SamSaid!

CHAUVINIST

     When it comes to the USA, I confess to being a chauvinist  –  no apologies. Maybe I was born under the Zodiac sign of Stephen Decatur. In my lifetime I have been fortunate  to travel extensively around the world  –  Western Europe, Scandanavia, Northern Africa, North and Central America, the Middle East, Japan, The SW Pacific, Australia/New Zealand,etc. etc., but I have always had a great warm feeling upon getting “back home”. The USA is a truly special place, and it is marvelous to be an American.

     I spent three years in uniform  — the USAF  — and I wore the uniform proudly. Nobody shot at me in anger, so far as I know, and I was not recalled to active duty as some of my comrades were. But I was ready to go. Even now, I recite the Pledge of Allegiance, sing “America the Beautiful” and fly the flag at my home.

     When it comes to the First Amendment, I do not hesitate to express my views. We all can do that. But when I see a mob of degenerate scumbags “demonstrating” in San Francisco my blood begins to boil. Since when has the First Amendment sanctioned rioting and damage to property? When has it been authorized to defy the law and ignore the rights of law abiding others? I can support free specch  –  utterances  –  but not the wilfull defiance of law and order. Maybe the ACLU thinks that's OK, but not me. So now we have a system where the courts say that actions like that are improper  but they fall short of doing anything about it. And so the rioters get away with it. Scott free.

     With alerts at a high level to prevent terrorist actions, why do we have to re-assign hundreds of policemen and firemen to control the rioting behavior of “protestors?”  And these are the kinds of protestors who would happily kiss the fanny of Saddam Hussein if he walked down Market Street. I recall one TV interview of a “protestor” who couldn't even find Iraq on a map.

     It is pretty much conceded that another terrorist attack will occur – somewhere, someplace. If I had a loved one on active military duty in the Gulf and had to watch the disgusting performance of  SF “protestors”, I would be seriously tempted to paint a big bulleye in the center of San Francisco so that our losses to terrorism would not be significant.

     As I watch thier performance, I am caught between disgust and contempt. Tough choice.

THE FRENCH

     France and its leaders are already taking a pounding from much of the US media and also the internet. Something tells me that the internet traffic has just begun, and the treatment of the French will not be very complimentary. Quite the opposite. And we are just seeing the beginning  –  at least judging from some of the Emails coming my way.

    But considering the behavior of the French leaders in the current Iraqi affair, maybe the appropriate question should be “Should we expect anything else?” While I prefer California wines and eating popcorn instead of snails, I wouldn't want my personal biases to ignore history.

    In the last millenium, France hit its high water mark with Napoleon about 200 years ago. The came the retreat from Moscow, Waterloo, the exile of Napoleon, The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and Mr. Bismarck,  WWI and the failure of the Maginot line, WWII and the “Pitiful 14 days” that led to Vichy France and the collaboration of Pierre Laval,  Vietnam and Dien Bien Phu, Algeria, and now the French $$$ Connection to Saddam. With that kind of legacy, is the behavior of Mr. Chirac and his aides so surprising? As I said, “What should we expect”? 

     None of us can be sure of what will come of the Iraqi incursion. It will not be pleasant. But there are enough Americans with long memories who will caustically label the French as long as they live. Betrayal is a good word here. It fits.

THE AZORES

     With the advent of TV, a favorite “catch-phrase” of the broadcasters has been “eye witness to history”. It has a nice sound to it. Nowadays, with 24 hour on-scene TV coverage, we all can be eye witnesses to history while dozing in our own family rooms. Who knows?  Maybe the Azore Summit will command a lot of attention from historians. I think it should.

     When you think about it, an awful lot of effort was put into a 1 1/2 hour meeting called at the last minute. Consider the distances, the entourages, the media people from all over the world, the security, the preparations and communications, etc etc. Bigtime logistical effort. For an hour and a half. The important feature of the Azores Summit wasn't what was said or done  — or who was there. The really important matter was who was NOT there. None of the old Euros or the UN. George, Tony and their Iberian buddies took center stage. Viewed from either a diplomatic or tactical standpoint, I think it was a master stroke. Kudos to whoever came up with the idea. The message to the UN Security Council and Saddam is unmistakeable.

     If I were in charge of the SAC base in Jefferson City, MO., I think I would be telling the B-52 pilots to start their engines.

COLIN

     When the dust has finally settled on the current Iraqi/Saddam flap, I wonder how history will treat Colin Powell. Make no mistake, Mr. Powell is a great American success story, and a solid good guy from a national leadership standpoint. He has a lot of talent, amd I am glad he is on our side.

     But in 1991, as the Gulf war was winding down, his was one of the strong voices urging that we call off the assualt and not pursue Saddam into Baghdad to take him down and remove him from power. Granted, he was not alone since GW Bush(I) and Norman Schwarzkopf concurred. But as our #1 soldier, his input was not insignificant. If letting Saddam off the hook in 1991 is seen (by hindsight) as a mistake, Colin Powell  has to carry a lot of the blame.

     Now we are mired down in the swamp of the UN in March 2003, and Mr. Powell has been  the strongest voice arguing that we go the UN route rather than just go after Saddam and take him out. We have surrendered the advantage of world opinion, domestic opinion, and UN support. Also, we have given Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction more and more time to prepare for combat. There is little doubt that we are worse off today militarily than would have been the case a month ago  –  all due to the delays of UN manuevering. At this point it seems that UN support is no longer even a factor and we will have to proceed alone with just a few friends.

     Maybe it was worth the effort at the UN. Maybe.  But if things go wrong and the long delay results in higher casualties for our guys and the Brits there will be a storm of criticism directed at Geo W Bush.  Colin Powell is a military man, but not a military hawk. He prevailed in the strategic argument to pursue the support of the spineless UN. That has not succeeded and in fact has backfired. No doubt, Geo W will take the hit. But upon reflection, I wonder how  our hindsight experts will view the role of Mr. Powell five years from now?

POLLUTION

     Since I regularly read a variety of well known publications, I do not lack the opportunity to see the world through left wing eyes. But to keep matters in balance I also subscribe to the National Review, the voice of conservative America.which was founded and supported by William Buckley whom I regard as a truly superior intellect. He is well informed, highly articulate, and thought provoking. However, there are other excellent writers on the magazine staff as well. The other day, I ran across an article that gave me a new slant on environmentalism and pollution.

     Up until the arrival of the automobile  in the early 1900s, the two main forms of transportation in the country were the railroads and the horse. Few would argue that the horse was not directly involved in the growth of the US. By 1900, there were an estimated 20.4 million horses in this country, millions of which were in the cities and towns. The average horse consumed about 39 pounds of food per day  –  5 tons per year. In turn, that resulted in 12,000 pouns of manure and 400 gallons of urine per horse per year. And there were millions of acres specifically devoted to growing the food for the horses. Naturally, much of the excrement from the horses found its way into the lakes, ponds, rivers and streams of the country  –  polluting them badly. Disposing of horse piles was a major problem in big cities. Then along came the automobile which literally put the horses out to pasture (no pun intended). Now they can muck-up a pasture or man made pond, but for the most part, horse-generated pollution is gone  –  thanks to the automobile.

     To many of the “green” mentality, the automobile is regularly castigated as a polluter  –  not granting due credit for eliminating horse generated pollution many many years ago. I am sure they would gag before conceding that automobiles have reduced pollution and benefited the environment. Of course, all of this data is verifiable, so readers can confidently view the preceding as scientific observations rather than so much horse manure. But for environmental skeptics, I'd just offer that as the fly said as he crawled across the mirror, “that's one way of looking at it”.

THE FACTOR

     A year or so ago, I casually changed the channel to watch Bill O'Reilly on Fox news. In the following months I watched more often and nowadays I view his newscast  every day. When it comes to standard TV news, I am still loyal to NBC. While I am not much enthralled by Katie Cutie or Queen Jane Pauley, I like Tom Brokaw and Matt Lauer. But the big three network news presentations are bland pablum –  politically correct vanilla  –  compared to O'Reilly who really is a different cat.

     O:Reilly is fast-talking, direct, candid, opinionated, assertive, argumentatative, confrontational, occasionally nasty or rude, insensitive, impatient, and challenging to those who may differ with him. He may not the best TV Jounalist on the air, but he is entertaining and he gets his messages across. From time to trime I differ with him and then fire off Emails. But he has generated an amazing following in just a short period of time. He is not a slick salesman with a well packaged product to sell; rather, his message hits the core, heart, or guts of millions of people who feel just as he does but generally confine their thoughts to just a few others. For years they have awaited a spokesman for THEIR causes  –  now they have one.

     Bill does not invite guests so that they can make planned speeches in response to lollipop questions. He asks tough questions and demands direct answers. Woe to the unwary who might try to weasel word their way out of a tough question from Bill.  No equivocation. I like that. And he doesn't hesitate to take on the IRS, politicians, the RC Church, the Hollywood elite, or black leaders. Actually, I chuckle every time he throws political correctness out the window. It is a treat to watch him expose Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as the charlatans  they are. More than anything else, it is a joy to watch him stick the needle into Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Tom Daschle, Martin Sheen, Ted (the balloon) Kennedy, and other leaders of the left  for refusing an invitation to appear on his program.   

     When it comes to aggressive interviewing, he has no peer. And I say, more power to him. He says things that need to be said. If the left-wingers want to refute him, I say “good luck, guys”. Last month Dan Rather got worldwide publicity by interviewing Saddam Hussein. I watched Mr. Rather quietly pitch the pre-approved softball questions to The Iraqi madman who deperately wanted (and got) respectable worldwide press.

     Can't you just imagine Bill O'Reilly interviewing Saddam??