Scott Mcclellan's Book "What Happened" . . . To Content

I admit that I haven't read McClellan's book, not while I'm in the middle of a Harry Dresden file. I should probably also admit that I don't intend to pick up a copy even after I've finished Butcher's fourth wacky wizard romp. What Happened just doesn't seem that interesting to me. Oh, I know that Keith Olberman has soiled himself talking about the novel . . . I mean, "book," but Olberman has been soiling himself for years over contrivances (which is probably why he forgets to pay all those silly taxes). For me, I just haven't seen a take on the book that has given me any motivation to pick up a copy. In fact, I think Dick Morris' blog says it all:

[T]he fact is that McClellan’s book doesn’t have anything in it. It is not really derogatory and makes no important new revelations. It says Bush was negligent on Katrina. So that’s news? That he used “propaganda” to convince us to invade Iraq - well, what was the Gettysburg address but propaganda to encourage us in wartime. That’s what a president is supposed to do. And it says that Karl Rove and Libby conspired to conform their testimony in the Valerie Plane affair. Who cares? This is a scandal that shouldn’t ever have happened. The special prosecutor revealed that no crime was committed when her name was leaked because the guy who leaked it didn’t know she was handling covert material. And the guy who was convicted — Libby — wasn’t the guy who leaked it. So what difference does it make.

As Morris pointed out during an appearance on FOX, this is only news because left-wing media types are looking to influence the upcoming election. Fortunately, that left-wing media charge is being led by the Olbermann's of the world so pardon my lack of concern.

Of course, not everything about this book has bored me to apathy. I certainly did appreciate that it inspired Bob Dole to write an e-mail to Mcclellan, one that I happily set aside Summer Knight long enough to read. Lord, but I love cranky old guys.

Scott,

There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

In my nearly 36 years of public service I’ve known of a few like you. No doubt you will “clean up” as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, “Biting The Hand That Fed Me.” Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years.

I have no intention of reading your “exposé” because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You’re a hot ticket now but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

BOB DOLE

Back From Vacation

Our trips back to my old home town of Orlando are fun but I'm always thankful to make it home, leaving behind daily restaurant meals, ill-timed traffic lights and that ever-present mouse.

Now, I'm not one to share vacation photos or tales from the road, but there was one episode that struck me to the point of sharing . . . and it's not the guy at Epcot sporting a "World's Greatest Dad" t-shirt who hopped on the tram leaving his beloved family behind. No, it is actually a story from the plane ride home.

I sat next to a young couple who were smiling at my "mildly" out-of-control toddler leading me to make some comment about their new-found desire to have kids. They told me that they did have children, four in fact, all young and equally insane. As we got to know one another I learned that they would soon be moving to a military base in Germany. You see, the man had just finished a 15-month tour in Iraq, his second there, and they had just taken a vacation for the two of them before their 3-year reassignment . . . well, 3 years unless he is called back to Iraq.

He fought in Baghdad. It was tough, but he excitedly told me about the progress they'd made. They had reduce attacks on the troops as well as Iraqi-on-Iraqi crime by several hundred percent while at the same time helping to open schools and libraries for the people. "General Petraeus's strategy is working," he explained, and I could see that it was his heart talking. And I couldn't help thinking that we could win this thing because of the type of soldiers our volunteer military produces. The best of the best.

Before we said our goodbyes I told the couple that our kids pray for the soldiers nearly every night. And not just the soldiers, but for their families who share in the sacrifice. I promised to add them to our list.

So, Matthew and Heidi, if you happen to stumble across this blog, know that we are praying for you. We are praying for you and for all of those who risk their lives with an honor and dignity beyond expectation. Be safe. Feel peace. God bless.

I'm heading out for vacation

Ahh, for the next week I'll be off on a pleasant trip to spend time with my family and I promised myself: no politics, no salads and no stress. Since I'll be with my family I guess two out of three ain't bad.

So I'm taking some time off from the Khaki Elephant. I'll be back by month's end, so until then . . .

John McCain On SNL

Just when you decided that infomercials and art auctions were the only things worth watching on Saturday night, SNL becomes relevant again. Oh, we're not talking Belushi in a bumblebee suit relevant, but Saturday Night Live is suddenly worth watching. Their political satire has been irreverent, on point and best of all . . . funny.

And without a doubt John McCain is the funniest torture-surviving Vietnam POW they have ever had on stage.

USA Today's Coverage Of "Gay Couple" Ruling

I'm really disappointed in USA Today's coverage of the California Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. I'm not a regular reader, but I do get the complimentary hotel copies when traveling and spend a little time looking at its colorful pictures while scarfing down a lacquered continental breakfast bagel. And I usual pick one story to read.

The one story that I actually read declared in the headline: Gay couples "ecstatic" over ruling. Since I support gay marriage you may be wondering why that story left me disappointed. Well, I just feel it came up a little short. I mean, after describing San Francisco resident Lauren Patton's friends walking "up to hug her in victory as she parked her bicycle in front of a Starbucks coffee shop" and then painting the image of "raised celebratory glasses of iced coffee" I thought for sure the author, Janet Kornblum, could have worked in a few more powerful homosexual stereotypes into the column. I read the thing several times and never saw a single mention of Xena, Barbara Streisand or the WNBA. It just left me feeling unfulfilled. Come on, Janet, nobody took to the streets to belt out a show tune?

Hillary Dominates The Kentucky Vote

I've spent years scrubbing myself scabby in disinfecting showers after the mere mention of the name "Clinton," so why do I find myself almost admiring Hillary's tenacious scrap in a fight she's already lost? Sure, she's not mathematically eliminated, but I need to stick with my previous declaration of her defeat rather than remote possibilities from mathematicians who have given us things like: If X^2 + Y^2 = 15, and X * Y = 5, what is X + Y? I mean, really. The fact is that Obama has already won the nomination unless some lethal skeleton clatters from his closet or he does something absolutely stupid, and what are the odds of that happening?

My almost admiration for Hillary surely doesn't come from her policy plans, which are just about as stable as my brother's bowels after a Texas chili contest. No, without a doubt it stems from her street-fighting mentality. I love a fighter and she kicks, bites, screams and just won't stop. And after her ego-pumping Kentucky victory, why should she?

“Tonight we’ve achieved an important victory,” Clinton told an enthusiastic crowd at her victory rally in Louisville, Ky. “It’s not just Kentucky bluegrass that’s music to my ears, it’s the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence, even in the face of some pretty tough odds.”

Ack. Oof. Just threw up in my mouth. Anyway, you can't blame her for the Sally Fields display of enthusiasm, she didn't just beat Obama in the state, she destroyed him by a 2-1 margin.

“We’re back. We continue to raise money, we continue to win states. This thing goes on. I don’t know why people are saying this is over,” Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told FOX News.

I've never worn a deerstalker hat, but I suspect that some people are saying this is over because it would require the Super talented Delegates of the Democratic Party to overturn the popular vote for Clinton to get the nomination. But forget about that for today. Let's live in the now. Bask in the moment. Once again the Clinton machine has thrust forward toward a climactic finally, and this time they didn't even use a cigar.

Another Geography Lesson From Barack Obama

Perhaps the Senator finally understands that there are only 50 U.S. States. Now he just needs to figure out where they are. In discussing his difficulties campaigning in Kentucky, the Senator explained:

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Barack Obama a senator from Illinois? And doesn't Illinois actually share a border with Kentucky? So, then, isn't Obama's home state closer than Arkansas?

Oh, wait, here's a map:

Low Production On The Khaki Elephant

Just a word of explanation that posts will be hit and miss for the next couple of weeks. Between coaching baseball, traveling for work, anti-obamamania seizures and a family vacation next week, I've had and will have very little blogging time. Things should be back to normal by month's end . . . assuming I get these seizures under control.

Homosexuals, Republicans And The Holy Ghost

The California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision that their state constitution allows for gay marriage is sure to make homosexuality a flaming hot issue for the upcoming election season. Given that fact, I suppose I'll throw out my thoughts concerning same-sex marriage while things are heating up. I happen to fully support gay marriage, primarily because I think the arguments against it are prissy, unRepublican nonsense. Here's a few of them to give you a taste of what I mean.

Argument #1: Homosexuality is unnatural
Anybody who has seen two male dogs going at it on the front lawn or has had to pry Buttons off their quaking leg should see the flaw in this argument. When Buttons wants to get his groove on virtually anything will do to satisfy that loving feeling. The same is true of most other critters.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that animals and humans are the same (at least in this case). What I am saying is that one cannot by definition call something "unnatural" when it happens frequently in nature. Yes, God intended heterosexual sex when he commanded his creation to be fruitful and multiply, which I suspect is the only command we have faithfully followed. However, God also created a world where homosexual activity spans the species and is commonly found in nature.

Argument #2: Homosexuality is a sin
Yes, the Bible condemns homosexuality . . . with all the vigor that it condemns women who don't cover their heads in church. The fact is that the Bible hardly mentions homosexuality; the best I can tell is that it's only in there around 6 or 7 times. Compare that to how many times the Good Book condemns gluttony and you may be wondering why so many churches aren't expelling their voluminous preachers for the sin of too many trips to Crispy Creme.

Even when the Bible mentions homosexuality the circumstances tend to cloud the interpretation. For example, homosexuality is condemned in Levitical Law, but I don't know many Christians or Jews who follow all of the precepts there (unless "stoning" doesn't mean what they told me in Sunday School). Then, there is the Sodom story of "sodomy" fame, but if you read that tale closely you'll find it a story about rape. Homosexual rape, but rape just the same which God condemns regardless of sexual orientation. And in the New Testament you'll catch some references to homosexuality in the historical context of temple prostitution, a big no-no to the likes of St. Paul so no wonder he was a bit cranky on the subject.

What is especially striking to me about the Bible's take on homosexuality is that the Old Testament prophets, who were obsessive killjoys when it came to morality, never mentioned it. Perhaps more telling is that Jesus Christ himself didn't have anything to say on the topic. Now, if Jesus was (is), as I believe, the divine incarnation of God then he would have foreseen the social and spiritual turmoil that the homosexuality debate was going to cause in the twenty-first century. So if gays really bothered him, don't you think he might have mentioned it?

Argument #3: Homosexuality is destroying the family
Forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding how heterosexuals with a divorce rate topping 50% can claim that gays are destroying the family unit. What exactly is it about two people in love who happen to be of the same gender that is ripping the moral fabric of the country? Abusive husbands, sexual predators, incestuous pedophiles, selfish spouses . . . they are destroying the family, not people in love.

Argument #4: We need to stand firm against moral relativism
I certainly agree that true morality is not relative. However, as you can tell from what I've already written, I don't think this is an issue of morality. It is about gay relationships that can be every bit as loving or destructive as their straight counterparts. It is not about unnatural abominations, destruction of the family unit or an unpardonable sin. Since that is the case, we need to be more "Republican" about the matter and diminish the role of government in deciding whether or not gays can be married. Besides, to paraphrase Woody Allen, it would immediately double the chance of every American finding a soul mate in his or her or hiser's pursuit of happiness.

Political Bumper Stickers For My Car

I generally avoid putting bumper stickers on my car since I have an aversion to buying thoughts from a Walmart end cap then pasting it to my bumper to demonstrate how clever I am. However, this election is so important that I may stray from my long-held practice. I'm thinking about slapping a message to my bumper, but am so out of practice that I can't decide which one to use. Here are my initial candidates . . . Any thoughts?

Happy Birthday Israel

May the Lord bless and protect you.

Gov Granholm, Care To Weigh In On Mayor Kilpatrick?

The Detroit City Council has spoken . . . again. Is anybody listening?

The council voted on yet another resolution concerning embattled but still nattily dressed Mayor Kwami Kilpatrick. This time the threat is twofold: 1) A request for Gov. Jennifer Granholm to use her I-can't-believe-it-exists executive authority to remove a Michigan mayor from his elected position and B) Start their own I-can't-believe-it-doesn't-exist-yet process to oust Kilpatrick. But will any of this really work? As reported in The Detroit News:

“I think it places additional pressure on the mayor to consider making a move, ” said Council President Ken Cockrel Jr., who would become mayor if Kilpatrick is forced from office. “The only way I see the mayor going out is probably if some deal is cut between him and the prosecutor or if he’s forced out in some way.”

By now any regular reader of this blog and every sentient creature in metro Detroit knows about the mayor's "eight felony charges for perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and misconduct." They also know that Kenneth Cockrel and the rest of the council (well, some of the rest of the council) may have the best intentions but are essentially as impotent as mules after a gold rush bender when it comes to actually removing the mayor. That means we turn to the Governor.

[Governor] Granholm’s office was tight-lipped today about the council’s request. Granholm can’t review the matter until she receives a sworn statement from one or more council members accusing Kilpatrick of misconduct. Council’s attorney, Bill Goodman, said it would be a week before he submits the request.

The governor is tight-lipped most of the time these days . . . well, except when she vetoes partial-birth abortion bills or jibber jabbers about why we need to raise taxes in order to lure businesses back to Michigan with glittering promises of spending more to make less. But in this case I hope the Gov remains tight-lipped. It's not out of any support for Mayor Kilpatrick, who I think is treating the city with Faustian nonchalance. Rather, I don't like the thought of the state's executive branch removing an elected official, any elected official, from his position. It's a frightening concept if one buys into slippery slope conspiracy theories. And while I'm not usually in that crowd, let's just say that I don't want to test my intellectual Skully resolve when it comes to Jennifer Granholm.

Drop That Cup, Sebelius!

I spent some time watching the Pope's visit to the States and found two storylines fun and fascinating. First, there was the way that Mother Theresa's "Missionaries of Charity" jumped up and down like pre-teens at a Hannah Montana concert as the German Papa passed their way. Praise God for Tivo and the chance to play that image over and over. Second was the Vegas feel to the pundits discussing which pro-choice politicians would step forward to take communion. (I won $50 bucks when Giuliani rushed the alter to beat the spread.) And while the Missionaries of Charity have gone back to help the needy, the abortion-kind Catholic politicians are facing revived demands from the church to either drop their pro-choice stance or drop that communion cup.

As reported in the fluffy but colorful USA Today, Catholic Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has drawn Christ's blood in the battle with a request that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius back off from the Eucharist.

The archbishop said Sebelius should not take Communion until she has "acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life," including "a public repudiation of her ... support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion."

Now, I have to confess that the abortion issue is not a deal-breaker for me. I understand that there are those who believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent life. I also know that there are those who are not sure when life begins and decide to err on the side of the woman's rights. Like many Americans, I hate the fact that current laws seem to consider abortion an "oops, I forgot my condom" fix, but I'm not ready to march in front of a clinic and harass young women who are making the most difficult decision of their lives. The Archbishop, however, has to answer to an even higher authority.

"The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: 'The church's teaching on abortion is optional!'" Naumann writes.

In other words, abortion is not an issue you can ignore as a cafeteria Catholic. It revolves around the church's teachings on conception and its fundamental moral objectives concerning the sanctity of life. If you cannot accept this element of Catholicism, how can you in good conscience accept the church's offering of transformed wine that signifies life itself?

Obama's Mis-state

Dan Quayle was considered a functioning idiot for misspelling "potato" (which was actually misspelled on the card he was provided). So what should we think of Barack Obama's insight concerning the States of the Union? Sounds like somebody should have been taking some extra night classes at Columbia.

H/T to the Pirate King for this one.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY

From Man In The Box . . . and me