Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton. When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally. During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq. She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength. I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.
Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt. Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities. President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year. To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel. One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.
Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran. Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.
Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs: Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government
Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due. Hillary made the right comments today about Iran. The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009. Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House. Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best. Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears.
More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide. We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran. Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled. The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces. We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran. Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority. Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Monday, February 14, 2011
Monday, June 11, 2007
Reagan Mantle Too Big for Ron Paul
Libertarian conservatives have been busy artificially bolstering the myth that their presidential candidate of choice, Ron Paul, has a strong grass-roots base and wide appeal. During Fox News’ sophomoric cell phone text message voting during the second GOP presidential candidates’ debate, Ron Paul’s boosters voted early and often, causing the post-debate results to appear skewed toward the opinion that Paul was the winner of the debate, despite his trip to the proverbial woodshed courtesy of Rudy Giuliani for his argument that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Initially I thought that perhaps some of Paul’s poll votes were coming from Democrats hoping to dilute strong performances by Giuliani or Romney by voting for the least likely and most provocative of the candidates. However, comments posted by Paul supporters on conservative Internet sites or in blogs indicate that Paul is viewed by some as the only true conservative in the race and a champion of the constitution. Of course, Paul himself declares that he stands for the constitution, and on the surface that sounds like an honorable position to hold.
When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities? What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear? To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.
In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following:
Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement:
Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.
Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.
Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.
Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq:
Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.
Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words:
This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.
Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.
Technorati Tags:
Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Conservatism, Libertarian, Isolationism, Interventionism, Iraq War, Democracy, Presidential Candidates
When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities? What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear? To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.
Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.
In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following:
They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We'vebeen in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald Reagan] was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting…
…They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there.
Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement:
The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc
June 6, 1984, Normandy
We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.
Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.
Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.
Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.
Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq:
Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy.
Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.
Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.
Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.
Technorati Tags:
Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan, Conservatism, Libertarian, Isolationism, Interventionism, Iraq War, Democracy, Presidential Candidates
Friday, May 18, 2007
McCain Misses Point Of Democracy
If you hired an employee who only showed up for work 50% of the time, would you fire him? Any budget conscious employer would object to paying a full wage in return for a 50% effort. If you are an Arizona resident, you are paying the salary of someone employed to represent your interests, but who only shows up to represent you 50% of the time. You would not tolerate that from your personal attorney, or from your physician, but for some reason 50% is all you require from someone who influences your border security, your highway funding, your national defense, how much you pay in taxes, and other trivial matters. The Washington Post’s Capitol Briefing Blog tracks presidential candidates who masquerade as senators or congressmen if it does not cut into their visits to key early primary states. Which candidate leads the pack in dereliction of the duties voters hired him to perform for them? The culprit is Arizona Senator John McCain, who has now missed 42 straight votes in the Senate. To put that in context, voters have paid McCain’s monthly salary from mid-April to mid-May, and with the salary for that month McCain did not vote once in the Senate. Post reporter Paul Kane cleverly edited McCain’s political byline, which normally reads (R-AZ) to (R-Campaign Trail), and for good reason.
Of course, the demands of campaigning are very real and often underestimated by those who have never witnessed the daily operations of a campaign staff, security, and the candidates themselves. I do not begrudge McCain the need to be out on the road getting his message out, which if you’re an illegal alien celebrating the proposed Senate immigration bill appears to be “we’re glad you’re here and don’t care that you broke our laws, and we’re giving you a leg up on legal immigrants who continue to wait patiently and obeyed our laws.” But I digress. Additionally, other candidates who unfortunately (for their constituents) are also hampered by the pesky demands of holding public office are missing votes, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although both have missed far fewer votes than McCain (1.8% and 6.4%). Others seem to find time to campaign and continue doing the job for which they were elected, but not McCain. What caught my attention in the report of McCain’s missed votes were the criteria used by McCain and his staff to determine that missing 42 straight votes would not matter.
The following is a paragraph from Kane’s report that also contains a brief statement from the McCain campaign:
The next time you hear a politician urge citizens to be actively involved in politics and to exercise their right to vote, or when you hear the bleak reports after each election in which barely 40% of Americans care enough to vote even when the handling of a war is at stake, the statement from McCain’s campaign should come to mind. When citizens in a democracy adopt the attitude that they should only vote when they are sure their vote will influence the outcome, democracy no longer functions. Yet McCain has adopted just such an attitude, and instead of voting so that his support or opposition is officially recorded he just skips the opportunity to cast his vote. The hypocrisy of McCain’s actions is clearly illustrated in his urging young Americans to become more active in politics and to vote.
The following is an excerpt from an article John McCain wrote for Washington Monthly in October 2001 titled “Putting the ‘National’ In National Service”:
Perhaps the decline in voter participation and the growing apathy about public life is a direct result of declining voter participation in the Senate. Why would McCain expect young Americans in particular to seek out opportunities to serve their country when he does not make good use of his ample opportunities to vote on important legislation? He decried selfishly serving ourselves, yet he avoids voting in the Senate while serving his own personal desire to be president. The excuse that a bill’s fate does not hang in the balance is inconsistent with conservative principles. If the constitution is to be taken seriously, then Senators should lead by example, conducting the people’s business and voting regardless of any predicted outcome.
Consider the case of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. One of the most intense controversies occurred when CNN, CBS, and other liberal-leaning networks declared that Al Gore was the projected winner in Florida long before the polls had closed in the western panhandle of the state, which is strongly Republican. Many voters in the panhandle, upon hearing that Gore was projected to win the state regardless of votes that had not yet been cast, made the unfortunate decision not to drive to the polls and wait in long lines. Like McCain’s Senate voting attitude, the outcome did not appear to be in the balance. The reality, realized later of course, was that every vote did count and had Florida panhandle voters not adopted the McCain criteria for voter participation, a large number of Republican votes would have made the entire vote count fiasco in West Palm Beach County completely
unnecessary.
Senator McCain is a war hero and a patriot, but he appears to have missed the point of democracy, a point that we have been trying to teach in the fragile Iraqi democracy: we do not vote only if our vote will clearly make the difference, we vote because we can. Once we no longer appreciate that privilege, we have surrendered our right to freedom.
Other posts referencing John McCain:
McCain’s League Proposal is “Super”
Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors “Not An Option”: Heroic POWs In History Considered It The Only Option
McCain: “I’m Sure I Have A Policy On That, I Just Need To Check What It Is”
Forgetting The Unforgettable: Pills May Soon Erase Traumatic Memories
Of course, the demands of campaigning are very real and often underestimated by those who have never witnessed the daily operations of a campaign staff, security, and the candidates themselves. I do not begrudge McCain the need to be out on the road getting his message out, which if you’re an illegal alien celebrating the proposed Senate immigration bill appears to be “we’re glad you’re here and don’t care that you broke our laws, and we’re giving you a leg up on legal immigrants who continue to wait patiently and obeyed our laws.” But I digress. Additionally, other candidates who unfortunately (for their constituents) are also hampered by the pesky demands of holding public office are missing votes, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, although both have missed far fewer votes than McCain (1.8% and 6.4%). Others seem to find time to campaign and continue doing the job for which they were elected, but not McCain. What caught my attention in the report of McCain’s missed votes were the criteria used by McCain and his staff to determine that missing 42 straight votes would not matter.
The following is a paragraph from Kane’s report that also contains a brief statement from the McCain campaign:
Granted, McCain isn't the only senator missing votes in favor of the presidential campaign trail. And as his staff has pointed out repeatedly, none of McCain's missed votes has made the difference in a bill's fate. In a statement to Capitol Briefing, McCain's campaign said, "Regrettably, it is impossible for a presidential candidate to avoid missing votes. The Senator has not missed a vote where his vote would have affected the outcome, and he will make every effort to be in the Senate on the occasions when it would."
The next time you hear a politician urge citizens to be actively involved in politics and to exercise their right to vote, or when you hear the bleak reports after each election in which barely 40% of Americans care enough to vote even when the handling of a war is at stake, the statement from McCain’s campaign should come to mind. When citizens in a democracy adopt the attitude that they should only vote when they are sure their vote will influence the outcome, democracy no longer functions. Yet McCain has adopted just such an attitude, and instead of voting so that his support or opposition is officially recorded he just skips the opportunity to cast his vote. The hypocrisy of McCain’s actions is clearly illustrated in his urging young Americans to become more active in politics and to vote.
The following is an excerpt from an article John McCain wrote for Washington Monthly in October 2001 titled “Putting the ‘National’ In National Service”:
Beyond such concrete needs lies a deeper spiritual crisis within our national culture. Since Watergate, we have witnessed an increased cynicism about our governmental institutions. We see its impact in declining voter participation and apathy about our public life---symptoms of a system that demands reform. But it's a mistake, I think, to believe that this apathy means Americans do not love their country and aren't motivated to fix what is wrong. The growth of local volunteerism and the outpouring of sentiment for "the greatest generation" suggest a different explanation: that Americans hunger for patriotic service to the nation, but do not see ways to personally make a difference.
What is lacking today is not a need for patriotic service, nor a willingness to serve, but the opportunity. Indeed, one of the curious truths of our era is that while opportunities to serve ourselves have exploded---with ever-expanding choices of what to buy, where to eat, what to read, watch, or listen to---opportunities to spend some time serving our country have narrowed.
Perhaps the decline in voter participation and the growing apathy about public life is a direct result of declining voter participation in the Senate. Why would McCain expect young Americans in particular to seek out opportunities to serve their country when he does not make good use of his ample opportunities to vote on important legislation? He decried selfishly serving ourselves, yet he avoids voting in the Senate while serving his own personal desire to be president. The excuse that a bill’s fate does not hang in the balance is inconsistent with conservative principles. If the constitution is to be taken seriously, then Senators should lead by example, conducting the people’s business and voting regardless of any predicted outcome.
Consider the case of Florida in the 2000 presidential election. One of the most intense controversies occurred when CNN, CBS, and other liberal-leaning networks declared that Al Gore was the projected winner in Florida long before the polls had closed in the western panhandle of the state, which is strongly Republican. Many voters in the panhandle, upon hearing that Gore was projected to win the state regardless of votes that had not yet been cast, made the unfortunate decision not to drive to the polls and wait in long lines. Like McCain’s Senate voting attitude, the outcome did not appear to be in the balance. The reality, realized later of course, was that every vote did count and had Florida panhandle voters not adopted the McCain criteria for voter participation, a large number of Republican votes would have made the entire vote count fiasco in West Palm Beach County completely
unnecessary.Senator McCain is a war hero and a patriot, but he appears to have missed the point of democracy, a point that we have been trying to teach in the fragile Iraqi democracy: we do not vote only if our vote will clearly make the difference, we vote because we can. Once we no longer appreciate that privilege, we have surrendered our right to freedom.
Other posts referencing John McCain:
McCain’s League Proposal is “Super”
Brit Crew Claims Opposing Captors “Not An Option”: Heroic POWs In History Considered It The Only Option
McCain: “I’m Sure I Have A Policy On That, I Just Need To Check What It Is”
Forgetting The Unforgettable: Pills May Soon Erase Traumatic Memories
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Iranian Youth Set Example For Congress
There is more enthusiasm and support for Middle East Democracy among college students in Iran, where such support is a capital offense, than in the U.S. House and Senate, where such support should be expected. While Democrats and some Republicans in the House and Senate continue pounding the incessant drumbeat of surrender and withdrawal from Iraq, effectively abandoning a fragile Arab democracy, university students in Iran are risking life and limb to install and participate in on-campus democracy. The United States has long hoped that such sentiment could one day lead to another Iranian revolution, with Iranian students leading the charge toward democracy and modernization and away from radical Islamic rule and suppression of human rights. Young Iranians are fulfilling their role by pushing Ahmadinejad and the mullahs for more pro-western and democratic policies, but the elected leaders of the land of the free and the home of the brave are not offering much by way of example when it comes to embracing Middle East democracy.
Compare the “timetable for withdrawal” and “this war is lost” attitudes of the Democrat controlled House and Senate with the courage of Iranian university students as reported in today’s New York Times:
The drive for freedom is inherent in the human spirit, and while these Iranian students fight what some might consider a minor skirmish in the war on oppressive ideologies, they are willing to risk beatings, torture, and execution simply for the right to choose their own student government on-campus. If under oppression for several years, they will continue this fight because it is a fundamental struggle, and when new students arrive they too will engage in the battle. In stark contrast are America’s liberals, who cannot stomach a brutal fight to protect Iraqi freedom from terrorists seeking to return the country to oppression simply because the war has lasted longer than they expected. The Bush administration is somewhat to blame for the unrealistic expectations of rapid success, but in the face of setbacks and fierce resistance from organized terrorists in Iraq the administration has pressed forward with a dogged determination to win. Not so for the Democrats in the House and Senate, who are not as committed to democracy and victory as they are to elections and regaining the White House in 2008 at any cost, including freedom for the Iraqi people.
The courage and democratic leanings of Iran’s students is one of the primary reasons that military action against Iran’s nuclear program or as a reprisal for Iran’s role as a terror sponsor is so problematic. America continues to hope and pray for Iranians themselves to rise up and overthrow the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs’ race for nuclear weapons essentially places a limit on how long the world can be willing to wait for an internal revolution before military action becomes an absolute necessity. This situation is further complicated by the minimal intelligence capabilities the U.S. and its allies can rely upon in Iran. If the intelligence is accurate, America can afford to wait and fuel the fires of revolution among pro-western elements within Iran. Yet assuming the intelligence is accurate is in itself a risky proposition.
Is it possible that the Iranian university students and America’s current congressmen and senators were accidentally switched at birth? Other than brazen political chicanery or complete ignorance of geopolitics, no other explanations account for the admirable backbone displayed at Iran’s universities and the complete absence of spine in the U.S. house and senate on the same issue: democracy in the Middle East.
Compare the “timetable for withdrawal” and “this war is lost” attitudes of the Democrat controlled House and Senate with the courage of Iranian university students as reported in today’s New York Times:
Amir Kabir University has long been a center of student political activity. Students there chanted against Mr. Ahmadinejad when he visited the university late last year and set fire to posters bearing his likeness.
A student leader, Mehrdad Khalilpour, was arrested Monday by security officials, but two of his comrades managed to escape. Among other student leaders, Babak Zamanian was arrested late last month and Ahmad Ghassaban was arrested on Friday.
However, the student democracy advocates said they scored a victory on Monday when they managed to hold their annual elections.
“The students reached the conclusion that the only way was to resist,” said Ehsan Mansouri, a student leader who has been banned from attending classes. “The students guarded the ballot boxes as they were attacked and clubbed severely by the university security guards.”
The drive for freedom is inherent in the human spirit, and while these Iranian students fight what some might consider a minor skirmish in the war on oppressive ideologies, they are willing to risk beatings, torture, and execution simply for the right to choose their own student government on-campus. If under oppression for several years, they will continue this fight because it is a fundamental struggle, and when new students arrive they too will engage in the battle. In stark contrast are America’s liberals, who cannot stomach a brutal fight to protect Iraqi freedom from terrorists seeking to return the country to oppression simply because the war has lasted longer than they expected. The Bush administration is somewhat to blame for the unrealistic expectations of rapid success, but in the face of setbacks and fierce resistance from organized terrorists in Iraq the administration has pressed forward with a dogged determination to win. Not so for the Democrats in the House and Senate, who are not as committed to democracy and victory as they are to elections and regaining the White House in 2008 at any cost, including freedom for the Iraqi people.
The courage and democratic leanings of Iran’s students is one of the primary reasons that military action against Iran’s nuclear program or as a reprisal for Iran’s role as a terror sponsor is so problematic. America continues to hope and pray for Iranians themselves to rise up and overthrow the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, but the mullahs’ race for nuclear weapons essentially places a limit on how long the world can be willing to wait for an internal revolution before military action becomes an absolute necessity. This situation is further complicated by the minimal intelligence capabilities the U.S. and its allies can rely upon in Iran. If the intelligence is accurate, America can afford to wait and fuel the fires of revolution among pro-western elements within Iran. Yet assuming the intelligence is accurate is in itself a risky proposition.
Is it possible that the Iranian university students and America’s current congressmen and senators were accidentally switched at birth? Other than brazen political chicanery or complete ignorance of geopolitics, no other explanations account for the admirable backbone displayed at Iran’s universities and the complete absence of spine in the U.S. house and senate on the same issue: democracy in the Middle East.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
McCain's League Proposal is "Super"
Is it just me, or do some of you also think of the Justice League of America comics whenever you hear or read references to the League of Nations or any other phrase using the word “
league?” Even with a graduate degree in history the word “league” conjures more images of Superman and his trusted allied superheroes than Woodrow Wilson. How fitting then, that John McCain’s speech to the Hoover Institution yesterday filled my mind with images of a League of Democracies, with America standing as Superman surrounded by legions of valuable allies each with a unique contribution to offer to the joint effort against tyranny and evil. McCain, of course, was not speaking on the virtues of comic book superheroes to the august members of the Hoover Institution. Yet the comparison between the Justice League and McCain’s proposed League of Democracies seems just as valid and exciting now after absorbing the entire speech and appreciating its greatness.
John McCain’s poll numbers are steadily improving and the gap between current GOP front runner Rudy Giuliani and McCain is shrinking. Over the past two weeks, McCain has been more aggressive in his campaigning and has impressed potential voters. After reading McCain’s address to the Hoover Institution, it is easy to see why his appeal appears to be growing. Whether the Senator writes his own speeches (which is entirely possible given his love of history and writing) or has employed a speechwriter remains to be seen, but in either case, his Hoover speech was pleasantly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a Hill” tribute to America’s past and future greatness. That speech, Reagan’s last as President, was an eloquent clarion call for Americans to live up to America’s potential and set a standard that will encourage other peoples to embrace freedom and democracy. McCain’s Hoover Institution speech went a step further, challenging the free world to form a League of Democracies to which all nations who value democracy and self-determination can turn for protection and support of common interests.
Initial reports of McCain’s speech gave some the impression that his proposal for a League of Democracies was merely an idealistic 21st century rehash of Woodrow Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations, but when one examines carefully McCain’s reasoning and the global role he foresees for a League of Democracies, the differences between his proposal and Wilson’s become clear. Whereas Wilson’s League of Nations was a fractured collection of nations desperate to avoid any future wars, McCain’s proposal offers substantial advantages to members based on their commitment to democracy and freedom, and subsequently produces incentives for non-members to make changes necessary for inclusion. The entire speech can be found at National Review Online , but the following excerpt paints a striking portrait of the world envisioned by McCain:
While McCain may publicly insist that a League of Democracies would not supplant the UN, it is not difficult to imagine the effect such a League would have on the viability of the already declining UN. Yesterday, John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who is a campaign consultant for Duncan Hunter, published a preview of McCain’s speech and made the astute observation that the League of Democracies would grow in importance and power to the point that all relevant issues would naturally be addressed by it, rather than the UN. Hawkins, no fan of the UN, pointed out to his readers that McCain’s League is a good idea precisely because it would ultimately create an avenue for the U.S. to “get out of the United Nations.”
I agree with Hawkins that McCain’s League would reduce the UN to utter irrelevance, and if that were the only reason to support it, that would still be sufficient for me. However, considering McCain’s speech as a whole, I see something worthy of serious consideration and implementation, particularly as it applies to combating the radical ideologies that breed terrorism. McCain distills the battle we face down to two sides, with no middle ground, invoking James Madison to make his case:
Uniting the world’s democracies into a global entity seeking to preserve and promote democracy invokes another Reagan comparison, a worldwide call to “tear down this wall” that exists in too many nations between oppressive governments and their freedom seeking peoples. Whether or not one supports McCain the candidate, his League of Democracies is worthy of support from conservatives, who despise the UN and repressive systems of government, as well as liberals who embrace international collaboration and promote human rights. I recommend that readers visit NRO and read McCain’s masterful speech in its entirety.
league?” Even with a graduate degree in history the word “league” conjures more images of Superman and his trusted allied superheroes than Woodrow Wilson. How fitting then, that John McCain’s speech to the Hoover Institution yesterday filled my mind with images of a League of Democracies, with America standing as Superman surrounded by legions of valuable allies each with a unique contribution to offer to the joint effort against tyranny and evil. McCain, of course, was not speaking on the virtues of comic book superheroes to the august members of the Hoover Institution. Yet the comparison between the Justice League and McCain’s proposed League of Democracies seems just as valid and exciting now after absorbing the entire speech and appreciating its greatness.John McCain’s poll numbers are steadily improving and the gap between current GOP front runner Rudy Giuliani and McCain is shrinking. Over the past two weeks, McCain has been more aggressive in his campaigning and has impressed potential voters. After reading McCain’s address to the Hoover Institution, it is easy to see why his appeal appears to be growing. Whether the Senator writes his own speeches (which is entirely possible given his love of history and writing) or has employed a speechwriter remains to be seen, but in either case, his Hoover speech was pleasantly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a Hill” tribute to America’s past and future greatness. That speech, Reagan’s last as President, was an eloquent clarion call for Americans to live up to America’s potential and set a standard that will encourage other peoples to embrace freedom and democracy. McCain’s Hoover Institution speech went a step further, challenging the free world to form a League of Democracies to which all nations who value democracy and self-determination can turn for protection and support of common interests.
Initial reports of McCain’s speech gave some the impression that his proposal for a League of Democracies was merely an idealistic 21st century rehash of Woodrow Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations, but when one examines carefully McCain’s reasoning and the global role he foresees for a League of Democracies, the differences between his proposal and Wilson’s become clear. Whereas Wilson’s League of Nations was a fractured collection of nations desperate to avoid any future wars, McCain’s proposal offers substantial advantages to members based on their commitment to democracy and freedom, and subsequently produces incentives for non-members to make changes necessary for inclusion. The entire speech can be found at National Review Online , but the following excerpt paints a striking portrait of the world envisioned by McCain:
If we strike this new bargain and renew our transatlantic solidarity, I believe we must then take the next step and expand the circle of our democratic community. As we speak, Americansoldiers are serving in Afghanistan alongside British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, Turkish, Polish, and Lithuanian soldiers from the NATO alliance. They are also serving alongside forces from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea —all democratic allies or close partners of the United States. But they are not all part of a common structure. They don't work together systematically or meet regularly to develop diplomatic and economic strategies to meet their common problems. The 21st century world no longer divides neatly into geographic regions. Organizations and partnerships must be as international as the challenges we confront.
The NATO alliance has begun to deal with this gap by promoting global partnerships between current members of the alliance and the other great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to those who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.
This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision.
While McCain may publicly insist that a League of Democracies would not supplant the UN, it is not difficult to imagine the effect such a League would have on the viability of the already declining UN. Yesterday, John Hawkins at Right Wing News, who is a campaign consultant for Duncan Hunter, published a preview of McCain’s speech and made the astute observation that the League of Democracies would grow in importance and power to the point that all relevant issues would naturally be addressed by it, rather than the UN. Hawkins, no fan of the UN, pointed out to his readers that McCain’s League is a good idea precisely because it would ultimately create an avenue for the U.S. to “get out of the United Nations.”
I agree with Hawkins that McCain’s League would reduce the UN to utter irrelevance, and if that were the only reason to support it, that would still be sufficient for me. However, considering McCain’s speech as a whole, I see something worthy of serious consideration and implementation, particularly as it applies to combating the radical ideologies that breed terrorism. McCain distills the battle we face down to two sides, with no middle ground, invoking James Madison to make his case:
Almost two centuries ago James Madison declared that the great struggle of the Epoch' was between liberty and despotism.' Many thought that this struggle ended with the Cold War, but it didn't. It took on new guises, such as the modern terrorist network, an enemy of progress that has turned our technological advances to its own use, and in rulers trying to rebuild 19th-century autocracies in a 21st century world. Today the talk is of the war on terror, a war in which we must succeed. But the war on terror cannot be the only organizing principle of American foreign policy. International terrorists capable of inflicting mass destruction are a new phenomenon. But what they seek and what they stand for are as old as time. They comprise part of worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism. Upon the outcome of that struggle depend our security, our prosperity, and our democratic way of life.
Uniting the world’s democracies into a global entity seeking to preserve and promote democracy invokes another Reagan comparison, a worldwide call to “tear down this wall” that exists in too many nations between oppressive governments and their freedom seeking peoples. Whether or not one supports McCain the candidate, his League of Democracies is worthy of support from conservatives, who despise the UN and repressive systems of government, as well as liberals who embrace international collaboration and promote human rights. I recommend that readers visit NRO and read McCain’s masterful speech in its entirety.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Are Iraqis Worth It? Hanson Nails Issue
We daily scour the blogosphere and news columns for stories or opinions that strike a chord within us, that indicate the author is a kindred spirit, that demonstrate that someone else out there “gets it” when it comes to the important issues of our time. Today while reading National Review Online I read an article by an author I read with regularity and had such an experience. Even before this week, with the passage in the House and Senate of the Iraq White Flag Surrender Turn Tail and Flee Beginning October 1st Bill dominating the headlines, I wrote about the real reason why some Americans are not willing to sacrifice long and hard for the fledgling democracy in Iraq, and today prominent author and NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson took up this issue in a brilliantly written and bluntly articulated article titled, “Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak.”
Hanson shared my view that much of the war weariness among Americans is due to a feeling of superiority, that somehow democracy and freedom are exclusive American virtues and rights, and at the least sign of difficulty, we assume other peoples are not prepared of capable of governing themselves as we do. Hanson wrote:
In my previous posts about Indonesia’s successes as a Muslim democracy and the Democrats unwillingness to be patient with Iraq’s governmental development, I, like Hanson, questioned why so many Americans, the Democratic left in particular, were so eager for a rush to withdraw without victory in Iraq. Their behavior demonstrated what I described previously as a “carrot and stick” approach, with Pelosi and Reid holding the stick of abandonment over free Iraqis who are working and dying to cement democracy for future generations of Iraqis and other aspiring but oppressed populations in the Middle East. I concluded:
In World War II, Americans had little trouble relating with and having empathy for the European populations our soldiers died to free from the Nazis. However, fighting to preserve democracy or at least halt the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam, Americans demonstrated far less cultural understanding or will to share the blessings of freedom with Asian peoples. Is this same phenomenon occurring now in Iraq? Is our minimal knowledge of Middle Eastern cultures, languages, and religious groups causing us to consider those peoples less worthy of our money, time, and blood than Europeans were in two world wars? Perhaps the most salient question is, if we give Iraqis a taste of freedom and democracy and abandon them before they can sustain their freedom, will any other peoples rise up to overthrow tyranny knowing that the bastion of freedom, the United States, cannot be trusted to defend democracy?
Victor Davis Hanson’s article was a gem that Capital Cloak heartily recommends to all readers.
Hanson shared my view that much of the war weariness among Americans is due to a feeling of superiority, that somehow democracy and freedom are exclusive American virtues and rights, and at the least sign of difficulty, we assume other peoples are not prepared of capable of governing themselves as we do. Hanson wrote:
But, again, most Americans now don’t think it is worth it — and not just because of the cost we pay, but because of what we get in return. Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate: a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens — whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion: we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery….
But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, “It isn’t worth it,” that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means “They aren’t worth it.” Voters may not like particularly a Harry Reid, but in frustration at the violence, they sense now that, just like them, he also doesn’t like a vague somebody over there.So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.
In my previous posts about Indonesia’s successes as a Muslim democracy and the Democrats unwillingness to be patient with Iraq’s governmental development, I, like Hanson, questioned why so many Americans, the Democratic left in particular, were so eager for a rush to withdraw without victory in Iraq. Their behavior demonstrated what I described previously as a “carrot and stick” approach, with Pelosi and Reid holding the stick of abandonment over free Iraqis who are working and dying to cement democracy for future generations of Iraqis and other aspiring but oppressed populations in the Middle East. I concluded:
There are only two possible explanations for the behavior of Speaker Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats: first, they despise President Bush so much that they cannot afford to allow the Iraq War to be won, as a victory there would cement President Bush’s legacy as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East and ensure a Republican sweep in the 2008 elections; or second, Democrats are prejudiced in their belief that democracy should not be shared or supported in Muslim nations because Muslims are too backward in their thinking to truly want democracy.
In World War II, Americans had little trouble relating with and having empathy for the European populations our soldiers died to free from the Nazis. However, fighting to preserve democracy or at least halt the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam, Americans demonstrated far less cultural understanding or will to share the blessings of freedom with Asian peoples. Is this same phenomenon occurring now in Iraq? Is our minimal knowledge of Middle Eastern cultures, languages, and religious groups causing us to consider those peoples less worthy of our money, time, and blood than Europeans were in two world wars? Perhaps the most salient question is, if we give Iraqis a taste of freedom and democracy and abandon them before they can sustain their freedom, will any other peoples rise up to overthrow tyranny knowing that the bastion of freedom, the United States, cannot be trusted to defend democracy?
Victor Davis Hanson’s article was a gem that Capital Cloak heartily recommends to all readers.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Putin Checkmates Pro-Democracy Chess Champ
Recent news out of Russia indicates that in its continued efforts to consolidate power and silence critics, President Vladimir Putin’s government is rapidly developing decidedly anti-democratic and anti-American policies, and shows little fear of international criticism for its crackdown on democracy advocates critical of Putin. Last Friday, CNSNews reported that both houses of Russia’s parliament passed resolutions that accuse America of interfering with Russia’s internal political processes. The Russian government is bristling at current U.S. State Department assessments of the status of human rights and democracy in Russia, assessments that the Russians believe are intentionally exaggerated.
The State Department’s goal, according to the Russians, is to unite international opposition to the Putin government and to impose sanctions against Russia that would interfere with Russia’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections this year and in 2008. Recommending a preliminary strike, Russia’s parliament rattled its sabers about imposing economic sanctions on American interests in that country if America attempted to impose sanctions stemming from human rights violations.
Almost as if on cue, the Russian government could not restrain itself from violating human r
ights when an opportunity arose for promoting a positive international image. Pro-democracy rallies held in St. Petersburg and Moscow this weekend met with violent riot police tactics and numerous arrests, including Former international chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is now a prominent political activist giving name recognition and credibility to groups opposing Putin’s high-handed quashing of democracy. Kasparov, who has also contributed to the Wall Street Journal since 1990, spent 10 hours in jail before being released after paying a fine. According to Kasparov, the arresting authorities did not identify themselves and several demonstrators were badly beaten.
Incidents like this are becoming par for the course with Putin, and the behavior of the riot police demonstrated that the Russian government’s complaints about the State Department’s Russian human rights assessment are without merit, as Russian democracy appears to be in only slightly less mortal peril than Putin’s turncoat KGB colleagues and personal critics.
Kasparov, contributing to Newsweek in 2005, wrote the following assessment of Putin’s Russia:
That was Kasparov's bleak outlook in 2005. Nothing that has transpired in Russia in the past two years suggests that any improvement will occur under the Putin administration. Those who demonstrate for democracy in Russia are incredibly courageous and careful international scrutiny should be given to Russia’s handling of internal political dissent. I wrote previously of Putin’s thin skin, and Kasparov has worked his way underneath it.
The State Department’s goal, according to the Russians, is to unite international opposition to the Putin government and to impose sanctions against Russia that would interfere with Russia’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections this year and in 2008. Recommending a preliminary strike, Russia’s parliament rattled its sabers about imposing economic sanctions on American interests in that country if America attempted to impose sanctions stemming from human rights violations.
Almost as if on cue, the Russian government could not restrain itself from violating human r
ights when an opportunity arose for promoting a positive international image. Pro-democracy rallies held in St. Petersburg and Moscow this weekend met with violent riot police tactics and numerous arrests, including Former international chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is now a prominent political activist giving name recognition and credibility to groups opposing Putin’s high-handed quashing of democracy. Kasparov, who has also contributed to the Wall Street Journal since 1990, spent 10 hours in jail before being released after paying a fine. According to Kasparov, the arresting authorities did not identify themselves and several demonstrators were badly beaten.Incidents like this are becoming par for the course with Putin, and the behavior of the riot police demonstrated that the Russian government’s complaints about the State Department’s Russian human rights assessment are without merit, as Russian democracy appears to be in only slightly less mortal peril than Putin’s turncoat KGB colleagues and personal critics.
Kasparov, contributing to Newsweek in 2005, wrote the following assessment of Putin’s Russia:
The Russian people are ready for democracy—no less so than Iraqis. It's the Putin government that finds democracy unsuitable for its ends. The freedoms gained after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. have been steadily eroded until little remains. Putin is clamping the lid down so tight, in fact, that an explosion is inevitable. Stable? Not Russia.
. . . Nor is Russia an ally on terror outside its borders. Nuclear and missile technology flow to Iran, and Syria's dictatorship is shielded from U.N. investigation of its terror activities, all while the Kremlin says it is trying to help by exploiting its "special relationship" with these rogue states.
That was Kasparov's bleak outlook in 2005. Nothing that has transpired in Russia in the past two years suggests that any improvement will occur under the Putin administration. Those who demonstrate for democracy in Russia are incredibly courageous and careful international scrutiny should be given to Russia’s handling of internal political dissent. I wrote previously of Putin’s thin skin, and Kasparov has worked his way underneath it.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
CNN: Bitter Dems Target Electoral College
On Monday, a reader submitted a comment on my post “Electoral College in Crosshairs of 39 States,” in which the reader disagreed with my assertion that the impetus behind the current push to abolish the Electoral College was President Bush’s controversial victory over Al Gore despite Gore’s winning the popular vote. I wrote that liberal bitterness over that incident was driving the current movement.
Last night, CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider published an article on this issue, and although writing for a liberal-biased network, he acknowledged that Democrats are championing the Electoral College’s demise and recognized that while the movement did not begin with the 2000 election, that event created a sense of urgency that generated action. He also supported the conclusion that the current movement as described in my Monday post is in fact a legislative method to avoid amending the U.S. Constitution. Schneider wrote:
While there may be a need to engage in national discussion and debate over this issue of a national popular vote, that debate should occur BEFORE states act to circumvent the Constitution because “their man” did not win in 2000. The debate should focus on the merits of the Electoral College and if the support for a national popular vote is as broad as its proponents claim, then advocates should initiate the Constitutional amendment process.
The fact that they are quietly passing state legislative bills to avoid amending the Constitution should be a warning flag that the anti-Electoral College movement is pushing for something not explicitly approved of by a majority of Americans. If it were popular and much needed, a Constitutional amendment would pass smoothly. Advocates are avoiding that process because most Americans do not want to abandon a system established by the Founding Fathers at the request of smaller states to make sure their interests were not completely negated by the largest population centers.
The arguments that a national popular vote would improve campaigns because candidates would be forced to spend more time in “safe” cities and states, are specious at best. The idea of Democrat candidates campaigning hard in liberal Philadelphia to increase their margins of victory to offset losses in the popular vote elsewhere, is as ludicrous as the old “margin of victory” formula used by the BCS in college football. Teams like Florida State would post 77-0 victories over small patsies offering no competition because it was safe, and then BCS poll voters would be impressed by the margin of victory and boost a team’s rankings. A national popular vote would create a BCS system for electing U.S. presidents, a system in which 6-7 large metropolitan areas would determine a winner (just like the self-proclaimed 6 “major” college football conferences dictate participation in the BCS), and smaller states and cities would have little to no influence on national policies that directly affect them (just like the “mid-major” conferences have no opportunity to play in the BCS championship game).
Fortunately for America, the Founder’s wisdom foresaw the need to protect rural and suburban communities from being swallowed by the political domination of a few large cities concentrated in certain regions. The Electoral College assures that Philadelphians, who through no fault of their own know nothing about the needs of ranchers in the west or farmers in the Midwest, are not selecting our president simply because they outnumber the residents in less densely populated areas. A national popular vote would concentrate power too narrowly, and like the BCS, once power is obtained, it is stingily, if at all, shared.
Despite token BCS appearances by the University of Utah and Boise State (both resounding victories for the "mid-major"), the current BCS system still assures that no team outside of the 6 self-proclaimed "major" conferences will ever receive enough votes to play in the BCS "Championship" Game. It is not difficult to predict that America's 6-7 largest cities would operate in a similar fashion, choosing election participants and eventual winners with no regard to the needs or preferences of "mid-major" states and regions. We can do better than a BCS or American Idol popularity contest. The stakes are too high for such sophomoric and cavalier selection processes.
If you missed Monday’s post on this topic and the reader comments, I encourage you to take the time to examine the issue and make your voice heard by your local legislators. With 39 states debating bills similar to Maryland’s, chances are high that your legislators may be pondering an end run around the Constitution. We have a Constitutional amendment process for a reason. I urge readers to make your local representatives adhere to it.
Last night, CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider published an article on this issue, and although writing for a liberal-biased network, he acknowledged that Democrats are championing the Electoral College’s demise and recognized that while the movement did not begin with the 2000 election, that event created a sense of urgency that generated action. He also supported the conclusion that the current movement as described in my Monday post is in fact a legislative method to avoid amending the U.S. Constitution. Schneider wrote:
Those states would agree to appoint presidential electors who would vote for the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the vote in each state. It would be a way to turn presidential elections into a nationwide popular vote without having to amend the Constitution. . . .
The problem is what happened in 2000. George W. Bush got elected by winning the Electoral College, even though Al Gore got more votes. That's happened four times in the country's history.(Watch Schneider talk about the Maryland law )
In our current system, the president is elected by the Electoral College and not directly by the people. The number of electoral votes each state receives depends on its population and representatives are chosen to vote on behalf of the people in the state. To win, a candidate has to win 270 electoral votes, which is a majority. If neither candidate gets that, Congress determines who wins. A few times, the American people's choice for president hasn't actually moved into the White House.
It's mostly Democrats who are behind this move. They're still angry over how Bush got elected, even though in 2004, a shift of about 60 thousand votes in Ohio would have elected John Kerry despite Bush's popular vote margin of over three million.
While there may be a need to engage in national discussion and debate over this issue of a national popular vote, that debate should occur BEFORE states act to circumvent the Constitution because “their man” did not win in 2000. The debate should focus on the merits of the Electoral College and if the support for a national popular vote is as broad as its proponents claim, then advocates should initiate the Constitutional amendment process.
The fact that they are quietly passing state legislative bills to avoid amending the Constitution should be a warning flag that the anti-Electoral College movement is pushing for something not explicitly approved of by a majority of Americans. If it were popular and much needed, a Constitutional amendment would pass smoothly. Advocates are avoiding that process because most Americans do not want to abandon a system established by the Founding Fathers at the request of smaller states to make sure their interests were not completely negated by the largest population centers.
The arguments that a national popular vote would improve campaigns because candidates would be forced to spend more time in “safe” cities and states, are specious at best. The idea of Democrat candidates campaigning hard in liberal Philadelphia to increase their margins of victory to offset losses in the popular vote elsewhere, is as ludicrous as the old “margin of victory” formula used by the BCS in college football. Teams like Florida State would post 77-0 victories over small patsies offering no competition because it was safe, and then BCS poll voters would be impressed by the margin of victory and boost a team’s rankings. A national popular vote would create a BCS system for electing U.S. presidents, a system in which 6-7 large metropolitan areas would determine a winner (just like the self-proclaimed 6 “major” college football conferences dictate participation in the BCS), and smaller states and cities would have little to no influence on national policies that directly affect them (just like the “mid-major” conferences have no opportunity to play in the BCS championship game).
Fortunately for America, the Founder’s wisdom foresaw the need to protect rural and suburban communities from being swallowed by the political domination of a few large cities concentrated in certain regions. The Electoral College assures that Philadelphians, who through no fault of their own know nothing about the needs of ranchers in the west or farmers in the Midwest, are not selecting our president simply because they outnumber the residents in less densely populated areas. A national popular vote would concentrate power too narrowly, and like the BCS, once power is obtained, it is stingily, if at all, shared.
Despite token BCS appearances by the University of Utah and Boise State (both resounding victories for the "mid-major"), the current BCS system still assures that no team outside of the 6 self-proclaimed "major" conferences will ever receive enough votes to play in the BCS "Championship" Game. It is not difficult to predict that America's 6-7 largest cities would operate in a similar fashion, choosing election participants and eventual winners with no regard to the needs or preferences of "mid-major" states and regions. We can do better than a BCS or American Idol popularity contest. The stakes are too high for such sophomoric and cavalier selection processes.
If you missed Monday’s post on this topic and the reader comments, I encourage you to take the time to examine the issue and make your voice heard by your local legislators. With 39 states debating bills similar to Maryland’s, chances are high that your legislators may be pondering an end run around the Constitution. We have a Constitutional amendment process for a reason. I urge readers to make your local representatives adhere to it.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Electoral College in Crosshairs of 39 States
Is your state legislature quietly working to discard an important Constitutional provision established by the Founding Fathers? It may be, but it is hoping you will not notice until it’s too late. Several state legislatures have already done so and 38 states at last count were considering passage of legislation to destroy the work of the Founding Fathers with no fanfare and minimal public outcry or even awareness. What is this pressing issue that states are moving rapidly to address, and in many cases embrace? Eliminating the Electoral College and our republican form of government currently in place in favor of a winner by popular vote democracy.
The provision gradually being voted out of existence is important, as it balances power between large and small states in national elections and limits the influence that one highly populated region can wield in determining who will be President of the United States. The Constitutional provision is commonly misunderstood, as most voters never take the time to read Article V of the Constitution, and is thus easily misrepresented in the media by groups who favor eliminating the Electoral College. These groups cite arguments for the change that are disingenuous statistically and historically, yet they rely on voter ignorance to achieve their goal.
Americans should always be wary of any movement that claims the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a particular circumstance and thus the Constitution must be altered to reflect “reality” or “modern developments.” In the case of the movement to abolish the Electoral College, the motive of the movement’s ardent supporters should be closely evaluated. In sound bites and news articles, the leaders of this movement claim to be fighting for minorities, for “making votes count,” and for the winner of the popular vote to automatically be elected. What is the reason for this renewed any rapidly advancing campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and republican system? Why, George W. Bush, of course.
Four times in American electoral history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College and was denied the presidency, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. While some dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system arose from the first three of these occurrences, the 2000 election which denied Al Gore of victory generated multiple recounts, court decisions, and accusations of dishonesty unparalleled in U.S. history. No president since Abraham Lincoln took office with more animosity and bitter division confronting him than George W. Bush. Opponents immediately declared his presidency to be illegitimate because “the people” had chosen Al Gore. The rancor this electoral environment produced has hampered the Bush administration and has given added impetus to the current drive to abolish the Electoral College. Although that movement disguises itself as an innocent lamb Constitutional improvement, it is in reality a dangerous wolf counting on Anti-Bush sentiment to assure the desired change.
Maryland’s legislature recently approved a measure that will guarantee its Electoral College votes will automatically be given to the winner of the popular vote. Some Maryland legislators questioned the wisdom of giving away the state’s 10 Electoral College votes to a candidate the majority of its own voters may not have chosen, but the anti-Bush hotheads succeeded in passing the measure. State legislators have cleverly understood that changing the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is a very lengthy and difficult process, while changing their own state constitutions can achieve the same end by simpler means. By automatically assigning a state’s Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner, the Electoral College would no longer have the ability to serve the purpose for which it was created: balancing power between large (highly populated) and smaller states. The Electors’ votes would be meaningless.
The recent World Net Daily article about this issue refers to two groups: one, National Popular Vote, is spearheading the drive to abolish the Electoral College. The other, Wallbuilders, is advocating against the change and for preservation of our government as a republic rather than a true democracy. The Wallbuilders Internet site offers historical explanations for the origins of the Electoral College, and detailed counterarguments to the claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic, outdated, unfair, discriminatory, or ineffective in balancing power. It is worth reviewing, as this movement to destroy our republican form of government appears to be gaining momentum.
Of equal importance, Wallbuilders also debunks the dangerously false assertion that the Founding Fathers would embrace the proposed change to a virtual democracy rather than a republic. Those who argue that the Founders never intended for a popular vote winner to lose an election have clearly never read, or are choosing to ignore, both Article V of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, both of which strenuously work to convince Americans to avoid a popular democracy. The founders, in fact, mandated that all state governments also be republics rather than democracies. The following quotes from Founders illustrate that they knew the difference between a republic and a democracy and wisely chose a republic, courtesy of Wallbuilders:
The desire for large, densely populated states to wield more influence on elections has not changed since the days of the Founders. One need only look at the recent decisions by California, Florida, and several other large states to move their election year primaries to February to see why small states need protection. Why was this done? Simply, large states felt that smaller, insignificant (in their view) small states like Iowa and New Hampshire were having too much influence on national elections through their early primaries and caucuses. These same large states are also championing the back door approach to abolishing the Electoral College by passing state legislation dictating that Electoral votes are given to the popular winner nationwide.
If you are unsure whether you reside in a state that is acting behind the scenes to eliminate the Electoral College, contact your state legislators and voice your opinion. While it is true Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, President Bush carried 2436 counties nationwide as opposed to only 676 for Gore. Gore’s support was concentrated in a few densely populated cities on the East and West Coasts. President Bush’s appeal was truly national in scope, indicating that the majority of localities felt he best represented their interests and values. Spy The News! encourages voters to educate themselves about this issue and why the Founders established the Electoral College. Readers should work to prevent state legislatures from destroying a measure the Founders applied as a cement to hold the large and small states together despite population concentrations or popular trends.
The provision gradually being voted out of existence is important, as it balances power between large and small states in national elections and limits the influence that one highly populated region can wield in determining who will be President of the United States. The Constitutional provision is commonly misunderstood, as most voters never take the time to read Article V of the Constitution, and is thus easily misrepresented in the media by groups who favor eliminating the Electoral College. These groups cite arguments for the change that are disingenuous statistically and historically, yet they rely on voter ignorance to achieve their goal.
Americans should always be wary of any movement that claims the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned a particular circumstance and thus the Constitution must be altered to reflect “reality” or “modern developments.” In the case of the movement to abolish the Electoral College, the motive of the movement’s ardent supporters should be closely evaluated. In sound bites and news articles, the leaders of this movement claim to be fighting for minorities, for “making votes count,” and for the winner of the popular vote to automatically be elected. What is the reason for this renewed any rapidly advancing campaign to eliminate the Electoral College and republican system? Why, George W. Bush, of course.
Four times in American electoral history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the Electoral College and was denied the presidency, in 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000. While some dissatisfaction with the Electoral College system arose from the first three of these occurrences, the 2000 election which denied Al Gore of victory generated multiple recounts, court decisions, and accusations of dishonesty unparalleled in U.S. history. No president since Abraham Lincoln took office with more animosity and bitter division confronting him than George W. Bush. Opponents immediately declared his presidency to be illegitimate because “the people” had chosen Al Gore. The rancor this electoral environment produced has hampered the Bush administration and has given added impetus to the current drive to abolish the Electoral College. Although that movement disguises itself as an innocent lamb Constitutional improvement, it is in reality a dangerous wolf counting on Anti-Bush sentiment to assure the desired change.
Maryland’s legislature recently approved a measure that will guarantee its Electoral College votes will automatically be given to the winner of the popular vote. Some Maryland legislators questioned the wisdom of giving away the state’s 10 Electoral College votes to a candidate the majority of its own voters may not have chosen, but the anti-Bush hotheads succeeded in passing the measure. State legislators have cleverly understood that changing the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College is a very lengthy and difficult process, while changing their own state constitutions can achieve the same end by simpler means. By automatically assigning a state’s Electoral College votes to the popular vote winner, the Electoral College would no longer have the ability to serve the purpose for which it was created: balancing power between large (highly populated) and smaller states. The Electors’ votes would be meaningless.
The recent World Net Daily article about this issue refers to two groups: one, National Popular Vote, is spearheading the drive to abolish the Electoral College. The other, Wallbuilders, is advocating against the change and for preservation of our government as a republic rather than a true democracy. The Wallbuilders Internet site offers historical explanations for the origins of the Electoral College, and detailed counterarguments to the claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic, outdated, unfair, discriminatory, or ineffective in balancing power. It is worth reviewing, as this movement to destroy our republican form of government appears to be gaining momentum.
Of equal importance, Wallbuilders also debunks the dangerously false assertion that the Founding Fathers would embrace the proposed change to a virtual democracy rather than a republic. Those who argue that the Founders never intended for a popular vote winner to lose an election have clearly never read, or are choosing to ignore, both Article V of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, both of which strenuously work to convince Americans to avoid a popular democracy. The founders, in fact, mandated that all state governments also be republics rather than democracies. The following quotes from Founders illustrate that they knew the difference between a republic and a democracy and wisely chose a republic, courtesy of Wallbuilders:
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. James Madison
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams
A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be, liberty. Fisher Ames, a framer of the bill of rights
We have seen the tumults of democracy terminate . . . as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism. . . . Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to thy level of folly and guilt. Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the constitution
[T]he experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating, and short-lived. John Quincy Adams
A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils. Benjamin Rush, signer of the declaration
In democracy . . . there are commonly tumults and disorders. . . . Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth. Noah Webster, responsible for article i, section i, ¶ 8 of the constitution
Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state — it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage. John Witherspoon, signer of the declaration
The desire for large, densely populated states to wield more influence on elections has not changed since the days of the Founders. One need only look at the recent decisions by California, Florida, and several other large states to move their election year primaries to February to see why small states need protection. Why was this done? Simply, large states felt that smaller, insignificant (in their view) small states like Iowa and New Hampshire were having too much influence on national elections through their early primaries and caucuses. These same large states are also championing the back door approach to abolishing the Electoral College by passing state legislation dictating that Electoral votes are given to the popular winner nationwide.
If you are unsure whether you reside in a state that is acting behind the scenes to eliminate the Electoral College, contact your state legislators and voice your opinion. While it is true Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, President Bush carried 2436 counties nationwide as opposed to only 676 for Gore. Gore’s support was concentrated in a few densely populated cities on the East and West Coasts. President Bush’s appeal was truly national in scope, indicating that the majority of localities felt he best represented their interests and values. Spy The News! encourages voters to educate themselves about this issue and why the Founders established the Electoral College. Readers should work to prevent state legislatures from destroying a measure the Founders applied as a cement to hold the large and small states together despite population concentrations or popular trends.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
INP/AFP Joint Op Nets Terrorists in Indonesia: World's Largest Muslim Nation Proves Moderate Islamic Democracy Successful
A significant event in the War on Terror occurred in Java, Indonesia last week, and was publicly reported for the first time today. As reported in The Australian, late last week a joint operation between Indonesian and Australian police resulted in the arrests of 7 members of the terrorist group Jammah Islamiah (JL) in Java. An eighth member of the group was shot and killed during the police raid. According to Australian Federal Police (AFP) officia
ls, the terrorists were in the advanced stages of preparing a bombing campaign estimated to be twice the size of the 2002 Bali bombings which killed 202 people, mostly tourists. The AFP’s interest in the JL terrorists stemmed from the fact that 88 Australians died in the Bali bombings.
According to Indonesian National Police (INP) and AFP officials quoted in The Australian, the raid netted the following seizures: 20 completed bombs; 1,606 pounds of explosive materials; 99 pounds of TNT; nearly 200 detonators; 1,000+ rounds of ammunition; and a cache of weapons.
The INP and AFP have successfully disrupted this future attack which was in the advanced planning stages and that in and of itself is a significant achievement worthy of accolade. However, this counterterrorism operation, for all its intrinsic results, symbolizes an incredibly important truth that radical Islamic terrorists worldwide, and America’s current anti-Iraq War Democratic Party, do not want to hear: Muslim populations can and have embraced democracy and joined with other democracies to root terrorism out of their midst. Opponents of the Iraq War, who claim that attempting to establish democracy in an Islamic Middle Eastern nation is foolish and doomed to failure, argue that position out of historical ignorance. Although not a Middle Eastern nation, Indonesia is a success story that should be closely examined before making a determination that Muslim societies do not want democracy or freedom.
Indonesia, with a population of 245 million (2006 statistics), is the world’s largest Muslim nation. Freed from Japanese control after WWII, Indonesia experienced nearly 50 years of authoritarian Islamic rule until 2005. In that year, in an effort to establish democracy, Indonesia reached an internal peace agreement with armed separatists who preferred the controlling dominance of radical Islam to freedom and modernization (parallel with Iraqi insurgents?), which led to democratic elections in December 2006. Indonesia is now governed by an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch, and is committed to combating radical Islamic terrorism, which continues to pose a threat to the democratically elected government.
Democrats in Congress incessantly complain that the Iraqi police are not doing enough to root out terrorists and that the Iraqi military has not achieved sustained viability as quickly as we had hoped, but such expectations are unrealistic and should not be shaped by short-sighted short term measures of success. It took Indonesia nearly 50 years of internal government evolution, but the people eventually demanded and established democratic elections and three branches of government to share power. The suppression of radical Islamic separatists was also required to achieve democracy. It should not be forgotten that our forces in Iraq are working to do just that, in conjunction with the Iraqi military and police forces.
Because of its location and more isolated archipelago geography, Indonesia did not suffer from significant infiltration by or interference from neighboring nations as its democracy took shape and blossomed. Iraq, of course, is surrounded by other Islamic nations, mainly radical Islamic nations like Iran and Syria that share borders with Iraq but do not share the desire for freedom and democracy for their people. Sheer proximity to and access from interfering radical Islamic nations ensures that Iraq’s road to stability and the survival of its democracy will be more difficult than Indonesia’s, but the bigoted notion that Muslim populations do not want democracy is an anti-war myth. An even larger myth is that negotiating with Iran and Syria will bring peace to Iraq. Yet that is precisely what Speaker Pelosi did this week during her visit to the Middle East, which was actually an end-run around the constitutional authority of the
President to conduct foreign policy. Watching Speaker Pelosi walking through marketplaces in Damascus wearing a traditional head covering required of females by the fundamentalist brand of Islamic Sharia, I could not help but chuckle at the irony that the Speaker would rather submit to second-class treatment for women and negotiate with terrorist governments than support democratization and modernization of formerly fundamentalist Iraq. The highest ranking woman in the history of American politics covered her head in respect for radical Islam while disrespecting our Constitution by conducting "alternative Democratic foreign policy" with a government designated by our State Department to be a state sponsor of terrorism.
The raid and arrests of JL terrorists last week in Java demonstrated that the largest Muslim nation on earth is working actively to eliminate terrorists residing, planning, and operating within its borders. They also demonstrated that the world’s largest Muslim nation works willingly and well with non-Muslim nations, in this case Australia, to avert disastrous attacks outside of its borders. In other words, the world’s largest Muslim nation is doing what America’s anti-war Democrats and even some Republicans (Chuck Hagel) have declared an impossibility: Successfully meshing Islamic tradition and belief with a modern democracy and economy as a responsible member of the global community of free nations. Refusing to believe that Iraq can achieve similar successes, with vast natural resources and a strategic geographical position, smacks of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” President Bush has warned America not to accept.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, in the epilogue to his enlightening book My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror
, wrote a terrific summary of why radical Islamic terrorists hate America and why American-Iraqi victory in Iraq is critical to the future not just of Iraq but all other nations in which radical Islam quashes liberty and the advance of human freedom. I quote Freeh here at length, and encourage readers to compare his analysis with the incessant sound bites from Democrats about “redeployment,” “changing course in Iraq,” “bringing the troops home quickly,” and “our troops should not be caught in the middle of a ‘civil war’”:
Indonesia is currently experiencing much of what Freeh described, and its willingness to raid terrorist hideouts and assist other democracies is further proof that the vision President Bush has for Iraq is not a noble but misguided policy, as Democrats have portrayed it. His vision has already been proven successful in a much larger nation than Iraq, yet because it has not happened quickly enough for the impatient sound bite media Democrats, they are now conducting separate negotiations with official state sponsors of terrorism (Syria) and are loudly calling for the abandonment Iraq’s fledgling democracy while it faces constant destructive interference from Iran and Syria. There are only two possible explanations for the behavior of Speaker Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats: first, they despise President Bush so much that they cannot afford to allow the Iraq War to be won, as a victory there would cement President Bush’s legacy as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East and ensure a Republican sweep in the 2008 elections; or second, Democrats are prejudiced in their belief that democracy should not be shared or supported in Muslim nations because Muslims are too backward in their thinking to truly want democracy.
Either explanation is reprehensible, but there are no others. If their claim that the war has been mismanaged is sincere, then they should be proposing more effective methods and strategies for winning, not ending, the war for Iraqi freedom. Their arguments and attempts to usurp President Bush’s war powers clearly indicate that Iraqi freedom is not the Democrats’ goal. Better to win the war and keep Iraqis free than spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours posturing over pre-war intelligence and whether Saddam had WMD. There will be ample time for such debates and hearings after the war has been won and a stable, self-sustaining Iraqi democracy is controlling its own destiny.
As the INP-AFP joint investigation of JL terrorists in Java, demonstrated, responsible democratic Muslim nations can play a key role in identifying terrorists who need safe haven in which to hide and plan future attacks. When these safe havens determine for themselves, as Indonesia did, that they do not accept radial Islamic terrorists in their midst, finding and eliminating fugitive and unprotected terrorists will become a more manageable proposition. Australians owe the INP a debt of gratitude for capturing the terrorists before they could kill more Australian tourists. The world’s democracies should thank Indonesia for providing an encouraging example of Muslim democratic success when small minded people had declared such success impossible or not worth supporting.
ls, the terrorists were in the advanced stages of preparing a bombing campaign estimated to be twice the size of the 2002 Bali bombings which killed 202 people, mostly tourists. The AFP’s interest in the JL terrorists stemmed from the fact that 88 Australians died in the Bali bombings.According to Indonesian National Police (INP) and AFP officials quoted in The Australian, the raid netted the following seizures: 20 completed bombs; 1,606 pounds of explosive materials; 99 pounds of TNT; nearly 200 detonators; 1,000+ rounds of ammunition; and a cache of weapons.
The INP and AFP have successfully disrupted this future attack which was in the advanced planning stages and that in and of itself is a significant achievement worthy of accolade. However, this counterterrorism operation, for all its intrinsic results, symbolizes an incredibly important truth that radical Islamic terrorists worldwide, and America’s current anti-Iraq War Democratic Party, do not want to hear: Muslim populations can and have embraced democracy and joined with other democracies to root terrorism out of their midst. Opponents of the Iraq War, who claim that attempting to establish democracy in an Islamic Middle Eastern nation is foolish and doomed to failure, argue that position out of historical ignorance. Although not a Middle Eastern nation, Indonesia is a success story that should be closely examined before making a determination that Muslim societies do not want democracy or freedom.
Indonesia, with a population of 245 million (2006 statistics), is the world’s largest Muslim nation. Freed from Japanese control after WWII, Indonesia experienced nearly 50 years of authoritarian Islamic rule until 2005. In that year, in an effort to establish democracy, Indonesia reached an internal peace agreement with armed separatists who preferred the controlling dominance of radical Islam to freedom and modernization (parallel with Iraqi insurgents?), which led to democratic elections in December 2006. Indonesia is now governed by an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch, and is committed to combating radical Islamic terrorism, which continues to pose a threat to the democratically elected government.
Democrats in Congress incessantly complain that the Iraqi police are not doing enough to root out terrorists and that the Iraqi military has not achieved sustained viability as quickly as we had hoped, but such expectations are unrealistic and should not be shaped by short-sighted short term measures of success. It took Indonesia nearly 50 years of internal government evolution, but the people eventually demanded and established democratic elections and three branches of government to share power. The suppression of radical Islamic separatists was also required to achieve democracy. It should not be forgotten that our forces in Iraq are working to do just that, in conjunction with the Iraqi military and police forces.
Because of its location and more isolated archipelago geography, Indonesia did not suffer from significant infiltration by or interference from neighboring nations as its democracy took shape and blossomed. Iraq, of course, is surrounded by other Islamic nations, mainly radical Islamic nations like Iran and Syria that share borders with Iraq but do not share the desire for freedom and democracy for their people. Sheer proximity to and access from interfering radical Islamic nations ensures that Iraq’s road to stability and the survival of its democracy will be more difficult than Indonesia’s, but the bigoted notion that Muslim populations do not want democracy is an anti-war myth. An even larger myth is that negotiating with Iran and Syria will bring peace to Iraq. Yet that is precisely what Speaker Pelosi did this week during her visit to the Middle East, which was actually an end-run around the constitutional authority of the
President to conduct foreign policy. Watching Speaker Pelosi walking through marketplaces in Damascus wearing a traditional head covering required of females by the fundamentalist brand of Islamic Sharia, I could not help but chuckle at the irony that the Speaker would rather submit to second-class treatment for women and negotiate with terrorist governments than support democratization and modernization of formerly fundamentalist Iraq. The highest ranking woman in the history of American politics covered her head in respect for radical Islam while disrespecting our Constitution by conducting "alternative Democratic foreign policy" with a government designated by our State Department to be a state sponsor of terrorism.The raid and arrests of JL terrorists last week in Java demonstrated that the largest Muslim nation on earth is working actively to eliminate terrorists residing, planning, and operating within its borders. They also demonstrated that the world’s largest Muslim nation works willingly and well with non-Muslim nations, in this case Australia, to avert disastrous attacks outside of its borders. In other words, the world’s largest Muslim nation is doing what America’s anti-war Democrats and even some Republicans (Chuck Hagel) have declared an impossibility: Successfully meshing Islamic tradition and belief with a modern democracy and economy as a responsible member of the global community of free nations. Refusing to believe that Iraq can achieve similar successes, with vast natural resources and a strategic geographical position, smacks of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” President Bush has warned America not to accept.
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, in the epilogue to his enlightening book My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror
, wrote a terrific summary of why radical Islamic terrorists hate America and why American-Iraqi victory in Iraq is critical to the future not just of Iraq but all other nations in which radical Islam quashes liberty and the advance of human freedom. I quote Freeh here at length, and encourage readers to compare his analysis with the incessant sound bites from Democrats about “redeployment,” “changing course in Iraq,” “bringing the troops home quickly,” and “our troops should not be caught in the middle of a ‘civil war’”:We need to remember, too, that an idea can be more powerful than an entire arsenal of missiles and bombs. The terrorist brief against the United States includes our superpower status and our determination to continue guaranteeing the presence of a Jewish state in Israel, but that the terrorists really hate is America’s diversity and its traditions of individual liberty. They are violently opposed to free ideas, to freedom of religion, to free markets and freedom for women. Worse, and what makes their acts increasingly desperate, they know that they are on the wrong side of history. From Athens to the Covenant of Abraham, from the Magna Carta to the Warsaw Uprising, men and women have shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that they want to be free; and increasingly, they are acting on that desire.
Today, the authoritarians who hold power in Damascus and Tehran are more threatened by the nascent democracy taking root next door in Iraq than they are by any army, however powerful. With its restive, youthful, Web-based population, Iran is virtually certain in my mind to overthrow its fundamentalist mullahs within a decade. Millions of Iranians will soon be free, and great Iranian-American patriots like my good friend Nasser Kazeminy will have served the cause of peaceful democratic transition. Likewise, the fascists running Damascus have to be more preoccupied with their own exit strategies than they are with clinging to the levers of power.
In their place, I’m convinced, self-government will rise-flawed at first, as new systems are always flawed, but powerful all the same. Indonesia is living proof that a largely Muslim nation can establish a working democracy. (Any suggestion to the contrary is pure prejudice.) That and Turkey will be the model of the future for the Islamic worlds, not Iran and Syria. And a democracy takes root and grows, conflict will die down and terrorism abates because that is an odd feature about true self-government. Nations that practice it, ones that aren’t in the grip of authoritarians, of dictators, of theocratic zealots rarely, if ever, wage war on or seek to destabilize one another. Millions of newly freed people will demand free markets, enterprise, and opportunity, and then rule of law, once established in the Middle East, will work the same revolution there that it did in the 1960s in the American South, when tiny group of federal judges had the courage to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution.
Indonesia is currently experiencing much of what Freeh described, and its willingness to raid terrorist hideouts and assist other democracies is further proof that the vision President Bush has for Iraq is not a noble but misguided policy, as Democrats have portrayed it. His vision has already been proven successful in a much larger nation than Iraq, yet because it has not happened quickly enough for the impatient sound bite media Democrats, they are now conducting separate negotiations with official state sponsors of terrorism (Syria) and are loudly calling for the abandonment Iraq’s fledgling democracy while it faces constant destructive interference from Iran and Syria. There are only two possible explanations for the behavior of Speaker Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats: first, they despise President Bush so much that they cannot afford to allow the Iraq War to be won, as a victory there would cement President Bush’s legacy as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East and ensure a Republican sweep in the 2008 elections; or second, Democrats are prejudiced in their belief that democracy should not be shared or supported in Muslim nations because Muslims are too backward in their thinking to truly want democracy.
Either explanation is reprehensible, but there are no others. If their claim that the war has been mismanaged is sincere, then they should be proposing more effective methods and strategies for winning, not ending, the war for Iraqi freedom. Their arguments and attempts to usurp President Bush’s war powers clearly indicate that Iraqi freedom is not the Democrats’ goal. Better to win the war and keep Iraqis free than spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours posturing over pre-war intelligence and whether Saddam had WMD. There will be ample time for such debates and hearings after the war has been won and a stable, self-sustaining Iraqi democracy is controlling its own destiny.
As the INP-AFP joint investigation of JL terrorists in Java, demonstrated, responsible democratic Muslim nations can play a key role in identifying terrorists who need safe haven in which to hide and plan future attacks. When these safe havens determine for themselves, as Indonesia did, that they do not accept radial Islamic terrorists in their midst, finding and eliminating fugitive and unprotected terrorists will become a more manageable proposition. Australians owe the INP a debt of gratitude for capturing the terrorists before they could kill more Australian tourists. The world’s democracies should thank Indonesia for providing an encouraging example of Muslim democratic success when small minded people had declared such success impossible or not worth supporting.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Ehud Barak: Fighting Terror Like Fighting Malaria: Kill Mosquitoes and Drain the Swamp
In a talk given to the World Leaders Lecture Forum hosted by the University of Utah yesterday, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak addressed serious Middle Eastern issues but also provided some entertaining one-liners and sound bites.
As reported in the Deseret Morning News, in describing Israel’s current posture in its dealings with Palestinians and neighboring terror sponsoring states, Barak bluntly remarked that:
As reported in the Deseret Morning News, in describing Israel’s current posture in its dealings with Palestinians and neighboring terror sponsoring states, Barak bluntly remarked that:
Israel has one hand stretched out in peace and the other hand very close to the trigger. . . . That’s the only way to survive in the Middle East, where there is no mercy for the weak.
He later added this quippy gem:
The Mideast is not the Midwest. We would love to have the Canadians as our neighbors, but you got them.
Given Israel’s neighbors, Barak’s quip is understandable, but perhaps Canada is not quite as peaceful and benign as he implies. Canada’s radical Islamic population is increasing at a rapid pace, and anti-Americanism, along with a strong anti-Semitism, are thriving, particularly in Montreal-Quebec. Courtesy of IDF Israel, this is what Mr. Barak wishes for on his borders in exchange for what Israel currently faces:.jpg)
This should provide some perspective if Barak would love to have such people as depicted in these photos as his neighbors. He considers the U.S. lucky to have Canada as a neighbor, and despite Canada’s covetous anti-Americanism, I suppose we are fortunate in our geographical location in the modern world. Of course we also have a neighbor to our south that hates us more than Canada . . . but I digress.
Barak made some interesting remarks about U.S. strategy in the war on terror, including our efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. According to Barak, the U.S. will need to compromise with China on human rights issues and Russia on self-determination for Chechnya to secure the cooperation of these nations in confronting Iran.
Human rights advocates will oppose such compromise, of course, and on the surface it is humbling to step back from previously stated demands made of China and Russia, but as I wrote about our strategy in Iraq in yesterday’s post, sometimes it is necessary to make unpleasant deals with unsavory characters or nations in order to achieve a more critical goal. We did so with Stalin in WWII, and it appears necessary now, as Russia and China are arming Iran and providing Ahmadinejad with the equipment to enrich uranium. Of course we are concerned with the human rights of the oppressed citizens of China, and we are similarly in favor of liberty and self-government for Chechnya, but neither of those issues currently imperils the existence of America and its allies. A nuclear Iran does. If we are intent on pursuing diplomatic pressure to convince Iran to change course, we must enlist Russia and China to intervene decisively in the interest of global security.
Mr. Barak seemed also to discount the importance of establishing a democracy in Iraq. According to Barak:
.jpg){kind=link}
In the Middle East, the right to vote isn't the main issue. I'd prefer to look at the four freedoms outlined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt: expression, worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Americans would do better to insist on universal, mandatory education for women rather than the right to vote.
This statement raises important questions. In my post yesterday addressing the question of whether the Iraq War is really a mess, I called attention to several tactics we failed to utilize that would have helped secure the services and cooperation of local tribal leaders and the disbanded Iraqi army in suppressing the insurgency. I quoted author Robert Kaplan’s summary of a conversation he had with an Iraqi sheik as described in Imperial Grunts: On the Ground with the American Military
Barak assigns minimal significance to the right to vote in comparison to education for women. At first glance this appears contradictory, in that education would seem useless without the right to vote and participate in decision making. However, Mr. Barak makes an important point that others in alternative media have discussed: reform of Islam will never occur unless Muslim women are permitted to receive education and training, and gradually exercise more influence on Islamic culture. Women tend to soften extremism and provide wise counsel in public discourse. Barak is no chauvinist here. Israeli women serve mandatory tours of duty in the Israeli Defense Force and the contribution of women is critical to Israeli strength in the field and perhaps more importantly on the home front.
Few people in the world have the depth of experience with and knowledge of Arab culture that Barak has acquired over a lifetime of military, intelligence, and political service, and it should be significant to U.S. strategic planners that a former Prime Minister of the original Middle Eastern democracy would urge America to place higher priority on humanitarian and security concerns than on democracy as the key tools for winning the War on Terror. Based on his assessment, it appears we have killed many “mosquitoes” in the War on Terror, and hopefully the troop surge will contribute more to “draining the swamp” by securing Iraqi cities so Iraqis can receive Roosevelt’s four freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)