Thursday, May 03, 2007
We Win, They Lose
"We win, they lose" -- sounds to me like a much better idea than anything Nancy Pelosi et al are proposing.
No doubt this sounds, to some, to be overly simplistic. Why must it be one or the other? Because, unfortunately, that's the way it works. When wars are fought, you either win -- meaning that your enemies will agree to anything you say, as long as you stop hurting them -- or you lose, meaning that you're the one willing to do anything to make it stop. Win or lose -- those are the choices. Anything else simply postpones the fight for another day, with no guarantee that it won't be much worse for you than it is now.
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, and still yet if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you, and only a precarious chance for survival. - There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
-- Sir Winston Churchill
If the petition below appeals to you, please do feel free to sign it. I did.
| ||||||||||||||
Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Democrat Leader
Congress has passed and President Bush has vetoed H.R. 1591, the Iraq Surrender Act of 2007.
This legislation, which you worked to pass, sets a timetable for surrender. It pulls the rug out from under our troops. That is shameful and wrong.
Your actions have already emboldened the enemy. Violent jihadists now know that the elected leadership of Congress would undermine the troops by holding their funding hostage to demands for surrender.
This Congress would bring us back to the dark days of the 1970s, when the world doubted our staying power. Except only much worse. Withdraw in April 2008, and on May 1, Iraq becomes an unchecked den of terrorism at the heart of the Middle East -- a new base for the same people that struck our homeland on September 11th.
I stand with our troops. I stand for victory. I support the President's veto and will urge my representatives to vote to sustain it.
There can be one and only one outcome in Iraq: We win, they lose.
Embed this petition on your blog. Cut and paste below:
'>
Labels: Iraq, U.S. politics
Iraqi Parliament Wants To Take Summer Break; US Congress Outraged
Sorry, but this just made me laugh...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lawmakers divided over whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraq are finding common ground on at least one topic: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are considering a lengthy break this summer.Keep your shirt on, Congressman Shays.
"If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight -- that would be the outrage of outrages," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Connecticut.
Granted, nobody likes to work hard while the person next to you is goofing off. And I can easily see how Congressional Republicans, smarting under accusations from Democrats that it's past time for Iraq to stand on its own (without US troops, that is), might resent Iraqi leaders taking a long break.
But for goodness' sake, people! Where do you think they learned this? Who, exactly, do you think their role models were?
As Bill Gresham reputedly used to say, let's take a look at the record. In 2006, the U.S. Congress (House and Senate) were in session for 104 days. That's less than 21 work-weeks! (By way of comparison, my company allows me four weeks' paid vacation per year, plus 10 national holidays off. In other words, I only need to work 46 weeks per year, which comes to 230 working days.)
Now, mind you, 2006 was a mid-term election year, so perhaps that's an unfair example. How about previous years?
2006: 104 days
2005: 122 days
2004: 110 days
2003: 138 days
2002: 126 days
2001: 146 days
2000: 139 days
1999: 139 days
1998: 119 days
1997: 134 days
(My source for all these numbers was the link above, at the Library of Congress website. I trust their figures.)
It does look as though election years see a lighter schedule for our dear Congresscritters. (In all fairness to them, campaigning for reelection is part of the job.) Nonetheless, the heaviest schedule they've had in the past ten years was 2001... and that wasn't even two-thirds of the schedule I'm supposed to keep.
And now Congress is in an uproar because the Iraqi Parliament wants to take nine weeks off?? They could do that, and then take an additional thirteen weeks off... and still be ahead of the best year we've had on Capitol Hill in the past decade.
We have issues aplenty to get worked up about, particularly concerning Iraq. This isn't one of them.
Labels: Iraq, U.S. politics
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Keep An Eye On Mr. Thompson
Fred Thompson is beginning to impress me. Yes, I know he's the most popular undeclared candidate in the upcoming 2008 Presidential race, at least on the Republican side. (Are there any popular undeclared Democrats? I haven't heard of any.) Yes, I know there are issues.
And yet, I find myself liking him, as a candidate. I think he's playing it very smart -- being very up-front about himself (in re his recent revelations about his health, for example). I think it was wise of him to stay out of the fray at this early stage, while multiple candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, batter each other senseless. (I did not understand why candidates felt it necessary to work so hard so early this time. Was there any reason for it, other than following Hillary's lead?) I'm also reminded of another recent dark-horse Presidential candidate, one who didn't announce his candidacy until relatively late in the process.
True, Mr. Thompson's not getting the free press that the other candidates are getting. But it's not like the man lacks for name recognition -- he's been in two dozen movies and a great many TV episodes, in addition to his six-year term as Senator from Tennessee. And if that weren't enough, his day-job as occasional replacement for Paul Harvey, in addition, has given tens of millions of Americans daily access to his voice -- and his opinions, the kind of access any other candidate would kill for.
Speaking of which, Mr. Thompson has an article in yesterday's online National Review that's just a crackerjack. I urge you to go and read the whole thing -- but let me excerpt just a little:
It bothers Americans when we’re told how unpopular we are with the rest of the world. For some of us, at least, it gets our back up — and our natural tendency is to tell the French, for example, that we’d rather not hear from them until the day when they need us to bail them out again.
But we cool off. We’re big boys and girls, after all [...]
In the meantime, let’s be realistic about the world we live in. Mexican leaders apparently have an economic policy based on exporting their own citizens, while complaining about U.S. immigration policies that are far less exclusionary than their own. The French jail perfectly nice people for politically incorrect comments, but scold us for holding terrorists at Guantanamo.
Russia, though, takes the cake [...]
President Vladimir Putin, though, shows no sign that he feels defensive about his remarkable string of luck. He knows who’s really to blame for "meddling" in Russian "internal affairs." It’s the United States.
He’s lambasting us for yielding too much power. One example of this excessive power is the missile defense radar system we want to install in Poland and the Czech Republic — to give the free world early warning of a missile attack by terrorists or a rogue nation like Iran. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the Russians have been supplying Iran with both nuclear and missile technology while using their U.N. veto to block sanctions that would force Tehran to back down. Regardless, we’re clearly at fault, he says, for putting a defense system close to Mother Russia.
(I think he meant "wielding", not "yielding" -- if you think about it, that changes the meaning of the sentence. But that's okay. Lord knows, I've forgiven our current President for much worse slips of the tongue than that.)
Go check it out. And let's hope that we haven't seen the last of this guy.
UPDATE: Instapundit helpfully links to this political biography of Fred Thompson. I found it a worthwhile read; you might want to have a look.
Labels: 2008, U.S. politics
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thank Goodness for an Apolitical CIA
As linked by Instapundit, an open letter -- by present and former CIA employees -- in response to former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet's self-serving and face-saving interview on 60 Minutes yesterday.
Interesting enough, on the face of it. CIA employees are calling 'foul' over their director claiming that he had no responsibility for things that happened on his watch; this much is understandable and admirable:
[Y]our lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim.But does it bother anyone else that the letter is heavily slanted politically?
We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed...Isn't the CIA supposed to be apolitical? Gosh, I thought they were.
Now, the letter goes on to make several interesting revelations, which, on face value, would appear to bolster the anti-war cause (with which the letter-writers seem to agree heartily):
This is not a case of Monday morning quarterbacking. You helped send very mixed signals to the American people and their legislators in the fall of 2002. CIA field operatives produced solid intelligence in September 2002 that stated clearly there was no stockpile of any kind of WMD in Iraq. This intelligence was ignored and later misused. On October 1 you signed and gave to President Bush and senior policy makers a fraudulent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) - which dovetailed with unsupported threats presented by Vice President Dick Cheney in an alarmist speech on August 26, 2002.Wait a minute. Weren't we hearing, in late 2002, that intelligence services all over the world were convinced of the existence of Saddam's stockpiles of WMD? Am I expected to believe that the CIA, alone in the world, had solid evidence to the contrary -- evidence of a negative, no less, that no WMD stockpiles existed anywhere in a country the size of California! -- and, having acquired this dynamite, chose to keep it to themselves?
(Let me add, for the record, that I never believed America's invasion of Iraq depended on knowing for certain about WMDs. I don't recall President Bush, or any of his cabinet, declaring unequivocally that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD. What I do recall, clearly, is that we could not prove he did not have them. After decades of trying to acquire nuclear weapons, after using chemical weapons on Iranian troops and on Iraqi civilians, we had no proof that he had destroyed all of his WMD, as the cease-fire Saddam signed in 1991 required him to do. In a post-9/11 world, a dictator of a rogue state, one known to be hostile to the United States, who either had or would soon have WMD, was a threat not to be tolerated. So Saddam was given one last chance to come clean, in the form of a UN Security Council resolution that demanded he do so; he did not. This, to me, was good and sufficient reason to go to war; stockpiles of WMD had nothing to do with it.)
The letter continues:
You were well aware that the White House tried to present as fact intelligence you knew was unreliable. And yet you tried to have it both ways. On October 7, just hours before the president gave a major speech in Cincinnati, you were successful in preventing him from using the fable about Iraq purchasing uranium in Africa, although that same claim appeared in the NIE you signed only six days before.The fable? The one that British Intelligence still stands behind, to this day?
Although CIA officers learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, you still went before Congress in February 2003 and testified that Iraq did indeed have links to Al Qaeda.
And are we to assume that deceptions of this sort existed, and were reasonably well-known to senior CIA personnel at the time, and that they kept silent about it? Even when Democratic politicians were digging everywhere they could find for hard evidence?
Solid information, of the sort this letter playfully hints about, could have changed the course of the 2004 Presidential election. I do not criticize CIA operatives for keeping their mouths shut -- quite the opposite! -- but I do find it well-nigh unbelievable that such information never surfaced. Sen. John Kerry, as Democratic Nominee for the Presidency, was receiving intelligence briefings in 2004. Did no one, of the multiple signatories to this letter, find an opportune moment to whisper in the Senator's ear?
It would be wonderful to know that the CIA is leak-proof, that secrets never leak out for political advantage. But I don't buy it, not for a moment.
Later in the letter, Tenet is actually criticized for not being critical enough of the President:
Decisions were made, you were in charge, but you have no idea how decisions were made even though you were in charge. Curiously, you focus your anger on the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice, but you decline to criticize the President.Don't you just love how these people are on a first-name basis with cabinet secretaries?
Most importantly and tragically, you failed to meet your obligations to the people of the United States. Instead of resigning in protest, when it could have made a difference in the public debate, you remained silent and allowed the Bush Administration to cite your participation in these deliberations to justify their decision to go to war. Your silence contributed to the willingness of the public to support the disastrous war in Iraq, which has killed more than 3300 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.The emphasis is mine -- but please note that the text I've marked is straight out of moveon.org / Daily Kos. Is this how the much-vaunted CIA summarizes the Iraq war -- not in terms of deposed dictators, not in terms of national-security threats, but in body-bag counts?
(And by the way, isn't it just a little weird that the CIA, claiming access to all the behind-the-scenes information, can't specify Iraqi casualties any more precisely than "hundreds of thousands"? Heck, a ten-year-old with Google can do that.)
So, what do I think of this letter? I have no idea if the intelligence thrown about so casually should be taken seriously or not. (I suspect not; as I've indicated above, it doesn't pass the smell test for me.) I do think, however, that we're seeing some seriously disgruntled employees -- perhaps angry that their former boss is going public with his Bush-hatred, while simultaneously covering his own rear end... and leaving them out in the cold.
Time will tell. In the meantime, we're treated to an unusual spectacle: the Bush haters are eating each other alive, in full public view.
Labels: Iraq, prelude to war, U.S. politics
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Where's Joe Lieberman when the Democrats need him?
Actually, he's right where he ought to be -- on the floor of the United States Senate, holding fast to his principles.
The Senator from Connecticut has demonstrated that he doesn't need the Democratic Party to get elected, or to get work done. They, on the other hand, need him, more than they know.
Yesterday, a vote for cloture on Sen. Warner's non-binding lack-of-confidence resolution was defeated. I'll avoid saying much more than that, because if I do, I'll make it abundantly clear just how little I understand how the Senate works. I will say, however, that it was defeated because the Republicans seemed to finally understand what is at stake here, and the importance of getting their act together.
But they're not the only ones who understand what is at stake. That's the other reason I don't want to say much about this, because Joe Lieberman, the Independent Democrat from Connecticut, said it so very much better than I could:
It is altogether proper that we debate our policy in Iraq. It should be a debate that is as serious as the situation in Iraq and that reflects the powers the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war.Believe it or not, it gets better. Please do go read the whole thing.
But that, sadly, is not the debate that the Warner-Levin resolution invites us to have. I am going to speak strongly against this resolution because I feel strongly about it. I do so with respect for my colleagues who have offered it, but I believe its passage would so compromise America’s security, present and future, that I will say so in the clearest terms I can.
The resolution before us, its sponsors concede, will not stop the new strategy from going forward. As we speak, thousands of troops are already in Baghdad, with thousands more moving into position to carry out their Commander’s orders. This resolution does nothing to alter these facts.
Instead, its sponsors say it will send a message of rebuke from the Senate to the president, from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the other. But there is a world beyond Pennsylvania Avenue that is watching and listening.
What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them. We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out. We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking. And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.
[. . . ]
For the Senate to take up a symbolic vote of no confidence on the eve of a decisive battle is unprecedented, but it is not inconsequential. It is an act which, I fear, will discourage our troops, hearten our enemies, and showcase our disunity. And that is why I will vote against cloture.
Thank you, Sen. Lieberman. The Democratic Party sorely needs more people like you -- and that need is to their discredit.
Labels: inspirational, Iraq, U.S. politics
Monday, February 05, 2007
Molly Ivins, 1944 - 2007: RIP
I only just found out that Molly Ivins passed away, almost a week ago. Wow -- it feels like the end of an era.
My personal feelings about her could be described as "warm but ambivalent". I never met her, nor did I ever correspond with her; I do own a few of her books. In fact, it is instructive to track my evolution, from the liberal side to the conservative side of American politics, in terms of how highly I thought of Ms. Ivins when I first started reading her stuff, back in 1999 or so.
There's not a lot that she's written lately that I'd agree with; some of her writing, over the past few years, I've found to be pretty painful to read. And yet -- she had that touch. Her writing was warm, friendly, inviting; I sometimes found myself chuckling over her dry wit, while simultaneously shaking my head and wondering how she could possibly believe what she was saying.
I'm sorry she's gone. Godspeed, Molly.
Labels: journalism, obituary, U.S. politics
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
More Self-Parody: "Poop for Peace"
Every time I get to thinking that, hmm, maybe the American peace movement should be taken more seriously, I come across something like this.
Is this for real, or is this a parody? No, it looks like people are taking it seriously -- here are instructions, from two years ago, for, uh, expressing your desire for world peace.
Personally, it looks to me just like a simplistic perception that War Is Bad, Dude, coupled with a juvenile desire to feel that you're Doing Something About It -- by giving a special name to something you were doing anyway. But I'm just a warmongering neocon Zionist; what do I know? (Answer: I may not know much, but I have enough dignity to keep my excretions private, thanks.)
Hat tip: LGF. (And thanks to my lovely wife for calling it to my attention.)
Labels: humor, U.S. politics
Monday, January 29, 2007
I Support President Bush
It seems to me that I hear those four words far too infrequently these days. For a nation at war, that's just not right.
I support President Bush. Period. No qualifications, no "if only he would...", no "except for" pet peeves.
President Bush is the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. Those forces are fighting a war on our behalf, the outcome of which will determine the course of Western civilization for decades to come -- perhaps even centuries to come. If we don't want Islamic sha'aria imposed upon us, if we don't want to have to worry about daily Islamofascist terror attacks at our local supermarkets, then we need to support the President who is fighting these things.
Do I agree with the President on everything? Hell, no! I still cringe every time he says "nucular". "Intelligent design", I firmly believe, is a singularly bad idea. I still don't know what on Earth Bush was thinking with the UAE ports deal, and I'm relieved that the issue was taken out of his hands. The ever-growing Federal Government, which has grown tremendously on Bush's watch, truly alarms me. The list goes on.
But when your very survival is at stake, other issues become secondary. This is not the time to debate a higher minimum wage; rather, we should ensure the long-term survival of a country that can afford such things. And debating the merits of legalized gay marriage seems irrelevant, when we're fighting a war against an ideology that prefers its homosexuals dead.
Orson Scott Card, as is his wont, puts the matter quite well:
I'm a Democrat -- a Scoop Jackson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Joseph Leiberman Democrat. The kind that believes freedom is worth fighting for -- both our freedom of other people's as well.Indeed. We are now hearing, more and more, from both sides of the aisle, about "symbolic resolutions" to express disapproval of President Bush's management of the war, and of our national security. This is the equivalent of a passenger trying to wrestle the controls away from the driver. (Perhaps the passenger is a better driver; perhaps the current crisis could be handled better. But you don't switch drivers in the middle of a crisis, and you don't joggle his elbow; you help as much as you can, and then you stay out of his way.)
The kind that places the interest of the American people and, yes, of the world at large over the temporary political advantage that can be derived from attacking a President in wartime.
So when I watch Democratic leaders completely ignore the security interests of the United States in order to engage in cheap sloganeering ("bring our boys home!") and demagoguery, I am filled with shame and rage.
Are they really so completely ignorant of history that they do not realize the golden opportunity we have, and the disastrous consequences of not seizing it?
. . .
The Left always wants someone to "do something," but never wants to do anything that works. And never wants to admit that President George W. Bush has ever done anything right.
Well, he has; and the Democrats right now are doing something dangerously wrong. Every word they say strengthens and encourages our enemies, while discouraging and weakening our friends and allies in the Middle East. They are the best weapon Al Qaeda and the murderous Iranian and Syrian governments have against us. Every time they open their mouths in their misleading and deceptive attacks on Bush and demands for unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, they are helping ensure the future deaths of Americans and others, at home and abroad.
As Card points out, publicly challenging the President on his wartime leadership is not just speech; it actively emboldens our enemies. Our soldiers in the field are demoralized by knowing that their Congress does not support them or their mission -- and the terrorists see that demoralization, and are encouraged by it. This can, and will, result in the deaths of more American troops.
I can only wonder how our elected representatives, with their impassioned speeches against the President's new plan -- while presenting no reasonable alternative of their own -- would respond, if they only knew that their words made the deaths of Americans more likely, not less, as a direct consequence.
As a result, I have signed the pledge. And I want to declare, now more than ever, unequivocally and without reservation --
I support President Bush.
Do you?
Labels: GWB, U.S. politics
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
So When Will I Get Around To Dissing The New Democratic Leadership?
Not yet.
In all seriousness, a good many people are asking good and important questions. (Instapundit links to a lot of them. For example, what's the connection between Sen. Harry Reid and Jack Abramoff? Is Rep. Pelosi's selection of Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee really a smart move? What about Rep. Jack Murtha for House Majority Leader? And much more; keep scrolling.)
Frankly, none of that concerns me much right now. I prefer to wait and see. It's true that I don't trust Rep. Pelosi much, nor Rep. Murtha, nor many of their fellow victorious Democrats. But what matters most is what they do, not what their reputations imply that they will do (and certainly not what I think they'll do).
It's perfectly possible for a politician to gain high office and surprise the daylights out of everybody. I've seen it happen before. And the new Democratic leadership of the House and Senate may be better for the country than we expected of them.
Or not, as the case may be. But let's give them a good, serious chance.
(I might add that others are asking why Republicans are behaving so stupidly -- reinstating Trent Lott as Senate Minority Whip, the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld and putting Gates in his place, and so on. My response there is the same -- let's wait and see.)
Labels: 2006, U.S. politics
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election Day 2006: The Day After
Some good summaries on Instapundit, to begin with:
DEMOCRATS HAVE THE HOUSE, with a gain of about two dozen seats, and look likely to take the Senate when all the counting is done.That makes a lot of sense to me. I do expect Democrats to calm down a bit, now that they have some real power. (I also expect them to make use of that power, don't get me wrong; but I'm hoping that some of the anti-Bush hysteria will abate.) On the other hand, I very much hope that the people who have been complaining about anti-Bush hysteria do not come down with a similar syndrome themselves.Looks like my pre-mortem was merely a bit ahead of schedule. And I think that this defeat really was the result of a series of unnecessary Republican errors. The GOP leadership needs an overhaul, and I think it will get one.
The Democrats now have a chance to govern, not just carp, and how well they do over the next couple of years will have a lot to do with whether they have a shot at the White House in 2008. Perhaps getting back into power will also encourage a bit of responsibility. We'll see. If nothing else, the bitterness that comes with losing, and being out of power, is likely to recede a bit. Republicans would be wise not to succumb to a similar bitterness, especially as this defeat could have been avoided if they'd stuck to their principles. Maybe they'll pay more attention to libertarians, too.
(Yes, the prospect of Rep. Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, third in line for the Presidency, is a bit scary. Then again, let's have some perspective -- we have never had a Speaker of the House become President, not once in 230 years. I don't think it's particularly likely this time around either.)
It has certainly been observed before that the American people, uncertain about Democrats vs. Republicans and their policies, often prefer gridlock, where neither party wins. Personally, I think that's a very bad idea when the country is at war. But it's certainly happened before... and this is the choice of the American people. So, bad idea or not, it's what we have.
And, as John Podhoretz points out (also via Instapundit):
Happy or suicidal with tonight's results, something colossal and profoundly important has happened in the United States beginning in 2000 — the re-engagement of the American people with politics. We have had four enormously consequential elections in a row now in which voters have cast their ballots in numbers that we were told we'd never see in our lifetimes. I don't see how you can view this as anything but a wondrous development for the United States.I certainly can't argue with that. And I suppose, in retrospect, that it would have taken, not a war, but a wartime President, to make that happen.
UPDATE: With John Murtha not only reelected (with 61% of the vote) but running for Majority Leader, I think it's time -- regretfully -- to pull down the banner for Diana Irey. I'm not happy about Rep. Murtha holding his seat, and I'm less happy about him wielding more power than ever -- but that is the people's choice, and I will honor that. (I also don't want to look like the people still driving around my neighborhood with Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers.)
On the other hand, as Shelley points out in the comments, Rep. Nancy Pelosi has pledged that, under her stewardship, the House of Representatives will be "the most honest, ethical and open" -- a bold pledge indeed. I hope very much that she holds true to that. But the first impressions are not encouraging. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
UPDATE II: Thanks to Wretchard at The Belmont Club, this interview on PBS with Nancy Pelosi:
MARGARET WARNER: Now, the president said today also he wanted to work in a bipartisan way on Iraq. But then he repeatedly defined the goal as "victory." And he said at one point, you know, speaking of the troops, "I want them home, too, but I want them home in victory, not leaving behind an Iraq that's a safe haven for al-Qaida." And he said repeatedly that victory was leaving an Iraq that was self-sustaining and could defend itself.
Now, can Democrats work with him and embrace that as the goal?
REP. NANCY PELOSI: I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.
So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.
The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?
This does not encourage me. Ms. Pelosi, you were just told what the President means by "victory" -- leaving Iraq, but not before it could defend itself without our help -- and you responded that you want other countries in the region to stabilize Iraq so that we won't have to. (That's what "building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq" means.)
Which begs several questions -- who in the Middle East do you think could do a better job of rebuilding Iraq than the United States, and why do you think so? (Who would move in to a power vacuum in the case of a premature unilateral American withdrawal? Iran, certainly. Is that whom we want running the show in our absence? Or, more likely, does she just want to bring the troops home, and doesn't know or doesn't care about the long-term consequences?)
A more basic question might be: Why are you asking what the President means by "victory" when you were just told what he means? Were you not listening, or did you not understand it? Neither bodes well at this point.
And an even more basic question might be: how is it possible that you don't know what "victory" means? Or have you forgotten that we are at war? Or do you believe that the war will be over as soon as we Bring The Boys Home, and that we will live as peacefully as we did on Sept. 10, 2001?
As if there was any doubt: She doesn't get it. Let us hope that, as she is required to govern, she will figure it out... and that it doesn't take her too long.
This sort of thing makes me go back to reread Dan Simmons' The Visitor... and it gives me the shivers.
Labels: 2006, Iraq, U.S. politics
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Self-Contradiction at the AP
I wasn't intending to post today -- I've been busy lately. But this just made me laugh:
RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Democrat Mark R. Warner, the former governor of Virginia, has decided not to run for president in 2008, Democratic officials said Thursday.This is so self-parodying, I'm not sure where to begin. Is it not obvious that these two nameless "officials" are upstaging Gov. Warner by spilling the beans early? What was their reason for remaining anonymous, then?
Warner, 51, scheduled a late morning news conference in Richmond to make the announcement, according to two Democratic officials who refused to be identified because they did not want to upstage Warner's announcement.
It's well-nigh unbelievable that anyone would say such a thing. My officemate, the long-suffering Daniel T., suggests that perhaps the two "officials" remained anonymous for the usual reasons -- so as not to get into trouble for leaking information they had no business leaking -- and that it was the AP reporter who invented the "upstaging" reason. If so, however, it seems that some journalists, anxious to avoid saying anything negative about Democrats (or anything positive about Republicans), are going to absurd extremes. (Call it Journalistic Objectivity, 21st-century style.)
Or perhaps the leakers in question explicitly asked that the news not be released before Gov. Warner's press conference... and later insisted that, if the information was to be published, that their identities be withheld. (I could then see a reporter cheerfully filing the story anyway, and thinking "hmm, they seem reluctant to upstage Warner; let me say something about that too".)
I'm not sure who is less responsible here -- the people who leaked the information, or the journalists who published it. Frankly, I'm not overly confident of either at this point, even though the information is pretty trivial.
But isn't that the point of integrity -- to maintain high standards, even when the results aren't important? If you try to maintain standards for the important stuff, while allowing yourself to get lazy for the small stuff, then where do you draw the line -- and how do you know you've drawn it in the right place?
Labels: humor, journalism, U.S. politics
Friday, September 22, 2006
On Standing Up For One's Country
"Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had speaking at the U.N. In doing so, in the manner which he characterized the president, he demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela. Hugo Chavez fancies himself as a modern day Simon Bolivar, but all he is an everyday thug."Thank you, Nancy Pelosi.
"You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."Thank you, Charlie Rangel.
"Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies... We tend to forget that a few days after 9-1-1 thousands, thousands of Iranians marched in a candlelight procession in Teheran in support of the United States. Every Muslim country was basically on our side. Just think, in five years, President Bush has squandered all that."Thanks for nothing, Tom Harkin.
UPDATE: Hmm, maybe that's why Sen. Harkin was so eager to defend Hugo Chavez. Chavez, after all, devoted a fair bit of his UN speech praising Noam Chomsky -- who happens to look amazingly like Harkin...
In all seriousness, perhaps Sen. Harkin has had reason to regret his remarks -- or, at any rate, the inappropriate timing of them. Today he says:
“Yesterday’s comments by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela were incendiary and unworthy of a nation’s leader. While I understand the frustrations of many in the international community because of George W. Bush’s policies, I do not believe that gives them the right to come to our country and personally insult and attack the President of the United States. This is especially inappropriate at a forum such as the United Nations, dedicated to civil and peaceful dialogue among nations.”I like that a lot better. Still, it's a pity when people need to be reminded of such things.
There are many reasons that, as we used to say, "politics ends at the water's edge" -- that we will criticize our people as seems appropriate to us, but that we'll close ranks and defend our own against outsiders. It's the right thing to do ethically and pragmatically, for one; and it establishes rules of polite conduct, which others hold us to in other countries, and which we have every right to expect of them in ours.
As Robert Heinlein once pointed out, morality is exemplified by a mother cat who dies to protect her kittens. The lives of her children are more important to her than her own life; or, to put it another way, the survival of her family is more important than her own personal survival. That's what moral behavior boils down to, at its most basic -- helping to ensure the survival of something bigger than yourself.
Human beings can do more than that. We can reach for a higher level of morality, in which a person is ready to die to protect others he or she doesn't even know; that's what firefighters do. And there's a higher level than that, involving loyalty to one's state, or one's country -- being ready to die to protect more people than one could ever possibly meet. (That's called 'patriotism'; it's a word that has fallen out of favor lately. But it means helping to ensure the survival of your entire country. It means that there are people willing to save my life, and even to die to protect me, simply because I'm an American. That's a powerful thing.)
And one aspect of that sort of loyalty is knowing when to criticize your own, and when to present a united front. (Does a mother criticize her children when they misbehave? Of course she does. But she'll still protect them against others, and will probably refuse to stand for criticism of her children by other parents.)
Besides, as Sen. Harkin seems to have forgotten, showing loyalty to your own country -- and treating it as more important than "understanding" some other country -- is helpful in winning elections.
As for this clown:
"The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.No comment necessary... except to say that, by comparison, he makes Ahmadinejad seem almost sane and reasonable, something I didn't think was possible.
And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today.
Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world."
UPDATE II: Many in the blogosphere have castigated Rep. Pelosi and Rep. Rangel, pointing out that their own standard rhetoric is not all that different from what Chavez said.
That's true enough. But I don't care. Certainly, I've given them a hard time myself, when I thought they deserved it. Contrariwise, it is proper for me to praise them when I think their actions are praiseworthy, as I believe these are.
When it comes to deranged Democrats, I'd much rather reserve my ire for idiocies such as this:
That's Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, former governor of Vermont and former Presidential candidate -- and he's dancing while wearing a Fatah khaffiyeh, the style worn by Yasser Arafat when he was out killing Israelis (and Americans). The political blindness implicit in that photo is well-nigh unbelievable.
(Later -- Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly also calls Dean out on "know[ing] your audience", albeit with respect to a different issue.)
Follow the link for more speculations on Democrats and Jews. Powerline has more, as does Ed Lasky at The American Thinker. It's getting scary out there.
Labels: ethics, patriotism, U.S. politics, Venezuela
