Greetings from the Left Coast! I'm going to do something unusual in this entry, and ask you to read something someone else has written.
One of the hallmarks of Secular-Progressive thought is that it is never willing to make moral judgments about anything. Having rejected the concept that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong that is external to ourselves, they're not willing to pass judgment on anything or anyone as being "wrong" or "evil" (except for their own government, of course). Nowhere in recent memory has this been as ridiculously obvious as in the invitation extended to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University.
Syndicated columnist Mona Charen wrote an excellent article about this appearance, on the theme that you cannot "advance the search for truth by giving a platform to liars and criminals." Please take the time to click through and read her column. You can find it here.
And if I had children in college today, here's what would scare the heck out of me (quoting from her column): "The New York Times reporter present estimated that 30 percent of the audience was pro-Ahmadinejad. Thirty percent. More than anything, that sends a chill down the spine." Where do you suppose that thirty percent picked up the value system (or lack thereof) that allowed them to look evil in the face and not be able - or willing - to recognize it for what it is?
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Can't MoveOn Quite Yet
Greetings from the Left Coast! A couple of posts ago, I talked about how disgusted I was at the way the Democrats have reacted to both General Petraeus' report to Congress and to the MoveOn ad characterizing him as "General Betray Us." I pointed out, in particular, that a week had gone by since the ad had run, and none of the leading Democrat Presidential candidates had denounced it.
Well, last week, the Senate actually brought a motion to the floor to formally condemn the ad. Guess who voted against the motion to condemn the MoveOn ad? Twenty-five Senators voted against the motion to condemn the ad. (By lightning calculation that means that fully one-fourth of the Senate of the United States apparently thought that the ad was just fine.) Would you believe all twenty-five were Democrats? Among the twenty-five were Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, along with the usual suspects: Senators Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, our own Patty Murray, Schumer, etc. Barak Obama, our own Maria Cantwell, and Joe Biden courageously abstained from voting.
I'm sure that if someone ever manages to get them to explain their votes, they'll say that it was a free speech issue, and that whether they approved of it or not, the Senate shouldn't be voting on something like that. Democrats love to advocate free speech, as long as it's speech they agree with. If you pay close attention, though, you'll see that they're not crazy about supporting the other kind. Well, to quote the Honorable Tom Lantos, "With all due respect...I must say, I don't buy it."
In case you don't know, MoveOn.org was organized during the Clinton Presidency, and took its name from the idea that Congress should just censure the President and "move on" rather than go through the impeachment process. Billionaire George Soros is a major financial backer of MoveOn, and they have poured many millions of dollars into trying to get Democrats elected.
They're not shy about throwing a Democrat overboard, either - they were big backers of Ned Lamont, who defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary of 2006, because Joe took some positions they didn't like very much, particularly in regard to the War on Terror. A lot of mainstream Democrats didn't bother to vote in the primary election, but MoveOn was able to mobilize the more radical left which came out to vote for Ned. Party officials took the position that the people had spoken, Ned Lamont had won the primary, he was the official Democrat on the ticket, and that was that. Tough luck, Joe.
Yes, we can take some comfort in the fact that mainstream Democrats did come out in the general election and did reject Ned Lamont in favor of Senator Lieberman, who ran, and won, as an independent - but the fact is that if you're a Democrat, criticizing MoveOn can be, shall we say, a career-altering decision. Also, I suppose it might be awkward for Senator Clinton to say anything bad about them seeing as how they were originally formed as a Clinton support group.
So, you be the judge: Did the Group of 25 oppose this measure out of deep-seated convictions that Congress shouldn't be condemning organizations for exercising their free speech rights - no matter how hateful or irresponsible that speech might be - or because they didn't want to take a chance on losing millions of dollars of campaign contributions or, worse yet, see those millions used against them?
Oh, and to Senators Cantwell, Biden, and particularly Senator Obama, at least have the guts to take a position on one side or the other, will you? President Harry Truman (a Democrat) was famous for the "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk. He understood that when you sit in the Oval Office, you don't get to abstain from making decisions. People who aspire to occupy that office might want to keep that in mind.
Thanks for listening...
Well, last week, the Senate actually brought a motion to the floor to formally condemn the ad. Guess who voted against the motion to condemn the MoveOn ad? Twenty-five Senators voted against the motion to condemn the ad. (By lightning calculation that means that fully one-fourth of the Senate of the United States apparently thought that the ad was just fine.) Would you believe all twenty-five were Democrats? Among the twenty-five were Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, along with the usual suspects: Senators Boxer, Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, our own Patty Murray, Schumer, etc. Barak Obama, our own Maria Cantwell, and Joe Biden courageously abstained from voting.
I'm sure that if someone ever manages to get them to explain their votes, they'll say that it was a free speech issue, and that whether they approved of it or not, the Senate shouldn't be voting on something like that. Democrats love to advocate free speech, as long as it's speech they agree with. If you pay close attention, though, you'll see that they're not crazy about supporting the other kind. Well, to quote the Honorable Tom Lantos, "With all due respect...I must say, I don't buy it."
In case you don't know, MoveOn.org was organized during the Clinton Presidency, and took its name from the idea that Congress should just censure the President and "move on" rather than go through the impeachment process. Billionaire George Soros is a major financial backer of MoveOn, and they have poured many millions of dollars into trying to get Democrats elected.
They're not shy about throwing a Democrat overboard, either - they were big backers of Ned Lamont, who defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary of 2006, because Joe took some positions they didn't like very much, particularly in regard to the War on Terror. A lot of mainstream Democrats didn't bother to vote in the primary election, but MoveOn was able to mobilize the more radical left which came out to vote for Ned. Party officials took the position that the people had spoken, Ned Lamont had won the primary, he was the official Democrat on the ticket, and that was that. Tough luck, Joe.
Yes, we can take some comfort in the fact that mainstream Democrats did come out in the general election and did reject Ned Lamont in favor of Senator Lieberman, who ran, and won, as an independent - but the fact is that if you're a Democrat, criticizing MoveOn can be, shall we say, a career-altering decision. Also, I suppose it might be awkward for Senator Clinton to say anything bad about them seeing as how they were originally formed as a Clinton support group.
So, you be the judge: Did the Group of 25 oppose this measure out of deep-seated convictions that Congress shouldn't be condemning organizations for exercising their free speech rights - no matter how hateful or irresponsible that speech might be - or because they didn't want to take a chance on losing millions of dollars of campaign contributions or, worse yet, see those millions used against them?
Oh, and to Senators Cantwell, Biden, and particularly Senator Obama, at least have the guts to take a position on one side or the other, will you? President Harry Truman (a Democrat) was famous for the "The Buck Stops Here" sign on his desk. He understood that when you sit in the Oval Office, you don't get to abstain from making decisions. People who aspire to occupy that office might want to keep that in mind.
Thanks for listening...
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Short Attention Span Theater
Greetings from the Left Coast! In my last entry, I started explaining why the Democrats have lost my vote and won't get it back in the foreseeable future. This post will continue in that vein.
On October 9, 2002, a Senator took the floor of the United States Senate. Here, in part, is what he said:
“With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?...
“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
"All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel…
“It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless under international supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.
"Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
"I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
"He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation…
“I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.
"I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.
"He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf war, that the Iraqi regime provide credible proof to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. During the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.
"It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
"Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year…
“As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?
"And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?
"That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.
"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat…
“If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence…
“Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation.
"He is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power…”
So...did you guess who that Senator was? Some raving, right-wing, war-mongering, conservative Republican? Naw...that was Senator John Kerry. Of course, little more than a year later, he was hoping that the American people wouldn't remember this speech. He was saying that he was deceived. The intelligence was manipulated. We were all misled. The scary thing is that almost half of the voters in the 2004 Presidential election apparently bought the story! Talk about a short attention span!
Bovine feces. He was a United States Senator - he had access to the same intelligence everyone else did. Go back and read through the comments again. Do they sound like someone who has been duped into supporting a position that he doesn't really believe in? On the contrary, it sounds to me like the words of a man who had a very clear understanding of the situation and the risk it posed to our nation and the world. That's probably why he voted for the war before he voted against it...or was it that he voted against it before he voted for it...oh heck, if he can't even keep his own positions straight, how does he expect me to?
The fact is that I agree with pretty much everything he said in that October, 2002 speech. But when it appeared that he might be able to get some political gain out of turning around and bashing the Bush administration for actually doing what he said we should do - holding Saddam Hussein accountable for his actions - he blithely reversed course and insulted my intelligence by apparently believing that I was too stupid to remember what he'd said before!
Didn't work, Senator Kerry...I did remember. The Congressional Record can be an inconvenient thing at times, can't it? And I won't forget the two-faced behavior you indulged in for political gain while young men and women were dying half a world away. Nor will I forgive you, nor the party that sponsored you. Of course, for those of us who actually remember the Vietnam War, and your behavior when you came back from it, this shouldn't have come as a huge surprise. For the life of me, I can't understand how this man has any credibility left, or how the citizens of Massachusetts can vote to send him back to the Senate year after year and still look themselves in the faces in their bathroom mirrors every morning. (Of course, they keep sending Ted Kennedy back to the Senate too, but that's another entry for another day.)
This is just one example of the two-faced behavior of leading Democrats before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I've got more, but I'm not sure how many I'll actually write about here because it's not good for my blood pressure. Anyway, thanks for listening.
On October 9, 2002, a Senator took the floor of the United States Senate. Here, in part, is what he said:
“With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?...
“It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
"All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel…
“It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless under international supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.
"Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.
"I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.
"He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation…
“I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.
"I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.
"He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf war, that the Iraqi regime provide credible proof to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. During the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.
"It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.
"Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year…
“As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?
"And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?
"That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.
"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat…
“If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence…
“Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation.
"He is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power…”
So...did you guess who that Senator was? Some raving, right-wing, war-mongering, conservative Republican? Naw...that was Senator John Kerry. Of course, little more than a year later, he was hoping that the American people wouldn't remember this speech. He was saying that he was deceived. The intelligence was manipulated. We were all misled. The scary thing is that almost half of the voters in the 2004 Presidential election apparently bought the story! Talk about a short attention span!
Bovine feces. He was a United States Senator - he had access to the same intelligence everyone else did. Go back and read through the comments again. Do they sound like someone who has been duped into supporting a position that he doesn't really believe in? On the contrary, it sounds to me like the words of a man who had a very clear understanding of the situation and the risk it posed to our nation and the world. That's probably why he voted for the war before he voted against it...or was it that he voted against it before he voted for it...oh heck, if he can't even keep his own positions straight, how does he expect me to?
The fact is that I agree with pretty much everything he said in that October, 2002 speech. But when it appeared that he might be able to get some political gain out of turning around and bashing the Bush administration for actually doing what he said we should do - holding Saddam Hussein accountable for his actions - he blithely reversed course and insulted my intelligence by apparently believing that I was too stupid to remember what he'd said before!
Didn't work, Senator Kerry...I did remember. The Congressional Record can be an inconvenient thing at times, can't it? And I won't forget the two-faced behavior you indulged in for political gain while young men and women were dying half a world away. Nor will I forgive you, nor the party that sponsored you. Of course, for those of us who actually remember the Vietnam War, and your behavior when you came back from it, this shouldn't have come as a huge surprise. For the life of me, I can't understand how this man has any credibility left, or how the citizens of Massachusetts can vote to send him back to the Senate year after year and still look themselves in the faces in their bathroom mirrors every morning. (Of course, they keep sending Ted Kennedy back to the Senate too, but that's another entry for another day.)
This is just one example of the two-faced behavior of leading Democrats before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I've got more, but I'm not sure how many I'll actually write about here because it's not good for my blood pressure. Anyway, thanks for listening.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
General Issues
Greetings from the Left Coast! In previous entries, I said I'd try to explain why I can't envision a situation where I would ever again vote for a Democrat. Let's start with the recent testimony of General David Petraeus before Congress, since that's what finally pushed me over the edge into the blogosphere.
But first, I have a couple of vocabulary words to share with you, just for the fun of it (emphasis added):
"Treason - (1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (2) A betrayal of trust or confidence." (from the American Heritage Dictionary)
The Dictionary.com entry, based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, also states: "Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection."
Moving right along now...
Back in January, the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. By "unanimously," I mean that no one voted against him. There were nineteen Senators, both Republican and Democrat, who didn't vote. Seems to me that was a pretty important vote, and one that you'd want to be on the record for, but let's put that aside for the moment, and look at some of the Senators who voted for the General's confirmation. That list included Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer. Yep, all of those Senators believed that General Petraeus was the best man for the job. Couldn't speak highly enough of his qualifications.
Now, as part of his testimony during his confirmation hearings, General Petraeus was very frank about what he was going to need to perform the job that he was, in effect, interviewing for. In particular, he addressed the planned troop surge. You'd think that if you're hiring someone to take on a difficult job, and that person tells you what he needs to be successful at that job, you would do one of two things: either hire him and make sure he has what he says he needs, or hire someone else. Seems to me it would be the height of stupidity to hire that person, speak glowingly about what a great person he is and how perfect he is for the job, and then not give him what he says he needs to be successful. Yet the ink was barely dry on the General's new orders when the Democrats began doing all they could to prevent the troop surge the General said he needed. Brings to mind Mark Twain's famous quote: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Of course, the Constitution says that the President is the Commander-In-Chief, so the General got what he asked for.
In the subsequent months, we heard over and over again that the surge had failed. Interestingly enough, the Democrats were telling us in March, and in April, and in May that the surge had failed even though all the troops hadn't got there yet! (They were, of course, counting on the American people having a short attention span and not realizing that it does take a few months to move 30,000 soldiers and all of their supplies and equipment halfway around the world. They really don't think much of our intelligence, folks.) It was late June/early July before the surge was at full strength, yet we had already been hearing for months that it had failed to reduce the violence, failed to make Iraq a safer place, failed, failed, failed. Heck, it was in April that we read about Senator Harry Reid telling journalists, "I believe...that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything..."
In case you missed that, let me just run that by you again. Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, the Senate Majority Leader, who voted to confirm General Petraeus, told journalists that the war was lost and the surge wasn't accomplishing anything a good two months before the surge was even at full strength! That spinning sound you hear is FDR and Harry Truman turning over in their graves.
As time went on, it became more and more difficult to deny that the surge was, in fact, working - it was decreasing the violence, killing or driving out the bad guys, and increasing security. Consider the following quotes from the month of August...from Democrats:
"...The Military Aspects Of President Bush’s New Strategy In Iraq, As Articulated By Him On January 10, 2007, Appear To Have Produced Some Credible And Positive Results." (Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, in a press release dated 8/20/07)
“We’ve Begun To Change Tactics Iraq, And In Some Areas, Particularly In Al Anbar Province, It’s Working.” (Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in an address to a VFW convention, 8/20/07)
“More American Troops Have Brought More Peace To More Parts Of Iraq. I Think That's A Fact.” (Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/9/07)
“The Surge Has Resulted In A Reduction Of Violence In Many Parts Of Iraq … And It Is, I Think, A Product Of More American Soldiers Bringing Peace To Areas Of Iraq That Have Been Ignored In The Past.” (Senator Durbin again, as quoted in the State Journal-Register of IL, 8/9/07)
Ah, but now we're in September, and it's time for General Petraeus to make his report to Congress on the progress of the war and the troop surge. This was, by the way, a report that Congress insisted upon when they confirmed him. As the cold, hard reality began to set in that Petraeus was going to report that progress was being made, and that the troop surge was working, and that (gasp) people might actually remember what they had said back in January (and February, March, April, May, June, and July), panic began to set in as well.
On September 5, Senator Chuck Schumer (who, I remind you, was among those who voted to confirm General Petraeus) stated, on the floor of the United States Senate: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here." Wait - forget, for the moment, the slam against the competence of the U.S. military, which doesn't surprise me, considering the source - you mean al Qaeda is actually in Iraq? I thought they were all in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror? And haven't we been hearing for years now that the main problem in Iraq is that the Iraqis won't stand up and fight for themselves? But now that they are standing up and fighting for themselves alongside our guys, that's a bad thing? Sheesh!
On September 7, Senator Dick Durbin (yes, the same Dick Durbin who was quoted just a month before as saying that the surge was working) was quoted as saying, "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Patraeus report will try to persuade us that the violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong." Huh? Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong?
Then, on September 10, we had the now-infamous Move On ad in the New York times, referring to General Petraeus as "General Betray Us." This shameful ad, which would have been astounding had it come from any other source, impugned the honor of a decorated four-star General of the Army who has devoted over 30 years of his life to the service of this country, and accused him of "Cooking the Books for the White House." This was before General Petraeus had said a single word in his testimony before Congress. Now, I have read American History, and I'm not going to try to tell you that this is the lowest point ever in American political discourse. Unfortunately, it isn't. But it's extremely interesting to see how leading Democrats have reacted to the ad.
Senator Joe Lieberman, whom I believe to be an honorable man, has denounced it. Senator John Kerry, somewhat to my surprise, has also denounced it, and I give him credit for doing so. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, took the forceful position that she "would have preferred that they not do such an ad," but went on to say that it wasn't for her to say how people expressed themselves. So far, neither of the Democrat's leading Presidential candidates have denounced the ad. Let me repeat that: It's been a week now, and neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama have denounced the ad, even when specifically asked about it.
Now cut to the opening of the Congressional hearing itself. General Petraeus sits in silence while the committee members pontificate on and on. No one has asked him a question yet. California Representative Tom Lantos, makes the following statement: "...the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say, I don't buy it." In other words, General, before you even begin your testimony today, I'm putting you on notice that I'm not going to believe your testimony if it contradicts my preconceived position. My mind is made up, don't go confusing me with facts. And when it became Senator Barak Obama's turn to question the Senator, he asked...oh, wait a minute - he didn't actually ask anything. He just spent his entire time bloviating. Sorry, my mistake.
Kudos to Representative Duncan Hunter for calling Lantos out, and stating for the record that "...I think it's an outrage that we spent the last week prepping the ground, bashing the credibility of a general officer whose trademark is integrity, who was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate for his position." So do I, Congressman Hunter, so do I. And, by the way, here's what you didn't hear during the two days of hearings: You didn't hear a single Democrat ask, "General, what can we do to support you and help you accomplish the mission we've asked you to perform? How can we help you win this war?" Why do you suppose that is? If your country is at war, and you care about winning that war, and you don't think things are going well, wouldn't that be a reasonable question to ask?
And the outrage continues. After the hearings, Senator Reid held a press conference in which he said, "the surge has failed to bring the Iraqi government closer to political reconciliation." What!? I don't recall that being the mission, Senator! Of course, he's hoping that in this sound-bite world, people will just pick up on "the surge has failed," and not realize that what he's really saying is that it has failed to do something it wasn't supposed to do in the first place. I've learned that you have to listen very carefully to what politicians say (most of them are, after all, lawyers). You often find, when you carefully analyze the language, that they really didn't say what you think they said. And, believe me, that's not an accident.
Although it's hard to tell with Senator Reid. Just when I think he's amazingly devious and clever, he pulls something like his interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal (September 15) in which he's quoted as saying that "one million Iraqis have been killed since the war started." That would have meant an average of 600 deaths per day, every day since the war began. Iraq's own heath minister, back last November, estimated the number of Iraqi deaths since the war began as between 100,000 and 150,000, and those numbers are double the Brookings Institution estimates, which were largely drawn from United Nations data. So we've increased the number of Iraqi's killed by a factor of 7 or 8 in only 10 months? Wow, and I thought Rosie O'Donnell was over the top with her accusation of 655,000 killed. Now that's one hell of a surge. Apparently, like Alice (of Wonderland fame), Senator Reid has learned how to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Bear in mind, folks, this is the Senate Majority Leader we're talking about here - this is the man Senate Democrats have chosen to be their standard-bearer.
And now that the President has announced plans to start bringing troops home by the end of the year, and hopefully be back to the pre-surge level by next summer, suddenly that's not good enough. But wait, wasn't it just a couple of months ago, when they were debating the last funding bill, that the Democrats were insisting that we do just that? In fact, if I recall correctly, their last position back in May was that we had to at least establish a time line for when we would start planning to bring the troops home. So isn't this exactly what they wanted? Well, no, it isn't. Because they can't take credit for it unless they're seen as having forced the President to do it. If every al Qaeda operative left Iraq tomorrow, peace broke out across the country the next day, and all the troops were home a week from Tuesday, the Democrats wouldn't be happy unless they could take credit for it.
I am forced to conclude that the people running the Democrat party care about one and only one thing: power. They care about holding onto Congress, and they care about winning the White House in 2008. To do that, they are willing to jeopardize your family's safety and mine. They are willing to undermine the mission of our men and women in uniform and make public statements that demoralize them and embolden the enemy. Some of them are willing to abandon Iraq to the bloodbath that would inevitably follow a precipitous withdrawal, if only they can pin the blame on President Bush and his "failed policy." They would rather see the United States defeated than have President Bush look good. As others have observed, they have now gone so far down the road of declaring that the war is lost, the policy has failed, we can't possibly succeed in the mission, that they are invested in defeat. Victory in Iraq would make them look so bad that they'll do anything to avoid it, unless there's some way that they can claim credit for it.
I have never seen such a cynical display of partisan politics in my lifetime, and I will show my disgust the only ways I can - by voting against them at every opportunity, and by exercising my free speech rights to tell the world why I feel this way.
Thanks for...excuse me? Oh, the vocabulary words? Well, I'm sure that my readers can draw their own conclusions. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. On the other hand, as a famous movie character might say, "Treason is as treason does."
But first, I have a couple of vocabulary words to share with you, just for the fun of it (emphasis added):
"Treason - (1) Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. (2) A betrayal of trust or confidence." (from the American Heritage Dictionary)
The Dictionary.com entry, based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, also states: "Treason is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government. Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection."
Moving right along now...
Back in January, the Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus as the commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq. By "unanimously," I mean that no one voted against him. There were nineteen Senators, both Republican and Democrat, who didn't vote. Seems to me that was a pretty important vote, and one that you'd want to be on the record for, but let's put that aside for the moment, and look at some of the Senators who voted for the General's confirmation. That list included Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer. Yep, all of those Senators believed that General Petraeus was the best man for the job. Couldn't speak highly enough of his qualifications.
Now, as part of his testimony during his confirmation hearings, General Petraeus was very frank about what he was going to need to perform the job that he was, in effect, interviewing for. In particular, he addressed the planned troop surge. You'd think that if you're hiring someone to take on a difficult job, and that person tells you what he needs to be successful at that job, you would do one of two things: either hire him and make sure he has what he says he needs, or hire someone else. Seems to me it would be the height of stupidity to hire that person, speak glowingly about what a great person he is and how perfect he is for the job, and then not give him what he says he needs to be successful. Yet the ink was barely dry on the General's new orders when the Democrats began doing all they could to prevent the troop surge the General said he needed. Brings to mind Mark Twain's famous quote: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Of course, the Constitution says that the President is the Commander-In-Chief, so the General got what he asked for.
In the subsequent months, we heard over and over again that the surge had failed. Interestingly enough, the Democrats were telling us in March, and in April, and in May that the surge had failed even though all the troops hadn't got there yet! (They were, of course, counting on the American people having a short attention span and not realizing that it does take a few months to move 30,000 soldiers and all of their supplies and equipment halfway around the world. They really don't think much of our intelligence, folks.) It was late June/early July before the surge was at full strength, yet we had already been hearing for months that it had failed to reduce the violence, failed to make Iraq a safer place, failed, failed, failed. Heck, it was in April that we read about Senator Harry Reid telling journalists, "I believe...that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything..."
In case you missed that, let me just run that by you again. Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, the Senate Majority Leader, who voted to confirm General Petraeus, told journalists that the war was lost and the surge wasn't accomplishing anything a good two months before the surge was even at full strength! That spinning sound you hear is FDR and Harry Truman turning over in their graves.
As time went on, it became more and more difficult to deny that the surge was, in fact, working - it was decreasing the violence, killing or driving out the bad guys, and increasing security. Consider the following quotes from the month of August...from Democrats:
"...The Military Aspects Of President Bush’s New Strategy In Iraq, As Articulated By Him On January 10, 2007, Appear To Have Produced Some Credible And Positive Results." (Senator Carl Levin, D-MI, in a press release dated 8/20/07)
“We’ve Begun To Change Tactics Iraq, And In Some Areas, Particularly In Al Anbar Province, It’s Working.” (Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in an address to a VFW convention, 8/20/07)
“More American Troops Have Brought More Peace To More Parts Of Iraq. I Think That's A Fact.” (Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, quoted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/9/07)
“The Surge Has Resulted In A Reduction Of Violence In Many Parts Of Iraq … And It Is, I Think, A Product Of More American Soldiers Bringing Peace To Areas Of Iraq That Have Been Ignored In The Past.” (Senator Durbin again, as quoted in the State Journal-Register of IL, 8/9/07)
Ah, but now we're in September, and it's time for General Petraeus to make his report to Congress on the progress of the war and the troop surge. This was, by the way, a report that Congress insisted upon when they confirmed him. As the cold, hard reality began to set in that Petraeus was going to report that progress was being made, and that the troop surge was working, and that (gasp) people might actually remember what they had said back in January (and February, March, April, May, June, and July), panic began to set in as well.
On September 5, Senator Chuck Schumer (who, I remind you, was among those who voted to confirm General Petraeus) stated, on the floor of the United States Senate: "And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here." Wait - forget, for the moment, the slam against the competence of the U.S. military, which doesn't surprise me, considering the source - you mean al Qaeda is actually in Iraq? I thought they were all in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror? And haven't we been hearing for years now that the main problem in Iraq is that the Iraqis won't stand up and fight for themselves? But now that they are standing up and fighting for themselves alongside our guys, that's a bad thing? Sheesh!
On September 7, Senator Dick Durbin (yes, the same Dick Durbin who was quoted just a month before as saying that the surge was working) was quoted as saying, "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Patraeus report will try to persuade us that the violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong." Huh? Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong?
Then, on September 10, we had the now-infamous Move On ad in the New York times, referring to General Petraeus as "General Betray Us." This shameful ad, which would have been astounding had it come from any other source, impugned the honor of a decorated four-star General of the Army who has devoted over 30 years of his life to the service of this country, and accused him of "Cooking the Books for the White House." This was before General Petraeus had said a single word in his testimony before Congress. Now, I have read American History, and I'm not going to try to tell you that this is the lowest point ever in American political discourse. Unfortunately, it isn't. But it's extremely interesting to see how leading Democrats have reacted to the ad.
Senator Joe Lieberman, whom I believe to be an honorable man, has denounced it. Senator John Kerry, somewhat to my surprise, has also denounced it, and I give him credit for doing so. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, took the forceful position that she "would have preferred that they not do such an ad," but went on to say that it wasn't for her to say how people expressed themselves. So far, neither of the Democrat's leading Presidential candidates have denounced the ad. Let me repeat that: It's been a week now, and neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama have denounced the ad, even when specifically asked about it.
Now cut to the opening of the Congressional hearing itself. General Petraeus sits in silence while the committee members pontificate on and on. No one has asked him a question yet. California Representative Tom Lantos, makes the following statement: "...the administration has sent you here today to convince the members of these two committees and the Congress that victory is at hand. With all due respect to you, I must say, I don't buy it." In other words, General, before you even begin your testimony today, I'm putting you on notice that I'm not going to believe your testimony if it contradicts my preconceived position. My mind is made up, don't go confusing me with facts. And when it became Senator Barak Obama's turn to question the Senator, he asked...oh, wait a minute - he didn't actually ask anything. He just spent his entire time bloviating. Sorry, my mistake.
Kudos to Representative Duncan Hunter for calling Lantos out, and stating for the record that "...I think it's an outrage that we spent the last week prepping the ground, bashing the credibility of a general officer whose trademark is integrity, who was unanimously supported by the U.S. Senate for his position." So do I, Congressman Hunter, so do I. And, by the way, here's what you didn't hear during the two days of hearings: You didn't hear a single Democrat ask, "General, what can we do to support you and help you accomplish the mission we've asked you to perform? How can we help you win this war?" Why do you suppose that is? If your country is at war, and you care about winning that war, and you don't think things are going well, wouldn't that be a reasonable question to ask?
And the outrage continues. After the hearings, Senator Reid held a press conference in which he said, "the surge has failed to bring the Iraqi government closer to political reconciliation." What!? I don't recall that being the mission, Senator! Of course, he's hoping that in this sound-bite world, people will just pick up on "the surge has failed," and not realize that what he's really saying is that it has failed to do something it wasn't supposed to do in the first place. I've learned that you have to listen very carefully to what politicians say (most of them are, after all, lawyers). You often find, when you carefully analyze the language, that they really didn't say what you think they said. And, believe me, that's not an accident.
Although it's hard to tell with Senator Reid. Just when I think he's amazingly devious and clever, he pulls something like his interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal (September 15) in which he's quoted as saying that "one million Iraqis have been killed since the war started." That would have meant an average of 600 deaths per day, every day since the war began. Iraq's own heath minister, back last November, estimated the number of Iraqi deaths since the war began as between 100,000 and 150,000, and those numbers are double the Brookings Institution estimates, which were largely drawn from United Nations data. So we've increased the number of Iraqi's killed by a factor of 7 or 8 in only 10 months? Wow, and I thought Rosie O'Donnell was over the top with her accusation of 655,000 killed. Now that's one hell of a surge. Apparently, like Alice (of Wonderland fame), Senator Reid has learned how to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Bear in mind, folks, this is the Senate Majority Leader we're talking about here - this is the man Senate Democrats have chosen to be their standard-bearer.
And now that the President has announced plans to start bringing troops home by the end of the year, and hopefully be back to the pre-surge level by next summer, suddenly that's not good enough. But wait, wasn't it just a couple of months ago, when they were debating the last funding bill, that the Democrats were insisting that we do just that? In fact, if I recall correctly, their last position back in May was that we had to at least establish a time line for when we would start planning to bring the troops home. So isn't this exactly what they wanted? Well, no, it isn't. Because they can't take credit for it unless they're seen as having forced the President to do it. If every al Qaeda operative left Iraq tomorrow, peace broke out across the country the next day, and all the troops were home a week from Tuesday, the Democrats wouldn't be happy unless they could take credit for it.
I am forced to conclude that the people running the Democrat party care about one and only one thing: power. They care about holding onto Congress, and they care about winning the White House in 2008. To do that, they are willing to jeopardize your family's safety and mine. They are willing to undermine the mission of our men and women in uniform and make public statements that demoralize them and embolden the enemy. Some of them are willing to abandon Iraq to the bloodbath that would inevitably follow a precipitous withdrawal, if only they can pin the blame on President Bush and his "failed policy." They would rather see the United States defeated than have President Bush look good. As others have observed, they have now gone so far down the road of declaring that the war is lost, the policy has failed, we can't possibly succeed in the mission, that they are invested in defeat. Victory in Iraq would make them look so bad that they'll do anything to avoid it, unless there's some way that they can claim credit for it.
I have never seen such a cynical display of partisan politics in my lifetime, and I will show my disgust the only ways I can - by voting against them at every opportunity, and by exercising my free speech rights to tell the world why I feel this way.
Thanks for...excuse me? Oh, the vocabulary words? Well, I'm sure that my readers can draw their own conclusions. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. On the other hand, as a famous movie character might say, "Treason is as treason does."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Level-Set
Greetings from the Left Coast!
Before I start sharing my opinion on specific issues, I thought it would be only fair to let you know where I consider myself to be on the political spectrum - where I'm coming from.
I consider myself to be a "Traditionalist" as defined by Bill O'Reilly in his book Culture Warrior. I suspect a lot of people stopped reading right there, because Mr. O'Reilly is high on the hate list of the liberal left in this country. Still, I think that Culture Warrior is worth reading, and I would recommend it to anyone, if only as a means to clarify where you fall on the political spectrum.
It's hard to deny that there is a culture war going on in this country. But how do you define the sides? O'Reilly maintains that it is a war between Traditionalists and Secular-Progressives. By his definitions, Traditionalists believe that, for all her mistakes, the United States is fundamentally a good and noble country that is a significant force for good in the world. They believe that the traditions upon which this country was founded and built, which are rooted in Judeo-Christian values, and which allowed it to become the great nation that it is today, deserve respect and should be preserved. Secular-Progressives, in short, believe pretty much the opposite: that the United States is a fundamentally flawed, even an evil, country that is a negative force in the world, and that our society needs a radical makeover more along the lines of, say, France.
Here's where I part company to an extent with O'Reilly: he maintains that the Culture War isn't - or at least shouldn't be - a Republican vs. Democrat thing, or even a conservative vs. liberal thing. In theory, that's true. But when I go to the polls - excuse me, when I open my mail-in ballot - this fall, I don't get to vote on people who are listed as Traditionalists or Secular-Progressives. They'll be listed as Republicans or Democrats. (I'm ignoring the other parties for the simple reason that they don't have enough power to materially affect the direction of the country, and aren't likely to within my lifetime.) So it seems to me that if we care about the direction of the country we've got to pick a side, and that it only makes sense to pick the side that is most closely aligned with the views we hold, whether Traditionalist or Secular-Progressive.
I'm sure that there are Democrats in Congress who believe themselves to be Traditionalists - Joe Lieberman comes to mind, for one. There are also those who believe in some of the tenets of, shall we say, traditional liberalism, by which I mean the value set that was associated with the term "liberal" back in the days of FDR, which is a far cry from what it has come to mean today. And I know that many Americans still pride themselves, as my father did, on voting "for the person, not the party." I used to think that my father had the right idea. The last couple of decades have changed my mind.
One of the things that it took me a while to figure out is that when we elect these people to Congress, for the most part they vote their party, not their consciences. Think about it: how many times have you heard a newscast that said something to the effect of, "...and the vote went pretty much along party lines?" Why is it that way? Because it's all about power. If you don't toe the party line, you're not going to get that committee appointment, you're not going to get much financial help from the party's national committee come re-election time nor are you going to be able to count on having any heavy-hitters campaign for you (as proven by the way the Democrats threw Senator Lieberman under the bus in the last election), and you're not going to get any help getting that earmark into the spending bill that will let you show the folks back home that, by golly, you know how to bring home the bacon (or the pork, anyway) so they should keep re-electing you.
By the way, after his loss in the primary election, Senator Lieberman ran as an Independent and won re-election to his Senate seat anyway...but was he seated as an Independent? Nope, once he got re-elected, he threw in with the rest of the Democrats to make sure they ended up as the majority party. That, of course, radically changed the makeup of every committee in the Senate, not to mention the chairmanship of every committee in the Senate, and brought Harry Reid to power as Senate Majority Leader. So the entire Senate took a decided turn to the left because Senator Lieberman chose to stick with the party even though it had abandoned him when he needed them. I rest my case.
So I've become a Republican. Is it a perfect party? Nope, because, like any other human endeavor, it's made up of imperfect people. But, as a Traditionalist, I've looked at the two major parties and picked the one that most closely represents my values. If you're a Secular-Progressive, you're probably aligned with today's Democrat Party for much the same reason. If you're a Democrat, and still consider yourself a Traditionalist, you need to be honest with yourself and understand that the Democrat Party of today is not working to promote your values - so you need to either get out of it or get active and work to take it back. By the same token, if you're a Traditionalist, and don't think the Republican Party is doing enough to promote Traditionalist values, then you need to get active and work to take the party in the direction you think it should go...because the cold hard truth is that there's no other game in town. You're certainly not going to make things better by casting a protest vote for someone else or by refusing to vote at all.
I actually have voted for Democrats in the past. For example, I believe that Senator Henry Jackson, who represented this state for many years, was a great American and truly had this nation's best interests at heart, and I voted for him repeatedly. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time around, and even voted for Bill Clinton twice. But I cannot envision a scenario in which I would ever again support a Democrat for anything. In future posts I'll try to articulate why I feel that way.
Thanks for listening.
Before I start sharing my opinion on specific issues, I thought it would be only fair to let you know where I consider myself to be on the political spectrum - where I'm coming from.
I consider myself to be a "Traditionalist" as defined by Bill O'Reilly in his book Culture Warrior. I suspect a lot of people stopped reading right there, because Mr. O'Reilly is high on the hate list of the liberal left in this country. Still, I think that Culture Warrior is worth reading, and I would recommend it to anyone, if only as a means to clarify where you fall on the political spectrum.
It's hard to deny that there is a culture war going on in this country. But how do you define the sides? O'Reilly maintains that it is a war between Traditionalists and Secular-Progressives. By his definitions, Traditionalists believe that, for all her mistakes, the United States is fundamentally a good and noble country that is a significant force for good in the world. They believe that the traditions upon which this country was founded and built, which are rooted in Judeo-Christian values, and which allowed it to become the great nation that it is today, deserve respect and should be preserved. Secular-Progressives, in short, believe pretty much the opposite: that the United States is a fundamentally flawed, even an evil, country that is a negative force in the world, and that our society needs a radical makeover more along the lines of, say, France.
Here's where I part company to an extent with O'Reilly: he maintains that the Culture War isn't - or at least shouldn't be - a Republican vs. Democrat thing, or even a conservative vs. liberal thing. In theory, that's true. But when I go to the polls - excuse me, when I open my mail-in ballot - this fall, I don't get to vote on people who are listed as Traditionalists or Secular-Progressives. They'll be listed as Republicans or Democrats. (I'm ignoring the other parties for the simple reason that they don't have enough power to materially affect the direction of the country, and aren't likely to within my lifetime.) So it seems to me that if we care about the direction of the country we've got to pick a side, and that it only makes sense to pick the side that is most closely aligned with the views we hold, whether Traditionalist or Secular-Progressive.
I'm sure that there are Democrats in Congress who believe themselves to be Traditionalists - Joe Lieberman comes to mind, for one. There are also those who believe in some of the tenets of, shall we say, traditional liberalism, by which I mean the value set that was associated with the term "liberal" back in the days of FDR, which is a far cry from what it has come to mean today. And I know that many Americans still pride themselves, as my father did, on voting "for the person, not the party." I used to think that my father had the right idea. The last couple of decades have changed my mind.
One of the things that it took me a while to figure out is that when we elect these people to Congress, for the most part they vote their party, not their consciences. Think about it: how many times have you heard a newscast that said something to the effect of, "...and the vote went pretty much along party lines?" Why is it that way? Because it's all about power. If you don't toe the party line, you're not going to get that committee appointment, you're not going to get much financial help from the party's national committee come re-election time nor are you going to be able to count on having any heavy-hitters campaign for you (as proven by the way the Democrats threw Senator Lieberman under the bus in the last election), and you're not going to get any help getting that earmark into the spending bill that will let you show the folks back home that, by golly, you know how to bring home the bacon (or the pork, anyway) so they should keep re-electing you.
By the way, after his loss in the primary election, Senator Lieberman ran as an Independent and won re-election to his Senate seat anyway...but was he seated as an Independent? Nope, once he got re-elected, he threw in with the rest of the Democrats to make sure they ended up as the majority party. That, of course, radically changed the makeup of every committee in the Senate, not to mention the chairmanship of every committee in the Senate, and brought Harry Reid to power as Senate Majority Leader. So the entire Senate took a decided turn to the left because Senator Lieberman chose to stick with the party even though it had abandoned him when he needed them. I rest my case.
So I've become a Republican. Is it a perfect party? Nope, because, like any other human endeavor, it's made up of imperfect people. But, as a Traditionalist, I've looked at the two major parties and picked the one that most closely represents my values. If you're a Secular-Progressive, you're probably aligned with today's Democrat Party for much the same reason. If you're a Democrat, and still consider yourself a Traditionalist, you need to be honest with yourself and understand that the Democrat Party of today is not working to promote your values - so you need to either get out of it or get active and work to take it back. By the same token, if you're a Traditionalist, and don't think the Republican Party is doing enough to promote Traditionalist values, then you need to get active and work to take the party in the direction you think it should go...because the cold hard truth is that there's no other game in town. You're certainly not going to make things better by casting a protest vote for someone else or by refusing to vote at all.
I actually have voted for Democrats in the past. For example, I believe that Senator Henry Jackson, who represented this state for many years, was a great American and truly had this nation's best interests at heart, and I voted for him repeatedly. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I voted for Jimmy Carter the first time around, and even voted for Bill Clinton twice. But I cannot envision a scenario in which I would ever again support a Democrat for anything. In future posts I'll try to articulate why I feel that way.
Thanks for listening.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Introductions
I live in the suburbs of Seattle, one of the most liberal cities in the nation. Home of "Baghdad Jim" McDermott. Largest city in a state that decided that it was just too much to expect voters to actually show up at a polling place, show identification, and prove that they were eligible to vote before casting their ballots. Instead, we went to an all-mail system. The argument was that it would save a few bucks. And, no, it won't increase voter fraud - what on earth would make you think that? There have been times when I've been sorely tempted to pull up stakes and move to the heartland - maybe one of those "flyover states" like Oklahoma - but I was born in Washington, dang it, I grew up here, and I happen to like the scenery enough that I refuse to concede the Pacific Northwest as a lost cause.
I was born in 1952 - toward the end of the famous baby boom. Went to high school during the late 60's. Graduated in 1970. At the time, there was a war going on in Southeast Asia, and a draft lottery to decide who got to go and fight it. In case you don't remember that, or haven't read about it in your history books, each year they selected all 365 days of the year at random. (Sorry, I don't remember how they handled February 29 - maybe there were 366 pieces of paper in the drum.) If your 19th birthday was one of the first 120 or so dates to be drawn, you might as well start packing your bags for basic training unless you had a deferment of some kind. If your birthday was one of the last 120 or so dates to be drawn, you could take a deep breath and start making plans for college or a career. If you were in between, well, it depended on what the force requirements were that year.
The year I turned 18, my birthday came up #26 in the lottery. I figured the chances were it would be a high number the next year when it really mattered to me. Nope - my draft number was 24. I'd already got the letter in the mail and passed my draft physical when something unexpected happened: the rules were changed for the "4G" classification. "4G" was what used to be called the "sole surviving son" deferment. The year I would have been drafted, it was expanded such that anyone who had lost a member of their immediate family in military service was exempted. You see, my brother was a Marine Corps aviator. He flew with the Black Knights, who were based at El Toro Marine Air Base in Southern California. He was killed in 1965 when his F4 Phantom went down one night somewhere between Yuma, AZ, and the China Lake Naval Ordinance Test Range. He was 26 years old, he had just made Captain, and he was my hero - in the way that only a 26-year-old brother can be to a 13-year-old kid. If I could have followed in his footsteps, I would have enlisted in a heartbeat - but I was terribly nearsighted and there was no chance of any kind of flight duty. So, since I couldn't serve where I wanted to serve (remember, I was only 19 at the time), I took the 4G deferment and went on with my life. But I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Corps, and the sight of a Marine in full dress can still choke me up. "No better friend, no worse enemy." No better fighting force has ever walked the face of this planet. God bless 'em.
In the last half-century, I've lived a pretty typical middle-class American life. I've bought and sold houses and cars. I've had times when I made a fair amount of money and times when I've lost a fair amount. Tried to build a business and failed. Tried to build another and succeeded. Screwed up a first marriage, but made a second one work for over 20 years and counting. Raised kids who have now made me a grandfather. Done things I'm proud of and things I'd rather not remember. Fortunately, I can honestly say there have been more of the former. I've lived in Washington State all my life, but I've traveled extensively on business, and at last count have been in 45 of the 50 states with a few foreign countries thrown in for good measure. I believe in God, and I believe in the existence of evil. I believe that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong - it isn't merely what society decides it is at any given moment in history. And I believe that the Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys.
So why, at this point in my life, did I decide to speak out?
My frustration has been building for a long time, but the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was the series of hearings early this week when General Petreus made his report to Congress about the "troop surge" in Iraq. The sight of a decorated four-star General, who has given 35 years of his life to the service of our country, forced to sit quietly while the committee members pontificated, and pontificated, and pontificated some more - most of the comments carefully calculated to imply, without stating it explicitly, that they thought the General was a lying S.O.B. and they weren't about to believe anything he said no matter what it was - kindled a level of outrage in me that I haven't felt before. Whether anybody ever reads this or not, there are things I have to get off my chest.
I can't promise that I'll be updating this blog on anything remotely resembling a regular schedule. I have no idea how long it will take to get it out of my system (maybe never). But hang with me, and we'll see where this takes us. Thanks for listening.
I was born in 1952 - toward the end of the famous baby boom. Went to high school during the late 60's. Graduated in 1970. At the time, there was a war going on in Southeast Asia, and a draft lottery to decide who got to go and fight it. In case you don't remember that, or haven't read about it in your history books, each year they selected all 365 days of the year at random. (Sorry, I don't remember how they handled February 29 - maybe there were 366 pieces of paper in the drum.) If your 19th birthday was one of the first 120 or so dates to be drawn, you might as well start packing your bags for basic training unless you had a deferment of some kind. If your birthday was one of the last 120 or so dates to be drawn, you could take a deep breath and start making plans for college or a career. If you were in between, well, it depended on what the force requirements were that year.
The year I turned 18, my birthday came up #26 in the lottery. I figured the chances were it would be a high number the next year when it really mattered to me. Nope - my draft number was 24. I'd already got the letter in the mail and passed my draft physical when something unexpected happened: the rules were changed for the "4G" classification. "4G" was what used to be called the "sole surviving son" deferment. The year I would have been drafted, it was expanded such that anyone who had lost a member of their immediate family in military service was exempted. You see, my brother was a Marine Corps aviator. He flew with the Black Knights, who were based at El Toro Marine Air Base in Southern California. He was killed in 1965 when his F4 Phantom went down one night somewhere between Yuma, AZ, and the China Lake Naval Ordinance Test Range. He was 26 years old, he had just made Captain, and he was my hero - in the way that only a 26-year-old brother can be to a 13-year-old kid. If I could have followed in his footsteps, I would have enlisted in a heartbeat - but I was terribly nearsighted and there was no chance of any kind of flight duty. So, since I couldn't serve where I wanted to serve (remember, I was only 19 at the time), I took the 4G deferment and went on with my life. But I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Corps, and the sight of a Marine in full dress can still choke me up. "No better friend, no worse enemy." No better fighting force has ever walked the face of this planet. God bless 'em.
In the last half-century, I've lived a pretty typical middle-class American life. I've bought and sold houses and cars. I've had times when I made a fair amount of money and times when I've lost a fair amount. Tried to build a business and failed. Tried to build another and succeeded. Screwed up a first marriage, but made a second one work for over 20 years and counting. Raised kids who have now made me a grandfather. Done things I'm proud of and things I'd rather not remember. Fortunately, I can honestly say there have been more of the former. I've lived in Washington State all my life, but I've traveled extensively on business, and at last count have been in 45 of the 50 states with a few foreign countries thrown in for good measure. I believe in God, and I believe in the existence of evil. I believe that there is an ultimate standard of right and wrong - it isn't merely what society decides it is at any given moment in history. And I believe that the Founding Fathers were pretty smart guys.
So why, at this point in my life, did I decide to speak out?
My frustration has been building for a long time, but the proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was the series of hearings early this week when General Petreus made his report to Congress about the "troop surge" in Iraq. The sight of a decorated four-star General, who has given 35 years of his life to the service of our country, forced to sit quietly while the committee members pontificated, and pontificated, and pontificated some more - most of the comments carefully calculated to imply, without stating it explicitly, that they thought the General was a lying S.O.B. and they weren't about to believe anything he said no matter what it was - kindled a level of outrage in me that I haven't felt before. Whether anybody ever reads this or not, there are things I have to get off my chest.
I can't promise that I'll be updating this blog on anything remotely resembling a regular schedule. I have no idea how long it will take to get it out of my system (maybe never). But hang with me, and we'll see where this takes us. Thanks for listening.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
