back some history that many of us want to forget.

As I mentioned before, I remember Kerry's testimony before the Senate, and it was so shocking that I was skeptical as to its veracity, anti-war though I was.

It can be viewed here: Stolen Honor (The Video Kerry Doesn't Want You to See).

Link via a post at Ghost of a Flea, who also has links to two other sites here.

I am about to watch it, which should satisfy those family members who have implored me to continue not supporting the Red Sox as my vital contribution to a Boston long overdue World Series victory.

21:20: Stolen Honor was compelling, so much so that the baseball fans here used the mute button in order to first hear and then watch the documentary. Roger Simon says

While viewing this movie, I imagine most of my generation find themselves reviewing themselves and their actions at the time rather than the film.

When the prospect of the war in Iraq first loomed, I'm surely not the only person who thought long and hard about what we were asking of our military men and women and understood that, in return, the very least they should expect from me was to hold faith with them, to support them, and to be strong in the face of the anticipated pessimistic and alarmist reports filed by peace war correspondents.

To bolster our resolve, we had already been through the harsh Afghan winter and that action was hailed as a quagmire right before victory.

I want to believe that the American people learned a critical lesson from Vietnam: breaking faith with those who serve is a heinous, unforgiveable crime. The test will be how we vote on November 3. If Kerry wins, then those men and women who have served will be within their rights to spit on us.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

Oct. 23 - Cher issued dire warnings at a Florida disco about the era of repression that will destroy our freedoms if the president is reelected.

People in Florida still go to discos? Only a few hundred, in this case, but then they also went to see Cher which is another head-scratcher.

"There were supposed to be thousands of people here tonight. I'm not sure why that didn't happen, obviously the people putting on this thing were just not very good at it," an embarrassed Cher explained to the crowd.

"Alright, but you guys are here, that's right. When I was coming down the steps I though 'Oh s**t, well I'll just go out there and give it my best.'"

Cher warned moveon.org clubgoers to fight Bush, before "it's too late":

"All the gay guys, all my friends, all my gay friends, you guys you have got to vote, alright? Because it would only be a matter of time before you guys would be so screwed, I cannot tell you. Because, you know, the people, like, in the very right wing of this party, of these Republicans, the very very right wing, the Jerry Falwell element, if they get any more power, you guys are going to be living in some state by yourselves. So, I hate scare tactics, but I really believe that that's true."

"I think that as Bush will, if Bush gets elected, he will put in new Superior Court judges, and these guys are not going to want to see gay pride week."

Cher declared that Abraham Lincoln "looks like Kerry on a crappy day."

In 1864, Lincoln was the war candidate and George McClellan was the appeaser.

Lincoln was often cartooned as a simian, and McClellan was depicted as the war hero.

McClellan was the darling of the news papers which regarded Lincoln's awkward speech and gawkish appearance embarassing. (Even back then the news media fretted about European perceptions of Americans.) Lincoln was savaged in the newspapers in ways that made the treatment accorded to Bush seem gentle.

Lincoln's decisive victory was due in part to the votes of those soldiers that McClellan pompously assumed would vote for him. Yes, the very same soldiers who were actually fighting and dying in the war to preserve the Union supported the war and their president.

Did I mention that Lincoln won and McClellan lost?

Posted by: Debbye at 03:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

Oct. 23 - Leader in today's Telegraph on the presidential election: If Bush loses, the winner won't be Kerry: it will be Zarqawi.

Charles Brooker, a writer for the Guardian, has gone off the deep end completely. After lamenting the failure to to influence voters in Clark County, Ohio, he seems to have accepted the inevitability of a Bush victory with less than grace:

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us.

M'kay. They managed to sneak in a disproof of God, which I'm sure is very clever and all, and the fact that they don't like our president is certainly stop the presses news, but the closing line is beyond punditry and strays dangerously close to hate speech:

John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

And he wonders why Americans don't value the advice of Guardian readers.

(Guardian link via Drudge Report.)

Update: Shannon makes a good point:

What I find incredibly odd - er, refreshing - is that the article's author seems to buy into the whole Bush-was-wired-during-the-debates conspiracy (which, it must be said, my friends of the left also do not buy into), yet he seems to actually think Oswald killed Kennedy. Apparently, he hasn't seen JFK.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:32 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 304 words, total size 3 kb.

Oct. 22 -

American teens have spoken, and they want George W. Bush for president. Nearly 1.4 million teens voted in the nation's largest mock election, and the Republican incumbent wound up with 393 electoral votes and 55 percent of the total votes cast.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

Oct. 20 - Nelson Ascher explains why he's a Sept. 12 guy and why he won't vote for Bush (and, as my tipster urges, read this to the end. It's a beaut.)

Posted by: Debbye at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Oct. 19 - In another world, journalists and other great thinkers of the day (heh!) would look at these three news items, Anti-Bush Canadians Put Gov't in Quandary, UK anti-Bush letters spark outrage (with more and better samples from the Guardian site here,) and Cherry among ten greatest Canadians?, and do the patented Arsenio Hall hmmm. They might even connect the dots between the first two and reach the conclusion that the last item is highly relevant to the first and second and, in fact, contradicts some assumptions about the first.

The Toronto Star front page item on Canadian great Don Cherry (I wish I could reproduce the page just to show how huge the headline was!) has Garth Woolsey bewailing the fact that Don made it to the top 10 list of Greatest Canadians.

The stereotypes are true: We really are a nation of shallow, narrow-minded, beer-swilling, puck-chasing hosers.

Proud of it, too.

Confirmation comes in the high-collared, low-browed form of Don Cherry making the CBC's list of "The Ten Greatest Canadians" of all time, as voted upon by some 140,000 citizens of the Great White North.

Oh Canada, woe Canada, you have spoken. You have accorded Cherry a place in the pantheon, alongside Tommy Douglas, Sir John A. Macdonald, Terry Fox, Frederick Banting, Lester Pearson, Alexander Graham Bell, David Suzuki, Pierre Trudeau and Wayne Gretzky.

Don is an individualistic individual. He is refreshingly, heart-warmingly outspoken, and it isn't so much what he says (although it often is!) but the fact that he refuses to be gagged by the political correctness that has rendered political discourse in this country a vapid recitation of approved cliches which have little content but won't grab the attention of the Language Police.

His love for this country runs true and deep. He's no more a buffoon than the men who stormed Juno Beach, his support of the troops doesn't wait for the photo-op of a funeral, and he has given more good advice to Canadian kids on how to live and play with dignity and honour than all the Canadian government agencies and schools combined.

The article contends that mother won't let their kids watch Coach's Corner. That's b.s. Don consistently hammers home the need for sportsmanship as well as hockey skills. He's a sports parent's best friend.

The Yahoo article is only one of similar articles one finds everywhere which defends Canada's obsession with the USA with the usual lame excuse:

Measured by shared boundaries and trade, no foreign country has a larger stake in the U.S. presidential election than Canada. Its citizens, by an overwhelming margin, hope for President Bush (news - web sites)'s defeat, but its government — unsure of the Nov. 2 outcome — is trying to keep bilateral tensions from escalating.

Many Canadians have intently followed the campaign, watching the TV debates and writing impassioned letters to newspapers. Two recent polls showed Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) favored by more than 2-to-1 across Canada; in French-speaking Quebec, Bush's support was only 11 percent.

The CNN and Guardian articles are pretty clear indications of how dimly Americans view outsiders meddling in our affairs. Take.The.Hint.

Canadians who are worried that events in the USA might impact Canada should look to their political leadership for solutions: that's why they hold office.

The primary issue for US voters remains national security. We were attacked several times during the 90's and our gentlemanly forebearance only convinced our enemies of our weakness culminating in the outrage of Sept. 11. (I can't believe I still find it necessary to remind people of that, but there it is.)

Due to an incredible series of strategic and personnel errors, the Democrats have found themselves saddled with a candidate who has a Sept. 10 mindset. Shame, shame on them.

I think that the candidates for Greatest Canadian preferred by the Toronto Star and the readers of the Guardian have Sept. 10th mindsets, and Don Cherry is a staunch Sept. 12th guy. I believe that of all the people on the Top 10 list, Don understands that the ideals of Canada must include unyielding opposition to terrorism and unceasing support of the spread of democracy.

If my assessment is right, Don made that list because others recognize that he represents a powerful symbol for those who know that readers of the Toronto Star and Guardian must stop yearning for Sept. 10 and accept Sept. 12 realities if we are to face the future.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 820 words, total size 6 kb.

Oct. 15 - Count me in! I've already voted and I have a delete button in my mail box ...

Posted by: Debbye at 08:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Oct. 14 - I was unable to see the debate last night (work) but it wouldn't have altered my vote anyway. The transcript is here.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

Oct. 12 - One of the biggest lies being promoted by Sen. Kerry is that we were loved before 2000. Its corollary, that we had lots of support after Sept. 11, is equally false. [Commenter Paul points out that Kerry hasn't said we were universally loved which caused me to stop, think and realize that he is indeed correct. I got carried away with my own hyperbole.]

The issue is actually incredibly simple. Which is the better representation of a person's views: the one they say to your face, or the one they say behind your back? (If you need help with that one, stop reading right now because you're too nuanced and I'm probably going to piss you off.)

I received an email from a Canadian who moved to the UK in 1993. He made some extremely pertinent observations from the perspective of a Canadian who was often mistaken for an American. When he would identify himself as a Canadian, sometimes the assumption would be made that he hated Americans too and he would hear what he described as some pretty vile comments. Both he and I heard things that most Americans never heard before Operation Iraqi Freedom (remember that people up here assume I'm a Canadian until I set them straight.) In retrospect, I should have spoken out about it, but back then I didn't recognize the danger it represented so shrugged it off. After all, we were strong and could afford to be tolerant.

My kids have also heard far too many expressions of anti-Americanism up in this bastion of tolerance and diversity, and much of it came from teachers and university professors.

But this nonsense that we were universally loved before GWB became president and before Operation Iraqi Freedom is so false and so dangerous that it must be confronted.

I was not blogging (hadn't even hear of blogs) on Sept. 11, but does anyone else remember a women's forum held in Toronto within a week of Sept. 11 in which a speaker supported the attacks and everyone in the room applauded her? Does anyone else remember Judy Rebick's column on the main CBC web page which applauded the death and destruction of the attacks as America's due desserts? That freaking column stayed up for over six months after the attacks, and I was genuinely shocked at the large number of posts supporting her position.

What I remember as well about those days is how quickly the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and the TV news media used a lot of ink and air time to recount the errors of US foreign policy and express their hope that the American government would recognize its errors and rectify their approach to the world and the Mid-east (I had never read the Toronto Sun at that point, snob that I was, and am beholden to the person who showed me an editorial supporting the USA.)

Here in Canada, the war in Afghanistan was opposed bitterly by most of the media until Canadian troops were committed, and then they abruptly made an about face. (Principles are such fleeting concepts ...)

Do not tell waste your time lecturing Americans abroad about the sympathy we had after Sept. 11. It stemmed from two entirely different sources: our real friends were genuinely shocked and horrified, and our unfriends were delighted that we had been brought down a peg and irritated when, unchastised, we vowed to fight back. These sentiments were expressed to me until I set them straight as to my nationality. (In retrospect, I should have punched them in the jaw. Oh well.)

The grief was also caused by the large numbers of citizens from countries other than the USA who died in the attacks, including 25 Canadians.

On the first anniversary of Sept 11, the Canadian Prime Minister, then Jean Chretien, expressed his view that the USA had brought the attacks on itself.

I was here. I am a witness. Far too many Canadians hated us before Sept. 11, before NAFTA, and before Ronald Reagan. Even the rescue of American Embassy workers in Tehran is said to have been arranged by the CIA, and although the Canadian government did help, it was begrudgingly done.

Where is Amb. Ken Taylor today?

Have people actually forgotten the image of the "Ugly American" and how typical American tourists were portrayed as unmannered, wore loud shirts, couldn't speak the language but expected everyone to speak English, and complained when they couldn't find a McDonald's near by?

CanCon: Americans who supposedly came to Toronto in August with their skis and ask "Where's the snow?" and presumably thought everyone here lived in igloos (maybe that's why the tourist trade is suffering - an igloo shortage.)

I've lived here for 30 years and gritted my teeth for far too many of them, so don't waste my time with re-written history.

Of course there were Canadians who were genuinely friendly to the USA. Of course we aren't hated by everyone in every country, but the unfortunate fact is that we make far too many of the social democracies look bad because we are a thriving, active and industrious people who exude confidence and determination.

But made no mistake: the elites in Canada and Europe hate us virulently, and their media reflect that hatred. They always have and always will. They hide it when they want something, and bring it out, fully formed, when we're down.

And why? Because our standard of living and way of life shame them. Our technological advances, the fact that Americans are actually happy gives lie to all their deconstructionism and nihilism and what really angers them is that we don't care. That stubborn Yankee independence stands between them and world domination, and they don't like it.

And we have the finest military in the world. And make no mistake: we've used a lot of tax dollars for that military and thus have sacrificed to have it.

Thank about it. When a country's social democratic programs are bankrupting it, they resent countries that manage to thrive without a huge civil service to oversee those mountains of regulations that stifle economic growth and keep people on the dole. When a country has been paying off terrorists, it makes them look bad when another country chooses to fight back. When a country has pandered to its citizens' notions of entitlement, it's hard for them to persuade their citizens that those policies are not self-sustaining but so long as there is the possibility of channeling resentment away from the failures that produced it and towards a people, like us, that are flourishing because we renounced socialism, they have gained one more term to rule.

And make no mistake about Canada: the Liberal Party rules Canada, and are even referred to openly as the Ruling Party, whereas in the United States, we refer only to that party which holds a majority because the basis of our political tradition is the underlying principle that ultimate power rests with We, the People.

The dislike of Americans has been around ever since our country was conceived. Only 20 years ago, President Reagan was reviled and considered a threat to world peace. Have people actually forgotten that, after the Lockerbie bombing, only the British PM would allow us to fly over her air space when we retaliated against Libya (and forgotten the heat Dame Thatcher took for that in the British House of Commons?) [Commenter Jeff corrects me in that the strike against Libya was in retaliation for the disco bombing in Germany, and a quick Google confirmed that he is right.]

If we want the tired Old Europeans to love us again, it won't happen because they have never loved us. Now, we could be deemed more acceptable if we sink to their level, but at what cost? The cost of our ideals? Our individuality? Our self-esteem? Our beliefs in justice? Our prosperity?

Canadians have been arrested and tortured abroad and left to languish while the Canadian government applies "soft" diplomacy. Zahra Kazemi died in Iran, and Bill Sampson, who holds dual citizenship with the UK and Canada, was released by the Saudis due to American intervention as a favour to the UK. He now makes his home in the UK in recognition of the country which continued to fight for him (and which isn't Canada.)

Is that what Americans want? It would make some Canadians feel better about their own feckless foreign policy, but, again, at what cost?

It's all very nice for Sen. Kerry to promise to form a coalition, but when has he ever done so? He was in the Senate for 20 years and never once put together a coalition of his colleagues to get legislation he proposed passed.

He claims he joined others to get legislation passed. When you think about it, that's a very big danger sign.

Kerry is a joiner, not a leader. He is truly "unfit to command" not only because of his behaviour in the 70's but because of his failure in the Senate.

I was an anti-war activist in the 60's and 70's, and even I didn't believe his claims about US soldiers all being war criminals as he testified. Like many other of my generation, I knew men who were serving and had served in Vietnam. They were decent, honourable men (although they were boys when they left) and one effect of Kerry's testimony was that my opposition to the war was actually shaken, not strengthened. I knew he was exaggerating, but I was too damned stupid (and young) to recognize the full calumny of his testimony.

Note to Swift Boat Vets: Keep. It. Up.

Sen. Kerry talks about how our allies picked up a portion of the bill for Gulf War I. How much of the bill for the Kosovo campaigns have they picked up? (We're still in Kosovo, if you need a quagmire to oppose.) How about Macedonia, Liberia and Haiti (Parts 1 and 2)? How much of the bill for Somalia have they picked up?

Exactly what country pays the largest portion to maintain the U.N.? (and now that the UN Oil-for-Food program is defunct, they'll need more cash!)

The sad reality is that, should the U.N. decide to pick up the bill for Iraq, we would still have to give it to the U.N. in order for them to pay it back to the USA (less the fees the U.N. will charge as the middle-man.)

[I realize that all the pundits said "Irony was Dead" after Sept. 11, it's in the same file as the harsh Afghan winters, the cruelly hot Iraq summers, the thousands of US casualties we would sustain fighting house to house to take Baghdad, the fierce Arab street, the humanitarian crisis that would be created in Iraq, ad infinitum. Yes, it's a big file.]

Who pays to station troops in South Korea, and Germany? The Germans and South Koreans hate us but don't want us to leave because our troops represent income in the former case and the front line of defense in the latter. (By a strange coincidence, Sen. Kerry wants us to stay in Germany too. He hasn't offered a sound, military reason why we should stay, though.)

Of course, bashing the Germans is almost unkind. I wondered what those Germans who carried Bush=Hitler signs thought as openly neo-Nazis were elected to the German Parliament. They were so self-righteous that they failed to see the fascist danger in their own backyard.

What did Instapundit Glenn Reynolds say? Something like fascism is always supposed to be hovering over America, but it always lands in Europe.

Anti-Americanism serves a lot of purposes, not the least of which is to divert citizens from observing the actions of their own governments. But the places that matter, as in being on the front lines, like Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia, are electing leaders who are committed to fighting terrorism. What does that tell us?

More CanCon: did anyone else feel a moment of recognition when President Bush described national health care as "rationed" health care? It sent a chilll down my back.

Back to the two-faced bastards our good allies.

We may never really know the content of the conversation when Chirac flew to meet with Presdident Bush shortly after Sept. 11, but I do remember that shortly afterwards, President Bush invoked the tradition of the Barbary Pirates in describing how we would fight back. I don't know if others got the point but I certainly did: we were not going to pay tribute, despite the best advice of our European friends, any more today than we did back in the early 1800's when they gave the same advice. (Yes, I know what the historical record actually says about us negotiating a better deal with the Pirates. So does the President; hence the word "tradition." Heck, I don't even know if Lt. Stephen Decatur really pulled out a pistol at the last moment and shot a cutlass-waving pirate to avoid being skewered. But I want to think he did, and it added some delicious flavour when I lived in Decatur county back in Georgia.)

Students of American history will also recall the infamous "XYZ Affair", which gave birth to the meme "Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute."

It is probable that few people outside the USA even know about those confrontations of our early years as a nation (I'm not touching the sad fact that probably a lot of Americans lack "historical perspective" as do much the MSM - main stream media, Dad) but I for one got the President's point loudly and clearly.

Bottom Line: We stood up to the the tribute-demanding pirates and didn't take the advice of European leaders back then. We had some colourful naval skirmishes. It is even credited with improving our Navy.

That's the tradition President Bush invoked, and those of us alert enough to make the connection understood immediately our strategy in the war on terror.

It wouldn't be over in a day. We would have to find them, harry them and keep them guessing as to where we would strike at them next. And it would take years, if not decades, to finish the job. And our European allies would think we were foolish to fight when we could just pay up and carry on about our business.

And you know what? We succeeded. The reign of the Barbary Pirates ended. We fought them all the way to the shores of Tripoli, folks. And where are they today? Languishing in the dust bin of history and of interest only to weird history lovers like me. Until now.

The history of the USA, from our first vow of "No taxation without representation" to today's dilemma of paying ransom is laden with examples of refusal to bribe our way out of difficulties. (Don't bother to point out times that we have violated that tenet; the point is what we've striven to achieve; whenever anyone reaches for the stars they often fall short but hey! try again. It doesn't hurt half as much as putting your tail between your legs and accepting defeat.)

I woke up this morning with two phrases running through my head. The first was a recollection when I first heard the "Yes, but" conditional sentence. It was "I'm not a racist, but ..." back in the early 60's. Funny how I had forgotten that. It was rightfully reviled back then by liberals. Today, that formulation is on most liberals' lips.

The other was something from a (good grief) Space: Above and Beyond episode:

Mean as hell
All the time
Rough and ready
In the mud
Never quit
Ever faithful
Semper fi!

The terrorist attacks and the passengers and crew of Flight 93 taught us that we are all on the front line of this war, and we'd better think more like Marines than flower children. It may not be nice, but it is reality.

This rant has been brought to you coutesey of my BALLOT ARRIVING IN TODAY'S MAIL and I'm off to send it back, properly marked with a vote for our Cowboy President and our Kick-Ass Vice-President.

I voted for Nader in 2000 (it was a protest vote) and, in a strange way, my vote today is also a protest vote. I'm protesting stupidity, cynicism, cowardice, avarice, lies, delusions, hypocrisy, and most of all, appeasers of fascism.

Ain't life grand?

20:06: Holy cow, it seems I'm not the only ex-pat speaking up. After reading this account by playwright Carol Gould of her life in England(via Daimnation,) I'm ashamed that I let comparatively mild events in Toronto get to me.

Also, I should hasten to add that, as I live in Toronto, my face-to-face experiences and encounters with strident anti-Americanism are limited to Toronto. But as governments interact with governments, not people, the Canadian government is what the American government has to work with and the actions of the government of Canada hardly stands up in comparison to that of Australia, another Commonwealth nation.

Posted by: Debbye at 01:39 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 2736 words, total size 17 kb.

Oct. 11 - The issue is supposedly whether the remarks are taken out of context (Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote) but I think that, once again, Kerry's attitude toward terrorism was revealed.

In the magazine article, a largely analytical cover story by Matt Bai, Kerry is asked "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again." ((Special Report: America Votes 2004)) (sic)

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.

''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

The other question, of course, is how homicide bombers and those willing to shoot children in the back can ever be seen to be a "nuisance?" Unless, of course, he means that so long as only people in Africa, the Mid-East, Asia, South America and Europe are the victims of terrorism, we Americans can safely ignore it. And if Americans are killed abroad, well it happened far away so is just a one-day news item.

And what of bin Laden's declaration of war on the USA? Is it once again to be considered mere rhetoric? The events of Sept. 11 forced a different evaluation and rejection of that complacency, and however much Kerry would like us to return to the delusional halycon days of the '90s, wishing something don't make it so.

Posted by: Debbye at 03:13 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

Oct. 9 - First, an apology. I was originally AWOL due to a (slight) computer problem and sudden increase in work-related demands, but once the temporary problems ceased I found I had been overrun by a Demon Within - the snarly, slobbering, fanged and clawed variety.

Okay, that's overstating things a lot. The simpler explanation is that I was writing a post which was angry in a mean-spiriteded way but my attempts to edit it only made it worse and revealed some things inside that I needed to confront.

I was full of anger, spite and a near vicious attitude toward my fellow Torontonians, and it all came to head at work over coffee, or rather the lack of coffee. It's one of those small, inconsequential kerfuffles that would ordinarily be shrugged off but it became a source of fury for me, and because I knew I was over-reacting I also knew I needed to look within. What I found was a big hole where tolerance and understanding once dwelt.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I take a certain amount of heat from co-workers because I am an American. The movie Farenheit 911 gave Bush haters some talking points (let's move quickly past the mentality of those who take their cues from Michael Moore!) and as I actually have a vote in the upcoming election and they don't, it infuriates them that I support the President.

So what does that have to do with coffee? Well, my co-workers want someone to organize and run a coffee pool, and for some reason She who is a Warmonger was also the only person they could think of to organize and run one. Simple persuasion didn't work, so they employed Shameless Flattery.

I know I'm overreaching, but that state of affairs in coffee does seem to have a certain parallel with the state of the world and what the international community expects from the USA.

Is Canada one of the 'allies' Kerry thinks he can bring on board? America, trust me when I say that you are better off without them so long as the mentality that rules Toronto also controls Parliament.

One of the questions in last night's debate was about the experiences of Americans abroad. Anyone who believes that President Bush's policies provoked anti-Americanism is living in a state of denial as to how deep anti-American sentiments ran long before the 2000 elections and September 11.

Vicious attacks on the USA and Americans were written even as the dust was still settling over the hole in Manhatten, and they ranged from "blood is on America's hands so payback is good" to "maybe this will cause Americans to reconsider their place in the world" (which was evidenced in the US press as "why do they hate us" columns and editorials.)

So I'm still trying to get the Demon of Resentment under control and I don't want to inflict that kind of negativity on anyone (or do I just want to keep it hidden from everyone?) but maybe the rest of the world needs to know that we Americans sometimes make up for our lack of nuance by keeping our mouths shut but that silence is not to be mistaken for compliance or acceptance of their judgement but rather a willingness to bide our time, have our election, and proceed from there.

Mark November 2 on your calendars. I predict that Americans will speak very loudly that day, and the world should indeed worry about the re-election of President Bush because he may be above settling old scores but I'm not guaranteeing that the rest of us can live up to his example.

I owe personal apologies to those who emailed me and to whom I haven't responded. It was hard to compose letters when I couldn't compose myself, but I am dedicating Thanksgiving Day to wading through the spam in my Inbox and responding.

I know I owe a more profound and lengthy apology for my unexplained absence (a simple post that I was taking a break should have been made) but it's taken nearly three days to get this out and I have to face the fact that I'm unlikely to be happy with the lengthier apology but writing one will only allow me to procrastinate posting a mea culpa.

And the Coffee Issue? I solved it in a good ol' American way: I bought a thermos and bring my own coffee to work.

Speaking of work, I'm on an afternoon shift and have to go. More later.

Update Oct. 10 - 15:57 Thank you all for your support and encouragement. As I said, I have to battle a mean-spiritedness that is creeping into me and try to remain focused on the issues.

On or around Sept. 12, 2001, it occurred to me that part of the reason the USA is subject to so many misconceptions and slanders might in part be due to the fact that many of us who live abroad have tended to shrug our shoulders rather than respond to the attacks both in the media and from people with whom we interact.

Americans who live in Canada can "pass" for Canadian, and thus hear more slurs on our country than US citizens in other countries who would often be immediately indentifiable by their accents. My usual response in the past was to inform them that I was an American, and the usual response of an attacker would be to change the subject (which meant dropping the attack.) I now wonder if I should have pressed a counter-attack (in a very polite way, of course) which would have provided more talking points post Sept. 11.

I have questioned wearers of Kerry buttons as to whether they are American citizens, and haven't encountered one who is.

But I wear my Bush-Cheney button proudly, and when confronted, I say brightly "I'm an American citizen" confident that this announcement explains everything. It does take people aback! They haven't quite figured out the implications of a Bush victory, especially the impact on an American electorate that will finally leave hanging chad memories in the past and stride forward with a firm mandate for the President.

Expect lots of wailing as ex-pats who waited for the last minute find themselves unable to vote (these wankers think the Pentagon should assist them? The connection with the US for private citzens abroad is through the State Department, which could provide new fodder for the ineptitude of that department but certainly doesn't reflect on the President.) Expect impatience and dismissal from those of us who maintained our status on the Voter's List.

Those who didn't value their voting rights sufficiently to maintain them may find they have temporarily lost them. Talk about your Basic Life Lessons ... Mom and Dad are proven right yet again.

Note to Tim G.: Good on you! I'd love to see a tally of ex-pat voters but I think we'll be grouped with military personnel as absentee ballots and, as I can't imagine being in finer company, I'll willingly forgo the chance to counter Democrat whines that President Bush has made the world more "uncomfortable" for Americans and be content with victory.

Posted by: Debbye at 09:47 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 1212 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Welcome Back, Debbye! We missed you, especially those of us who share your 'transplanted' predicament. :-)

Posted by: Austin at October 09, 2004 11:36 AM (MC14X)

2 Welcome back. I just sent in my ballot - in support of the entire Republican ticket. I too can hardly find a Bush supporter at work. Even my American neighbor is brainwashed. Overcoming the liberal media is difficult for most people. Too few read blogs.

Posted by: Tim G. at October 09, 2004 05:24 PM (6JOPU)

3 Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I came here with the intent of searching through your archives again for clues about what your American hometown is so's I could expand my search for you. I checked the Toronto Sun's obituaries of the days following you sudden absence. At first it could have been just a 'puter glitch. But a week went by, then a month. After a while I honestly thought you were dead, and I wanted to try to find out how just so's the Munuvians who were worrying about your sudden lack of posting could at least have some measure of closure. I feel like Chief Brody seeing Matt Hooper surface at the end of JAWS. We have strange demons within. But, I think that what yours may be is actually not a demon, but a virtue: plain ol' common civility. Maybe I'm mistaken but it sounds to me that the prob is that you find it difficult to put up with the brash and petty hostility of T.O. America-haters. That's understandable; I'd hate it, too. But if they want you to run the office pool then they're not shutting you out completely. Maybe you can soften their outlook; but it wont be through debate. Nope. Just be respected by them for one reason -- as you clearly are. Debate politics if you want to, but don't sink to their level of course. Whenever I find myself in a debate with a barking moonbat (as opposed to a "rational" moonbat) I just say, with a chuckle, "You're not really in a debating mood. Maybe we should talk about this later." It usually gets me out of there and, hopefully, makes them think about how they're treating me just for disagreeing. Chin up! And welcome back!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at October 09, 2004 07:46 PM (QzJ0r)

4 Very glad to see you back. I have number of thing such as you described as unpublished drafts. And also a number of filler posts on standby. Sometimes I find it helps to write out a horrific rant, edit it to perfection and delete it.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at October 09, 2004 08:54 PM (U3CvV)

5 Welcome back!!! Sometimes it's best to just walk away for a bit. You were missed, even by some of us who didn't send email.

Posted by: Ted at October 09, 2004 09:53 PM (ZjSa7)

6 Debbye!!!!!! Yay!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 09, 2004 10:26 PM (+S1Ft)

7 Welcome back, Debbye... good to "see" you again!

Posted by: Madfish Willie at October 09, 2004 11:04 PM (iCGe/)

8 Hooray!! What a pleasant surprise. Welcome back!!

Posted by: mikem at October 10, 2004 04:24 PM (EzNXf)

9 I received, marked, and returned my absentee ballot last week for Bush/Cheney (that's the only race I can vote for, though), so add me to your tally of Americans living uncomfortably abroad. ;-)

Posted by: Austin at October 10, 2004 04:56 PM (idy1o)

10 Missed you and I'm glad you're back!

Posted by: marybeth at October 10, 2004 05:14 PM (8bCu3)

11 Lord, I've never been so happy to see a post! I was worried about you, girlfriend!

Posted by: Ith at October 10, 2004 05:21 PM (J19VG)

12 Christ, I was really beginning to think that something nasty might have happened to you. Welcome back, luv, you've been sorely missed.

Posted by: Paul Jané at October 11, 2004 01:01 AM (Ps6cF)

13 Missed you like crazy!! Truly mean had me worried about ya!

Posted by: Dex at October 11, 2004 01:25 AM (gOtVe)

14 Debbye, Hello! Hello! Those above have already said it . . .

Posted by: Robert at October 11, 2004 04:27 AM (rQeze)

15 Welcome back, Debbye. And by all means, continue to beat up on Canadian politicians and media. If you don't, I'll have to do it, and it's a never-ending task.

Posted by: gnotalex at October 11, 2004 02:52 PM (joY+o)

16 Deb- Welcome back!! I know exactly what you mean by the creeping mean spiritedness. I work in Chicago for a municiple agency that is rabidly Dem. I have to learn to throttle back. I recognized it when one of my fellow employee's started talking about Kerry and how he is the next messiah and the lines from Shakespear's Coriolanus went through my head: You common cry of curs whose breath I hate, Who reek 'o the rotten fens, Who's love I prize as the carcasses of dead unburied men that do corrupt my air I banish you!! I'm getting better at handling these situations but it is tough...

Posted by: Rich Cook at October 11, 2004 05:05 PM (Km34P)

17 Debbye, it's SO good to read yout thoughts again! I had resigned myself to thinking you were gone-- in what sense, I had no idea. You have made my 2004 much brighter! (Maybe you should switch to Half-Caf!)......

Posted by: Timbre at October 12, 2004 12:04 AM (nO30W)

18 I was worried but then I remembered this. Yes, Zathros remember. Zathros stop worrying. *** In June 2258, the Grey Council summoned Delenn to meet with them. They offered her the position of leader of the Grey Council, a post that had been vacant since Dukhat died. Delenn refused the position, believing that she had a destiny to help fulfill the prophecy that Humans and Minbari would work together. She acquired one of the triluminaries and returned to Babylon 5 where she began constructing a chrysalis device. The next month, Mr. Morden visited Delenn to ask her, "What do you want?" This alerted her to the return of the Shadows. She continued building her chrysalis device for several months until December when she sent Lennier to confirm her suspicions with Ambassador Kosh. Lennier asked, "Have the Shadows returned to Z'ha'dum?" Kosh replied, "Yes." Delenn realized that the time of the next Shadow War that had been foretold by Valen was upon them. She felt it was her duty to help fulfill prophecy by building a bridge between the Minbari and the Humans so that they could work together to defeat the Shadows. She used the triluminary to activate the device she had built, and it entombed her in a chrysalis. *** Welcome back.

Posted by: Flea at October 12, 2004 12:00 PM (jTd4T)

19 Welcome back! I'd just discovered your blog and had been reading for a couple of weeks when you vanished. Having lived in Canada for a number of years I'm familiar with your experience as you describe it. My own experience led to my feeling frustrated by the ignorance, much of it willful, around me. Eventually I understood that much of the bitterness about the US in Canada had more to do with the elusiveness of 'Canadian Identity' and an enormous underlying anger in most of Canada at what holds the country together. Blaming the US for pretty-much everything seemed to me unhealthy and a laughably easy way out. However it's human and therefore understandable. Knowing this made things a lot easier for me. Not worth the grief. Their disease, not mine. I still argued, but not viscerally any more. Again, glad you're back and looking forward. Nex

Posted by: Alan at October 12, 2004 09:43 PM (F6vzi)

20 Welcome back! Like many who've posted congrats before me, I was saddened when it appeared that you'd given up blogging. Your page had become a daily read. Keep up the good work!! Don't let Toronto get you down - it's a weird town, even by Canadian standards. I lived there for a couple of years and I know what the people there can be like. It's by no means representative of the Canadian people.

Posted by: Martin at October 12, 2004 10:55 PM (bvK+g)

21 Welcome back! I, too, was worried for you. I'm a Yank in Ottawa, and have dealt with the same things you describe for decades. One of the details which bothers me is that I sometimes find myself having to defend certain US policies which I might not actually agree with. (I'm glad, though, that I can support most of Bush's policies from the get-go.) Rather than discussing the policies, my experience is that many Canadians seem to attack the States as a country first, and talk about ideas only as an afterthought. I find the need to step back and be glad that I'm not in charge of the politics, and not let any of the 'stupidity' around me get to me.

Posted by: Paul at October 13, 2004 11:29 PM (FHiJd)

22 Hey Deb, welcome back! I sorta suspected it was a matter of backing off to gain perspective, but yeah, we got a little worried at the complete lack of info on the page; hell, Steve Den Beste at least documented his reasons for hiatus (and got even more crap directed his way by people who felt he *owed* it to them/us to continue posting). I only invoke SDB because I originally found your link through USS Clueless and had to suffer through two of my favourite sites going inactive. I missed your voice and am glad you're back. Thanks to Michael and Anthony at Canadian Headhunter for the heads up regarding your return.

Posted by: John H at October 14, 2004 12:37 AM (Z6f/b)

23 Welcome back! I liked this entry so much I'm going to post the entire thing at my blog....

Posted by: Roundhead at October 14, 2004 09:38 AM (fOyx5)

24 Hey, welcome back. And I mean that in the most sincere way. Like many others, I was getting worried about what had become of you. Hang in there. This presidential election must be a particularly bad time for Americans in Canada, at least for Bush supporters. As a Canadian whose immunity to the anti-American virus remains intact, I sometimes feel like those folks in Dawn of the Dead, trying to keep my wits about me in a sea of zombies. Blogs like yours help.

Posted by: keith at October 14, 2004 10:59 AM (xfdnu)

25 My sincere apologies to you all. I feel even more guilty now than when I finally resurfaced, and I'm really sorry for causing so much worry. I really let you all down by letting myself be distracted by the small sh*t instead of keeping my eyes on the end zone. I just finished writing "I won't dwell on the little stuff" 500 times on the blackboard ... I trust the lesson will stick.

Posted by: Debbye at October 17, 2004 07:32 PM (YN7Kb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 6 - Sen. John Kerry named Sen. Edwards to share the Democratic ticket this morning in what was probably another big mistake in his campaign.

Edwards shares some key Kerry's weaknesses: no executive experience and a voting record.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

July 3 - I have already confessed my embarassment that Moore and Nader had the arrogance to speak about the recent elections up here, but it's actually worse than I thought.

According to a CBC item, Moore boosts Kerry, Moore deliberately released his latest movie up here in an attempt to influence the elections:

Moore also wanted his film released before the Canadian election, saying he hoped it would help convince Canadians not to vote for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

That's right: insulted. Moore was worried the foolish Canadians might choose wrongly so hurried to intervene with his peculiar brand of propaganda. I don't know if there's any way to ascertain if he actually influenced the elections, but that's hardly the point. He tried, so where's the righteous indignation?

Oh, that's right. The caring and compassionate left gets a free ride on their numerous violations of decency.

But let's think it through for a fraction of a second. If it's allowable for one wing of American political thought to deliberately intervene in Canadian matters, why isn't it allowable for the other wing? You know, do that fair and balanced thingy we hear so much about?

Suppose, just suppose, that positions were reversed and Canada leaned to the right. A huge scandal and a decade of mismanagement combined to look as though the ruling party was about to be unseated and a Liberal Party voted in, and then some Americans came up here to influence the vote.

You don't even have to speculate as to the reaction (unless you live on Mars ...)

Sen. Kerry, funnily enough, is exhibiting some belated caution as far as Moore is concerned:

Kerry has reportedly not asked Moore to appear at any campaign events (during the Democratic primaries, the filmmaker supported retired general Wesley Clark). According to a campaign spokesperson, it's not known if Kerry has seen the movie yet.

(Link via Paul.)

Posted by: Debbye at 10:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

July 2 - Ith has shattered my complacency: Just When You Think You've Heard Everything you find that you were wrong.

SEVERAL members of the US House of Representatives have requested the United Nations to send observers to monitor the November 2 US presidential election to avoid a contentious vote as in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.

July 4 - 19:45: Baldilocks did some digging and has their names and political affiliations here as follows:

Joseph Crowley (D-NY-07)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-07)
Danny Davis (D-IL-07)
Corrine Brown (D-FL-03)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-0
Michael Honda (D-CA-15)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD-07)
Julia Carson (D-IN-07)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY-10)

Commenter Dex wins the door prize, by the way, for having correctly guessed that Corrine Brown was among those who made the request.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:38 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

July 1 - First, Happy Canada Day to us up here in the Great White North. It's pretty warm in Toronto, and summer has officially begun. (Updated) Or, as Paul insists: Happy Dominion Day.

What is Canada Day? (I'm a bit jaundiced by the election results, so I'm letting this one go.)

I gave up watching the CBC coverage of Canada Day events when their military angle focused on tombstones. I get it, already. CBC doesn't think freedom is worth fighting and possibly dying for. Check.

In the news: Saddam was defiant during his court appearance. Lord knows he's watched enough CNN to know how to perform in court, so don't colour me surprised.

The internationalists are out in force whining that this trial will lack legitimacy. Let me see if I have this straight: those nations, some of which refused to oust Saddam in 1991, some of which harbour those who paid kickbacks to Saddam in order to profit in the UN Oil-for-Food program, many of which shipped expired medicines and hospital equipment that didn't work along with limousines, sports stadiums and plastic shredders, and most of which turned a blind eye to his crimes against his own people, and even those who acted within the U.N. to keep Saddam in power ... those people have the audacity to utter words like justice and legitimacy?

Why are they attempting to deprive Iraqis of their right to their day in court? Because they are anxious to give the International Criminal Court legitimacy, perhaps?

Sorry, International Community, but organizations and people gain respect by their deeds, not by their words. If you want to try a genocidal dictator, consider being aligned with those who stopped his evil regime and apprehended him.

Just a thought.

More to the point, who freaking cares what a bunch of wankers and self-appointed elitists think? We heard the same stuff from the same nations back around 225+ years ago; they were wrong then, and they are wrong now. (Kind of poor timing on their part, given the promixity of the Fourth of July, to cast doubt upon the capability of the Iraqi people to build a free and prosperous nation. I'm just saying ...)

Final thought on Saddam: Wolverines!!! (I just watched Laredo (a show I loved as a kid and which bears up well even today) on the Lonestar channel and William Smith was a regular on Laredo, and he was the eeevil Col. Strelnikov in Red Dawn. That's only three degrees of separation! Eat your heart out, Kevil Bacon.)

On a more sober note, it's not really a surprise that there would be more terrorist attacks on this day but it serves to remind us that freedom isn't free.

I don't have that much to say about the handover except Hurrah! As have many, I've been irritated beyond patience by the unending ominous pronouncements from CNN that every firefight in Fallujah "threatened the handover" because I felt every dead "insurgent" strengthened the ability of the incoming Iraqi government to organize elections and lead Iraq on a new path.

21:19: Spinkiller has an eloquent post over at The Shotgun Iraqis embrace their freedom... that is a must-read.

Peggy Noonan in today's Opinion Journal says

The early transfer of sovereignty to Iraq has hit everyone here, friend of the invasion and foe, as a brilliant stroke. Leaving early, and with such modesty--it was a pleasure to be here, let us know if there's anything we can do--tends to undermine charges of U.S. imperialism. President Bush is feeling triumphant--one can tell even from here--and the Western press is looking very irritable indeed. They don't like to be surprised, they don't like it when Mr. Bush scores one, and they don't like it when the troublemakers they've been so banking on to prove their point that Iraq was a fiasco don't even get a chance to stop the turnover.

That expresses a fear many of us have, that having addressed one root cause of terrorism, i.e., the lack of human rights and opportunities for self-advancement in the Mideast, and having done so with loss of American lives, the temptation to run and hide will translate into a belief that having friends who won't watch our backs but will spout all the correct sentiments is more important than being right, and that could lead to a Kerry victory in November.

I live in one of those countries which have strained relations with the USA because of Sept. 11 and the Iraq War, and I can assure Americans of one thing: they want us to fail because it will make them look less inadequate, not because we are wrong.

For proof, read Saddam was defiant again, and note that CNN is acting as though this monster has any credibility or respectability.

Noonan asks what President Bush can do about it, and I suspect that it is a rhetorical question, because most of us have expressed the wish that the president would be more vigorous in reminding us why we are fighting terrorism and why Iraq was key to turning the Mid-east to a new course.

He faces stiff opposition (mostly with alphabet names like CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CBC, BBC, and the other ABC) but I'm convinced the American people themselves just need a bit of encouragement and bolstering.

Those who want to retreat have to ask themselves very seriously: what will you expect from the American President when the next terrorist attack occurs? Sadly, Pres. Clinton's response was to investigate fundamentalist Christians, which lead to the Waco disaster. Is that what we want?

Call me a warmonger, but I prefer the Republican president's track record to the Democrat's candidate.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 994 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Amen.

Posted by: Dex at July 01, 2004 08:17 PM (vpzED)

2 Excellent post, and cheers for the link as well.

Posted by: Paul Jané at July 02, 2004 01:10 PM (Ys+Ti)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 23 - I've tried to play down the US election somewhat until the Canadian election is over, but Michael Moore hasn't shown similar restraint and has linked the two elections.

A post over at Belmont Club puts quite a hurting on Moore and his fellow progressives by looking at their real grievance against the U.S. President and those who support them (The Revolution Within the Revolution) and, by extension, the Conservative Party of Canada:

The particular venom with which the Liberals regard President Bush is at heart a reaction to what they perceive as a coup d'etat directed against the carefully constructed edifice of their historical achievements. To understand why the President and individuals like Paul Wolfowitz are described as "illegitimate", one should not, like the man who doesn't get the reference, look to the Florida chads or US Supreme Court decisions. Liberals are not talking about that kind of statutory legitimacy. Rather they are referring to what is perceived as a brazen attempt to negate the cultural equivalent of the Brezhnev doctrine, the idea that certain "progressive" modes of behavior, once attained, are irreversible. In this view, an entire set of attitudes, commonly referred to as "political correctness" and their institutional expressions, like the United Nations, have become part of a social contract, part of an unwritten constitution.

[...]

In the days following September 11, the Liberals watched aghast as America went to war -- when that had been abolished! -- against Muslims in the Third World, all but twitching away the hapless figures of France and the United Nations in the process. (Emphasis added.)

There are some serious threats to us, yet when we should be debating issues, we are dodging mud. Liberals and Democrats are shaming themselves during these elections and the voters should be outraged.

By the way, A Chick Names Marzi eviscerates Moore to the delight of us who can never read enough Moore bashing (via this post at Moore Watch.)

Read them all. I'm off to work.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.

June 22 - Ghost of a Flea caught something that did slip many of us by, an article in the Chicago Sun-Times that proves that those who are journalists should look a little harder at themselves before attacking (Flea: Hitler.)

Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and Canada, yet it seems to me that articles like the one in the Sun-Times would tend to encourage notions of an International Jewish Conspiracy, which I hardly think is the president's fault unless he is being accused of appointing too many people with Jewish surnames to his administration (and what the hell is that about, anyway? I recognize German surnames, but how does one know they are Jewish?) and if that's a criticism, it implies that those who object are anti-Semitic.

In plain English: since when do Americans judge a person's politics and motives by their surname or colour of their skin? Those who bandy words like neo-con and hint that it has Jewish roots are doing more harm to our country's ideals than the terrorists could possible achieve, or, if you prefer, are helping the terrorists achieve their aims, one of which is for the USA to stop supporting Israel.

It never escaped most of us that the war on terror would, by necessity, have to take on Arafat. That unprincipled scoundrel failed to take President Bush's Road Map seriously; this was not only anticipated but expected, but what Arafat didn't understand was that it was indeed his last chance to be relevant. Now he sits amid the rubble. Who says there is no justice?

The worst anyone can really say about President Bush is that he says what he means and means what he says. So they accuse him of failing to lie! Only a fool could think that a failure in leadership.

Who didn't understand that removing Saddam also removed a major financier of terrorism directed against Israelis? The Palestinians certainly understood it, and those who chose to duck that fact again reveal more about themselves and their anti-Semitism than than any laboured comparisons of President Bush to Hitler.

Who leaked information that the redacted portions of the 2002 report on terrorism covered up Saudi complicity? Was it by chance Democrats? So who is inciting hatred and suspicion?

And yet the staff of the Sept. 11 Commission has found no evidence that top Saudi officials have given money to al Qaeda (No Saudi Payment to Qaeda Is Found.)

The new account, based on 19 months of staff work, asserts flatly that there is "no evidence" that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the group, which is led by Osama bin Laden.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1207 words, total size 8 kb.

June 8 - Via Paul, Stephan Hachemi, Zahra Kazemi's son, has written a hard-hitting letter to the editor of the National Post which, given the short link life at the Post, I'm going to quote in full:

June 3, 2004

To former prime minister Jean Chretien:

Like many Canadians, I recently learned of your coming visit to Iran as a representative of a Calgary-based oil company. It is reported that the purpose of your trip is to conclude a deal with the Iranian government on behalf of this firm.

I write to congratulate you.

Your failure to ensure justice was served in the case of my mother, Zahra Kazemi -- who was murdered by the Iranian regime while you were prime minister -- has apparently paid off: You are now most welcome in Tehran.

Last June, my mother was arrested without cause by agents of the Iranian government, who then beat and tortured her to death. No doubt, you remember the case and so are well-informed of the systematic violations of human rights that take place in Iran, as well as the circumstances that surround the killing of my mother.

And yet, knowing this, you are off to shake hands with representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the executioners who less than a year ago had my mother murdered.

I can only thank you for doing this now, Mr. Chretien -- for you are demonstrating clearly what a charade Canada's fervent defence of human rights is. Despite your speeches about human rights when you were at the head of our government, you are now conferring your personal prestige on Iran's regime, and by extension its crimes against humanity.

Bravo, Mr. Chretien. I knew I could count on you to take the veil off your government's hypocrisy. The politics that you practice now show how your government favours "business as usual" before human rights. Congratulations.

Stephan Hachemi, Montreal.

Read the whole thing; it is disturbing and raises some questions that should be directed at Sen. Kerry.

Sen. Kerry has already indicated his willingness to treat with the mullahs of Iran, in a move which may be cynical (maybe it's all about the oil!!!!) or could be appeasement but which amounts to a flagrant dismissal of the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. Small wonder US Old Media coverage of the Iranian elections and subsequent demonstrations received so little air time.

As Americans and Canadians, do we support tyrants or those who yearn for freedom? Are we appeasers of murderous despots or do we actually believe in those human rights we are so quick to claim to revere?

Those issues may not seem as urgent or important as bread-and-butter issues, but if we lose our freedom to work and raise our families without fear we will lose the true meaning of freedom.

Election campaign coverage has a way of obscuring issues by focusing on the sound bites instead of the substance of remarks, but President Reagan's death has reminded us that indeed there are pivotal events that can lead either to victory or become yet another missed opportunity.

Would I rather rejoice because millions of Iraqis are entering a new era of freedom or bewail the fact that the French are annoyed with us for ignoring their advice?

Posted by: Debbye at 07:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.

June 3 - The text of the President's speech yesterday to the graduates of the Air Force Academy is here.

Just as events in Europe determined the outcome of the Cold War, events in the Middle East will set the course of our current struggle. If that region is abandoned to dictators and terrorists, it will be a constant source of violence andd alarm, exporting killers of increasing destructive power to attack America and other free nations. If that region grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorist movement will lose its sponsors, lose its recruits, and lose the festering grievances that keep terrorists in business. The stakes of this struggle are high. The security and peace of our country are at stake, and success in this struggle is our only option.

Lest we forget, the Iraqi people have also suffered from the bombs of Zarqawi and his associates as have our soldiers and civilian contractors, and our partnership with the Iraqi people has been forged in blood and perseverence.

Read the whole speech. There's been a lot of events in Iraq since the war first began, but the mission remains the same: Iraqi Freedom.

Posted by: Debbye at 06:53 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.