Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 38% (42%) Wrong Track: 50% (44%)
* * * * *
Ipsos-Reid 9/16 - 18
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 37% (39%) Wrong Track: 57% (56%)
* * * * *
Fox News 9/23 - 24
Who should control congress?
Democrats 41% Republicans 36% Neither/Unsure 23%
* * * * *
Democracy Corps 9/14
Who should control congress?
Democrats 47% Republicans 42% Neither 1% (unch) Not sure 11%
Thursday, April 03, 2003
"America - Love it or leave it!": New Slogan of the Free Speech Movement
A member of our ingenius readership offers this excellent idea:
I think "America- Love it or leave it" should become the slogan of the free speech movement. As the freedom to speak one's views is surely one of the most cherished of our individual liberties, is it not clearly those who would attempt to silence the voice of others who are out of place here? There are many countries where people are able to speak out only in support of their government and it's policies, and we should take the offensive in pointing out that those who wish to live in this kind of unilateral environment are the ones who should seriously consider emmigration.
Which is worse, death by terrorism or death by military strikes? Is there a difference? And if there is, does that difference matter? Do you think the families of the victims of either methodology feel any less pain and suffering because of the capabilities of the killer?
Regardless of your answer to these questions, a secondary battle inevitably ensues following any act of international violence. It is a battle for public approval both in times of relative peace and in times of war.
Unfortunately, there is little doubt that war is sometimes necessary in the defense of your family and country. Indeed, I volunteered for the army when the Cold War was still in full swing. Nevertheless, there are circumstances, such as the current, fabricated blood-for-oil invasion, when force cannot be morally considered.
In any event, whichever side you’re on and regardless of the situation or the tactics you employ, it is from that perspective that you and your leaders will rationalize your position to be the only one that is moral and just.
Most people would agree with the foundation premise that no killing is ever justifiable unless it is in defense. Thus anyone who kills from a position of offense is guilty of crimes against humanity. From here, many question how the opposition could possibly find any moral justification for their acts.
Of course each side views any given situation from startlingly different places. To illustrate the impact of such perspective differences, we can ask two questions:
Question 1: Would you ever resort to terrorist tactics to get your way?
Answer 1: Of course not.
Well that seemed simple enough. Didn't it? Now try this one...
Question 2: How about this. Suppose you were in a position where your country had virtually no military presence and you, in your perception, were being invaded, occupied or otherwise attacked by another sovereignty. Would you be willing to resort to any means necessary to protect your family and your country?
Answer 2: Here the answer is a probably a little different, right? You better believe I would do anything to protect my family and my country and so would any other true American.
And then, after you were done protecting your family and country to the best of your ability, the opposition would demonize you as a "terrorist".
Detestable and unfair given that these particular acts were in your defense, but that’s the way it goes.
Even when offensive, the tactics of terrorism are no more despicable than any other act of warfare. The bottom line is that, when not executed in the act of defense, killing is killing.
The events of 9-11 were acts of offense, disgusting and unconscionable. Iraqis using car bombs on coalition forces are acts of defense against an invading army – sad, regrettable and unsurprising. When you are attacked, you fight back the only way you can.
In fact, with its vast military power, it is always in the best interest of the West to demonize “terrorist” acts regardless of the motivation behind them. Western governments proudly announce that they would certainly never stoop to such disgraceful, underhanded tactics. Of course they wouldn’t. Why would they sneak someone into a target with ten pounds of plastique strapped to them when they can lob a half dozen two-ton missiles from 300 miles away? Duh!
In the end, there are those who kill with vast military power and there are terrorists. Those with the vast military power also typically have vast wealth which they use to publicize the despicable nature of the terrorists, as though killing people with terrorist tactics is somehow worse than killing people with bombs. Note that over the years hundreds of thousands more civilians have been killed with military might than through acts of terrorism. Anyone ever heard of Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Military planners know this truth and, as a result have come up with a term to minimize and dehumanize the impact of civilian casualties. That’s right. They deem “Collateral Damage” a necessary cost of war, implying that as long as it occurs with cruise missiles rather than strapped on plastique, it’s a-okay.
It’s not.
A final note: To those of you who will inevitably suggest that this analysis is somehow a defense of terrorism, or any other offensive killing tactic, I can only say that you could not be more wrong. This analysis is about public perception and propaganda. To suggest anything further would be to project your own set of beliefs onto a situation, and that is a struggle you alone will have to endure.
0430 GMT - A US F/A-18 Hornet warplane crashes over southern Iraq, reportedly having been shot down by a missile. It's not yet known what happened to the pilot.
0205 GMT - Seven US soldiers are killed when a US Black Hawk helicopter is shot down by small arms fire near Karbala, reports say. Four others on board are injured.
Combat Report - April 2, 2003 (Second half of day)
1919 GMT - US marines have set up camp across most of the southern city of Nasiriya, says a BBC journalist. Local people have welcomed them but are still afraid of Saddam and don't like what war has done to the city.
1900 GMT - Iraqi satellite TV shows Saddam Hussein having a meeting, looking relaxed and smiling. There is no sound and it is not clear when the pictures were recorded.
1706 GMT - The US military says some of its units are now less than 32 kilometres (20 miles) from Baghdad, says a BBC journalist.
1600 GMT - The chief operations officer for the US marines in Nasiriya, says civilian casualties in the city were because Iraqi forces ignored the rules of war.
1400 GMT - US forces report B-52 bombers have used a new version of a cluster bomb against Iraqi tanks; it copes with the weather to hit targets more accurately.
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')