Okay, some admissions. I've been a little busy... Obviously. Ya see, back in the early days of 2003 I discovered that my Playstation 2 wouldn't play DVD's, nor would it play most PS2 games. After corresponding with the Sony corporation, they asked that I box up my gaming device and have them fix it for free. And it came back last Friday. The 24th. So I haven't been blogging, I've been playing Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance (preferred character is the ever-popular Sub-Zero).

So I also missed the Super Bowl and last night's State of the Union address. I probably would have missed my own wedding. Such a filthy nerd. Mind you I'm not all that interested in football (other than that one game around Thanksgiving in which the Fine and Honorable Stately Gentlemen of Texas A&M play the patchoulli-soaked hippies of the university of Texas. I missed all the good commercials, I know. As for the State of the Union, I'm a big fan of our man W., but I figured the high points would be all sorted out by National Review, Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and Drudge. I really liked that I can't even use the word "swipe" when referring to Bush's SMASH on Iraq. Something refreshing about a President that can say "evil" without irony and without meaning "synonymous with Republicans."

Now, I heard on my radio station of choice, WOAI here in San Antonio, from Ciro Rodriguez (D., San Antonio, TX) and his critique of the speech. Talk about all over the place--I hope Rep Rodriguez doesn't play darts. The usual left-wing ignorance of the odd economics of tax policy--"he says he wants to save Social Security but he also wants to privatize it, and you can't do both!"--which must seem like the height of Progressive Thought. On the war, I'm not sure Rep Rodriguez knew what to think. By that, I mean he hadn't got the talking points yet. Insists that there's no proof that Iraq has connections to terrorism (proven untrue), and even though it might EVERY Middle East country has connections to terrorism. Then he named Saudi Arabia (agree), Morocco (dunno, probably). Forgot if he mentioned Syria, Iran, Lybia... None of them are immune and all those Middle Eastern autocracies are scared to death of their resident Islamists. Made points about how a "war on terrorism" has to be surgical since we aren't dealing with governments, and then the sad defeatist Democrat line: "We can't get them all."

Now I want this to be understood--I don't think Rep. Rodriguez was equating the U.S. with terror-supporting countries like Libya or Iraq. But he made the same point that terrorism (if we were going to fight it, which he's already said would be impossible) has some links in America, too (agree!)! But that's not a reason to root it out, it's a reason to not even try. Sad, sad, sad.

What can you say to that? "Buck up, little camper?" For one, there's a big difference between countries with resident terror groups and countries that explicitly support terrorism, as a government policy. Hell, we've got our own home-grown Earth Liberation Front, but they don't get EPA grants, I hope. But Iraq has shown that it supports terrorism. Canada is nervous about all their terrorists and they're in kind of a cultural dither when it comes to dealing with it, but Iraq gives terrorists (say it with me now) aid and comfort, explicitly. They are friends of the regime. Welcomed and supported. That's a terror-supporting nation.

Democrats like to concentrate on bin Laden. Yeah, he's rotten. Might be alive, might be dead. But there's an odd insistence that this one man be dead or captured before any further discussion on war continue. I say odd because they are usually the last people to say the world would be a better place with one man dead. And if bin Laden's head were to show up on a spike on fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue tomorrow, they'd pronounce the war Over. There's no good reason to engage the Democrats on the matter of bin Laden. Terrorism would continue (and possibly has) with him dead. There's never been a war against Al Qaeda or bin Laden--just one against Terrorism.

Nothing particularly galling about Rodriguez's jabberation--he doesn't have the charisma for that. But you do shake your head and wonder where you can find such ignorance.