"He was not a brilliant strategist or tactician, not a gifted orator, not an intellectual. At several crucial moments he had shown marked indecisiveness. He had made serious mistakes in judgment. [...] But above all, [he] never forgot what was at stake and never gave up. Again and again, [...] he had called for perseverance - for patience and perseverance, for unremitting courage and perseverance."

- David McCullough, 1776

No, I'm not going to tell you that the current GW Bush is, or will be, as heroic as the first GW - although it's not quite as silly as equating insurgents and patriots. But, I think there are some interesting parallels.

George Washington is undoubtedly the pre-eminent hero in our history. Yet, he was not an intellectual - imagine that. Rather, his most important attributes were understanding the stakes - seeing things in "black and white" one might say - and perseverance. He saw the goal and he was not going to be deterred. 1776 was a horrible year of setback after setback, mistake after mistake, but he understood the consequences of failure and would not accept it.

Further, mistakes were made. War is not a series of steps executed to a static plan. The battle field changes everything and mistakes are always made. But mistakes are a part of war and must be overcome rather than debated on news programs ad nauseum. In fact, during 1776, there was disquiet among some in congress as well as in the army due to the continual setbacks under Washington's command. While one could support changing generals under certain circumstances, you might ask yourself first if someone could have done it better rather than using hindsight and arm chair quarterbacking to criticize devoid of accountability. In fact, perhaps to the detriment of the British, they changed their top General at least 3 times during the war and only succeeded in losing.

I will say again that I was lukewarm on the U.S. starting the Iraq war, but once it started, we put everything at stake. To lose now - by pulling out troops prematurely or letting the insurgents overrun the elected government - would be a disaster. A disaster for the Iraqi people who would suffer even more. A disaster for U.S. standing in the world - viewed as quitters and not being able to get the job done. A disaster for the safety of all democratic peoples as terrorists are validated and freed to plan and execute attacks. We MUST finish what we started with nothing less than a complete success if it takes another year or another 10 years. Period.

Okay, couple of things that I'm sick of hearing on the right.

1) Playing both sides of the polls. If the polls are against you, they praise his "leadership" and not following the polls. But when the polls favor anti-gay marriage legislation they fault legislators for not doing the "will of the people." So, what's cool is, either way we WIN! Yahoo. But of course, that's just dumb. And for the record, polls are mostly useless anyway.

2) Post 9/11 Security. On the one hand, Republicans praise Bush because there haven't been any attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. On the other hand, I've heard criticism of the TSA. But by Republican standards, the TSA should be lauded based on "no terrorist attacks." Frankly, I think that Bush's strategy has made it harder, although not impossible, for terrorists to strike. I think a bigger reason might be that the terrorists don't want to piddle with any attacks that are less than "shock and awe" and those are obviously much harder to pull off while in the meantime I don't understand why they haven't even tried - that we know of - any smaller attacks just to raise fears.

Anyway, this is criticize the Republicans night and those are my two thoughts for the day. Enjoy!

As I continue to read 1776, I can't help but to think a little about the comparison Michael Moore made equating Iraqi insurgents of today to the Minutemen of 1776. I've never really thought it made any real sense, but there are at least superficial parallels which make it plausible I suppose.

After some deliberation though, you don't have to go very deep to realize that it is totally different. First, what is the purpose of the insurgents versus the colonists? The insurgents have not in any way made clear their purpose or goal other than the fact that they hate Americans, hate democracy and freedom and love to torture and brutally murder soldiers as well as innocent civilians alike. They have no manifesto describing their aims - although we may assume they desire to impose repressive Sharia law on everyone. They have no group of leaders like the Continental Congress discussing the "cause" as elected representatives of the people. The colonists on the other hand, are clear in their aim to claim independence from the king - an unelected dictator, and provide a representative government of the people and by the people.

Second, the war that they are waging is entirely different. Well, that said, the colonists didn't have much of a uniform - but not by design, rather due to circumstances. While war was certainly as barbaric or more so in 1776 than today, their was still some level of honor that both sides tried to maintain. There were brutalities on both sides, although mostly from the Hessians - hired mercenaries - on the British side, but all were derided by the officers and Generals as dishonorable. There were no anonymous messages sent about killing innocents and stories of torture. There were no beheadings - ok, I lied, I believe I read that a Hessian soldier did sever a colonists head and placed it on a pole, but that was not the colonists. Atrocities, in general, were not the focus or objective of the war as it is for the insurgents, but rather they were the unspoken byproduct of the ugliness of war.

Third, the army was an official army created and supported by the State - an elected group, albeit not with the permission of the British. The Iraqis have elected their own government, upon their own volition. They did not have to vote, but did by the millions. They elected the group of people that they want to represent them. No one selected the insurgents but themselves. The elected government is openly opposed to them. They have no standing whatsoever with the Iraqi people, even if some percentage of them support their activities. When given the choice, the majority of Iraqi people sided with non-violent political parties rather than succumb to the insurgents.

The insurgents are in fact NOTHING like the patriots of 1776 and of that we can be sure.

And for those that think a 3 year insurgency is never-ending, consider that the Revolutionary War which began in 1775 and while it looked certain the colonists were on the verge of losing in the Fall and Winter of 1776, it actually ended victoriously in 1783 - eight years! Meanwhile, the insurgency has not won one single battle, but rather claim victories upon generating casualties alone - a win of no sort except in the MSM.

They get no respect!

I know I post often about media bias. It really gets me stirred up when I read something where the leftist bias shows through. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm always right and it doesn't mean there isn't any bias from the right, but by and large, mainstream newspapers fueled heavily by AP reports seem to be mostly left leaning.

Today, I saw a brief article that, to me, once again demonstrates a double standard that gets my goat: "11 Football Players Involved in Rape of 11 Year Old Girl"

So, why is this an issue? I suppose it seems innocuous to use Football players as a group or SUVs. Big Deal, right? But I think it is a standard that the media seems to try to villianize certain things. Why would you indicate that they are football players, often considered violent and "dumb-jocks", instead of indicating that they are all black or all white or all Christian or all students or all under 20 years of age, etc. etc. Were they playing football at the time of the rape? Were they all wearing their football gear at the time? Were they on the football field? I'm guessing no to all of the above - it's not even football season and I doubt early season practice has begun. So why is the fact that most, maybe all, of these guys play football relevant? Are we to "beware" of groups of football players?

It reminds me of many articles that I've seen that are headlined similar to this: "SUV kills 2 injures 4 more". The article then goes on to say that the driver ran them over or ran off the highway, but in no way indicates how the involvement of an SUV made any difference. Have you ever seen a headline that started "Mini-van kills 2" or "Hybrid kills 2 children"?

Here is a link to the story about the rape. You will notice that the title no longer contains the phrase "Football Players". I have searched up and down the internet and cannot find any links to the original title. I take this as further evidence that others complained about the title - either that, or I am losing my mind, take your pick.

I'm not suggesting that I am offended by the use of the phrase "Football Players". If that is relevant in some way, by all means shout it out loud, but the story in no way supports how it matters so why is it even mentioned? I  suspect that it could be the media desire to make a story bigger than it is. First, Duke Lacrosse team. Now a Football team. College athletes are all rapists. Whatever.

BTW, the story is disgusting and the perps should all be shot if guilty - the girl is just 11 years old for God's sake.

The Founding Fathers are often cited to support one side or the other of current political wranglings. Brief quotes (sound bites) of Madison, Monroe, Jefferson and others are frequently selected to show what our "Founders would have wanted."

In some sense I suppose, it makes sense to try to consider what the founders would have thought of current political issues, but frankly most issues today pale in comparison to the overarching themes of their day. Further, while the founding fathers may have been on similar footing in 1776, by 1800 and the contested election between Jefferson and Adams, the divide was greater than it is today in many ways. I suspect that there would be no consensus among them on today's issues either.

Regardless, it is both interesting and illuminating to learn about our history during that era. I am currently reading David McCullough's 1776. I had previously read his book John Adams, as well as other books about Washington and Jefferson (being a University of Virginia grad, Jefferson is of immense interest). While most Americans learn this history through the cliff notes version of various events (e.g. Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, Paul Revere, Declaration of Independence, etc.), the details behind the sound bites paint a much more controversial picture.

Specifically, there is no consensus among delegates at the Continental Congress about waging war with Britain and the thought of independence at this point is not widely held at all. Further, the citizens are not generally excited about the war. For example, 2/3 to 3/4 of New York was fiercely loyal to King George III and Boston was split between loyalists [to the king] and colonists. It's probably fair to assume that the rebellion that King George III sought to put down was led by a small minority of people made up of a few intellectuals and more "rabble" made up of farmers and other laborers, some skilled some not - and BTW almost exclusively in the North East. Most were, quite frankly, content to live out there lives in what was considered at the time to be one of the most liberal and free of societies.

While reading 1776 which considers how both sides moved towards war, I found it difficult to decide how I might have reacted, how those that are liberals and conservatives might have reacted. I think most are predisposed to live our lives on this earth in relative peace without rocking the boat. While those in Iraq before the invasion may have desired more freedom, they were not pre-disposed to risk their lives for the sake of only the chance that future generations might find a better society.

I was also forced to consider what life might be like today had the British defeated the continental army. Would Great Britain still live under a powerful monarchy? Would the United States even exist or would it be a mish mash of territories belonging to other countries? Some say that independence would have followed without war, but I am inclined to think not. One could argue that Canada gained sovereignty without war as did Mexico (note: I have no knowledge of what Canada and Mexico did to gain independence from France and Spain, I am just not aware of any conflict that precipitated it), but are those the direct result of American independence? Many say that the French Revolution was a direct result of the success of the American Revolution. In the end, I believe that while actions may be misguided and may fail, doing something is preferable to idly sitting by to witness the whims of those who will otherwise consolidate and grow their power for their own ends.

Finally, I'll take one shot at a liberals on a slightly different note. Some liberals wish to equate terrorists with our minutemen. Some like to suggest that our country's history is not at all honorable: slavery, treatment of Indians, etc. I submit that there are "dark" portions of time in our history, but from a big picture perspective, the U.S. did more to shape the world for the positive in our 230 year history than any other. I'm reminded of my friend that often criticizes the U.S. (he's from Canada), but when I ask him what country is a better example he has none.