The Queen Elizabeth II commenced the State Opening of Parliament on Tuesday this week. As a lover of all things British (note things, not necessarily thoughts and philosophies), I was admittedly curious as of to what she had to say. And I was not disappointed, I still long for the day when the once and future king will return to claim his throne. Notably, the speech was not written by Queen Elizabeth II, it was written by the new Prime Minister Gordon Brown and approved by the cabinet. This opening ceremony was performed in large due to tradition.

            There were some good points, and as an American and supporter of the war on terror, I was happy to hear that Britain wants to continue to fight against terrorism. However seeing as how they can currently only detain an accused terrorist for 28 days, and they are “considering” increasing that to 56, I was ashamed. This world needs protection, and they allow for their accused criminals to be released after less than a month. And then to top it off, the police aren’t allowed to question the criminals! This will also be taken in to consideration as of to whether or not they will allow the police to question them once again. Another note on the speech was their desire to be the first nation to have a legally binding framework to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.       

            There was more within her speech but by this point my mind was back on King Arthur. He didn’t ask for permission to detain an enemy, he didn’t need approval to question his enemies. Where are the men to lead this country? Yes there is the House of Lords, the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, but from what I can tell they all pander to one another (as is common within a democratic body especially along party lines, however that doesn’t make it right). When will the men stand up and say, I don’t care what you think needs to be done with terrorists, I’m going to defend my country and do it anyway possible, and if you have a problem with that, take a hike.

            Democracy is better than a monarchy, I don’t deny it. I love America and I am glad to see democracy in action. But some times my mind drifts back to the glorious days of the monarchs, when good men sat on the throne, like King David, King Solomon, and the tales we are told of King Arthur. Those were men who feared God, and led their country by that fear of God. None were perfect, and none claimed to be. They lived by their good convictions, and died by those same good convictions. They were men to be looked up to and imitated if only in their morality and belief in God both of which guided their convictions.

On Tuesday this week, Democratic, presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich released a statement to the Philadelphia Inquirer stating that he questions the President’s mental health. Why does he question it? Because of a statement from the President regarding Iran.
 President Bush declared that if the world allows Iran to gain nuclear capability, we would be on the brink of World War III. According to Kucinich, there is a mental instability within Bush, because he is “…wanton in his expression of violence…” and that “He [Bush] does not seem to understand his words have real impact."
 Does Kucinich not understand that his words have impact (no matter how small that may be, seeing as he only holds about a percent of the democratic vote)?  Questioning your leader’s sanity may be necessary at times, but is it necessary now?
 Bush may not be popular, but because of his reaction to 9/11 have we had another terrorist attack in our country? No. Have we had unnecessary tax hikes? No. Have we removed a tyrant from power, someone who abused his own people? Yes. Have we seen a decline in fighting in Iraq and surrounding areas recently? Yes. Does he maintain a better approval rating than that of Democratic led congress? Yes.
 Bush wants peace, and yet Kucinich maintains that he is violence driven. If Bush was so adamant about being violent, why is he trying so hard to maintain peace with Iran. Since nuclear bombs have been understood, it has been feared. We didn’t know exactly how extreme the damage would be when we dropped the A-Bombs on Japan, and our reaction when this did happen was one of shock. During the Cold War with Russia, both countries had nuclear bombs, but were afraid to use them, knowing what would happen. Now we have a major Muslim nation (Iran) trying to gain this power. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has declared that he wants to “wipe Israel of the map” and was condemned internationally. So why shouldn’t we want to prevent the Iranian President, who’s words have shown that he does want violence, to gain access to nuclear bombs?
 The difference between Bush and Ahmadinejad is that, Bush is fighting to protect America, Israel, and peaceful peoples in the Middle East. Ahmadinejad wants to fight a jihad, or eradicate anyone who does not acknowledge Islam as the only religion. So really, who’s sanity should be questioned?

            Recently, Dem. Presidential hopeful, Joseph Biden declared that “unless Michael Mukasey defines waterboarding as torture, he won't vote to confirm the attorney general nominee.” (source: foxnews.com)

            The office of Attorney General was set in place and “represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested.” (source: usdoj.gov)

            I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know everything that is going on in the world today. But I have to wonder, aren’t there more pressing issues for the Attorney General to worry about than waterboarding being used on terrorists? Mr. Biden is not capable of making an informed decision about who should be legally defending my government if his decision is based on a singular issue. Does he care about the Hon. Mukasey’s record as a judge? Or is it simply, that if any nominee doesn’t agree with him on this issue, then he wont confirm him? If I were a senator looking to confirm a nominee I’d be more inclined to ask about his stance on constitutional issues. We aren’t torturing our own citizens. These are criminals of war. We need to get information in order to protect our own boarders. Does Mr. Biden assume that if we ask them nicely they would be more inclined to respond? I wonder what he would do if he was captured by Islamic terrorists. As he was faced with death, would he bargain for his life by informing them that he was opposed to waterboarding? These terrorists are happy for men like Mr. Biden who, instead of working to rid the world of terror, are more worried about whether or not terrorists are comfortable in their cells.

            Mr. Biden needs to realize that the office of Attorney General is bigger than representing the (il)legality of torture that is committed on terrorists. The world is plagued by killers and men like Biden are more worried about these killers being treated humanely than they are worried about justice being served.