Anti-Military Obama "Swift-Boats" Own Campaign

A widely read news article this morning quite successfully concealed an insulting and inaccurate statement presidential candidate Barack Obama directed at U.S. military personnel fighting al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. The AP story, “Obama Gets Warning From Friendly Voter,” reported that “voter” Maggie North of Claremont, New Hampshire, warned Obama that he needed to avoid public disputes and nasty exchanges with his Democratic rivals if he wanted to be considered different or a “fresh” alternative to the usual political nastiness associated with Washington DC. All but one paragraph of the AP story dealt with Obama’s verbal exchanges with opponents, how campaigns “thicken a candidate’s skin,” and the evil influence of Washington lobbyists.

The one paragraph that should have stood out to readers and received the most attention was not analyzed at all in the AP report or challenged in any way as to its accuracy by the news organs that published it. It contained a slap in the face to U.S. troops in Afghanistan but was effectively obscured by the report’s focus only on the naïve and ill-advised confrontations Obama has engaged in with his party rivals.

Obama has frequently criticized the war effort in Iraq, claiming that he would pull troops out of Iraq and redeploying them in Afghanistan or sending them into Pakistan in pursuit of the Taliban and al Qaeda. His Democratic rivals and conservatives alike rightfully repudiated his stated intent to send troops into Pakistan with or without Pakistani President Musharraf’s approval. Yet during a campaign stop in Nashua, NH yesterday, Obama made a specious claim against U.S. troops in Afghanistan, accusing them in John Kerry-esque manner, of murdering innocents in a foreign land. When asked about pulling troops out of Iraq to fight elsewhere, Obama made the following comment about Afghanistan:

We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.

The question that reporters and potential voters who speak to Obama on the campaign trail should be asking is, “Where do you get your information about what our troops are doing in Afghanistan?” The oft-repeated and never proven claim that our troops are bombing and killing civilians in Afghanistan or Iraq are mainstays of anti-American news sources such as Al-Jazeera, but do not match U.S. military reports of daily actions in either of those countries. On this issue perhaps more than any other, Obama demonstrated knowledge starvation while a virtual feast of front line data was available to him from those actually doing the fighting.

It is no small thing for a presidential candidate to accuse the military of killing civilians and fanning the flames of anti-Americanism in Afghanistan, but the AP apparently felt his comments about lobbyists and having “thick skin” during a campaign were more newsworthy than the knife he plunged into the backs of our troops on the front lines in the War on Terror. Perhaps such daggers have become so common from Obama’s party that certain news organizations no longer consider them unusual or significant enough to cover properly. Our troops, on the other hand, have long memories and do not suffer lightly such accusations or blatant disrespect.

John Kerry “swift-boated” his own 2004 presidential campaign by opening his mouth in 1971 and falsely accusing his fellow Vietnam servicemen of committing atrocities against, and killing, civilians. That well-documented testimony to Congress was replayed throughout 2004 on conservative talk radio and served as a constant reminder to potential voters of Kerry’s true feelings toward the military and those who served in the Vietnam War far longer and with more honor than he did. Obama’s false accusation that our troops are now killing civilians in Afghanistan should likewise hang as a proverbial albatross around his campaign’s neck throughout his presumptuous run for the presidency.

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Afghanistan, US Troops, Redeployment, Civilian Deaths, John Kerry, War Crimes, Swift Boat Veterans, US Military, Presidential Candidates, New Hampshire

McCain: "I'm Sure I have a Policy on That, I Just Need to Check What it is"

After 25 years in Washington (as a Congressman and Senator), 2008 presidential candidate Senator John McCain, when asked his position on government subsidies for contraception, made the following statement on the campaign trail in Iowa, as reported by the Telegraph (UK):

"I'm sure I have a policy on that. I just need to check what it is," he replied, before seeking illumination from his aides.

Can a candidate or elected official really claim to have a policy on any issue if it is not ingrained sufficiently into his knowledge base that he can recall it without prompting from an aide? This one sentence response illustrates much of what is lacking in political campaigning and in a larger sense, in governance itself. Elected officials believe themselves too busy to dedicate themselves to any actual study and internalization of issues, preferring instead to hire cadres of aides to learn the issues for them and advise the politicians of what they should think and say about an issue. While this approach allows the politicians more time to engage in glad-handing and stump speaking for their election and reelection campaigns, it also has the unfortunate consequence of assuring that the individuals Americans actually vote for suffer a deplorable paucity of personal awareness of the issues on which they vote. Those issues seriously affect the nation’s course in economics, health, morality, and national security, but are deemed less important than campaigning by candidates while others learn the issues for them.

The question asked of Senator McCain was not a complicated one. Either you believe that the government should spend taxpayer money to buy contraceptives for America’s youth who choose promiscuity over abstinence, or you don’t. It is highly improbable that Senator McCain did not know what he thought about such a question, and if one defends his response by praising his wisdom in clarifying his position before answering, one is actually defending a candidate’s right to say what others want to hear rather than what he personally believes or what needs to be said. Stating what you believe and saying what needs to be said are demonstrations of leadership. Declining to answer questions until you can confer with aides and read your politically correct cue cards is a demonstration of unprincipled ambition. Soothsayers tell the masses whatever is popular and what they want to hear. Leaders tell the masses what needs to be done and why, knowing that it will likely be unpopular.

McCain also seems to be seeking a career as soothsayer to Europe and other regions that harbor anti-American sentiment (hat tip to Wizbang Politics). During his speech to the farmers of Cedar Falls, Iowa, McCain expressed great concern for America’s image around the world, particularly in Europe, and that restoring a good image (i.e. being more like them and less like us) will be a “top priority” if he is elected president in 2008. On the surface, the concept of improving relations with our once loyal European allies seems laudable, but then McCain explained what steps he would take to improve America’s image abroad and the pandering to European popularity takes an ominous turn:

"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."

Perhaps Senator McCain’s aides, who apparently tell him what his positions are, should advise him that he was elected to represent Arizona in the Senate, not The Hague, and that if elected president in 2008 he would be obligated to implement the will of the American electorate, not the EU. Climate change is also very important to Al Gore, so perhaps Senator McCain is auditioning for a VP spot in Gore’s undeclared but inevitable run for the White House, since these statements embracing liberal ideologies will assure McCain’s quick exit in the GOP primaries and availability as Gore’s running mate.

More troubling than his desire to please Europe is the fact that he embraces the idea of closing the Guantanamo detention facility, where enemy combatants are held and interviewed. At Guantanamo, terrorists captured during our counterterrorism actions worldwide are kept them from killing our troops in the field, and we receive the added benefit of occasionally gleaning valuable information from them that disrupts future terrorist attacks or provides better understanding of the structure and operational tactics of al Qaeda and other groups.

John McCain is opposed to torture, and based on his well-documented experience as a POW in Vietnam, the reasons for his opposition are valid and unassailable. However, Guantanamo is not Abu Ghraib, and as confessed 9/11 planner and self-proclaimed super terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed clearly stated in his testimony last week, he was never tortured at Guantanamo and no part of his confession was the result of coercion or was extracted through torture tactics.

I wrote recently about the legal and practical dangers associated with closing Guantanamo and relocating the detainees to military brigs inside the U.S. Proposals for closure and relocation have come from Democrats in Congress, but Senator McCain has allied himself with their cause, another issue on which he has ignored the will of the people in order to cast himself as a “maverick” or as more palatable to the liberal media than his more conservative opponents for the GOP presidential nomination. Virginia’s citizens, regardless of party, are opposed to the relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Quantico or other facilities within the Commonwealth.

If Senator McCain’s support for facility closure is sincere, he should also be in favor of relocating the terrorist detainees to Arizona for criminal trials in federal courts in his own state. So far, Senator McCain has been silent on whether his Arizona constituents would approve of having hundreds of terrorists transported to and housed in their state. Perhaps the Senator has a policy on this, but needs to check with his aides to learn what it is.

Throughout his Senate career, Senator McCain has straddled the fences between the two parties far too often to be trusted by either one. In some respects, though he worded it differently, McCain echoed a sentiment he apparently shares with John Kerry. Kerry, as readers will remember, called America “an international pariah” during a World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. McCain, in his Cedar Falls speech, stressed his desire to counter the “ugly American” image prevalent in Europe. Kerry and McCain seem to share the conviction that anti-American sentiment in Europe is America’s fault, and that American policies and administrations (President Bush in particular) are responsible for giving Europeans cause to dislike America.

Conservative media, including Spy The News!, lambasted Kerry for his remarks, but McCain deserves equal condemnation for ignoring history (which he claims to study and love). Europeans have always disdained America and its culture. We were considered uncouth ruffians by the French during the Revolutionary War, and that opinion has not been changed by 231 years of global leadership in technology, industry, transportation, medicine, and military achievement. Not even our generous rebuilding of nations destroyed in world wars has moved European nations permanently into America’s corner.

Liberating France in WWII did not create an eternal debt of gratitude among the French, and rebuilding Germany did not prevent that nation from protesting against American Cold War policies or opposing our post 9/11 military actions. The Marshall Plan was unparalleled in human history for its strategic compassion and generosity, yet few of the nations restored to viability by that plan can be counted today as reliably pro-American. The idea that if America would stop being so American, and would try to be more like Europe, then Europe would love America and never oppose it again is patently ludicrous. The same logic is put forward by anti-war demonstrators who claim that if America will address the root causes of terrorism, or if America will stop supporting Israel, or if America will just sit down and negotiate with the terrorists, the terrorists will stop wanting to kill us.

Appeasement will always fail, regardless of whether the appeasement is given to “friend” or foe. America did not cause anti-American sentiment. Blaming America is an international pastime rivaling only soccer in popularity. Whether it stems from envy, revenge, fear, insecurity, or ignorance, the motivation behind anti-Americanism is rarely the result of American action or inaction, though we are demonized for both. They dislike America for what America is and for what the EU aspires to be but falls short.

Senator McCain’s aides may wish to consider researching whether the American electorate wants America to be more, or less, like Europe. Europe is gravitating, rather quickly, toward universal socialism via the EU. Religion has been purged from political discourse, and politically correct tolerance there has resulted in a severe decline in societal morals and families bound by marriage. The only segments of European society that are continuing to marry and produce children are religious immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, please remind us again why we want to be more like Europe? Other than 2 hour naps during lunch time and a mandatory month of annual summer vacation, there is little reason for America to adopt European societal or political habits.

Presenting Europe, and the rest of the world, with a strong, confident, and noble America that says and does what is right may not always win friends among the feckless, but it is a demonstration of leadership. McCain and Kerry consistently place their concern for global popularity ahead of what America’s voters want from their leaders. Also not surprisingly, McCain’s declining appeal to presidential election voters will assure that he, like Kerry, will remain a soothsaying Senator with frustrated presidential aspirations.

Ann Coulter's CPAC Remark: Room in Politics for "Loving the Sinner, but not the Sin?"

Is it possible in today’s instant-media politics to “love the sinner but not the sin?” At what point does a person’s worth become synonymous with his/her actions or words, especially if those actions or words become a political liability for anyone considered a friend or supporter? In today’s politics it seems that members of both political parties routinely rush to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater whenever someone speaks frankly but perhaps with little tact. Influential organizations, with media complicity, demand that politicians not only distance themselves from “inflammatory” or “intolerant” statements made by others, but they are further urged to personally condemn or malign the person who made the comments. In effect, political correctness today demands nothing less than a complete shunning of anyone whose friendship or support could be viewed as political baggage. Ambition trumps friendship, and popularity eschews loyalty.

Recent examples of this phenomenon illustrate the political danger presidential candidates face when someone they know and have publicly associated with does or says something controversial. Their perceived risk of being associated with a controversial figure or policy position almost immediately results in the candidates’ lemming-like dash to jump into the abyss of political correctness to preserve their popularity and appeal.

Unfortunately Ann Coulter placed several 2008 Republican presidential candidates in an awkward position with her controversial remarks at the 34th annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Friday. The candidates’ political views and personalities were overshadowed by the media focus on one sentence uttered by Coulter and the efforts of top Republican 2008 presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain to distance themselves from her remark. If you missed it, during her speech to CPAC Coulter made the following comment:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

Clearly, Ann Coulter has a low opinion of Senator John Edwards, but the number of Republicans (and many Democrats as well) who hold similarly low opinions of Senator Edwards is legion. Coulter expressed her sentiment in a forceful manner, leaving no doubt about her disdain for Senator Edwards as a politician and as a person. One could reasonably question her judgment in using a term that has been ascribed only one possible meaning in today’s politically correct climate. It can also be reasonably assumed that she intentionally used the term on such an austere occasion to gain publicity, as the analysis by Right Wing News convincingly argues in the post titled, “Ann Coulter's Juvenile Comment at CPAC.”

Coulter, in manner ironically similar to John Kerry after his derogatory comments toward the intelligence of U.S. Military personnel, explained that her remark was an attempt at humor, or in Kerry’s words, “a botched joke.” When asked about criticism of her comment, Coulter stated, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Traditional liberal media outlets, including the Washington Post, who defended Senator Kerry by immediately labeling his insult to U.S. troops in Iraq as nothing more than a botched joke, did not offer similar protective coverage to Ann Coulter in this incident. There were no headlines in the Post softening Coulter’s image with blind acceptance of her Kerry-esque “it was a joke” explanation. On the contrary, she was universally condemned by the liberal media, and also by the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates.

The following are the reactions of each candidate to Coulter’s remark as reported by the New York Times and Fox News, respectively:

Rudy Giuliani- “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Mitt Romney- (via a spokesperson) “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Senator McCain- “Wildly inappropriate.”

The larger question raised by the Coulter flap is: what is the appropriate long-term response when someone who supports you does or says something controversial? Should Mitt Romney follow the advice of the liberal critics who demand that he refuse Coulter’s campaign support? The difficulty with this situation is that Coulter, though acerbic in delivery, happens to wield the most sarcastic pen in political punditry, and often provides valuable insight and political analysis couched in phrases no candidate or current office holder would dare to utter. Her remark about Edwards was inappropriate, particularly in a forum of candidates carrying the banner of the Republican Party. Yet as ill-advised as her attempt at humor was, it does not necessarily invalidate all of her past and future political analyses.

By nature politics is a controversial business. One cannot take a position without being excoriated by those holding opposing ideas, even if those opponents are in one’s own party. Should all Republican candidates shun Coulter for one sentence in one speech? The Clintons were wise to remain loyal to James Carville and others within their party who spoke bluntly and controversially in much the same fashion as Coulter. Much of the Clintons’ electoral success can be directly attributed to Carville’s strategies, demonstrating that even “flame throwers” have value beyond their publicity stunts.

Politics as a profession leaves little room for repentance, rehabilitation, or forgiveness, and the media appears determined to punish any candidate who gives any appearance of friendship with Coulter. Attempts by the media to link the candidates personally to Coulter began almost immediately, as the New York Times placed the following sentence directly beneath Coulter’s sarcastic explanation of her intended joke: “At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.”

Apparently the liberal media took notice that Romney won the CPAC straw poll and may be emerging as the preferred candidate among conservative Republicans. Liberal bloggers adopted the strategy of creating the impression that since Coulter officially endorsed Romney, he should be smeared with the stain of her allegedly anti-gay comment. The most egregious misrepresentation of Romney’s Coulter connection can be found on the highly popular liberal blog The Daily Kos in the post titled “Coulter and the Candidates.” Daily Kos contributor MissLaura portrayed the incident as follows:

One of the conservatives whose support Romney drew, of course, was Ann Coulter. The two spent some quality time together before she went onstage to call John Edwards a "faggot."

Can we therefore expect him to refuse to be further associated with someone like Ann Coulter, whose entire career as a prominent conservative is based on the notion that people who disagree with her should be treated with contempt, disrespect, and vituperation?

I'll be looking for him to refuse her support of his candidacy just any minute now.

Thus, according to “tolerant” liberals and Republicans infected with political correctness, if one makes a controversial comment, regardless of intent, that person should be jettisoned permanently. The comments submitted to this Daily Kos post were likewise illustrative of the true nature of liberal tolerance. Readers were outraged by the above photo of Romney backstage PRIOR to Coulter’s speech. Romney was vilified by one reader for “flashing his most cordial smile” at Coulter, as if civility and personal kindness should never be directed toward those with whom one disagrees.

To the right you will see a photo of Nancy Pelosi “flashing her most cordial smile” at President Bush despite having said this of him in 2004: “Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.” Hillary Clinton, in another flashed a very cordial smile to Vice President Cheney prior to taking her oath of office in the U.S. Senate, all while the very friendly Bill Clinton had his hand on the Vice President’s shoulder. These types of photos indicate nothing about the beliefs and policy views of the persons in the photos, they merely demonstrate that snubbing people and burning bridges win few friends and minimal influence in politics. I suppose the tolerant liberal approach to standing next to someone backstage in a green room must consist of glares, the silent treatment, or refusals to stand next to someone with differing views. Romney was obviously being gracious with a well known media figure, and there is nothing substantive to indicate any more or less than this, especially from one photograph.

For liberals, tolerance appears to be a precious commodity only extended to those who agree with them. The comparison between the media treatment of John Kerry and Ann Coulter does not excuse or defend Coulter’s remark, which was truly juvenile, but it does expand on what Hugh Hewitt wrote about this incident. Hugh rightly pointed out that both the Democratic and Republican parties have individuals who embarrass them and Republicans should use caution in using past liberal behavior to justify present conservative missteps like Coulter’s. Hugh stops there, but the difference is that Republicans tend to shun or officially censure those within their ranks who embarrass the party through their behavior or words, as Coulter did at CPAC. Democrats, as in the case of John Kerry’s repeated insults to troops recently and in 1971, or Speaker Pelosi’s personal attacks of the President’s intellect and competence, seem to reward controversial behavior with high office and unwavering support. Hugh Hewitt makes an excellent point by reminding Republicans that they should seek to rise above the standard set by the other party and expect more dignity from its members.

The Republican reaction to Coulter should be sincere and hopefully will send a message that John Edwards’ political views provide sufficient fodder for reasoned, analytical refutation without resorting to personal attacks. While Republican candidates should make it clear that epithets are discouraged, they should likewise not close the door completely on Coulter’s other, more civilized contributions to political discourse. If every public figure, whether in politics, entertainment, sports, or the media, were to be permanently shunned for one lapse of judgment or poor choice of words, few in these fields today would survive the scrutiny. Forgiveness is perhaps the rarest of all human gifts, but is the one commodity that should be meted out, no pun intended, liberally.

Society's Standards, Not Military's, in Decline

It wasn’t enough for John Kerry to insult the intellectual capacity of the soldiers in Iraq. Congressman Marty Meehan, D-MA, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, has now added “criminals” to the list of derogatory terms used by Democrats to describe our troops. That is what passes as support for the armed services in the new Congress. Rather than praise the military for giving some who have made mistakes the chance to improve their skills and future employment prospects, Congressman Meehan puts a negative spin to recently published Pentagon recruiting statistics and warns that the military is filled with criminals.

Are military recruiting standards being lowered due to the strain of 5 years of the War on Terror and “mounting casualties”? That is the question raised in an AP story reported by Fox News today titled “US Military Letting in More Recruits With Criminal Records.” According to Defense Department statistics, the number of Army and Marine recruits with criminal records requiring waivers for military service nearly doubled between 2003 and 2006, the AP reports. Congressman Meehan argues that the rise in the number of recruits with criminal records demonstrates a lowering of standards by the armed services that is the direct result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congressman Meehan stated:

The data is crystal clear. Our armed forces are under incredible strain and the only way that they can fill their recruiting quotas is by lowering their standards. By lowering standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed forces and sending the wrong message to potential recruits across the country.

Do the statistics actually reflect what the Congressman alleges? According to Pentagon statistics, the armed services provided “moral waivers” by service branch as follows:

Army – 12.7% needed waivers in 2003, 20% needed waivers in 2006.
Marines – Slightly less than 50% needed waivers in 2003, slightly more than 50% needed waivers in 2006.
Navy – Less than 18% needed waivers in 2003, 18% needed waivers in 2006.
Air Force – More than 8% needed waivers in 2003, 8% needed waivers in 2006, trending downward.
Overall Average – 20% needed waivers in 2003, 25% needed waivers in 2006.

The Pentagon report divides moral waivers into the following categories: felonies, serious and minor non-traffic offenses, serious and minor traffic offenses and drug offenses. These categories are intentionally broad because many states differ in what constitutes felonies or misdemeanors.

Congressman Meehan’s “crystal clear” data actually only show a 5% rise in waivers throughout the armed services between 2003 and 2006. 5% does not reflect an incredible strain or a mad rush to throw recruiting standards out in order to meet recruiting quotas. On the contrary, the high percentage for the Marine Corps is not an alarming result of lowering standards; it is caused by the strict Marines' standard drug use policy that requires waivers even for single experience marijuana use.

In defense of the waiver program, the Pentagon issued the following statement:

The waiver process recognizes that some young people have made mistakes, have overcome their past behavior, and have clearly demonstrated the potential for being productive, law-abiding citizens and members of the military.

While statistically it may appear the military is lowering recruiting standards, the explanation for the increase in moral waivers is far more attributable to the decades-long decline in national morals than to any cause/effect stemming from the War on Terror. When I was recruited for government service, the entity that recruited me had a zero tolerance policy against drug use of any kind at any time. Those who lied about recreational use in their youth were weeded out in the polygraph stage. The standard behind that policy was: in sensitive government positions involving life and death decisions and actions, anyone who could prove unstable or succumb to physical addictions that involve violating laws should be excluded without exception.

In the intervening years, however, that standard has “evolved” as fewer applicants could state with confidence that they had never used illegal narcotics of any kind. The current standard allows exceptions for recreational use of marijuana, as long as that use was no more than a few years prior to application for employment with this specific government entity. Was the change a result of this entity’s manpower-intensive contribution to the War on Terror? No, it was the result of a shrinking pool of applicants who had never experimented with drugs in their youth.

I view the change in standards as a troubling but not at all surprising trend that is impacting all employers, not merely the US Government or military. Finding recruits who have ethical standards, can successfully pass intensive background investigations, polygraphs, and psychological fitness tests, is becoming more difficult. The parental permissiveness of baby-boomers has spawned more recreational drug experimentation, growing serious criminal behavior among youth, and a moral relativism that has taught young Americans that right and wrong depend entirely on the situation and how you feel about it, not that there are clear differences between right and wrong. All forms of sexual deviance are likewise embraced and displayed as popular entertainment, further obscuring the once accepted values of self-restraint and responsibility. Criminals, once societal pariahs, have become the heroes in our popular entertainment, while our government and military are nearly always portrayed as the true villains. Drug use is portrayed as adventurous, daring, and socially enlightened. Drug lords, smugglers, and dealers, are afforded respect and glory in today’s Hollywood productions. Hollywood attaches no stigma to indulgent or illegal behavior.

One wonders how much effort Congressman Meehan has expended in fighting Hollywood’s culturally suicidal assault on American morals, or how concerned he is that Americans are subjected daily to Hollywood’s disdain and mockery of government and military personnel. If the Congressman worries about sending the wrong message to potential recruits, why not start with the anti-military messages spewing from Hollywood and his own party?

Congressman Meehan’s policy statement on Iraq includes terms he believes show support for our troops: Quagmire; Torture Accountability; Haliburton; Rifts in International Relationships; Failure; and Damaged Credibility. He is far less dedicated to improving military recruiting than he is to casting the military in a poor light in order to discredit the Bush Administration and the Iraq War.

Because generations of Americans have willingly embraced Hollywood’s values and definitions of right and wrong (i.e. there is no difference), fewer Americans are living the lives the government and military once demanded from recruits in preparation for service. The private sector is likewise facing a shortage of applicants with high standards, but unless an employer is a government contractor providing sensitive government support, background checks are shallow and polygraphs are non-existent. Thus the decline in moral standards throughout society would naturally be most visible in government and military, where security clearances and access to weaponry and intelligence reports require far more character than is expected in the private sector.

The military, to its credit and despite the AP report on Pentagon recruiting statistics, gives far more scrutiny to its recruits than the private sector, including the news media, gives to its employee applicants. To attribute the rise in moral waivers for military recruits to the strains of the War on Terror misses the larger cultural context in which recruiting occurs. The military should be applauded for working to recruit the best available representation of American culture, and not criticized because America’s culture is in decline.

"Pariah Kerry" Woos Swiss with New Hit: "America is a Pariah"

The dictionary defines a pariah as “somebody who is despised and avoided by other people.” Synonyms for pariah include exile and outsider. Considering John Kerry’s tearful decision to not run for president again in 2008 after realizing that he is a pariah within his own Democratic Party, it should not surprise anyone that Kerry is out on the anti-American lecture circuit speaking about pariahs. So “avoided by other people” was Kerry last fall prior to the mid-term elections, that his swipe at the intellect of US soldiers (charitably and inaccurately labeled a “botched joke” by the media) resulted in his disgraced withdrawal from scheduled campaign speaking engagements on behalf of Democratic candidates. By order of the DNC, Kerry was muzzled until after the 2006 mid-terms were concluded.

After coming within 118,000 votes of winning the presidency in 2004, Kerry is now an outsider within his party, despised and avoided by the US military, and exiled to speaking in front of the only friendly crowds available to him, i.e. America-bashing international groups such as the World Economic Forum, which he addressed on Saturday in Davos, Switzerland. Responding to a question regarding whether the Bush Administration had failed diplomatically with Iran prior to the “election” of the radical Ahmadinejad, Kerry could not restrain himself from declaring that America had failed in nearly every aspect of foreign policy under Bush. He expanded that sentiment by stating that America is now an “international pariah.”

According to Kerry, American’s have an “unfortunate habit” of looking at America through the American lens, and not engaging in the Anti-American self deprecation that has become a staple of liberal ideology. A twin doctrine, of which liberals are equally enamored and which was touted by Kerry in Davos, is that national security is best achieved through international diplomacy. When the issue of America’s national security is being considered, Americans want their elected officials to do so through the American lens. No other nation will or can protect America, and thus our defense and security policies should be promulgated based on what is America’s best interest for national survival and cultural preservation.

It seems diplomatically schizophrenic to belittle your own nation as a pariah that is “sending a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy” to the world, while simultaneously claiming to seek national security through diplomacy. Kerry’s idea that Americans should view America not as an ideal for the world to aspire to, but rather a pariah as seen through the lens of “other cultures and histories,” is sadly embraced by the current leadership of the Democratic Party. Kerry compares America with the rest of the world and sees only its faults and blemishes. Yet, as author Mark Steyn argues effectively in his book America Alone, what nation would Americans like Kerry prefer? Why are Democrats so insistent that America become more like other nations, particularly Europe? Is it the appeal of the utopian socialist dream of mandatory national healthcare and economy crushing national pensions? Is it the absence of an armed citizenry? Is it the high unemployment rate endemic to EU countries?

Kerry and those who share his views should remember, as Steyn reminds with unmatched clarity, that those countries poured unlimited funds into guaranteed healthcare and retirement pensions because they left their national security expenses to the only nation capable of protecting them: America. Even without bearing the expense of their own defense, the EU nations have proven incapable of financially sustaining these programs into the near future due to demographic decline and increasingly indolent populations too dependent on the state to be entrepreneurs or productive workers.

Kerry and the Democrats claim they want to improve America. Why not start that quest for improvement by ceasing to join the anti-American choruses of Europe and radical terrorist sponsors like Iran? There is nothing wrong with seeking improvement in something you love, and Democrats are quick to defend their patriotism and love of country. However, one does not achieve improvement through constant America-bashing on the international stage.

Just as one could never hope for marital bliss while repeatedly belittling and exposing the faults of one’s spouse, anti-American remarks from its own elected officials will never result in a strong and admired nation. Contrarily, if one constantly praises one’s spouse and offers loyal encouragement to a spouse’s efforts to improve, marital bliss is entirely likely. Like the self-improving spouse, Americans are an optimistic people who thrive when given the freedom and encouragement to find new solutions to old problems. Unfortunately Kerry and many others in his party offer only criticism to please America-haters instead of investing their collective intellect and energy into creating identifiable solutions.

Such remarks further illustrate why politically savvy Democrats have shunned Kerry and declined to give him a second chance for the presidency in 2008, not out of disagreement with his “America is to blame” ideology, but as a practical matter of political survival. By calling America a pariah at every opportunity, Kerry has personally become the embodiment of the word.

Technorati Tags: John Kerry Pariah World Economic Forum Davos Switzerland Anti-Americanism European Union Mark Steyn liberals International Diplomacy

Many Tom Paines, Few Mr. Smiths Going to Washington

Last month’s election results, as important as they surely will be for the future direction of the Iraq Conflict and the War on Terror, are less troubling than the increasingly noticeable paucity of honorable, selfless, and humble candidates for public office. Federal elections have devolved into a deplorable version of “Star Search” in which the only qualifications a potential office holder needs are name recognition (the more controversial the better) and access to wealth.

While I certainly condemn any American who could be registered to vote but is not, and subsequently does not participate in elections (see my previous post http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2006/11/iraqis-point-purple-fingers-at.html), the lack of enthusiasm for most candidates of either party in this year’s election was understandable. Credit Obi-Wan Kenobi for coining the phrase “hive of scum and villainy,” which applies more readily to the House and Senate than it did to any creatures on the fictional planet Tatooine. My experiences with and in Washington, DC have only solidified my disdain for the fog of ego that drapes this city like no other on earth. The very air reeks of selfishness and moral drift. Unfortunately, long gone are the days when a character such as Jefferson Smith in Frank Capra’s wonderful film (www.amazon.com/Smith-Goes-Washington-Frank-Capra/dp/B00003L9CJ) could come to Washington for the sole purpose of serving his constituents, and through his integrity convince corrupt politicians to confess their graft and resign from office. For that matter, long gone are the days when politicians could agree that corruption was actually an undesirable trait, both personally and in their colleagues. In today’s Washington, one can wield power for decades despite the following unethical conduct:

1. Accept bribes from parties involved in cases presented to you as a federal judge and be impeached by Congress for that action (Alcee Hastings, D-FL, until this week a strong candidate for Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee).
2. Abandon the scene of a fatal vehicle accident (single car) and make no effort to rescue the passenger (Ted Kennedy, D-MA).
3. “Earn” three Purple Hearts in four months service in Vietnam for “injuries” that required no hospitalization or missed time on duty. Then when confronted about this issue, refuse to allow access to personal military service record despite the fact that a campaign opponent allowed full access to his own record and honorable military service in Vietnam became a cornerstone of the presidential campaign (John Kerry, D-MA).
4. Fail a law school course because of plagiarism, then instead of learning from the mistake, get caught plagiarizing speeches from Robert F. Kennedy. Be forced to withdraw from a presidential bid because of these issues (Joseph Biden, D-DE, Chairman-elect of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee).
5. Accept bribes from individuals, and then deny the bribery despite $90,000 in cash found in the home freezer and the guilty pleas of those who paid the bribes (William Jefferson, D-LA).
6. Unlawfully obtain and improperly peruse FBI files on 900+ Republicans from the Bush and Reagan administrations. Although other scandals are attributable in some way to this person, this one is the most egregious (Hillary Clinton, D-NY).
7. Be an active member and recruiter of the KKK. Write letters to a U.S. Senator stating “With a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds...” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=10792#footnote19). Filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Make speeches in the Senate in which the idea of a superiority of white intellect is espoused. Despite this blatant racism, be selected as Senate Majority Leader by a party which ironically captures the black vote in every election (Robert Byrd, D-WV).

Of course Republicans have been involved in several scandals and lapses of moral behavior as well, but it seems Republicans have a much better record of purging corruption once discovered and encouraging their colleagues in question to resign. The Democrats, on the other hand, reward politicians who weather these “vast right wing conspiracies.”

My point is not to castigate any one party. A look at the potential candidates for the presidency in 2008 gives little hope that integrity and substance are on the horizon for either party. Nearly every candidate has a skeleton in the proverbial closet, or more commonly, most of them have been career politicians, whether long in office (McCain), long wielding power behind the scenes (Hillary) or long in preparing a political record taking no positions at all (Obama). Giuliani can be tough on crime and terrorism, but is a social liberal. Romney has succeeded as a businessman, 2002 Olympic savior, and Governor (MA), and certainly is charismatic, but he is a member of a rapidly growing but often maliciously misrepresented (by the media and other religions) faith (http://www.lds.org/). He seems the most likely Frank Capra-worthy character in the group, but like Mr. Smith, champion of Boy Rangers and all things wholesome, stands little chance of getting a fair hearing in today’s scandal-thirsty press. We will never see improvement in our nation until we demand improvement in the character and humility of those we select to lead us.

We are getting what we deserve out of our political leaders, national and local, because our expectations have been set too low. George Washington set the perfect example of what we should seek from a president. He had to be persuaded to accept the presidency, and did so with hesitation and only because it was apparent everything he had fought for would crumble without a president of integrity. After serving as president (and yes it is a service, not a celebrity star tour ala Clinton), though he could have stayed in power indefinitely, he humbly stepped aside and yielded up his enormous power precisely because he viewed that power as a danger to the nation and himself. Perhaps we should focus our searches for political candidates on finding those who must be persuaded to hold office rather than those who feel it a birthright or a career stepping stone. Above all we must avoid those who seek office, particularly the presidency, because of the power it represents.

We do not need any more “sound bite” presidents, congressman, senators, or candidates. We need leaders who take positions, advocate rather than pontificate, and work in session longer than they relax in recess. Who will be our Mr. Smith in 2008?

Alcee Hastings Hillary Clinton Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Robert Byrd War On Terror Ted Kennedy voting