This is a short post to point out an important article from yesterday I came across. Senator Joseph Lieberman has an article in the Washington Post. I encourage everyone to read it here. The Senator has just returned from Iraq and he writes about his solution for Iraq. I have to agree with the Senator Lieberman. I am reading the Iraq Study Group report and Lieberman's article shows a better understanding of how important Iraq is than what I have seen in the ISG.
I have no problem saying a Democrat is right when they are. It doesn't happen often, but in this case a Democrat has is right about Iraq. I don't want to discuss the article too much. I would perfer everyone read the article themselves and leave a comment as to what they think.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Ford Tarnished by Woodward
Today’s Washington Post has an article from Bob Woodward with excerpts from two interviews he did with the late President Ford. The interviews were from 2004 and 2005 and contain quotes from President Ford that are critical of the Bush Administration and the current Presidents policies. Mr. Woodward said these interviews were done with and embargo that they could not be reported until after the President passed away. Since President Ford passed away on Tuesday, Mr. Woodward feels this is the perfect time to release the controversial statements.
Since we cannot ask President Gerald Ford about these quotes, or about the embargo itself, we must take them at face value and assume Mr. Woodward has put them in the appropriate context. According to the article, President Ford disagreed with going to war in Iraq, and felt the United States was wrong to try and spread democracy anywhere in the world. President Ford said he would have pushed other alternatives and sanctions harder and avoided the war. President Ford is quoted as saying, “I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.” He is quoted elsewhere as saying, “And I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.”
If President Ford truly felt this way, he did a disservice to himself by not revealing these statements during his lifetime. By waiting till after his death to allow these statements to be published, the quotes look like a cowardly act. As President, Ford had to make some tough decisions. By hiding these statements, his legacy has been tainted. I have written articles critical of President Carter for his statements as an ex-President. At least Carter was willing to face the criticism his comments might generate.
Mr. Woodward has diminished his own reputation due to the timing of his article. President Ford passed away on Tuesday evening. Less than 48 hours later, Mr. Woodward has tried to introduce fresh controversy in President Ford’s legacy for what appears a thinly veiled attempt to generate interest in a future book on President Ford by Mr. Woodward. Perhaps if Mr. Woodward truly felt these statements deserved print as quickly as possible, he should have talked the President into allowing him to publish them during his lifetime. If they could wait until after his death, surely they could have also waited until after his funeral.
Both President Ford and Mr. Woodward have acted with incredible poor taste at a minimum. President Ford’s comments can easily be viewed as petty and somewhat cowardly. Mr. Woodward’s article looks even worse because of the timing.
Since we cannot ask President Gerald Ford about these quotes, or about the embargo itself, we must take them at face value and assume Mr. Woodward has put them in the appropriate context. According to the article, President Ford disagreed with going to war in Iraq, and felt the United States was wrong to try and spread democracy anywhere in the world. President Ford said he would have pushed other alternatives and sanctions harder and avoided the war. President Ford is quoted as saying, “I don’t think I would have ordered the Iraq war. I would have maximized our effort through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer.” He is quoted elsewhere as saying, “And I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.”
If President Ford truly felt this way, he did a disservice to himself by not revealing these statements during his lifetime. By waiting till after his death to allow these statements to be published, the quotes look like a cowardly act. As President, Ford had to make some tough decisions. By hiding these statements, his legacy has been tainted. I have written articles critical of President Carter for his statements as an ex-President. At least Carter was willing to face the criticism his comments might generate.
Mr. Woodward has diminished his own reputation due to the timing of his article. President Ford passed away on Tuesday evening. Less than 48 hours later, Mr. Woodward has tried to introduce fresh controversy in President Ford’s legacy for what appears a thinly veiled attempt to generate interest in a future book on President Ford by Mr. Woodward. Perhaps if Mr. Woodward truly felt these statements deserved print as quickly as possible, he should have talked the President into allowing him to publish them during his lifetime. If they could wait until after his death, surely they could have also waited until after his funeral.
Both President Ford and Mr. Woodward have acted with incredible poor taste at a minimum. President Ford’s comments can easily be viewed as petty and somewhat cowardly. Mr. Woodward’s article looks even worse because of the timing.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Saddam Hussein Must Die
Saddam Hussein was found guilty of mass murder by an Iraqi court. That verdict was upheld by an Iraqi appeals court. It is now time for justice to run its course. I am a supporter of the death penalty, and think it is very justified in this case.
Saddam Hussein is guilty of untold numbers of murders, rapes, and tortures. His rise to power started with the videotaped executions of 22 of his political rivals. He ruled by force, torture, fear, and brutality. Iraqi’s lived in fear for the 24 years of his reign. If ever there was someone who deserves to face the repercussions of their actions, it is him. He was not brought back to the US and tried; he did not face a war crimes tribunal led by the United Nations. He faced a judicial system made by a democratically elected Iraqi government. Iraqi’s heard his defense in court. Iraqi’s witnessed his trial. Some Iraqi’s died trying to ensure justice was brought to Saddam. And Iraqi’s found him guilty and have sentenced him to death. Those Iraqi’s now deserve to see their government enforce the ruling of their judicial system. It would be an insult to those who risked their lives and the lives of their families to ensure he had his day in court.
There are many in Iraq who still fight because they believe Saddam will one day return to power. There are also those who won’t join in the new Iraqi government until they know there is no way for Saddam to take control of the Iraqi government. If Saddam was simply confined to life imprisonment, there would always be the fear that he could become president again. In Iraq, there are those who believe Saddam has magical abilities. The only way to convince them that he can’t return to power is to execute Saddam. I believe that he should pay for the crimes he has committed. The Iraqi judicial system has ruled they believe he should be executed. The appeals court has ordered it to be televised. Saddam deserves the punishment that he should meet in the next 30 days. Iraq (and the world) will be a better and safer place without him.
Saddam Hussein is guilty of untold numbers of murders, rapes, and tortures. His rise to power started with the videotaped executions of 22 of his political rivals. He ruled by force, torture, fear, and brutality. Iraqi’s lived in fear for the 24 years of his reign. If ever there was someone who deserves to face the repercussions of their actions, it is him. He was not brought back to the US and tried; he did not face a war crimes tribunal led by the United Nations. He faced a judicial system made by a democratically elected Iraqi government. Iraqi’s heard his defense in court. Iraqi’s witnessed his trial. Some Iraqi’s died trying to ensure justice was brought to Saddam. And Iraqi’s found him guilty and have sentenced him to death. Those Iraqi’s now deserve to see their government enforce the ruling of their judicial system. It would be an insult to those who risked their lives and the lives of their families to ensure he had his day in court.
There are many in Iraq who still fight because they believe Saddam will one day return to power. There are also those who won’t join in the new Iraqi government until they know there is no way for Saddam to take control of the Iraqi government. If Saddam was simply confined to life imprisonment, there would always be the fear that he could become president again. In Iraq, there are those who believe Saddam has magical abilities. The only way to convince them that he can’t return to power is to execute Saddam. I believe that he should pay for the crimes he has committed. The Iraqi judicial system has ruled they believe he should be executed. The appeals court has ordered it to be televised. Saddam deserves the punishment that he should meet in the next 30 days. Iraq (and the world) will be a better and safer place without him.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Thank you to everyone who has taken the time over the last few months to read my blog and thanks for the comments. I hope that everyone has a Merry Christmas and gets to spend some time with family and friends. Take a few minutes today and tomorrow and think of our soldiers who are away from their families.
Again, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Political Friends.
Again, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays from Political Friends.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Kick the United Nations out of the United States
The more I follow politics, the more I think the United Nations doesn’t work anymore. If the United Nations doesn’t work, should the United States continue to be a part of the process?
I think I can get agreement from the majority of people out there when I say that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the three biggest hot spots in the world today. If the UN is to work, they must react quickly and decisively in these three areas. Currently, the US and Britain seem to be the major governments trying to stabilize Iraq. Iran and Syria seem to be the major nations trying to destabilize Iraq. If the UN is going to be the forum for the world to resolve its issues, I would expect the UN to be actively engaged in seeking solutions with the US, the UK, and Iraq, and actively trying to prevent Iran and Syria from influencing Iraq. I don’t see that happening.
The United Nations seems to be very reluctant to do anything in Iran. France, Germany, and Britain are working to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development efforts. Russia and China are working hard to prevent sanctions against a nation they consider to be a valuable trading partner. The United States wants tough sanctions, but is trying to give the European nations a chance to work things out. At face value, this sounds like diplomacy at work. The truth of the matter is that this is a continued failure of diplomacy. The UN Security Council set an August 31st deadline for Iran to stop work on enriching uranium, or face dire consequences. Since August 31st, the Security Council has been unable to reach any decision on what those consequences should be. In the mean time, Iran has been working to expand its nuclear program and continues to thumb its nose at the world community. This week’s elections show that the people of Iran don’t support Ahmadinejad’s policies, but the UN can’t develop a similar message to send to Iran.
Under the UN’s watchful eyes, North Korea has now become a nuclear power. While North Korea has returned to the negotiating table, it has done so with a list of demands for the rest of the world. North Korea currently sees these negotiations not as a chance to become a member of the world community, but as a forum to negotiate bribes for the Kim Jung-Il, and to discuss world wide arms reductions. As North Korea has admitted it broke previous treaties, I don’t hold my breath that anything good could come from this latest round of talks.
There are other reasons the United Nations no longer is a legitimate forum for the US. In the view of the UN, all countries are equal, and all should have an equal voice in how the world works. This is a logical conclusion if you believe that there are no nations that are better than other nations. This basic belief is flawed. The United States is quite simply the greatest nation on the Earth. Any forum that equates the views of the US with every petty dictator throughout the world instantly handicaps the US. We have every responsibility to help those individuals and those nations less fortunate than us. However, we don’t have to do it with a gun to our heads as the UN would have us. We can administer our own foreign aid, and peruse our own diplomatic resolutions.
I think I can get agreement from the majority of people out there when I say that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the three biggest hot spots in the world today. If the UN is to work, they must react quickly and decisively in these three areas. Currently, the US and Britain seem to be the major governments trying to stabilize Iraq. Iran and Syria seem to be the major nations trying to destabilize Iraq. If the UN is going to be the forum for the world to resolve its issues, I would expect the UN to be actively engaged in seeking solutions with the US, the UK, and Iraq, and actively trying to prevent Iran and Syria from influencing Iraq. I don’t see that happening.
The United Nations seems to be very reluctant to do anything in Iran. France, Germany, and Britain are working to impose sanctions against Iran for its nuclear development efforts. Russia and China are working hard to prevent sanctions against a nation they consider to be a valuable trading partner. The United States wants tough sanctions, but is trying to give the European nations a chance to work things out. At face value, this sounds like diplomacy at work. The truth of the matter is that this is a continued failure of diplomacy. The UN Security Council set an August 31st deadline for Iran to stop work on enriching uranium, or face dire consequences. Since August 31st, the Security Council has been unable to reach any decision on what those consequences should be. In the mean time, Iran has been working to expand its nuclear program and continues to thumb its nose at the world community. This week’s elections show that the people of Iran don’t support Ahmadinejad’s policies, but the UN can’t develop a similar message to send to Iran.
Under the UN’s watchful eyes, North Korea has now become a nuclear power. While North Korea has returned to the negotiating table, it has done so with a list of demands for the rest of the world. North Korea currently sees these negotiations not as a chance to become a member of the world community, but as a forum to negotiate bribes for the Kim Jung-Il, and to discuss world wide arms reductions. As North Korea has admitted it broke previous treaties, I don’t hold my breath that anything good could come from this latest round of talks.
There are other reasons the United Nations no longer is a legitimate forum for the US. In the view of the UN, all countries are equal, and all should have an equal voice in how the world works. This is a logical conclusion if you believe that there are no nations that are better than other nations. This basic belief is flawed. The United States is quite simply the greatest nation on the Earth. Any forum that equates the views of the US with every petty dictator throughout the world instantly handicaps the US. We have every responsibility to help those individuals and those nations less fortunate than us. However, we don’t have to do it with a gun to our heads as the UN would have us. We can administer our own foreign aid, and peruse our own diplomatic resolutions.
Monday, December 18, 2006
What more can we give North Korea?
North Korea proudly proclaimed itself a Nuclear Power today. The six party talks resumed today, and as I predicted last month, North Korea showed up with a laundry list of demands. In stead of sounding like a nation interested in becoming a part of the world community, North Korea sounded like a landlord demanding rent.
First, North Korea demanded the US stop all financial sanctions against the “Fearless Leader” and North Korea. This is to include the frozen banks that the US began due to North Korea’s high counterfeiting of the US $100 bill. Secondly, someone other than North Korea is to come build them a nuclear reactor. Next, the rest of the world is to provide power for North Korea until the nuclear reactor is built. After that, North Korea and Kim Jung-Il will consider abandoning their nuclear weapon program. And by the way, since they were able to “successfully” test a nuclear weapon, they want equal treatment as any other nation in the world.
When a child misbehaves, he doesn’t come to the principles office with a list of demands that must be met before he will begin to behave again. If a criminal were to show up at the police station with a list of demands before he would abide by the law, we would all laugh at him. However, because the UN and the rest of the world allow tyrant regimes to do as they wish, more and more dictators come to the UN with demands before they will act like a responsible, equal share holder in the world community.
This is the basic flaw with the modern Democratic Party and the UN. Both treat all individuals (except George Bush) and all nations (except the US) as equal. No matter how you treat others, or how bad your ideas may be, you can’t be called wrong. If you feel it is ok to deny the right of another race of individuals to exist, you’re not condemned and cut off from the rest of the world. You are allowed to present your ideas as if they have merit. If you funnel money, troops, and training into a war zone to kill American and International forces, the Iraq Study Group says the US and the world should negotiate with you and give you an equal share in the fate of your neighbors.
Until the UN or the world at large is willing to hold nations like Iran and North Korea responsible for their actions, these rouge leaders will continue to threaten other nations, kill and starve their own people, and grow fat off the weak knees of the world at large. Maybe we should just ask President Carter what to do.
First, North Korea demanded the US stop all financial sanctions against the “Fearless Leader” and North Korea. This is to include the frozen banks that the US began due to North Korea’s high counterfeiting of the US $100 bill. Secondly, someone other than North Korea is to come build them a nuclear reactor. Next, the rest of the world is to provide power for North Korea until the nuclear reactor is built. After that, North Korea and Kim Jung-Il will consider abandoning their nuclear weapon program. And by the way, since they were able to “successfully” test a nuclear weapon, they want equal treatment as any other nation in the world.
When a child misbehaves, he doesn’t come to the principles office with a list of demands that must be met before he will begin to behave again. If a criminal were to show up at the police station with a list of demands before he would abide by the law, we would all laugh at him. However, because the UN and the rest of the world allow tyrant regimes to do as they wish, more and more dictators come to the UN with demands before they will act like a responsible, equal share holder in the world community.
This is the basic flaw with the modern Democratic Party and the UN. Both treat all individuals (except George Bush) and all nations (except the US) as equal. No matter how you treat others, or how bad your ideas may be, you can’t be called wrong. If you feel it is ok to deny the right of another race of individuals to exist, you’re not condemned and cut off from the rest of the world. You are allowed to present your ideas as if they have merit. If you funnel money, troops, and training into a war zone to kill American and International forces, the Iraq Study Group says the US and the world should negotiate with you and give you an equal share in the fate of your neighbors.
Until the UN or the world at large is willing to hold nations like Iran and North Korea responsible for their actions, these rouge leaders will continue to threaten other nations, kill and starve their own people, and grow fat off the weak knees of the world at large. Maybe we should just ask President Carter what to do.
Friday, December 15, 2006
TIME Falls in Love with Ahmadinejad
I came across an article today on the Drudge Report that really shocked me. Time Magazine is running a second interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. That didn’t shock me. What shocked me was the opening sentence. Scott MacLeod writes, “In an exclusive interview, the Iranian President – and Person of the Year candidate – discusses his conference questioning the Holocaust, his letter to the American people and the state of his nuclear plans”. I was almost speechless. “Person of the Year candidate”? I couldn’t believe it.
President Ahmadinejad has been pursing nuclear weapons, he has said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and last week held a conference arguing that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Regardless of whether Time magazine makes him their Person of the Year or not, even listing him as a candidate soils the reputation of the other nominees and gives weight to everything Ahmadinejad has been saying.
Do the editors and writers of Time believe there was a Holocaust? Do they believe Isreal should be, “wiped off the map?” Would they like the nation of Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas to have nuclear weapons? I have been critical of the Iraq Study Group, but even they say that Iran has been aiding in the flow of arms and training into Iraq. I strive very hard on this site to avoid simply calling people or groups names, but what are the people at Time thinking?
Let’s take this scenario to its possible conclusion. Fast forward to the end of the year when Time announces that President Ahmadinejad is their Person of the Year, complete with flattering glossy photo on the cover. Forget what may or may not be said here in the United States. What will be said in the Middle East? In Iraq? In Iran? Ahmadinejad will hold that issue up for everyone in the Middle East to see and say, “See, even the American people believe Israel should be destroyed. Even the American people believe Iran should have nuclear weapons.” If you don’t think that will happen you are fooling yourself.
The terrorist and leaders in the Middle East pay very close attention to the American media. Even if Time is so short sighted as to not realize this, those in the Middle East will point to this designation of “Potential Man of the Year” and squeeze every bit of PR out of it they can. To list him as a candidate is irresponsible and aides our enemies. I believe in Freedom of Speech, and Time can nominate whomever they wish to. However, I think it tells the American public a lot about who Time is rooting for in the War on Terror.
President Ahmadinejad has been pursing nuclear weapons, he has said that Israel needs to be wiped off the map, and last week held a conference arguing that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Regardless of whether Time magazine makes him their Person of the Year or not, even listing him as a candidate soils the reputation of the other nominees and gives weight to everything Ahmadinejad has been saying.
Do the editors and writers of Time believe there was a Holocaust? Do they believe Isreal should be, “wiped off the map?” Would they like the nation of Iran, Hezbollah or Hamas to have nuclear weapons? I have been critical of the Iraq Study Group, but even they say that Iran has been aiding in the flow of arms and training into Iraq. I strive very hard on this site to avoid simply calling people or groups names, but what are the people at Time thinking?
Let’s take this scenario to its possible conclusion. Fast forward to the end of the year when Time announces that President Ahmadinejad is their Person of the Year, complete with flattering glossy photo on the cover. Forget what may or may not be said here in the United States. What will be said in the Middle East? In Iraq? In Iran? Ahmadinejad will hold that issue up for everyone in the Middle East to see and say, “See, even the American people believe Israel should be destroyed. Even the American people believe Iran should have nuclear weapons.” If you don’t think that will happen you are fooling yourself.
The terrorist and leaders in the Middle East pay very close attention to the American media. Even if Time is so short sighted as to not realize this, those in the Middle East will point to this designation of “Potential Man of the Year” and squeeze every bit of PR out of it they can. To list him as a candidate is irresponsible and aides our enemies. I believe in Freedom of Speech, and Time can nominate whomever they wish to. However, I think it tells the American public a lot about who Time is rooting for in the War on Terror.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Barack Hussein Obama
With all the hype around Senator Obama this week, I thought I would post a short bio and a note on some of his positions. At then end, I will tell you why I can’t vote for him.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Jimmy Carter's New Book
Former President Jimmy Carter has a new book out titled Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. So far, Mr. Carters’ book has generated a lot of controversy including the resignation of a former aide and chargers of improperly publishing some one else’s work.
I saw a copy of this book at a local Barnes and Nobles and read the book jacket. I got a good laugh out of it. Mr. Carter claims to lay out a plan for, “…Israel and Palestine living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries.” According to the book jacket, Mr. Carter believes Israel has a lot to do, and Palestine has almost nothing to do. I couldn’t believe that anyone wanting a real solution to the Israel / Palestine conflict would expect one party or the other make all the sacrifices, and not expect compromise from both sides.
The first controversy I read about in the news was when Kenneth Stein, Director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, resigned after reading Mr. Carter’s book. He had been associated with Carter for some time and resigned as the Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center. Both Mr. Stein and President Carter agree that he has not been involved in the day to day affairs of the Carter Center for some time. Mr. Stein states that ,”President Carters book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses, its is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.” Mr. Stein did not want his name in anyway associated with the book.
Shortly after this, Mr. Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy, came out in public and stated that at least some of the maps used in President Carters book were improperly published. Mr. Ross states that he is the original author of the maps. He states that he was not contacted and did not give permission for President Carter to use the maps.
Based on Mr. Ross and Mr. Stein, it would appear that President Carters new book uses very questionable material and questionable publishing to make its arguments. My original problem with the book still stands. Any course in the Israel / Palestine conflict must include Hamas being removed. At the same time I was reading Mr. Carters comments this week, I saw an article were members portions of the Palestine government will not participate in a unity government if they are asked to recognize Israel’s right to exist. That seems to me to mean that Palestine does have something it will have to work out if it wishes to coexist with Israel.
I saw a copy of this book at a local Barnes and Nobles and read the book jacket. I got a good laugh out of it. Mr. Carter claims to lay out a plan for, “…Israel and Palestine living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries.” According to the book jacket, Mr. Carter believes Israel has a lot to do, and Palestine has almost nothing to do. I couldn’t believe that anyone wanting a real solution to the Israel / Palestine conflict would expect one party or the other make all the sacrifices, and not expect compromise from both sides.
The first controversy I read about in the news was when Kenneth Stein, Director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel, resigned after reading Mr. Carter’s book. He had been associated with Carter for some time and resigned as the Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center. Both Mr. Stein and President Carter agree that he has not been involved in the day to day affairs of the Carter Center for some time. Mr. Stein states that ,”President Carters book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses, its is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments.” Mr. Stein did not want his name in anyway associated with the book.
Shortly after this, Mr. Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy, came out in public and stated that at least some of the maps used in President Carters book were improperly published. Mr. Ross states that he is the original author of the maps. He states that he was not contacted and did not give permission for President Carter to use the maps.
Based on Mr. Ross and Mr. Stein, it would appear that President Carters new book uses very questionable material and questionable publishing to make its arguments. My original problem with the book still stands. Any course in the Israel / Palestine conflict must include Hamas being removed. At the same time I was reading Mr. Carters comments this week, I saw an article were members portions of the Palestine government will not participate in a unity government if they are asked to recognize Israel’s right to exist. That seems to me to mean that Palestine does have something it will have to work out if it wishes to coexist with Israel.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
The Iraq Study Group
I have begun reading the report from the Iraq Study Group and am already disappointed. The "Baker" Report should contain possible strategies to win in Iraq. I couldn’t find a section on winning Iraq, or a section on victory in the entire report. I have heard reports today that the study group only took one trip to Iraq, and then only two of the members ever ventured out of the Green Zone. If this is true, how can we believe this is an accurate assessment of the state of Iraq? Why should the President or Congress put any faith in what is in essence a damage control report? The President and Congress should be examining ways to win in Iraq and not ways to look better to the world. War is hard. Sherman said that war is all hell. It is suppose to be ugly and brutal. But we as Americans must put that aside and look for real ways to win.
Iraq is still winnable. We must decide what we want to obtain from our involvement in Iraq, what conditions we are willing to define for victory, and how much we are willing to do to get it. That is what the debate between Republicans and Democrats really needs to be. I don’t believe that any Republican, Democrat, or American really wants to loose in Iraq. So how do we define Victory, and how do we get there?
If we look at Iraq as a front in the larger global war on Islamic Fundamentalism, then we can define victory. One possible definition: Victory is when Iraq is a fully self – reliant democratic government. We can get there by breaking the will of our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people. Anyone who has done any looking into the war knows Syria and Iran are both funneling fighters and materials into Iraq. Iran and Syria should be made to hurt enough that they stop supplying our enemies with aid. If Iran and Syria are willing to bleed American soldiers, we should do the same to them. We could target their terrorist as they come across the border, or we could take the war to their nations.
This is only a possible solution. We could limit the area of operation to within the borders of Iraq and step up military operations. We could decide we are willing to handle more civilian causalities in order to protect our troops and hit the terrorist harder. These are all possible strategies to win Iraq. The point is not whether or not they are the right strategies, but that they are strategies that could work in Iraq.
A real Iraq Study Group would have been able to find a few strategies for Victory. This Study Group appears to be looking for anything but Victory.
Iraq is still winnable. We must decide what we want to obtain from our involvement in Iraq, what conditions we are willing to define for victory, and how much we are willing to do to get it. That is what the debate between Republicans and Democrats really needs to be. I don’t believe that any Republican, Democrat, or American really wants to loose in Iraq. So how do we define Victory, and how do we get there?
If we look at Iraq as a front in the larger global war on Islamic Fundamentalism, then we can define victory. One possible definition: Victory is when Iraq is a fully self – reliant democratic government. We can get there by breaking the will of our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people. Anyone who has done any looking into the war knows Syria and Iran are both funneling fighters and materials into Iraq. Iran and Syria should be made to hurt enough that they stop supplying our enemies with aid. If Iran and Syria are willing to bleed American soldiers, we should do the same to them. We could target their terrorist as they come across the border, or we could take the war to their nations.
This is only a possible solution. We could limit the area of operation to within the borders of Iraq and step up military operations. We could decide we are willing to handle more civilian causalities in order to protect our troops and hit the terrorist harder. These are all possible strategies to win Iraq. The point is not whether or not they are the right strategies, but that they are strategies that could work in Iraq.
A real Iraq Study Group would have been able to find a few strategies for Victory. This Study Group appears to be looking for anything but Victory.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Freedom of Speech?
I have had a running debate on a few other sites about the nature of our guaranteed Freedom of Speech. I thought I would post a few thoughts here and see if there is anyone out there who disagrees.
All of our rights are guaranteed up to a point. We have our freedoms so long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. I have the right to criticize anyone in the government I see fit too. However, I don’t have the right to walk into a crowded movie theater and scream “Fire” at the top of my lungs unless there really is a fire. If someone says something about me, or prints something about me that they can’t prove, I have the ability to sue them in court. I wanted to point this out first to show that our freedoms are limited.
The press is an important watchdog in today’s world, and always has been. However, I feel they get away with a lot under the “Freedom of Speech” clause. If the N Y Times or any other media outlet decides to print classified documents, there should be consequences. If I decided to stand on a street corner and hand classified documents out, plenty of people would rightly be upset. Why should a group of people whom aren’t elected, have the ability to decide what is in my best interest?
There are those who say we need the press to protect us from abuse in government, and I agree. However, if the press finds something that they feel the American public needs to know, they should hand it to one of the other branches government if they can’t legally print it. If someone found something incriminating about President Bush, there is a long line of Senators standing at the ready to do something with that information.
We as Americans are found of saying, “No one is above the law.” The President, Congress, and the Supreme Court are all held accountable just as your average John Doe. So why should a newspaper be any different? I write a blog, does that make me above the law? Many don’t like to talk about it, but our freedoms do have limits. Most of these limits were set forth in the Constitution, and have always been there. I feel those limits should be enforced equally.
I am interested to see what others think. Feel free to drop me a comment.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Terrorist Quiz
Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 11%
Congratulations, Patriot! Wave your flag proudly, stand tall, and bask in the glory of George Bush's America. The terrorists will never win so long as there is a sufficient number of people like you out there. Never question, never doubt. You are on the right side. America's side. God's side. Rush Limbaugh has told you so. Rah rah, go Bush!!
Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Imams Look More and More Guilty
The six imams kicked off a US Airways flight last week are still claiming to be the victims of racial profiling. However, the police report from the original incident is now out in the public and viewable(http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/12/the_faking_imams_pajamas_media.php). Many of the details that have been circulating on the blogosphere have made it into the reporting. While the media reports aren’t covering this as much as I would like, they have taken a step in the right direction by pointing out the incriminating facts in the police report.
The imams were doing more than just praying loudly. They were acting consistent with the 9/11 hijackers. Many of the passengers and crew were concerned with the actions of the imams. The Muslim American Society, which has been pushing the racial profiling angle, reported last week that one of the imams was blind. One of the passengers from the flight noted that there was in fact an imam acting blind in order to convince passengers to swap seats with him. If you pay careful attention to the police report, at no point to the officers note that one of the imams was blind or needed any sort of special attention. This appears to be another hole in the press release created by the Muslim American Society.
One of the imams told a passenger on the plane that his job was a cover and that his real job was “… advocating / representing Muslims here in the US.” This was at the same time that he complained to the passenger about non-shariah law nations, and expressed what this same passenger called “extreme fundamentalist Muslim views.” Last week I pointed out the connections one of the imams had to a Hamas fund raising charity operating here in the US. This information taken with the vocal support for Hamas and Hezbollah from the Muslim American Society makes me very suspicious that these imams were not victims at all. The more information that comes out, the more I believe this was an actual terrorist operation. However, I don’t believe they had any intension of taking over the plane. I think from the beginning they were hoping to get taken off the plane and wanted to use this as a PR operation. These imams and the MAS want to use this to force the airlines to ignore suspicious activities, or get labeled as Islamaphobic. We know the terrorist groups want to use our media against us and this is a case were they are trying to use the media to force us into a less secure footing here in the US.
If it is found that theses six imams were intentionally doing this to try and get in the media spotlight, they should be charged with aiding terrorist, and tried. I think US Airways should be commended for doing the right thing. I can only hope and pray that crews from other airlines act the same way if they see suspicious people on their planes.
The imams were doing more than just praying loudly. They were acting consistent with the 9/11 hijackers. Many of the passengers and crew were concerned with the actions of the imams. The Muslim American Society, which has been pushing the racial profiling angle, reported last week that one of the imams was blind. One of the passengers from the flight noted that there was in fact an imam acting blind in order to convince passengers to swap seats with him. If you pay careful attention to the police report, at no point to the officers note that one of the imams was blind or needed any sort of special attention. This appears to be another hole in the press release created by the Muslim American Society.
One of the imams told a passenger on the plane that his job was a cover and that his real job was “… advocating / representing Muslims here in the US.” This was at the same time that he complained to the passenger about non-shariah law nations, and expressed what this same passenger called “extreme fundamentalist Muslim views.” Last week I pointed out the connections one of the imams had to a Hamas fund raising charity operating here in the US. This information taken with the vocal support for Hamas and Hezbollah from the Muslim American Society makes me very suspicious that these imams were not victims at all. The more information that comes out, the more I believe this was an actual terrorist operation. However, I don’t believe they had any intension of taking over the plane. I think from the beginning they were hoping to get taken off the plane and wanted to use this as a PR operation. These imams and the MAS want to use this to force the airlines to ignore suspicious activities, or get labeled as Islamaphobic. We know the terrorist groups want to use our media against us and this is a case were they are trying to use the media to force us into a less secure footing here in the US.
If it is found that theses six imams were intentionally doing this to try and get in the media spotlight, they should be charged with aiding terrorist, and tried. I think US Airways should be commended for doing the right thing. I can only hope and pray that crews from other airlines act the same way if they see suspicious people on their planes.
Friday, December 01, 2006
New article up at Big Bazoo
The people at Bigbazoo posted a guest blog of mine. I wrote an article on some of the failures of Speaker-elect Pelosi. Go check it out here, and leave a comment to let them know what you think.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Prayer Rally for Imams kicked off US Airways Flight
I have devoted two previous post to the six imams kicked off the US Airways flight last week. If you haven’t heard of the exact details, check out my first post, and then the updated post from Tuesday. I said in the Tuesday post that I was worried about exactly what these imams may have really been up too. I have read more information today that makes me more nervous than before.
A few civil rights groups have now taken up the fight for the imams. These groups believe that it should be ok for a group of Muslims to board a plane, take control of all the exit and entrance points and then criticize the President and the War in Iraq. They feel the US is racially profiling their group. As I have said before, if you go to an airport or get on an airplane and act suspicious, you should be stopped. There are evil people in the world. Some of them are Muslim, and some of them want us dead.
These six were beyond acting suspicious. They were acting consistent with how the 9/11 terrorist acted. US Airways would have been grossly negligent if they didn’t kick these imams off the plane.
Now, the Muslim American Society (MAS) has taken up their cause, and is leading a prayer rally tomorrow for these imams. The MAS Freedom Foundations Executive Director, Imam Mahdi Bray is speaking at the service tomorrow. I judge anything I hear by looking at who the source is. So before you rush to tomorrow’s prayer rally, here is some information on the MAS, and on Imam Mahdi Bray.
The Muslim American Society was founded in 1992 by the Muslim Brotherhood. If you are not familiar with that group, do a quick Google search on them and see what turns up.
Imam Mahdi Bray is a vocal supporter of both Hamas and Hezbollah. He is also listed as the contact person for the National Islamic Prison Foundation. This is a group that was organized in order to,”…convert American inmates to Wahhabism,” according to Jihad Watch.
And one last tidbit of information: one of the imams removed from the US Airways flight is Imam Omar Shahin. Jihad Watch list Imam Shahin as someone who has previously been involved with an organization here in the US that supported Hamas under the disguise of a charitable organization.
At the very least, this was a stunt to try and exhort money from US Airways. At worst, it could be something much more sinister. Either way, these six should be reminded that it was their own actions that got them kicked off the airplane. We need to be more vigilant to those who want to kill us, not less.
A few civil rights groups have now taken up the fight for the imams. These groups believe that it should be ok for a group of Muslims to board a plane, take control of all the exit and entrance points and then criticize the President and the War in Iraq. They feel the US is racially profiling their group. As I have said before, if you go to an airport or get on an airplane and act suspicious, you should be stopped. There are evil people in the world. Some of them are Muslim, and some of them want us dead.
These six were beyond acting suspicious. They were acting consistent with how the 9/11 terrorist acted. US Airways would have been grossly negligent if they didn’t kick these imams off the plane.
Now, the Muslim American Society (MAS) has taken up their cause, and is leading a prayer rally tomorrow for these imams. The MAS Freedom Foundations Executive Director, Imam Mahdi Bray is speaking at the service tomorrow. I judge anything I hear by looking at who the source is. So before you rush to tomorrow’s prayer rally, here is some information on the MAS, and on Imam Mahdi Bray.
The Muslim American Society was founded in 1992 by the Muslim Brotherhood. If you are not familiar with that group, do a quick Google search on them and see what turns up.
Imam Mahdi Bray is a vocal supporter of both Hamas and Hezbollah. He is also listed as the contact person for the National Islamic Prison Foundation. This is a group that was organized in order to,”…convert American inmates to Wahhabism,” according to Jihad Watch.
And one last tidbit of information: one of the imams removed from the US Airways flight is Imam Omar Shahin. Jihad Watch list Imam Shahin as someone who has previously been involved with an organization here in the US that supported Hamas under the disguise of a charitable organization.
At the very least, this was a stunt to try and exhort money from US Airways. At worst, it could be something much more sinister. Either way, these six should be reminded that it was their own actions that got them kicked off the airplane. We need to be more vigilant to those who want to kill us, not less.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
UPDATE: Six Muslims kicked off US Airways flight
New information has come out today regarding the six Imams kicked off a US Airways flight last Monday. The original stories had stated that some of the Imams stood up on the US Airways flight and began praying. Apparently, the behavior by the six Muslims was much more suspicious.
According to the Washington Times, passengers said that at least three of the six Imams were praying very loudly in the concourse. After boarding the flight, the six took up positions similar to the 9/11 hijackers, two moved to the front row in first class, two sat in the exit rows, and two sat at the very back of the plane. These weren’t their assigned seats. This type of behavior is now believed to be a terrorist probe. With these seats, the six could now control the exits to the airplane. When they boarded, some of the Imams asked for seat belt extenders, which they didn’t need. When they got to their seat, they unrolled the extenders and placed them on the floor of the cabin. As the plane was delayed, the six would walk back and forth talking to each other, sometimes in English, and sometimes in Arabic. Passengers said that the Imams were discussing politics, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush.
The Imams say they spoke only in English and that they didn’t discuss politics. They also believe they are the victims of racial profiling. In the Washington Times piece, Mrs. Hudson quotes two other airline professionals not associated with US Airways as defending the airlines actions.
Last week, I posted a blog defending US Airways. With these new details, I am much more suspicious of the Imams. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, US Airways made the correct call. If you don’t think so, imagine that the worst happened. Imagine that these individuals later took control of the plane and crashed it somewhere. What would happen in the aftermath if we found that US Airways knew everything listed above, but still allowed the six to board the airplane?
I am very concerned about the behavior of these Imams. As more details come out, it looks like these Imams were intentionally trying to provoke a response at a minimum and maybe something much more nefarious at worst. These six acted in a very concerted way. I feel most rational people would agree that US Airways probably did the right thing. There are other questions we need to answer. What exactly were these six Imams up to? Were they trying to get thrown off the plane? Were they hoping to sue US Airways for discrimination and thereby make it harder for other Airlines to throw suspicious people off of their planes? Were these six actively probing US Airways for some sort of future plot? Or, were these six Imams so out of touch with today’s world that they had no idea their actions would be viewed as suspicious?
According to the Washington Times, passengers said that at least three of the six Imams were praying very loudly in the concourse. After boarding the flight, the six took up positions similar to the 9/11 hijackers, two moved to the front row in first class, two sat in the exit rows, and two sat at the very back of the plane. These weren’t their assigned seats. This type of behavior is now believed to be a terrorist probe. With these seats, the six could now control the exits to the airplane. When they boarded, some of the Imams asked for seat belt extenders, which they didn’t need. When they got to their seat, they unrolled the extenders and placed them on the floor of the cabin. As the plane was delayed, the six would walk back and forth talking to each other, sometimes in English, and sometimes in Arabic. Passengers said that the Imams were discussing politics, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush.
The Imams say they spoke only in English and that they didn’t discuss politics. They also believe they are the victims of racial profiling. In the Washington Times piece, Mrs. Hudson quotes two other airline professionals not associated with US Airways as defending the airlines actions.
Last week, I posted a blog defending US Airways. With these new details, I am much more suspicious of the Imams. Beyond any shadow of a doubt, US Airways made the correct call. If you don’t think so, imagine that the worst happened. Imagine that these individuals later took control of the plane and crashed it somewhere. What would happen in the aftermath if we found that US Airways knew everything listed above, but still allowed the six to board the airplane?
I am very concerned about the behavior of these Imams. As more details come out, it looks like these Imams were intentionally trying to provoke a response at a minimum and maybe something much more nefarious at worst. These six acted in a very concerted way. I feel most rational people would agree that US Airways probably did the right thing. There are other questions we need to answer. What exactly were these six Imams up to? Were they trying to get thrown off the plane? Were they hoping to sue US Airways for discrimination and thereby make it harder for other Airlines to throw suspicious people off of their planes? Were these six actively probing US Airways for some sort of future plot? Or, were these six Imams so out of touch with today’s world that they had no idea their actions would be viewed as suspicious?
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Why a Draft is a bad idea
Senator Rangle (D- New York) has once again proposed a draft. This isn’t the first time he has proposed this draft. It has failed before, and based on the response of his party, I don’t expect this one to go far either. However, because I hear this in the media from time to time, I think it is important to illustrate why a draft is a bad idea and to respond to a few points in Mr. Rangle’s latest call for a draft.
To be sure, there have been times in the past where a draft was need for our nation. However, one of the most incredible things about our military is that it is an all volunteer military. Our men and women in uniform are fighting because they have chosen to put on the uniform and go where the rest of us wouldn’t. I respect all of them for that. Even with what many consider to be an unpopular war in Iraq, the military has been meeting its recruitment goals for the last few years. The last time a draft was seriously considered in the congress, many in the arm services said it was not only not needed, but also not wanted.
Senator Rangle in a letter to the New York Daily News on November 22, 2006 outlined some of his reasons for the draft, and some of the changes he would make to the draft. He states that if more of our elected politicians had family members in the service, they would not send our troops into harms way. I disagree. Perhaps for a few it would make a difference. However, I choose to believe that many of Mr. Rangle’s colleagues understand the implications of deploying our military anywhere. Even if they don’t understand it from a human point of view, I am sure that our politicians know the media will remind them of the body count. President Clinton was hesitant to use our military anywhere for fear of any casualties being broadcast on CNN. We should be compassionate and respect the danger we ask these men and women to take on. We should also remember these men and women are warriors. They have sworn to protect us. Americans have had to die in order for the rest of the nation to sleep safe at night. We owe it to the military to be careful of when we use it, but also to use our military when needed.
Mr. Rangle argues that our current recruitment practices are prejudice without actually saying that. He cites that incentives to join mean nothing to those who have college as an option. If the military doesn’t appeal to college bound people, why are there Military Academies? Why is there ROTC? Surely those wouldn’t be needed otherwise. Mr. Rangle goes on to argue that there is a disproportionate number of minorities in the army, and that by not instituting a draft we aren’t being fair to them. I would respond to Mr. Rangle by saying there are many people of all race in the military. For some, it is a proud tradition. For some, it is a chance at an opportunity they wouldn’t have had otherwise. For whatever reason, why should anyone disrespect them by acting like they were forced at gun point to join the military? This goes against honoring these men and women for doing the one thing many of us won’t.
In his letter, Mr. Rangle says that his draft would, “… [make] men and women up to age 42 eligible for service, with no exemptions beyond health or reasons of conscience.” The reason the draft is a bad idea is that someone who doesn’t want to do that job, isn’t going to do a very good job at it. Is that really what we want in a military? Would you want someone to work on your car if that is the last thing in the world they wanted to do? And what does it say to those in the military who are there by choice? What confidence do they have in their fellow soldier who doesn’t want to be there and is just looking for a way home?
A draft is not the right answer for our military. I haven’t heard of any military expert say anything different, and I have heard quite a few military figures argue against a draft. Let’s give the men and women the respect they need, and the tools to do their job, without saddling them with people who don’t want to put their life on the line.
To be sure, there have been times in the past where a draft was need for our nation. However, one of the most incredible things about our military is that it is an all volunteer military. Our men and women in uniform are fighting because they have chosen to put on the uniform and go where the rest of us wouldn’t. I respect all of them for that. Even with what many consider to be an unpopular war in Iraq, the military has been meeting its recruitment goals for the last few years. The last time a draft was seriously considered in the congress, many in the arm services said it was not only not needed, but also not wanted.
Senator Rangle in a letter to the New York Daily News on November 22, 2006 outlined some of his reasons for the draft, and some of the changes he would make to the draft. He states that if more of our elected politicians had family members in the service, they would not send our troops into harms way. I disagree. Perhaps for a few it would make a difference. However, I choose to believe that many of Mr. Rangle’s colleagues understand the implications of deploying our military anywhere. Even if they don’t understand it from a human point of view, I am sure that our politicians know the media will remind them of the body count. President Clinton was hesitant to use our military anywhere for fear of any casualties being broadcast on CNN. We should be compassionate and respect the danger we ask these men and women to take on. We should also remember these men and women are warriors. They have sworn to protect us. Americans have had to die in order for the rest of the nation to sleep safe at night. We owe it to the military to be careful of when we use it, but also to use our military when needed.
Mr. Rangle argues that our current recruitment practices are prejudice without actually saying that. He cites that incentives to join mean nothing to those who have college as an option. If the military doesn’t appeal to college bound people, why are there Military Academies? Why is there ROTC? Surely those wouldn’t be needed otherwise. Mr. Rangle goes on to argue that there is a disproportionate number of minorities in the army, and that by not instituting a draft we aren’t being fair to them. I would respond to Mr. Rangle by saying there are many people of all race in the military. For some, it is a proud tradition. For some, it is a chance at an opportunity they wouldn’t have had otherwise. For whatever reason, why should anyone disrespect them by acting like they were forced at gun point to join the military? This goes against honoring these men and women for doing the one thing many of us won’t.
In his letter, Mr. Rangle says that his draft would, “… [make] men and women up to age 42 eligible for service, with no exemptions beyond health or reasons of conscience.” The reason the draft is a bad idea is that someone who doesn’t want to do that job, isn’t going to do a very good job at it. Is that really what we want in a military? Would you want someone to work on your car if that is the last thing in the world they wanted to do? And what does it say to those in the military who are there by choice? What confidence do they have in their fellow soldier who doesn’t want to be there and is just looking for a way home?
A draft is not the right answer for our military. I haven’t heard of any military expert say anything different, and I have heard quite a few military figures argue against a draft. Let’s give the men and women the respect they need, and the tools to do their job, without saddling them with people who don’t want to put their life on the line.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving to the readers and occasional visitors to this site. I hope everyone is able to either spend some time with family this year, or able to talk to your family today and say "Hi". I also want to wish a special Happy Thanksgiving to all our men and women in uniform who are spending today away from their families in order to protect my family.
In a break from the norm, I thought I would share my own Thanksgiving story with anyone out there who would like to listen. My daughter made a “Thankful Wreath” at school. Her teacher told me that the class made the individual wreaths, and she would go to each student and ask, “What are you thankful for?” Many of you can guess that in a class of three year olds, “mommy” or “daddy” were the common answers. However, my little girl was thinking along a totally different line. When her teacher asked her what she was thankful for, she replied, “The Home Depot”. Maybe we have been doing a little too much work around the house lately.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone, and I hope you have a great one, no matter what your political beliefs are.
In a break from the norm, I thought I would share my own Thanksgiving story with anyone out there who would like to listen. My daughter made a “Thankful Wreath” at school. Her teacher told me that the class made the individual wreaths, and she would go to each student and ask, “What are you thankful for?” Many of you can guess that in a class of three year olds, “mommy” or “daddy” were the common answers. However, my little girl was thinking along a totally different line. When her teacher asked her what she was thankful for, she replied, “The Home Depot”. Maybe we have been doing a little too much work around the house lately.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone, and I hope you have a great one, no matter what your political beliefs are.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Six Muslims kicked off US Airways flight
Six Imam’s leaving a conference in Minnesota were kicked off a US Airways flight yesterday. Apparently, at least three of the Imam’s stood up on the flight and began their evening prayers. If I understand correctly, Muslims are required to pray five times a day at very specific times. I thought there were allowances for when a Muslim isn’t able to pray at that time. I will research that and post a comment to this post with what I find. But, for the moment, let’s say for the sake of argument that there are no exceptions made by the Koran, and the Imam’s were required to pray at that time regardless of where they were.
I don’t think US Airways was in the wrong to kick the Imams off the plane. If Islam required prayers at that time, and as devout Muslims, this couldn’t be avoided, why not simply schedule a later flight? Air travel is a convenience, not a right. In a post 9/11 world, that is all the more apparent. I have family throughout the country. If I wish to see them, I understand that there are certain things I must do. For example, I am only allowed 3 oz liquids in a single quart clear plastic bag. Do I really think this measure will stop a terrorist? No. However, if I want to fly to visit family or friends elsewhere, I know I must abide by the rules.
On 9/11, 19 hijackers took control of 4 planes and killed thousands of Americans. Every plane since then has had heightened security of some sort. How many articles have we seen or read of people who caused a disturbance being kicked from an airplane? Why should anyone be exempt from this? Why should these six individuals be any different? If four priests got onto and American Airlines flight, and right before take off, stood up in unison and started chanting in Latin, would the passengers have ignored them? I don’t think so. They would have been kicked off that flight.
We are taught there is a time and place for everything. Political Correctness initially brought some civility to our common language that was probably needed. However, that time is gone. We are now in a time where PC would have us risk our lives, the lives of our family and friends, the very existence of this nation in order to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. We have learned there are evil people in the world. Americans must make a decision. Will we allow our way of life to disappear to avoid hurting someone’s feelings? I hope we will learn that while everyone deserves common courtesy, and people have rights, we must protect ourselves. These six individuals were wrong to believe they could disrupt and airplane without consequences. If they believe they were singled out because they were Muslim that is regrettable. The fact is, they were singled out because they disrupted an airplane, clean and simple.
I don’t think US Airways was in the wrong to kick the Imams off the plane. If Islam required prayers at that time, and as devout Muslims, this couldn’t be avoided, why not simply schedule a later flight? Air travel is a convenience, not a right. In a post 9/11 world, that is all the more apparent. I have family throughout the country. If I wish to see them, I understand that there are certain things I must do. For example, I am only allowed 3 oz liquids in a single quart clear plastic bag. Do I really think this measure will stop a terrorist? No. However, if I want to fly to visit family or friends elsewhere, I know I must abide by the rules.
On 9/11, 19 hijackers took control of 4 planes and killed thousands of Americans. Every plane since then has had heightened security of some sort. How many articles have we seen or read of people who caused a disturbance being kicked from an airplane? Why should anyone be exempt from this? Why should these six individuals be any different? If four priests got onto and American Airlines flight, and right before take off, stood up in unison and started chanting in Latin, would the passengers have ignored them? I don’t think so. They would have been kicked off that flight.
We are taught there is a time and place for everything. Political Correctness initially brought some civility to our common language that was probably needed. However, that time is gone. We are now in a time where PC would have us risk our lives, the lives of our family and friends, the very existence of this nation in order to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. We have learned there are evil people in the world. Americans must make a decision. Will we allow our way of life to disappear to avoid hurting someone’s feelings? I hope we will learn that while everyone deserves common courtesy, and people have rights, we must protect ourselves. These six individuals were wrong to believe they could disrupt and airplane without consequences. If they believe they were singled out because they were Muslim that is regrettable. The fact is, they were singled out because they disrupted an airplane, clean and simple.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Other Exit Strategies for Iraq
My Dad sent me an article a few days ago from the Armed Forces Journal. In it, Mr. Ralph Peters has a very interesting article on possible alternatives for Iraq. He purposes four or five potential exit strategies I haven’t heard discussed any where else. All of the debate I have heard in the media has revolved around three central strategies for Iraq. The first was summed up best by the President, “Stay the Course.” The other two revolve around either increasing or decreasing the current troop levels in Iraq.
Mr. Peters argues that there are many other options that are found between these three plans. He makes a compelling argument that we must examine theories that might be “outside the box” in order to find a solution that works best for our nation. Any course of action in Iraq must be governed by what is best for American interests first, Iraq second, and the rest of the world last. Regardless of anyone’s feelings about why we as a nation went into Iraq, we are there now. We have a responsibility for the outcome in Iraq. We must also look at what consequences any resulting strategy might cause. If we were to suddenly pull all of our troops from Iraq, what would our enemies do next? What lessons will they take from our actions? To cut and run from Iraq without regard to the results would be irresponsible. We have a responsibility to our troops, to our citizens, and the citizens of Iraq.
I have often thought that a withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster. It would show our allies that we don’t have the fortitude to stay with them in tough times. It would show our enemies that we are in fact a paper tiger, and it would invite them to follow us home and attack us here. However, Mr. Peters illustrates a few other options that might allow us to withdraw, and still send a clear message to both our enemies and our allies. Perhaps a sudden all out military push, where every group organized against us is hit and hit hard is the way to send a message before withdrawing. Mr. Peter states in one of his alternative plans:
“If we do leave, we should go out shooting. All anti-government factions should suffer — the gloves should come off at last. The one thing we cannot afford is a popular view that our troops have been defeated. They haven't been. We will have to make that clear. Our withdrawal should be conducted under conditions that push our enemies bloodily onto the defensive as we make our exit, and we should not worry about collateral damage. If we leave Iraq, we must leave the world with a perception of American strength — and ruthlessness, when required. We can afford being seen as heavy-handed, but we can't afford being seen as weak.”
I feel anyone really looking for a solution to Iraq must read Mr. Peters articles. Mr. Peters says in his article that some of his solutions aren’t realistic, but they illustrate a need to think outside the box. He also goes to great lengths to point out that as long as the Iraqis are willing to fight and die for their new government, we need to help them do that. They will need to fight harder than those in the country who would have them live in tyranny. We can’t fight for them forever, nor should we. However, a democracy in the Middle East is in America’s best interest. Any solution must balance our responsibilities and what best serves our nation both now and in the future.
Mr. Peters argues that there are many other options that are found between these three plans. He makes a compelling argument that we must examine theories that might be “outside the box” in order to find a solution that works best for our nation. Any course of action in Iraq must be governed by what is best for American interests first, Iraq second, and the rest of the world last. Regardless of anyone’s feelings about why we as a nation went into Iraq, we are there now. We have a responsibility for the outcome in Iraq. We must also look at what consequences any resulting strategy might cause. If we were to suddenly pull all of our troops from Iraq, what would our enemies do next? What lessons will they take from our actions? To cut and run from Iraq without regard to the results would be irresponsible. We have a responsibility to our troops, to our citizens, and the citizens of Iraq.
I have often thought that a withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster. It would show our allies that we don’t have the fortitude to stay with them in tough times. It would show our enemies that we are in fact a paper tiger, and it would invite them to follow us home and attack us here. However, Mr. Peters illustrates a few other options that might allow us to withdraw, and still send a clear message to both our enemies and our allies. Perhaps a sudden all out military push, where every group organized against us is hit and hit hard is the way to send a message before withdrawing. Mr. Peter states in one of his alternative plans:
“If we do leave, we should go out shooting. All anti-government factions should suffer — the gloves should come off at last. The one thing we cannot afford is a popular view that our troops have been defeated. They haven't been. We will have to make that clear. Our withdrawal should be conducted under conditions that push our enemies bloodily onto the defensive as we make our exit, and we should not worry about collateral damage. If we leave Iraq, we must leave the world with a perception of American strength — and ruthlessness, when required. We can afford being seen as heavy-handed, but we can't afford being seen as weak.”
I feel anyone really looking for a solution to Iraq must read Mr. Peters articles. Mr. Peters says in his article that some of his solutions aren’t realistic, but they illustrate a need to think outside the box. He also goes to great lengths to point out that as long as the Iraqis are willing to fight and die for their new government, we need to help them do that. They will need to fight harder than those in the country who would have them live in tyranny. We can’t fight for them forever, nor should we. However, a democracy in the Middle East is in America’s best interest. Any solution must balance our responsibilities and what best serves our nation both now and in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
