In Praise of Obama, Remember Bush.

President Obama deserves praise for acting on intel that led to locating and killing Osama Bin Laden.  That is what Presidents do as Commander-in-Chief.  They make decisions, sometimes right and sometimes wrong, with only the available intel and their gut feeling.  President Obama made a great decision based on overwhelming evidence gleaned over nearly 10 years, and it paid off in the successful operation that avenged 9/11 by executing its chief architect.

As new details emerge over the coming days and weeks, it will become increasingly clear that this operation's success hinged on key decisions made by two very different Presidents.  President Bush assured Americans and the world in the wake of 9/11 that America would bring al Qaeda and Bin Laden to justice.  He issued an Executive Order on 9/17/01 authorizing US troops and intel assets to assassinate Bin Laden.  Wanted: Dead or Alive was Bush's doctrine, and his later decision to capture terrorists as enemy combatants and hold them at Guantanamo was grounded in a strategy of ferreting out information about al Qaeda's leaders and their locations.  Take the fight to the terrorists and disrupt/destroy their infrastrructure.  Remove their safe havens.  Put them on the run or in hiding.

Interrogations at Gitmo produced the first-known references to a trusted Bin Laden courier.  Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com Interrogations then led to further intel regarding the location in Pakistan where the trusted courier was operating.  Intel obtained during the Obama administration finally provided the courier's true name and facilitated surveillance and the remainder of the necessary details to launch this week's successful strike operation.  Clearly, without the information gleaned from Gitmo detainees through the interrogations so  harshly criticized by Obama and his party, Bin Laden would still be haunting America today, living in luxury, free to run his terror network behind the wilfully blind eyes of Pakistan's military, intelligence, and government.

President Obama's deliberateness in not acting on intel until the CIA was highly confident Bin Laden was at the Abbottabad compound seems to have been a blessing to this operation.  The decision to not share key intel about the planned operation with even our staunchest allies was also wise.  Although Andrea Mitchell and other media figures have mocked Bush by hinting that Obama got the "mission accomplished" celebration that Bush dreamed of, Obama's classy action to call Bush and Bill Clinton to tell them the good news before announcing it to the world was a recognition on his part that he could not have succeeded in finding and killing Bin Laden without the tireless fight carried on by Bush/Cheney and to a much lesser degree, Clinton.

It is time for Republicans to be generous in their praise for President Obama's handling of this matter, in which he has been more Presidential than at any time since being elected.  It is likewise time for Democrats to cease their derision and apoplectic hatred for George W. Bush, who made decisions based on available intel, launched a war on al Qaeda, authorized interrogations that made Obama's successful operation possible, yet receives only spite and irrational loathing for his efforts to protect America and its allies from vicious terrorists.  It took the best qualities of Bush and Obama to bring Bin Laden to justice.  The two Presidents can stand side by side, join hands, and raise them together in this important victory.  Both men also know that we won a battle, but not the war.  Yet.

Former National Security Advisor: WH Was Not Central to Events in Egypt

MSNBC, in its eternal quest to make us all feel a thrill up our legs while pondering the great achievements of President Obama, interviewed Former national security adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Morning Joe program regarding whether the President's critics are right in claiming he "blew it" in his handling of events in Egypt. Clearly the interview, led by MSNBC co-host and Brzezinski daughter, Mika, was set up for Brzezinski to debunk the criticisms and state, as definitively as a failed national security advisor can, that no, Obama did not blow it in Egypt.  MSNBC displayed a photo of the cover of Newsweek Magazine, which bears the headline, "Egypt: How Obama Blew it" and Mika asked Brzezinski if he agreed with that assessment.

To his credit, Brzezinski did not take that bait.  He sidestepped the question deftly by reminding the disappointed MSNBC hosts that it is still too early to tell what will happen in Egypt.  Then he went on to make an observation that surely took the thrill right out of Chris Matthews' leg, assuming he was watching.  As you will recall, Matthews recently made the audacious and wildly inaccurate claim that "it took Obama to have this happen" when discussing the protests and Mubarak's ouster, giving the President all the credit for inspiring Egyptians to seek reform.  Of course Matthews never observed of the purple-fingered voters in Iraq, "It took Bush to make this happen," but that's another topic for another day.  In today's interview, Brzezinski burst that MSNBC and White House self-importance belief bubble by declaring, "The fact is the U.S. and the White House weren't all that central" to what happened in Egypt, giving the credit to Al Jazeera's coverage of events, the Egyptians themselves, and widespread use of American social networking technology that spread news and helped protesters organize.  The cameras panned back to Mika and Joe Scarborough, who fumbled for words trying to ask a follow-up question to a sound byte they obviously had not anticipated.

Next time, Mika, you might consider asking "dad" what he will answer before you bring him on the air.  Your colleague Chris Matthews will now spend a great deal of his time trying to get that thrill back in his leg instead of focusing on reporting to us nothing significant can occur in the world without President Obama making it happen.  Most importantly, the White House, through its surrogates at MSNBC, needs to stop seeking to take credit for an uprising in Egypt that the President did precious little to inspire.

Timing is Everything in Middle East Revolutionary Uprisings

Is it mere coincidence that revolutionary uprisings bearing high global stakes seem to occur when the U.S. is led by foreign policy-weak Democratic Presidents and Secretaries of State?  Jimmy Carter never saw the Ayatollah Khoemeni and his radical Islamic followers for what they were, and as a result, Iran never attained freedom and democracy that seemed possible when the initial protests against the Shah began.  The product of Carter's waffling was a radical Islamist state bent on Israel's destruction and supplying anti-American terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East to the present day.

Today we see the same thing happening in Egypt.  What may have begun as an uprising against Mubarak and for freedoms and democracy is rapidly being hijacked by Islamic radicals, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood.  Intel experts worldwide have long identified the Brotherhood as a spawner of terrorist organizations, with ties to everyone from Hizbollah to al Qaeda.  Yesterday, President Obama described the Muslim Brotherhood as a political entity in Egypt that should have a say in the future governance of that nation.  President Obama is on the same floundering path that Jimmy Carter trod on the way to losing Iran, perhaps forever, to radical, Israel-threatening Islamists.

This column in the Washington Post warns that George W. Bush was right about supporting true democracy in the Middle East and that its peoples have an inborn desire for freedom  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html.  What freedoms will the Muslim Brotherhood establish or protect?

It is most unfortunate that the revolutionary spirit and uprisings for freedom in Iran and Egypt did not occur when Presidents were in office who could see groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for what they are, terrorist sponsors and suppliers.  The Democrats thought George W. was a pie in the sky dreamer, or worse, for his fundamental belief that freedom and democracy in the Middle East is the long-term solution to global terrorism.  Now, when given an opportunity to further democracy in Egypt, President Obama ignores the lessons of the past and embraces a radical Islamist group hijacking a revolution and steering it toward Iran part II.

Similar revolutionary uprisings are sprouting in Jordan. Lebanon appears to have already been lost to Hizbollah rule, controlled by Iran and Syria.  If President Obama fails to stand with true revolutionaries for democracy in Egypt, and perhaps eventually in Jordan, against radical Islamist takeover, the ability to act will be taken from him just as it was from Jimmy Carter as he meekly allowed Iran to be taken hostage by Islamic militants, along with the ill-fated U.S. Embassy staff.

Putin's North Pole Wish: Steal Santa's Oil

On future Christmas morning the stockings you hung by the fire the night before may be filled with Russian delicacies, Vladimir Putin action figures, and Russian oil vouchers. Russia, under Putin’s increasingly authoritarian control, has now declared ownership of the North Pole, and presumably Santa’s beloved workshop, a region long protected by a division of territory among 5 nations. Why would Russia make such a bold claim for an area dominated by ice, frigid temperatures, and flying reindeer? Quite simply, Santa has been sitting on one of the world’s largest undeveloped oil deposits for all these years and Putin wants to take it away from the right jolly old elf. According to the UK Daily Mail, Putin’s arctic motives are all too clear. The area claimed by Russia is:

a triangle five times the size of Britain with twice as much oil as Saudi Arabia….Experts estimate the ridge has ten billion tons of gas and oil deposits and significant sources of diamonds, gold, tin, manganese, nickel, lead and platinum.

No wonder Santa has enough funds to produce toys for every child in the world! Burl Ives’s rendition of “Silver and Gold” in the beloved Rudolph animated Christmas special makes much more sense now that we know Santa’s been hoarding untold treasures on his Arctic estate. It also explains why Mrs. Claus is always cheerful and optimistic despite frigid isolation and no local shopping malls or beauty salons for entertainment.

This is not Russia’s first attempt to claim arctic territory (a previous effort failed 5 years ago), but according to British officials Russia is far more serious about the current claim, which is based on alleged geological links and structural similarities between an underwater North Pole ridge and the Siberian continental shelf. Russia claims that the ridge in dispute, the Lomonosov Ridge, is connected to the Siberian continental shelf and is thus an extension of Russian territory.

The distinction is critical, since the geological link argument was carefully crafted to nullify the existing UN convention. As the Daily Mail reported:

Under current international law, the countries ringing the Arctic - -Russia, Canada, the U.S., Norway, and Denmark (which owns Greenland) - are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coasts.

A UN convention says none can claim jurisdiction over the Arctic seabed because the geological structure does not match the surrounding continental shelves.

But Russian scientists have returned from a six-week mission on a nuclear ice-breaker to claim that the 1,220-mile long underwater Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian continental platform - and similar in structure.

The region is currently administered by the International Seabed Authority but this is now being challenged by Moscow.

International geologists have roundly rejected Putin’s claim on scientific grounds, pointing out that by extending the same logic Russia employed to conclude that the Lomonosov Ridge belonged to Russia, similar arguments could be made that Canada should lay claim to Russia because the two are connected by a shared ocean floor plate:

Ted Nield, of the Geological Society in London, branded Russia's claim nonsensical.

"The notion that geological structures can somehow dictate ownership is deeply peculiar," he said.

"Anyway, the Lomonosov Ridge is not part of a continental shelf - it is the point at which two ocean floor plates under the Arctic Ocean are spreading apart.

Given Putin’s increasingly aggressive moves toward nationalizing Russia’s industries, especially gas, oil, and power production under state control, the world should make it clear to Putin that he must contain his lust for the North Pole’s natural resources and halt any ongoing plans to seize the territory that Russia may be formulating. The U.S. State Department and international authorities labeled Russia’s claim surprising and extraordinary, and believe it will go nowhere. The danger lies in what Putin’s reaction will be when the UN rejects, once again, Russia’s claim to the North Pole and its incredible potential revenue stream. Anti-war demonstrators in America and Europe have loudly and illogically insisted that the Iraq War is a war for oil and claim that a war based on oil needs is immoral. Surely the unpopularity of the Iraq War and President Bush’s subsequently low approval ratings are not lost on Putin in his North Pole strategy considerations.

If Americans think a war over oil would be immoral (although we have left all Iraqi oil under Iraqi control), then Putin has likely already concluded that he could seize the disputed North Pole area with no fear of forceful military response by America. It would be, after all, an actual war over oil, and America’s liberals would give Russia anything it wanted to avoid another (in their eyes) war for oil.

President Bush’s personal summit with Putin in Kennebunkport this weekend promises to be tense and likely unproductive. The issues over which Russia and America are at odds are substantial: Russian arms sales to Syria and Iran; the proposed missile defense shield for Eastern Europe; increased state control over industries and the Russian media; and possibly this new claim to the North Pole. Will the UN and U.S. appease Putin’s Arctic lust to avoid armed confrontation? If so, we must ask ourselves which is better, energy dependence on the Middle East, or energy dependence on Russia? Both options should be unpalatable to the American people, yet we are already enslaved by one to an extent, while the other would like nothing more than to enslave us and exercise direct and unquestionable control over our economy through oil manipulation.

If Russia seizes the North Pole in the coming months or years, U.S. reaction must be swift and decisive to push Russia back behind its current borders. Hitler made claims on territory he desired and based those claims on ethnic and cultural similarities of the populations. Europe appeased him and he eagerly devoured what he had truly lusted after; it was not the people or culture he wanted, it was the industry and natural resources he could assimilate to arm, equip, and transport the German military machine on its march to world domination. Putin’s motives for claiming the North Pole are no less diabolic. Instead of culture or ethnicity, he invokes geological links to declare Russia’s “rights” to the North Pole, but like Hitler his true desire is for resources that are essential to securing his power and his nation’s future domination

On January 1, 2007 I published my list of the top 5 threats facing America in 2007. Number one was internal strife in America because of its potential to paralyze us when faced with imminent threats. Number two was Russia. I have seen nothing that would change my initial assessment. Even the threat of a nuclear Iran is part and parcel of the threat Russia poses, as Russian technology, equipment, and UN Security Council veto powers have allowed Iran to reach its presently precarious position threatening Israel and America with Nuclear holocaust. The North Pole issue actually combines the top two threats, as our anti-war left will hesitate to act against Russia when Putin's patience with the UN runs out and he seizes the resources he covets.

Putin must not be appeased, lest “gifts from the North Pole” take on an entirely new and ominous meaning each future Christmas season.

Image credit: "North Pole Idol" courtesy of SantasJournal.com

Technorati Tags:Vladimir Putin, Russia, North Pole, Lomonosov Ridge, Oil Deposits, War for Oil, Natural Resources, Territorial Claims, Arctic Circle

Bush is Warming Whimp Next to Klaus

It is rare for a the president of a nation to write a guest column for a newspaper. It is even rarer for a president to openly challenge, in an international publication, the prevailing politically correct view of a controversial issue that appears to be dictating the policies and actions of many governments worldwide. Yet perhaps because an issue is in fact dictating in a manner that reminds Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus of another oppressive form of public thought control, communism, he chose to warn the world of the dangers of climate change hysteria. President Bush relishes his image as a “cowboy” president, a man who talks tough, talks straight, and never runs from a fight, but when it comes to confronting the increasingly alarmist radical political movement that surrounds “global warming,” President Bush is no match for President Klaus. While President Bush attends summits and pays verbal homage to man’s contributions to global warming, President Klaus adopted the true cowboy swagger and spoke his mind about climate change and the flawed science behind this hysterical phenomenon.

In a guest opinion column in the Financial Times last week, President Klaus offered the following view of global warming, quoted here in part:

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

…Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

…I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

President Klaus in this column demonstrated courage and common sense to a degree that is lacking, on this issue of global warming, in the leaders of both American political parties. Democrats embrace global warming like lemmings, prepared to follow the pied-piper of the day, Al Gore, off the environmental cliff without considering any of the voluminous contradictory evidence. Republicans, including the President and Newt Gingrich, concur that it is politically inadvisable to question the existence of global warming as a man-made phenomenon and thus are out on the speaking stump proposing solutions for a problem many scientists do not believe is a problem at all. A Republican who bows at the altar of global warming should be sacrificed upon it when voters choose the Party’s nominee for 2008. Blindly following any form of hysteria is a sign of poor judgment that is not worthy of one who would lead the strongest of the world’s free nations.

The fall of communism in Eastern Europe provided the free world with an influx of people starving for liberties and thirsting for freedom, and they, better than many unappreciative and apathetic Americans, recognize threats and intrusions on freedom. President Klaus sees such danger in the global warming movement. The world tends to ignore lone voices in the wilderness, but it would do so at its peril if it chooses to set aside the advice of Vaclav Klaus, a true straight-talking president.

Technorati:
Vaclav Klaus Global Warming Czech Republic Climate Change Al Gore Hysteria Communism Environmentalists

Romney Advisers Give Ill-Advised Advice

In the rush to differentiate themselves from President Bush as they vie for the GOP nomination, the current candidates and their advisers at times choose the wrong issues on which to differ from the President. Mitt Romney made this error yesterday, and he is paying a price for it among conservative elements of the Republican Party on the Internet today. One very brief AP story that appeared in this morning’s New York Sun is beginning to erode Romney’s carefully constructed image as a strong executive who can, when necessary, make tough decisions unilaterally if necessary. Here are the key paragraphs of the Sun article that has conservatives reexamining Romney’s potential leadership on national security:

Mitt Romney yesterday jabbed at President Bush, saying the image of America has suffered globally based on the perception that it invaded Iraq unilaterally.

"I do think that we have suffered over the past several years for a number of reasons, and I think you probably know what they are," the former Massachusetts governor told civic and business leaders, citing the absence of strong international support in the lead-up to the war.
"There has been the perception that we have not been as open and participative with other nations as is our normal approach," he said.

Romney’s campaign advisers chose poorly if they believe conservative voters consider America’s international image to have any bearing on the decisions a president must make. On the contrary, conservatives applauded President Bush for his courage in enforcing the UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein even when most of the international community refused to confront what all intelligence services agreed was a dangerous regime developing and stockpiling WMD. Conservatives likewise appreciated President Bush’s speech at the UN in which he challenged that body to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant in world affairs. The President made that statement and invaded Iraq not because they were globally popular actions but because, as Romney himself stated in the GOP candidates’ debate Tuesday, they were the right things to do based on available intelligence at the time. Not only does Romney now appear to be contradicting his defense of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, he is also heaping conservative scorn upon himself by making it seem as if he believes the U.S. should seek international approval before taking actions in the interest of national security.

As an example of how conservatives are interpreting Romney’s criticism of President Bush for not securing more international support for invading Iraq, the following are selected registered reader comments posted on Lucianne.com, a news forum popular among conservatives:

Comments:
#1 You dont ask for permission to do what is right Mitt. We are not beholden to international approval when it comes to matters of American safety. This statement proves Romney is not ready for the Oval Office.

#2 Mr. Romney: Maybe it will help the U.S. "image" if, as President, you schedule a world tour. You could travel to each world capital, and approach the Person In Charge on your knees, begging them, "Oh, please, please, please like us!" (preferably while weeping uncontrollably.) Start with Mugabe, then Castro, then Ahmadoinjihad, then Putin, then...

#3 I don't support Romney but this is probably taking something he said out of context to stir up trouble and slam Bush. Having said that, Romney should have known this would happen and should have been more on guard. If he did mean it, its more evidence that this guy shouldn't be president if he actually thinks that we had any control over that perception with a global MSM that was out to portray this as badly as they could.

#4 I sent Mitt an eMail telling him he isn't going to garner any primary votes with tactics like this. Conservatives and republicans don't judge America's success by how much the Europeans like us. One thing the president has done right is ignore the whining of our foreign enemies (although he is starting to weaken).

#5 I agree that it has been the media that has caused the US perception to be sullied. But that in no way a subject for a presidential candidate venue to discuss. There are many more important things that to harangue about what the feeling abroad is of the United States. Just look at the requests for immigration and look at the southern border and one can see the true feelings about this country. I also don't think we should have to have the worlds permission to defend our interests either. Mess with the bull and expect to get the horns shoved up you Heine! The President did what a good portion of the citizens and the congress approved of felt was necessary, and that was to take regimes out of existence that were a threat to our sovereignty and well being.

#6 #4 I did the same thing! This article so angered me I had to send Romney an email & tell him this kind of rhetoric is expected out of the mouths of rats & lamestream media hacks but it is not what we expect from our presidential candidates. Mitt is off my short list.

Romney supposedly hired an experienced team of campaign and political policy advisers, many of them veterans of Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004, yet none of them foresaw that Mitt’s comments would create this sentiment among conservative voters. Conservatives remember all too clearly the strenuous efforts the President made to convince nations who should be our allies to join together to enforce the UN resolutions and disarm Saddam. He could not force them to do what was right based on available intelligence, and so he gladly welcomed support from those he could count on (Britain, Australia, S. Korea, Spain-for a time-, Poland, and several others) and made the choice to do what was necessary. Conservatives are now questioning whether Romney is capable of making tough decisions without international approval, and that is not a quality any GOP candidate can afford to create doubts about if he wants to win the party’s nomination.

With a few brief sentences, Romney convinced many conservatives that he is not like President Bush- but on an issue where he should be convincing voters he would also do what was right for America while the rest of the world stands on the sidelines. There are plenty of issues on which to demonstrate a difference from the President, like illegal immigration or better management of the Iraq War, but Romney and his advisers chose poorly and voters may associate Romney’s criticism with another Massachusetts politician’s attacks on President Bush for his allegedly poor relations with other nations. After all, that was one of the central themes in John Kerry’s bid for the presidency in 2004: restore America’s international credibility. Romney should be wise enough to recognize that most of the nations that stood idly by when we invaded Iraq have undergone political changes, with conservative leaders who work well with President Bush winning elections. Germany, Canada, and France are all under new conservative leadership and each has vowed to restore better relations with America now, not waiting for a different American president to be elected.

America’s international image is strongest when it demonstrates strong leadership and leaves no doubt that America will keep its word, honor its commitments, and defend and advance freedom at every opportunity. If Romney wants to cast himself as a strong executive, he should make it clear that the President was right to invade regardless of international opinion and that he would do likewise if other nations refuse to join in their own defense. Romney’s campaign should learn from this misstep and give more consideration to how the media will present the candidate’s statements and how that will influence conservative interpretation. In just a few sentences, Romney lost several potential votes on the conservative news forum quoted above. That was just one such Internet forum, and the reaction on others is similar. Despite the President’s low approval ratings, GOP candidates should exercise caution and good judgment when choosing the issues on which they want to distance themselves from him. This was not one of them, much to Romney’s chagrin. With Fred Thompson definitely entering the race in July and Newt Gingrich waiting in the wings in case he is "drafted" by the GOP, Romney cannot afford any more ill-advised advice from his campaign advisers.

Technorati: Mitt Romney George W. Bush Iraq War International Opinion Presidential Candidates Unilateral Action Bush Administration Critics International Diplomacy

Truman Best Expressed Bush's Iraq Vision

Critics of the Bush administration in both parties argue that the president has done a poor job of explaining to the American people what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq, why it is necessary, and how much sacrifice might be required to achieve victory and preserve Iraqi democracy. The president and his cabinet members have certainly made plenty of speeches in which these questions are superficially addressed, but it is clear that either through selective media coverage or a national epidemic of Attention Deficit Disorder, Americans, particularly the anti-war Democrats, continually fail to grasp what is at stake in Iraq. President Bush is a plain-speaking man, but his speech writers have done him an enormous disservice by shunning Truman-like bluntness for nuanced platitudes that lost their effectiveness immediately after the president’s initial war address to the nation in 2003. This practice has only worsened as the president has sought to explain why America must continue in Iraq and why setting timetables for withdrawal is a dangerous idea. Phrases such as “embolden our enemies” and “fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them here” are true, but one can only use them so many times before repetition renders them rote and predictable.

It’s not as if the White House speech writers were lacking available material from which to draw inspiration or to be used as templates. Unfortunately, they overlooked a speech delivered by the plainest of plain-speaking presidents, Harry Truman to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947. President Truman had received urgent pleading requests from Greece and Turkey for military and economic assistance in the face of Soviet aggression and internal chaos and terrorism. The free governments of both nations faced overthrow by radicals (communists), and Britain, ravaged by World War II, simply lacked sufficient resources to support either nation. Truman came to the realization that if democratically elected governments in Greece and Turkey were to survive, and the peoples of those nations to remain free, America had to come to their rescue, with or without UN assistance. The similarities to the situations in Greece and Turkey and the status of Iraq are remarkably clear. President Bush’s speechwriters should have read Truman’s address to Congress in which he established what became the Truman Doctrine and substituted “Greece” or “Turkey” with “Iraq.” Had they done so, they would have discovered that the best explanation for why we must win in Iraq was offered in 1947 in far more bluntly eloquent language than any set forth by President Bush.

The Truman Doctrine address to Congress requested $400 million in military and economic assistance for Greece and Turkey. I invite readers to substitute “Greece,” “Greek,” or “Turkey” with “Iraq” or “Iraqi.” If readers will do this, they will be armed with the most effectively communicated verbal defense of America’s continued engagement in Iraq. Of particular note, you will observe that both Greece and Turkey faced internal terrorism and concerted efforts to discredit and destroy their elected governments. Iraq faces those same perils and has pleaded for our continued support, but no one in 1947 claimed that Greece and Turkey were embroiled in “civil wars” and neither is Iraq today a civil war despite Democratic claims to the contrary. I want to draw out one sentence in case readers do not take the time to read the address; “It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." That policy fits precisely what is occurring in Iraq.

And now, by substituting "Iraq" for "Greece" or "Turkey," travel back in time to 1947, when Truman explained, appropriately for this Memorial Day weekend, why we fight:

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congress of the United States:

The gravity of the situation which confronts the world today necessitates my appearance before a joint session of the Congress. The foreign policy and the national security of this country are involved.

One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for your consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey. The United States has received from the Greek government an urgent appeal for financial and economic assistance. Preliminary reports from the American economic mission now in Greece and reports from the American ambassador in Greece corroborate the statement of the Greek government that assistance is imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation.

I do not believe that the American people and the Congress wish to turn a deaf ear to the appeal of the Greek government.

Greece is not a rich country. Lack of sufficient natural resources has always forced the Greek people to work hard to make both ends meet. Since 1940, this industrious and peace-loving country has suffered invasion, four years of cruel enemy occupation, and bitter internal strife.

When forces of liberation entered Greece they found that the retreating Germans had destroyed virtually all the railways, roads, port facilities, communications and merchant marine. More than a thousand villages had been burned. Eighty-five percent of the children were tubercular. Livestock, poultry and draft animals had almost disappeared. Inflation had wiped out practically all savings.

As a result of these tragic conditions, a militant minority, exploiting human want and misery, was able to create political chaos which, until now, has made economic recovery impossible.

Greece is today without funds to finance the importation of those goods which are essential to bare subsistence. Under these circumstances the people of Greece cannot make progress in solving their problems of reconstruction. Greece is in desperate need of financial and economic assistance to enable it to resume purchases of food, clothing, fuel and seeds. These are indispensable for the subsistence of its people and are obtainable only from abroad. Greece must have help to import the goods necessary to restore internal order and security, so essential for economic and political recovery.

The Greek government has also asked for the assistance of experienced American administrators, economists and technicians to insure that the financial and other aid given to Greece shall be used effectively in creating a stable and self-sustaining economy and in improving its public administration.

The very existence of the Greek state is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men, led by communists, who defy the government's authority at a number of points, particularly along the northern boundaries. A commission appointed by the United Nations Security Council is at present investigating disturbed conditions in northern Greece and alleged border violations along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia on the other.

Meanwhile, the Greek government is unable to cope with the situation. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and equipment if it is to restore the authority of the government throughout Greek territory. Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy.
The United States must supply that assistance. We have already extended to Greece certain types of relief and economic aid, but these are inadequate.

There is no other country to which democratic Greece can turn.

No other nation is willing and able to provide the necessary support for a democratic Greek government.

The British government, which has been helping Greece, can give no further financial or economic aid after March 31. Great Britain finds itself under the necessity of reducing or liquidating its commitments in several parts of the world, including Greece.

We have considered how the United Nations might assist in this crisis. But the situation is an urgent one requiring immediate action, and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required.

It is important to note that the Greek government has asked for our aid in utilizing effectively the financial and other assistance we may give to Greece, and in improving its public administration. It is of the utmost importance that we supervise the use of any funds made available to Greece; in such a manner that each dollar spent will count toward making Greece self-supporting, and will help to build an economy in which a healthy democracy can flourish.

No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected. The government of Greece is not perfect. Nevertheless it represents 85 percent of the members of the Greek Parliament who were chosen in an election last year. Foreign observers, including 692 Americans, considered this election to be a fair expression of the views of the Greek people.

The Greek government has been operating in an atmosphere of chaos and extremism. It has made mistakes. The extension of aid by this country does not mean that the United States condones everything that the Greek government has done or will do. We have condemned in the past, and we condemn now, extremist measures of the right or the left. We have in the past advised tolerance, and we advise tolerance now.

Greece's neighbor, Turkey, also deserves our attention.

The future of Turkey as an independent and economically sound state is clearly no less important to the freedom-loving peoples of the world than the future of Greece. The circumstances in which Turkey finds itself today are considerably different from those of Greece. Turkey has been spared the disasters that have beset Greece. And during the war, the United States and Great Britain furnished Turkey with material aid.

Nevertheless, Turkey now needs our support.

Since the war Turkey has sought financial assistance from Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of effecting that modernization necessary for the maintenance of its national integrity.

That integrity is essential to the preservation of order in the Middle East.

The British government has informed us that, owing to its own difficulties, it can no longer extend financial or economic aid to Turkey.

As in the case of Greece, if Turkey is to have the assistance it needs, the United States must supply it. We are the only country able to provide that help.

I am fully aware of the broad implications involved if the United States extends assistance to Greece and Turkey, and I shall discuss these implications with you at this time.

One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion. This was a fundamental issue in the war with Germany and Japan. Our victory was won over countries which sought to impose their will, and their way of life, upon other nations.

To ensure the peaceful development of nations, free from coercion, the United States has taken a leading part in establishing the United Nations. The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members. We shall not realize our objectives, however, unless we are willing to help free peoples to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes. This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.

The peoples of a number of countries of the world have recently had totalitarian regimes forced upon them against their will. The government of the United States has made frequent protests against coercion and intimidation, in violation of the Yalta agreement, in Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria. I must also state that in a number of other countries there have been similar developments.

At the present moment in world history nearly every nation must choose between alternative ways of life. The choice is too often not a free one.

One way of life is based upon the will of the majority, and is distinguished by free institutions, representative government, free elections, guarantees of individual liberty, freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from political oppression.
The second way of life is based upon the will of a minority forcibly imposed upon the majority. It relies upon terror and oppression, a controlled press and radio, fixed elections and the suppression of personal freedoms.

I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way.

I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.

The world is not static, and the status quo is not sacred. But we cannot allow changes in the status quo in violation of the Charter of the United Nations by such methods as coercion, or by such subterfuges as political infiltration. In helping free and independent nations to maintain their freedom, the United States will be giving effect to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

It is necessary only to glance at a map to realize that the survival and integrity of the Greek nation are of grave importance in a much wider situation. If Greece should fall under the control of an armed minority, the effect upon its neighbor, Turkey, would be immediate and serious. Confusion and disorder might well spread throughout the entire Middle East.

Moreover, the disappearance of Greece as an independent state would have a profound effect upon those countries in Europe whose peoples are struggling against great difficulties to maintain their freedoms and their independence while they repair the damages of war.

It would be an unspeakable tragedy if these countries, which have struggled so long against overwhelming odds, should lose that victory for which they sacrificed so much. Collapse of free institutions and loss of independence would be disastrous not only for them but for the world. Discouragement and possibly failure would quickly be the lot of neighboring peoples striving to maintain their freedom and independence.

Should we fail to aid Greece and Turkey in this fateful hour, the effect will be far reaching to the West as well as to the East.

We must take immediate and resolute action.

I therefore ask the Congress to provide authority for assistance to Greece and Turkey in the amount of $400 million for the period ending June 30, 1948. In requesting these funds, I have taken into consideration the maximum amount of relief assistance which would be furnished to Greece out of the $350 million which I recently requested that the Congress authorize for the prevention of starvation and suffering in countries devastated by the war.

In addition to funds, I ask the Congress to authorize the detail of American civilian and military personnel to Greece and Turkey, at the request of those countries, to assist in the tasks of reconstruction, and for the purpose of supervising the use of such financial and material assistance as may be furnished. I recommend that authority also be provided for the instruction and training of selected Greek and Turkish personnel.

Finally, I ask that the Congress provide authority which will permit the speediest and most effective use, in terms of needed commodities, supplies and equipment, of such funds as may be authorized.

If further funds, or further authority, should be needed for purposes indicated in this message, I shall not hesitate to bring the situation before the Congress. On this subject the executive and legislative branches of the government must work together.

This is a serious course upon which we embark.

I would not recommend it except that the alternative is much more serious. The United States contributed $341 billion toward winning World War II. This is an investment in world freedom and world peace.

The assistance that I am recommending for Greece and Turkey amounts to little more than 1 tenth of 1 percent of this investment. It is only common sense that we should safeguard this investment and make sure that it was not in vain.

The seeds of totalitarian regimes are nurtured by misery and want. They spread and grow in the evil soil of poverty and strife. They reach their full growth when the hope of a people for a better life has died. We must keep that hope alive.

The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.

If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world -- and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.

Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.

I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely.

The Republican Congress in 1947 united with Democrat Truman and approved the strategy and its accompanying funding, and the course of history for Greece and Turkey remained one of freedom and self-determination. Our current Congress has the same responsibility and opportunity with Iraq. Will they rise to the occasion? Their behavior since the November 2006 elections inspires little confidence.

Carter's Lie Not "Misinterpreted"

For a man touted as a devoutly Christian, bible-thumping do-gooder who happened to serve a term as President of the United States, Jimmy Carter lies with astonishing ease when confronted by the media. His comments over the weekend about the current Bush administration were very clear:

"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history," Carter told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper's Saturday editions. "The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me."

Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed his comments to The Associated Press on Saturday and declined to elaborate. He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.

I have attended church services and “bible lessons” my entire life, but I cannot recall anything in the Bible about comparisons of foreign policy among U.S. administrations. Former President Carter’s comments drew immediate criticism from the White House, with Spokesman Tony Fratto firing back at Carter by labeling him as “increasingly irrelevant” because of such remarks. The GOP, anchored by its conservative Christian base, took issue with the platform Carter used to level attacks at President Bush:

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

Rather than apologize for his remarks or stand by them with dogged determination, Carter chose to do what far too many public figures do when they find themselves in a political firestorm: lie. Carter appeared on the Today Show this morning and when asked about his statement that the Bush administration was the worst in history, Carter responded with the following whopper:

"They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said he “certainly was not talking personally about any president.”

When pressed by NBC’s Meredith Vieira as to whether he was saying his remarks were careless or reckless, the former president said, “I think they were, yes, because they were interpreted as comparing this whole administration to all other administrations."

Carter said he was answering a question about the foreign policy of former President Richard Nixon, as compared with that of the current administration. He said he wasn't comparing the Bush administration with all those through American history. But in comparison to Nixon's, the Bush administration's foreign policy "was much worse," Carter said.

Why is it that whenever a political figure is recorded saying something that causes uproar, the knee-jerk response is to say they were misinterpreted, or in this case, taken out of context? If Carter was truly responding only to a question asking him to compare the foreign policies of the Nixon and Bush administrations, why did he not answer that he believed the Bush administration to be worse than Nixon’s? Instead, he used hyperbole and extended his evaluation of the Bush administration to include a comparison with all administrations in U.S. history.

It is impossible to misinterpret or take out of context a statement such as “this administration has been the worst in history.” It is an inherently universal comparative remark that does not limit itself to any narrow contextual limitations. For a Nobel Peace Prize winner to blatantly lie about the intent of his remarks is shameful. It would have been far better for him to stand behind his remarks, as historically ignorant as they were, rather than lie about his intent when faced with criticism. But then, if Carter were courageous and capable of standing up for himself, Americans might not have been held hostage in Tehran for 444 days.

When it comes to casting stones labeled “worst foreign policy administration in history,” Carter should beware the glass house of history in which he dwells. Carter was not misinterpreted or taken out of context. He was simply caught lying about political history while he was supposed to be promoting his "bible lessons" audiobook series. Better dust off commandment #9, Mr. Carter.

America Overrun By "Crazy" Optimists

Brit Hume has a knack for mining precious gems from the vast caverns of media hysterics to share with Special Report viewers, and yesterday he did it again by exposing Newsweek senior science editor Sharon Begley’s criticism of President Bush for being (inhale sharply!) too optimistic. I remember that the media had similar criticisms of President Reagan, apparently preferring the dour demeanor of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to confidence, a cheery disposition, and hopeful expectations for the future. Begley, who Hume points out has no credentials in the field of psychology, psychiatry, or any other field related to mental illness, declared that the president is “in a state of denial” about the Iraq War. Of course, it is common for presidents to inspire their countrymen when times are tough. Yet Begley does not see inspiration or leadership in the president’s unshaken belief that the war will be won. Instead, she sees what she perceives as symptoms of mental illness. From Brit Hume’s Political Grapevine:

Sharon Begley offers as proof the president's insistence the war will succeed, despite what she calls "setback after setback." She continues: “While it's always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial."

She offers up the fact that as a seven-year-old boy, the president tried to comfort his mother after his baby sister died of leukemia. Begley writes: "The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well." She also cites the fact that Mr. Bush has battled alcohol abuse, saying such people, "typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon."

Begley is not the first media personality to equate optimism, also known as faith, with mental illness. Bill Maher referred to religion as a neurological disorder, and placed biblical stories were on a par with other fantasy tales like Jack and the Beanstalk. Maher would surely agree with Begley that President Bush’s “perpetual optimism” is akin to religious faith. I do not know if Begley is an avowed atheist like Maher, but clearly she understands little about the relationship between optimism and religious faith. Most people who are actively involved in religion live life with the certainty that a power greater than themselves is watching over them and all that unfolds in life is part of a plan that will ultimately benefit humanity. That belief is what places setbacks or even suffering into perspective. Knowing that even terrible things happen for a reason makes them tolerable or even turned into opportunities for growth.

Bill Maher and Begley have forgotten the lessons of history. The three most successful wartime leaders in American history, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, suffered nearly overwhelming defeats in the early years of their wars, and they had no illusions that things were going well when they were not. They had disputes with their generals; they faced citizen unrest and dissatisfaction with how the wars were conducted; they were inundated with depressing reports of lost battles and massive casualties. However, they remained optimistic that ultimately their cause would win because it was just, and they did the only thing they could: they pushed forward with “pathological certainty” in eventual victory. President Bush’s approach to the Iraq War is no different. He has acknowledged many times that Iraq has not gone exactly as planned and has adjusted strategies accordingly. Only permanent pessimists like Begley or Maher, or political opportunists like Pelosi or Reid would declare the new surge policy a failure before it has been fully implemented. America should appreciate optimism in its presidents, and beyond appreciation, should desire it from its leaders.

America was founded in a spirit of “pathological certainty.” The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are perhaps the most perpetually optimistic documents ever crafted by mankind. They set forth the certainty the Founders exuded that they were acting out the will of God and that man’s rights came from God rather than government. By placing the care of the nation in God’s hands, the Founders expressed their optimism, or faith, that their efforts would succeed regardless of any temporary setbacks or direct threats from within or abroad.

The compassionate conservative in me feels sorrow for Begley and Maher. If optimism is a mental illness, then what would pessimism be considered? Chronic negativity and a “doom and gloom” outlook which never exhibits hope of eventual success are signs of depression, which is an actual, medically classifiable mental disorder treatable with medication. There is a reason psychiatrists do not prescribe medications for optimism: “perpetual optimism” is a sign of a sound mind and an indomitable will. It is only when all other possibilities are exhausted that a cancer patient must face the reality of pending death. Until that point is reached, the patient presses forward, relying on the only truly dependable source of strength: optimistic faith. With that faith, even death itself cannot conquer the human spirit. Was Winston Churchill psychotic because he vowed that Britain would “never surrender?” The only thing crazier than pressing forward when all seems lost would be retreating when difficulty is encountered.

I am glad that the current president is an optimist who is not easily cowed by challenging decisions or violent attacks. What kind of nation would America be without “perpetual optimism?” The Wright brothers would have stuck with ground transportation in Begley’s version of psychotic America. Every entrepreneur takes a leap of faith when a new business is launched. There will be lean years, and stiff competition, and possible failure at every turn. “Perpetual optimism” is what separates successful Americans from those who live in constant fear of failure, and thus never take risks. Pessimists are the armchair quarterbacks of the world, sitting comfortably in their mediocrity criticizing the performances of those who willingly face seemingly insurmountable odds with faith and cheerful optimism.

Virginia Tech Blame Game

Who is to blame for the shooting massacre of 32 Virginia Tech students yesterday? At last count, the following had been blamed for the tragedy:

President Bush and Vice President Cheney - Although both were hard at work in D.C. battling Congress over funding Operation Iraqi Freedom when the shootings occurred, they were nonetheless blamed for using the incident for political points, and for not supporting nationwide gun control laws.

Charles Steger, President of Virginia Tech – Blamed for not “locking down” an entire sprawling university campus the size of a small city after the initial 2 murders were committed in a VaTech dormitory on one side of campus. Blamed for not cancelling all classes after the dormitory shooting, despite his being advised by law enforcement that it appeared to be a domestic incident between the shooter and an ex-girlfriend. VaTech parents are calling for him to be fired.

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Gun Control Laws – Blamed for being too liberal, making it easier for citizens to keep and bear arms.

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Gun Control Laws – Blamed for being too restrictive, making VaTech a gun free zone where students and faculty could not protect themselves.

VaTech PD, Blacksburg PD, Montgomery County Sheriffs – Blamed for sealing off a small perimeter around the dormitory where the initial 2 killings took place, but not ordering a campus-wide lockdown because they believed the first incident to be a domestic incident.

VaTech PD, Blacksburg PD, Montgomery County Sheriffs – Blamed for not immediately rushing, with guns blazing, into the classroom building where gunfire could be heard on the opposite side of campus from where the domestic shooting occurred earlier that morning.

VaTech PD, Blacksburg PD, Montgomery County Sheriffs – Blamed for not capturing the shooter alive so that he could explain his motives and help society prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Notice that someone is conspicuously absent from the blame list: the shooter. Much like the urge to blame America for terrorism in the wake of 9/11, broadcasters yesterday could not resist the urge to spend most of their air time speculating about how society needs to be kinder to outcasts (like the allegedly picked on Columbine killers) to prevent such massacres.

A Washington Post article addressed the issue of why, after the initial dormitory shootings, warnings were not issued:

Although the gunman in the dorm was at large, no warning was issued to the tens of thousands of students and staff at Virginia Tech until 9:26 a.m., more than two hours later.

"We concluded it was domestic in nature," Flinchum [VaTech PD Chief] said. "We had reason to believe the shooter had left campus and may have left the state." He declined to elaborate. But several law enforcement sources said investigators thought the shooter might have intended to kill a girl and her boyfriend Monday in what one of them described as a "lover's dispute." It was unclear whether the girl killed at the dorm was the intended target, they said.

The sources said police initially focused on the female student's boyfriend, a student at nearby Radford University, as a suspect. Police questioned the boyfriend, later termed "a person of interest," and were questioning him when they learned of the subsequent shootings at Norris Hall. A family friend of the boyfriend's said the boyfriend was stopped by police alongside Route 460 in Blacksburg, handcuffed and interrogated on the side of the road and later released.

However, VaTech students, affected by the emotional incident, were outraged over what they perceived as a failure by the university to warn them of a pending disaster no one knew was going to occur. Students interviewed by CNN expressed their initial observations:

Police said they were still investigating the shooting at the dorm when they got word of gunfire at the classroom building.

Some students bitterly questioned why the gunman was able to strike a second time.

"What happened today this was ridiculous," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "While they send out that e-mail, 20 more people got killed."

Students and Laura Wedin, a student programs manager at Virginia Tech, said the first notification they got of the shootings came in an e-mail at 9:26 a.m., more than two hours after the first shooting.

The e-mail had few details. It said: "A shooting incident occurred at West Amber Johnston earlier this morning. Police are on the scene and are investigating." The message warned students to be cautious and contact police about anything suspicious.

Student Maurice Hiller said he went to a 9 a.m. class two buildings away from the engineering building, and no warnings were coming over the outdoor public address system on campus at the time.

Everett Good, junior, said of the lack of warning: "I'm trying to figure that out. Someone's head is definitely going to roll over that."

"We were kept in the dark a lot about exactly what was going on," said Andrew Capers Thompson, a 22-year-old graduate student from Walhalla, S.C.

Clearly law enforcement and university officials had investigative leads pointing to an off campus suspect, and given the nature of domestic disputes, the decision not to lock down an entire university based on what they knew was appropriate. There was no investigative information that could have predicted that the dormitory shooter possessed multiple firearms, was a VaTech student, and had laid plans to massacre students on the opposite side of campus, carrying chains to lock students in, intending to execute them with no apparent emotion. Such behavior would have been incompatible with a domestic incident, which usually diffuses once action has been taken against the girlfriend/spouse.

The campus lockdown that occurred at VaTech on the first day of classes last fall was ordered because intelligence then indicated the escaped felon was at large on campus and had shot a sheriff’s deputy. That was not the case yesterday, as the initial domestic shooting at the dormitory pointed to an off-campus suspect. Comparisons of the handling of these two very different situations are not productive and lead to unfair conclusions about the decisions made yesterday.

The university administration and police department deserve the prayers and support of the community rather than finger pointing. When they responded to the first 911 call about the classroom shootings, they rushed to the scene, secured as many students as possible and then risked their lives entering the building to confront the gunman. After witnessing the shooter commit suicide, the responding officers swept the area, still without knowledge of the motive for the attack or whether there were multiple suspects. They rescued the barricaded students, provided first responder medical assessments and care, carried the wounded to safety, and witnessed a horrible scene of carnage while feeling helpless. There is no feeling more disturbing to someone who has worked in law enforcement than the helplessness when you cannot protect someone from harm. Yet for these brave officers there appears to be only insult added to injury with each criticism.

The Virginia Tech webmaster, tasked with updating the university’s web site throughout the ordeal and with a police scanner at his desk, shared the following assessment of emergency response with friends on the blog Wired:

This was a multiple-agency response and there is little interoperability -- but the police still got the job done. Virginia Tech Police Department was and is lead agency in the whole event, with Blacksburg PD right there with them. The Montgomery County Sheriff's Department is also involved and the Virginia State Police. Give all the various dispatchers credit for a great job, as they were the linchpins that kept all the communications straight between all the agencies. There was a massive response from all the local rescue squads, let by the student-run Virginia Tech Rescue Squad. A triage area was set up adjacent to Norris Hall and ambulances shuttled in and out of the area to transport victims to Montgomery Regional Hospital, the Carillion New River Valley Medical Center, and to hospitals in the Roanoke Valley. Carillion's helicopters and the State Police helicopters were unable to be used for transport due to the high winds we are experiencing.

The campus (and surrounding public schools) were locked down, since no one really knew what the situation was, how many shooters there might be, and where any more might be. The incident ended after 11 a.m. and people on that side of campus were released to go home. Other parts of the campus were released at 12:30. SWAT teams from various police agencies in the region are doing a sweep of campus and the crime scenes are being processed.

Without imposing martial law and a complete police state, college campuses cannot be protected from a shooting rampage like this one. Steps can be taken to reduce the possibility, but prevention is not possible. Gun control has never kept guns out of the hands of criminals. The university reportedly did not have a campus-wide surveillance camera system, and perhaps the Commonwealth of Virginia will include funding to install one in the next university budget. However, the absence of cameras cannot be blamed on the university president, and the initial decision not to lock down the campus was made in good faith based on available information.

To blame is human, to sympathize divine.

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:

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.

From War to Warming: Senators Seek to Divert Attention

One of the left’s sharpest criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the War on Terror has been the argument that after routing the Taliban in Afghanistan, he turned his focus away from Bin Laden and al Qaeda in that region in favor of waging war on Saddam Hussein. The needless war in Iraq, liberals and Richard Clarke claim, shifted resources and priorities away from pursuing Bin Laden and the Taliban further, and this stretched our military too thin to effectively achieve its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, the 9/11 Commission determined that our intelligence agencies possessed thousands of seized terrorism related Arabic documents yet to be translated and analyzed due to inadequate budgets and staffing. The burdens of a War on Terror, the President’s critics claim, are too heavy for our military and intelligence agencies to bear.

Now global warming hysteria has moved members of Congress to propose a bill that would tie a millstone to the neck of our military and intelligence agencies by diverting their attention further from the War on Terror and sink them in a quagmire of studies, strategic planning, and war games to prepare for, drum roll please: global warming. That’s right, a normal cyclical global weather pattern is in line for being awarded status as a “national defense issue,” if a bill cosponsored by Sen. Chuck (Cut and Run) Hagel, R-NE, and Sen. Dick (our troops in Guantanamo act like Nazis) Durbin, D-IL, passes in Congress. The Boston Globe reported that the bill would order the National Intelligence Director to conduct a “National Intelligence Estimate” on global warming, and would likewise order the Pentagon to engage in war games exploring possible national security scenarios that could allegedly result from extreme weather.

Apparently some members of Congress, with the urging of the National Academy of Sciences, have become so spooked by wildly exaggerated films such as “The Day After Tomorrow” and “An Inconvenient Truth,” that they determined global warming poses a danger to national security so grave that it warrants their recommending that the military divert its attention away from the War on Terror to focus on hurricanes and climate change. I find it ironic that the President’s critics feel that diverting military and intelligence attention from the War on Terror is acceptable for global warming, but it was not acceptable in the case of deposing a dictator who had used chemical weapons on his own people and failed to comply with 14 UN resolutions demanding WMD inspections.

When I go to sleep at night, I am far more worried about a rogue nation in possession of WMDs than I am of a cyclical and temporary melting of polar ice fields. Severe weather was such a threat to national defense in 2006 that we had 0 (none, zero) hurricanes make landfall in the U.S.

The motive behind the bill is more insidious. The White House has apparently not embraced the questionable science behind the global warming frenzy, and this has frustrated those who have staked their professional reputations on the issue. Consider this excerpt from the Boston Globe’s coverage of the proposed bill:

"If you get the intelligence community to apply some of its analytic capabilities to this issue, it could be compelling to whoever is sitting in the White House," said Anne Harrington , director of the committee on international security at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington. "If the White House does not absorb the independent scientific expertise, then maybe something from the intelligence community might have more weight."

Will this be the new trend, to declare every pet issue a “national defense” issue because the White House is more likely to read and take action on military and intelligence reports than climate change “science?” Like the boy who cried wolf’s exaggerated warnings, the more causes that are given national defense status, the more difficult it will become to properly assign highest priority to those that pose the greatest immediate threat. Worse, diverting resources from military and intelligence operations to alleged global warming while we are fighting a real War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, is a shoddy approach to national defense that reeks of political opportunism.

Senators Hagel and Durbin should cut out some of that shameful pork attached to the armed service appropriation bill drafts and divert it to hire more translators and intelligence staff to sift through the mountain of documents seized in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of demanding national intelligence estimates on global warming. We need better intelligence on Iran more than we need intelligence estimates on severe weather. We can assert far more control over one than the other.

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:

[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.