Sadaam Hussein is dead. I expected to write those words in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, and with the 15 year delay they take on even greater meaning than they would have then. President Bush, in his statement on the execution of the deposed dictator, rightly reminded the world that Sadaam was sentenced after a fair trial by the Iraqi government and his subsequent execution was the completion of Iraqi justice. Sadaam was executed by Iraqis for crimes against his own people, crimes including torture, murder, genocide (Kurds), and starving citizens through his stubborn failure to comply with UN resolutions regarding WMD inspections. Clearly Sadaam was an oppressive, brutal dictator who merited his ultimate fate.
The President appropriately reminded the world that before this war fair trials and elected representation did not exist in Iraq. Having been given the opportunity to govern themselves, Iraqis chose to execute Sadaam quickly and continue on the path to a successful democracy. They do not enjoy the luxury of debating and second-guessing the justifications for and execution of the war. They are far too focused on the survival of their elected government to dwell on how or why this gift of freedom was given to them.
The permanent removal of Sadaam from the Iraqi psyche will inject fresh commitment and courage into the efforts of the Iraqi government to nurture the fledgling democracy. While Sadaam lived, many Iraqis continued to harbor fears of a possible return to power in which Sadaam might rule with even more horror and bloodshed. His execution will quell such sentiments and truly end the nightmare of Sadaam experienced firsthand by millions of his citizens.
Many anti-war pundits argue that the removal of Sadaam only replaced a dictator with hordes of Al Qaeda and other terrorists, and thus the Iraqi people are in more danger than ever. That analysis misses the obvious and critical point of freedom: the danger to Iraqis is no longer posed by their own leader and his government. Iraqis now face the same danger we face here and Israelis have faced for decades, and that is terrorism. These newcomers to democracy have made remarkable progress in cobbling together an elected government and it stands to reason that if such an ethnically diverse population can unite on self-rule, they will also unite on a national strategy to combat terrorism in their country. Having opened the door for this democracy, we must remain as long as requested to preserve its fragile foundations.
Iraq War War On Terror Sadaam Hussein Al Qaeda Iraq execution
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
No, Senator Biden, This is OUR War
“I know we in Congress agreed to go to war, President Roosevelt, but here in December 1942 the war is costing us too much in expenditures and casualties, and so now we want nothing to do with it. This is now your war President Roosevelt, and you alone will be responsible for its outcome. Although we authorized the war and agreed our intelligence on Hitler justified action, we now think you were wrong and will not support the war.” As outlandish as this fictional exchange may sound, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), the incoming Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, proposed just such a course in comments made during a teleconference with reporters today. Biden, apparently unaware that Christmas should bring goodwill toward men, spent the day after Christmas blasting the President’s Iraq strategy. While such behavior is normal for Biden, the Senator made a few remarks that deserve further scrutiny.
Biden told reporters he wants to hold hearings on Iraq beginning on January 9, and added that the purpose of the hearings would be to create bipartisan consensus on Iraq. The Senator is so enamored with the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group Report
that he wants to review its findings and give them more media attention than they initially received. Of course, the ISG findings were highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, so it is unclear how rehashing its findings in the media will generate bipartisan consensus on anything. It is far more likely that Senator Biden seeks a more public forum in which to present Americans with his diplomatic bona fides in advance of his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.
More troubling was this comment from Biden: “Mr. President, this is your war.” In the difficult early years of U.S. involvement in WWII, there were some very bleak moments, many lost battles, and terrible casualties. Hitler continued to advance, and many were losing hope of eventual victory. Despite such misery and with no certainty of success, where were the Senators telling President Roosevelt, “Mr. President, this is your war”? Fortunately, that generation, unlike Mr. Biden’s, understood that once American troops are committed to a war, bipartisanship means doing everything necessary to ensure victory rather than ridicule the President or accuse him of lying to create the war in the first place. There is no such thing as “your war” or “his war” or Bush’s war.” When our troops are fighting, it is OUR war. When they win, we win. When they lose or are prevented from winning by obstructionists like Biden, we all lose. There will always be time for hearings, committees, investigations, and other tools for embarrassing a president after the war is won and the troops have returned home.
However, for Senator Biden and other Democrats seeking the presidency in 2008, victory in Iraq is unacceptable politically. It would give too much credibility to Republicans who stayed the course in supporting the Bush strategy, and make those who opposed the war appear like nothing more than 1960s peaceniks with little stomach for difficult times or battles. A U.S. victory in Iraq, in the minds of today’s Democrats, means political defeat in 2008. Accordingly, even the politically astute Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of anti-war presidential hopefuls in a risky gamble that victory in Iraq will not be snatched from the jaws of defeat prior to the 2008 election. Pete Rose’s betting on a sport he was personally involved in pales in comparison, and the stakes were never this high.
Candidates like Biden rise up indignantly when their patriotism is questioned, but patriotism is displayed by how well one works to achieve American victory, not how fast one can bring the troops home. Based on that criterion, it is fair to challenge Biden’s patriotism, because he has labored unwearyingly to cast the war in a negative light and clamor for a pullout of all U.S. troops at the earliest possible date. He is not interested in victory because he believes the war should never have been fought. He continues to carp on this administration for waging this war instead of offering useful ideas for how to win it now that we are in it. Either Biden has no such ideas or he simply cannot bear the thought of eventual victory, because winning the war would confirm he and the entire anti-war, anti-bush movement within the Democratic Party were wrong about this President and the Iraqi people.
Thankfully during the many initial defeats America faced in WWII, Senators possessed sufficient patriotism to tell President Roosevelt, “This is OUR war.” The size of the war does not matter. Which party was in office when it started is insignificant. Who will receive the credit for victory or the blame for defeat is irrelevant. The only questions so-called bipartisan lawmakers should be contemplating are: “how will we win OUR war, and what can I do to make that possible?” When a Senator holds hearings to discuss those questions and then acts to achieve victory, then his/her patriotism will be beyond question.
Joseph Biden Iraq Study Group Hillary Clinton Iraq War Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Biden told reporters he wants to hold hearings on Iraq beginning on January 9, and added that the purpose of the hearings would be to create bipartisan consensus on Iraq. The Senator is so enamored with the recommendations of The Iraq Study Group Report
that he wants to review its findings and give them more media attention than they initially received. Of course, the ISG findings were highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the war, so it is unclear how rehashing its findings in the media will generate bipartisan consensus on anything. It is far more likely that Senator Biden seeks a more public forum in which to present Americans with his diplomatic bona fides in advance of his bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008.More troubling was this comment from Biden: “Mr. President, this is your war.” In the difficult early years of U.S. involvement in WWII, there were some very bleak moments, many lost battles, and terrible casualties. Hitler continued to advance, and many were losing hope of eventual victory. Despite such misery and with no certainty of success, where were the Senators telling President Roosevelt, “Mr. President, this is your war”? Fortunately, that generation, unlike Mr. Biden’s, understood that once American troops are committed to a war, bipartisanship means doing everything necessary to ensure victory rather than ridicule the President or accuse him of lying to create the war in the first place. There is no such thing as “your war” or “his war” or Bush’s war.” When our troops are fighting, it is OUR war. When they win, we win. When they lose or are prevented from winning by obstructionists like Biden, we all lose. There will always be time for hearings, committees, investigations, and other tools for embarrassing a president after the war is won and the troops have returned home.
However, for Senator Biden and other Democrats seeking the presidency in 2008, victory in Iraq is unacceptable politically. It would give too much credibility to Republicans who stayed the course in supporting the Bush strategy, and make those who opposed the war appear like nothing more than 1960s peaceniks with little stomach for difficult times or battles. A U.S. victory in Iraq, in the minds of today’s Democrats, means political defeat in 2008. Accordingly, even the politically astute Hillary Clinton has joined the ranks of anti-war presidential hopefuls in a risky gamble that victory in Iraq will not be snatched from the jaws of defeat prior to the 2008 election. Pete Rose’s betting on a sport he was personally involved in pales in comparison, and the stakes were never this high.
Candidates like Biden rise up indignantly when their patriotism is questioned, but patriotism is displayed by how well one works to achieve American victory, not how fast one can bring the troops home. Based on that criterion, it is fair to challenge Biden’s patriotism, because he has labored unwearyingly to cast the war in a negative light and clamor for a pullout of all U.S. troops at the earliest possible date. He is not interested in victory because he believes the war should never have been fought. He continues to carp on this administration for waging this war instead of offering useful ideas for how to win it now that we are in it. Either Biden has no such ideas or he simply cannot bear the thought of eventual victory, because winning the war would confirm he and the entire anti-war, anti-bush movement within the Democratic Party were wrong about this President and the Iraqi people.
Thankfully during the many initial defeats America faced in WWII, Senators possessed sufficient patriotism to tell President Roosevelt, “This is OUR war.” The size of the war does not matter. Which party was in office when it started is insignificant. Who will receive the credit for victory or the blame for defeat is irrelevant. The only questions so-called bipartisan lawmakers should be contemplating are: “how will we win OUR war, and what can I do to make that possible?” When a Senator holds hearings to discuss those questions and then acts to achieve victory, then his/her patriotism will be beyond question.
Joseph Biden Iraq Study Group Hillary Clinton Iraq War Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Being On The Christian End of Persecution: A Response to Megan Basham's Townhall Column
Townhall.com columnist Megan Basham wrote yesterday that she is finding it difficult to be as indignant about this year’s ACLU war on Christmas because compared to violence faced by Christians worldwide, specifically in India, the ACLU’s efforts are “more like a nuisance than persecution.” Basham’s column is eloquent and makes many astute observations. Clearly she wrote it with the best of intentions, notably to draw attention to the plight of Christians in India who are driven from their homes and churches, tortured, and even killed for their beliefs when they refuse to convert to the dominant faith of their country. She cited numerous horrific examples of violence and persecution against Christians in India as documented by Gospel for Asia (GFA), and then offered the following thought-provoking personal statement:
ACLU Townhall GFA India Christianity Megan Basham religious persecution war on Christmas
Of course, I am annoyed when I hear that liberal atheists are once again protesting a courthouse crèche—but I likely would be more annoyed to be on the Christian end of any of the above incidents.
Certainly no sane person hopes to be driven from home, stoned, mutilated, burned alive, or to suffer any of the horrific assaults described in Basham’s column. Yet Basham’s application of persecutory relativism does a disservice to both the suffering Christians she clearly hopes to help and to American Christians fighting tenaciously to preserve the right to say “Merry Christmas.”
While Basham clearly asserts she would not want to “be on the Christian end” of any of the violent incidents described in her column, the reality for Christians historically is that suffering persecution and even death has always been a possible result for being true to the faith. Martyrs are revered and in some denominations granted saint status for making the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of Christianity. Why? The reason quite simply is that being threatened with death is a true refiner’s fire, the most severe test of faith a Christian can face. Choosing to suffer death rather than deny the faith or submit to forced conversion demonstrates the depth and sincerity of a Christian’s love for and belief in Christ. To deny one’s faith, or even temporarily to depart from it, can cause suffering and pain more soul-wrenching than physical death.
To be “on the Christian end” of violent persecution, though physically painful, can polish character and soul in ways no other test can duplicate. Likewise, witnessing suffering can prick consciences in ways no other method can approach. The images of the 1961 Freedom Riders facing mobs, beatings, and frightening intimidation, and similar images of civil rights marchers being assaulted by dogs and fire hoses stir feelings of outrage tempered by admiration for those who suffered for a greater cause. Though a different way might have been less painful, those who suffered considered it an honor to stand firm in the face of persecution.
In many ways, India’s persecuted Christians are in a better position than their American counterparts. As Basham rightly notes, India’s Christians have been relegated to the poor classes of society, precisely the class of people who best received the Jesus’s teachings in Jerusalem. Among the poor are often found the most humble and receptive elements of society. American Christians have long suffered from an excess of material wealth, and such prosperity breeds apathy toward religion, or if not apathy, only partial observance of Christian values. How else does one explain the American Christian abandonment of the commandment to keep the Sabbath Day holy? How do shopping, dining out, boating, youth sports leagues, and attending sporting events honor the Sabbath? Notably, all these activities require prosperity. This willingness to obey only those religious tenets that are convenient pales in comparison to the courageous Christianity exemplified by those Basham describes. Although they may suffer for it, India’s Christians are certainly living closer to the Christian ideal than America’s Christians. Perhaps diligently living one’s faith is a greater challenge than dying for it.
As the ACLU subtly undermines religious faith by taking small but persistent steps toward eliminating religious expression from public life, more and more American Christians do what Megan Basham, albeit inadvertently, did: look at extreme examples of persecution around the world and succumb to the whisperings of relativism. To declare that since the ACLU is not killing Christians its activities are a mere nuisance underestimates the eroding effect the secular war on Christianity is having in America.
In India the Christians are persecuted because they continue to meet together to worship, facing assaults and death in their desire to practice their religion. American Christians cower in the corner when the dreaded word “lawsuit” comes from the lips of an ACLU attorney. India’s Christians are assaulted for teaching from the bible in their schools. American Christians stop teaching that Christianity was important in the founding of the nation and no longer offer prayers at schools and public events because they are intimidated by lawyers. India’s Christians are removed from their homes rather than deny their new faith. American Christians meekly turn the other cheek when city councils vote to remove crosses, crèches, and the Ten Commandments from public view. Who then is better off, one who suffers for Christianity’s sake, or one who avoids the suffering by shrinking from his/her Christianity?
Basham, in making an admirable plea to readers to support and pray for India’s Christians, concludes, “The day may come where the ACLU has its way and our faith is officially declared an affront to the state, but that day has not yet arrived.” Unfortunately, that day is closer than Basham may realize.
ACLU assaults on Christianity in America, though different in form, are no less insidious or fearsome than those faced by India’s Christians. The physical persecutions faced in India bring focus and a dependence on Divine assistance to face those trials with courage in the face of death. The legal and social persecutions faced in America should generate the same determination not to deny the faith or be intimidated by legions of lawsuit-wielding lawyers.
ACLU Townhall GFA India Christianity Megan Basham religious persecution war on Christmas
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Army Counterinsurgency Manual Gives "Graduate Level" Instruction to our Enemies
The timing of the Pentagon’s recent release of a newly overhauled counterinsurgency manual could not have provided a more appropriate illustration of the point I made in one of yesterday’s posts: we are our own worst enemy in the War on Terror. While our intelligence agencies, including the military’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, spend billions on efforts to infiltrate and/or monitor terrorist organizations worldwide in order to learn their methods and culture, those same terrorists can get far more detailed information about our military methods and predictable courses of action at no cost.
Our intelligence field operatives and support personnel risk their lives to obtain information about our enemies, yet those enemies can perform the same tasks from the comfort of their homes, hideouts, tents, caves, or wherever their Internet connections can reach. One click on this link (be forewarned the downloaded manual is over 12Mb) will open the U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine manual in full to your view. Of course, it is also now available to the entire world, so terrorists and nation-states who desire our destruction have a literal playbook to use in planning how best to thwart our stated goals and strategies. Newt Gingrich, in his Sunday interview on Meet the Press, stated that our adherence to free speech liberties in some instances may be suicidal. While I disagreed with the example he used to illustrate his point, the Internet availability of the new 282 page unclassified counterinsurgency manual certainly could be considered a suicidal practice for a nation engaged in a War on Terror.
If this is in fact a war, far more scrutiny should be given to what documents are released for public use. How much easier is it for our enemies to formulate effective strategies, political and military, when we provide them with a guidebook containing a complete explanation of all of the options available to our military and which ones are most likely to achieve victory? In the interest of fairness, should the Ohio State Buckeyes willingly provide the Florida Gators with their BCS Championship Game playbook with plenty of time for Florida to study it and develop plays to counter Buckeye intentions? Common sense would suggest this would not be a wise decision for Ohio State, and of course the Buckeye coaching staff is sufficiently wise to keep all strategy and operational planning close to the vest, revealed ONLY during the game at the opportune moment to achieve maximum effect.
The above example may seem ridiculous, and one would surmise that no team would be foolish enough to give away its playbook. The Defense Department, on the other hand, has for years published its field manuals, operational manuals, and military doctrine manuals for public consumption. The new counterinsurgency manual begins with a quote from a Special Forces Officer in Iraq: "Counterinsurgency is not just thinking man's warfare -- it is the graduate level of war" [emphasis added]. Accepting this statement as being accurate, I suppose that means the Defense Department, by releasing this manual for public use, is now offering insurgents and other enemies PhDs in Defeating the American Military.
The argument is always put forth that citizens need to have the ability to monitor the military, to make certain it is not becoming too powerful on its own. The fear of military coups is certainly justified by history. Pakistan is now led by a man who came to power through a military coup. General Musharaff later became President Musharaff after “elections” were held. If a coup can occur in a country with nuclear arms such as Pakistan, it is reasonable to fear one could take place anywhere, even here. This argument for public military publication is well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers resulted in the inclusion of many protections against concentration of power in any one branch of government or in the military. With a civilian Commander in Chief elected by the people, the likelihood of a strong military figure gathering a sufficient following to overthrow our government is very small. With Congress, also elected by the people, controlling the funding of military operations, the military is required to fully justify its operations and weapons programs, mainly through appearing before Congressional committees where Top Secret and higher classifications of information are shared.
It is in this context that the argument for open military publication unravels. The public is given control of the military through Congressional oversight and executive control. Of what use is an Army counterinsurgency doctrine manual to the average citizen? Would it be interesting reading? The answer for many would be yes. However, there are a lot of documents read in Washington DC every day that would truly fascinate everyone, especially our enemies. Interest alone is an insufficient reason for public release. Unprecedented access to information and facilities has been granted by the Defense Department to authors, Hollywood film crews, and reporters, usually in the interest of the Department “tooting its own horn.” In fairness, nearly every federal department is just as enamored with self-promotion, but this does not justify the practice, it merely exacerbates the problem of excessive openness.
While our intelligence agencies struggle to determine the intentions and capabilities of our enemies, we are, quite literally, an open book to them. If this is a War on Terror, then let us act as if it were a war and suppress the publication of military manuals for public use. Let us fully prosecute those (of either party) who leak sensitive documents, and above all let us make our enemies expend time, money, and personnel to fight us. Let us fight to win by keeping our playbooks out of enemy hands.
counterinsurgency
Defense Department
Newt Gingrich
Monday, December 18, 2006
Newt Gingrich on Jihad Web Sites: Meet the Press Part II
Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, commented on the Global War on Terror, specifically the various surveillance tools used by our intelligence agencies to identify and track known and potential terrorists. The former Speaker used the example of the recent arrest of a home-grown Jihadist in Illinois to argue that free speech liberties should not include Jihadist web sites or material that encourages and provides instruction for killing Americans and other “infidels.” A portion of the exchange follows:
Perhaps even more ironic (and "suicidal") than Gingrich’s political example is that free speech rights have been held by various courts to include recipes for explosives, Ricin (and other poisons), methamphetamine, modifications to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic, instructions for “booby traps” including poisoned spikes, methods for fashioning silencers, and even the basic physics behind rudimentary atomic bombs. All of these are easily found through simple Internet searches on Google or any other popular search engine. The following titles are available through Amazon and are even conveniently linked together through the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section: The Anarchist Cookbook, The Poor Man’s James Bond, Improvised Munitions Handbook, Get Even, the Complete Book of Dirty Tricks, and Boobytraps Fm5-31. All of these works contain specific detail on lethal tactics that have been used in countless incidents to murder intelligence and law enforcement personnel worldwide.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemy, as the Improvised Munitions Handbook and Boobytraps Fm5-31 are Department of Defense publications once provided only to Special Forces and other specialized components of the military. Predictably but foolishly, a new version of a Defense field manual arrives in print and the old versions are discarded and made available for public consumption. There are handbooks for snipers, dated documents used by our own snipers, available in public libraries. Are terrorists browsing these materials and implementing them against our own troops? Of course they are. As the author of the terribly misguided Anarchist Cookbook revealed, he compiled his book in anger over the Vietnam War and the idea of being drafted into a war he opposed. The book has been a bestseller among militia and anti-government groups in the United States, and many brave law enforcement personnel have been victims of boobytraps, mines, chemical bombs, and countless other tactics because the material in the book was used as intended. Although he now regrets having published the book, he, like the Defense Department, must face the consequences of having placed these recipes and tactics in print for mass distribution.
While I agree that the First Amendment does not protect speech that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. Government or that is treasonous, I respectfully disagree with the former Speaker on the necessity of removing all Jihadist web sites from the Internet for three reasons:
1. It is not practical. There is no shortage of web sites that distribute freely or sell for profit detailed instructions for how to kill, whether that is in reference to “infidels” or law enforcement officers, or the kid in gym class that teases. Most of the web sites visited by Illinois Jihadist Talib Shareef were likely operated in foreign countries that are not bound by our First Amendment and that do not cooperate with our investigations into Jihad incitement. Unless we are willing to systematically remove any and all materials in libraries and on the Internet that contain instructions involving weapons, hand to hand combat tactics, or other means for killing, we cannot ONLY remove web sites that provide such instruction in the context of Jihad. That would, in essence, be the equivalent of sending the message, “it is OK to build bombs, cook up poisons, and learn how to snipe others as long as you are not involved in an Islamic jihad.”
2. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? This argument, usually used in the context of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, applies most readily to this issue. Do the materials that instruct readers how to build bombs and concoct poisons kill people, or should those who read and implement the tactics be responsible? The War on Terror is an ideological war. It is not the availability of this material that foments Jihad or encourages young disillusioned men to act even in a suicidal manner. The materials may serve to make his task easier once determined to carry out an attack, but they are not responsible for placing in his mind the idea that “infidels” must be killed. That came from an ideology that he learned and studied, a religious ideology, albeit a radical and evil one
3. How do we wage war on an ideology? Web sites, like our presence in Iraq, do not foment anti-Americanism or jihad. Those were preexisting conditions. If what President Bush and others in both parties have repeatedly stated is true, that terrorists represent a radical version of an otherwise peaceful religion, then “closing down” any Jihadist web site would constitute a government suppression of religious expression, as odious and evil as that religious ideology may be.
We should enlighten, instruct, edify, and convert those who hate us through living up our founding principles, while always being prepared to defend ourselves quickly and convincingly when necessary. This approach embodies the political savvy of another great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who aptly stated, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” While the Internet is certainly used to spread hateful ideologies, it is an equally effective tool for spreading the culture and tenets of democracy. The Iranian government is working feverishly to block satellite TV and the Internet from its citizens, particularly young students, precisely because the Internet means choice. The presence of hate-filled material is not responsible for terrorism. What we should ask ourselves and our leaders is, “what are we doing to fight the ideology itself, the motivating factor that foments Islamic terrorism?” Platitudes and censorship are not effective tools in the War on Terror.
Perhaps before we "close down" jihadist web sites we should eliminate books and web sites through which our own military and law enforcement entities are making instructions for killing our intelligence operatives and military personnel readily available to the world. If the terrorists cannot learn the methods from a jihadist web site, they will simply visit their local American library, or ship directly from Amazon.com.
Defense Department Newt Gingrich Anarchist Cookbook Meet The Press War On Terror McCain-Feingold Jihad Amazon.com Illinois
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.
MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech. So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal.
Perhaps even more ironic (and "suicidal") than Gingrich’s political example is that free speech rights have been held by various courts to include recipes for explosives, Ricin (and other poisons), methamphetamine, modifications to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic, instructions for “booby traps” including poisoned spikes, methods for fashioning silencers, and even the basic physics behind rudimentary atomic bombs. All of these are easily found through simple Internet searches on Google or any other popular search engine. The following titles are available through Amazon and are even conveniently linked together through the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section: The Anarchist Cookbook, The Poor Man’s James Bond, Improvised Munitions Handbook, Get Even, the Complete Book of Dirty Tricks, and Boobytraps Fm5-31. All of these works contain specific detail on lethal tactics that have been used in countless incidents to murder intelligence and law enforcement personnel worldwide.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemy, as the Improvised Munitions Handbook and Boobytraps Fm5-31 are Department of Defense publications once provided only to Special Forces and other specialized components of the military. Predictably but foolishly, a new version of a Defense field manual arrives in print and the old versions are discarded and made available for public consumption. There are handbooks for snipers, dated documents used by our own snipers, available in public libraries. Are terrorists browsing these materials and implementing them against our own troops? Of course they are. As the author of the terribly misguided Anarchist Cookbook revealed, he compiled his book in anger over the Vietnam War and the idea of being drafted into a war he opposed. The book has been a bestseller among militia and anti-government groups in the United States, and many brave law enforcement personnel have been victims of boobytraps, mines, chemical bombs, and countless other tactics because the material in the book was used as intended. Although he now regrets having published the book, he, like the Defense Department, must face the consequences of having placed these recipes and tactics in print for mass distribution.
While I agree that the First Amendment does not protect speech that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. Government or that is treasonous, I respectfully disagree with the former Speaker on the necessity of removing all Jihadist web sites from the Internet for three reasons:
1. It is not practical. There is no shortage of web sites that distribute freely or sell for profit detailed instructions for how to kill, whether that is in reference to “infidels” or law enforcement officers, or the kid in gym class that teases. Most of the web sites visited by Illinois Jihadist Talib Shareef were likely operated in foreign countries that are not bound by our First Amendment and that do not cooperate with our investigations into Jihad incitement. Unless we are willing to systematically remove any and all materials in libraries and on the Internet that contain instructions involving weapons, hand to hand combat tactics, or other means for killing, we cannot ONLY remove web sites that provide such instruction in the context of Jihad. That would, in essence, be the equivalent of sending the message, “it is OK to build bombs, cook up poisons, and learn how to snipe others as long as you are not involved in an Islamic jihad.”
2. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? This argument, usually used in the context of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, applies most readily to this issue. Do the materials that instruct readers how to build bombs and concoct poisons kill people, or should those who read and implement the tactics be responsible? The War on Terror is an ideological war. It is not the availability of this material that foments Jihad or encourages young disillusioned men to act even in a suicidal manner. The materials may serve to make his task easier once determined to carry out an attack, but they are not responsible for placing in his mind the idea that “infidels” must be killed. That came from an ideology that he learned and studied, a religious ideology, albeit a radical and evil one
3. How do we wage war on an ideology? Web sites, like our presence in Iraq, do not foment anti-Americanism or jihad. Those were preexisting conditions. If what President Bush and others in both parties have repeatedly stated is true, that terrorists represent a radical version of an otherwise peaceful religion, then “closing down” any Jihadist web site would constitute a government suppression of religious expression, as odious and evil as that religious ideology may be.
We should enlighten, instruct, edify, and convert those who hate us through living up our founding principles, while always being prepared to defend ourselves quickly and convincingly when necessary. This approach embodies the political savvy of another great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who aptly stated, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” While the Internet is certainly used to spread hateful ideologies, it is an equally effective tool for spreading the culture and tenets of democracy. The Iranian government is working feverishly to block satellite TV and the Internet from its citizens, particularly young students, precisely because the Internet means choice. The presence of hate-filled material is not responsible for terrorism. What we should ask ourselves and our leaders is, “what are we doing to fight the ideology itself, the motivating factor that foments Islamic terrorism?” Platitudes and censorship are not effective tools in the War on Terror.
Perhaps before we "close down" jihadist web sites we should eliminate books and web sites through which our own military and law enforcement entities are making instructions for killing our intelligence operatives and military personnel readily available to the world. If the terrorists cannot learn the methods from a jihadist web site, they will simply visit their local American library, or ship directly from Amazon.com.
Defense Department Newt Gingrich Anarchist Cookbook Meet The Press War On Terror McCain-Feingold Jihad Amazon.com Illinois
Newt Gingrich on Iraq: Meet the Press Part I
Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, offered a concise explanation for why the Iraq War is plaguing the current administration.
Gingrich, never one to speak in generalities, stated explicitly why he believes the execution of the Iraq War has been a failure from the beginning and will continue to fail unless this administration adopts one of the originally proposed strategies:
Gingrich made it abundantly clear that military commanders and civilian appointees, including General Abizaid and especially L. Paul Bremer, ultimately chose not to work with the local sheiks to root out the extremists and “insurgents” in Iraq. Instead the administration and its military leaders chose to impose a distinctly American regime-change operation.
The tragic (although this situation can still be remedied) consequence of that decision was that while the poor Iraqi citizens who were overjoyed to see Sadaam Hussein toppled were not joined in celebration by the more wealthy sheiks who found themselves tribally emasculated and replaced by a foreign military presence. As well-meaning as our military presence may have been and continues to be, to the sheiks it was viewed as an affront to their long-held power and ability to control radical elements of all sects within their local regions. Instead of utilizing these sheiks, the administration’s strategy marginalized them and no one should be surprised that the sheiks have offered only marginal assistance in identifying, tracking, or capturing terrorists ensconced in regions the sheiks previously controlled.
Unfortunately, now that Democrats have won the majority in the House and Senate, there is no talk of a move toward inclusion of the sheiks. The only strategy under consideration is to see which Senator or Congressman can set the earliest withdrawal date so he/she can take credit for bringing the troops home.
Newt Gingrich Paul Bremer Meet The Press War On Terror Iraq War
Gingrich, never one to speak in generalities, stated explicitly why he believes the execution of the Iraq War has been a failure from the beginning and will continue to fail unless this administration adopts one of the originally proposed strategies:
But Captain Travis Patriquin. P-A-T-R-I-Q-U-I-N. He did a stick figure briefing on how to win in Al Anbar and it will break your heart. Because he said, ‘Look, there are sheiks in Al Anbar who’ve been the local power structure for 1300 years and they know how to run the place. They know how to track down the, the, the bad guys. They know what to do. And a bunch of 26-year-olds come in with Bremer and write a law that said, “The sheiks are irrelevant. We now represent modernity.” And we’ve now spent three years not knowing what we’re doing, not knowing who the bad guys are, not knowing who the good guys are. And you, and you see this stick figure presentation by this young Marine who was killed just a few weeks ago and it makes you want to cry because we, starting in June of ‘03, violated virtually every principal I know about how to be effective in this kind of country.
Gingrich made it abundantly clear that military commanders and civilian appointees, including General Abizaid and especially L. Paul Bremer, ultimately chose not to work with the local sheiks to root out the extremists and “insurgents” in Iraq. Instead the administration and its military leaders chose to impose a distinctly American regime-change operation.
The tragic (although this situation can still be remedied) consequence of that decision was that while the poor Iraqi citizens who were overjoyed to see Sadaam Hussein toppled were not joined in celebration by the more wealthy sheiks who found themselves tribally emasculated and replaced by a foreign military presence. As well-meaning as our military presence may have been and continues to be, to the sheiks it was viewed as an affront to their long-held power and ability to control radical elements of all sects within their local regions. Instead of utilizing these sheiks, the administration’s strategy marginalized them and no one should be surprised that the sheiks have offered only marginal assistance in identifying, tracking, or capturing terrorists ensconced in regions the sheiks previously controlled.
Unfortunately, now that Democrats have won the majority in the House and Senate, there is no talk of a move toward inclusion of the sheiks. The only strategy under consideration is to see which Senator or Congressman can set the earliest withdrawal date so he/she can take credit for bringing the troops home.
Newt Gingrich Paul Bremer Meet The Press War On Terror Iraq War
Friday, December 15, 2006
Fighting Terrorism From Your Desk: "Terror-Free Investing"
Most U.S. citizens who wish they could do something to combat terrorism do not enlist in the military, or leave their jobs to join intelligence and law enforcement agencies engaged in the War on Terror. What can the average American do to help eradicate global terrorism, or at least make it increasingly difficult for terrorists to obtain weaponry or travel? One easy and effective tactic available to any American owning stocks or shares in mutual funds is to make sure your hard earned money is not being invested in companies who are known to do business with foreign states identified by the U.S. State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.
In an article published in yesterday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman brilliantly explained the work of an independent research firm, Conflict Securites Advisory Group (CSAG), that has identified 485 publicly traded companies doing business with four governments designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Those four terrorist sponsors are Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Syria. These companies offer a wide variety of services to these regimes, and the lucrative contracts provide these governments with the ability to fund terrorist activities, develop WMD programs, and supply weapons and logistical support to the insurgency in Iraq that is killing American soldiers. Steelman rightly advised that by cutting off investments in these companies, CEOs will be pressured to change business practices and choose clients not affiliated with terrorists. When share prices and dividends decline, CEOs are jettisoned as excess baggage. In the interest of self preservation, these CEOs will adopt the terror-free business practices they should already have been following.
Steelman’s insightful article also described how as Missouri State Treasurer, she helped her state develop and launch the nation’s first “terror-free investment fund,” and is rolling out Missouri’s 529 College Savings Advisor Plan in 2007 that will offer the Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund (RATF). This fund will exclude companies doing business with designated state sponsors of terrorism. This concept will allow Missourians to do the right thing twice with one investment: save for a child’s college tuition; and combat global terrorism by keeping money out of the hands of terrorists and regimes seeking WMD development.
Other investment firms have begun to follow suit, such as Nationwide Financial, and according to market research performed by Steelman’s office and CSAG, the transition to terror-free investing within mutual funds has been very successful. In fact, the funds are significantly outperforming existing indexes. If there is any question that money talks, we should consider, as Steelman reminded, that South Africa is free of Apartheid because of financial pressures created by shareholders in companies doing business with the South African government. Apartheid-free investing worked, and every indication is that terror-free investing is also effective.
It is not often that the average American is presented with a direct opportunity to fight terrorism. The operatives who struck us on 9/11 needed funds to train, travel here, find housing, feed themselves, enroll in flight schools, rent cars, purchase airline tickets to perform dry runs, and finally to purchase those fateful one-way tickets for the 9/11 flights. If you could keep money from flowing to such operatives preparing for future attacks, would you? Learn more about terror-free investing through the links above, and ask your financial planner or 401k manager to exclude any company identified by CSAG as doing business with terror sponsors. American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are limited by available funding for our efforts to combat terrorism, and terrorists also rely on funding to recruit, train, and act. Without funds, their efforts are significantly hampered.
If Americans can boycott Disney over moral issues or Wal-Mart over clothes production in sweatshops, we can rise to this occasion and withhold funds from those who have already killed thousands of Americans and are preparing to do so again. Is your money being invested in one of the 485 companies identified by CSAG? With a few clicks of your mouse, you can find out and fight terrorism from your desk.
CSAG Missouri Terror-Free Investing Sarah Steelman War On Terror Wall Street Journal Conflict Securities Advisory Group State Department
In an article published in yesterday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman brilliantly explained the work of an independent research firm, Conflict Securites Advisory Group (CSAG), that has identified 485 publicly traded companies doing business with four governments designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Those four terrorist sponsors are Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Syria. These companies offer a wide variety of services to these regimes, and the lucrative contracts provide these governments with the ability to fund terrorist activities, develop WMD programs, and supply weapons and logistical support to the insurgency in Iraq that is killing American soldiers. Steelman rightly advised that by cutting off investments in these companies, CEOs will be pressured to change business practices and choose clients not affiliated with terrorists. When share prices and dividends decline, CEOs are jettisoned as excess baggage. In the interest of self preservation, these CEOs will adopt the terror-free business practices they should already have been following.
Steelman’s insightful article also described how as Missouri State Treasurer, she helped her state develop and launch the nation’s first “terror-free investment fund,” and is rolling out Missouri’s 529 College Savings Advisor Plan in 2007 that will offer the Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund (RATF). This fund will exclude companies doing business with designated state sponsors of terrorism. This concept will allow Missourians to do the right thing twice with one investment: save for a child’s college tuition; and combat global terrorism by keeping money out of the hands of terrorists and regimes seeking WMD development.
Other investment firms have begun to follow suit, such as Nationwide Financial, and according to market research performed by Steelman’s office and CSAG, the transition to terror-free investing within mutual funds has been very successful. In fact, the funds are significantly outperforming existing indexes. If there is any question that money talks, we should consider, as Steelman reminded, that South Africa is free of Apartheid because of financial pressures created by shareholders in companies doing business with the South African government. Apartheid-free investing worked, and every indication is that terror-free investing is also effective.
It is not often that the average American is presented with a direct opportunity to fight terrorism. The operatives who struck us on 9/11 needed funds to train, travel here, find housing, feed themselves, enroll in flight schools, rent cars, purchase airline tickets to perform dry runs, and finally to purchase those fateful one-way tickets for the 9/11 flights. If you could keep money from flowing to such operatives preparing for future attacks, would you? Learn more about terror-free investing through the links above, and ask your financial planner or 401k manager to exclude any company identified by CSAG as doing business with terror sponsors. American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are limited by available funding for our efforts to combat terrorism, and terrorists also rely on funding to recruit, train, and act. Without funds, their efforts are significantly hampered.
If Americans can boycott Disney over moral issues or Wal-Mart over clothes production in sweatshops, we can rise to this occasion and withhold funds from those who have already killed thousands of Americans and are preparing to do so again. Is your money being invested in one of the 485 companies identified by CSAG? With a few clicks of your mouse, you can find out and fight terrorism from your desk.
CSAG Missouri Terror-Free Investing Sarah Steelman War On Terror Wall Street Journal Conflict Securities Advisory Group State Department
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Clinton Spokesman: Conservative Media Ruined Bill's Presidency
Bill Clinton’s former spokesman, Mike McCurry, has been busy on the collegiate lecture circuit offering revisionist history to students at Princeton University. In an address to students yesterday, McCurry attempted to rewrite history by depicting his former boss (McCurry was White House Press Secretary from 1995 to 1998) as the victim of a media conspiracy that hobbled all efforts by Clinton to grapple with “more substantive topics.”
As reported by the Daily Princetonian, McCurry’s explanation for former President Clinton’s political failures included a casual dismissal of Clinton’s penchant for personal scandal. McCurry jokingly stated Clinton’s political legacy would forever be a “stain,” in clear reference to his messy relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Were it not for Clinton’s lack of discipline, McCurry opined, Clinton could have risen much higher in his political skills and accomplishments. At first that might seem to be a candid and objective assessment from someone who worked so closely with the former president. Then McCurry proceeded to offer an incredibly deceptive argument for the reason Clinton’s legacy will be a “stain.”
Though McCurry never used the term “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” to label the forces that in his opinion made certain Bill Clinton could focus on nothing other than his personal scandals, he did not have to. When setting out to enumerate the three factors that most influenced the Clinton presidency, McCurry decried the growth of the Internet and “partisan media networks” that focused only on Clinton’s scandals. It is easy to sympathize with McCurry, who must have found it difficult to try and steer media inquiries away from scandal after scandal to more important matters, like Clinton’s failed efforts to respond to the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the missed opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden . . . . On second thought, Mr. McCurry, perhaps it worked out better for you that the focus was NOT on the administration’s performance record. Hiding behind the skirts of the Monica scandal permitted you to market your boss as a victim of a vicious media assault, a figure to pity, not to impeach.
Shall we begin with the “blame the partisan media networks” defense? When a former Clinton spokesman uses the term “partisan media networks,” to what networks and web sites is he referring? The author of the Daily Princetonian story specifically mentioned the Drudge Report as an example of electronic media that McCurry noted would not look beyond scandals including gays in the military, "White House sleepovers," Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment proceedings. McCurry was quoted as saying, "This was the press' focus day after day. There was an inability to change to more substantive topics." Perhaps McCurry should consider that personal character, self-restraint, and honesty ARE substantive topics, especially when the man holding the most powerful position in the world clearly lacked all three.
What McCurry failed to include in his “expert” assessment of the rise of alternative media, such as talk radio and the Internet, was the context in which they began to flourish. McCurry railed on “partisan media networks” while omitting the obvious: the existing major media networks were then and continue to be blatantly partisan, made up almost entirely of liberal-leaning journalists who intentionally select story titles that mislead and use terms that evoke memories rather than reality (quagmire, anyone?). One need look no further than recent exposures of New York Times reporters’ story fabrications or the CBS News Bush National Guard episode during the 2004 campaign to know which party members of the media personally prefer in power. I will never forget standing at a major political event on election night in 2000 and seeing the unmistakable glee on the faces of CNN’s live news team when they initially called Florida for Gore. That memory is contrasted so clearly with the palpable gloom I observed in the same crew when that fictitious result was retracted and Florida went to Bush instead. There are numerous books and columns exposing the liberal leanings of the traditional media, but none of these address it as effectively as Hugh Hewitt’s revealing interview with ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin. Halperin seemed to believe he was completely impartial, but note his descriptions of his own staff at ABC News. Halperin clearly saw that the vast majority of employees at major media outlets were liberal Democrats and that media bosses like himself needed to correct this imbalance because it was harmful to objective reporting. I find it impossible to accept that McCurry, a former White House Press Secretary, could innocently omit this truth while telling Princeton students the new conservative media networks were responsible for stalling Clinton’s presidency.
Mr. McCurry, here is a novel idea: stop rewriting history by asserting that alternative conservative media introduced media conflict and an unhealthy focus on scandals. There were no conservative “partisan media networks” in existence during Watergate, Iran-Contra, or other “scandals” during Republican administrations. The media, liberal or conservative, have always sought scandal (apparently this former press secretary is not acquainted with the historical term Muckrakers) because we as a society seem to crave it and seek after it for entertainment. The talk radio and Internet phenomenon, including the blogosphere, sprouted because the majority of Americans grew weary of hearing and reading only the liberal interpretation of the news. Fox News, which is often attacked by liberals for being too conservative, was a breath of fresh air ten years ago because it presented stories from the novel perspective that there were in fact two sides and each was worthy of being reported. With all the major network and cable news channels marching in liberal lockstep, they were forced to compete with each other for shocking news, since they all shared the same opinions and thus none of their reporting was original. With conservative media now presenting its side of the political debate, all networks, liberal or conservative, will be more inclined to focus on a return to issues rather than muckraking.
The most discouraging aspect of McCurry’s defense of Clinton through media blame is the subtle attempt to remove personal character from the qualifications required for a president. Rather than complain about the media coverage of Clinton’s scandals, McCurry should have told Princeton students that if we would elect leaders with character and integrity, the media muckrakers would be reporting on “more substantive topics” out of an absence of scandal. Ironically, the very voices McCurry and Clinton want to blame for Clinton’s failed political legacy may never have risen to prominence had Clinton not stained his own presidency. History will show that the Clinton years brought more balance of opinion into the media than existed for several decades previously, not through liberals embracing conservative viewpoints in liberal newspapers or news programs, but through conservatives embracing new forms of media to take their media-repressed views directly to a thirsting audience.
Bill Clinton Mike McCurry Hugh Hewitt Monica Lewinsky Rush Limbaugh conservative media Princeton
As reported by the Daily Princetonian, McCurry’s explanation for former President Clinton’s political failures included a casual dismissal of Clinton’s penchant for personal scandal. McCurry jokingly stated Clinton’s political legacy would forever be a “stain,” in clear reference to his messy relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Were it not for Clinton’s lack of discipline, McCurry opined, Clinton could have risen much higher in his political skills and accomplishments. At first that might seem to be a candid and objective assessment from someone who worked so closely with the former president. Then McCurry proceeded to offer an incredibly deceptive argument for the reason Clinton’s legacy will be a “stain.”
Though McCurry never used the term “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” to label the forces that in his opinion made certain Bill Clinton could focus on nothing other than his personal scandals, he did not have to. When setting out to enumerate the three factors that most influenced the Clinton presidency, McCurry decried the growth of the Internet and “partisan media networks” that focused only on Clinton’s scandals. It is easy to sympathize with McCurry, who must have found it difficult to try and steer media inquiries away from scandal after scandal to more important matters, like Clinton’s failed efforts to respond to the first World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the missed opportunity to capture or kill Bin Laden . . . . On second thought, Mr. McCurry, perhaps it worked out better for you that the focus was NOT on the administration’s performance record. Hiding behind the skirts of the Monica scandal permitted you to market your boss as a victim of a vicious media assault, a figure to pity, not to impeach.
Shall we begin with the “blame the partisan media networks” defense? When a former Clinton spokesman uses the term “partisan media networks,” to what networks and web sites is he referring? The author of the Daily Princetonian story specifically mentioned the Drudge Report as an example of electronic media that McCurry noted would not look beyond scandals including gays in the military, "White House sleepovers," Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and the impeachment proceedings. McCurry was quoted as saying, "This was the press' focus day after day. There was an inability to change to more substantive topics." Perhaps McCurry should consider that personal character, self-restraint, and honesty ARE substantive topics, especially when the man holding the most powerful position in the world clearly lacked all three.
What McCurry failed to include in his “expert” assessment of the rise of alternative media, such as talk radio and the Internet, was the context in which they began to flourish. McCurry railed on “partisan media networks” while omitting the obvious: the existing major media networks were then and continue to be blatantly partisan, made up almost entirely of liberal-leaning journalists who intentionally select story titles that mislead and use terms that evoke memories rather than reality (quagmire, anyone?). One need look no further than recent exposures of New York Times reporters’ story fabrications or the CBS News Bush National Guard episode during the 2004 campaign to know which party members of the media personally prefer in power. I will never forget standing at a major political event on election night in 2000 and seeing the unmistakable glee on the faces of CNN’s live news team when they initially called Florida for Gore. That memory is contrasted so clearly with the palpable gloom I observed in the same crew when that fictitious result was retracted and Florida went to Bush instead. There are numerous books and columns exposing the liberal leanings of the traditional media, but none of these address it as effectively as Hugh Hewitt’s revealing interview with ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin. Halperin seemed to believe he was completely impartial, but note his descriptions of his own staff at ABC News. Halperin clearly saw that the vast majority of employees at major media outlets were liberal Democrats and that media bosses like himself needed to correct this imbalance because it was harmful to objective reporting. I find it impossible to accept that McCurry, a former White House Press Secretary, could innocently omit this truth while telling Princeton students the new conservative media networks were responsible for stalling Clinton’s presidency.
Mr. McCurry, here is a novel idea: stop rewriting history by asserting that alternative conservative media introduced media conflict and an unhealthy focus on scandals. There were no conservative “partisan media networks” in existence during Watergate, Iran-Contra, or other “scandals” during Republican administrations. The media, liberal or conservative, have always sought scandal (apparently this former press secretary is not acquainted with the historical term Muckrakers) because we as a society seem to crave it and seek after it for entertainment. The talk radio and Internet phenomenon, including the blogosphere, sprouted because the majority of Americans grew weary of hearing and reading only the liberal interpretation of the news. Fox News, which is often attacked by liberals for being too conservative, was a breath of fresh air ten years ago because it presented stories from the novel perspective that there were in fact two sides and each was worthy of being reported. With all the major network and cable news channels marching in liberal lockstep, they were forced to compete with each other for shocking news, since they all shared the same opinions and thus none of their reporting was original. With conservative media now presenting its side of the political debate, all networks, liberal or conservative, will be more inclined to focus on a return to issues rather than muckraking.
The most discouraging aspect of McCurry’s defense of Clinton through media blame is the subtle attempt to remove personal character from the qualifications required for a president. Rather than complain about the media coverage of Clinton’s scandals, McCurry should have told Princeton students that if we would elect leaders with character and integrity, the media muckrakers would be reporting on “more substantive topics” out of an absence of scandal. Ironically, the very voices McCurry and Clinton want to blame for Clinton’s failed political legacy may never have risen to prominence had Clinton not stained his own presidency. History will show that the Clinton years brought more balance of opinion into the media than existed for several decades previously, not through liberals embracing conservative viewpoints in liberal newspapers or news programs, but through conservatives embracing new forms of media to take their media-repressed views directly to a thirsting audience.
Bill Clinton Mike McCurry Hugh Hewitt Monica Lewinsky Rush Limbaugh conservative media Princeton
Monday, December 11, 2006
You Say Sunni, I say Shiite, Let's Call the Whole Thing Off!
After 5 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) has been selected as the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. This man bravely served in Vietnam as a helicopter crew chief, and has sat on the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. Yet despite these credentials, this man, like most of his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee, has no grasp of even the basic beliefs and motivations of the various sects warring with each other in Iraq.
During a recent interview with Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly, Reyes did not know whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, nor did he understand the difference between the two factions. Reyes likewise demonstrated an equally appalling lack of knowledge when asked about Hezbollah. Stein’s descriptions of the interview and his conversations with other members of the Intelligence Committee (Democrats and Republicans) serve as an expected, yet still chilling, illustration of the consequences of the American penchant for selecting shallow, ambitious leaders lacking judgment and character, which I wrote about recently. Ambition is time-consuming. Having been closely involved in a professional capacity with a few campaign cycles, one thing has been obvious to me: our elected officials spend far more time working to get elected and remain in office than they do conducting the business of our government.
It should surprise no one that members of a House Intelligence Committee have not studied any of the issues before the Committee. Sadly, that is what staffers are for. Congressman and Senators simply do not have time to become educated on such trivial matters as Al Qaeda, Sunnis, Shiites, and Hezbollah, because studying issues interferes with fundraising and campaigning. Our elected officials, at best, receive briefings which consist of sound-bite length snippets spoon fed by staffers who are not experts in military, terrorism, or intelligence matters. There is no more potentially dangerous example of “the blind leading the blind” than how the House and Senate handle intelligence.
Of course, it would be helpful if candidates could be found who bring some level of experience (military, intelligence, counter-terrorism, etc) into office, but this should not be a requirement. Rather, it should be required that once elected and selected for any committee, the Representative or Senator must become conversant in the topics of that committee. Yet this is all too often how government committees are formed, not by qualification but instead by name recognition and/or seniority. The Iraq Study Group is a perfect illustration. Sandra Day O’Connor, Vernon Jordan, and Leon Panetta had no background in military or intelligence matters, yet they were selected to analyze the situation in Iraq and determine what military and intelligence tactics and strategies should be implemented to improve the situation. Jordan and Panetta were Adviser and Chief of Staff to Former President Clinton, with no known credibility within the military or intelligence communities.
Not surprisingly, in the anti-war hysteria of the 2006 mid-term elections, the ISG was forced to conclude the only solution was a 79 point plan to pull out of Iraq and let the new democratic Iraqi government be crushed in a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. How narcissistically ironic that a group consisting of 7 former attorneys came to the conclusion that talking (to Iran and Syria, both of which are funding and training, and arming our enemies in Iraq) was the best way to handle terrorists. Lawyers seem convinced they can talk their way into or out of anything including radical Islam’s hatred for infidels. They could find no strategy for victory because they know nothing about military strategy or the situation in Iraq.
Stein’s interview with Reyes should alarm every American. If our “intelligence” committees do not understand the root causes of conflict and who the various players are on the stage of world terrorism, how will they make decisions about funding our intelligence agencies and what tactics or technologies should or should not be utilized? We should not be blinded or awed by office holders with extensive credentials on government committees. Committees meet infrequently, and that merely makes running for office the only full time job that has our leaders’ full attention. Perhaps our televised debates should include questions that actually test a candidate’s knowledge rather than his skill for eloquently stating nothing of substance.
Would Reyes be serving a 5th term in the House if he had been asked in a debate, “is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shiite, and what’s the difference”? Unfortunately our elections and debates are not a screening process for qualified applicants; they are pathetic pageants for shallow contestants. In Reyes’s case, he appears to have been a potentially valuable addition to Congress when first elected, but chose instead to remain shallow, at least in his knowledge of the most important issue of our time: protecting America from those who want to destroy it and its allies. We should and must demand better.
elections Al Qaeda Silvestre Reyes Iraq Study Group House Intelligence Committee Sunni Shiite
During a recent interview with Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly, Reyes did not know whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite, nor did he understand the difference between the two factions. Reyes likewise demonstrated an equally appalling lack of knowledge when asked about Hezbollah. Stein’s descriptions of the interview and his conversations with other members of the Intelligence Committee (Democrats and Republicans) serve as an expected, yet still chilling, illustration of the consequences of the American penchant for selecting shallow, ambitious leaders lacking judgment and character, which I wrote about recently. Ambition is time-consuming. Having been closely involved in a professional capacity with a few campaign cycles, one thing has been obvious to me: our elected officials spend far more time working to get elected and remain in office than they do conducting the business of our government.
It should surprise no one that members of a House Intelligence Committee have not studied any of the issues before the Committee. Sadly, that is what staffers are for. Congressman and Senators simply do not have time to become educated on such trivial matters as Al Qaeda, Sunnis, Shiites, and Hezbollah, because studying issues interferes with fundraising and campaigning. Our elected officials, at best, receive briefings which consist of sound-bite length snippets spoon fed by staffers who are not experts in military, terrorism, or intelligence matters. There is no more potentially dangerous example of “the blind leading the blind” than how the House and Senate handle intelligence.
Of course, it would be helpful if candidates could be found who bring some level of experience (military, intelligence, counter-terrorism, etc) into office, but this should not be a requirement. Rather, it should be required that once elected and selected for any committee, the Representative or Senator must become conversant in the topics of that committee. Yet this is all too often how government committees are formed, not by qualification but instead by name recognition and/or seniority. The Iraq Study Group is a perfect illustration. Sandra Day O’Connor, Vernon Jordan, and Leon Panetta had no background in military or intelligence matters, yet they were selected to analyze the situation in Iraq and determine what military and intelligence tactics and strategies should be implemented to improve the situation. Jordan and Panetta were Adviser and Chief of Staff to Former President Clinton, with no known credibility within the military or intelligence communities.
Not surprisingly, in the anti-war hysteria of the 2006 mid-term elections, the ISG was forced to conclude the only solution was a 79 point plan to pull out of Iraq and let the new democratic Iraqi government be crushed in a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. How narcissistically ironic that a group consisting of 7 former attorneys came to the conclusion that talking (to Iran and Syria, both of which are funding and training, and arming our enemies in Iraq) was the best way to handle terrorists. Lawyers seem convinced they can talk their way into or out of anything including radical Islam’s hatred for infidels. They could find no strategy for victory because they know nothing about military strategy or the situation in Iraq.
Stein’s interview with Reyes should alarm every American. If our “intelligence” committees do not understand the root causes of conflict and who the various players are on the stage of world terrorism, how will they make decisions about funding our intelligence agencies and what tactics or technologies should or should not be utilized? We should not be blinded or awed by office holders with extensive credentials on government committees. Committees meet infrequently, and that merely makes running for office the only full time job that has our leaders’ full attention. Perhaps our televised debates should include questions that actually test a candidate’s knowledge rather than his skill for eloquently stating nothing of substance.
Would Reyes be serving a 5th term in the House if he had been asked in a debate, “is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shiite, and what’s the difference”? Unfortunately our elections and debates are not a screening process for qualified applicants; they are pathetic pageants for shallow contestants. In Reyes’s case, he appears to have been a potentially valuable addition to Congress when first elected, but chose instead to remain shallow, at least in his knowledge of the most important issue of our time: protecting America from those who want to destroy it and its allies. We should and must demand better.
elections Al Qaeda Silvestre Reyes Iraq Study Group House Intelligence Committee Sunni Shiite
Saturday, December 9, 2006
4 Hand Grenades, 1 handgun and a Partridge . . .
Yesterday, the FBI thwarted a plot by an Illinois man to acquire 4 grenades and a handgun, and detonate the grenades on December 22nd in the CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, Illinois. The 22 year old suspect, Talib Abu Salam Ibn Shareef, claimed he wanted to conduct “violent jihad” during what he believed would be the busiest evening for Christmas shopping, as the 22nd would be the Friday of Christmas weekend. The date and target site were selected with the desire to inflict maximum casualties among shoppers. Shareef reportedly met with an undercover FBI agent in the mall parking lot and attempted to trade 2 stereo speakers for 4 grenades (which were of course inert) and a handgun.
It seems this self-proclaimed terrorist has not been monitoring the news lately, because he seems to have missed the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, which should have pacified any terrorist who still believed our nation had the stomach to fight terrorists. Since the Iraq study group came to the laughable conclusion that we are creating terrorism by our presence in Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, terrorists will stop plotting to kill Americans, their recommendation to tuck tail and flee Iraq in shame should have doused the flame of radical Islam roaring in Shareef. Apparently radical Islam did not get the congratulatory memo from the ISG granting victory to the terrorists, since they are still fomenting terrorist acts against America despite our obvious move toward a withdrawal. Will leaving Iraq end the radical Islamic desire to kill Americans? Of course not. Shareef is living proof of this fact.
The ISG also declared that settling the eternal war between Israel and its neighbors will end terrorism. Oh! I thought ending terrorism required something challenging, but if all it takes is ending the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, then we should have that wrapped up before Christmas, right James Baker? To the members of the ISG, if our tremendous military could not eliminate the “insurgents,” why should anyone believe the Iraqi military and police forces will succeed in protecting and preserving this newly established democratically elected government? We rushed to push Sadaam out of Kuwait because he was supplanting an existing government, not even a democracy. Now in Iraq, millions braved suicide bombers and IEDs and snipers to vote and establish a democracy, and you recommend leaving this fledgling government to protect itself because things are tough there? Sadly, the ISG proved that countless years of experience (who knew Sandra Day O’Connor was a military and counter-terrorism expert?) do not automatically produce wisdom to match.
What is surprising is that despite all of the political thriller books, television programs, and movies depicting small cells of terrorists in the USA carrying out acts like the one planned by Shareef, none have occurred. Yet. Israel has borne the brunt of shopping mall and restaurant bombings, largely due to its proximity to its enemies. We have been fortunate to avoid such widespread, small-scale attacks. Yet during our period of good fortune, our enemies have made deep inroads into American culture and have become experts in using our personal liberties to conceal their true intentions. The question no one wants to think about, the nightmare for the intelligence and law enforcement communities is “how many Talib Shareefs are there among us?” The chilling follow-up question is “can we catch them all before they strike?” As anyone in the intelligence or law enforcement field will admit, the answer is no. We cannot be right 100% of the time, and the resources are simply not sufficient (nor is the public willing) to secure all potential targets. One need only look at the public paranoia (encouraged by the MSM) over surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act to know we will eventually be defeated from within, not from without. No global power will land on our shores and conquer us. We will fold from within, as we have been doing since Vietnam and continue to do at an ever increasing rate in the War on Terror.
This raises a critical issue that receives insufficient attention. Since terrorism is a product of ideology, can we really wage war on it? Our military and intelligence personnel have discovered that killing “insurgents” does not serve as a sufficient deterrent when fighting an enemy that views martyrdom and suicide bombing as a path to eternal glory. They will never openly confront our far superior military on any battlefield, but will continue to strike with small scale but lethal tactics until they frustrate their mighty opponent in Iraq and convince the American public (with ample and gleeful assistance from the MSM) that the fight is not worth it (which has already been accomplished). Perhaps we have all forgotten that whether or not the Iraq Conflict is a cornerstone in the larger War on Terror, the name of the military operation there was, and remains, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name is not “Operation Iraqi Freedom Unless it Becomes Difficult or Grave.” Iraqi Freedom. How long is too long to fight to preserve freedom?
Complicating the matter is the fact that conversion of young Islamic radicals to a Jihad-ready ideology is occurring at an alarming rate in America. The home grown terrorist poses enormous investigative and prosecutorial nightmares in a society based on individual liberties. The FBI and other agencies are relatively proficient at tracking persons with known terrorist ties who visit the US. However, as the Shareef mall grenade plot demonstrates, attacks planned by home grown terrorists usually are discovered only when an informant (a friend, neighbor, or family member) reports them to law enforcement. Many assassins and attackers in the planning stages cannot help but boast of what they intend to do. It is an often irrepressible human urge. Islamic radicals, if they discuss their planned attacks, will not boast to “infidels” but to others of their faith and, they hope, sympathetic brothers and sisters in that faith. This is the key to winning the War on Terror. Muslims need to demonstrate that they truly belong to a religion of peace by policing their communities and yes, informing on those with ties to radical factions espousing violence. Until this happens regularly and as a matter of course in predominantly Muslim communities, the potential for attacks like Shareef’s will only increase.
An eternal debt of gratitude is owed to the friend who contacted the FBI in time to prevent a Christmas tragedy in Illinois.
FBI CSAG Iraq Jihad James Baker War On Terror Iraq Study Group radical Islam
It seems this self-proclaimed terrorist has not been monitoring the news lately, because he seems to have missed the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report, which should have pacified any terrorist who still believed our nation had the stomach to fight terrorists. Since the Iraq study group came to the laughable conclusion that we are creating terrorism by our presence in Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, terrorists will stop plotting to kill Americans, their recommendation to tuck tail and flee Iraq in shame should have doused the flame of radical Islam roaring in Shareef. Apparently radical Islam did not get the congratulatory memo from the ISG granting victory to the terrorists, since they are still fomenting terrorist acts against America despite our obvious move toward a withdrawal. Will leaving Iraq end the radical Islamic desire to kill Americans? Of course not. Shareef is living proof of this fact.
The ISG also declared that settling the eternal war between Israel and its neighbors will end terrorism. Oh! I thought ending terrorism required something challenging, but if all it takes is ending the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, then we should have that wrapped up before Christmas, right James Baker? To the members of the ISG, if our tremendous military could not eliminate the “insurgents,” why should anyone believe the Iraqi military and police forces will succeed in protecting and preserving this newly established democratically elected government? We rushed to push Sadaam out of Kuwait because he was supplanting an existing government, not even a democracy. Now in Iraq, millions braved suicide bombers and IEDs and snipers to vote and establish a democracy, and you recommend leaving this fledgling government to protect itself because things are tough there? Sadly, the ISG proved that countless years of experience (who knew Sandra Day O’Connor was a military and counter-terrorism expert?) do not automatically produce wisdom to match.
What is surprising is that despite all of the political thriller books, television programs, and movies depicting small cells of terrorists in the USA carrying out acts like the one planned by Shareef, none have occurred. Yet. Israel has borne the brunt of shopping mall and restaurant bombings, largely due to its proximity to its enemies. We have been fortunate to avoid such widespread, small-scale attacks. Yet during our period of good fortune, our enemies have made deep inroads into American culture and have become experts in using our personal liberties to conceal their true intentions. The question no one wants to think about, the nightmare for the intelligence and law enforcement communities is “how many Talib Shareefs are there among us?” The chilling follow-up question is “can we catch them all before they strike?” As anyone in the intelligence or law enforcement field will admit, the answer is no. We cannot be right 100% of the time, and the resources are simply not sufficient (nor is the public willing) to secure all potential targets. One need only look at the public paranoia (encouraged by the MSM) over surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act to know we will eventually be defeated from within, not from without. No global power will land on our shores and conquer us. We will fold from within, as we have been doing since Vietnam and continue to do at an ever increasing rate in the War on Terror.
This raises a critical issue that receives insufficient attention. Since terrorism is a product of ideology, can we really wage war on it? Our military and intelligence personnel have discovered that killing “insurgents” does not serve as a sufficient deterrent when fighting an enemy that views martyrdom and suicide bombing as a path to eternal glory. They will never openly confront our far superior military on any battlefield, but will continue to strike with small scale but lethal tactics until they frustrate their mighty opponent in Iraq and convince the American public (with ample and gleeful assistance from the MSM) that the fight is not worth it (which has already been accomplished). Perhaps we have all forgotten that whether or not the Iraq Conflict is a cornerstone in the larger War on Terror, the name of the military operation there was, and remains, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The name is not “Operation Iraqi Freedom Unless it Becomes Difficult or Grave.” Iraqi Freedom. How long is too long to fight to preserve freedom?
Complicating the matter is the fact that conversion of young Islamic radicals to a Jihad-ready ideology is occurring at an alarming rate in America. The home grown terrorist poses enormous investigative and prosecutorial nightmares in a society based on individual liberties. The FBI and other agencies are relatively proficient at tracking persons with known terrorist ties who visit the US. However, as the Shareef mall grenade plot demonstrates, attacks planned by home grown terrorists usually are discovered only when an informant (a friend, neighbor, or family member) reports them to law enforcement. Many assassins and attackers in the planning stages cannot help but boast of what they intend to do. It is an often irrepressible human urge. Islamic radicals, if they discuss their planned attacks, will not boast to “infidels” but to others of their faith and, they hope, sympathetic brothers and sisters in that faith. This is the key to winning the War on Terror. Muslims need to demonstrate that they truly belong to a religion of peace by policing their communities and yes, informing on those with ties to radical factions espousing violence. Until this happens regularly and as a matter of course in predominantly Muslim communities, the potential for attacks like Shareef’s will only increase.
An eternal debt of gratitude is owed to the friend who contacted the FBI in time to prevent a Christmas tragedy in Illinois.
FBI CSAG Iraq Jihad James Baker War On Terror Iraq Study Group radical Islam
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Many Tom Paines, Few Mr. Smiths Going to Washington
Last month’s election results, as important as they surely will be for the future direction of the Iraq Conflict and the War on Terror, are less troubling than the increasingly noticeable paucity of honorable, selfless, and humble candidates for public office. Federal elections have devolved into a deplorable version of “Star Search” in which the only qualifications a potential office holder needs are name recognition (the more controversial the better) and access to wealth.
While I certainly condemn any American who could be registered to vote but is not, and subsequently does not participate in elections (see my previous post http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraqis-point-purple-fingers-at.html), the lack of enthusiasm for most candidates of either party in this year’s election was understandable. Credit Obi-Wan Kenobi for coining the phrase “hive of scum and villainy,” which applies more readily to the House and Senate than it did to any creatures on the fictional planet Tatooine. My experiences with and in Washington, DC have only solidified my disdain for the fog of ego that drapes this city like no other on earth. The very air reeks of selfishness and moral drift. Unfortunately, long gone are the days when a character such as Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s wonderful film (www.amazon.com/Smith-Goes-Washington-Frank-Capra/dp/B00003L9CJ) could come to Washington for the sole purpose of serving his constituents, and through his integrity convince corrupt politicians to confess their graft and resign from office. For that matter, long gone are the days when politicians could agree that corruption was actually an undesirable trait, both personally and in their colleagues. In today’s Washington, one can wield power for decades despite the following unethical conduct:
1. Accept bribes from parties involved in cases presented to you as a federal judge and be impeached by Congress for that action (Alcee Hastings, D-FL, until this week a strong candidate for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee).
2. Abandon the scene of a fatal vehicle accident (single car) and make no effort to rescue the passenger (Ted Kennedy, D-MA).
3. “Earn” three Purple Hearts in four months service in Vietnam for “injuries” that required no hospitalization or missed time on duty. Then when confronted about this issue, refuse to allow access to personal military service record despite the fact that a campaign opponent allowed full access to his own record and honorable military service in Vietnam became a cornerstone of the presidential campaign (John Kerry, D-MA).
4. Fail a law school course because of plagiarism, then instead of learning from the mistake, get caught plagiarizing speeches from Robert F. Kennedy. Be forced to withdraw from a presidential bid because of these issues (Joseph Biden, D-DE, Chairman-elect of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
5. Accept bribes from individuals, and then deny the bribery despite $90,000 in cash found in the home freezer and the guilty pleas of those who paid the bribes (William Jefferson, D-LA).
6. Unlawfully obtain and improperly peruse FBI files on 900+ Republicans from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Although other scandals are attributable in some way to this person, this one is the most egregious (Hillary Clinton, D-NY).
7. Be an active member and recruiter of the KKK. Write letters to a U.S. Senator stating “With a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds...” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10792#footnote19). Filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Make speeches in the Senate in which the idea of a superiority of white intellect is espoused. Despite this blatant racism, be selected as Senate Majority Leader by a party which ironically captures the black vote in every election (Robert Byrd, D-WV).
Of course Republicans have been involved in several scandals and lapses of moral behavior as well, but it seems Republicans have a much better record of purging corruption once discovered and encouraging their colleagues in question to resign. The Democrats, on the other hand, reward politicians who weather these “vast right wing conspiracies.”
My point is not to castigate any one party. A look at the potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 gives little hope that integrity and substance are on the horizon for either party. Nearly every candidate has a skeleton in the proverbial closet, or more commonly, most of them have been career politicians, whether long in office (McCain), long wielding power behind the scenes (Hillary) or long in preparing a political record taking no positions at all (Obama). Giuliani can be tough on crime and terrorism, but is a social liberal. Romney has succeeded as a businessman, 2002 Olympic savior, and Governor (MA), and certainly is charismatic, but he is a member of a rapidly growing but often maliciously misrepresented (by the media and other religions) faith (http://www.lds.org/). He seems the most likely Frank Capra-worthy character in the group, but like Mr. Smith, champion of Boy Rangers and all things wholesome, stands little chance of getting a fair hearing in today’s scandal-thirsty press. We will never see improvement in our nation until we demand improvement in the character and humility of those we select to lead us.
We are getting what we deserve out of our political leaders, national and local, because our expectations have been set too low. George Washington set the perfect example of what we should seek from a president. He had to be persuaded to accept the presidency, and did so with hesitation and only because it was apparent everything he had fought for would crumble without a president of integrity. After serving as president (and yes it is a service, not a celebrity star tour ala Clinton), though he could have stayed in power indefinitely, he humbly stepped aside and yielded up his enormous power precisely because he viewed that power as a danger to the nation and himself. Perhaps we should focus our searches for political candidates on finding those who must be persuaded to hold office rather than those who feel it a birthright or a career stepping stone. Above all we must avoid those who seek office, particularly the presidency, because of the power it represents.
We do not need any more “sound bite” presidents, congressman, senators, or candidates. We need leaders who take positions, advocate rather than pontificate, and work in session longer than they relax in recess. Who will be our Mr. Smith in 2008?
Alcee Hastings Hillary Clinton Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Robert Byrd War On Terror Ted Kennedy voting
While I certainly condemn any American who could be registered to vote but is not, and subsequently does not participate in elections (see my previous post http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraqis-point-purple-fingers-at.html), the lack of enthusiasm for most candidates of either party in this year’s election was understandable. Credit Obi-Wan Kenobi for coining the phrase “hive of scum and villainy,” which applies more readily to the House and Senate than it did to any creatures on the fictional planet Tatooine. My experiences with and in Washington, DC have only solidified my disdain for the fog of ego that drapes this city like no other on earth. The very air reeks of selfishness and moral drift. Unfortunately, long gone are the days when a character such as Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s wonderful film (www.amazon.com/Smith-Goes-Washington-Frank-Capra/dp/B00003L9CJ) could come to Washington for the sole purpose of serving his constituents, and through his integrity convince corrupt politicians to confess their graft and resign from office. For that matter, long gone are the days when politicians could agree that corruption was actually an undesirable trait, both personally and in their colleagues. In today’s Washington, one can wield power for decades despite the following unethical conduct:
1. Accept bribes from parties involved in cases presented to you as a federal judge and be impeached by Congress for that action (Alcee Hastings, D-FL, until this week a strong candidate for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee).
2. Abandon the scene of a fatal vehicle accident (single car) and make no effort to rescue the passenger (Ted Kennedy, D-MA).
3. “Earn” three Purple Hearts in four months service in Vietnam for “injuries” that required no hospitalization or missed time on duty. Then when confronted about this issue, refuse to allow access to personal military service record despite the fact that a campaign opponent allowed full access to his own record and honorable military service in Vietnam became a cornerstone of the presidential campaign (John Kerry, D-MA).
4. Fail a law school course because of plagiarism, then instead of learning from the mistake, get caught plagiarizing speeches from Robert F. Kennedy. Be forced to withdraw from a presidential bid because of these issues (Joseph Biden, D-DE, Chairman-elect of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
5. Accept bribes from individuals, and then deny the bribery despite $90,000 in cash found in the home freezer and the guilty pleas of those who paid the bribes (William Jefferson, D-LA).
6. Unlawfully obtain and improperly peruse FBI files on 900+ Republicans from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Although other scandals are attributable in some way to this person, this one is the most egregious (Hillary Clinton, D-NY).
7. Be an active member and recruiter of the KKK. Write letters to a U.S. Senator stating “With a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds...” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10792#footnote19). Filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Make speeches in the Senate in which the idea of a superiority of white intellect is espoused. Despite this blatant racism, be selected as Senate Majority Leader by a party which ironically captures the black vote in every election (Robert Byrd, D-WV).
Of course Republicans have been involved in several scandals and lapses of moral behavior as well, but it seems Republicans have a much better record of purging corruption once discovered and encouraging their colleagues in question to resign. The Democrats, on the other hand, reward politicians who weather these “vast right wing conspiracies.”
My point is not to castigate any one party. A look at the potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 gives little hope that integrity and substance are on the horizon for either party. Nearly every candidate has a skeleton in the proverbial closet, or more commonly, most of them have been career politicians, whether long in office (McCain), long wielding power behind the scenes (Hillary) or long in preparing a political record taking no positions at all (Obama). Giuliani can be tough on crime and terrorism, but is a social liberal. Romney has succeeded as a businessman, 2002 Olympic savior, and Governor (MA), and certainly is charismatic, but he is a member of a rapidly growing but often maliciously misrepresented (by the media and other religions) faith (http://www.lds.org/). He seems the most likely Frank Capra-worthy character in the group, but like Mr. Smith, champion of Boy Rangers and all things wholesome, stands little chance of getting a fair hearing in today’s scandal-thirsty press. We will never see improvement in our nation until we demand improvement in the character and humility of those we select to lead us.
We are getting what we deserve out of our political leaders, national and local, because our expectations have been set too low. George Washington set the perfect example of what we should seek from a president. He had to be persuaded to accept the presidency, and did so with hesitation and only because it was apparent everything he had fought for would crumble without a president of integrity. After serving as president (and yes it is a service, not a celebrity star tour ala Clinton), though he could have stayed in power indefinitely, he humbly stepped aside and yielded up his enormous power precisely because he viewed that power as a danger to the nation and himself. Perhaps we should focus our searches for political candidates on finding those who must be persuaded to hold office rather than those who feel it a birthright or a career stepping stone. Above all we must avoid those who seek office, particularly the presidency, because of the power it represents.
We do not need any more “sound bite” presidents, congressman, senators, or candidates. We need leaders who take positions, advocate rather than pontificate, and work in session longer than they relax in recess. Who will be our Mr. Smith in 2008?
Alcee Hastings Hillary Clinton Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Robert Byrd War On Terror Ted Kennedy voting
Friday, November 10, 2006
Iraqis Point Purple Fingers at American Voter Apathy
While I am displeased with this week's election results in the House and Senate, I sense that the greatest setback for America was the continued apathy the vast majority of Americans have toward choosing their leaders. Election statistics indicate that only 40% of registered voters took the time to cast a ballot in an election held while our nation is waging a war in the Middle East, working to disrupt terrorist planning, and crossing its fingers that the strong economy continues its record growth. The direction of a war. That seems like a serious issue for voters, right? Eight state ballots included marriage amendments, and every state ballot contained local bond and tax initiatives that directly impact the pocketbook of each resident. Yet only 40% of registered voters bothered to voice their opinions through voting. Ironically, 100% of American citizens exercise their right to complain when their elected officials pass harmful legislation or make decisions the citizens oppose. Everyone has an opinion on the War on Terror and the Iraq Conflict, yet more energy and time are spent calling talk shows or writing emails to newspapers and news networks than the brief expenditure of time required for voting.
It is no wonder much of the world is skeptical of America's attempt to instill democratic principles in Iraq (or anywhere else), given that the Iraqi elections (remember the symbolic purple-tipped fingers?) were an inspiring display of courage and participation despite the threat of death each Iraqi voter faced simply for voting to establish an elected government. Americans in some voting precincts cry about "voter suppression" or "voter intimidation." While the validity of those claims is unconfirmed, one wonders how much these complainers really value their freedom to vote. Iraqis stood in long lines for hours while armed militants, snipers, and bombers lurked nearby. Car bombs and other improvised explosives detonated; snipers hit several innocent targets, and yet in the face of potential death 63% of these brave newcomers to democracy cast their ballots. When was the last time voters in American cities braved car bombs and snipers to vote for their leaders and tax/bond initiatives? That is real "voter intimidation" and "voter suppression," and if the Iraqis could overcome it, what is our excuse as a nation for failing to overcome the perceived "inconveniences" of going to the polls to vote? It is disturbing to consider the apathy and mindset of the 60% of registered voters who failed to participate in this election.
The Iraqis are wagging their purple index fingers at us and are wondering: in which country does democracy have greater need to be planted and nurtured, Iraq or America?
voter apathy purple fingers Iraq elections
It is no wonder much of the world is skeptical of America's attempt to instill democratic principles in Iraq (or anywhere else), given that the Iraqi elections (remember the symbolic purple-tipped fingers?) were an inspiring display of courage and participation despite the threat of death each Iraqi voter faced simply for voting to establish an elected government. Americans in some voting precincts cry about "voter suppression" or "voter intimidation." While the validity of those claims is unconfirmed, one wonders how much these complainers really value their freedom to vote. Iraqis stood in long lines for hours while armed militants, snipers, and bombers lurked nearby. Car bombs and other improvised explosives detonated; snipers hit several innocent targets, and yet in the face of potential death 63% of these brave newcomers to democracy cast their ballots. When was the last time voters in American cities braved car bombs and snipers to vote for their leaders and tax/bond initiatives? That is real "voter intimidation" and "voter suppression," and if the Iraqis could overcome it, what is our excuse as a nation for failing to overcome the perceived "inconveniences" of going to the polls to vote? It is disturbing to consider the apathy and mindset of the 60% of registered voters who failed to participate in this election.
The Iraqis are wagging their purple index fingers at us and are wondering: in which country does democracy have greater need to be planted and nurtured, Iraq or America?
voter apathy purple fingers Iraq elections
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
"Permissives" Better Description than "Progressives" for Today's Liberals
Having listened to media coverage of the campaigns from a wide variety of sources, I could not help but notice that the MSM uses the term "secular progressive" with increasing frequency to describe social liberals, and unfortunately many conservative columnists and talk show hosts (like Hugh Hewitt, whom I enjoy) accept this term and use it themselves. I know that using the term "secular" draws a distinction between those who espouse a religious world view and those who would prefer an absence of religion, but it is the term "progressive" which rankles me most.
I refuse to accept the term "progressive" when talking about liberals, as it is a politically correct euphemism (almost as bad as "undocumented worker" used for illegal alien). Conservatives are called conservative because they seek to preserve, as closely as possible, the institutions and socio/economic policies established at the founding of our nation as provided by the constitution. True conservatives then could rightly be referred to as "constitutional conservationists." What is the opposite of a conservationist? One who destroys, demolishes, ruins, or abolishes.
Liberals engaged in environmental conservation take pride in preserving, maintaining, and protecting that which they value. When corporations or local governments determine that economic "progress" will be enhanced by encroaching on the environment through construction and land development, liberal "conservationists" seek injunctions and decry construction as being destructive and harmful. They certainly would never refer to the land developers as "progressive."
"Progress" then, is in the eye of the beholder.Since the definition of progress is entirely subjective depending on what one considers improvement, social liberals should not be allowed the moniker of "progressive." They should merely be called what they are, permissives. Everything unnatural and immoral is accepted, embraced, and declared a "right." Moral absolutes? The Permissives surrendered to moral relativism decades ago, and have now "progressed" to the point where they permit what is wrong to be called right. They lack the fortitude to declare any behavior as wrong (except religious expressions by Christians). No, "progressive" they are not. The "Secular Permissives will eventually permit the collapse of our defense (by "progressively" negotiating with terrorists), our economy (by "progressively" raising taxes, and our national morality (by "progressively" permitting a complete abandonment of religious values in public life).
campaigns conservatives liberals Secular Progressive Hugh Hewitt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)