After being closed the last several months - more like a year - the Little Red Blog is returning shortly. Older archives will be available in a re-sorted manner. And other features will be added.
All archives listed prior to this entry are from the prior versions of the LRB.
Perhaps I’ve just become too cynical. When I read the NY Times headline for David Kirkpatrick’s column on Janice Rogers Brown, I immediately believed the column was an attempt to portray Brown in a negative way. The headline – Seeing Slavery in Liberalism. After reading the column, aside from reaffirming my belief that Brown will make an excellent Justice on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, I had to believe that either the NY Times had missed its mark or I’d wrongly pre-judged their intent.
Kirkpatrick uses several quotes to exemplify Justice Brown’s views on "the perils of liberalism." His telling of her life story includes her move from the liberal values of her family to her more conservative values. Along the way Kirkpatrick reminds his readers of her faith on more than one occasion. All in all, to my mind, it wasn’t a bad piece of reporting. Yet the headline keeps popping up.
Seeing Slavery in Liberalism
A headline aimed at the left. Many on the left call themselves liberal; this headline is aimed at them. It is meant agitate them, to draw their ire at the gall of a Justice seeing their political view in a comparable light to that of slavery. And moreover, the many liberal, yet not leftist, out there may also be stung by this headline. Although on reading the article, if intellectually honest, they’ll understand what Brown stands for and that it isn’t that far from their own beliefs.
Try this one on for size – "We no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it." Taken alone, one might wonder. Who’s embracing slavery? Is Brown? Kirkpatrick thankfully points out the context with further remarks from Justice Brown – "If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."
Sounds a tad bit like Alan Keyes on tax policy or John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. Here! Here!
Brown apparently takes issue with Affirmative Action, I'd call that a form of group kleptocracy, is opposed to current abortion rulings, and heaven forbid... "She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She's questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest," to quote Senator Ted Kennedy. Perhaps that explains Kirkpatrick’s less than clear description of her position leading up the quote – "the triumph of our socialist revolution."
In the end, I’d like to thank Kirkpatrick and the NY Times. I like Justice Brown even more now. Next up Justice Pryor.
I’ve read, listened to, and considered arguments both for and against the deal signed yesterday between 14 members of both parties (7 each) in the Senate. And while I will be pleased to see the nominees get a vote, those that will, there remains a nagging feeling that the Republicans have sold us out.
The more I consider the issue, the less I believe it was necessary to deal and I become more convinced that the milder sort of conservative in the Senate failed, again, to uphold their espoused values. In place of values, such as each nominee should be voted on unless in committee or otherwise prevented, we’ve got the idea that compromise – the greatest Senate aspiration by far – supplants conscience.
In the coming days things should move rapidly and some portion of the President’s nominees will get a vote up or down. In the days after, others will continue to be held outside the intent of the Constitution and the threat against others will remain. Put off till tomorrow that which pains you today seems to be the norm.
The words of Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild, are neither the first nor the last to reveal the truth about much of the media’s distorted reality. For the uninitiated, a quick review of Foley’s comments and attempts at cleaning up afterwards.
Last Friday, while speaking before the National Conference for Media Reform, Foley says:
"Journalists are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. And what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal."
And...
"It's not just U.S. journalists either, by the way. They target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries, at news services like Al Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, with impunity. This is all part of the culture that it is OK to blame the individual journalists, and it just takes the heat off of these media conglomerates that are part of the problem."
When contacted by Editor & Publisher on Thursday, Foley said:
"I was careful of not saying troops, I said U.S. military. Could I have said it differently? There are 100 different ways of saying this, but I'm not sure they would have appeased the right."
For other responses to Foley’s comments read Blackfive, This isn’t writing, it’s typing, Winds of Change and The Fourth Rail.
As for the Little Red Blog’s view, it’s simple. Foley lives in an alternate reality. In her reality, saying the U.S. military targets journalist doesn’t mean that members of the service, the troops, target journalist. With 100 different ways to say that the U.S. military purposefully and willfully targets journalist, Foley manages to believe that the military isn’t the troops. In her reality there comes a point when a member of the armed forces, formerly known as a troop, becomes part and parcel of the “U.S. military” and is no longer worth supporting. Perhaps it’s when he achieves rank or command, perhaps it’s when he supports the orders of his commander-in-chief, and perhaps we’ll never know. In the odd, and non-existent, reality of Linda Foley, you are a patriot by saying you support the troops, all the while deriding their service, incriminating their character and inciting those who seek to do them harm.
Foley clearly believes that those who are bothered by her statement are just members of the “right.” I would guess she said that with an appropriate level of disgust, the sort that makes you think she had to find the Listerine afterwards. As a member of the “right” it may be that my words are of little value and will be seen as the mere joining of a chorus under the direction of Karl Rove. Even if so, I have a little more to add.
I have not been quick to challenge the patriotism of the media elites who’ve made similar statements, such as Eason Jordan, or of those who’ve clearly taken a position in opposition to current U.S. policy in Iraq. As a general rule, I would rather give someone the benefit of the doubt. But there comes a point, a point when you realize that the language doesn’t mean the same thing to them as it does to you. Being misunderstood, aren’t we all on occasion, is one thing, but saying something until it’s noticed and then dodging the criticism rather than admitting the truth is not an endearing quality. I have a little advice for the next Foley, Jordan, Newsweek, Rather...
If you are a reporter, report the facts, anything else you offer is subject to being ignored, ridiculed and... remembered.
Way back on April 6th I wrote of my approval and support for Florida’s new so-called “Stand Your Ground Bill” which had just won the approval of Florida’s House and Senate. Today, via Instapundit, I came upon David Kopel’s lengthy look at the details behind the new law.
While I wrote of the more positive moral stance the state takes in this new law, Mr. Kopel’s piece explores the stipulations, the do’s and don’ts, of the law. It’s highly readable, and recommended for those interested in seeing it coming to a state near you.
Newsweek, if we give them the benefit of the doubt, made a terrible mistake. If you are, as am I, not so quick to believe Newsweek’s version of the story, then you are left with the realization that Newsweek, its publishers and editors, are at least partly responsible for the death of 15 people.
It is not that I don’t believe Newsweek made an error, I believe the reporting was erroneous, the question for me is whether or not Newsweek knew, in advance of its publication, that the story lacked credibility, would cause an outrage, and would further damage U.S. relations with the Muslim world. It is hard for me to accept that Newsweek’s staff of supposedly worldly journalist and editors weren’t aware of the potential for a story of this nature to become a spark in the tender box that is the Muslim world. I believe they either knew, and were okay with it, or worse, knew and wanted it.
Without any significant knowledge of the Muslim world Newsweek should have known of the cultural propensity to accept false reporting about the U.S. or the west. As such, if we are foolish enough to believe that Newsweek neither understood the potential from such a comment nor recognized the lack of necessity to report baseless and inflammatory accusations, then we too have become like the proverbial Arab street. Thankfully the majority of the U.S. has not made that fall. As for Newsweek, there is no depth great enough to describe their fall.
There's been a lot going on of late, and unfortunately for this space, and the few who still return to it, there has been little added. I would ask that you continue your patience and patronage, and know that soon I will return with the same ferocity and delight that I once had for filling the ever wide channels of the blogosphere with the ringing sound of my thoughts. Or is that some sort of tinnitus. Anyway, here's a bit of catching up that's over due.
The Watcher of Weasels has selected two fine additions to join the Watcher's Council. I must admit that both are better bloggers than I am, and like the other members probably only tolerate my presence as an odd means of blogger charity. I'll have to check into the tax law to see if it benefits either of us. So without further delay, more on Tom later, the two newest members are The Glittering Eye and Carpe Bonum. If you aren't familiar with them, please go and get acquainted.
It's April 15th. You know what that means - it means the 2005 EO Symposium (2nd Quarter) - Judeo-Christian Morality in an Ethically Pluralistic Society is due tonight. Thankfully, my entry will be ready with time to spare. If you plan to submit an entry, you've got until 11:59 P.M. CST. Joe runs a great blog and the responses to this symposium, while perhaps not as numerous, will be just as thoughtful and engaging as the first installment this past January.
Another of the side issues that I've been working on was mentioned today. And by a co-conspirator at that. Along with Bill Rice, Dawn's Early Light, and Tom, the Redhunter, I'm working to build a new site to focus on open source assessments of the various threats against the United States and her allies. I'm confident we'll launch shortly and that it'll be a plus for those interested in the topic.
Now to close the evening out with a flourish I’ll offer a couple of quick items of News and Notes for Thursday and early Friday morning.
Senator John McCain signaled his lack of desire to make a serious run for the White House in 2008 today when he announced that he'd side with the Democrats should the Republican leadership decide to lead and break the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees. Like many of you I'm fed up with GOP Senators dressed like asses, polling for direction and dancing about on every issue. The principled elephant doesn't bray, hem or haw, it stands firm, does not forget and most importantly - never backs down. Senator McCain has long been heralded, and rightly so, for being a hero. And that he was and always will be, but as a Senator, I'd rather see him go.
Thankfully Senate Majority Leader Frist seems prepared to bring the issue to bear. Should enough salamander skinned Senators side with the obstructionist weasels, like Bird, at least we will know who to leave off the list for our support in '06 and '08. And if I could I'd add another animal to keep this up.
Robert Zoellick goes to the Sudan to press for action. Vice chief murdering thug, Ali Uthman Muhammad Taha, repeated his consistent message of denial saying his government was "working diligently to stop the violence" and "get Darfur back to normalcy." We have to watch out, if Kofi leaves the UN - this is just the guy to take over.
In Central Asia, Hamid Karzai wants to keep the Americans around, and so does Kurmanbek Bakiyev, acting prime minister of Kyrgyzstan, so long as we don't bring our AWACS along.
And while China stages protest against Japan, the EU Parliament affirms a measure to support the binding of the Arms Embargo to China's human rights and cross strait relations with Taiwan. The measure means nothing officially, and in China certainly means less. Just think how little it would mean to someone in... say - North Korea.
DPRK leaders have determined that they'll have to increase their nuclear weapons cache, or as Kim Yong Nam would say - "[w]e will continue increasing our self-defensive nuclear deterrent" - and to think, just a few years back the U.S. was building them a light water nuclear reactor. Ah... the good 'ole Clinton years.
Okay, that's it for tonight. Tomorrow we'll have the EO Symposium, the winners of this week's Watcher's Council, and more news, notes, quips, rants, rambles and the like. And thereafter....
Sure, the title of the post is a lame pun, but the story is not.
Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee has signaled that he may not support John Bolton’s nomination to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. [HT: Dilley Blog] Given his role on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, this could prevent (along with a party line vote by Democratic committee members) Bolton from making it to the Senate floor for debate and a full vote. Unacceptable.
The Boston Globe reports that Chafee has received little support from his constituency favoring Bolton, and notes that a campaign against Bolton is being waged in Rhode Island. They point out that anti-Bolton advertisements are running on radio and television and that the group behind the ads, Citizens for Global Solutions, also runs the website, www.stopbolton.org. For Chafee, being reelected is more important than sending the right man in to do the job.
Tomorrow Bolton will testify, and I’ll be watching closely, perhaps blogging along the way. Additionally, I'll be sending Senator Chafee's office a kind bit of advice, voting for Bolton is voting for the nation, voting against him is simply voting to keep your job.
UPDATE: The committee has delayed the hearing.
The Florida legislature has approved by a 39 – 0 vote in the Senate and a 94 – 20 vote in the House a bill which, after being signed by Governor Bush, will make it the law that deadly force can be used in self-defense without an attempt to flee or escape from harms way. As a general rule, I am not a “gun blogger” although I have recently met a couple. This post is not about guns. Nor is it about the soon to be signed law either. So what’s the point you ask? The point is that the Florida legislature, quite unlike many recent Florida court rulings, have established as law a position that is morally a more acceptable position for the state. As for the individual, well, read the rest of the post.
For a state to require that the individual flee or take no action to defend life or property it codifies two forms of immoral action. The first being that it limits the rights of the individual to defend life, and secondly it makes a moral man, who under attack defends himself or his property, a criminal. Far too often our state and federal laws make criminals of those who should not be seen as such. This, whether by over legalization or by restrictions on personal liberty, has become for many an inescapable norm that is seldom noticed or recognized as such.
Florida’s new stance will instead place the moral burden on the individual under attack. That, I believe, is the proper place for the decision-making. If your faith, ethical standard, moral compass or what have you, permits the defense of life and limb with deadly force the law will now acquiesce. If you are the sort that believes that under no circumstance should you act to defend yourself or those around you, you will, as always, remain free to flee or seek alternative means to end the situation. As for me, I’m pleased to see Florida take this position, and can chalk it up as yet another reason to consider Florida one of the more liberty loving of our states.
Paul Wolfowitz won the unanimous approval of the Board for the World Bank to become the next head of the agency, despite the media and the left in the U.S. attempting to portray Wolfowitz as bad for the agency. Wolfowitz’s statements of support for the agency and its mission, fighting poverty and improving living standards in developing portions of the world, were apparently enough for the Board members, who I doubt gave serious consideration to opposing Wolfowitz, and lays the foundation for continued positive developments and democratization around the world.
President Bush announced that Secretary of the Navy Gordon England would be nominated to become the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz’s previous post. At this point I’ve not seen much of a fuss about the selection of England, yet I expect it will come. His responsibility for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will at a minimum create a few interesting moments for the Democratic Senators during his confirmation hearings.
Congratulations to the President and both nominees.
The AP reported today that Sandy Berger would plead guilty tomorrow to a misdemeanor charge of taking classified materials from the National Archives. While I'm pleased that something is being done, I can't help but once again believe that special care is being taken in this case, and that Sandy the Burglar will receive but a slap on the wrist.
Of course, I could be mistaken. Anyone of us could inadvertently stuff our pants with classified documents and leave with them.
UPDATE: Must read coverage of Sandy Berger's plea and the background info leading up to it at Balloon Juice. Excellent coverage. [HT: Instapundit.] Also check out Captain Ed's take and Bill at INDC Journal.
Yesterday I read and then responded to former Senator Danforth's criticism of the religious right within the Republican Party. Hugh Hewitt's blog entry pointed out the Danforth essay, and after reading so many other criticisms of the Republican take on stem cell research, same-sex marriage and the Terri Schiavo case, I was frustrated and vented in this space. Hugh’s Weekly Standard column notes with much more significant clarity that it is "wrong and demagogic to attempt to question the right of people of faith to participate in politics."
From my position, I am not a Republican by way of my faith or affiliation with a particular religious movement. I am a Republican because the party, to a larger degree than the alternative, supports and defends the values that I hold near and dear. It is easy to ignore the elitist take of those on the left who believe that people of faith are somehow not worthy of political participation. Their irrational fear that faith will determine the law, that men who aspire to serve and please God in their personal lives cannot hold reasoned and logical positions based on principles with merit of their own accord, and that our government will somehow better serve its purposes by freeing the nation of religious influence is just about too much to believe. Yet we must accept that for many, including some who espouse faith more openly than I in their personal lives, there is a sincere desire to remove any influence of either our moral foundations or our religious beliefs.
Our nations greatest leaders have always been men and women of faith. Like them, I would never bind another to a particular belief system. Instead, I would simply, tirelessly and persistently pursue the principles of our nation’s founding. The nannies that seek to remove the religious from the political active would be so much better served if they too would choose to those founding ideals over their inane attempts to shun and shudder those who find a light external to man’s law.
In a pathetic clamor to avoid being seen as a religious conservative, or worse, a conservative Christian, many a pundit and politician are balking at current Republican efforts to hold strong to the moral foundations of our nation. It is reprehensible when it comes from a citizen of little note, like me, but even more so when the froth brews from the mouth of a former Senator. In today’s New York Times, former Senator John Danforth follows the folly into the land where Republicans are not principled at the core, instead choosing only those portions of their ideology that are commonly supported without a necessary underlying faith. [HT: Hugh Hewitt.]
Senator Danforth is unlikely to ever note my thoughts, yet I am given to address them specifically to him. As such, here is my reply:
Senator,
Like many conservative Republicans, I am an advocate of the three disparate, yet rightly connected, issues you began your opinion column with - the banning of federally funded embryonic stem cell research, not the same as adult stem cell research, supporting an amendment to the Constitution to support marriage, and the Congressional actions to permit federal court review of the Terri Schiavo case. Where I draw issue with you is your assertion that Republicans are following a conservative Christian agenda by taking these positions. While I am not by any means an important conservative, I can assert that my support for these issues, and I believe that of many others, is not driven by a Christian ideology or worldview but instead by the same principles that frame your view of shared Republican values during your time as a Senator.
We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade.
Those principles, which I fully agree with, are built upon an underlying and inner course within each of us that when aligned to Life and Liberty yields a basis also for each of the issues you have taken issue with. We conservatives accept that government is at its best when its role is limited to the protection of its citizens.
It is the protection of its citizens that drives my belief that embryonic stem cells should not be used for testing. While I oppose federal funding for such research, I do not oppose any and every State having the right to permit the testing or even fund it. Although I would oppose it in my own State, Colorado. Advocacy of embryonic stem cell research, funded by the federal government, neither supports the principles of limited government or the notion that human life, no matter how it came to be formed or its viability, is to be protected. This position strikes at the core of our rights with or without a religious or Christian understanding of life’s value.
Likewise, the support of a marriage as being between one man and one woman should not be assumed to be a Christian ideal, as you rightly note that religious liberals advocate exactly the opposite. The most vocal voices on either side of the issue may be those either incapable of supporting their position outside their faith, or perhaps they are driven entirely from their religious worldview. That being said, I support the Constitutional amendment as a last recourse to prevent the further attacks by courts around the country which abrogate the law, the votes of the people, and the clear assurance that while norms are not required for all, they are as a point of fact the norm. I do not oppose laws that provide legal protections for non-marital relationships between same-sex partners. Yet I cannot stand by and watch as rogue judges ignore the law in an attempt to create that which has never been. Indeed, that is the place of the Congress, and should it decide to press the issue with an amendment, I would support.
And finally sir, to the issue of Terri Schiavo. Like many a conservative and liberal alike, we are conflicted and challenged by this case in a way unlike any other. As for my position, I supported the Congressional action because it was an attempt to ensure that the courts in Florida were not ignoring the rights of a Floridian. It was generally a toothless effort that without teeth fell on deaf ears in the 11th Circuit. By supporting this action, the Congress acted to protect life, to give one last hearing to the unheard. If that to you is a Christian agenda worthy of alarm, then let it be.
Senator, we Republicans are not falling prey to an intrusion of religion into politics. We are instead experiencing a willingness to assert the fullness of the values that we should all use as barometer for governance. As a minister, you recognize the difference between what is legal and what is sin. The current Republican efforts you take issue with are guided not by an understanding of sin, but rather an understanding of the moral depth behind the founding principles of our nation and a desire to support them. These issues, like your support for ending the genocide in Darfur, are important to me because they tell me about our world, our nation and our desire to make the world more free and just.
Signed.
No, that's not the real title of the Time article. Time calls their artcle "A Jihadist's Tale - How a young Jordanian left his American life and died an insurgent in Iraq." It's Time's version of the Hilla bomber's story. The same bomber who by killing 125 sparked Shi'a outrage against Jordanian and other Sunni Muslims who continue to support the attacks in Iraq.
Time has again glorified the ignoble. Scott MacLeod, who authored the article, would have us believe that Ra'ed al-Banna was a good 'ole boy who loved America until we turned our backs on him by in 2003. By the account of this tale, al-Banna was turned away at Chicago's O'Hare airport and returned to Jordan where he began the course that would lead to his "martyrdom."
This column, like so many others, pays little attention to those of values and character and instead profiles a man who possessed little character and eventually killed himself as a final testament to a perverted view of the world. The best line of the column turns up near the end when al-Banna's family claims that their obituary proclamation of his death as a martyr is nothing more than a testament to his dying in a foreign land. In a world where "martyrs" are no longer men of character but instead assassins and murderers, the utter lack of intellectual honesty, even in discussing the death of one’s son, is shameful. Nearly as much so as the supposed reporting that ignores the stories of the 125 killed in Hilla, those who’ve taken to the streets in opposition to violence or those who’ve stood to defend the freedom of Iraq.
The potential for the utterly stupid McCain-Feingold law to be applied to the Internet and bloggers has caused quite a stir, based on the Shays-Meehan v. FEC ruling. Appropriately so. Whether, as some suggest, it is unlikely that the FEC would extend the regulations to blogs or not, the matter shows the complete lack of respect for individual rights under the Constitution and instead how the powers that be are adept at maintaining their authority.
This week's Homespun Symposium question deals with the issue, as have more bloggers than I care to link to. That being said, I add only that I am opposed to any attempts to regulate speech on the Internet, political or otherwise, and like Patterico and the many taking his pledge, I will continue to blog as I do now, no matter what the FEC decides. Furthermore, I would probably become an even more active blogger.
I’ve signed the Online Coalition letter and suggest you do the same, if you haven’t. Also, I wrote both Senators from Colorado and my Congressman. And if those who think we are over reacting to the issue wish to continue to believe in the good will and wisdom of the government, might I suggest that they consider this passage.
The latest Bush nominations to the State Department, UN, and World Bank offer great insight into the administration’s understanding of the failures of the past, the challenge of today and the promise of tomorrow. For that, I am pleased. In general the criticisms that I’ve seen appear to be those that would be critical of any Bush nominee to those post, save a nomination from across the political aisle. As with so many other issues, this is troubling, though not surprising. Whether it is an absence of understanding, both of the nature of the positions or of the issues being addressed, a fault in moral thought or simply a matter of politics, I’ve come to accept that much of our nation will gleefully deride any and all decisions made by the President.
I’ve expressed my thoughts to a degree on Secretary Rice, John Bolton, Karen Hughes and Dina Habib Powell. I did not yesterday get a chance to discuss the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, although I have in the past expressed an appreciation for his intellect and wisdom based on an interview with Hugh Hewitt. What all of these nominees possess that seems to be either unnoticed or the cause for alarm is their relationship with the President and their explicit understanding and agreement with his position.
Being a political appointee to lead the State Department is not a position that requires inordinate expertise in foreign affairs or policy. It is a position that requires a willingness and ability to lead. Hughes will be charged with communicating U.S. policy both internally to the State Department professionals under her employ and externally to diplomatic and political leaders around the world. Her challenge in the State Department is likely to be greater than her external role, given the significant expertise of those she’ll be leading. She will have to guide the experts toward not acting on their personal views or past policies, but rather toward taking the invaluable expertise they have and putting it to the best use to implement the policies of the President. Or as New Sisyphus said: "Experts execute policy, politicians direct it."
Whether it is Bolton or Wolfowitz, the criticism has been loud and just as unfounded. Bolton’s own words on his view of the UN, offer not that he seeks to sack the organization, but that he seeks to see it become more accountable through reform from the Secretary General, the fragmented make-up of the body, and the lack of fiscal transparency. Additionally he favors defined roles for maintaining peace and limiting nation building. From his essay, published in a book of essays by the Cato Institute, he offers that the UN is a "tool" not a "theology." [HT: The Redhunter] Does this warrant the opposition he faces? Certainly not, it is a statement of his grounding in reality. In his new post, he will not forgo his moral obligation to the U.S. and will be charged with communicating with the UN the position of the U.S., and as much as possible, bringing about agreement and compromise from the UN. Would he better serve the U.S. by serving the UN? Not a chance.
Wolfowitz is derided as a hawk, as inexperienced in development efforts and in general as a neo-conservative ally of the President. The new role he will take on should in no way be negatively impacted by any of those matters. It is a leadership role where Mr. Wolfowitz will be charged with guiding a huge organization tackling an even more enormously challenging problem. His leadership, decision making and advocacy of his beliefs are essential to the nature of such a role, yet those characteristics are at the core of the criticism against him. Take his statements that economic development leads to political development. Those who oppose him clearly recognize this to be true. And that is entirely the issue; they do not seek real development, economic and political, throughout the third world. Instead they prefer the status quo, large amounts of highly ineffectual aid provided by a system that serves to prevent death but not to provide freedom, opportunity or self-reliance. Is it not their ideology that is served by the continuation of decades of despair across much of the world?
Having said all this, or so little depending on your view, I remain enthused by the nominations and hopeful that each will better utilize the resources and authority we have entrusted to them. If you disagree, feel free to let me know how and why.
UPDATE: Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has an excellent post on citizen diplomacy and the reshaping of the State Department.
Senate Democrats made a rather clear statement today that their intention is to defend their attack on the Constitutional balance of powers even at the risk of shutting down the Senate. Behind Senator Harry Reid, 37 other Democratic Senators, stood in agreement as Reid made his argument that it is the Republicans who are attempting to “break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch.”
Here, via RealClearPolitics, is Senator Reid’s statement.
On a late September day in 1787, the Constitutional Convention finished its work. As Benjamin Franklin walked down the steps of Independence Hall, a Philadelphia woman named Elizabeth Powell stopped him and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got: a republic or a monarchy?"Senator Reid fails to note that every Senator gets an opportunity to share his view, his advice and then through the vote his consent or lack thereof, unless the Democrats continue to filibuster nominees. President Bush recent nominated 12 judicial candidates for a second time. Those twelve were not voted down. No vote was taken and the current rule that a supermajority is required to bring them to a vote flies directly in the face of the letter and intent of the Constitution.He responded, "A republic. If you can keep it."
For more than two centuries, we have kept our republic because Americans have understood that our liberty is protected by our laws and by a government of limited powers.
Our Constitution provides for checks and balances so that no one person in power, so that no one political party can hold total control over the course of our nation.
But now, in order to break down the separation of powers and ram through their appointees to the judicial branch, President Bush and the Republican leadership want to eliminate a two-hundred-year-old American rule saying that every member of the Senate can rise to say their piece and speak on behalf of the people that sent them here.
The fact is that this President has a better record of having his judicial nominees approved than any President in the past twenty-five years. Only ten of 214 nominations have been turned down.
So it is clear that this attempt to strip away these important checks and balances is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power.
But our nation's basic rules are there for the moments when the eyes of the powerful grow large and hungry; when their willfulness makes them determined to do whatever it takes to win, and prevail at whatever the cost.
Presidents and parties have grown drunk with power before. Two Presidents of my own party --Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Roosevelt-- began their second terms of office with majorities in Congress and then tried to change the rules governing judges so that they could stack the court with those who would do their bidding. They were wrong to try to change our basic American rules -- and Americans, and Senators of both parties, stood up to tell them so.
Today, another attempt is being considered to rewrite the rules so that those in power can get their way.
It would mean that the US Senate becomes merely a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch.
It would mean that one political party --be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow-- gets to have all the say.
Our republic requires many things in order to be kept. Senate Democrats are expressing a form of partisanship that denies their patriotism and devotion to the Constitution in favor of their devotion to their Party and its power. In order to keep the Republic, we must make it abundantly clear to Republican and Democratic Senators alike that such action is morally reprehensible and violates the oath that each of them pledged upon taking office. As Senator Reid might be apt to say – Let Every Vote Count.
Karen Hughes will be nominated to become Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. There have been criticisms of the selection, as I would have expected from some who are critical of every nomination the President makes. Surprisingly, there are some who are politically more inclined toward the President’s policies that are also critical of the selection. At this point, I’ve seen nothing to warrant the criticism of either group. The criticism seems to focus on Hughes lack of "credentials" in diplomatic circles, her close relationship to the President, or her decision to spend the last couple of years with her family in Texas, where her son will soon be graduated from high school and head off to college, none of which seems worthy of criticism.
As for this rarely read blogger, I believe that the selection of Hughes is significant and positive. President Bush has chosen his most trusted advisor for a role that has long been under represented. Combined with Secretary Rice and Dina Habib Powell, who will be named Deputy Under Secretary to Hughes, there will be a trio of strong women that present a foreign affairs and diplomacy background as well as an absolute understanding of the position of President Bush. Middle Eastern leaders will hear less convoluted messages of U.S. policy and instead hear with conviction and clarity the essence of U.S. policy for the Middle East.
A few items for your consideration, or maybe just mine.
Anne Applebaum offers a defense of John Bolton's nomination to become the U.S. Ambassador to the UN. As I’ve posted before, I like the selection and see it as a positive for the U.S. and potentially for the UN.
Amir Taheri has an excellent, must read, column in the Gulf News. While we can in no way interpret the quotes of pilgrims in Mecca as representative of all Muslims, I do believe we should help them spread their views. Taheri's column is one way to do so. Here are a couple of excerpts.
Just outside the Grand Mosque we fall into conversation with a group of Sri Lankan pilgrims, coming to "pray for all our peoples, including Buddhists and Tamils", in the wake of the tsunami that has ravaged parts of their country. The subject of terrorism creeps into our conversation.Taheri had opened his column with a description of Saudi Arabia's progressing through the stages that follow terror attacks. He closes with this."We are the only community in Sri Lanka that has not only stayed out of terrorism but has opposed it," says a toothless pilgrim with a defiant face. "I think Muslims everywhere should lead the fight against terrorism, the scourge of mankind."
Other Lankans nod in approval. They have suffered for decades what the Saudis are experiencing today.
At the Riyadh Conference, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal almost lost his temper during a press conference. He demanded: "Why do we need to fight over a definition of terrorism. Don’t we all know what a terrorist does?"Now if only the Saudi's would insist on the UN defining terrorism as what we all know it is.On that balmy day in Makkah many pilgrims seemed to agree. They believed that the world should name terrorists after what they do and not after what they claim to represent.
American Society of Civil Engineers report that the nations infrastructure is failing. I am somewhat skeptical but will reserve commenting further until I can read the report.
Tanalee Smith gives some perspective on the ties between Syria and Lebanon. There was much more that could have been said, but having the AP say any of it is progress. This one we'll revisit shortly.
Omar Karami has been renominated to become Prime Minister of Lebanon and form the new government. 69 of the 128 members of the parliament nominated pro-Syrian Karami for the post. Not the solution that I would have hoped for. Like you, I'll have to wait to see what the reaction in Lebanon is.
For many reasons I had not intended to discuss in this space the firing/resignation of Harry Stonecipher, the man brought in to rebuild Boeing’s luster just over a year ago. And then I read what was to be one too many attempts to connect his firing to the conservative or religious right. Steven Pearlstein, of the Washington Post, penned a column entitled - Ethics Pedestal Assures Some Hard Falls. And his title is correct, even an understatement. His thesis is, however, broken. Why, because like much of the legacy media, Mr. Pearlstein apparently couldn’t author this column without an unhealthy dose of politics. Politics that not only made his conclusion wrong, it also showed the thinness of his journalistic objectivity.
Pearlstein begins with a rather funny quip taken from the Wall Street Journal.
A question that will be played out in ethics classes at business schools for years to come is whether Boeing, one of the largest government contractors, struggling to get out from under an ethics cloud, should have fired its married 68-year-old chief executive for carrying on with one of the company's Washington area employees.Pearlstein then explains the two "truths" that the "profound" retort exposes.Perhaps the best line of the week goes to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which noted wryly that if something like this had happened at rival Airbus, the French would have put the fellow up for a bonus.
First, given the political and legal environment in which the company finds itself, and the prevailing business culture in the United States, the board probably made the "right" decision in demanding Harry Stonecipher's resignation.When I first read this paragraph, Pearlstein’s decision to place quotation marks around the word right caused a brief pause. Is Pearlstein implying that it was "right" as in the political right or "right" meaning the proper decision, one he would agree with at least. The second truth Mr. Pearlstein recognized cleared things up a bit.
And, second, it's a ridiculous outcome that leaves nobody better off and raises serious questions about that environment and that business culture.Indeed it does. Pearlstein’s "right" was not agreement or appropriateness. He is implying that it was the political "right." Of course, business executive has affair, gets fired by his employer for affair or through bizarre and convoluted logic gets fired to avoid embarrassing the company, it must be the moral majority reborn as the board of directors.
Ridiculous.
It wasn’t a moral decision to fire Stonecipher, nor was it done to appease the morally inclined government officials who might be offended if, or when, the story got out. The board was acting out of fear, self-loathing, and risk aversion supported by an army of litigious and morally bankrupt attorney’s (or at least morally blinded by their profession) who have all but squashed individual freedom for those employed, particularly high profile employees, by America’s once great businesses.
The problem is that Pearlstein knew this. His comments regarding zero-tolerance and the absence of making a decision on a case-by-case basis prove it. He just couldn’t connect the proverbial dots. Personal responsibility has been abdicated. In the boardroom or the management offices the standard is aligned toward the lawyers advice about potential lawsuits much more so than it is to the ideals of personal accountability or leadership.
Pearlstein continues:
What's most dangerous, however, is the implicit acknowledgment by the board that it is too risky for a company doing business with the government to be run by someone whose personal life might offend the ayatollahs of the religious right.The "ayatollahs of the religious right" he says. Aside from the clear attempt to paint the Bush administration as similar to the Mullahs in Iran (which is shameful but not my point), this is simply wrong. As is his closing.
You would have thought we might have learned a lesson from the disastrous campaign to impeach a president on morals charges, only to ensnare a speaker-designate of the House. Instead, this same puritan standard now seems to have been extended to the corporate sector.And there it is. We didn’t learn a lesson after failing to impeach a President, who should have been convicted of perjury, and now we’ve infected the business world with our mean spirited moral and ethical standards. WRONG.One of the mistakes of the '90s is that we all put too much stock in the magic power of chief executives. Along with giving them too much authority, attention and money, we also held them to unrealistically high expectations. Harry Stonecipher now joins the list of those who both benefited from that misplaced importance, and were brought down by it.
What was learned from the failed impeachment is that personal accountability can be abdicated and nothing will be done about it. The executives Pearlstein describes as having magic power have much less than he attributes to them. The lefts greatest assets, attorneys and judges, have effectively neutered much of the executive sphere, leaving them impotent and incapable of making decisions or holding each other accountable (save of course on matters of P&L). Stonecipher may have acted in a manner inconsistent with the Board's expectation. And accordingly, they have every right to request his resignation. But to pass it off as if it were a moralistic intrusion of the religious right into the boardroom of Boeing is flatly wrong. Had the board been acting morally, they would have determined that Mr. Stonecipher’s relationship was none of their concern, save the use of corporate email, and simply demanded an end to the use of corporate assets for such communication. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a moral issue; it was an issue of risk mitigation and avoidance. And rather than telling them that, Mr. Pearlstein lets his politics guide his response.
Under Secretary of State John Bolton is to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. I can’t help but laugh a little. Not sure why.
Perhaps it’s his past exchanges such as this one reported by the AP:
Two years ago, Bolton denounced North Korean leader Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator" and described life under the ruler as "a hellish nightmare."Bolton will be an excellent ambassador to the UN. Like the President, he speaks directly and isn’t likely to soften his words just for the sake of those less willing to accept reality.A North Korean spokesman fired back that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks" on North Korea's nuclear weapons program.
This also provides yet another great opportunity for the left in the Senate to show their vitriol for the President in April when Bolton goes before them for confirmation hearings. His last appointment received an almost party line vote of 57 – 43 to support his nomination as undersecretary of state.
Senator Harry Reid has already expressed his lack of support for Bolton. He called the nominatin "disappointing." "At a time when President Bush has recognized we need to begin repairing our damaged relations with the rest of the world, he nominates someone with a long history of being opposed to working cooperatively with other nations," Senator Reid said, before adding his view that Bolton "flawed proliferation policy" and "will have much to answer for" in confirmation hearings.
Former Senator Jesse Helms liked Bolton saying he's the "most qualified man for the job" during a previous confirmation hearing. The NY Times, in what was clearly an attempt to paint Bolton as unacceptable, quotes Bolton as saying of the UN - "if the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference" and "there's no such thing as the United Nations." Preceded, of course, by calling Bolton, a former protégé of Senator Helms.
Excellent choice Mr. President. Excellent.
The Senate is considering legislation aimed at curbing bankruptcy abuse and providing additional protections to consumers. Fair enough.
The news surrounding the legislation comes from a proposed amendment put forth by Senator Kennedy, text here, that would increase the minimum wage by $2.10 over two years and an amendment from Senator Rick Santorum that would raise the minimum wage by $1.10 over eighteen months. The Santorum amendment, no text available yet, is drawing the ire of the left because it apparently has the gall to include measures that would increase the amount of revenue (to $1 million) required for a business to fall under the FLSA standards, currently $500k. Also drawing much attention is the idea of "flex-time." The left sees this concept as a means for employers to avoid overtime, effectively seeing an 80-hour two-week period rather than the current 40-hour per week standard before overtime is required. The intention of the change was to enable more flexibility for the employee, reduce cost and regulatory constraints on small businesses and, of course, increase the minimum wage.
Neither proposal is germane to the legislation at hand and both should be defeated.
Just for fun you might want to visit DailyKos or Nathan Newman to get the Democratic perspective.
UPDATE: Both amendments were defeated tonight. The Santorum amendment fell 38 - 61 with 17 Republicans voting against it. The Kennedy amendment fell 46 - 49 with 4 Republicans voting for it.
Why is it that no Democrats cross the lines but on almost any issue Republicans can be found ready and willing to jump ship! The Democrats may not have principled convictions when it comes to the issues, but their party principle is definitely still intact.
After North Korea, Without Rancor and N. Korea Lists Conditions for Negotiations, in the LA Times, the journalist behind both pieces has responded to Hugh Hewitt’s questions. Barbara Demick doesn’t expect to be on his show however. Hugh has posted her response and has sent three additional questions to her. Here are the questions and her responses, along with my commentary.
"Hello. I still need to get permission from my keepers to appear on the program, but I suspect it will not be forthcoming. Sorry about that. Here, though, are my answers to your questions.Indeed we can judge from "there" that you have reported a portion of his evil actions, but we cannot see that you believe him to be evil. Your latest coverage effectively ignored his actions and intent, choosing instead to report only his agents view of North Korea.Best, Barbara Demick
Do you think Kim Jong Il is an evil man?
- We reported last summer that Kim Jong Il spent millions importing gourmet foods, cookbooks and chefs for himself while his countrymen were starving. One can judge from there.
Do you think Kim Jong Il and his government are responsible for the famine of the '90s.Good, good and good. Why then wasn’t it offered as a portion of the “Without Rancor” column? It would have been very simple to have reported the travesties suffered under the regime, and to have done so without unwarranted rancor. It is simply reporting the truth in conjunction with the propaganda offered by your businessman agent. Choosing not to showed a willingness to espouse the lies of the regime without the well justified inclusion of counter evidence. It was wrong to do so.
- YesHow many people does your research tell you died in the famine?
- Up to 2 million, about 10 percent of the populationDid Kim Jong Il and his government obstruct international relief efforts during the famine?
- Yes
Do you believe Kim Jong Il and his government breached the 1994 Agreement with the United States by secretly pursuing nuclear weapons via uranium enrichment?Technically no. You’ve got to be kidding. The agreement called for the DPRK to live up to its 1992 agreement with the ROK to a denuclearized Korean peninsula and it called for the freezing of the graphite moderated nuclear plants and related facilities and for the IAEA monitoring of those facilities. The DPRK failed to act in good faith with the agreement by continuing its efforts to enrich uranium and by restarting the pre-existing nuclear plants without IAEA supervision or monitoring. Their assertion that they were building a deterrent and then eventually that they have nuclear weapons is not a spirit only violation of the agreement. It is a direct technical violation of the agreement and its requirement that they act to ensure a denuclearization of the peninsula.
- technically, no, but in spirit, yes. The original agreement had several loopholes, which is why the administration now is insisting on CVID (Complete, Verifiable, Irreversible Dismantlement)
How many Japanese and Koreans do your researches suggest the Kim Jong Il regime and his father's regime had kidnapped over the past forty years?This is amazing. You recognize that the regime aborts the children of pregnant women trying to leave the DPRK, recognize that the DPRK has used prisoners as subjects for chemical testing, recognize that the DPRK has kidnapped Japanese and South Korean citizens, and recognize that they possess the means to asymmetrical attack Japan or the South without warning, yet they aren’t evil and none of this was included in your "Without Rancor" column.
- Around 20 Japanese. South Korean intelligence says 486 of their people.Has North Korea been forthcoming about these kidnap victims?
- Only about some of the JapaneseIs Japan correct to insist on an accounting of these kidnap victims?
- YesYou have reported on the allegations of chemicals being tested on prisoners in the North. Do you believe these accounts?
- I believe the guy I interviewed for a story that ran March 2004. Can't vouch for the others.Do you believe the accounts that pregnant North Korean women, caught attempting to escape from North Korea, are subjected to abortions as punishment? Do you believe the accounts that North Korean women, caught attempting to escape from North Korea, are forced to watch their children executed?
- Yes to the first. Not sure if it's a direct punishment for trying to escape the country, but NK women prisoners who are pregnant are required to abort. I'm not sure about the latter.If North Korea were to open its borders and pursue an economy with the same policies as South Korea, do you expect it would be as successful as the South has been in building an industrial base and economic growth?
- NoIs Kim Jong Il capable of launching an attack on the South or on Japan without warning?
- Conventional, no. Assymetrical, yes.
How many people do you estimate are kept in the prison camps of North Korea and how would you describe conditions there.This form of moral ambivalence is astonishing. I would applaud a journalist for the effort, and risk, taken to meet with and interview foreign nationals and agents such as "Mr. Anonymous" who was interviewed for "Without Rancor." But only on the condition that the journalist was acting in the interest of reporting the truth. The truth would include the perverted view of the DPRK and the highly relevant facts that do not jive with the DPRK version. I can’t say more now. Maybe later.
- The State Department says 150,000 to 200,0000 are held in extremely harsh conditions.Do you believe the man you met with in Bejing and interviewed for Thursday's story was an intelligence operative of the North Korean government?
- His job is to bring foreign investment and development aid into North Korea. As all North Korean business is owned by the Workers' Party, government or military, he is a government official -- or agent, as it were. He spoke in ways that other people would get imprisoned for, which means, not necessarily that he was a spook, but definitely that he is elite with some kind of tie to the top that is his source of protection."
A few small bits on not so small items in the news.
ANWR in the works... Perhaps. Senate Republicans are signaling that they'll include opening ANWR to drilling in the budget reconciliation process, where a filibuster is not permitted, just as the President requested. It's also good to see Senator Thune among those heading to Alaska this weekend to show their support for the measure.
Senator Salazar, D-CO, has requested that President Bush withdraw the 12 judicial nominees that the President resubmitted to the Senate. Republican Senators, and I, had hoped that Salazar would support an up or down vote on the nominees and help end the Democratic practice of filibustering nominees. His letter says the "decision to renominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness ... that is not helpful to our nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters." Salazar has not stated how he will vote on any nominee or on efforts to prevent a vote.
Senator Ted Stevens is wrong to want to apply the FCC's decency standards to cable and satelite communications, as is Congressman Barton. More later.
Syria should be aware that the ducks are being aligned. "We do have firm evidence that the bombing in Tel Aviv was not only authorized by Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus, but that Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus participated in the planning," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
Russia boasts of a new missile - "there is not and will not be any defense against these missiles." Sergei Ivanov, Russian Defense Minister, added that "Russia is stretched across 10 times zones, we have many neighbors, and not all of them are as predictable as European states" and that the weapons would be based on the Russian Topol-M ICBM and Bulava, a sea based missile. Of course, he didn't mention U.S. efforts to develop anti-ballistic missile defense systems specifically.
Iran has denied a request by the IAEA to revisit Parchin. In January when the IAEA inspection team visited Parchin, after a seven month wait, they requested to return to visit areas of Parchin not inspected during their initial visit. The denial was announced at a briefing by Pierre Goldschmidt to the IAEA's Board of Governors. Mr. Goldschmidt's report will be covered in a post tomorrow and is available here.
More tomorrow...
The Supreme Court of the United States has prohibited the execution of any criminal who perpetrates their crime while under the age of 18. The ruling, 5-4, once again shows the Courts disconnect from the Constitution and its attachment to the perceived social norms of our age rather than the law and reverses a 1989 ruling, Stanford v. Kentucky, on the same issue. A ruling in 2002, Atkins v. Virginia, that prohibited execution of mentally retarded criminals based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, led to this case coming before the court as it was the basis for the convicted murderers appeal.
The prevailing justices were Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer. Justices O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented.
The Opinion of the Court points to the evolving standards of decency as seen by the number of States banning execution of criminals under 18, just as it used the same argument in the Atkins ruling in 2002. It should have been obvious to the Court that the States, not the Court, are acting on the evolving standards of decency, and accordingly those that do not have public support for the death penalty, combined with those who do not support the execution of minor (under 18 but over 15) criminals are capable and willing to enact legislation appropriate to the publics sentiment. Instead, the Court once again took the opportunity to remove the States ability to determine its standards and law and established a Constitutional standard where none has been or was intended. Much like the poll taking of politicians the Court ruled based on the number of States supporting or not supporting this type of punishment and the lack of occurrences in those that do.
The Opinion also argues that the behavior of minors due to their lesser maturity likewise should lower the potential penalties to those minors. This again removes the responsibility of the jury, judge and law of the individual State to determine the mitigating, if any, factors associated with the mental state or maturity of the individual. The law, in this case the Constitution, makes no such claim nor does it demand the esteemed Justices of the Supreme Court to make such a determination.
From the ruling:
"A central feature of death penalty sentencing is a particular assessment of the circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the offender. The system is designed to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including youth, in every case. Given this Court’s own insistence on individualized consideration, petitioner maintains that it is both arbitrary and unnecessary to adopt a categorical rule barring imposition of the death penalty on any offender under 18 years of age.Here the Court acknowledges that it isn’t the law it is following, it is their desire to protect the youthful murderer. The Court again denies the rightful role of the State. I have not yet read Justice Scalia's dissent, joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist nor the dissent of Justice O'Connor. I will, and may add further comments after doing so.We disagree. The differences between juvenile and adult offenders are too marked and well understood to risk allowing a youthful person to receive the death penalty despite insufficient culpability."
In closing it should be clear that I am neither an attorney nor an advocate of the broad use of the death penalty. It should indeed be reserved for only the most heinous of crimes. Yet rulings such as this, removing the possibility that the most heinous of crime can be committed by a juvenile offender and likewise that the State may assess the most significant of punishments, denies both the will of the people, the judgment of a jury and the role of the law in the highest of chambers.
Hugh Hewitt has once again initiated a Vox Blogoli. Those inclined to opine are encouraged to reply. Being one so inclined I offer my take on the question.
McClellan or Grant? Should the GOP leadership in the Senate push to a confrontation with the Democrats over the filibustering of judicial nominees, and if the Dems filibuster even one judicial nominee, should the GOP move to the "nuclear option" of a rule change, even if Harry Reid threatens a Senate shutdown?
Nominees are sent to the Senate for “advice and consent.” After committee approval, the Senate may debate the nominee, and then the all-important vote. It’s the vote that serves to provide the advice, and potentially, the consent to the President. Only after consent does the President appoint the nominee to the court. Senate Democrats are using Senate filibuster rules to prevent the vote. The tactical reasoning is simple, the votes are there to approve the candidates, and may not be there (most likely aren’t) to break the filibuster given its requirement of 60 votes to end it.
Why make such a decision? The Democrats of late, perhaps since FDR or before, are more attached to their ideological view than they are to the Constitution and the constraints that it purposefully placed on the federal government and the Senate. The same reason that Republicans of all varieties (conservative, neo-con, paleo-con, classical liberal, social or religious conservative, libertarian, etc.) have come together to oppose the modern left, as seen in the Democratic Party. The responsibility to nominate, and appoint, judges rest in the hands of the President. To ensure that this authority is not abused, the Senate is given a role. Today’s Democratic Senators aren’t willing to accept that role; instead they chose to prevent a vote. This behavior, or tactic, is obstructionist, or alternatively a direct affront to the Constitution they swore to defend.
The left, now firmly guiding the Democratic Party, and groups such as the People for the American Way are flatly wrong in their assertion that the Senate is co-equal in the appointment of federal judges.
So, Grant or McClellan? Grant. McClellan has been tried before and has failed. It amounts to appeasement. The Republicans and supportive Democrats should stand firm and demand "NOT ANOTHER INCH." We’ve moved too far from the Constitution, every step farther away relates to another generation, at best, before we again see the Constitution upheld in the Courts and understand by the people. Not another inch.
And finally, a bit of advice for the liberal, moderate and conservative supporters of the Democratic Party. Don’t let these Senators obstruct the rule of law in your name. Our nation needs your political party and the upcoming elections in 2006 and 2008 are going to be impacted by the decisions made this year. If you doubt that, just watch Senator Clinton.
The other pic of Dr. Rice, in last nights post, is good. This one is better. Maybe because of the reaction of the troops as she walks by.
[Photo HT: Blaster's Blog via RWN]
First, deplorable behavior by Colorado's playground bullies er... Congressmen.
Rocky Mountain News - House leaders reminded members of the importance of decorum Wednesday, a day after a vulgar shouting match on the floor.Sweet. Next thing you know these gents will be meeting behind the capital for a little game of "who's can of whoop ass is bigger?" [HT: Say Anything]Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, and Minority Leader Joe Stengel, R-Littleton, stood together as they addressed the 60 House members present.
"The eyes of the state are upon us," Madden said. “The rules say there should be no loud private discussions and we should never impugn the motives of our colleagues.”
Said Stengel: "We need to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Let’s keep civility in the forefront and do the work of the people."
The day before, Rep. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, tangled with Rep. Val Vigil, D-Thornton, over an amendment to a license plate bill.
Cadman called the amendment "garbage." Vigil shot back that Cadman was "garbage."
Cadman then approached Vigil’s desk and told him if he ever pulled that again, "I’ll ram my fist up your ass."
The New York Times says that Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari is an Islamist.
The headline for Wednesday’s story on his becoming the candidate of choice for the United Iraqi Alliance is more fear mongering than it is truth - "Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants Islamist as the Prime Minister." The article is just as false as the authors paint the picture of disunity and contentions bickering, as if any nation, including our own, was ever formed without debate, negotiation and compromise. Burns and Filkins knew what they were writing, and they knew that it portrayed the situation in a negative light. Exactly the color if light they desired.
The truths - the United Iraqi Alliance is a majority Shi’a body and it won a majority of seats in the new government. Also the UIA has apparently chosen Dr. al-Jaafari as its candidate for Prime Minister. Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari is the leader of Iraq’s Dawa Party and lived outside Iraq for 20+ years (London and Iran).
But where does the idea that al-Jaafari is an Islamist come from, and why would the New York Times want to make you believe he is an Islamist?
First, a bit of background on the term Islamist. Some rather simple minded folks would say that any Muslim is an Islamist. If so, it would seem rather odd that the headline of a New York Times column would be "Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants a Muslim as the Prime Minister." That is clearly not what Burns and Filkins meant.
By Islamist, did they mean a Muslim who believes that the state and religion should be one, as in Shari’a Law should rule the land? Or did they mean, Islamist as the less pejorative form of islamofascist? Neither one being a choice that would make American or European readers of the NYTimes comfortable with the selection of Dr. al-Jaafari. And neither one an accurate description of Dr. al-Jaafari’s view.
Dr. al-Jaafari is a pragmatic and realistic politician who clearly values his faith and the traditional faith(s) of his fellow countrymen. He also values freedom. We’ll hear how he’s lived in Iran and how his party is associated with the spreading of the Islamic message, yet what is more important is his words and actions.
While he initially balked at signing the interim constitution, Dr. al-Jaafari did eventually agree, and has since been both an advocate of a federalist styled government, and an advocate of inclusion, ethnic and religious, far beyond what Iraq has known for the last 50+ years. He makes statements regarding the Islamic identity and tradition of Iraq, just as an American president might make remarks about a Judeo-Christian ethos of the U.S., and likewise he insists that the people of Iraq will not have a theocracy, i.e. Iran, instead they will have a government that supports their faith while securing their freedom.
Perhaps once again I am just an optimist. The NYTimes could be right and any non-secular Muslim would be an Islamist and therefore a threat. I just don’t believe that to be the case. Read the column and see for yourself. The photo, included in the column, has the following caption: "Ibrahim al-Jaafari, right, the Shiite faction's choice for prime minister, at a news conference in Baghdad Tuesday. He won only after Ahmad Chalabi, left, withdrew and promised to support Dr. Jaafari, an Islamist." [emphasis mine.]
It is quite frustrating it is to read editorials and columns by men who firmly believe that by liberating Iraq we’ve advanced the cause of the jihadist. Bob Herman, a columnist for the New York Times, is just the latest in the string of columnist to offer this view. When will these damned fools understand their folly?
Herman’s column includes this:
"So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We've energized the enemy. We've wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America."What was the war about? The answer should be obvious, but to Mr. Herman, it’s not. He believes that because Porter Goss tells the Senate that Iraq has become a “cause for extremist” that we’ve fueled or “energized” the enemy. What Director Goss described was how the extremists have responded to the liberation of Iraq. Their opposition to the U.S. is, as I’ve mentioned before, to our existence, our unalienable rights, and our worldview.
Iraq is no loss. It has shown us the extent of islamofascist thought and reach; it has focused their terror and in doing so limited their ability to strike the U.S. It has also removed the potential for a regime capable of providing aid in the form found in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, or worse in the form of weapons of mass destruction.
To say that the talents of many men and women have been “wasted” in Iraq is a horrible and shameful statement of Mr. Herman’s own thoughts on freedom and his own moral misgivings. Those who’ve fought, been injured, or died, to free the people of Iraq deserve so much more from men like Mr. Herman who live safely in the U.S. while they take the battle to the enemy, and draw the enemy to them as well.
The war on terror is global, it is strategic and tactical, and it is ideological. The strategic battle is being won as evidenced by the rising freedom of the Iraqi people who are choosing freedom’s ideals over terror and repression and in the long absence of attacks on the U.S. It’s tactical battles are won on every battlefield we have faced the enemy on, as well as on the streets when they blow themselves up and remove themselves from the battle. Ideologically, however, the greatest victory comes from the presence of purple fingered Iraqi’s, the continued will of the American’s to serve freedom at home and abroad and the movements in the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere to bring Muslims an alternative to the Islam of the Jihadist and instead offer Muslims a chance to stand as free men of faith, voting for their future and against terrorism.
We are told that Jihad is the struggle for that which is holy. Struggle requires will. Where is Mr. Herman's will?
Ambassador John Negroponte, currently the top administration representative to Iraq, has been nominated to become the nations first national intelligence director. And Air Force Lieutenant General Mike Hayden, who since 1999 has served as Director of NSA, has been nominated as deputy national intelligence director.
Lt. Gen. Hayden is clearly a strong choice and may signal... and may signal the combined agencies with the type of changes and leadership to expect.
And Negroponte, former Ambassador to Honduras, Mexico, the Philippines, and the UN, as well as serving in various roles with the State Department and as President Reagan’s Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs is likely to be easily confirmed and a capable leader for the agencies in question.
I'd really like to hear Porter Goss' take on the nominations.
UPDATE: The Washington Post has the transcript of this morning's press conference. It includes President Bush's response to questions regarding Syria's involvement in Rafik Hariri's murder and their support for terrorist and Ba'athist holdouts from Iraq.
Hugh Hewitt points to a significant challenge to Republicans in his brief discussion of the Bush administrations plans to reduce farm subsidies. As a matter of principle, farm subsidies should be cut or eliminated. Despite marketing campaigns that portray them as a means to protect and enable small farms, the subsidies turn out to be nothing more than corporate welfare. Pragmatically, the reduction or elimination of farm subsidies is a dangerous political move that, if handled ineffectively, could result in political defeats across the heartland.
No matter the issue, the challenge for principled center-right conservatives or libertarians (small “l” not the party) is to find the balance between our principles and the pragmatic implementation or not of them. While reading the blogs listed on the sidebar, I’m often struck by the struggle to find this balance and, at the same time, find that I’m unwilling to argue against the principle on almost all occasions (excepting of course when I disagree with it). This, I believe, is because principle is rare in public discourse, and the expression of it is noteworthy. That being said, we must also show our willingness to accept the pragmatic options that will most definitely fall short of our objectives, for our greatest objective has to be to have those who, at least marginally, share our worldview in the hallowed chambers of the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court.
Hugh was on Dennis Prager’s show for the last hour flogging Blog. It was, as you’d expect, an excellent hour even though much of it was Hugh explaining blogs to Dennis, who still doesn’t have one.
Twelve judicial nominees, of the twenty submitted today, are repeat visitors who didn’t receive an up or down vote by the Senate in their previous nomination. President Bush has signaled the Senate that he expects things to be different. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has made it clear things will be different, either by a change of rules or by the so-called nuclear option.
Here are the nominations:
I decided to watch Kudlow & Company on CNBC, to see Hugh Hewitt, John Hinderaker, and Glenn Reynolds weigh in on Easongate and the MSM’s continued cover-up of the story, i.e. the real story being CNN’s cover-up of Eason Jordan’s remarks back in November and again at Davos, I was pleasantly surprised to find Ralph Peters and Rowan Scarborough on preceding the bloggers. Peters and Scarborough discussed the election results in Iraq and North Korea’s nuclear admission.
Peters, as expected, was right on point and hilariously blunt in his assessments. They noted, as I did in a previous post, that the NYTimes and Washington Post both paint the picture of the election results as a failure, and Peters, Scarborough and host, Larry Kudlow, noted that it was the "best result we could have looked for." Peters on North Korea:
"North Koreans are dumb." And with regard to their announcement, and the resulting international isolation, it was "as dumb as going into a singles bar and announcing you’ve got herpes."That was well worth a laugh.
Next up, Easongate and the bloggers.
The bloggers made it very clear that the story was that Eason Jordan had done it before, meaning he’d claimed that the military target and tortured journalist, and that CNN had covered up his comments, choosing instead to see him go, rather than see the tapes of his comments made public.
They went on to discuss the left’s response and the future of their blogs. Hugh rightly characterized the left’s criticism of the blogs as jealousy, speaking specifically of Lovelady and this unexplainable WSJ Opinion piece, and John and Glenn stated their future interest as the court appointments, offering redress for those slandered (Hinderaker), and science policy and the war (Reynolds).
Haven’t watched CNBC in a few years, and while I’m certain it isn’t all as conservative, or even balanced, like Kudlow & Company, and it isn’t as visually grabbing as FoxNews, it wasn’t bad at all.
When looking through the technorati listing of references to Thomas Friedman’s Sunday NY Times column, No Mullah’s Left Behind, I was disappointed to see little refutation of Friedman’s column. And more disappointed to see Glenn Reynolds agreeing with this Friedman statement:
As a geo-green, I believe that combining environmentalism and geopolitics is the most moral and realistic strategy the U.S. could pursue today. Imagine if President Bush used his bully pulpit and political capital to focus the nation on sharply lowering energy consumption and embracing a gasoline tax.Thankfully, Glenn goes on to suggest that nuclear power plants as a solution. Still, however, he appeared to focus on energy for our cars, he describes the nuclear power plants as a means to producing hydrogen as a replacement fuel for autos. All fine by me, except that the majority of our energy needs aren’t our cars or transportation (35% to 40% of our energy consumption is for transportation, of which almost all is petroleum based). [For stats on U.S. Energy consumption see the Energy Information Administration. - ed.]
Is the objective to reduce our dependence on foreign (read Middle Eastern) oil, or to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Or both.
The primary issue I take with Friedman’s suggestion is the gasoline tax as a means to alter behavior. The idea of changing our behavior through taxing the consumption of gasoline is abhorrent to me. The proper means to accomplish the objective of reducing fossil fuel dependence, and the attached relationship to despotic leaders in the Middle East, is through altering our own production capabilities and sources.
We have untapped resources in petroleum and we’ve nearly completely abandoned the use of nuclear energy. If we moved toward greater use of nuclear energy for non-transportation sector supply, the cut in fossil fuel usage would be significant, although, clearly 35 percent or more would remain due to transportation requirements. That component could be reduced through means such as Reynolds’ suggestion of hydrogen-fueled vehicles, but the time, and cost, between that solution and now is significant. The first step has to be opening up ANWR and other domestic sources for petroleum based exploration and production.
Whether geo-green or not, the administration needs to act to cut off U.S. backing of repressive regimes in the Middle East, and further, to create a more independent and viable long term solution to our energy needs. Our fear of nuclear technology, the cost associated with alternative fuels, and the lefts environmentalist ideals all serve as constraints to change rather as proponents of change. Another constraint is the attachment to stability. For years our economic policy has been propped up by the idea that through our continued use of Middle Eastern oil we foster stability in the region. This has to go. Maintaining the stability of despots neither advances the liberty of people around the world, nor does it enhance our security.
After reading Barone's piece, linked below, from Newsweek, be sure and read Robert Novak's latest in the Washington Post. [HT: B4B] Despite the criticism below, the column is generally positive.
Dan Kennedy, a reporter and blogger for the Boston Phoenix, questioned whether the Jordan controversy "would have been lifted out of the right-wing-bloggers-go-after-Eason Jordan paradigm if it hadn't been for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd," two Democratic members of Congress who were at the Davos forum and criticized Jordan's remarks. "You get bloggers bringing it to people's attention, but without some additional push from the mainstream, I don't know if you get over the top and actually push out people like Eason Jordan and Dan Rather."I don't know Kennedy. But I don't particularly like his view. Blogs aren't mainstream media. That much I'll concede. But they are new media and are rapidly becoming more mainstream. Hence, Representative Frank and Senator Dodd, television shows like the West Wing, and the inseperable ties between the blogs and talk radio (left or right).
Michelle Malkin called Frank and Dodd for comment. Kennedy makes it sound as if Frank and Dodd brought the journalist into the story. Malkin, being a journalist and a damn fine blogger, brought them into it. Credit isn't something the old-media is in a hurry to give to the new, even in a generally positive piece.
Eason Jordan has resigned!
There is more to do... and, of course, late friday night is the time to resign if you want to limit coverage.
Here's the story:
NEW YORK -- CNN Chief News Executive Eason Jordan resigned late Friday in the wake of a controversy over remarks he made at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, about deaths of journalists in Iraq.Congratulations to all those who pushed the issue. And shame on CNN for not making it happen earlier, calling for the release of the tapes, and so many more things I don't have time to list.Mr. Jordan said in a resignation note he was stepping down to "prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy" over his remarks. During a panel presentation in Davos late last month, he made remarks that were interpreted by some people present as suggesting the U.S. military in Iraq had deliberately targeted journalists to be killed.
Mr. Jordan subsequently clarified his remarks to emphasize he didn't mean to imply the U.S. military had targeted journalists. In his resignation note, he said his comments during the Davos panel discussion "were not as clear as they should have been." He added, "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists."
Mr. Jordan is a former president of news gathering at the network, a unit of Time Warner Inc. (TWX), but he has not held day-to-day responsibilities for editorial direction or news content since September 2003, a CNN spokeswoman said.
-By Joe Flint and Martin Peers; The Wall Street Journal
Projections for Medicare Drug Benefit cost have more than doubled, if the Washington Post is correct in their statement that it could cost $1.2 trillion for the coming ten years. And despite the number of other reports now using that figure, it doesn't appear that the Post has it right.
The Post, at best, failed to grasp the nature of the subject matter, and in doing so didn't recognize the vast difference between a projection based on 10 years of full (and growing) participation and the initial projections based on 8 years of full participation with 2 years of only limited availability. At worst, the Post reported the $1.2 trillion cost compared to earlier estimates of $534 billion with the full knowledge that the $534 billion factored in the savings to the Fed associated with the initial projection, while the $1.2 trillion does not. That figure would have more accurately been reported as $720 billion.
Is there a difference between $534 billion and $720 billion? Of course, but given the two additional years of full participation, it is relatively minor. It is effectively yields a 9% increase in cost, and given the growing base of participants included in the planning, that strikes me as a reasonable number. The same would hold true for a comparison between the $400 billion projection from 2003 (a 28% increase with 3 added years of full participation).
And just so we are clear... I am not, nor have I ever been an advocate of the program, although I much prefer it to the single provider option the Democrats prefer.
Boulder - Met by wild applause Tuesday night from hundreds of supporters, controversial University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill strongly attacked Gov. Bill Owens and the CU Board of Regents and said he would never back down from his comparison of some 9/11 victims to Nazi Adolf Eichmann.It concludes...Looking out on the mass of adoring supporters, with hundreds more listening outside in the cold, Churchill said loudly, "Bill Owens, do you get it now?"
"I do not work for the taxpayers of the state of Colorado. I do not work for Bill Owens. I work for you," he told the CU audience.
On Tuesday night, Churchill again emphasized that he was not blaming everyone in the towers for U.S. policies.The Rocky Mountain News coverage is here. And for a little more local news, how about the quarantine of a Frontier flight from Philadelphia. A sick passenger, or as the local CBS affiliate reported this evening, a passenger with a "rash", caused the plane to be held in quarantine while medics attempted to determine the cause and severity of the illness. The passenger is apparently in the hospital and all other passengers where released."No I did not call a bunch of food service workers, janitors, children, firefighters and random passers-by little Eichmanns," he said. "The reference is to a technical core of empire - the technicians of empire ... obviously I was not talking about these people."
After blogging Bad For Us All, I read Dorian Davis’ The Modern Monarchists at Alarming News. Dorian is writing as a guest blogger for Karol, who is busy with work, and also has a blog of his own.
Dorian’s excellent post deals with the internal enemies of the people and their ascension to power through the courts. Dorian concludes with a Nixon quote, a rare item in this age of political correctness, having already established his point, that a vocal and fervent minority has established itself over the will of the majority and over reason.
Whether in the courts, the press, or the Democratic Party’s leadership, it can only be seen as a sign of the significance the enemies of the United States have made. And from within, for it is from within that we are most likely to be defeated. From within our guard is lowered, we are restrained from defense of reason and virtue alike, and from within we are prohibited to state that others, clearly acting against the nation, are seditious, treasonous or most graciously, wrong and bad for the nation.
Many of the acquaintances and friends I’ve had in my lifetime have been honorably liberal, and likewise conservative. Far fewer have been overtly leftist, or open supporters of radical movements from the left, whether they be environmentalist, abortionist, same-sex marriage advocates, pacifist, socialist, communist or islamofascist. Yet these same good willed men and women have allowed the leadership of their party to take positions that are in line with the most extreme of these views.
As Dorian notes, courts now ignore the views of the people, ignore the real rights of the people, and fabricate rights for those who’ve squealed the loudest. When ELF burns homes or apartments, or the EPA squashes the livelihood of men, where is the voice of the Democratic Party? The reality is that it has become the extreme, and until the aforementioned well meaning liberal voters stand in the face of the extreme left, the nation will see no good of them, nor will it be safe from the vocal minority.
Good men doing nothing. It is bad for us all.
An excellent summary of the budget proposal from the Washington Times. [HT: Betsy's Page]
I've not yet completed my reviews, Defense being the only completed portion posted, but will do so.
Are we wrong to be concerned that the Democratic Party seems destined to select Howard Dean as their next chair of the DNC? Prior to the election I wrote on several occasions that a strong a viable Democratic Party is essential to the future good governance of the U.S. Not because I want to see them win an election, or regain prominence in the House or Senate, but because the ideas and ideals that are presented to the American people are so strongly influenced by the two parties and the leftist, as opposed to liberal, movement of the Democratic Party means fewer viable alternative viewpoints and greater extremism.
Given that Kandidate Clinton, now serving as a Senator, along with the likes of Kerry, Gore and Edwards will lead the pack for the 2008 nomination. It seems certain that the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left and is secure enough to stay. I say this despite Clinton’s rather obvious attempts to seem more centrist and even hawkish. The reality is that her efforts are a political move to increase her viability in 2008, but doesn’t change the real nature of her politics or her base (which would undoubtedly support her even as a more centrist candidate).
For the immediate future, it’s probably good news for the Republican Party. In the long run, it signals a more permanent shift toward the left and is neither good for the Democratic Party or the nation.
Harvey Kushner was interviewed by NRO and this morning was on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. Like Laura, I can only hope that much of what Harvey has to say is wrong. If not, we aren’t tackling, not due to effort, the war on terror as effectively as needed.
The NRO interview is available here. The book, Holy War on the Home Front: The Secret Islamic Terror Network in the United States, is available here. [HT: LGF]
Self tortured into reading the various components of the budget, and any or all other related docs, I’ve come to only one real conclusion thus far.
No one will be happy with this budget, as is. That should be seen as a good thing. And if it weren’t for elections in ’06 it just might have been.
I’m pleased that the President hasn’t tried to please everyone, and perhaps has gone so far as to please no one. Will it work? Don’t know, it’ll depend on the earnestness of the Republicans in the Senate who will have to show the Representatives in the House that they aren’t going to leave them open to attack in ’06. In addition, it’ll depend on the social security debate, if we ever get around to a proposal, and what will certainly be a contentious debate of judicial nominations. If the Republicans have the juice to stand up and be counted, and can force the Dems to stand by the Kennedy/Kerry/Pelosi type remarks, we’ll have so many of, then the Representatives in the House may feel they’re well backed for ’06 and be willing to take a stand on the budget and social security, when the time comes.
As for me, after only reading the defense component and portions of the homeland security and justice components, I’m suitable concerned and therefore able to lend my support. Cautiously... which is a good thing. I think.
I’ll be reviewing the Departmental proposals in their order of significance (to me). Therefore the first is the Department of Defense.
The Defense budget is $421 billion. Proposed Defense discretionary authority is $419 billion with mandatory expenses of $1.9 billion. This is an increase of 4.8% in Defense spending over FY 2005.
Highlights:
Increased production of unmanned vehicles including the various UGV, UAV, UUV programs, as well as the unmanned combat aerial vehicle. $1.7 billion total for unmanned vehicle programs. Several other higher tech weapons and communications systems are covered as well.
Increase in salary for uniformed service members of 3.1% and civilians personnel by 2.3%.
$613 million for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a higher speed near-shore combat vessel, which looks promising. This is a $153 million increase over FY 2005. DD(X), CVN-21 and Virginia Class Submarines all continue development and procurement.
Continued reorganization of the Army and Navy to form more "modular" or self-contained smaller units, brigade sized, as opposed to the traditional divisions. From 33 brigades to 43 in the Army, and proportional increase in the reserve. Source: Secretary Rumsfeld during briefing. The Marine Corps will be adding two battalions, and a small number of combat and combat support elements.
Continued reorganization under SOCOM with 1200 special operations forces from the military and 200 civilians. $50 million allocated to retain SOF forces.
$416 million to begin the GPI reorganization which will bring American troops, and their families home to the U.S., and cut the number of overseas bases by 300. A 10-year, $3.5 billion effort, but well worth it. This will also have significant impact on base closure decisions for bases within the U.S.
Continued improvement in the acquisition of new systems and technology through the "spiral acquisition" model. Those familiar with technology development methodologies will recognize the benefits, and welcome the new approach. The Army’s FCS is slated to receive components in ’08 versus the entire system in ’10 due to the spiral approach.
Privatize nearly 50% of military family housing, which had been found inadequate.
Significant increases for reservist and guardsmen in education benefits (40%, 109%, and 179%) based on the amount of time on active duty.
$7.8 billion for the Missile Defense Agency.
Concerns –
Slowing down production of the V-22 Osprey.
Cutting the number of F/A-22 from over 300 to 179.
Cutting the number of aircraft carriers from 12 to 11.
At first look, there aren’t many areas where I’m too concerned. Cutting the number of Raptors and speeding the retirement of one carrier aren’t likely to please many of who are concerned with more distant and conventional warfare, or the possibility of such. The Osprey has long had its detractors. More after further reflection, and of course, your thoughts or links are welcome.
Sources: White House OMB Defense Budget, the Secretary of Defense's briefing on the budget proposal, and DoD budget docs available at DefenseLink.
After reading the President's message, overview, and priorities documents (I, II, III, IV, and V), I’m offering some initial reaction to the proposal. On first reading, it is striking that the budget proposal makes clear that performance has to take a lead in determining the continuation of existing programs. While this will meet with some opposition, as performance over intent is an unlikely argument by many in Congress, it offers a glimpse into the thinking of the President and the realities of such an enormous budget.
The budget reflects the improving health of the economy, and that tax revenues are increasing, due to (or for the left, in spite of) the tax cuts over the last four years. Additionally, it highlights, to the President’s credit, the shortcomings of the government in certain areas. These include real property asset management, competitive sourcing, and improper payments. Additionally noteworthy, is the policy statements behind much of the budget, including specifically the administrations policy directions toward taxes, energy, litigation reform and regulatory reform. It was also a welcome thing to see that the budget, and future projections, weren’t based on pie in the sky predictions of future GDP growth, instead settling towards a 3.1% growth for the years ’09 and ’10. The same was done of the productivity gains, which have averaged 4.2% for the last four years, but ongoing projections are at 2.5%.
Yet to come is the specific departmental proposals, and a chance to see if the domestic policy supports the ideal of compassionate conservatism, a safety net as opposed to a hammock, and continued refocusing of federal dollars to an updated and strengthened national defense and security establishment.
To what degree has the instant criticism of the budget been based on review and analysis of the actual proposal versus coming from the animosity of the Democrats in Congress to any and everything the President proposes? Exclusively.
And while we are looking at the issue of budget criticism, what about Dan Froomkin’s post at washingtonpost.com where he doesn’t challenge the credibility of the budget based on the merits of the budget, instead offering that its proposed cuts haven’t happened in the past, and that the real message is an impending cut in Social Security benefits. Scare mongering anyone?
The proposal is online, and, as would be expected, large. I’m only a smidgen of the way through it, and will give my impressions, and criticisms, after completing it (or at least the significant components).
Juan Cole is an expert in Middle East studies. And as I've noted several times before, his politics have a much greater hold on his views of the Middle East than his expertise, or that of anyone else, should.
He and Jonah Goldberg are having a bit of a feud. It's quite entertaining, and doesn't bode well for the erstwhile expert. (HT: Instapundit)
Jonah's latest is excellent, as is (isn't it always) the latest from wretchard. It's enough to make me wish I'd been online this weekend.
Didn't have time to address these things fully. Thus, a quick walk through missed items of news and note.
---
Lieutenant General James N. Mattis says it like it is. When you are killing those who’ve done naught but evil, when you are fighting for right, it is a fun job. The MSM will no doubt make much ado of his comments. I for one am confident that Devil Dogs know what he meant, and how he meant it. It isn’t taking life that is fun, it's doing what is right.
What he said:
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil, you know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."I'm sure he knows that he should better manage his words when in public, if for no other reason than we live in a world where political correctness has removed our ability to be men, and speak to men, in direct and honest terms. We are all walking on eggshells to one degree or another.
Erakat wants 20 years of prisoners released. As I’ve said before, Abbas may not be Arafat, but he is not interested, truly, in peace. If he is, he will not last, not with men like Erakat in the majority. The Bush administration is pleased with Israel's gesture. Of course, as it has been far too often in the past, Israel is more than willing to make concessions in hopes that the Palestinians will somehow show a similar response. This is most likely a false hope. But then again, I'm less optimistic about Abbas, and overly cynical of the Palestinian people's desire for peace... over the destruction of Israel.
---
Ward Churchill remains employed, for now, by CU. I remain disgusted by his comments, and hopeful that rather than seeing him mistakenly fired, he’ll resign. Not going to happen. Also equally, okay not quite equally, disgusted by the behavior of those who are supporting him. And, how about this, his membership in the Keetoowah, a Cherokee Indian tribe, is honorary.
---
Alberto Gonzales is Attorney General. And fighting terrorism remains the primary objective. The Democrats made it a largely party line vote, and, once again, showed they are not behind the President or the nation in the greater war on terror. Ken Salazar, an exception, voted for Mr. Gonzales. Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, thus far, has been much as he campaigned, and I'm pleased and, well, surprised.
---
Eason Jordan hasn’t gotten his due. Yet. The MSM, Washington Times excluded, are giving him a free ride. As is the UN which hasn’t released a video of his remarks. CNN is clearly playing for the overseas anti-American audience, and the remainder of the MSM seems unwilling to confront Jordan or CNN.
---
Paul Volcker and the panel investigating the UN Oil for Food program have released the initial report on their investigation. "A Grave And Continuing Conflict Of Interest" It's not the title, but it should have been. Volcker said that Benon Sevan "repeatedly solicit[ed] oil allocations for a small company called African Middle East Petroleum Co." Sevan is set to have his diplomatic immunity removed. And Annan has not yet been cleared of any wrongdoing.
---
There are many more items worth discussing. After visiting the blogs on the sidebar, I'll have more to say.
Well, that was fun. To the folks at TCS, Blogs for Bush, and Take Back the News thanks for sending lots of readers. And to those who came, and one in particular who updated 40+ times, it is much appreciated. Hope you'll come back often.
Good night, for now.
Here's the White House text of the address as delivered
Well, that was stirring. Next up the Democratic response. But first, either I missed it or their was no discussion of North Korea or Latin America. No discussion of Putin's actions in Russia, think Yukos and post Beslan steps to assert political force. I guess they'll be up for WTO membership shortly.
The Democratic response. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
---
"When I grow up I want to be just like you." Come on... Senator, you can do better than that. The President has extended his hand. What are you doing?
Too many of the President's policies have left us stuggling. Deficit/Debt. The Democratic response, spur research and trade policy.
A Marshall plan for America... Highways and the internet. What have you been smoking Senator.
Health care cost up. What are you doing about it, sir? Groundhog day!!! Arrgghhh!!!
I didn't hear a direct plan for SS, what's the deal, Reid must have ESP.
Moral values.... ahh!!! The new Democratic ideal - moral values.
Democrats will offer real answers... laughable.
Pelosi UP!
National security. Okay... tell us Nancy. The troops rock, that we agree on.
Our future in Iraq - Can't stay, can't leave... "insurgency" come on, t. e. r. r. o. r. i. s. t. can you say it with me "terrorist."
Transfer as soon as possible. No, transfer when the Iraqi's are capable and ready.
She is a loon... you can't rebuild the infrastructure until you've gained a reasonable level of security, and diplomacy would have done nothing to end the terrorist attacks in Iraq.
I can't take it... She claims the President hasn't put together a comprehensive plan, and being the minority leader in the House, where is her plan. Congress has the authority to legislate, where is it.
Democrats - the new Republicans.
What's this, a new G.I. bill?
Thank God its over. Wheh....
Liveblogging the address should begin shortly. The introduction of the President nears. As has been the norm for President Bush, this should be an excellent SOTU address, and given Pelosi and others have expressed such disdain for the man, it'll be interesting to see their response. Bluefingers in the chamber, they will no doubt be held aloft at the appropriate time.
---
Excellent intro... Afghanistan, Palestinian Territories, Ukraine, and FREE AND SOVEREIGN IRAQ.
Quick to it. Improve the lot for our children and grandchildren. Stewardship.
2.3 million new jobs. None for me but that'll change someday.
Restrain the spending apetite of the government. Here! Here! But you better follow through.
"Tax payer $ must be spent wisely or not at all." That would be an accomplishment.
Just gotta love watching the Dems while he discusses improving education.
Tort reform. Knew it would be there.
Health care, more control for the individual family, tax credits for insurance, tech implementations, expanded HSA's, and liability reform. The last being the kicker.
Energy - hydrogen, clean coal and ethanol... 4 years is enough. ANWR anyone?
Tax code = archaic. Again, good to hear, but hard to imagine happening.
Reject amnesty and close the border via what policy.... Back it up. No.
Social security - okay, so she's headed for "bankruptcy" someday. Tell us your plan.
As expected - 55+ = status quo. Length of life, benefits increase, 16 to 1. Benefits still rising. Who clapped for that?
2 to 1 and higher benefits to larger number of retirees. 2018 pay out more than in.
2027 $200 billion and by bankrupt by 2042. Boo birds. Rude.
Excellent picture painting with the child 13 years from college, but how to fix it? Open and candid review. List of options... all on the table.
Clearly the President is opening the door to the dems... unlikely they will accompany him. Sorry to say.
And finally, voluntary personal retirement accounts. If for no other reason than the abilty to pass the funds on to survivors, it has an upside. Lot's of regulatory issues. Gradual introduction will be interesting to see. Tie it to the Thrift Savings Plan model. This may, will, have to wait until legislation is drafted.
Amending the Constitution for marriage protection. Don't expect to see it happen but know why its here.
EXCELLENT! Going after the up or down vote on court nominees. Frist, will ensure it happens. BRAVO!
Getting big cheers on the inner city gang life and outreach to youths. 3 year initiative lead by Laura. Good choice.
Ryan White Act renewal.
Expanding use of DNA. Sounds like money. Defense counsel special training for capital punishment cases. Okay.
Freedom from fear... security at home. Too bad its called Homeland Security. We've done this... that... and this too. (BORDERS)
Declining number of terrorist supporting nations. Dems will pervert this one.
He may have been just being polite, but to include the UN as providing assistance in the elections was a gift. Unless speaking solely of Afghanistan. Perhaps.
Conditions that feed the ideologies... I'm not sure I like the "force of human freedom." Of course, I like freedom, just not the wording. The ultimate goal of ending tyranny is huge. Big job.
Not imposing our form of government. Good to make that clear. Key being that governments are representative of their people.
Landmark events. Indeed but don't overly rely on the Palestinian Authority hoss... We've been down that road before. $350 million for the PA. Whoa.
Fight terror and encourage higher level of freedom. Saudi Arabia and Egypt should show the way by, respectively, increasing role of people in government and expanding democracy.
Syria and Lebanon. Hope they are listening.
Iran. Must give up enrichment program, etc. And to the people of Iran, American stands with you. THAT PART IS KEY. Will Europe play along?
BLUEFINGERS held high!!! Hoorah!
"The terrorists are afraid. They are losing." so she and her family voted. Good story.
They've earned our respect. More sir, they've earned our admiration.
Saddam was a real occupation. Damn straight. And the Iraqi voter "Sophia." Not sure of the spelling. Keep applauding, she and her country need to hear it.
Small group of extremist will not overturn the will of the Iraqi people. Excellent.
New phase of our involvement in Iraq. Building the Iraqi forces. U.S. to take a supporting role. The strategy is adapting, the commitment remains!
No artificial timeline for return. Ideolism and character of the service members. Indeed. Unrelenting, Unwavering, Unmatched. We will do everything we can to help (those who've suffered injury) recover. Damn straight. You've done your job Mom, now it's my time to protect you. Marine Sergeant Byron Norwood's family. Don't stop applauding. Don't ever stop....
Very eloquent here. Quoting FDR, sounding like a touch of MLK, Jr.
Excellent!!!
Be sure and let me know how you think I did (email or comments). God bless and good night.
TCS and Blogs for Bush offer links to those Liveblogging the State of the Union address. If you aren't near a television (where is that), you can watch online at C-SPAN.
I will be liveblogging the address, and the Democrat's response(s), so long as blogger cooperates.
The former chairman of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado has rightfully been the center of much attention given his remarks, both past and present, regarding the attacks of September 11th, 2001. And as of the latest news, he is no longer going to be speaking at Hamilton College. Yet there is a point at which we go to far.
He has reportedly received threats on his life. Too far.
I in no way defend his statements. Yet I do not believe that under the current contemptible tenure system that he can or should be fired. Not that his words aren’t disgusting and inflammatory, but that we who recognize them as such might tumble into the same sort of behavior that he is accused of supporting bothers me to no end. What I’d prefer to see is his remarks widely commented on, ridiculed and subjected to every possible scrutiny. In doing so we maintain our support for the rights of all men to speak their minds, no matter how twisted and sick, and we remove the barrier between his words and truth.
Unfortunately we have long sat idly by and watched men of his ilk become the guides for our children in institutions of higher education. The system of tenure that secures his employment is rightly held in contempt. Just as all systems that reward or pay its employees based on the attainment of an advanced degree, rather than on merit should be. Churchill did not create that system, and he is now, and long has been, protected by such short sightedness.
This ends for me with a sick feeling in my stomach knowing that he will not be fired, and that by calling for him to be, we are not addressing the two issues at hand; first, of course, the deplorable comments he has made and second, the system that has given him prominence while making them. As always, your comments are welcome. If only he would quit....
Victory isn’t found in how, when or even why you leave. As General Ferdinand Foch is reported to have said: Victory is a thing of the will.
There are too many Senators who have not the will to earn Victory. Their belief that an exit strategy equates to success is no more than a cover for their own aims. We leave, Iraq falls to any of a number of woes, and they once again point to the President’s policies as the cause.
The good news comes from Iraq’s own leaders who are so much wiser.
Senator Clinton is reported to have collapsed while speaking in Amhearst.
No further data yet. Hope she is well.
UPDATE: Drudge now has his flashing light banner up. "HILLARY COLLAPSES DURING SPEECH"
MORE: She is apparently fine. Drudge reports her staff as saying. Here's the AP and Fox reports. Glad to hear that she's alright.
The AP reports on a disturbing lack of understanding about the First Amendment, or further, the nature of our government. The report stems from a study by John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Having read the released data from the study, it strikes me that the coverage focuses on the First Amendment, but the trouble is much larger. The students are ignorant of the Constitution and lack a basic understanding of the principles of our nation. After all, schools don’t teach fundamentals. We’ve replaced our ideal to be an educated people with a desire to be an employable populace.
There are many things that I find particularly delightful about the blogosphere and the voices heard through it. One of the greater joys stems from the ability of average citizens, not professional commentators or subject matter experts, to find and comment on the outlandish remarks of those whose ego, politics or personal biases have diluted their former intellectual honesty. The earliest aftermath of the elections in Iraq have brought many examples of men who have strayed far from the watering hole, and into a desert of disillusionment.
Of course, the political panderers are high on any list of such characters. There are Senators Kennedy and Kerry to name but two. And from academia, which sounds far too much like an ailment when said with a slow southern drawl, there is Dr. Juan Cole. The journalists, or at a minimum the editors who drive their content and determine their headlines, are an example of an industry filled with such men. And then there are everyday citizens who comment on their guffaws. I am pleased to be one.
In his own words, Senator Kennedy has made it clear that the U.S. is in an unviable situation in Iraq. "The current course is only making the crisis worse." Kennedy’s words are better suited to his party’s abject refusal to work with the President, to support the effort in Iraq, and to act in the best interest of our nation and the world.
Senator Kerry, formerly just a choir boy for the looney left, now a leading soloist, despite his failed attempt at becoming president, has also gone on record with a myriad of comments either meant to weaken our position in Iraq, or at best to state his disconnect from reality. How about these words of wisdom… "the [Iraq] elections don’t mean that much." If true, they would be yet another reversal to yet another reversal. Along with his worries over the election being "over-hype[d]," it is clear that the failed candidate isn’t satisfied with being a presidential election loser, he wants to be an eternal loser siding with the enemies of democracy.
Unlike Greg Djerejian, who along with Wretchard have excellent posts on Dr. Cole, I removed Dr. Cole from my blogroll months ago. As I said then, he ticks me off, and has shown no ability to find positives in either the Bush administrations policies, or in the men who implement them. As for alternatives, he hasn't offered those either. Only the foolish, which the professor apparently is, would question the election as a victory, or call it a "joke." While I tend to agree with David Bernstein’s take at the Volokh Conspiracy, I’m not sure that Dr. Cole’s anti-American, anti-Israel views aren’t examples of more than an ultra-leftist viewpoint. Anti-Semitism has many off shoots and rears its head in many forms. When, if ever, has Dr. Cole offered positive words regarding Israeli policymakers, or taken the word of American Jewish government officials at face value?
The list of examples is far greater but unnecessary tonight. For tomorrow, they’ll offer once again new reasons to question their motivations, allegiances and viewpoint. Thankfully, many will answer the call.
In an astonishing show of their vision, leadership and oratory prowess, Senator Ted Kennedy, speaking in Washington, and former President Bill Clinton, in Davos, delivered stirring messages today.
Speaking at Johns Hopkins School of International Studies, Kennedy made the following speech:
"Forty years ago, America was in another war in a distant land. At that time, in 1965, we had in Vietnam the same number of troops and the same number of casualties as in Iraq today.And from the former president:We thought in those early days in Vietnam that we were winning. We thought the skill and courage of our troops was enough. We thought that victory on the battlefield would lead to victory in the war, and peace and democracy for the people of Vietnam.
We lost our national purpose in Vietnam. We abandoned the truth. We failed our ideals. The words of our leaders could no longer be trusted.
In the name of a misguided cause, we continued the war too long. We failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that our very presence was creating new enemies and defeating the very goals we set out to achieve. We cannot allow that history to repeat itself in Iraq.
We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe. The war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation.
We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution. [snipped.... click to read the full speech]
We need a serious course correction, and we need it now. We must make it for the American soldiers who are paying with their lives. We must make it for the American people who cannot afford to spend our resources and national prestige protracting the war in the wrong way. We must make it for the sake of the Iraqi people who yearn for a country that is not a permanent battlefield and for a future free from permanent occupation.
The elections in Iraq this weekend provide an opportunity for a fresh and honest approach. We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces.
The first step is to confront our own mistakes. Americans are rightly concerned about why our 157,000 soldiers are there -- when they will come home -- and how our policy could have gone so wrong.No matter how many times the Administration denies it, there is no question they misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq. President Bush rushed to war on the basis of trumped up intelligence and a reckless argument that Iraq was a critical arena in the global war on terror, that somehow it was more important to start a war with Iraq than to finish the war in Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden, and that somehow the danger was so urgent that the U.N. weapons inspectors could not be allowed time to complete their search for weapons of mass destruction.
As in Vietnam, truth was the first casualty of this war. Nearly 1400 Americans have died. More than 10,000 have been wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children have been killed. The weapons of mass destruction werent there, but today 157,000 Americans are.
As a result of our actions in Iraq, our respect and credibility around the world have reached all-time lows. The President bungled the pre-war diplomacy on Iraq and wounded our alliances. The label coalition of the willing cannot conceal the fact that American soldiers make up 80% of the troops on the ground in Iraq and more than 90% of the casualties.
The Administration also failed to prepare for the aftermath of victory and so the post-war period became a new war, with more casualties, astronomical costs, and relentless insurgent attacks.
The Administration failed to establish a basic level of law and order after Baghdad fell, and so massive looting occurred.
The Administration dissolved the Iraqi army and dismissed its troops, but left their weapons intact and their ammunition dumps unguarded, and they have become arsenals of the insurgency.
The Administration relied for advice on self-promoting Iraqi exiles who were out of touch with the Iraqi people and resented by them and the result is an America regarded as occupier, not as liberator.The President recklessly declared Mission Accomplished when in truth the mission had barely begun. He and his advisors predicted and even bragged that the war would be a cakewalk, but the expected welcoming garlands of roses became an endless bed of thorns.
The Administration told us the financial costs would be paid with Iraqi oil dollars, but it is being paid with billions of American tax dollars. Another $80 billion bill for the black hole that Iraq has become has just been handed to the American people.
The cost is also being paid in shame and stain on Americas good name as a beacon of human rights. Nothing is more at odds with our values as Americans than the torture of another human being. Do you think that any Americans tell their children with pride that America tortures prisoners? Yet, high officials in the Administration in their arrogance strayed so far from our heritage and our belief in fundamental human decency that they approved the use of tortureand they were wrong, deeply wrong, to do that.
The Administrations willful disregard of the Geneva Conventions led to the torture and flagrant abuse of the prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and that degradation has diminished America in the eyes of the whole world. It has diminished our moral voice on the planet.
Never in our history has there been a more powerful, more painful example of the saying that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
The tide of history rises squarely against military occupation. We ignore this truth at our peril in Iraq.
The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning the 21st century under American occupation.
Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle for Algeria.
Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle East. It hasnt. Saddam Husseins capture was supposed to quell the violence. It didnt. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be the breakthrough. It wasnt. The military operation in Fallujah was supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didnt.
The 1400 Americans killed in Iraq and the 10,000 American casualties are the equivalent of a full division of our Army and we only have ten active divisions.
The tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed last year included nearly a thousand members of the new Iraqi security forces, and a hundred more have been lost this year. The recent killing of a senior Iraqi judge was the 170th assassination of an Iraqi official since June of 2003.
We all hope for the best from Sundays election. The Iraqis have a right to determine their own future. But Sundays election is not a cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater death for us and for the Iraqis.
In fact, the Central Intelligence Agencys top official in Baghdad warned recently that the security situation is deteriorating and is likely to worsen, with escalating violence and more sectarian clashes. How could any President have let this happen?
General Brent Scowcroft, who until recently served as Chairman of President Bushs National Intelligence Advisory Board and who also served as the first President Bushs National Security Adviser, recently warned of an incipient civil war in Iraq. He said, the [Iraqi] elections are turning out to be less about a promising transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict.
President Bushs Iraq policy is not, as he said during last falls campaign, a catastrophic success. It is a catastrophic failure. The men and women of our armed forces are serving honorably and with great courage under extreme conditions, but their indefinite presence is fanning the flames of conflict.
The American people are concerned. They recognize that the war with Iraq is not worth the cost in American lives, prestige, and credibility. They understand that this misbegotten war has made America more hated in the world, created new breeding grounds and support for terrorists, and made it harder to win the real war against terrorism the war against Al Qaeda and radical jihadist terrorists.
Conservative voices are alarmed as well. As Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation, said last November, we are stuck in a guerrilla war with no end in sight.
As former Coalition Provisional Authority adviser Larry Diamond recently said, There is a fine line between Churchillian resolve and self-defeating obstinacy. We must recognize that line and end the obstinate policy of the Administration.
A new Iraq policy must begin with acceptance of hard truths. Most of the violence in Iraq is not being perpetrated as President Bush has claimed by a handful of folks that fear freedom and people who want to try to impose their will on people just like Osama bin Laden.
The war has made Iraq a magnet for terrorism that wasnt there before. President Bush has opened an unnecessary new front in the war on terror, and we are losing ground because of it. The CIAs own National Intelligence Council confirmed this assessment in its report two weeks ago.
The insurgency is not primarily driven by foreign terrorists. General Abizaid, head of our Central Command, said last September, I think the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is probably below 1,000 . According to the Department of Defense, less than two percent of all the detainees in Iraq are foreign nationals.
The insurgency is largely home-grown. By our own governments own count, its ranks are large and growing larger. Its strength has quadrupled since the transfer of sovereignty six months ago from 5,000 in mid-2004, to 16,000 last October, to more than 20,000 now. The Iraqi intelligence service estimates that the insurgency may have 30,000 fighters and up to 200,000 supporters. Its clear that we dont know how large the insurgency is. All we can say with certainty is that the insurgency is growing.
It is also becoming more intense and adaptable. The bombs are bigger and more powerful. The attacks have greater sophistication.
Anthony Cordesman, the national security analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, recently wrote: There is no evidence that the number of insurgents is declining as a result of Coalition and Iraqi attacks to date.
An Army Reservist wrote the stark truth: The guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them . For every guerilla we kill with a smart bomb, we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us. Our troops understand that. The American people understand it. And its time the Administration understand it.
Beyond the insurgencys numbers, it has popular and tacit support from thousands of ordinary Iraqis who are aiding and abetting the attacks as a rejection of the American occupation. It is fueled by the anger of ever-larger numbers of Iraqis not just Saddam loyalists - who have concluded that the United States is either unable or unwilling to provide basic security, jobs, water, electricity and other services.
Anti-American sentiment is steadily rising. CDs that picture the insurrection have spread across the country. Songs glorify combatants. Poems written decades ago during the British occupation after World War I are popular again.
The International Crisis Group, a widely respected conflict prevention organization, recently reported, These post-war failings gradually were perceived by many Iraqis as purposeful, designed to serve Washingtons interests to remain for a prolonged period in a debilitated Iraq.
We have the finest military in the world. But we cannot rely primarily on military action to end politically inspired violence. We cant defeat the insurgents militarily if we dont effectively address the political context in which the insurgency flourishes. Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing the hearts and minds of the people and that is a battle we are not winning.
The beginning of wisdom in this crisis is to define honest and realistic goals.
First, the goal of our military presence should be to allow the creation of a legitimate, functioning Iraqi government, not to dictate it.
Creating a full-fledged democracy wont happen overnight. We can and must make progress, but it may take many years for the Iraqis to finish the job. We have to adjust our time horizon. The process cannot begin in earnest until Iraqis have full ownership of that transition. Our continued, overwhelming presence only delays that process.
If we want Iraq to develop a stable, democratic government, America must assist -- not control -- the newly established government.
Unless Iraqis have a genuine sense that their leaders are not our puppets, the election cannot be the turning point the Administration hopes.
To enhance its legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the new Iraqi Government should begin to disengage politically from America, and we from them.
The reality is that the Bush Administration is continuing to pull the strings in Iraq, and the Iraqi people know it. We picked the date for the transfer of sovereignty. We supported former CIA operative Iyad Allawi to lead the Interim Government. We wrote the administrative law and the interim constitution that now governs Iraq. We set the date for the election, and President Bush insisted that it take place, even when many Iraqis sought delay.
It is time to recognize that there is only one choice. America must give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.
We need to let the Iraqi people make their own decisions, reach their own consensus, and govern their own country.
We need to rethink the Pottery Barn rule. America cannot forever be the potter that sculpts Iraqs future. President Bush broke Iraq, but if we want Iraq to be fixed, the Iraqis must feel that they, not we, own it.
The Iraqi people are facing historic issuesthe establishment of a government, the role of Islam, and the protection of minority rights.
The United States and the international community have a clear interest in a strong, tolerant and pluralistic Iraq, free from chaos and civil war.
The United Nations, not the United States, should provide assistance and advice on establishing a system of government and drafting a constitution. An international meeting led by the United Nations and the new Iraqi Government -- should be convened immediately in Iraq or elsewhere in the Middle East to begin that process.
For our part, America must accept that the Shiites will be the majority in whatever government emerges. Sixty percent of the population in Iraq is Shiite, and a Shiite majority is the logical outcome of a democratic process in Iraq.
But the Shiites must understand that Iraqs stability and security will be achieved only by safeguarding minority rights. The door to drafting the Constitution and to serving in government must be left open -- even to those who were unwilling or unable or too terrified to participate in the elections.
The Shiites must also understand that Americas support is not open-ended and that Americas role is not to defend an Iraqi government that excludes or marginalizes important sectors of Iraqi society. It is far too dangerous for the American military to take sides in a civil war.
America must adjust to the reality that not all former Baathists will be excluded from Iraqi political life in the new Iraq. After the Iron Curtain fell in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, many former communists went on to participate in the political process. The current Polish President a strong ally of President Bush in Iraq is a former active member of the Communist Party who served under Polands martial law government during the 1980s. If communists can change in this way, there is no reason why some former members of the Baath party cannot do so.
If Iraqis wish to negotiate with insurgents who are willing to renounce their violence and join the political process, we should let them do so. Persuading Sunni insurgents to use the ballot, not the bullet, serves the interests of the Shiites too.
Second, for democracy to take root, the Iraqis need a clear signal that America has a genuine exit strategy.
The Iraqi people do not believe that America intends no long-term military presence in their country. Our reluctance to make that clear has fueled suspicions among Iraqis that our motives are not pure, that we want their oil, and that we will never leave. As long as our presence seems ongoing, Americas commitment to their democracy sounds unconvincing.
The President should do more to make it clear that America intends no long-term presence. He should disavow the permanence of our so-called enduring military bases in Iraq. He should announce that America will dramatically reduce the size of the American Embassy -- the largest in the world.
Once the elections are behind us and the democratic transition is under way, President Bush should immediately announce his intention to negotiate a timetable for a drawdown of American combat forces with the new Iraqi Government.
At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at once, to send a stronger signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.
As Major General William Nash, who commanded the multinational force in Bosnia, said in November, a substantial reduction in our forces following the Iraqi election would be a wise and judicious move to demonstrate that we are leaving and the absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence."
Americas goal should be to complete our military withdrawal as early as possible in 2006.
President Bush cannot avoid this issue. The Security Council Resolution authorizing our military presence in Iraq can be reviewed at any time at the request of the Iraqi Government, and it calls for a review in June. The U.N. authorization for our military presence ends with the election of a permanent Iraqi government at the end of this year. The world will be our judge. We must have an exit plan in force by then.
While American troops are drawing down, we must clearly be prepared to oppose any external intervention in Iraq or the large-scale revenge killing of any group. We should begin now to conduct serious regional diplomacy with the Arab League and Iraqs neighbors to underscore this point, and we will need to maintain troops on bases outside Iraq but in the region.
The United Nations could send a stabilization force to Iraq if it is necessary and requested by the Iraqi government. But any stabilization force must be sought by the Iraqis and approved by the United Nations, with a clear and achievable mission and clear rules of engagement. Unlike the current force, it should not consist mostly of Americans or be led by Americans. All nations of the world have an interest in Iraqs stability and territorial integrity.
Finally, we need to train and equip an effective Iraqi security force. We have a year to do so before the election of the permanent Iraqi government.
The current training program is in deep trouble, and Iraqi forces are far from being capable, committed, and effective. In too many cases, they cannot even defend themselves, and have fled at the first sign of battle.
It is not enough to tell usas the Administration hashow many Iraqis go through training. The problem is not merely the numbers. The essential question is how many are prepared to give their lives if necessary, for a future of freedom for their country.
The insurgents have been skilled at recruiting Iraqis to participate in suicide attacks. But too often, the trained Iraqi forces do not have a comparable commitment to the Iraqi government. Recruits are ambivalent about America, unsure of the political transition, and skeptical about the credibility of their military and political institutions. The way to strengthen their allegiance is to give them a worthy cause to defend as soon as possible a truly free, independent and sovereign Iraq.
We now have no choice but to make the best we can of the disaster we have created in Iraq. The current course is only making the crisis worse. We need to define our objective realistically and redefine both our political and our military presence.
President Bush has left us with few good choices. There are costs to staying, and costs to leaving. There may well be violence as we disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages politically from us. But there will be much more serious violence if we continue our present dangerous and reckless course. It will not be easy to extricate ourselves from Iraq, but we must begin.
Error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Mindless determination doesnt make a better outcome likely. Setting a firm strategy for withdrawal may not guarantee success, but not doing so will almost certainly guarantee failure. Casualties are increasing. America is tied down. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Our capacity to respond to crises and threats elsewhere in the world has been compromised. [snipped.... click to read the full speech]
The book of Proverbs in the Bible teaches us that, Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Its time for President Bush to swallow his pride and end our countrys continuing failures in Iraq and in the eyes of the world. When the President delivers the State of the Union Address next week, I hope he will demonstrate his intention to do that. The danger is very real that if he does not, our leadership in the world will be permanently lost. We cannot let that happen.
There is a wiser course we can take in keeping with the best in our heritage and history a course that will help America, at long last, to regain our rightful place of respect in the world and bring our troops home with honor. Lets take that course, and take it now." [snip] - (source)
"And most of the terrible things that Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government. Because he wasn't Iran, and Iran was what it was because we got rid of their parliamentary democracy back in the '50s. At least that's my belief. I know it is not popular for an American ever to say anything like this, but I think it is true." (webcast available here and text excerpt via Hugh)Both men are quite inspiring. Don't you think our enemies would agree?
Hugh has offered yet another opportunity to contribute to the blogosphere’s combined voice through his Vox Blogoli. First, he offers a brief passage from Jonathan Rauch, written for the monthly journal, The Atlantic, and then asks for our commentary, what does it say about the author, The Atlantic, and the left’s understanding of the Christian culture in America. The passage in question follows:
"On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a hero’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around."I had to read it twice before beginning. Not because it is difficult to understand or a challenge to gain the perspective of the author, but rather because it is so completely and utterly insulting and off the mark.
The publishers of The Atlantic, its editors, its advertisers, all must have the utmost confidence in the continued support of their clearly disturbed readers in order to permit this piece to make it into print. Mr. Rauch has stepped in it. He doesn’t understand the Christian or religious center-right supporters of the Republican Party, and moreover he has taken to the most egregious of insults as an example of his ignorance.
It’s one thing to compare fringe elements of the Democratic Party to perhaps single issue voters within the Republican Party, in this case pro-life voters. Rauch wasn’t going to be satisfied with such a comparison. His choice was to imply that the pro-life conservatives are similar to "insurgents." Insurgents. You know the word, the media’s euphemism for the terrorist in Iraq. If Mr. Rauch’s view is correct, it would stand that the insurgents, or terrorist, in Iraq are merely responding to the failure of the political parties to include them in the platform, conventions and political system. Yes, I see it now, that’s why they’re insurgents.
We choose life. And are included in the party platform to keep us from doing what, supporting candidates that support life but are not part of the party. It isn’t that we are likely to take to the streets and its even less likely that we’ll harm anyone, yet it is that picture that Rauch chooses to paint. He ensures that we recognize his agenda, his malice and his complete disregard for the implications, to us, of his words. Rauch has no idea who or what the center-right or conservative American looks like. He doesn’t know what we believe, or how and why Christian culture is so vastly different from the religious extremes of the Islamist. By comparing pro-life conservative to the murderous thugs, if only in the choice of language, Mr. Rauch has shown his true disdain for the Christian, the Conservative (religious or otherwise) and for the civility of Christian culture in America. This perhaps more than anything shows him to be a part of the left rather than a moderate as he describes himself. He has joined the fringe he describes, such as the leftist protesters who clamor about calling the President a fascist or Nazi, and thusly removing themselves from any serious discussion. Rauch is not in the mainstream, and neither is the Atlantic.
It steams me to no end to read the words of someone so blinded by either ignorance or snobbery. Now how am I to get to sleep? Oh yeah, we won in November, and we win again when the elections take place at the end of the month. Too bad for the insurgents terrorists.
UPDATE: Hugh is interviewing the author, Mr. Rauch, right now. Based on his responses to Hugh, I don’t think he is as far off the range as I’d previously seen him. He is simply squishy and unwilling to accept his own leanings to the left, choosing instead to see himself as moderate where he is not.
After mentioning the LRB on the air, a first, Hugh is trying to show Rauch that, at least through this one paragraph, it appears that he is comparing religious conservatives to the terrorist, and further to the most radical left portions of the Democratic Party. It would be great to see the entire article, and if it isn't made available, a trip to the book store may be in order. I don't want to mis-understand Mr. Rauch, yet, I'm not convinced that he hasn't done exactly what he intended in his rather soft use the language.
UPDATE 2: The full story is now available on Hugh's site. I stand by my previous comments.
32 years and 2 days ago it was Roe vs. Wade. Roe won.
The New York Times has coverage of Senator Clinton’s duplicitous words from an anti-life pro-choice rally yesterday. And on page A17, coverage of President Bush’s address via telephone to a anti-abortion pro-life rally in Washington.
For those who have doubts about Senator Clinton’s future aspirations for the White House, take a few minutes to consider the double speak and have it your way views expressed in her comments yesterday. She is preparing the way, and just as the road is forked, so is her tongue. The Senator is as politically calculated as any potential Presidential candidate could be. Her words tuned to be accepted by the pro-choice hegemony in the Democratic Party, and yet to seem acceptable, rational, even compassionate to the pro-life voters that would be required in a bid for the highest office in the land.
From the Times coverage of Senator Clinton’s call for working to find the common ground between pro-choice and pro-life advocates:
"There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate - we should be able to agree that we want every child born in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved."Today and tomorrow it’s Right vs. Wrong. Right must win."We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
"The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
"Yes, we do have deeply held differences of opinion about the issue of abortion and I, for one, respect those who believe with all their hearts and conscience that there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."
"Research shows that the primary reason teenage girls abstain from early sexual activity is because of their religious and moral values."
"We should also recognize what works and what doesn't work and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs, I don't think this debate should be about ideology - it should be about facts, and evidence. We have to deal with the choices that young people make, not just the choices we wish they would make."
Two must read articles for those interested in our nations security and military effectiveness. First, from the Washington Post, Barton Gellmon, breaks news of a Department of Defense initiative to improve humint, human intelligence, gathering. Unfortunately, Gellmon, attempts to make this a negative or an attempt to subvert congressional oversight, possibly even illegally. The second, by Eric Schmidt for the NY Times, is a further attempt to question the motivations of Defense Department and to make a turf war between the C.I.A. and the Pentagon more apparent. Had the Pentagon simply continued to operate on the status quo, the Post/Times leftist dominated media would attack them for their inaction and stubbornness. By acting in the best interest of the nations defense, the Pentagon gets painted as a group of power thirsty egomaniacs subverting the law, war mongering, and treading on the sacred turf of the C.I.A, which has famously done so well of late. Right.
The importance of both pieces rest in their pointing out that the Pentagon, under Secretary Rumsfeld, has taken steps to ensure that the Defense Department has the intel it requires in order to fight a clearly underhanded enemy, and potentially those who would be more openly aggressive in military actions. If clandestine, as described, then the actions of the Defense Department are admirable and should be lauded. If covert, then the law and the Congress should continue to pressure the C.I.A. to make the necessary changes to their makeup to permit better humint operations. We must be willing, as citizens, to accept the occasional dirt bag bedfellow and to have the breadth of contacts to allow us to distinguish between the dirt bag who is providing good data and the one who is simply spreading the dirt around.
What strikes me as most troubling, however, is that the center-right blogs are again not taking up the question. The media will most assuredly, with willing congressional supporters, make it out to be yet another move by Defense to gain power in Washington, and it is there that we must make it clear that the aim of the Pentagon is to protect our interest as a nation, not there own. This is exactly why the C.I.A. is no longer seen as the perfect tool for the job, because far too often, they’ve been described as slow-moving, risk averse and bureaucratically or career minded.
While this is supposed to be the most depressing day of the year, it is difficult to imagine that yesterday wasn’t for Senator Clinton as she spoke to an audience of adoring fans at Brandeis University. After all, it’s reported that she told her loyal supporters of how America no longer has a vision for our future. No health-care plan, no energy policy, no Brady Bill, no Clinton in the White House... no she didn’t say that. But she did say that her husband, the great, yet humble, 42nd President did it "just right." Along with this pearl of Clintonian wisdom: "The history of America is... to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow."
Clinton is concerned that our economy is near collapse, that we have no investment in energy policy, and that our president hasn’t shown a thoughtful, visionary direction for the nation.
Perhaps her voting record should be reviewed. Would she support drilling in less than one percent of ANWR as a component of our energy policy? Or a democratic oil producing Middle Eastern nation, such as Iraq?
She extolled the virtue of her husbands taking on the "gun lobby" with the Brady Bill. Well at least now we know that the Brady Bill took on the "gun lobby" rather than criminals, as they would have had us believe over the last decade.
Today is supposed to be the most depressing day of the year; it looks like Hillary was off by a day.
While my intent had been to discuss this in the first post of the day, as I began to write (er… type), what came out was my inaugural thoughts post below. So here is another attempt.
Charles, and others, has pointed out a Reuters’ story on the stoning of the Jamrat al-Aqabah, the three pillars representing the shaitan, Iblis or Satan, at Mina during the Hajj. How did my intent to post on this required, Arabic “fard”, component of the Hajj turn into a response to the inaugural address? Here’s the pertinent piece to help understand:
Many pilgrims said they were thinking of Bush and his allies while they were hurling pebbles at the site where the devil is said to have appeared to the biblical patriarch Abraham.The President has gone to great lengths to extend an arm of inclusion and acceptance to Muslims both inside and outside the United States. He went so far as to visit a masjid and to include the Qur’an in his inaugural address. We know that men who to one degree or another where inspired by the ethical monotheist religions of Judaism and Christianity founded this nation. No one, including the President, is attempting to supplant our Judeo-Christian ethic or history with a Judeo-Christian-Islamic doctrine. Yet the President is going so far as to advocate the idea that Islam serves the same role in developing moral thought and behavior among its adherents.“Yes, the devil is Bush and that other one from Israel — (Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon. And there’s (British Prime Minister) Blair too,” said Egyptian Tia’amah Mohammed. “We throw the stones so we can vent our anger at them.” ...
British journalist Yvonne Ridley, who converted to Islam following her capture by the Taliban in 2001 in the buildup to the Afghan war, said: “During the stoning I couldn’t help thinking of Bush, Blair and Sharon.”
Many times before this space has been filled with the troubling realization that the practice of Islam, as it is most commonly found today, has failed to focus on the moral and ethical principles of the faith, and instead focused on the Arab cultural, psychological and tribal misgivings about our world. I have no problem with the President doing what I believe he is confident is the right thing to do. Yet it strikes me that without wholesale changes in the practical application of Islamic thought, he is the proverbial dog barking up a tree, and moreover, the tree is likely to throw stones down at him.
In his inaugural address, the President essentially held out three basic premises that reflect his view of our nation going into the 21st Century. There are differences between these ideas and the manner in which the nation was first created and governed for much of its history. Yet they are not foreign to the original intent of our founding. The three are liberty, character and fate.
Selecting his words and understanding the audience, both in the U.S. and abroad, the President referred to our freedom and the freedom of others as being intertwined in a manner unlike any before him in such an address. For many, this was a welcome statement of the realities of our ever shrinking world and acknowledged his awareness of the threats to our freedom from abroad do not stem from merely the existence, or lack thereof, of one or more types of weapons, but from the animosity and vitriol kindled in the oppressed and enslaved. There will be some who see in his words a threat to peace, for them one can only invite them to reflect on the value of international peace in a world filled with unjust leaders vanquishing the finest spirit of men and rendering a faith as an agent of bigotry and violence.
Of our character, and the character of all men, the President chose to view, as did our founders, all men as equal, and with unalienable rights that come not from the authority of their land but from their Creator, and in doing so he called for continued and increased resistance to the oppressive hand of tyrants and moreover, to the sins of our time. Here the President extolled the virtue of our faiths and the role they play in our moral foundation, in guiding us toward family and good living as it was, is and shall forever be. That faith and character are, in his mind, inseparable is easily understood, for his character was forever altered upon becoming a man of service to God, and only afterwards, of service to his fellow citizens.
Fate it seems is the most challenging component to both explain and to see in the remarks of the President. But it is there. In his reminding us of our founding ideals, of our resolute defense of those ideals in generations past, and in his appeal to this generation to once again answer the call of freedom. President Bush clearly believes that it is our nation that is most capable to lead others to the cherished values of a free people, and that when by arms, or by words, we do so, we are answering our highest calling. It is in this way that he harkens us back to the words of Lincoln, or of our founders. It is here that we understand that we are not superior to others; we are simply blessed to be participants in a system that more than any other, brings about the best of us, generation upon generation. And by this blessing, we are chosen to advance the character of our world.
This fragile and yet so powerful an ideal requires not that we assuage our hope, but that we do as the President has done. We must set goals that may seem unachievable and in the face of naysayers and purveyors of lesser ideals, press on for just and noble ideals are not achieved by their existence but by the long and arduous drive to make this world more than earthly but heavenly.
The text of the address is available online here. Paulie points to a great essay by Bill at INDC Journal on the implications of a portion of the inaugural address. Outside the Beltway has an excellent roundup of the responses to the inaugural address, and we've joined the list via TB.
The President has been sworn in. May this term be a success for our nation and find a more free and peaceful world by its end.
More after the Inaugural Address.
Question: Has any previous President mentioned the Quran in his inaugural address?
UPDATE: Here's the official text of the inaugural address. It was an ambitious message. More later...
UPDATE: Have been under the weather this afternoon and evening, and given Blogger's cantankerous behavior earlier was unable to post. Back soon. Thanks for checking in.
Daschle is gone but the games aren't. This time the Democrats will delay a vote on Dr. Rice's confirmation so that they may debate grandstand. Either way, she'll be approved, just not tomorrow afternoon.
After their second day of speaking with Condoleezza Rice, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee met and voted to send the nomination to the full Senate in a 16 to 2 vote. Only Barbara Boxer and John Kerry voted no.
While no transcript is yet available online, watching the session, I was once again struck by the contentiousness of Boxer and Kerry, who maintain that Rice is well qualified for the position, but they are unable to vote for her confirmation. Both spoke in terms of their disagreement with the war on terror, and Rice’s role in advising the President prior to and during the war, and the idea that Rice has failed to address their concerns. The simple reality is that no one will ever address their concerns.
I’m no politician, but it seems to me that after expressing their concerns, and with the knowledge that Rice is perhaps as well qualified for the role as can be expected, that both should have given their support to the nomination. Yet for them, that would be supporting the President. Thankfully, there were others, who despite their differences with the President, recognized the qualifications of Rice, and voted appropriately.
It is also worth noting that several members mentioned Supreme Court nominations, in particular with regard to their aversion to voting for nominees who the President selects, as opposed to this case where they felt the President rightfully should be permitted those he selects, if qualified, to serve with him. It’ll be very interesting when the time comes.
And as the press will consistently point out, Rice admitted there were some mistakes made in Iraq. The real story would have been had she not, for only a fool would make such an assertion. Just as only a fool would say that the administrations "rigidness" caused the death or wounding of Americans in Iraq. Senator Boxer is such a fool. Senator Biden, who did vote for the confirmation, was also exhibiting a lack of understanding in his statement that Rice "stuck to the party line" by refusing to give a timeline for American withdrawal. Is there anyone out there who believes that sharing a timeframe, in advance of the election, or prior to the new governments taking control of Iraq is a wise move.
It is unlikely that a large number of average Americans watched the hearings today, or will watch them online via CSPAN (no transcript yet). And in a way, this is unfortunate. From the outset of the hearing, it was clear that, as is the norm for the Senate, personal political image, self-congratulation and towing the party line come before all else. Sure, the Senators are concerned for our troops abroad and for security at home, and still they behaved as if they, rather than Dr. Rice and the many challenging issues, were the stars of the show.
There are assorted headline worthy responses and a mix of sound bites that will make the rounds and get covered by the press. Yet the questions were not fashioned in such a way as to lead to discourse, only to express the questioners view, and attempt to lock Dr. Rice into either an opposing view or, worse, a misstatement. This blogger didn’t tune in to find out where the Senators stand, and yet that more than anything else is what I saw. And, I was not impressed… with them. Dr. Rice, on the other hand, remains impressive.
So far, one thing is clear. Condi has an incredible ability to maintain the look of being awake while Senators this and that babble on in a perpetual attempt to stroke their own egos while somehow formulating a question at the end.
And one more, Barb (Boxer) will not be voting yes.
After it's over, hopefully soon, a more serious look at the Q and A.
The Washington Post continues its sterling record of distributing disinformation and agenda based reporting in today’s column by John F. Harris. Its headline, The Roosevelts, Kennedys, and Now the Bushes and subheading aren’t the worst of it, but show clearly that the paper is set upon a course to inflate the national prominence of the Kennedys, of which only JFK served as President, and to exaggerate the families influence beyond the bounds of Massachusetts, while creating the impression that at any point the Bush family either sought a dynasty or believes one exist. GW and GHW were very different presidents and very different men, and the make believe that GW somehow sought to ease the pain of his fathers loss in ’92 by winning a second term is ludicrous.
We should expect ludicrous from the Washington Post.
For more make believe, how about Harris' idea that GHW should tip his hat to GW.
Amid the celebration and crowds of Inauguration Day came a surprisingly intimate moment between father and son. As John F. Kennedy's parade passed the reviewing stand where Joseph P. Kennedy was watching, the new president looked up and tipped his hat -- a gesture of affection and gratitude to the patriarch who had dreamed for years of putting a son in the White House.It would be a great thing to see GHW tip his hat to President Bush, not because he eased the sting of '92, but because he is the President of the United States.Forty-four years later, as President Bush prepares to launch his second term, it might be the father who should tip his hat to the son.
One of the 43rd president's achievements in winning reelection, according to Bush family friends and historians, is to ease the sting of the 41st president's failure to do so a dozen years earlier. The president's victory also establishes firmly a fact that earlier was open to dispute: The Bushes now belong in the top tier of political families in U.S. history.
There is nothing quite like clarity. As mentioned Friday, the press, in this case the Washington Post, has a habit of skewing things to support their view or to harm those with opposing views. The CIA has released the National Intelligence Council’s latest NIC Report: Mapping the Global Future. That much of what Dana Priest wrote for the Washington Post is correct. The first paragraph, and, of course, the headline, offer a great deal of the bias we have come to expect.
Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.Nowhere in the NIC Report does it claim “Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorist.”
What does the report say?
There are two relevant statements. First -
The al-Qa’ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq.And then -
Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are “professionalized” and for whom political violence becomes an end in itself.Why then, would the Washington Times open its coverage of the NIC Report with a statement that asserts that it has happened?
Bias… no other reason is apparent.
As for the report, well, we can hope that it was inexpensive. Although based on the methodology used to develop it over 14 months, it is unlikely that it was inexpensive. Which is further reason to be concerned, for it is shallow and offers few out of the box ideas or scenarios. There are more than a few areas worthy of a good review, or better said, worthy of our attention and scrutiny, and had the press sought to explore the value of the report or any of the potential changes it discusses, rather than seeking the potential for negative commentary on current events, there is much available for scrutiny and reporting. Throughout the week, I’ll have more to say on the particulars, and I’ll remain skeptical of the Washington Post.
Hugh Hewitt seems, both on his blog and during his show yesterday, to be concerned about the blogosphere’s ignoring the "whitewash" report on Rathergate. And rightly so. It isn’t the only story that’s missing the intense review needed.
There is the Armstrong Williams and No Child Left Behind story. This one will get oodles of MSM attention, and yet seems absent from the blogs. As Glenn Reynolds notes by quoting a couple of middle paragraphs in a NY Times piece on Williams, it isn’t the first time its been done, and it isn’t the largest. But why aren’t we making sure those middle paragraphs get attention, just as the headlines do. And further more, making it clear that Mr. Williams was wrong.
And of course, there is the "Salvador Option" from last weeks Newsweek. The left leaning blogs, much of the MSM, and the Arab press are giddy with this news. Yet the center right blogs seem to be vacationing on the issue and haven’t shown any fault or bias in the column. And there is much in it to question.
Or even the simple AP report that describes the potential changes in the Vice President’s role during a second term. It’s replete with quotes from pompous elites that relish the chance to put the big hat on Dick and have George be seen as the little man behind the desk. But no news, and unfortunately, not challenged by bloggers in the know on how things work in the White House.
Opportunities to challenge the MSM for their unabashed, yet un-confessed bias are everywhere, and blogs, including this one, either make a decision to hold the MSM to the fire, or we don’t. Frankly, I hope Hugh is wrong and there aren’t any effects of the Heisenberg Principle at work. It would be much better if we were just too busy with our vacations, work and daily responsibilities.
On a day when there remains much news worthy of reporting, on the forefront of the news is the continuation of weak-kneed management and bias in journalism. In particular, on this day, we have received the much-ballyhooed response from CBS’s internal investigation of Rathergate. As those with a healthy dose of cynicism or pragmatism, or what the media would label partisan bias, have expected, the report points to failures in the journalistic process yet finds no bias or political motive behind the story.
Is this a fitting end to the story? Indeed it is, as much as it is an end.
CBS has shown itself to be not only incapable of reporting news without bias, but more significantly, it has shown through this supposedly independent investigation that its management, as well as the likes of Dan Rather, are biased and incapable of operating beyond their bias. The management favors ratings to good journalism, and in all likelihood shares and supports the political bias behind the memos being broadcast. The management bias towards ratings, far greater than toward a just reporting of the news, is shown in the actions taken in conjunction with the release of the findings of the investigation. Dan Rather keeps his job. Four nominal, as far as ratings are concerned, executives are dismissed. Ratings drive this decision, how could CBS give up the fond farewell of Dan Rather and the hope of a ratings bonanza that’ll accompany it.
In the end, Rathergate was an attempt to change the way we vote, and to influence the direction of the nation. The cover-up, which has both been a success and a failure, is an attempt to retain the credibility, authority, and position needed for future attempts to influence the public. It is wrong, shameful, and, most likely, not the last word from those blinded by their bias, whether before the camera or in the executive chambers.
Perhaps I’m the only one around who is disappointed that Attorney General select Alberto Gonzales has disavowed torture. After all, didn’t we expect President Bush’s pick to replace the most dangerous man in America (as Rep. Jim McDermott described Aschroft) with another man equally dangerous to our civil liberties. Couldn’t Gonzales have said that he’d prefer torture for terrorist or better yet he’d require it. And then he’d want to bring it home and remove the attachment to al-Qaeda as a requirement because everyone knows that the whack jobs sneaking about this country and elsewhere respond well to the threat of torture. And think how many Congressional votes he’d secure, from hate filled Republicans, for a future ascension to the Supreme Court. But no, Gonzales turns out to be a gentleman.
His defense of his previous statements was admirable. "We are nothing like our enemies, Senator," he said. And he was right. We debate mistreatment and humiliation as if it were torture. We discuss isolated cases as if they were systemic and wholly authorized. And finally, we punish those responsible for mistreatment and keep a vigilant eye open to other possible abuses.
We are nothing like our enemies. And Alberto Gonzales is neither enemy nor monster. Those who choose to see naught but our errors, will never recognize their blindness or the virtuous who simply aspire to serve and defend us all.
Some other opinions well worth reading are offered at the Belmont Club and Belgravia Dispatch.
If it's not on your wish list, you haven't received an early copy, and you aren't hounding your local bookstore for it.... why?
The year is coming to an end and Hugh Hewitt's latest bestseller Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation that is Changing Your World is a necessity for those seeking to participate and understand why blogs, or more aptly the blogosphere, are important as a new median for information decimination. Whether you blog, read them often, or are a first time reader, you'll want to see a glimpse of what's only just begun.
Credibility matters... buy Hugh's book and let me know if I'm right.
And while you are at it, read his latest column for the Weekly Standard.
Critics of the mainstream media are in no short supply and for good reason. In the latest editions of Newsweek and Time (not online), two of the historically most popular standard bearers of the MSM, the publishers have shown once again that there is much to make of the criticism of the MSM. In the less than titillating post-election news cycle both magazines have seen fit to publish cover stories taking aim at Christmas, the Gospels and the vast majority of the billion plus Christians who will celebrate, remember and be thankful for the birth of Jesus on Christmas morning. Some readers will immediately move on, as they’ve no doubt known for quite some time that the MSM is actively attacking Christian beliefs, Christianity, and Christians in American society. This blog will not refute the opinions, thesis or facts offered by either magazine, instead, we’ll answer Hugh Hewitt’s call, in Vox Blogoli VI, for a discussion of the parallels between the Newsweek article, and Rathergate, and for a look at what accounts for the appearance of such an article in a major news magazine. For an examination of the both articles, read both Dr. Mark D. Reynolds and Dr. Albert Mohler.
Why publish such articles? It may be the most significant question we may look to answer. The United States, whether the mainstream media and leftist politicians readily accept and admit it or not, is a republic comprised of Judeo-Christian citizens and built upon the lessons of history to preserve our liberty as Americans in a world neither supportive of the U.S. or of the Judeo-Christian ethos. Given our current, and historical, political divisions, and the general tide of political power shifting toward the center-right over the last 24 years, while society at large, and particularly mass media and the entertainment industry continued to slide to the left, it isn’t surprising that the left will take opportunities such as religious holidays, also a federal holiday, as an opportunity to attack the fundamental beliefs of those across the moral divide. Indeed, that is what the left, as a political, media and far too prominently as a church, have begun to do.
Consider the number of post 9/11 news stories on Islam and the teachings of Muhammad, the books, magazine stories, and the PBS portrayals of Islam as a religion of peace based on the teachings of a prophet who united the Arabian people and through out the idols from the Kabba. How would the left have responded if a reporter, or managing editor as in the case of the Newsweek piece, had used the Ramadhan holiday as the opportune time to offer a historical review of evidence that Muhammad was neither prophet nor man of peace, or to challenge the Miraj, the Hijra, or any of the other fundamental stories behind the beliefs of Muslims around the world? Such thought is not only improbable, it is sacrilegious to the left in America. We are asked at every turn to show tolerance of all others, no matter their creed, their actions, or their ethos or mythos. Yet on the most sacred of days for Christians in America, Christmas and Easter, the left challenges the underlying beliefs in an imbalanced and clearly biased attempt to rock the foundation of those without formal knowledge to refute them, and those who still hold that the media is balanced and truthful in its reporting, rather than participating to reach its own, even if unstated, ideals.
Is it similar to Rathergate? No, the problem preceded and possibly precipitated direct and obvious attempt to influence the election that we now call Rathergate. It is the disease behind the symptom Rathergate.
Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic or atheist, as a citizen of this land of liberty, we are within our rights to expect and demand more of the media. Unfortunately, with few exceptions such as Hugh’s radio show, Fox News Channel and the ever-growing number of blogs, we are no longer voicing our disapproval with the media as vociferously as possible and we continue to buy their goods and discuss issues often on their terms. This is a tide that is shifted only as individuals recognize the fault of the source, and act accordingly. No Newsweek, CBS News, or NYTimes, no matter your allegiance to the rag, or how scrumptious the banner or cover photo. Consider the source and the improbability that truth serves as their aim.
Former New York City Police Commisioner Bernard Kerik will replace Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
I'm not too overly familiar with Kerik. I've seen him speak on several occasions, read some of glowing reviews of him, but don't feel that I've got a sense of what type of leader he is.
Let me know how you feel about Kerik's being named to head HSD.
John Danforth is said to have tendered his resignation as Ambassador to the U.N. The only information regarding his future plans are that the former Senator, Attorney and Minister will return to his home in Missouri and spend time with his wife Sally.
Perhaps Danforth, a man of character and conviction, recognized the filth he was exposed to at the U.N. and decided he'd had enough. Our nation should be so forthright.
Just as you wouldn't overhaul your transmission to fix a worn out spark plug, the Congress is right to resist efforts by members of both parties to press for immediate overhaul of the Intel community during this lame duck season for the 108th Congress. There has been much ado about the failure to move the legislation through the House, and Representatives Hunter and Sensenbrenner have taken much heat over the issue. We've been wrong to ignore their objections and should be applauding their support for real reform and insight into the possible unintended consequences of hasty reform, in particular the concerns of Representative Hunter.
The Center for Security Policy in a conclusion to a recent brief paints the picture as completely political posturing by the proponents of immediate reform:
Perhaps the real reason some in Congress are so intent on getting "intelligence reform" legislation done now is that consideration of this matter next year would almost certainly require action they are resisting and have not addressed in the current bill: Much-needed streamlining and other improvements in legislative oversight of the intelligence community. That possibility to do real good is another excellent reason for our leaders to avoid doing harm to American intelligence when the lame duck session resumes next week.It is hard to disagree with the general sentiment, but the political posturing over the border security issues involved are perhaps misplaced as the Congress has had three years to move for tighter border security and has failed to meaningfully do so. The real issue, with the current bill, is the possible consequences of further separating the Intel community, now functioning more closely at home and abroad, from the military services who are dependent on their support, analysis and satellite based participation prior to and during hostile actions.
Patience. Early next year, after the new Congress has arrived, the House should address the Intel Reform matter, as well as the issues relating to border security. If they haven’t done so within a quarter of the year, we’ll know they don’t intend to act and can begin to seek candidates who will. We’ll also have to pay significant attention to the language of any reform, in particular their willingness to address their oversight of the Intel community, how funding and budgetary responsibility is handled and the future of the NID.
Before attempting to respond to this week’s symposium question, one that strikes a particularly strong cord with those on the right apparently more than those on the left, it is incumbent upon us to review what is at stake. The question this week:
What, in your mind, represents the single greatest long-term threat to the United States of America, and what should be done about it?
The author of the question, limits our discussion to the single greatest threat to the United States of America, and challenges us to offer a solution. Threats to the US come in many forms, from within and without, from direct attack, unintended consequences and subversive undermining, and from the governed and the government. When discussing the threats, current or long-term, our view of what is at stake is reflected by our assessment of the threats. Should we look at the threat from the view of ending our nations existence, there are relatively few threats. Should we instead look at the nature and character of our nation, there are many threats and more significantly, these threats weaken our ability and willingness to recognize and defend ourselves against threats to our very existence.
So the answer was apparent. The threat of single greatest significance must be a threat to the character of the nation and its ideals. If you are so patient, let me add that I’ve included the list of current and possible long-term threats here, should you be interested in it.
Islamo-fascism – the perversion of Islamic thought and doctrine in support of a bigoted, intolerant, arabesque world-view. Primary concerns are the current militant Islamo-fascist of al-Qaeda and associated terrorist organizations, secondary concern is the enormous support of and adherence to the Islamo-fascist view of Islam held throughout the world, and dominant in the Middle East (whether Sunni or Shi’a in inclination). Affiliated issues include the propagation of anti-Semitism or anti-Israeli thought and action, an enormous amount of propaganda and a willingness to accept lies and conspiracies as truth, an inability or unwillingness to permit cultural assimilation, and a birth rate far exceeding European and North American non-Hispanic growth rates.Of course, there are other risks and areas of concern.Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism – the spread of nuclear weapons and technology to unstable, rogue and hostile nations possibly willing to aid terrorist in acquiring them or incapable of adequately securing them.
China – the increased economic and military reach of China and their attempt to construct a Chinese hegemony in Asia and beyond as a counter-American force in the world.
Indo-Pakistani belligerence – two nuclear capable nations with a breadth of immoral and unjust hatred and bigotry for the other. Socialist/Communist ties and the general inability of each state to extend liberty to their citizens creates the greater incentive for public dissatisfaction and instability.
Iran – essentially a theocratic oligarchy of Shi’a Islamo-fascist. The gravest threat here is the development of nuclear weapons and technology, the support for terrorist outside Iran and the open hostility towards Israel and the US.
Middle Eastern Kings and Emirs – the kingdoms and emirates of the Middle East have used islamo-fascist thought as a means to control their populations and are limited in their ability to reform out of fear of a true islamo-fascist take over as in Iran.
European Socialism – primarily in Western Europe, unlike the firm opposition to Communism, their Socialism has gained support over the years and influences all aspect their lifestyles, thought and culture.
Russia – Vladimir Putin and other remnants of the former Soviet Union continue to show a return to Soviet styled governance rather than encouraging Liberty and fighting the corruption that followed the fall of the USSR through rule of law and vigilant economic and intellectual openness.
The single greatest threat to the United States comes from within. Not just within the nation, but within each of its citizens. As noted in a previous post, the course within is the most significant and it is measured by our understanding, acceptance and acting on a moral basis. Some respondents to the question will make the issue a religious issue, a possible cause for the reactionary steps of those attacking the foundation of our nation today; others will find a particular symptom of our weakened moral state and attribute the danger to it. We might instead seek to prevent the disease itself from further spread to future generations and to cure it among the many (millions) currently afflicted.
In a post on the danger of moral ambivalence, and others, we’ve noted that one must recognize that while religion is often a precursor to our understanding of moral or ethical issues, as a nation we must resist the religious argument as a means for establishing rules of governance. We have the moral truths of our unalienable rights, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and upon these we should be able to debate and determine the proper course of governance for a strong and moral people. The trouble, of course, is when we are no longer a moral people, capable of living up to the responsibilities associated with Liberty. The danger lies therein.
The larger the role our government, the federal government in particular, plays in our lives, the less we as a people are responsible to each other and to our progeny for our decisions and actions. Federal activism in education, health, social character and what should be state or local issues remains not only a symptom of our failing moral compass but a cause for its further decay. The solution is to aim for a return to the federalist approach of our founders and to re-establish the sovereignty of the state, the community and the family. The good news is that while we are falling toward complete moral irrelevance and the loss of the most basic of truths, we have far to fall before hitting ground, and the parachute, our Constitution, remains as a means to recover.
Other Homespun Symposium Responses
A Physicist's Perspective
Bunker Mulligan
Bill's Big Bloviating Blog
Ogre's Politics and Views
Mud and Phud
The Commons at Paulie World
The Terriorists
The Redhunter
Never Sway
Mad Poets Anonymous
Considerettes
In Search of Utopia
Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates
Addendum: We are, whether perilously or not may be debated, divided in our understanding of the nature of being American, of being a free people, and of the nature of our government’s responsibilities to us as citizens. We may, or rather will, debate, on many occasions, the extent and nature of the divide in our nation. Those who see a divide may lament its existence, while others likewise seeing it, will see it as a sign of our health and prosperity. Partisan we are, some by reason and principle, others for reasons neither they nor their counterparts can discern. In the end, the truth of the divide may be seen not by our debate or acknowledgement of its existence, but by our vocal and active support for altering the direction of the nation, whether our party, or the closest in similarity, is in power or not.
David, at In Search of Utopia, defends his view of the significance of the divide in America by pointing to the Republican protection of Tom DeLay.
It isn't clear from David's post if he recognizes that the rule the Republicans modified is a Republican rule for Republican leadership, and a rule the Democrats have never had in place for disciplining their leadership. In addition, their modification of the rule is based on the real harm that illegitimate charges against Republicans can cause, the case most often cited being charges brought by the same man who accuses DeLay, against Kay Bailey Hutchison. A District Attorney with a mind toward attacking politicians to make a name for himself, rather than for justice, has led Republican leaders to modify their rule.
It is also worth noting that the rule change still requires the leadership to review and potentially remove the particular Republican leader should he be indicted.
Like many supposed liberals or progressives, the issue seems to be something other than securing Liberty, protecting Life, or expanding opportunity, it is once again espousing an illegitimate argument for the sake of power.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has tendered his resignation. It isn't a surprising development yet it is definitely noteworthy. Secretary Powell's replacement has, of course, not been named. The armchair presidents will offer Condoleezza Rice, John Danforth and others as his likely replacements.
The other common discussion point will be the divide between State and Defense within the Administration.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has also resigned.
The White House is expected to release information concerning cabinet positions later today.
UPDATE: The first AP report concerning Secretary Powell is now up.
UPDATE: Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman and Education Secretary Rod Paige have also resigned. The White House press briefing is minutes away.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson issued a ruling that has halted the tribunal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Hamdan is accused of being a member of al-Qaeda, the driver for Usama bin Laden, and an enemy combatant. In all likelihood he is guilty of being a member of al-Qaeda but that is not the issue.
Many conservatives and supporters of the President and the Global War on Terror will inevitably see the judge’s ruling as an err. This in part due to Judge Robertson’s very questionable rulings in the past, in particular regarding friends of Bill Clinton. The government will appeal the ruling, although the true responsibility for the decision lies in their laps, or more accurately in the President’s decision to forgo a individual designation of status by military officers in favor of a broad classification of prisoners as enemy combatants.
Judge Robertson’s history is reflective of the type of judicial activism that smells to high heaven and creates great dissent among many, including the author of this piece. However….. this decision is proper.
We may know, in fact we do know, that the prisoners captured around the world in the Global War on Terror are not POW’s by Geneva Convention standards, we also know that the designation of status, POW or Enemy Combatant must be made by a hearing or tribunal not the broad stroke of Presidential authority. The best course of action here is to hold the initial hearings as a corrective action and affect the appropriate redress on a case by case basis.
As for the Judge’s ruling that tribunal rules are unfair as evidence is presented without the witness being present, there is a much greater argument for this being overturned as the issues of national security and intelligence collection methods cannot be shared with enemy combatants, or alleged enemy combatants.
While this view may strike some of you as counter to my general view, it shouldn’t, the primary regard here is the adherrance to and support for the Constitution safeguards and restrictions placed on our government, even when dealing with non-citizens. Hamdan and the others will be found guilty through proper tribunals and trials, and should not be given the rights of citizens or military service members. However, we have signed and ratified the Geneva Convention, and while it must never supercede the Constitution, the President’s duty was to have the military hold the appropriate hearings, even if the outcome was predictable.
Immigration reforms weren’t a particularly potent issue for either the Republican or Democratic Parties in this year’s election. For the cynical, the cause was that neither party wanted to risk alienating, no pun intended, the Hispanic vote; for the realist, because neither party has a particular feasible solution to what is one of the more challenging issues of our day.
That being said, the news that President Bush is once again going to consider pressing for a guest-worker program, whereby euphemistically referred to foreign workers, otherwise know as illegal immigrants, would be eligible for a three year work visa, renewable once, despite having been in the U.S. illegally. It would be contingent on their meeting qualifications, most notably being employed.
The issue is of course divisive. Tom, David, Digger and David A. have posted on the issue, as have many others I’m unaware of. Should the program be supported, and if so, why?
First, let’s acknowledge that the intent of the program is to give a legal status to those who are in the U.S., and working, illegally. There is great merit to the argument that we have laws concerning how to immigrate and while many wait patiently to join come to America, any effort to support or legitimize those who’ve subverted the law to be here, primarily aided by their governments policies and their natural proximity to the U.S. is wrong.
Second, let’s acknowledge that both fiscally and morally the nation is not prepared to prevent illegal immigration or to deport known illegals in the U.S. We can’t get state and local police agencies to detain illegals long enough to report or turn them over to immigration authorities. Thus the primary financial impact comes from the services provided to immigrants and their families, many which are citizens after being born in the U.S., and from the mountains of dollars sent to Mexico by illegals to support their families that remained behind. From a moral perspective, the liberty of citizens is neglected by permitting tax dollars to support illegals. Yet we are unable to address tax policy or spending as a moral issue in general.
It may be possible, although unlikely, that this program will limit additional illegal immigration. It is more likely that the program will provide an additional incentive for illegal entry and for employers to hire illegals prior to their seeking a guest worker visa. Thereby exacerbating the issue. This being said, taken in conjunction with the detention, reporting and deporting of illegals outside the program, it may serve as a means to account for those who’ve entered the country and send a message that the system works in your favor to a greater degree than working outside the system does.
That brings us back to the real issue, enforcement of current law, and economic and civil constraints in Mexico which encourage the practice. Both from a moral and fiscal perspective it is unpopular and regarded as implausible. When politicians address the issue they find civil libertarians in opposition, fiscal hawks in opposition and the public quiet. No wonder we have a mess on our hands.
As for my personal view, close off the border, cease social, medical and education service offerings to illegals (not their children who are citizens), force Mexican officials to liberalize their economy, end the programs which support the transfer of money from the U.S. to Mexico, enforce the law so that companies and individuals do not hire illegals and by all means give local law enforcement the responsibility and authority to deal with illegals when found, as they would any other violator of the law. And if in conjunction with these measures we want to permit guest worker visas outside the current system for skilled workers, then so be it.
Democrats lost the election because blah….blah….blah…. Whether or not the Democrats will ever understand that voters rejected their candidate, and the reasons surrounding that rejection is debatable. The statements of Representatives Pelosi and Rangel show that some lessons have clearly been learned, even if it’s only to feign being the party of conservatism and values.
House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, says that the Democratic members of the House will try to hold Republican members more accountable for growing the growing federal deficit. Pelosi says that the President will have nobody to blame, as the Republicans will control both houses of Congress. Of course, no mention of the Democrat’s inability to consider cutting any of a number of government programs, or how they campaign that the Republicans cut spending in particular programs, even if the truth was that the Republicans cut only the rate of growth in spending.
Good ‘ole Charlie Rangel says that there will be lots of discussion of moral values over the next two years. How’s that? The ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee says that the Democrats will make an argument that driving up the debt by cutting taxes is a moral issue.
It’ll be an interesting discussion should their current plan hold firm. After all, many of us have openly asked for a real discussion of the principles of governance and the interjection of a different moral basis will only make it more interesting, at least to the policy oriented among us. Will it help them? Unlikely, as those who are driven by a moral view, in particular with regard to governance, are more apt to seek small government and to see the move as a ploy to steal away the moral values voters. As for me, I'm for reduced spending, far beyond what'll be offered by either party, and realistic enough to not expect it.
The first two Cabinet level resignations following the election are in. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Commerce Secretary Don Evans have both resigned. The President had positive statements to make concerning both men and the rush to guess whom might replace them has begun.
Evans, a longtime friend of the President, is highly regarded in most circles and may turn out to be the greater challenge to replace, not so much for the significance of his office, but rather due to the relationship he had with the President.
Ashcroft on the other hand, was not highly regarded by the Democratic Party and many on the right who believed that his zeal in the pursuit of terrorist outweighed his concern for the law. To many, he often ignored the Constitutional protections afforded Americans in his pursuit of terrorist, and took the position that the greater good was served to secure American’s lives, even at the cost of some aspects of privacy or liberty. Whether you ascribe to that view or not, one must recognize that he served tirelessly to protect American's from what he perceived as a greater threat.
It isn’t likely that I could predict the replacements of either man, so I will not attempt it. What I will do is offer this:
To both men, thank you for your service and commitment to our nation. God bless and may your efforts be judged to have been righteous.
One of the most significant battles fought in our nations history was centered on the implementation of the federal republic. We may again fight that battle. The epicenter of the battle is over the Electoral College and the ideas of proportional representation or direct democracy. Proponents of the elimination, or alteration, of the Electoral College have wasted no time in beginning their post-election assault on it, a follow-up to the Amendment 36 initiative, which was defeated, in Colorado and the by-product of both the 2000 and 2004 election of President Bush.
Via Sissy Willis, comes Matthew Simpson’s moderate attack on the Electoral College in the Iowa City Press Citizen and via Jeff Quinton, the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s (registration required) call for the end of the Electoral College. Both the AJC editorial and the Simpson column point to the perceived lack of fairness in the electoral system, whether it be the winner take all allocation of electoral votes or the very existence of the E.C. Neither addresses the benefits to the nation found in the E.C. or the negatives of proportional representation or direct democracy.
By way of background, we note that the burden of how to allocate electoral votes is given to state legislatures and all, save Maine and Nebraska, allocate all electors to the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the state. Maine and Nebraska use a combination of popular votes and congressional district winners to allocate votes. On this past weeks ballot, Colorado voters found and rejected a bid to replace Colorado’s winner take all allocation with a proportional allocation of electors.
The most common arguments for either proportional representation or the elimination of the Electoral College are that it is outdated, prompts candidates to spend an inordinate amount of time, and money, in a select few states rather than on a national campaign, and encourages disenfranchisement. Each argument is easily debunked and can be replaced with arguments that affirm the value of the Electoral College and the significance of our being a federal republic.
Is the Electoral College outdated? Of course not. The purpose of this statement is to deflect the reader away from the idea of the federal republic and have them support the notion of popular democracy. While much is made of the an initial argument for the Electoral College being the limited communications ability at the time, the greater purpose was and is to secure the rights of the states in the election of the President. The issue is are states outdated. No serious political, social or academic voice would suggest that states are outdated. While there is evidence that the social aspects of being a Virginian or Oregonian are waning, the nation itself remains as diverse, if not more so, than it was in the days of our federations founding and the states interests reflect that diversification.
Do candidates spend an inordinate amount of time or money on a select few states? No. They spend the time and money needed to secure the votes required to win the electoral votes necessary for election. This targeted spending is a result not of any weakness in the Electoral College but rather a result of the makeup of the voters in those particular states. To the extent that those living in states without such a split may feel left out it is an emotional response to their states character and makeup or more likely simple jealousy. This is reflective of how we all long to feel important to the election and to be represented in government, an American attribute as much as any.
Does being blue in a red state or red in a blue state disenfranchise us? Forgive the red/blue analogy but it serves best to clarify the type of disenfranchisement attributed to the unfair nature of the winner take all allocation of electoral votes. First, there are two distinct positives of the winner take all system, it encourages the coalitions and alliances of varying political viewpoints to a single candidate, reinforcing the political parties to maintain big tent platforms, second it reduces the likelihood of a ties, recounts, and other shenanigans associated with voter fraud. In this case, disenfranchised voters are voters who voted and lost. The entire notion that you’ve been disenfranchised because your candidate lost the vote in your state by a small margin and yet all your electors go to the winning candidate shows would be repeated in a full democracy as your candidate may lose then, no matter the margin, and again the other candidate is president, not a proportional president but 100% president.
In search of greater liberty in this nation, we should strive for increased participation, increased awareness and increased understanding of our founders great wisdom as seen in our system of government. To accept the flawed ideal of a plural democracy would instead spiral our nation toward the will of the populist majority, be they advocates of liberty or advocates of mass-rule. Caution should be at a high when tinkering with the Electoral College, after all, we are the United States of America, not the United People of America, the Democratic Peoples of America or the People’s Republic of America.
In their post-election anguish, many on the left and extreme left have shown both their disdain for the average American as well as their more troubling disdain for America. We must look no further than the editorials, essays and commentaries of the blogs, magazines and newspapers to see it. In exposing their scurrilous vitriol the left is determined, even if unknowingly, to slide further from the realm of influence and toward a seat alongside the openly socialist, communist, neo-nazi, or Aryan militiamen watching but not participating in the governance of the nation. Some will inevitable believe that it is their rightful position in obscurity. It isn’t so.
One of the greatest benefits of living in the new media, in as much as the internet and the blogosphere are concerned, is the ability of the everyday citizen to offer opinions, counsel and commentary on the issues before our leaders throughout the election cycle and beyond. In making derisive and inflammatory comments beyond the realm of reason, many Democrats have essential made their voice less likely to be heard. We should not celebrate this, as there are many issues before us that justly need the voice of both the center-left and center-right to be heard. The further loss of the left of center voices will not prevent the resolution of the issues by any means; it simply leaves many who had been spoken for by the left no longer with a reasoned voice in the chamber of counsel.
The proper course for those on the left, just as it is for those on the right and in the center, is to seek and advance the voices which best reflect their beliefs and values to the largest possible audience. There was a time when the religious right held men such as Reverends Falwell and Robertson up as their voices. Both men lost support and influence as they lost sight of the nation’s guiding principles and pressed for their personal and religious ideals to be those of the nation. Many on the religious right now will readily admit that while they may still hold their religious beliefs, they are unwilling to follow their political views. The black or African-American community has shown a similar response to Reverends Jackson and Sharpton. Perhaps to an even greater extent as both men have failed by taking positions naturally opposed to the values of the faith of those they once held sway.
We all have at our means now the ability to be self-appointed counsel to the political leaders of our nation. In addition, our counsel is shared among the many seeking to further understand their views or to find truth in a world filled with non-sense, whimsy and vice. It is striking that so many would take for granted the liberty of this nation, the technology behind our communications, and the willingness of so many to take the time to read their words only to repay them all by offering abuse of truth, revisionist histories and inciting outright disregard for the very foundation which permits their insolence.
It remains to be seen who among the many self-appointed leaders of the left today are capable of maintaining civil discourse and advancing their ideas in government. What we do know is that many, who are now lashing out, may be gaining a name for themselves and a sense of fame, but fame without excellence, good works, and values often comes as infamy. Time alone will tell. What is certain is that while no one voice is particularly likely to be heard, the ramifications of spreading truth or untruth and freeing those willing to do likewise are always heard. So how will the left respond in the coming days? And how will you?
One of the most significant challenges of leadership, particularly in the political arena, is to advance an agenda beyond those who without invitation offer agreement and bring forth those who have professed disagreement or divergent views. This is the challenge before the newly re-elected President not, the commonly called for, reaching out to the opposition to close the divide. One of the greatest factors in the success of the U.S. over the last 100 years is our willingness to stand together against the odds and in the face of danger. We are not the lone super-power in the world because we slid toward the communist, socialist or fascist ideologies of our enemies. No, we defeated them in the arena of ideas, and we defeated them both politically through strategic and military efforts. Why then does the press clamor for the President to close the divide between in this nation by working on the agenda of the opposition party?
As is far too often the case, the call of the press for the President to appeal to the left, to work with the Democrats in Congress, is self-serving and not in the interest of the nation. We have seen, in this election, the vested interest of the media and their desire to see the left take power in this country. Their incessant adherence to the micro issues before our nation, rather than to the macro issues, shows not their desire for ratings but rather their affliction or affiliation with the same micro view the left subscribes to. The people of the nation have elected a man not beholden to those views and capable of eliminating the alligators by clearing the swamp.
President Bush is not the cause of the divide nor is he the cure. The media and the punditry may spend the next four years describing the divide and how he has failed to move toward the middle. And in this space, and many like it, we will applaud his convictions and his willingness to act thereupon. In addition, we will continue to seek those who today hold divergent views, whether by worldview, faith, political ideology or misguided compassion, and attempt to bring them back into the political mainstream. The alternative they face is to follow the left as it scampers further from the majority and toward political insignificance within their own country.
In the future, we should continue, as the President will, to stress the moral and uplifting significance of liberty for Americans and to share these ideals with our neighbors both in the U.S. and abroad. Whether it be tax policy, property rights, foreign affairs or war, the central themes remain the same. Our government is to provide for the defense of our liberties, not to constrain them, and we, Americans, should seek an understanding of the rightful place of government in our lives and the merit of personal virtue despite the liberty to live in excess and vice. With an understanding of these ideals, we are not only more capable of divergent ideologies, we are capable of shared ideologies.
This morning President Bush held his first post-election press conference. It was worth watching, both for the insight into the President’s thinking as much as for the insight into the press. The media wanted to hear how the President is going to unite the nation behind him by working with the Democrats in Congress. The President made it clear that he won the election and his agenda will be put forth with appropriate zeal.
In the coming hours, it is well worth our time to consider the divide and the proper course for closing it. Is it the left, which must move toward the center, or the President who must move to accommodate the left.
More to come.
Being politically opposed to Senator Kerry, there are those among us who will offer criticisms of his concession speech today. I will not, at this time. He was at his finest in this speech and more so, in the decision to concede the election based on the real data before him.
Good job Senator. Congratulations, and Godspeed.
Senator Kerry has apparently called President Bush to concede and will speak at 1:00 PM ET 2:00 PM ET. I'd like to congratulate him for having the decency to do so.
It isn’t clear if the President will wait until after Kerry’s speech to announce victory. Either way, he has won, and won with class and character.
Listening to Morning Sedition on Air America this morning, a bad habit perhaps, it struck me once again how the left, as represented by the hosts of the show, is filled with vitriol toward President Bush. Their analysis was that the election was stolen and that people should take to the streets in civil disobedience against the President. Specifically, they claim minority voters were denied their vote in New Mexico and Ohio. No shame, no class and no clue.
While I do believe we are divided along many lines within the U.S., I don’t believe that the majority of the opposition to the President will share the view of the Marks on Morning Sedition. Thankfully.
Fox News has called Ohio for President Bush. This puts him at 266 and Kerry at 221 (after Minnesota).
Alaska and New Mexico are going for Bush and it'll be done.
Congratulations Mr. President!!!
UPDATE: Alaska goes to Bush (269). New Mexico makes it 274 (not called officially at this point (23:25), but it will be).
Kerry campaign says it disputes the call on Ohio. Trailing by 130k, with 250k votes remaining to be counted. As we've seen for the past 9 months, there is a disconnect between the Senator and reality.
Speaking of the Senate -
Boxer (D)* over Jones (R) - is she indestructable or is Bill inept as a statewide candidate.
Shelby (R)* over Sowell (D)
Salazar (D) over Coors (R) - -1 - Ken managed to distance himself from Kerry and to fool the populace into believing he is fiscally responsible and that he'll be tough of terror.
Martinez (R) over Castor (D) - +1
Isakson (R) over Majette (D) - +1
Burr (R) over Bowles (D) - +1
Murkowski (R)* over Knowles (D) - A great comeback by Murkowski.
Vitter (R) wins in LA with 51% of the vote! - +1
Obama (D) destroyed Keyes (R) - -1
Coburn (R) over Carson (D) - held the seat
DeMint (R) over Tenenbaum (D) - +1
Bunning (R) over Mongiardo (D) - excellent news
and while it isn't over officially - Thune over Daschle - +1.
The Senate will have 55 Republicans to 44 Dems and 1 Indepolooser. Excellent news for our courts and for containing spending, should the Republicans remember that they represent the fiscal conservatives in our nation.
UPDATE 2: 0010 - 11.3.2004
New Mexico has reported 92% of the precincts and Pres. Bush leads by 29k votes. It hasn't been called yet. Don't know why.
Iowa has reported 96% of the precincts and Pres. Bush leads by 12k votes. This state too should be called soon.
The Senator should concede. The race is over. The President should now have 286 electoral votes pledged to him. The press, and the Dems refuse to acknowledge that the President has won both the important (electoral college pledges) and the insignificant (popular vote).
UPDATE 3: 0140 - 11.3.2004
Nevada called for Bush. New Mexico, apparently due to absentee and early voting not yet called, despite all precincts reporting. Iowa still not called. Wisconsin, most likely going to Kerry not called either. 286 Bush - 252 Kerry
Karzai is set to be announced as first elected President of Afghanistan in a couple of hours. More on this in the morning.
Current projections show that President Bush has 210 electoral votes and Senator Kerry has 199 (1 more from Maine). Unallocated at this time are Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Alaska.
Kerry will win Oregon (7), Nevada (5), Iowa (7), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Michigan (17), and New Hampshire (4) for a total of 260.
President Bush will win Alaska (3), Colorado (9), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), Hawaii (4) and Florida (27) for a total of 278.
It is a small margin. Ohio or a combination of New Mexico and Hawaii are the only chance remaining for Kerry.
UPDATE: First returns from Hawaii give Kerry a slight lead, Kerry also gets Oregon, and New Hampshire (the first Red state to fall). Florida and Colorado have been called for Bush.
Watching New Mexico, Wisconsin and Ohio.
Senate - the Republicans have secured the Senate again.
Thus far into the evening there have been no surprises, we've seen that the exit polls are biased towards the Dems, the Senate seems to be safely Republican, and no 2000 Red State has fallen into Blue hands thus far. Pennsylvania is far more blue than it should be at this time, but we'll see if it holds as the remaining precincts fill in. Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin are moving in the right direction and the left coast has just closed up shop.
New Hampshire (currently 50 - 50) is a concern, and of course not having closed the deal in Florida and the mid-west things are up in the air.
Back in a bit.
Election Day 2004 is upon us.
We are fortunate to be Americans and to have such a clear choice before us. The stakes are high, and while I, like many of you, struggle with the idea of seeing Senator Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, I’m confidant that it will not happen, and should it, I know that our nation will prevail in the long run.
The key issues are well known; Islamic terror must be stopped, Islamo-fascist must be defeated, and the U.S. must continue to assert and defend our sovereignty before global bodies seeking to subdue our nation through treaty, pact and manipulation of economic markets. Other issues are secondary to these at this time, yet they are significant to our ability to accomplish the primary. These include our individual liberties within the U.S., economic liberty and the free market, and punitive government policies against the family, personal responsibility and self-actualization.
Let’s see how Americans respond at the polls.
While it may not be collusion, the actions of the majority of media in the U.S. and around the world, the governments of our supposed allies and the organizations of the UN, are aiding the enemies of that which God bestowed on man. Thankfully, the internet, talk radio and a smattering of the press are willing and able to combat their efforts. In most cases, we who seek a semblance of moral clarity, avoid statements accusing the left of supporting or encouraging our enemies (yes, we have enemies at home and abroad). In part, this arises from our view that even though they may be unwilling to label the terrorists or their supporters as evil or as enemies of liberty, we believe that the left remains committed to life, the foremost of our inalienable rights.
The failure of the media is clear. Reporting on the war, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, is not based on the dissemination of truth or even the implausible concept of objectivity; it is in general done as a means to affect opinion within the U.S. and abroad. Never before have the forces of our nation, and the real allies of life and liberty, moved so rapidly and effectively to remove such a threat. And all the while, it is reported, and repeated by a man who would lead the nation most capable, and responsible for, the defense of those without the means to defend themselves, that we have failed, created more terrorist, and alienated our historical supporters.
Nations rift with the effects of terror themselves have floundered before the call to defeat the terrorist. From France, where a growing Muslim populace is feared, liberty is tossed aside and duplicitously the French offer aid and appeasement to those who would remake all nations as states of the single caliphate of Islam. The Spanish failed to respond with strength when hit by murderous thugs, choosing instead to placate their fears by withdrawal from the war. Foolishly believing that non-aligned nations are safe from the eventual course of actions, and failing those who died innocent of wronging anyone. Russia, fighting within its own borders in one of the most disturbed yet clear examples of the venom of our enemy, has been found on both sides of the issue, seeking both financial reward from those who are opposed to liberty and influence on a stage in which they once held a leading role. The examples are numerous and the evidence mounts despite their best efforts to delay and evade detection, often through the manipulation of a world body created to bring forth the best of our nature, which has instead become a tool for those devoid of respect for life, admiration of liberty and desirous of happiness.
All this being said, there is good news. Two nations once held entirely under the grip of men who preferred death to life and repression to freedom, have begun to the process of affirming life and liberty within their society. In addition, we now know that our enemy is not only those who stand before us and declare themselves as such, they are not the oppressed or impoverished, they are oppressors and the exploitive elitist, both at home and beyond. We know the variety of our enemies includes those offering false truth, false support and false hope for peace through compromise. The best news is that in a matter of days, we will re-elect a man capable of withstanding the barrage from all fronts and willing to lead men of equal valor against enemies both known and unknown.
Thanks for stopping in at the Little Red Blog. Expect limited updates between now and the election. I was unable to write yesterday and will likewise have limited availability between now and Tuesday.
If you haven't already, nearly 1 in 5 have, cast your vote and participate in the world's foremost example of self-governance. If you have time to spare, contact your local GOP headquarters and help get out the vote. And of course, if you are inclined to prayer, pray for our nation, our president and for a wise and moral electorate.
Not having seen the tape, and having no confirmation of its contents or authenticity, who am I to say that ABC should have made it available or more simply, announced that it exist.
Thankfully - Drudge has made us aware of it.
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED OCT 27, 2004 12:42:01 ET XXXXXABCNEWS HOLDS TERROR WARNING TAPE
**Exclusive**
In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.
ABCNEWS strongly denies holding the tape back from broadcast over political concerns during the last days of the election.
The CIA is analyzing the tape, a top federal source tells the DRUDGE REPORT.
ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend, sources tells DRUDGE.
"We have been working 24 hours a day trying to authenticate [the tape]," a senior ABCNEWS source said Wednesday morning, dismissing a claim that ABC was planning to air portions of the video during Monday's WORLD NEWS TONIGHT.
The terrorist's face is concealed by a headdress, and he speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual.
US intelligence officials believe the man on tape may be Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman, a California native who was highlighted by the FBI in May as an individual most likely to be involved in or have knowledge of the next al Qaeda attacks.
According to the FBI, Gadahn, 25, attended al-Qaida training camps and served as an al-Qaida translator.
The disturbing tape runs an hour -- the man simply identifies himself as 'Assam the American.'
MORE
The latest Slant-O-Meter shows negativity is the cause of the day.
Along the same lines - a new "study" shows the media favored Kerry over the first two weeks of October.
In the twisted history of Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and his commentary in the LATimes this morning, The White House Wasn't Always God's House, the founders of this nation did not use the moral arguments of their religions in their leading or founding this nation, and no President before President Bush brought God into the White House. After reading Schlesinger’s take on history we would be led to believe that President Bush is the first man of faith to attribute his moral guidance to his faith and then to govern according to the moral compass within him. In his own words:
"George W. Bush's presidency is the first faith-based administration in U.S. history.This is a surprisingly shallow argument. It seems that his position is that men of character and faith, who govern based on their understanding of the issues and the role of governance are somehow doing so with an absence of their faith. Garfield’s comment in particular shows not the absence of his faith in his governance, but his unwillingness to campaign and capitalize on his religion, knowing full well that his respect for the country and for the founding principles behind it supported both his faith and his ability to govern not in the name of his faith but with moral guidance from it.The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution, and the faithful often regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious.
George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion. John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhorred as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. James Monroe was another Virginia Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian. Andrew Jackson, pressed by clergy members to proclaim a national day of fasting to seek God's help in combating a cholera epidemic, replied that he could not do as they wished "without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the general government."
In the 19th century, all presidents routinely invoked God and solicited his blessing. But religion did not have a major presence in their lives. Abraham Lincoln was the great exception. Nor did our early presidents use religion as an agency for mobilizing voters. "I would rather be defeated," said James A. Garfield, "than make capital out of my religion."
Schlesinger continues:
"Nor was there any great popular demand that politicians be men of faith. In 1876, James G. Blaine, an aspirant for the Republican presidential nomination, selected Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, a famed orator but a notorious scoffer at religion, to deliver the nominating speech: The pious knew and feared Ingersoll as "The Great Agnostic"; a 21st century equivalent of Ingersoll would have been booed off the platform at the Republican convention of 2004.”Again here he misrepresents both the historical data and the current situation. Ingersoll was respected as an man of convictions, without the aid of a particular faith behind them, and the modern Republican Party would with open arms accept a morally courageous voice of government restraint promoting life and liberty for all Americans.
"There were presidents of ardent faith in the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson had no doubt that the Almighty designated the United States — and himself — for the redemption and salvation of humankind. Jimmy Carter, like Bush, was "born again." Ronald Reagan, though not a regular churchgoer, had a rapt evangelical following. But neither Wilson nor Carter nor Reagan applied religious tests to secular issues, nor did they exploit their religion for their political benefit. These are the standards that Bush has systematically violated.”And there is the kicker. Schlesinger believes that Bush is applying religious tests to secular issues and using his faith for political benefit. History shows a different picture, as Carter and Reagan afterwards would not have won without the religious voters in the south. Both men applied the moral foundations of their faith in building their character and that character, just as it does with President Bush, provided the framework, along with their understanding of personal liberty, the role of governance and the economics of taxation, to their governance. The difference is that in this age of instant media, the President’s use of prayer and faith is broadcast and shared while the culture of the nation is subjected to greater humanist pressures from the left against both moral standards and religion in general.
"The southernization of the Republican Party and the rise of evangelicals as a political force have restructured U.S. politics. When I was a young fellow, fundamentalists were a disdained minority, raw material that H.L. Mencken and Sinclair Lewis ("Elmer Gantry") used to make jokes about the Bible Belt.I have not ever been so positively inclined to be associated with the religious right as I am by reading Schlesinger’s words. If it is the evangelical who aligns himself with the Catholic in defense of life, or the Jew in defense of the State of Israel, then count me among them. Schlesinger continues:But in recent years, the religious right has made alliances with right-wing Catholics over abortion and right-wing Jews over the Holy Land. Such alliances have given the evangelicals a measure of political respectability.
Statistics on religion are notoriously unreliable, but it may be, as the Pew Center for the People & the Press asserts, that evangelicals now outnumber mainline Protestants. The religious right constitutes Bush's political base, and the result is the first faith-based presidency in U.S. history.”
"Bush's first executive order was to establish the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In fiscal 2003, as our president told a White House conference, the federal government gave more than $1 billion to faith-based organizations. And Bush is unique among presidents in his extensive application of religious tests to secular issues.As a historian, I would have expected some mention of the facts here, the President’s opposition is to federally funded stem cell research beyond existing lines of stem cells. Like many of us, his views on private stem cell research are unknown. Instead of noting this, Schlesinger drops the names of icons of the right who out of personal tragedy have moved to a different position. This is shameful.The opposition to stem cell research that so disturbs Nancy Reagan is typical. Stem cell research promises to expedite cures for Alzheimer's, diabetes, AIDS, Parkinson's and other diseases. But evangelicals are against it, and so is Bush.”
"Equally alarming is the use of churches for political purposes. A Bush campaign document, according to the New York Times, lays out "a brisk schedule for legions of Christian supporters to help enlist 'conservative churches' and their members, including sending church directories to the campaign."While on a shameful rant why not include the pandering of the President’s opposition as he uses faith to justify his social agenda while claiming it cannot guide him on the great moral questions of our day. Instead, Schlesinger offers what he sees as negative statements of the President’s view and mission. It is most likely that Schlesinger is aiming at Jewish and secular voters who might find offense in the “messianic” certitude of the President. It is not unflattering to the President, only to the author.There is no doubt about the authenticity of Bush's conversion. He would not be president today unless the born-again experience had charged his life with new meaning, purpose and discipline. Redemption through commitment to Jesus is what made him a man and a leader.
But, as author Bob Woodward said in "Bush at War": "The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's master plan." There is a messianic certitude about our president's pronouncements.
A fanatic, as Finley Peter Dunne's fictitious Mr. Dooley said, does what he thinks the Lord would do if he only knew the facts in the case. The most dangerous people in the world today are those who persuade themselves that they are executing the will of the Almighty.”
"Lincoln summed it all up in his second inaugural address. Both warring halves of the nation, he said, had read the same Bible and prayed to the same God. Each invoked God's aid against the other.Indeed Lincoln understood something that the opposition to the President today does not. The Almighty will judge us all, and Lincoln in defense of the principles of our founding and to preserve the greater union stood before men of similar faith and fought not in the defense of the divine but in defense of his nation. Can we say the same of those who are opposing President Bush while he defends our nation?As Lincoln said, " … let us judge not, that we be not judged…. The Almighty has his own purposes."
Alpha Patriot has an excellent summary of the character of candidates based on the friends they keep, so to speak.
He starts with a quote from the novel Lord Jim: "You shall judge of a man by his foes as well as by his friends." It is well worth reading.
His summary:
"But the bottom line is this: AWAT nations ("Axis of Weasels, Appeasers and Terrorists") cozy up to Kerry. Nations fighting terrorism and those with recent experience with oppressive regimes (like Poland and Vietnamese-Americans) back Bush.And that is precisely why Dubya must win eight days from now. "
The weekend is over. The Red Sox are up 2 games to none. The Dolphins won (finally). The Huskers lost (again). The Tar Heels took the weekend off (mercifully). College basketball seems so far away.
Each week my sabbath comes when much needed, but never so much as it seemed to be needed this past weekend. The week wore me down. I read more and more "news" and posted less and less. I was asked, are you tired of blogging? No.
What wore me down last week was seeing the lowest common denominator rise to the top in the media and on the streets of a my nation. This week may be the same. We are so close to the expected end of this election cycle and it can't come soon enough for me. I don't want to hear a candidate’s wife saying that riots will not only happen if her husband's ticket wins. I don't want to see more American's, of either party, scaring people into voting for their candidate or pandering for votes. I am naive enough to believe that principles still matter and as such we would lift ourselves from the coarse base of our nature and seek higher ground.
A friend announced to me that President Bush would get her vote. The reason, the Senator had gone hunting for votes, both figuratively and literally. It pleased me to know that the President would get one more vote, and an unexpected vote at that, yet I couldn’t help but think, why would the life of a goose, killed in sport as a counter to the NRA’s support for the President, warrant such significance, while the very principles of our nation and of her liberty are ignored. All politics is local, or so the saying goes, and nothing is more local than that which resides within, our character. This isn't about Kerry or Bush, it is about us, about each of us, and yet we are unable to see it as such.
With much trepidation I await the counting of the votes, the riots in the street and the continued breaking down of the single greatest force for good in a world going mad.
It appears the entire world has an opinion, or a candidate, in the race for the White House. This is not by chance. A straightforward analysis of the world today reflects that the world is divided sharply, just as this nation is, hence the willingness of political leaders from around the world to state their beliefs about the proper man for the Oval Office. We are apt to pin the divide both at home and abroad on one issue. When we do so, we are wrong.
Foremost among the commonlly recognized divides is the Global War on Terror or the Iraqi campaign in particular. However, the greater divides have led to the GWOT divide, just as they’ve led to the divide of Israel and the Palestinians. The greater divides are more esoteric to some, and unmentionable to others. They include issues such as virtue or vice, excellence or mediocrity, man or mankind and individual liberty or societal equity. Do all people or nations who fall on one side or the other of any particular divide see things alike? Of course not, yet those who follow the general path of opposition to the war also tend to be of the opposition in each of the other areas.
The divided world arises from several issues. The most commonly discussed is, as noted above, the Global War on Terror or the removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq and the ensuing effort to build a free and democratic Iraq. In addition we are divided by our very nature as a society from much of the world, this divide is between virtue and vice. Indeed, the U.S., a nation where most any vice can be found, stands as the beacon of virtue, while the defenders of the most terrible of vices stand against us. The world is also divided by its expectations for its people and their fulfillment. Here we see excellence against mediocrity. And of course, fueling each of these great divides, the churning battle between liberty and socialism.
While we might enjoy an exploration of how we came to this divide, our current attention must be the battle at hand. The fronts in the undeclared war of liberty and socialism are many, so many that we are each involved in not just one, the personal battle to elevate ourselves to the most noble of human characteristics, rather we are involved, knowingly or not, in a majority of them. Thankfully so, as our votes are a testament to our stand in this war.
In the United States, the most significant of the battles is taking place. It isn’t the most significant because the writer of this blog lives in the U.S., but rather because the U.S. is the spearhead of the defense of liberty, even while the war wages on within the U.S. President Bush, his supporters, and like-minded people around the world, are the leading proponents for the liberty of man over the limitations of societal whimsy. The President represents a belief that the individual determines his success or failure not the government or the collective view its citizens. He espouses entrepreneurial effort, a disciplined work ethic, self-reliance and a value system that honors rather than limits man’s capacity to succeed. The Senator from Massachusetts offers the more globally prevalent, socialist inspired view which has led to the decline of Western European influence, economic stagnation, moral ambivalence and stirred the more base nature of man to prominence and broad acceptance.
In Europe and the U.N., the war also has many fronts as the French, German and new Spanish governments represent the Islamophobic Socialist for Appeasement, while the recently liberated, and those holding any remnants of moral clarity remain staunchly supportive of the U.S. and of liberty. The much-maligned Coalition of the Willing is comprised not of traditional Allies of the U.S. rather it is comprised of the few who remain true to the cause of liberty, as many former allies were not so much advocates of liberty as they were self-serving tag-a-longs while the threat of the Soviet Union stood at their doorstep. What we’ve seen in recent months is that the much larger Coalition of the Coerced, Corrupt and Condemned will do or say anything to prevent the recognition of their money trial to terrorist, while at home they take measures to deny religious freedoms, constrain individual rights and maintain power within their governments. The French, builders of the Statue of Liberty, are expelling children who wear religious garments to school, and are unwilling to come to the defense of the people of Iraq fighting terrorist in their nation. The fear of Islamic terror has blinded them to their own hypocrisy, just as their greed blinded them to the moral injustices of their support for Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Syria, and the Sudan. They have become default leaders of the Axis of Ambiguity, soon to be the Axis of the Irrelevant.
When we re-elect President Bush, we are sending a signal to the world that the U.S. is not about to cede our rightful place as leaders of the free world. The task afterwards will be to continue to develop new allies in the lands once occupied by our enemies, to stand resolute, when the U.N. will not, and to work to defend liberty at home and in our enemy’s backyard. The U.S. has a noble calling, let us answer it well.