Washington Democrats view [the Iraq war] as a political opportunity; Republicans view it as a political burden...It should be neither.

- John McCain, April 12, 2007

There really is only one moral justification for supporting the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and only one moral justification for supporting the recent surge in troop activity. Rest assured that our politicians understand the arguments on both sides. Unfortunately, both parties have failed to make their cases in a clear cut manner, and consequently failed their duty to both the troops and the American public.

Exiting from Iraq because "Bush lied, people died" or because "the war is lost" is not a serious argument for withdrawal any longer. Both assertions ignore the reality in Iraq today. While it is true that the current administration vastly underestimated the insurgency, and failed to plan for an occupation with adequate force, it has been shown time and time again that George Bush did not lie us into this war. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid know this to be true. If leaders of the majority truly feel that the President of the United States lied to start a war in Iraq, it is their obligation to begin proceedings calling for is impeachment. But they don't, because they understand that the President believed what everyone else believed- from Bill Clinton and John Kerry to George Tennant and Colin Powell - that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the U.S.A.

Nor have we lost the war, as Senator Reid suggests. We won the war- Saddam was overthrown and his weapon-making capability was destroyed with him. We may be losing the occupation, the struggle against the insurgency, but we won the war we set out to fight.

The war in Iraq is a much different struggle than anyone expected. The overthrowing and execution of Saddam left a void that thousands of militant Muslims want to fill. They now see Iraq as the central front in the war against America and the West. We can't change or deny that fact. It should not matter how we got to this point. What matters most is how we will deal with this new threat. Yes, George Bush created this mess. But it is a mess that we must take care of, one way or the other.

The only moral justification for supporting a troop withdrawal at this point in the war, is because you believe that doing so will force the fragile, scattered Iraqi government to stand on its own and be responsible for its own country. If you truly feel that the Iraqi government is ready to stand on its own and defend its citizens, and you are willing to take your share of the responsibility should the country descend into a chaotic bloodbath, then you have a moral cause for supporting the current withdrawal proposed by congress. Such an accomplishment would mean a victory for the U.S. in Iraq and against al-Qaeda.

But why do the Democrats continually neglect to explain the reasoning for the proposed withdrawal? Instead of describing what will happen upon our departure, both leaders of the Senate and the House continue to insist that the voters gave them a mandate to end this war. That is not an explanation worthy of a leader. Exiting Iraq because the people who voted for you want it, regardless of consequences, is purely a political move. If Nancy Pelosi truly believed in her mandate, she would be championing all the other issues that Americans overwhelmingly support, such as a ban on partial birth abortion, defining marriage as a strictly heterosexual union, and stemming the tide of illegal aliens into our country. By placing the onus of this withdrawal on the voters, Reid and Pelosi are creating a cover for themselves. If all hell breaks loose, as many have predicted, they can simply say "the voters wanted it! We fulfilled our obligation."

Clearly, Americans want a new course in Iraq. I have to assume that the course they would chose, overwhelmingly, is victory. Victory at this point could also be achieved if U.S. forces were able to stem the violence long enough for the Iraqi government to become a stable cohesive entity, and could take over all aspects of governing the country, including defending itself against its enemies. That is the only moral justification for supporting the recent "surge".

Yet Republicans continually deflect any explanation as to what the troop surge is supposed to accomplish. Instead, the Bush administration continually warns us of what will happen if we withdraw. They tell us of the bloodshed that will be unleashed. They tell us that Iran and Syria will become emboldened and move into the void we leave behind. They remind us that by leaving Iraq we would show our enemies that we are weak. All of these assertions are valid. But none of them attempt to explain what a victory in Iraq would or should look like.

Our leaders are not moral. Nor do they truly support our troops. Both sides have failed to provide us with a viable strategy based on a realistic goal. They understand the consequences of their actions. George Bush knows that a victory in Iraq is vital to our national security. He also understands that it will cost more American lives, and more American tax dollars. But he won't say it. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both understand that a withdrawal from Iraq may come at a high price. It might cost many thousand Iraq lives and make the region far more unstable than it is now. But they are not compelled to take responsibility when they have the American voters to hide behind.

FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women.

-Fox News Online

The current attempt by the right to emasculate Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards is repulsive and should be stopped immediately. Equally repulsive are his tired excuses and explanations.

I am no fan of John Edwards. He is about as dangerous as a tax-and-spend liberal can be. However, if he expects to be able to have a serious debate about alleviating poverty, his central campaign issue, he needs to grow a spine and prove that he is a worthy contender for the office-- first by defending his wealth and then by explaining to his campaign contributors, to their satisfaction, why he required a $700 day of beauty at the spa.

After 2 full days of continuous news covering the horrible VTU killings on Monday, by Wednesday most news stations started to spend a few minutes each hour reporting on other current events- the war in Iraq, the pending Alberto Gonzales testimony, etc. Most news stations, that is, except for The Fox News Channel. At approx. 5:50, Brit Hume tore himself away from the grisly bloodshed in Virginia to report that John Edwards had been caught spending $400 on haircuts and $300 on hour-long massages at a women's spa called the Pink Sapphire. Additionally, at the end of this "special report" they played a video of Mr. Edwards looking less than presidential, primping his hair while "I Feel Pretty" was dubbed in.

The childish teasing continued on the Fox Radio morning show "Brian and the Judge" with Brian Kilmeade and Chris Wallace joking about how a man could get an hour long massage, and opining as to weather Mr. Edwards preferred a male or female massage professional.

[Full disclosure: For all it's problems, I am a fan of The Fox News Channel and a regular listener to the Fox Radio morning show "Brian and the Judge". I have always respected Chris Wallace and Brian Kilmeade, though I could do with less of Brit Hume. I am shocked and disappointed at their commentary on this point.]

The message behind all of this: John Edwards is effeminate. John Edwards is a hypocrite. John Edwards might even be a little gay. At the heart of it all, however, is a bunch of good ol' boys perpetuating the myth that masculinity is preferred over femininity, and femininity in a male makes him suspect to being homosexual.

If it had been a slow news week, I would probably not have paid much attention. In fact if it had simply diverted my attention from the endless Imus news stream of the previous week, I would have welcomed the diversion. But this nonsense is what Fox News deemed appropriate to air at this particular point in time?

I'm not defending Mr. Edwards. He should explain how his $700 day at the spa fits into his "two Americas" campaign. But instead, we have heard numerous excuses, mostly from the stylist and spa owners. But the kind of "debate" that Fox News engaged in is tantamount to childish school ground name calling.

John Edwards could use this opportunity to show that he is Presidential material. He could, and should say:

"I have lived the American dream. I want that dream to be attainable for everyone. Yes, I am a wealthy man. But a wealthy man can still be a champion for the poor. In fact a wealthy man could do much much more for the economically disadvantaged in our country than a poor man could. And I will continue to fight for the lower class, regardless of the sexist, homophobic, classist attacks from the right.

I don't believe this will gain any kind momentum. To the best of my knowledge, no other major news source has picked this up, although many bloggers are having a field day with it. But Fox attempted for several days to turn this into a story. They seem to have failed. So far. If this is the kind of reporting we can expect from the "Fair and Balanced" news station this early in campaign season, we are in for a nasty 19 months!

"If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor,"

“If the crib's on fire, you don't speculate that the baby is a flame retardant. You take action."

- Al Gore, Testifying before Congress

And if Big Ol' Dr. Al tells you that the planet has a fever, and the only remedy is for the federal government to coerce and extort billions of dollars from U.S. citizens, you better listen! There is not enough time for debate! No time to review or even consider the scientific evidence that refutes Big Al's claims. "Congress must act now!" he said.

Never mind the mounting dissent, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Never mind that ordinary Americans are doing more than any other citizens of any country to combat global warming. Never mind that Big Al's 10 point plan would hurt the U.S. economy and put many Americans at a grave disadvantage [pdf] . You must submit, or face humiliation (like being compared to a holocaust denier!), professional or political retribution, or even death threats.

I have never believed much of the global warming hype. However, I will submit that there is little doubt that the planet is warming, and that the warming might change the way we live. But the weather has been changing for millions of years, with greater temperature shifts than we are worried about now. Despite the rhetoric, 2 facts remain: Man might be responsible for 5% of the "greenhouse gas" C02 (a gas required to sustain life on this planet!). Natural resources (animals, vegetation and volcanic activity) are responsible for the remaining 95%. And man, especially the U.S. alone, will not change the projected temperature variance.

Man has survived the harshest conditions: ice ages, droughts, heat waves, etc. If any of the hype is real, shouldn't we be focusing our energy on learning how to adapt and face the challenge? More importantly, shouldn't all voices be presented in this "debate"? Yes, I know, the debate is over. But not because science and reason has triumphed. The debate is over because the politicians have silenced the dissenters to the best of their abilities.

I do strongly support reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the interest of national security. However, that is a long road that most Americans are unlikely to enjoy. I will address that issue at a later date.

And for those of you who believe that global warming is the threat that that Big Al proposes-- do you really want to turn the fate of this planet over to the federal government? And by government I mean the people who brought you the compromised levees in New Orleans, the fiasco that is Ground-Zero, the crisis at Walter Reid Hospital, and a failure to stem the tide of illegal aliens flowing into this country daily?

I thought not.

Once again, I have found myself in the madding position of having to defend my political viewpoints. Time after time, after time, after time... friends express shock and dismay at my perceived political leanings. "How can you support a party", they ask, referring to the hot-button issue of gay-marriage, "that wants to take away your civil rights?" Please accept this post as my final statement on the matter.

In general, people assume I am a liberal Democrat. I assume they assume so due to the fact that I am a gay man, living in Boston, Massachusetts. In all fairness, I generally keep my opinions to myself and rarely speak up at times when the conversation turns to politics. However, when I do, and it becomes clear that I am not a liberal Democrat, I am often faced with the inevitable comments such as "Now you sound like a Republican!"- meant as an insult. It is usually an attempt to shut me up, because, as a Republican, I clearly can't be taken seriously. I have, in fact, lost friends simply because I expressed a viewpoint in direct contradiction to their own.

I am not a liberal Democrat. I am not a Republican. Strictly speaking I am an independent. I have voted for Democrats and I have voted for Republicans. In most cases, I find myself supporting the candidate who I feel will do the least damage to my personal freedom. In most cases, that is the Republican candidate. I can assure you that my life will not be ruined if I am never granted federal protection for my marriage. I will always fight for equal protection, but I will not allow my true civil liberties to be eroded as a result. (For the record, I don't believe the federal government should be in the business of sanctioning any relationship at the expense of others.)

On the other hand, there are several very real threats to my well being and to those I love: national security, taxation, the welfare state, expansion of the federal government into our personal lives, government corruption, local and state politicians who pass laws that abridge our freedoms, etc. All of these are real problems that have a serious impact on our lives.

And to my liberal friends who ask how I can support a party that would deny me equal protection of my marriage, once again, I ask the same of you:

Defense of Marriage Act- Signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton

Don't Ask, Don't Tell- Signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton

And John Kerry?

"If the Massachusetts legislature crafts and appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it. I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman"

Barack Obama?

"I should say that personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free  --  ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

Mr. Cheney made this statement on national television during a campaign season. Mr. Cheney's statement is the perfect expression of a philosophy that includes everyone and excludes no one. If gay marriage is such an important issue, it looks like a lot of liberals are on the wrong side.