There has been a lot of conversation recently in different news sources (talk radio, newspapers, TV, etc) regarding Senator Obama’s possible Muslim upbringing. On one message board I read, one of the users was afraid of being called racist for pointing the story out. This led me to a question: Is it acceptable for a voter to vote against a candidate because they are Muslim?
Mitt Romney is probably going to run for the Republican nomination. He is a Mormon and I have heard people say they can not vote for him because he is a Mormon. I have heard many people say they can’t vote for certain candidates because they are Christian, or in some cases, simply believe in God. There is even a book now that argues that anyone of faith should not be allowed in politics. In my eyes, many in the media are more sensitive of offending Muslims than of offending Christians. Without naming any candidates, I want to look at a made up example.
“Candidate X” is running for the Presidential nomination in his party. This candidate has an assortment of platforms. Some of them are in line with his party, some of them are not. He is a Muslim. He also doesn’t hide the fact. In many of his public appearances he thanks Allah for guiding him to this point in time. For the sake of argument, let’s say that you agree with many of Candidate X’s positions. With all else being equal, would you vote for someone else simply because this candidate is Muslim? What if your neighbor encouraged you to vote against this Muslim Candidate?
At the end of the day, you can vote for or against someone for any reason (right or wrong) that you want. One of the beauties of our system is that your vote is between you and the voting machine. No one else knows what it is unless you want them to know. However, in your opinion is it acceptable for someone to vote against a candidate because they are Muslim?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Does the Senate really “Support the Troops”?
Early this past week, the Senate Foerign Relations Committee voted 12-9 to send a message to President Bush. With 140,000 plus troops in Iraq and 21,000 more expected to be on the way, the Committee wants the full Senate to tell the President he is doing the wrong thing. This news comes the same week the Senate unanimously approved the Presidents pick to command all forces in Iraq, Lt. General David Petraeus.
During questioning by both Republicans and Democrats this week, General Petraeus predicted that a move by the Senate to send a non-binding resolution to the President would not help US forces and would help the enemy. The vote to send the measure to the full Senate was along party lines with one exception. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also voted to give help to the enemy.
I have heard many Conservative commentators accuse the Democratic Party of being actively invested in the defeat of America. It is weeks like this that make me believe they are right. How can anyone “Support the Troops” but also vote to send a clear vote of no-confidence to them. A “non-binding” resolution telling the President he is doing the wrong thing would do just that. It will be a clear message that our Senate doesn’t support the President, doesn’t support the war, and doesn’t support our troops.
The Constitution gives President Bush the ability to conduct a war. The Congress does not get to vote on the Presidents strategy and tactics. The President has respectfully asked the Congress for their support for his change in policy. He is not required to do this. The only power Congress has in this is budgetary. None of the Senators or Representatives in Congress get a vote on his policy in Iraq. If the Congress truly believes President Bush is doing the wrong thing, then they need to stop asking for autographs at the State of the Union, and start trying to change the budget.
I have argued time and time again that our enemies in the Middle East are very aware of how our national politics are going. Admiral Fallon has argued that our enemies know how to use the internet as a weapon against our troops. It would appear that the Senate knows how to use weapons against our troops and the President. I cannot understand how the Congress can believe that our enemies won’t use this to their fullest advantage. What does the Congress expect our troops to think as they hear this news? Besides the message that our troops are failing and shouldn’t be there, the Congress is going to tell them, “We don’t think you need any help.” Is that really what Congress means when they claim to support the troops?
During questioning by both Republicans and Democrats this week, General Petraeus predicted that a move by the Senate to send a non-binding resolution to the President would not help US forces and would help the enemy. The vote to send the measure to the full Senate was along party lines with one exception. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska also voted to give help to the enemy.
I have heard many Conservative commentators accuse the Democratic Party of being actively invested in the defeat of America. It is weeks like this that make me believe they are right. How can anyone “Support the Troops” but also vote to send a clear vote of no-confidence to them. A “non-binding” resolution telling the President he is doing the wrong thing would do just that. It will be a clear message that our Senate doesn’t support the President, doesn’t support the war, and doesn’t support our troops.
The Constitution gives President Bush the ability to conduct a war. The Congress does not get to vote on the Presidents strategy and tactics. The President has respectfully asked the Congress for their support for his change in policy. He is not required to do this. The only power Congress has in this is budgetary. None of the Senators or Representatives in Congress get a vote on his policy in Iraq. If the Congress truly believes President Bush is doing the wrong thing, then they need to stop asking for autographs at the State of the Union, and start trying to change the budget.
I have argued time and time again that our enemies in the Middle East are very aware of how our national politics are going. Admiral Fallon has argued that our enemies know how to use the internet as a weapon against our troops. It would appear that the Senate knows how to use weapons against our troops and the President. I cannot understand how the Congress can believe that our enemies won’t use this to their fullest advantage. What does the Congress expect our troops to think as they hear this news? Besides the message that our troops are failing and shouldn’t be there, the Congress is going to tell them, “We don’t think you need any help.” Is that really what Congress means when they claim to support the troops?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Book Review: Londonistan
Towards the end of October, I came across an op-ed piece by Melanie Phillips. Mrs. Phillips is a columnist for London’s Daily Mail. I was intrigued by her article, so I looked for anything else she had written. I came across Londonistan. Mrs. Phillips makes an argument in the book that Britain may already have lost its own “War on Terror”. I don’t get to read much from the other side of the ocean, so I thought this might be interesting.
Mrs. Phillips argues that while America and the UK focus on battlegrounds in the Middle East and elsewhere, the UK is losing the war at home, and is in danger of loosing it for good. She backs up her arguments with straight forward logic, and some very startling facts. She quotes British sources as saying, “…up to sixteen thousand British Muslims either are actively engaged in or support terrorist activity…with several hundred thought to be primed to attack the United Kingdom.” From here she traces how the UK has been loosing the war at home for years.
On July 7th, 2005, suicide bombers blew up three London trains and one bus. Even more startling, the bombers in this case were from middle class London. A tape from one of the bombers showed a terrorist like those in tapes from Al-Jazeera, but with a definite British accent. Britain had been loosing a war it wasn’t even aware it was fighting for some time. Mrs. Phillips traces how the UK placed the interest of United Nations and the interest of the world community ahead of the security of its own citizens. Because of that, terrorist turned London into their own recruiting ground.
As Mrs. Phillips points out, we are engaged in a war with a particular brand of Islam, and not in a war with Islam. However, the Muslim community must look inward and recognize that there are Muslims trying to kill Christians, Jews, and other Muslims in the name of their interpretation of Islam. At the same time, British judges and lawmakers must realize that in order for the UK to survive, British common law must come before UN resolutions. While reading this book, I couldn’t get over how eerily certain passages echoed in today’s political world.
I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to protect the West from those who would have us give up our freedoms. This book should be a required read for anyone who ever admired what the UK once was, or wishes to keep America from following a similar path.
Mrs. Phillips argues that while America and the UK focus on battlegrounds in the Middle East and elsewhere, the UK is losing the war at home, and is in danger of loosing it for good. She backs up her arguments with straight forward logic, and some very startling facts. She quotes British sources as saying, “…up to sixteen thousand British Muslims either are actively engaged in or support terrorist activity…with several hundred thought to be primed to attack the United Kingdom.” From here she traces how the UK has been loosing the war at home for years.
On July 7th, 2005, suicide bombers blew up three London trains and one bus. Even more startling, the bombers in this case were from middle class London. A tape from one of the bombers showed a terrorist like those in tapes from Al-Jazeera, but with a definite British accent. Britain had been loosing a war it wasn’t even aware it was fighting for some time. Mrs. Phillips traces how the UK placed the interest of United Nations and the interest of the world community ahead of the security of its own citizens. Because of that, terrorist turned London into their own recruiting ground.
As Mrs. Phillips points out, we are engaged in a war with a particular brand of Islam, and not in a war with Islam. However, the Muslim community must look inward and recognize that there are Muslims trying to kill Christians, Jews, and other Muslims in the name of their interpretation of Islam. At the same time, British judges and lawmakers must realize that in order for the UK to survive, British common law must come before UN resolutions. While reading this book, I couldn’t get over how eerily certain passages echoed in today’s political world.
I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to protect the West from those who would have us give up our freedoms. This book should be a required read for anyone who ever admired what the UK once was, or wishes to keep America from following a similar path.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
I'm Back !
If you haven’t read the comments to my last post, you may be wondering why I haven’t posted in some time. I try to post every three days or so. My last post was 11 days ago.
On January 13th, I received an email from Blogger (the company that host this site) saying that my account resembled a spam site. There was a link in the email I could click to request a human review of the site. I did that. Then I waited.
By the 18th, I was getting a little annoyed. I found a section on the Blogger site that would allow me to request a review, so I did that as well. When nothing happened, I made another request on the 20th, and a final one on the 21st. Rose at Blogger Talk (which is in my list of links) suggested that I post on the Google Blogger Help board. I did this a few times.
Finally, today I received an email from Blogger saying that my site was found to be a legitimate site, and they unlocked it. I was overjoyed. I was beginning to fear a vast left wing conspiracy was trying to prevent me from posting.
Since I haven’t been on in a while, I will try to make up for my absence over the next couple of weeks. The President will be speaking tonight and I hope to post my thoughts on the State of the Union tomorrow. I also finished reading Londonistan by Melanie Phillips. I wrote a book review on Mrs. Phillips book and will post it in the coming days.
Thanks for checking in, and to those of you who continued to check my blog while I couldn’t post, a very heartfelt thanks.
On January 13th, I received an email from Blogger (the company that host this site) saying that my account resembled a spam site. There was a link in the email I could click to request a human review of the site. I did that. Then I waited.
By the 18th, I was getting a little annoyed. I found a section on the Blogger site that would allow me to request a review, so I did that as well. When nothing happened, I made another request on the 20th, and a final one on the 21st. Rose at Blogger Talk (which is in my list of links) suggested that I post on the Google Blogger Help board. I did this a few times.
Finally, today I received an email from Blogger saying that my site was found to be a legitimate site, and they unlocked it. I was overjoyed. I was beginning to fear a vast left wing conspiracy was trying to prevent me from posting.
Since I haven’t been on in a while, I will try to make up for my absence over the next couple of weeks. The President will be speaking tonight and I hope to post my thoughts on the State of the Union tomorrow. I also finished reading Londonistan by Melanie Phillips. I wrote a book review on Mrs. Phillips book and will post it in the coming days.
Thanks for checking in, and to those of you who continued to check my blog while I couldn’t post, a very heartfelt thanks.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Why We Need Superman
In the 2006 movie Superman Returns, Lois Lane is working on an article titled “Why we need Superman”. This article is as important in Metropolis as it is in our world. We need a leader who is above criticism, reproach, and who no one would accuse of having anything less than the most honorable of intentions. Unfortunately, Superman doesn’t live in our world.
George Bush unveiled his way forward this week. In addition to containing an increase of approximately 21,000 troops, and an aircraft group with Iran and Syria’s name written all over it, the plan also contained many points the Democrats claimed they wanted. President Bush took ownership of any mistakes that may have been made in Iraq. President Bush incorporated some of the points contained in the Iraq Study Group. The President set benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet. Many Democrats said that a purely military solution could not work. The Presidents plan contains military, diplomatic, economic, and political points. After hearing the Presidents plan, I thought the Democrats would be quite happy. However, I underestimated just how much the Democrats no longer understand reality.
The Democrats began criticizing the Presidents plan as soon as he stopped talking. The Democrats haven’t offered any real plans of their own. They also haven’t tried to explain how their “redeployment” option will keep us safe. The Democrats have said time and time again that the President is wrong because….well, he is George Bush. That is the only reason they have come up with.
If the Democrats truly believe that the President’s plan won’t work (after actually reviewing the plan) they have a duty to point out the problems with the plan. They then have a duty to submit a plan that will work. And they must show why they believe their plan will protect us, our children, and our children’s children.
The Democrats don’t realize we face an enemy more evil than Lex Luthor ever was. They think if we pack up and head home, the terrorist will leave us alone. Bin Laden won’t leave us alone, and the terrorist that are getting money from Iran won’t leave us alone either.
There is no Superman that can save us at the last minute. The Democrats must realize we are in a fight for our existence. If the Democrats are going to continue to be a legitimate political party, they have to realize what the world looks like. They have to start contributing to the solution and stop being part of the problem.
George Bush unveiled his way forward this week. In addition to containing an increase of approximately 21,000 troops, and an aircraft group with Iran and Syria’s name written all over it, the plan also contained many points the Democrats claimed they wanted. President Bush took ownership of any mistakes that may have been made in Iraq. President Bush incorporated some of the points contained in the Iraq Study Group. The President set benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet. Many Democrats said that a purely military solution could not work. The Presidents plan contains military, diplomatic, economic, and political points. After hearing the Presidents plan, I thought the Democrats would be quite happy. However, I underestimated just how much the Democrats no longer understand reality.
The Democrats began criticizing the Presidents plan as soon as he stopped talking. The Democrats haven’t offered any real plans of their own. They also haven’t tried to explain how their “redeployment” option will keep us safe. The Democrats have said time and time again that the President is wrong because….well, he is George Bush. That is the only reason they have come up with.
If the Democrats truly believe that the President’s plan won’t work (after actually reviewing the plan) they have a duty to point out the problems with the plan. They then have a duty to submit a plan that will work. And they must show why they believe their plan will protect us, our children, and our children’s children.
The Democrats don’t realize we face an enemy more evil than Lex Luthor ever was. They think if we pack up and head home, the terrorist will leave us alone. Bin Laden won’t leave us alone, and the terrorist that are getting money from Iran won’t leave us alone either.
There is no Superman that can save us at the last minute. The Democrats must realize we are in a fight for our existence. If the Democrats are going to continue to be a legitimate political party, they have to realize what the world looks like. They have to start contributing to the solution and stop being part of the problem.
Monday, January 08, 2007
What the President Must Do
President Bush is set to announce a new policy on Iraq on Wednesday. The Democrats have been worried that Bush is going to announce a troop increase in Iraq. Reid has said he would support a troop increase if it would get our troops out of Iraq in 2008. Reid and Pelosi on Friday told the President he couldn’t increase troops at all in Iraq.
Only the President has the power to decide how many troops are or are not in Iraq. The Democrats have been threatening to withhold funding for additional troops if the President does anything they don’t like. I think this is an empty threat. Nobody wants to tell American families that their troops are fighting in Iraq, but we aren’t going to give them what they need to win. Should the Democrats carry through on this threat, you can probably forget a Democratic President in 2008.
More importantly, something does need to change in Iraq. I believe the President is doing what he thinks is best for the long term survival of the country. But he has been too hands off, and has not communicated with the public enough. The Presidents polling numbers increase every time he gives a speech on Iraq. If the President is going to unify America behind the war effort Iraq is going to take, he is going to need to communicate more to the American public.
I don’t believe he should be giving out tactical information. However, regular speeches on the progress in the war would help his effort. The Islamic Fanaticals want us dead. They are only willing to accept one of three outcomes: the death of America, their death, or an Islamic America. To win a fight against these terrorist is going to take along time, and will span more than one President. President Bush has got to communicate that more with Americans, and he is going to have to do it for the next two years if he wants to continue this fight.
Only the President has the power to decide how many troops are or are not in Iraq. The Democrats have been threatening to withhold funding for additional troops if the President does anything they don’t like. I think this is an empty threat. Nobody wants to tell American families that their troops are fighting in Iraq, but we aren’t going to give them what they need to win. Should the Democrats carry through on this threat, you can probably forget a Democratic President in 2008.
More importantly, something does need to change in Iraq. I believe the President is doing what he thinks is best for the long term survival of the country. But he has been too hands off, and has not communicated with the public enough. The Presidents polling numbers increase every time he gives a speech on Iraq. If the President is going to unify America behind the war effort Iraq is going to take, he is going to need to communicate more to the American public.
I don’t believe he should be giving out tactical information. However, regular speeches on the progress in the war would help his effort. The Islamic Fanaticals want us dead. They are only willing to accept one of three outcomes: the death of America, their death, or an Islamic America. To win a fight against these terrorist is going to take along time, and will span more than one President. President Bush has got to communicate that more with Americans, and he is going to have to do it for the next two years if he wants to continue this fight.
Friday, January 05, 2007
The Ried / Pelosi Doctrine
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to President Bush today. There has been a lot of speculation lately that Bush is ready to increase troop levels to coincide with a change in policy in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid sent a letter to Bush today begging him not to do it. Instead, Reid and Pelosi want to see a “…phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months…” In case some might misconstrue the Reid / Pelosi doctrine, they sum it up in the letter, “In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq…”
Since a victory in Iraq does not figure into the Reid / Pelosi first 100 hours of power, they are not willing to put any commitment into Iraq, and are ready to see us abandon Iraq. President Bush has been taking time to review the Iraq Study Group report, and other assorted reports from his different departments. The AP reported today that Bush’s strategy, “…is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war.” The Reid / Pelosi doctrine does not talk about victory or winning in Iraq. Instead, this doctrine wants to find an “end to the war in Iraq” or “[a] way forward”, maybe a “sustainable political settlement”, or at best, to “bring the war to a close.” The reports indicate that Bush has much grander things in mind: winning.
According to the AP, Bush is replacing the top two military leaders in Iraq. General Abizaid is to be replaced with Admiral William Fallon while General George Casey is to be replaced by Lt. General David Petraeus. Both of these military leaders have been pursuing the war on terror. Admiral Fallon has been the top US commander in the Pacific. He has gone on the record arguing that we are in a different type of fight. Admiral Fallon argues that our enemies will never defeat us in a “force versus force” type of fight. Instead, our enemies are currently using suicide bombers, IED’s, and the internet to try and sap our will to fight. Lt. Gen Petraeus was in charge of rebuilding Mosul with the 101st Airborne and in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi Army and police forces. His actions in Mosul and with the Iraqi Army and police have received a lot of praise.
In addition to the military shakeup, the AP reports the Bush is changing the make up of the ambassadors to Iraq and the UN, and will be putting Vice Admiral Mike McConnell in charge of Intelligence. These may or may not be the right moves to make. However, Bush is trying to put our troops in a position to win the war in Iraq. The Reid / Pelosi doctrine would have them come home in defeat, and give a victory to our enemies.
Since a victory in Iraq does not figure into the Reid / Pelosi first 100 hours of power, they are not willing to put any commitment into Iraq, and are ready to see us abandon Iraq. President Bush has been taking time to review the Iraq Study Group report, and other assorted reports from his different departments. The AP reported today that Bush’s strategy, “…is expected to entail new political, military and economic steps to win the war.” The Reid / Pelosi doctrine does not talk about victory or winning in Iraq. Instead, this doctrine wants to find an “end to the war in Iraq” or “[a] way forward”, maybe a “sustainable political settlement”, or at best, to “bring the war to a close.” The reports indicate that Bush has much grander things in mind: winning.
According to the AP, Bush is replacing the top two military leaders in Iraq. General Abizaid is to be replaced with Admiral William Fallon while General George Casey is to be replaced by Lt. General David Petraeus. Both of these military leaders have been pursuing the war on terror. Admiral Fallon has been the top US commander in the Pacific. He has gone on the record arguing that we are in a different type of fight. Admiral Fallon argues that our enemies will never defeat us in a “force versus force” type of fight. Instead, our enemies are currently using suicide bombers, IED’s, and the internet to try and sap our will to fight. Lt. Gen Petraeus was in charge of rebuilding Mosul with the 101st Airborne and in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi Army and police forces. His actions in Mosul and with the Iraqi Army and police have received a lot of praise.
In addition to the military shakeup, the AP reports the Bush is changing the make up of the ambassadors to Iraq and the UN, and will be putting Vice Admiral Mike McConnell in charge of Intelligence. These may or may not be the right moves to make. However, Bush is trying to put our troops in a position to win the war in Iraq. The Reid / Pelosi doctrine would have them come home in defeat, and give a victory to our enemies.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Book Review: Team of Rivals
I recently finished reading Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin. This is a very interesting book, but it is definitely not for everyone. Team of Rivals is not a generic Civil War book; It is a focus on the Politics of President Lincoln and how he was viewed by those around him. I thought this might be an interesting book because I haven’t read many books on President Lincoln, and because I have heard a lot about the author.
Team of Rivals focuses on the politics of President Lincoln from his start in politics in the early 1850’s through the end of his life. During the Civil War, Mrs. Goodwin spends very little time discussing the battles and campaigns of the war, and much more time discussing Lincoln’s relationship with his staff. She tries to use how his contemporaries viewed him to paint a picture of the President and the First Lady that hasn’t been seen before. There are an incredible number of books on the Civil War available, and more are released every year, but this is the first I have seen that attempts to view President Lincoln in this light.
Reading Team of Rivals gave me a much stronger understanding of President Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln, and the politics of the time. I had always assumed that politics during the civil war were much more noble and clean than they are today. I found that politics before and during the civil war were as decisive if not more so than they are today. In this time of political upheaval, most Presidents would have filled their staff with like minded individuals or people they owed political favors too. Lincoln brought his political rivals for the Republican ticket into his cabinet. He wanted the best and the brightest to advise him, and he felt that some of his rivals were exactly what the country needed to get through those tough times.
I would strongly recommend this book for anyone who is a Lincoln, Civil War, or Political junkie. However, at 753 pages plus index and notes, it is not a good introduction to the Civil War. It is also not a very light read. Mrs. Goodwin drags a few of her points out. It also takes a real commitment to make it through the first 80 pages. However, there is a wealth of information in the book, and Team of Rivals really gives an intimate picture of President Lincoln and his politics during the Civil War.
Team of Rivals focuses on the politics of President Lincoln from his start in politics in the early 1850’s through the end of his life. During the Civil War, Mrs. Goodwin spends very little time discussing the battles and campaigns of the war, and much more time discussing Lincoln’s relationship with his staff. She tries to use how his contemporaries viewed him to paint a picture of the President and the First Lady that hasn’t been seen before. There are an incredible number of books on the Civil War available, and more are released every year, but this is the first I have seen that attempts to view President Lincoln in this light.
Reading Team of Rivals gave me a much stronger understanding of President Lincoln, Mary Todd Lincoln, and the politics of the time. I had always assumed that politics during the civil war were much more noble and clean than they are today. I found that politics before and during the civil war were as decisive if not more so than they are today. In this time of political upheaval, most Presidents would have filled their staff with like minded individuals or people they owed political favors too. Lincoln brought his political rivals for the Republican ticket into his cabinet. He wanted the best and the brightest to advise him, and he felt that some of his rivals were exactly what the country needed to get through those tough times.
I would strongly recommend this book for anyone who is a Lincoln, Civil War, or Political junkie. However, at 753 pages plus index and notes, it is not a good introduction to the Civil War. It is also not a very light read. Mrs. Goodwin drags a few of her points out. It also takes a real commitment to make it through the first 80 pages. However, there is a wealth of information in the book, and Team of Rivals really gives an intimate picture of President Lincoln and his politics during the Civil War.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Lieberman on Iraq
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
