Just Another Blog

As you may know, I am big Philadelphia Eagles fan and have been for many years. We've all got our opinions here, that's for sure. Philly fans are known to be both the best and worst in the league. We have both fanatical devotion and really bad tempers. Anyone heard the term "boo birds?"

So let's cut to the chase: The Eagles suck this year. I still love them, but they suck. We've been making excuses since the 04 season: Terrell Owens was a distraction. McNabb was hurt. We had bad luck. We should have been 7-0 if it were not for three fluke plays. The team was better than their record. They have heart. They have character. Blah blah blah.

Guess what? We were deluded to think any of those things. This is about one person and one person only: Andy Reid. That's right, Andy Reid. Now before you accuse me of flying off the handle at the 2003 NFL Coach of the Year, let me explain:

Andy Reid is a great guy. He has experience and knows a hell of a lot about football. He, in many ways, was the savior of the team. He took them and molded them in to the 2004 team that they were. He brought the West Coast offense to Philly and let Jim Johnson create a feared defense. So why should we get rid of him?

Because Andy Reid also has some major flaws...some of which have been present all along and some of which have just developed. Among the ones that have just developed include his apparent lack of faith in his own ability to call offensive plays. Some call it brilliant delegation, but I disagree. He made the change because he wasn't calling the right plays, not because of some philosophical change relative to how the game should be coached. So, not only have the players lost faith in Reid, so has Reid himself. But, let's put that aside for a moment...because it's the least of the problems.

Andy Reid is not a motivator. He is too reserved personally and doesn't come down hard enough on the team. He doesn't get them emotionally ready for the game. I'm not talking about one or two games...I'm talking game after game for years on end. If the players are "up," then it's because they get themselves that way. The funny thing is that if you listen to Reid, he's come out and admitted as much with his mea culpas at press conferences.

Reid also has presided over some really poor football playing. Missed tackles, dropped balls, poor clock management, poor strategic moves during the game. We're talking about "basic football" things here....mistakes that no college nor high school coach would tolerate. These guys are being paid millions per year....and they have 3 dropped balls or missed tackles a game? Reid should be going ballistic on the sideline. Instead, he stands there and stares and then takes the blame at the press conference. Would that motivate you? Of course not. There's no fire in Reid and that trickles down through the team...from Jim Johnson (who apparently doesn't believe in rushing the QB anymore) to Donovan McNabb. It all comes from the top.

As I said, this has been happening for years. We've seen it in NFC championship games and the Super Bowl, a game the Eagles were capable of winning. We've seen it week after week after week. And yet, we make excuses. We tolerate. We come to games and wear the jerseys and buy $7 Bud Light and pay $200 for tickets to sit in the Eagles new $500 million stadium. We justify the lousy calls and pretend that someone like Jeff Garcia can win football games. We hope that they will become the team we thought they were 2004. But week after week it goes on. The losses pile up, and so does the fan anger. So what now?

Well, it's time to take action. It's time to fire Andy Reid, and by extension, Jim Johnson. They've done some great things for the team, but it's time for them to go. I know I'll be accused of over-reacting, and that's fine. I've felt like this for at least two years, but now I'm saying it. It's time to rebuild the team...not from the bottom up...but the top down. I'll still be a fan, of course. But it's time, and I think we all know it. We need a coach who can take advantage of the talent we have. Of course, we also need a few key players, notably a power running back and now...a new franchise quarterback in case McNabb doesn't recover to 100%. But even without those changes, we need a new coaching staff. I don't know who that is, but I have some ideas. What about a college coach with some fire? We need someone to come to town and say "we have great talent and together, we're going to win the Super Bowl." Just come out and say it....set a goal and do it. God knows it's time Philly won something.

SDW

“We’re Not Cutting and Running! Are We?”


A recent leak from Team Baker (as I call it) and statements made by presumptive Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin indicate that the Democrats are going to call for ….(wait for it, wait for it!!)……. a “phased redeployment” in Iraq to begin in four to six months!

One of the other conclusions that Team Baker will apparently reach is that “the US cannot stabilize Iraq” and we should therefore begin withdrawal as soon as practicable. Of course, the Democrats have been running around screaming “this isn’t cut and run! That’s just Right Wing Demagoguery!” It’s a phased redeployment! We’re going to be pragmatic and deal in reality-based thinking.” Of course, the implication is the GOP and Bush aren’t engaged in reality-based decision making, which is of course patently stupid. According to the Dems, they’re just ideologues with “no plan.”

But wait: If we acknowledge that we can’t win in Iraq and want to begin leaving as soon as possible, isn’t that admitting defeat? Isn’t that actually cutting and running? I don’t really care for the latter term either, but really…semantics aside…isn’t it the same thing?

It seems to me that when the Democrats said this war was like Vietnam, they didn’t know how right they actually were. By allowing and even encouraging the American people to be affected by the terrorists' plan of beating the US politically instead of militarily (sound familiar?), the Democrats made this war like Vietnam! It seems they didn’t know how right they were when they compared it to that bloody war….a war we could have and should have won.

Now let’s back up a moment. For the record, I favor a timeline for withdrawal of say, 18-24 months. So what is the difference between my plan and theirs? Why is my plan not “cut and run” as well?” First, it’s a much longer period of time than 4-6 months. Secondly, it would be done not just in our interests, but in the Iraqis' interests as well. We’d give them time to prepare for our leaving. We’d set benchmarks and goals for our withdrawal, such as the number and readiness levels of the Iraqi police and military. It would have the effect of lighting a fire under the Iraqis to make them realize we can’t help them forever with our military (that’s not in their interests anyway).

Now, 4-6 months is an incredibly short period of time. That means that we could be pulling out in March of 2007 and likely be out of there by December of 2007. That may sound fine if you’re an opponent of the war and/or simply feel it’s time to leave. But consider this: Post WWII, it took from 1945-1949 for the US, British and French zones in Germany to reunite and form one Federal Republic. Four years is longer than we have been in Iraq. Japan was “occupied” with allied troops until at least 1952…an occupation of about 7 years. 7 years is twice as long as we have been in Iraq. What’s the point? Rebuilding a country in the midst of military occupation takes a long time, costs a lot of money and costs a lot of blood. But it can be done, as history clearly shows.

So now, we want to leave as soon as possible? Really? Why don’t the Democrats just come out tell what their plan is: It is to surrender. Cut and Run. Bail Out. It's not only Right Wing rhetoric (though certainly that's part of it). That’s what "phased redeployment" is. The term, as they use it, is practically Orwellian in its dishonesty. It sounds a hell of a lot like “peace without victory” or “accommodation” or “peace with honor” to me, how about you?


It seems to me we have three choices here:

1) Withdraw immediately, like the Dems and some GOPers want.
2) Withdraw on a longer, fixed timetable with specific goals/benchmarks
3) Commit indefinitely to securing the country. That’s right, indefinitely.

I think option #3 is already off the table given the level of antiwar sentiment in this country and in the Democratic party (hell, even in the GOP for that matter). It’s the closest position to Bush’s position, but I don’t think he’s really done or called for what is needed to achieve “victory” without a closed-ended timetable for withdrawal. In other words, his stated goals and policies don’t match with the rhetoric and tactics being used.

But they could match. Assume for a moment that the President went on TV tomorrow night and said the following:

“My fellow Americans: The past few years have been very difficult in Iraq. The war has cost more and been more deadly than we anticipated. That said, I believe I made the right decision to remove Saddam from power. In the post 9/11 era, I felt we had no choice. I chose to err on the side of protecting this nation as I am required to do under the Constitution.

Clearly, we have not found WMD as both I, and most of the world’s intelligence agencies thought we would. We were wrong, and for that I apologize. I want you to know, however, that I used my best judgment, as did our allies. While WMDs were not the only reason we chose to go to war, it was certainly the main reason. Given the lack of WMD in Iraq, I understand the American’s people’s frustration that we are still there, fighting an insurgency.

However, the fact of the matter is we chose to invade and we’re there now. . We cannot go back in time and see through 20/20 hindsight that there were no WMDs and that the insurgency would become this entrenched. Even though the brave men and women of the US military are fighting the terrorists on their soil instead of ours, we must also stabilize Iraq before we withdraw. We removed a brutal dictator from power, but we must now finish the job. To do any less would be to break our word as American and citizens of this planet. That will not happen on my watch. The United States of America WILL keep its word.

In that spirit, I have a message that must be heard clearly throughout the world, particularly in the Arab world: To all the terrorists and enemies of freedom and stability in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, I say this: We will pay any price. We will make any sacrifice. We will remain as long as needed and we will send as many troops as are required. We will do whatever it takes to defeat you. We will win and you will lose. I therefore say to you: Lay down your arms and take part in your country’s new and bright democratic future, or face your own destruction. This is the choice you face. If you choose to continue to oppose freedom; if you choose to murder not just American and Iraqi troops but civilians of all religions and backgrounds; if you choose to continue this violent and destructive course of action, then we will do what the United States of America does to terrorists and murderous, maniacal dictators alike: We will destroy you. Of that you can be assured.

As my first act under this new doctrine of Victory in Iraq, I am announcing the following policy: For every US soldier that is killed by enemy fire,, we will send 10 more soldiers to Iraq. If you kill 100 Americans, we will send 1,000 more troops. If you kill 1,000, we will send 10,000 more. We will continue this policy until you throw down your arms and choose a peaceful co-existence. We will simply not rest until Iraq is stable and at peace with its neighbors. This is my mission; it is our mission; and it will be completed.

To demonstrate that I am committed to this policy, and since approximately 3,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq to date, I am hereby ordering 30,000 additional troops to be deployed for the purpose of securing and stabilizing the country. Godspeed to those brave soldiers and of course, to their families. We are counting on you to defend freedom.

God Bless the United States of America and our new ally Iraq. May you someday be a strong, vibrant nation that celebrates its victory over not just tyranny, but terror, intolerance and hatred. Thank you for listening, and good evening.”


Now, how would that be for “A New Direction in Iraq?”

Yeah……I know it won’t happen either. That frankly scares the you-know-what out of me. Our enemy this time isn't fighting for the land of South Vietnam. This enemy wants to end Western Civilization as we know it. They want Iraq, but they want much, much more. And what are we going to do about it? We're going to cave like the paper tiger, that's what we'll do. We're becoming exactly what Osama bin Laden said we were after he witnessed the Blackhawk Down incident. And why? Because we've taken 3,000 casualties. I guess that is what the modern Democratic party and liberal, bleeding heart Mainstream Media have done to us. If we had this attitude during WWII, we'd all be speaking German right about now.

Of course, no one is talking about the fact that the enemy we face now might just be more dangerous than Hitler, Tojo or Mussolini. At least those madmen wanted to take over the world, not destroy it in pursuit of Allah's return.

SDW

Well it’s over. Finally. The Democrats have taken control of not just the House, but the Senate too. They have finally won an election, something they really haven’t done since 1996 with the re-election of Bill Clinton.

The commentary started immediately, of course. “The Democrats are back! Here come the Democrats! Democrats are ready to lead! Voters turn on Bush!” and so forth were all popular themes. On election night, ABC News actually declared the election was a “revolution” as they captioned a picture with that word….a CGI image of the Capital Dome covered with what looked like translucent blue paint, dripping off the dome as if it had been “slimed” with liquefied glorious liberal ideas, all blended and then dumped all over the Capital by none other than the American people themselves.

But this line of thought is not only wrong, it’s dangerous to the Democrats’ future, and to national security as well. What happened on Tuesday was not a “liberal wave,” but the rejection of Republican policies and inaction coupled with anger over the Iraq war. In order of importance, the factors in this election were 1) Iraq, 2) Republican inaction on immigration, 3) Republican scandals (DeLay, Foley, et al), 4) Republican spending on pork projects, and 5) More conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats running for office (examples, Webb in VA, Tester in Montana, Casey in PA).

Liberals should certainly celebrate, as their party won. The Democrats still have their power base in the hard left wing of their party. However, they did run more “Blue Dogs” than they have before. And, voters were certainly angry with Republican governance.

Notice, however, that I didn’t say conservative governance. While some Democrats want to spin this victory as the country moving more to the left (or, in their terms, the center…away from the so-called right wing), it’s not so. Conservatism wasn’t rejected. Voters turned on liberal Republican policies. They turned on corruption and spending and to an extent, the war. They voted for fiscally conservative, gun-toting Democrats in most of the country, with some exceptions. They certainly expressed their utter outrage at Republican failure to deal with immigration, the yet-to-be-funded border fence aside.

I’m not taking anything away from the Democrats. But the fact of the matter is voters did what they seldom do: They chose the party with no plan over the party with a clear plan. It’s usually quite the opposite. Generally, voters will support the party with a clear agenda whether or not they agree with all the party’s positions. This was evident in 2004 with the reelection President Bush, who was in the middle of a war growing in unpopularity. However, John Kerry presented no real alternative. His pandering and “flip flopping” cost him the election, even against a “stupid and incompetent, miserable failure” of a President who “stole the election” in 2000 and whose approval rating was in the mid to high forties on election day.

Tuesday was different. The public had enough, and put the Dems in office. What then, is the danger to the Dems and to our national security? First, the Democrats must now govern and push through their agenda even though they really didn’t campaign on one. They unquestionably didn’t propose anything new for Iraq, as there’s widespread disagreement within the party as to what should happen with that issue. They danced around the issue of taxes, refusing to say whether they would raise them or not. Some Dems want to raise taxes on “the rich” (whatever that means) and some want to repeal the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 entirely because they only “benefit the rich” (patently false if you make as much as I do as a middle class person). Some want to support the President’s immigration plan. That may, in fact, be the issue on which the President and Democratic leadership share the most common ground. Interestingly enough, the hard left of the party leadership can’t even agree on impeaching Bush. They’ve now said they won’t do so. I guess all those TV ads implying Bush was a warmongering, lying criminally incompetent fool were just for effect!

The bottom line is this: The country has not moved to the left. Not at all. It simply turned on ineffective leadership, leadership that was not conservative. This is still a right-of-center country on the whole. The Democrats need to realize that, lest they face the possibility of losing many future elections. The American people want what they want. Republicans found that out the hard way. Moreover, if the Dems cannot agree on real changes to national security policy or even, support for the President’s efforts in this important area, they may end up being view as obstructionists once again, as they were for 6 years. This would be disastrous and dangerous at this critical time in the War on Terror. If they have a plan for Iraq, now is the time to present it. Otherwise, they need to get on the bus with the President and realize that he’s in the driver’s seat for two more years. I have high hopes that either they’ll present alternatives or get behind the President, or both. But their lack of message during the campaign concerns me. Let’s hope I’m wrong…let’s hope they will change.

As a final point, I’d like to share the following observation, admittedly a very partisan one. On election night we heard a lot from Republicans and Democrats about the people having spoken. We heard about how “tough” and “stubborn” and “wise” the electorate was. We heard about them “sending a clear message” and “knowing what is best for the country.” We heard a lot of “respecting their will” and “listening to their mandate.”

Isn’t that interesting? Republicans lost and still said these things. Prime examples such as Rick Santorum and George Allen stand out, both of whom gave concessions speeches that were not just gracious, they were positively magnanimous. But for years, elitist liberal Democrats privately and sometimes publicly condescended the American people. They were “naïve” about the war and were stupid enough to be lied to by the Evil Bush Administration. They looked down on NASCAR Dads and Soccer Moms and couldn’t---for the life them---understand how over 60 million people voted for George W. Bush. After all, one poll showed that two-thirds of the country thought Saddam was involved in 9/11 (sort of, until you realize it was a push poll). “Man, people are stupid! Why else would people have voted Republican!?” If it just wasn’t for those damn bible-thumping, SUV-driving, wrestling and football- watching, meat-eating rural MORONS, we’d be in good shape. It’s not that our party is utterly out of touch with the mainstream---it’s that the American people are just not sophisticated enough. It’s THEM!

Funny how those same “fools” now have more wisdom than the great Greek philosophers, isn’t it? ;) Hint to Democrats: They’ve always been smart. They decided to give you a chance because the Republicans weren’t doing their jobs as they said they would. The GOP got away from its conservative principles. Americans saw you ran some more centrist candidates and decided to give it a whirl, so to speak.

But if you blow this chance…if you think this is some kind of liberal governance mandate? Well…the American people are going slap you down faster than John Kerry can “botch a joke.” Mark my words.

SDW