One day after stating to a global audience that many groups, including the radical Muslim Brotherhood, should play roles in governing post-Mubarak Egypt if they would swear off violence, the Brotherhood dropped any charade of peaceful intentions by assuring they would cause Egypt to withdraw from it's peace treaty with Israel.
Apparently a decade of intelligence reports naming the Brotherhood as a terror sponsor and supplier wasn't enough to convince the President they really meant it when they said they want to establish a global Islamic caliphate on the smoking ruins of Israel, so the Brotherhood had to spell it out clearly for him today. Good luck Mr. President. Your diplomatic relations with a provisional Egyptian government will be very productive with such level-headed beheaders as the Muslim Brotherhood playing a role in Egypt's power structure.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Obama’s Ship of State Sinks in Shallow Waters
Today, Barack Obama makes it official: his overall strategy for achieving 
world peace is to travel the globe and beg dictators, tyrants, and democracies alike, “Can’t we all just get along?” As a potential a captain of our ship of state, perhaps we should expect more from Obama, but he continues to demonstrate that he is anything but a seasoned foreign policy sailor.
That anyone would take Obama seriously when he speaks on foreign policy issues is disturbing enough, but more troubling is that Obama appears to take himself seriously and may actually believe the views he espouses. In a speech at DePaul University today, Obama will make an outrageous claim for which voters, liberal or conservative, should demand clarification or retraction.
Obama’s speech, as reported by the New York Times, sets forth his alleged goal to eliminate all of the world’s nuclear weapons. While such a goal in itself merely places Obama in the pantheon of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreamers, it was one of his stated reasons for why the United States should take the lead in eliminating its own weapons that caught our attention.
According to a preview of the speech provided to the Times by Obama’s aides, Obama will tell DePaul students and faculty that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism." This statement is problematic for Obama regardless of how one interprets it. Either Obama believes that the world is somehow threatened by a possibility of America using its nuclear weapons to carry out terrorist attacks, or he believes that terrorists are more likely to seek nuclear weapons to use against America simply because we possess such weapons.
That's a pretty ominous iceberg in your foreign policy waters, Captain Obama.
The obvious extension of that lamentable logic is that if America would purge itself of nuclear weapons, radical Islamic terrorists would stop seeking the most powerful weapon they can find to destroy America. If Obama truly believes this, then one must also assume by his logic that if Israel were to publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and likewise publicly destroy it, then radical Islamic terrorists across the globe would halt their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and cease preaching the destruction of the Jewish state.
Obama’s foreign policy as it applies to nuclear weapons is simple and easily recognizable: as with all world conflict, somehow, in some way, America is to blame: the world is stockpiling nuclear weapons because we invented them; the world must arm itself to the teeth with nuclear weapons because we have a large number of them and, gasp, we used them twice to end a war; the world’s terrorists would not be seeking nuclear weapons to further their goals if we would just disavow such weapons as dangerous and stop making them; if we are ever victimized by a terrorist nuclear detonation, it will be our own fault for fueling the world’s need for the ultimate weapon to defend itself from America’s dangerous stockpiles.
The “blame America first” theme is rampant among the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Every world crisis or the response to it is America’s fault. We intervened when we should have restrained ourselves, or we failed to intervene when we should have, or we failed to intervene quickly enough, or when we intervened we did too little or too much. The candidates, Obama in particular, fail to recognize that as powerful as America is, it is not and cannot be directly or indirectly responsible for every facet of international politics or conflict, including nuclear weapons development and arms races between nations.
Certainly we should seek to assure that nations with nuclear weapons are accounting for them, storing them safely, and understand the consequences for attempting to use them for offensive purposes. One does not negotiate such arrangements from a position of weakness or worse, disarmament.
The world is not in more danger of nuclear terrorism because America has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. To make such a statement was irresponsible and naïve. To conclude that terrorists will stop seeking nuclear devices of their own to use against America was naïve and dangerous. Nation states we have competed with in this arena will not be talked out of their best technologies. Stubborn and sly world leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pervez Musharraf, and a host of others must be salivating at the prospect of potentially competing in the international policy arena with the transparent Obama, who appears to think that if he can just sit down and use his charm and charisma on world leaders, they will agree to disarm themselves of the ultimate deterrent from attack. He may as well ask them to give up radar and satellites as well since they should have no fear of any incoming attacks in his Utopian fantasy world.
The portion of Obama’s DePaul speech that best illustrated how unlikely he will be to sail the
ship of state through his foreign policy shallowness was his description of how he would deal with Iran:
The last sentence sums it up nicely. Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy is to talk and keep talking, because he appears unable or unwilling to reassure the American people that he would act to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of any radical Islamic government, not merely Iran’s. Perhaps Obama and his aides have overlooked the fact that our approach to Iran has already utilized “a combination of diplomacy and pressure,” including UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, divestment of terror funds, frozen assets, carrier groups repositioned to the region, and overt statements from President Bush and other officials that we will act if Iran does not change course and renounce its uranium enrichment program.
That Obama plans to “call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure” on Iran is no plan at all. Only a first term Democratic senator with no foreign policy experience would call for America to do what it is already doing and try to pass that off as a plan worthy of entrusting him with the title of Commander in Chief.
Is the advocate for a nuclear-free world willing to enforce the removal or prevention of nuclear weapons by military action? Is he willing to wage war for peace? If not, he learned nothing from the Cold War, where one nation could not reduce arms unless the other did so simultaneously. Likewise, even in Obama’s anti-nuclear utopia one nation will never dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless all other nations do so.
Rather than referring to Republican candidates as “warmongers” for their hard line stances on Iran, Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates should come to a decision and share with voters what they will do when Iran or any other nation refuses to comply with UN sanctions and resolutions already in place and is on the verge of a viable nuclear weapon. That is a question the next president will undoubtedly be forced to deal with decisively, but decisiveness requires a decision and it is clear that Obama has not made his yet.
America is not the problem. America's arsenal is not fanning any terrorist flames. Terrorists seek the most efficient and formidable means for killing mass quantities of those they hate. Obama will likely still be shaking their hands and smiling warmly at them in negotiations when a Western city disappears in a flash and a cloud.
As waders at beaches in Florida or Australia can attest, danger can lurk even in the shallowest
waters. The same is true in politics. The shallowest policy positions usually portend grave danger if followed to their conclusions. Rather than arrogantly believing he can seal missile silos with his dripping charisma, Obama should demonstrate leadership by making a commitment to take all necessary actions to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those nations that already possess them. A broad smile, sanctions, and political pressure will not deter governments or terrorist organizations determined to become world powers by building fearsome weaponry.
If Obama wants to pilot the ship of state, he should develop a more substantive foreign policy and spend more time navigating in deeper waters than he has attempted to explore thus far in his campaign.
Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Iran, Nuclear Weapons
world peace is to travel the globe and beg dictators, tyrants, and democracies alike, “Can’t we all just get along?” As a potential a captain of our ship of state, perhaps we should expect more from Obama, but he continues to demonstrate that he is anything but a seasoned foreign policy sailor.That anyone would take Obama seriously when he speaks on foreign policy issues is disturbing enough, but more troubling is that Obama appears to take himself seriously and may actually believe the views he espouses. In a speech at DePaul University today, Obama will make an outrageous claim for which voters, liberal or conservative, should demand clarification or retraction.
Obama’s speech, as reported by the New York Times, sets forth his alleged goal to eliminate all of the world’s nuclear weapons. While such a goal in itself merely places Obama in the pantheon of liberal pie-in-the-sky dreamers, it was one of his stated reasons for why the United States should take the lead in eliminating its own weapons that caught our attention.
According to a preview of the speech provided to the Times by Obama’s aides, Obama will tell DePaul students and faculty that “the United States should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism." This statement is problematic for Obama regardless of how one interprets it. Either Obama believes that the world is somehow threatened by a possibility of America using its nuclear weapons to carry out terrorist attacks, or he believes that terrorists are more likely to seek nuclear weapons to use against America simply because we possess such weapons.
That's a pretty ominous iceberg in your foreign policy waters, Captain Obama.
The obvious extension of that lamentable logic is that if America would purge itself of nuclear weapons, radical Islamic terrorists would stop seeking the most powerful weapon they can find to destroy America. If Obama truly believes this, then one must also assume by his logic that if Israel were to publicly acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and likewise publicly destroy it, then radical Islamic terrorists across the globe would halt their quest to acquire nuclear weapons and cease preaching the destruction of the Jewish state.
Obama’s foreign policy as it applies to nuclear weapons is simple and easily recognizable: as with all world conflict, somehow, in some way, America is to blame: the world is stockpiling nuclear weapons because we invented them; the world must arm itself to the teeth with nuclear weapons because we have a large number of them and, gasp, we used them twice to end a war; the world’s terrorists would not be seeking nuclear weapons to further their goals if we would just disavow such weapons as dangerous and stop making them; if we are ever victimized by a terrorist nuclear detonation, it will be our own fault for fueling the world’s need for the ultimate weapon to defend itself from America’s dangerous stockpiles.
The “blame America first” theme is rampant among the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Every world crisis or the response to it is America’s fault. We intervened when we should have restrained ourselves, or we failed to intervene when we should have, or we failed to intervene quickly enough, or when we intervened we did too little or too much. The candidates, Obama in particular, fail to recognize that as powerful as America is, it is not and cannot be directly or indirectly responsible for every facet of international politics or conflict, including nuclear weapons development and arms races between nations.
Certainly we should seek to assure that nations with nuclear weapons are accounting for them, storing them safely, and understand the consequences for attempting to use them for offensive purposes. One does not negotiate such arrangements from a position of weakness or worse, disarmament.
The world is not in more danger of nuclear terrorism because America has large stockpiles of nuclear weapons. To make such a statement was irresponsible and naïve. To conclude that terrorists will stop seeking nuclear devices of their own to use against America was naïve and dangerous. Nation states we have competed with in this arena will not be talked out of their best technologies. Stubborn and sly world leaders such as Putin, Kim Jong-Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Pervez Musharraf, and a host of others must be salivating at the prospect of potentially competing in the international policy arena with the transparent Obama, who appears to think that if he can just sit down and use his charm and charisma on world leaders, they will agree to disarm themselves of the ultimate deterrent from attack. He may as well ask them to give up radar and satellites as well since they should have no fear of any incoming attacks in his Utopian fantasy world.
The portion of Obama’s DePaul speech that best illustrated how unlikely he will be to sail the
ship of state through his foreign policy shallowness was his description of how he would deal with Iran:In his speech, according to a campaign briefing paper, Mr. Obama also will call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons programs. Aides did not say what Mr. Obama intended to do if diplomacy and sanctions failed.
The last sentence sums it up nicely. Obama’s entire foreign policy strategy is to talk and keep talking, because he appears unable or unwilling to reassure the American people that he would act to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of any radical Islamic government, not merely Iran’s. Perhaps Obama and his aides have overlooked the fact that our approach to Iran has already utilized “a combination of diplomacy and pressure,” including UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions, divestment of terror funds, frozen assets, carrier groups repositioned to the region, and overt statements from President Bush and other officials that we will act if Iran does not change course and renounce its uranium enrichment program.
That Obama plans to “call for using a combination of diplomacy and pressure” on Iran is no plan at all. Only a first term Democratic senator with no foreign policy experience would call for America to do what it is already doing and try to pass that off as a plan worthy of entrusting him with the title of Commander in Chief.
Is the advocate for a nuclear-free world willing to enforce the removal or prevention of nuclear weapons by military action? Is he willing to wage war for peace? If not, he learned nothing from the Cold War, where one nation could not reduce arms unless the other did so simultaneously. Likewise, even in Obama’s anti-nuclear utopia one nation will never dismantle its nuclear arsenal unless all other nations do so.
Rather than referring to Republican candidates as “warmongers” for their hard line stances on Iran, Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates should come to a decision and share with voters what they will do when Iran or any other nation refuses to comply with UN sanctions and resolutions already in place and is on the verge of a viable nuclear weapon. That is a question the next president will undoubtedly be forced to deal with decisively, but decisiveness requires a decision and it is clear that Obama has not made his yet.
America is not the problem. America's arsenal is not fanning any terrorist flames. Terrorists seek the most efficient and formidable means for killing mass quantities of those they hate. Obama will likely still be shaking their hands and smiling warmly at them in negotiations when a Western city disappears in a flash and a cloud.
As waders at beaches in Florida or Australia can attest, danger can lurk even in the shallowest
waters. The same is true in politics. The shallowest policy positions usually portend grave danger if followed to their conclusions. Rather than arrogantly believing he can seal missile silos with his dripping charisma, Obama should demonstrate leadership by making a commitment to take all necessary actions to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons beyond those nations that already possess them. A broad smile, sanctions, and political pressure will not deter governments or terrorist organizations determined to become world powers by building fearsome weaponry.If Obama wants to pilot the ship of state, he should develop a more substantive foreign policy and spend more time navigating in deeper waters than he has attempted to explore thus far in his campaign.
Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Campaign, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Disarmament, Terrorism, Iran, Nuclear Weapons
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Beware Iran's Left Hand if Shaking Right
No government engages in more doublespeak than the current Iranian regime. While shaking America’s right hand and agreeing to participate in a Regional Security Subcommittee with the U.S. and Iraq, Ahmadinejad’s administration holds a lethal weapon in its other hand. It is impossible to assign any credibility to Iran’s stated desire to help stabilize the security situation in Iraq while it simultaneously floods Iraq with weapons, IEDs, and terrorists using them to kil
l American troops and Iraqis. It is likewise impossible to place trust for cooperation in Iraq in a regime that flatly refuses to comply with UN resolutions and sanctions designed to halt its uranium enrichment efforts.
Iran’s offer to help broker security in Iraq is nothing more than a clever political feint clearly designed to soften international perceptions of Iran’s intentions in the region. If Iran can convince world leaders through its participation on a security subcommittee that it seeks peace and stability in the region, then its claims to a peaceful nuclear program developed only for power generation will appear less transparent. Our European allies are easily pacified by small gestures of cooperation, no matter how insincere those gestures may be, from Middle Eastern leaders. Saddam Hussein proved that conclusively by co-opting high ranking government officials in Germany, France, and Britain through cash and oil bribes. In exchange, these leaders softened their countries’ stances on enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq’s pursuit of WMD.
Consider whether these words from a senior Iranian official, reported by the Guardian (UK) indicate any commitment to a peaceful and lawful end to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons:
There will never be a stable Iraq as long as there is a radical, nuclear weapons-seeking regime on its border, pouring arms and terrorist expertise into the country. The danger from Iran is increased by the fact, as stated by this senior official, that Iran's dignity is at stake. To a regime that thrives on projecting an image of strength, defending dignity will likely require irrational actions. The major difference between the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein’s similar effort to acquire WMD is religion. Saddam was a secular leader who sought ultimate weapons for the sheer exercise of power politics. The mullahs seek them for self-proclaimed apocalyptic use on Israel and the United States.
In our determination to stabilize Iraq and assure that its government is capable of providing defending itself, we must not lose sight of the greater danger posed by Iran. Though it would be an unpleasant situation, technically the U.S. could fight al Qaeda indefinitely in Iraq on a small scale, but if Iran’s uranium enrichment is not halted and its production facilities are not rendered inoperable, we will be fighting the same war for years to come but under the danger of nuclear attack from Iraq’s neighbor. Thus our war to provide Iraq with freedom and self-determination will have been for naught.
The Bush administration is right to argue that a stable Iraq is important to our national security, particularly in the long run, because it would establish a Muslim democracy and maintain America's image of strength in an area of the world that preys on perceived weakness. However, stabilizing Iraq should be a secondary priority to eliminating Iran’s supply stream of IEDs and arms into Iraq as well as its uranium enrichment recalcitrance. Since Iraq’s stability is codependent on Iran’s, our focus should be on stabilizing the one that is months away from possessing sufficient enriched uranium to produce its first nuclear weapon. Once that genie is out of the bottle, there will be no further opportunity to recapture it. Israeli intelligence clearly shares this assessment and may be forced to act unilaterally by the end of this year. It should not be forced to act alone. The UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be enforced aggressively by all who signed it.
Before the U.S. places any trust in Iran, Iran must be required to demonstrate responsibility on
the world stage by immediately halting its uranium reduction efforts. Ahmadinejad is no fool. His new willingness to engage the U.S. in diplomacy over Iraq’s security is a calculated tactical move that provides him with the two most valuable things he needs to move his uranium enrichment to the point of no return: an international image of cooperation; and time.
As long as Iran appears cooperative on the issue of Iraq, it will be difficult for President Bush to make the case to the world that decisive action must be taken to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. The world will always call for new talks, further negotiations, and diplomatic solutions. At some point in coming months, while holding talks and negotiations, Iran will pass the point of no return in its uranium enrichment and the opportunity for action will have passed. Iran is counting on its Iraq cooperation smokescreen to obscure from view its true intentions, both in Iraq and in its nuclear facilities.
An Iranian gesture of “goodwill” in Iraq on the one hand must not be allowed to conceal or excuse the nuclear dagger it holds in the other. America should make no mistake as to where that dagger points.
Technorati Tags:
Iraq War, Iran, Regional Security Subcommittee, Ahmadinejad, Bush Administration, Uranium Enrichment, Diplomacy
l American troops and Iraqis. It is likewise impossible to place trust for cooperation in Iraq in a regime that flatly refuses to comply with UN resolutions and sanctions designed to halt its uranium enrichment efforts.Iran’s offer to help broker security in Iraq is nothing more than a clever political feint clearly designed to soften international perceptions of Iran’s intentions in the region. If Iran can convince world leaders through its participation on a security subcommittee that it seeks peace and stability in the region, then its claims to a peaceful nuclear program developed only for power generation will appear less transparent. Our European allies are easily pacified by small gestures of cooperation, no matter how insincere those gestures may be, from Middle Eastern leaders. Saddam Hussein proved that conclusively by co-opting high ranking government officials in Germany, France, and Britain through cash and oil bribes. In exchange, these leaders softened their countries’ stances on enforcement of UN resolutions against Iraq’s pursuit of WMD.
Consider whether these words from a senior Iranian official, reported by the Guardian (UK) indicate any commitment to a peaceful and lawful end to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons:
Tehran has made clear that it will not suspend enrichment as the UN security council has demanded, despite two earlier rounds of financial, travel and arms sanctions. A decision on a third round has been put off until September. "If there is another resolution, we will react with whatever we have," the senior official told western journalists. "So far we have answered legally, limiting [UN] inspections, and reducing cooperation with the IAEA within the legal framework.
"But if there is no legal option left, it is obvious we will be tempted to do illegal things. What is very important to us is our dignity, and we are prepared to act."
There will never be a stable Iraq as long as there is a radical, nuclear weapons-seeking regime on its border, pouring arms and terrorist expertise into the country. The danger from Iran is increased by the fact, as stated by this senior official, that Iran's dignity is at stake. To a regime that thrives on projecting an image of strength, defending dignity will likely require irrational actions. The major difference between the mullahs’ quest for nuclear weapons and Saddam Hussein’s similar effort to acquire WMD is religion. Saddam was a secular leader who sought ultimate weapons for the sheer exercise of power politics. The mullahs seek them for self-proclaimed apocalyptic use on Israel and the United States.
In our determination to stabilize Iraq and assure that its government is capable of providing defending itself, we must not lose sight of the greater danger posed by Iran. Though it would be an unpleasant situation, technically the U.S. could fight al Qaeda indefinitely in Iraq on a small scale, but if Iran’s uranium enrichment is not halted and its production facilities are not rendered inoperable, we will be fighting the same war for years to come but under the danger of nuclear attack from Iraq’s neighbor. Thus our war to provide Iraq with freedom and self-determination will have been for naught.
The Bush administration is right to argue that a stable Iraq is important to our national security, particularly in the long run, because it would establish a Muslim democracy and maintain America's image of strength in an area of the world that preys on perceived weakness. However, stabilizing Iraq should be a secondary priority to eliminating Iran’s supply stream of IEDs and arms into Iraq as well as its uranium enrichment recalcitrance. Since Iraq’s stability is codependent on Iran’s, our focus should be on stabilizing the one that is months away from possessing sufficient enriched uranium to produce its first nuclear weapon. Once that genie is out of the bottle, there will be no further opportunity to recapture it. Israeli intelligence clearly shares this assessment and may be forced to act unilaterally by the end of this year. It should not be forced to act alone. The UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be enforced aggressively by all who signed it.
Before the U.S. places any trust in Iran, Iran must be required to demonstrate responsibility on
the world stage by immediately halting its uranium reduction efforts. Ahmadinejad is no fool. His new willingness to engage the U.S. in diplomacy over Iraq’s security is a calculated tactical move that provides him with the two most valuable things he needs to move his uranium enrichment to the point of no return: an international image of cooperation; and time.As long as Iran appears cooperative on the issue of Iraq, it will be difficult for President Bush to make the case to the world that decisive action must be taken to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. The world will always call for new talks, further negotiations, and diplomatic solutions. At some point in coming months, while holding talks and negotiations, Iran will pass the point of no return in its uranium enrichment and the opportunity for action will have passed. Iran is counting on its Iraq cooperation smokescreen to obscure from view its true intentions, both in Iraq and in its nuclear facilities.
An Iranian gesture of “goodwill” in Iraq on the one hand must not be allowed to conceal or excuse the nuclear dagger it holds in the other. America should make no mistake as to where that dagger points.
Technorati Tags:
Iraq War, Iran, Regional Security Subcommittee, Ahmadinejad, Bush Administration, Uranium Enrichment, Diplomacy
Monday, July 23, 2007
For WaPo, 25% is "Balanced" Coverage
The Washington Post has a math problem. The term “balanced” usually implies equal representation, with both sides of an issue presented and the reader given the opportunity to choose between them. However, as today’s Washington Post illustrates, the Post believes that “fair and balanced” is achieved when one side of an issue is given 75 percent representation and the other is afforded only 25 percent. This imbalance did not surprise me given the Post’s well-documents liberal slant, but because the unequal representation of views involved the critical topic of why Islamists hate America, I felt it deserved critical analysis.
In today’s Post, the editors tackled the important issue of America as seen through the eyes of Islam by including articles written by four “Muslim Scholars.” The theme of the Post collection of articles, “One Islam, Many Circles” was clearly designed to create the impression that the articles by these four scholars would represent distinct differences in ideology and help answer the question every American ponders: “Why do they hate us?” One of the articles actually bore that title, and while that particular piece began in an engaging pro-American manner, it quickly degenerated into another blame America first argument, albeit couched in what to some may seem reasonable logic. After reading each of the four articles by these “scholars,” it was obvious that by the Post’s mathematics, three articles blaming America for Islamic terrorism and one article identifying Islam itself as the problem constitutes fair and balanced coverage of an issue.
The first article I examined was “Why Do They Hate Us?” by the author of the novel The Reluctant Fundamentalist
, Mohsin Hamid. Hamid’s piece started out with ample pro-American “feel good” sentimentality, wistfully recounting his early childhood in America and his patriotic American roots. Hamid then returns with his family to his native Pakistan as a nine year old boy, and describes his hometown of Lahore as a fun, peaceful, liberal city, with nightclubs, and other western forms of entertainment. In this nearly-idyllic setting, Hamid’s beloved Lahore quickly degenerated into a city filled with Islamic radicals carrying AK-47s who enforced strict codes of dress and morality and terrorized the city with crime waves and brutality. Who was responsible for this terrible transformation of Pakistan? After listing his pro-American credentials in the article, Hamid answered this question with the inevitable liberal response: America was to blame for Lahore’s demise and Pakistan’s radicalization.
Hamid’s description of how America’s role in training and equipping Mujaheddin fighters to
battle with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan painted the portrait of a careless America that never should have interfered with that effort to drive out the Soviets. In Hamid’s version of history, America was only concerned about Afghanistan because of its proximity to Persian Gulf oil, and the flow of guns and heroin from the Mujaheddin training camps forever destroyed the liberal peace and fun of Lahore. This analysis begs the question that Hamid ignored rather conveniently in his description of events as he remembered them: what would have happened to Lahore and for that matter all of Pakistan had Afghanistan fallen permanently to the Soviets? How long does Hamid think that Pakistan would have remained untouched or unconsumed by Soviet expansion had the Mujaheddin, with some U.S. support, not convinced the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan? Perhaps Hamid should have directed his blame for the loss of Lahore’s peaceful condition on those who aggressively invaded Afghanistan and created the need for a Mujaheddin uprising in the first place: the Soviets. Was the U.S. supposed to do nothing when its Cold War communist enemy invaded a neighboring and strategically located nation? Apparently Hamid thinks so.
A warning to readers: if you start reading an article by a Muslim “scholar” and the piece opens with a lengthy attempt to establish the author’s pro-American credentials, you can be assured that immediately following that literary ruse you will find that the author’s premise is anything but pro-American. Hamid opens with talk of Star Trek, MASH, and barbeque chicken, but he concludes with warnings that America must educate itself about the foreign policy blunders of its past and that America must stop trying to be a superpower, all while admitting that he no longer lives in America but hopes America will correct its problems. That is what passes as Muslim “scholarship” at the Washington Post. A hint to Post editors: a “Muslim scholar” is not someone who is Muslim, has a PhD or writes novels, and will write opinions that fit your paper’s political bias. A “Muslim scholar” is someone who dedicates his/her educational and professional career to the study of Islam and is willing to challenge its accepted practices.
In fairness, Hamid wrote one very good paragraph during his “pro-America” smokescreen which unintentionally captured what is surely one of the primary reasons why America is hated in many corners of the world:
The following paragraph, however, contained the first hint that a transition to “blame America first” was coming:
Hamid then takes the article’s readers to his “sleepy” and peaceful Lahore, Pakistan before, in his opinion, America ruined the region. The troubling truth is that Hamid’s article, of the three “blame America first” Post pieces, was the best presented and most reasoned argument.
The two other Post articles by purported “Muslim scholars” were “As American as You Are,” and “What Went Wrong? Bush Still Doesn’t Get It.” The first of these was an in-your-face “like it or not we’re here to stay and you better get used to it” approach penned by another Muslim novelist (again, novelist and scholar are synonymous only at the Post), and the second is, as its title suggests, a further “blame America first” contribution. These two articles are related to each other in that they both contain misrepresentations of religion. In “As American as You Are,” author Mohja Kahf defends radical Islam (in which she was raised) by trying to put its excesses on an equivalent moral plane with what she considered the extremes of Christianity:
This is not a new argument, but it ignores a profound truth that invalidates this type of moral equivalency defense: when believers of any faith murder under the guise of religion, regardless of self-declared righteous motives, they have moved beyond the tenets of faith and are engaging in pure evil not compatible with belief in any form of higher power. Thus it is error to ascribe even warped Christian values to the KKK or to associate extreme Muslim values with al Qaeda. Both groups are engaged in evil, not in religious fervor.
Kahf also put forth a disingenuous argument that America is too demanding of Muslims in its expectations for assimilation. In her words:
Rational Americans don’t expect Muslim immigrants to stop being Muslim during their naturalization process, and Kahf was misleading in her analogies with the assimilation of Catholic or Jewish immigrants. What Americans do expect, however, is that Muslims cooperate with law enforcement and purge the extremists among them who are engaged in treasonous activity. That is what Americans consider assimilation: loyalty to and preservation of America and its governmental system.
The related article, “What Went Wrong,” by Akbar Ahmed, the only actual Muslim scholar of the three authors, contained the typical anti-Bush talking points: U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “poured gallons of fuel on a worldwide fire”; anti-Muslim rhetoric from the administration
convince Muslims that they are under attack; the American media attacks on Islam. I guess Ahmed missed Hollywood’s intentional rewrite of Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears
, which replaced the terrorists who detonated a nuclear device at the Super Bowl, originally written by Clancy as Islamists, with white South African nationals in order to avoid casting Muslims in a bad light. Despite these less than scholarly liberal talking points, Ahmed did provide an interesting research conclusion about Islam. According to Ahmed, the Bush administration has erroneously stereotyped Islam as violent. Ahmed’s own studies actually indicated that Islam consists of more than just moderates or extremists:
That paragraph is a fascinating statement of Islamic scholarship. Ahmed wrote that “mystics” are the “most tolerant and the least political” division of Islam, yet when he listed the nations in which “mystics” are predominant, Iran is front and center. If Iran’s mullahs and President Ahmadinejad represent the most tolerant division of worldwide Islam, then a war against
terrorism will see horrific escalations in the future. The government that has vowed to annihilate Israel in an atomic fireball, is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorist groups, and is ignoring UN sanctions to develop nuclear weapon capabilities is the “most tolerant.” I wonder if Ahmed has considered what Iran would be like if it were not so “tolerant.” Ahmed surely did not intend to do so, but his own research merely served to validate the Bush administration’s stance: Islamic extremism is the single greatest danger to America and its allies.
Ahmed showed his liberal political stripes throughout his article, but beyond political ideology, he also revealed a profoundly pro-radical agenda in his caricature of Pakistani President Musharraf. Musharraf, as I have previously reported, last week declared war on Islamic extremists within Pakistan, openly pitting moderate and radical Islam against each other in what could be a battle royal for Islam’s future as a world faith. Musharraf declared himself with the moderates, yet Ahmed claimed Musharraf does not represent Pakistanis and the U.S. should work for his ouster from power. Either Ahmed wants to see radical Islam put in its place by more moderate elements or he does not, and if he does not, one must question his reasoning.
The fourth article, “Losing My Jihadism,” the only one of the four that offered any actual Muslim introspection, was authored by Mansour al-Nogaidan, a writer for a Bahraini newspaper. This author had the audacity to suggest that the problem of Islamists twisting doctrines to justify suicide bombings and attacks on innocent civilians was actually an internal problem solvable only within Islam. He called for an Islamic version of Marin Luther to lead Islam into a period of reform in which its extremes could be purged. Nowhere in this article was there any hint of the “blame America for terrorism” arguments so prominently featured in the other three, and in that light it was refreshing reading.
It would have been all the more refreshing had it been accompanied by a companion article by a Muslim scholar self-critical of Islam’s reluctance to rise up and quench its internal fires of extremism. Unfortunately in the mathematics of the Washington Post, one out of four constitutes journalistic balance.
Technorati Tags:
Islam, Mujaheddin, Terrorism, Pakistan, Musharraf, Lahore, Afghanistan, Mohsin Hamid, Mohja Kahf, Akbar Ahmed, Mansour al-Nogaidan, Islamic Reform
In today’s Post, the editors tackled the important issue of America as seen through the eyes of Islam by including articles written by four “Muslim Scholars.” The theme of the Post collection of articles, “One Islam, Many Circles” was clearly designed to create the impression that the articles by these four scholars would represent distinct differences in ideology and help answer the question every American ponders: “Why do they hate us?” One of the articles actually bore that title, and while that particular piece began in an engaging pro-American manner, it quickly degenerated into another blame America first argument, albeit couched in what to some may seem reasonable logic. After reading each of the four articles by these “scholars,” it was obvious that by the Post’s mathematics, three articles blaming America for Islamic terrorism and one article identifying Islam itself as the problem constitutes fair and balanced coverage of an issue.
The first article I examined was “Why Do They Hate Us?” by the author of the novel The Reluctant Fundamentalist
, Mohsin Hamid. Hamid’s piece started out with ample pro-American “feel good” sentimentality, wistfully recounting his early childhood in America and his patriotic American roots. Hamid then returns with his family to his native Pakistan as a nine year old boy, and describes his hometown of Lahore as a fun, peaceful, liberal city, with nightclubs, and other western forms of entertainment. In this nearly-idyllic setting, Hamid’s beloved Lahore quickly degenerated into a city filled with Islamic radicals carrying AK-47s who enforced strict codes of dress and morality and terrorized the city with crime waves and brutality. Who was responsible for this terrible transformation of Pakistan? After listing his pro-American credentials in the article, Hamid answered this question with the inevitable liberal response: America was to blame for Lahore’s demise and Pakistan’s radicalization.Hamid’s description of how America’s role in training and equipping Mujaheddin fighters to
battle with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan painted the portrait of a careless America that never should have interfered with that effort to drive out the Soviets. In Hamid’s version of history, America was only concerned about Afghanistan because of its proximity to Persian Gulf oil, and the flow of guns and heroin from the Mujaheddin training camps forever destroyed the liberal peace and fun of Lahore. This analysis begs the question that Hamid ignored rather conveniently in his description of events as he remembered them: what would have happened to Lahore and for that matter all of Pakistan had Afghanistan fallen permanently to the Soviets? How long does Hamid think that Pakistan would have remained untouched or unconsumed by Soviet expansion had the Mujaheddin, with some U.S. support, not convinced the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan? Perhaps Hamid should have directed his blame for the loss of Lahore’s peaceful condition on those who aggressively invaded Afghanistan and created the need for a Mujaheddin uprising in the first place: the Soviets. Was the U.S. supposed to do nothing when its Cold War communist enemy invaded a neighboring and strategically located nation? Apparently Hamid thinks so.A warning to readers: if you start reading an article by a Muslim “scholar” and the piece opens with a lengthy attempt to establish the author’s pro-American credentials, you can be assured that immediately following that literary ruse you will find that the author’s premise is anything but pro-American. Hamid opens with talk of Star Trek, MASH, and barbeque chicken, but he concludes with warnings that America must educate itself about the foreign policy blunders of its past and that America must stop trying to be a superpower, all while admitting that he no longer lives in America but hopes America will correct its problems. That is what passes as Muslim “scholarship” at the Washington Post. A hint to Post editors: a “Muslim scholar” is not someone who is Muslim, has a PhD or writes novels, and will write opinions that fit your paper’s political bias. A “Muslim scholar” is someone who dedicates his/her educational and professional career to the study of Islam and is willing to challenge its accepted practices.
In fairness, Hamid wrote one very good paragraph during his “pro-America” smokescreen which unintentionally captured what is surely one of the primary reasons why America is hated in many corners of the world:
Part of the reason people abroad resent the United States is something Americans can do very little about: envy. The richest, most powerful country in the world attracts the jealousy of others in much the same way that the richest, most powerful man in a small town attracts the jealousy of others. It will come his way no matter how kind, generous or humble he may be.
The following paragraph, however, contained the first hint that a transition to “blame America first” was coming:
But there is another major reason for anti-Americanism: the accreted residue of many years of U.S. foreign policies. These policies are unknown to most Americans. They form only minor footnotes in U.S. history. But they are the chapter titles of the histories of other countries, where they have had enormous consequences. America's strength has made it a sort of Gulliver in world affairs: By wiggling its toes it can, often inadvertently, break the arm of a Lilliputian.
Hamid then takes the article’s readers to his “sleepy” and peaceful Lahore, Pakistan before, in his opinion, America ruined the region. The troubling truth is that Hamid’s article, of the three “blame America first” Post pieces, was the best presented and most reasoned argument.
The two other Post articles by purported “Muslim scholars” were “As American as You Are,” and “What Went Wrong? Bush Still Doesn’t Get It.” The first of these was an in-your-face “like it or not we’re here to stay and you better get used to it” approach penned by another Muslim novelist (again, novelist and scholar are synonymous only at the Post), and the second is, as its title suggests, a further “blame America first” contribution. These two articles are related to each other in that they both contain misrepresentations of religion. In “As American as You Are,” author Mohja Kahf defends radical Islam (in which she was raised) by trying to put its excesses on an equivalent moral plane with what she considered the extremes of Christianity:
This Muslim squirms whenever secular friends -- tolerant toward believers in Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Native American spirituality -- dismiss Christians with snorts of contempt. "It's because the Christian right wants to take over this country," they protest.
That may be, but it doesn't justify trashing the religion and its spectrum of believers. Christianity has inspired Americans to the politics of abolition and civil rights, as well as to heinous acts. Christian values have motivated the Ku Klux Klan to burn houses, and Jimmy Carter to build them.
This is not a new argument, but it ignores a profound truth that invalidates this type of moral equivalency defense: when believers of any faith murder under the guise of religion, regardless of self-declared righteous motives, they have moved beyond the tenets of faith and are engaging in pure evil not compatible with belief in any form of higher power. Thus it is error to ascribe even warped Christian values to the KKK or to associate extreme Muslim values with al Qaeda. Both groups are engaged in evil, not in religious fervor.
Kahf also put forth a disingenuous argument that America is too demanding of Muslims in its expectations for assimilation. In her words:
Assimilation is overrated. And it's not what minority religions do in the United States. Did Irish Catholics stop being Catholic when they arrived generations ago? People once believed that devout Catholics and Orthodox Jews could never be "true Americans." Today, I receive e-mails with solemn lists of why Muslims, "according to their own faith," can't possibly be "loyal Americans." The work of nut jobs. Yet purportedly sane people in Washington seem to think it's a valid question.
Rational Americans don’t expect Muslim immigrants to stop being Muslim during their naturalization process, and Kahf was misleading in her analogies with the assimilation of Catholic or Jewish immigrants. What Americans do expect, however, is that Muslims cooperate with law enforcement and purge the extremists among them who are engaged in treasonous activity. That is what Americans consider assimilation: loyalty to and preservation of America and its governmental system.
The related article, “What Went Wrong,” by Akbar Ahmed, the only actual Muslim scholar of the three authors, contained the typical anti-Bush talking points: U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq “poured gallons of fuel on a worldwide fire”; anti-Muslim rhetoric from the administration
convince Muslims that they are under attack; the American media attacks on Islam. I guess Ahmed missed Hollywood’s intentional rewrite of Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears, which replaced the terrorists who detonated a nuclear device at the Super Bowl, originally written by Clancy as Islamists, with white South African nationals in order to avoid casting Muslims in a bad light. Despite these less than scholarly liberal talking points, Ahmed did provide an interesting research conclusion about Islam. According to Ahmed, the Bush administration has erroneously stereotyped Islam as violent. Ahmed’s own studies actually indicated that Islam consists of more than just moderates or extremists:...In fact, we discovered three broad categories of Muslim responses to the modern world: the mystics, the modernists and the literalists.
The mystics are the most tolerant and the least political, defined by a universalist worldview that embraces difference rather than resisting it. Muslims in this group look to sages such as the great Sufi poet Rumi for inspiration. "I go to a synagogue, church and a mosque, and I see the same spirit and the same altar," Rumi once said. You'll find today's mystics in such places as Iran, Morocco and Turkey.
That paragraph is a fascinating statement of Islamic scholarship. Ahmed wrote that “mystics” are the “most tolerant and the least political” division of Islam, yet when he listed the nations in which “mystics” are predominant, Iran is front and center. If Iran’s mullahs and President Ahmadinejad represent the most tolerant division of worldwide Islam, then a war against
terrorism will see horrific escalations in the future. The government that has vowed to annihilate Israel in an atomic fireball, is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorist groups, and is ignoring UN sanctions to develop nuclear weapon capabilities is the “most tolerant.” I wonder if Ahmed has considered what Iran would be like if it were not so “tolerant.” Ahmed surely did not intend to do so, but his own research merely served to validate the Bush administration’s stance: Islamic extremism is the single greatest danger to America and its allies.Ahmed showed his liberal political stripes throughout his article, but beyond political ideology, he also revealed a profoundly pro-radical agenda in his caricature of Pakistani President Musharraf. Musharraf, as I have previously reported, last week declared war on Islamic extremists within Pakistan, openly pitting moderate and radical Islam against each other in what could be a battle royal for Islam’s future as a world faith. Musharraf declared himself with the moderates, yet Ahmed claimed Musharraf does not represent Pakistanis and the U.S. should work for his ouster from power. Either Ahmed wants to see radical Islam put in its place by more moderate elements or he does not, and if he does not, one must question his reasoning.
The fourth article, “Losing My Jihadism,” the only one of the four that offered any actual Muslim introspection, was authored by Mansour al-Nogaidan, a writer for a Bahraini newspaper. This author had the audacity to suggest that the problem of Islamists twisting doctrines to justify suicide bombings and attacks on innocent civilians was actually an internal problem solvable only within Islam. He called for an Islamic version of Marin Luther to lead Islam into a period of reform in which its extremes could be purged. Nowhere in this article was there any hint of the “blame America for terrorism” arguments so prominently featured in the other three, and in that light it was refreshing reading.
It would have been all the more refreshing had it been accompanied by a companion article by a Muslim scholar self-critical of Islam’s reluctance to rise up and quench its internal fires of extremism. Unfortunately in the mathematics of the Washington Post, one out of four constitutes journalistic balance.
Technorati Tags:
Islam, Mujaheddin, Terrorism, Pakistan, Musharraf, Lahore, Afghanistan, Mohsin Hamid, Mohja Kahf, Akbar Ahmed, Mansour al-Nogaidan, Islamic Reform
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Assessing Rudy's 12 Commitments
During a speech Monday in New Hampshire, GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani unveiled his “12 Commitments to the American People,” reminiscent of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 GOP Contract with America. Anytime a candidate provides a firm outline of his policy positions and promises to voters, it should be welcomed and then scrutinized carefully. Unfortunately, candidates for high office rarely offer specifics about how they intend to achieve their stated goals. Capital Cloak offers the following assessment of Giuliani’s 12 Commitments to the American People:
Giuliani has good advisers and speech consultants if, like most politicians, he does not write for
himself. With his first commitment Giuliani achieves three critical feats: first, he alters the politically divisive and mostly ambiguous phrase “War on Terror” to “the Terrorists’ War on Us,” which unites America into “us” and reminds Americans that we were attacked and thus are justified in conflict against terrorists; second, Giuliani introduces the phrase “9/11 Generation” as a formal title, drawing a historical parallel with the revered Greatest Generation that fought WWII and the evil totalitarianism and brutality of Nazism, which in its aims and doctrines differed little from the current brand of radical Islamic terrorist rule with which we are engaged in war. This formal title unites all Americans who can remember 9/11 and more importantly, prepares Americans for what will surely be a generational struggle requiring sacrifice and patience over a very long period of sustained engagements; and third, Giuliani calls for increased military buildup, which is necessary not only for combat with terrorists, but also as preparation for potential conflict with more powerful nation states such as Iran, Syria, and if relations deteriorate, Russia or China.
Candidates should be careful not to promise what they cannot deliver. Even if Giuliani achieves the most securely enforced border in the history of modern man, he cannot put a 100% end to illegal immigration. There will always be enterprising and desperate foreign nationals with good and bad intentions who will probe incessantly until a vulnerable border area is identified. I do not mean to imply that because 100% is impossible it should not be the goal, but the media and his opponents in both parties, if he is elected president, will beat him over the head with the 100% promise anytime a report surfaces of an illegal alien who commits a crime. I can already picture Wolf Blitzer, with gleeful sneer in full bloom, asking: “President Giuliani, an illegal alien recently killed a family of 4 in a DUI incident, but according to your promises you put an end to illegal immigration. Doesn’t this make you personally liable for the deaths of this family since you allowed an illegal alien across our border?” Giuliani should learn from Former President Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. A broken promise, unintentional or calculated, will spell doom for candidates and sitting presidents.
The rest of this commitment is solid; an ID (though nothing is tamper-proof, as I wrote yesterday) for all non-citizens, tracking entry and exit, and requiring English language proficiency are all in line with conservative principles. I would have preferred that he first commit to full enforcement of the existing laws to determine how well they could work if actually implemented before entering a long legislative battle to adopt new laws. Voters should beware Giuliani’s phrase “tough but realistic laws” when it comes to illegal immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has certainly been criticized by conservatives for suggesting that amnesty “bows to reality.’ Thus it is critical for voters that Giuliani identify the specific meaning of the word “realistic” as used in this commitment. I do not see how “realistic” and “end illegal immigration” coexist in the same sentence, as much as I wish it were possible. Limit, yes. Curtail, certainly. Eliminate? That is unlikely, as long as there are foreign nationals who are willing to risk arrest or deportation because life here is better than life in their homeland.
Giuliani makes an interesting argument here. Apparently Giuliani believes that the most egregious source of government overspending is the federal workforce, rather than the combination of pork barrel projects, earmarks, subsidies, and grants that empty government coffers at an alarming rate. This commitment will not win him any votes from federal employees, or roughly 3 million voters. While I concur that there are agencies and departments that could and should be disbanded because they offer services or fulfill responsibilities that exceed the constitution’s vision of a limited central government, across the board federal workforce reductions and budget cuts may exacerbate already understaffed agencies struggling to retain capable employees. I am no Ron Paul fan, as the ire of his supporters toward me has demonstrated, but Giuliani should instead consider a Ron Paul-like reduction of federal agencies that are extra-constitutional. Doing so would likely eliminate a significant portion of Washington’s wasteful spending. Addressing earmarks and legislative pork would eliminate most of the rest. A workforce, especially in important national security related agencies, is an asset, not a drain.
Cutting taxes will always be an effective political promise to conservatives, and if Giuliani actually reduced government spending as I outlined above, there would be far less need for taxes. Simplifying the tax code is a political cliché that has meant nothing and will continue to mean nothing until someone actually simplifies it by, gasp, eliminating income tax and replacing it with a simple tax policy, whether that is a flat tax, fair tax, or consumption tax. Giuliani did not mention any of these, stating only that he would keep taxes low, which implies that he intends to keep the existing income tax in place but cut the rate. This would be good, but it could be better.
How does a president impose accountability on Washington? Isn’t that what elections are for? I find it ironic that Americans complain long and loud about out of control spending, arrogance in Washington, and the “disconnect between Americans and Congress” mentioned frequently by Sean Hannity, yet they expect a president to ride in on a white horse and restore sanity and accountability in the nation’s capital. Rather than hope for a political messiah to deliver them from their unfeeling and seemingly deaf representatives, Americans have the power to replace their elected officials when necessary, through recalls and special elections. Giuliani here appeals to the sense of outrage all Americans feel when they read of government corruption, waste, or incompetence, but the reality is that only the people have the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their performance. While “FedStat” sounds catchy, who will determine the “measurement of government effectiveness?” Another government agency? The White House? Rather than relying on “FedStat” to tell them how government is performing, voters should make clear for their elected officials what they want accomplished by government agencies and then vote out or recall anyone who does not work to achieve the electorate’s wishes.
I agree with everything in this statement. It is to President Bush’s condemnation that Giuliani is using a near verbatim version of the president’s 2000 and 2004 election promises regarding energy independence. In over 6 years, the president has not accomplished any of these goals, which sounded good then and sound good now. How will Giuliani specifically accomplish what President Bush could not, even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate up to November 2006? Note also Giuliani’s lack of confidence in this policy area. With illegal immigration he committed to end it. With energy independence, he commits only to lead America towards it.
If by reforming the legal system here he is referring to placing caps on malpractice lawsuits, then his stated priorities in health care are solidly conservative.
Encouraging adoptions is Giuliani’s way to join hands with conservatives who would otherwise shun him for his pro-choice convictions. Reducing adoption costs and fostering the “culture of life” eloquently spoken of by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee in the GOP debates are welcome ideas to combat Roe and its tragic results. There is nothing in this commitment to oppose.
A Washington, DC area judge is currently suing his dry cleaner for losing a pair of
pants, which was subsequently found. He is suing the cleaner for $54 million for the treatment he received. Giuliani’s commitment to eliminate such lawsuits and champion tort reform should be welcomed by conservatives and should be taken seriously given Giuliani’s reputation as a prosecutor. A man who can dismantle the mafia in New York could strike fear in the ambulance-chasing mafia fattening their bank accounts in America’s courtrooms.
I agree that homeland security and national security are inseparable but disagree strongly with the notion that natural disasters are homeland security related. Should hurricanes and tornadoes occupy the time, resources, and attention of intelligence and national security agencies? The inclusion of FEMA within Homeland Security has diverted that department’s attention away from terrorism and other domestic threats and focused it instead on weather reports and a desire never to repeat any Katrina-like snafus. I am also skeptical of the idea that the federal government is qualified to train local first responders to meet natural disasters or terrorist attacks. In most cases, local police, fire, and rescue personnel are experienced and well trained and do not need federal training or guidance in the performance of their duties. If by stating “ensure that local first responders are trained” Giuliani means through minimal federal grants in the interest of protection for citizens, it would eliminate my concerns over the wording here.
School choice and vouchers are great ideas that are working in some areas (Utah is pioneering this concept currently). “Digital divide?” Could a politician be any more cryptic? If Giuliani believes there is a gap in computer literacy between segments of our society or between American children and their counterparts in other nations, then he should say so, not use a cliché like “digital divide” that sounds ominous but explains nothing.
I appreciated the fact that Giuliani chastises the State Department for not always advocating American interests. No department in government contains more liberal, anti-American sentiment among its employees than State, as ironic as that may seem. I also agree that increased trade and cultural relations is the surest way to spread freedom or at least the seeds that could one day sprout up as liberty in unexpected places. Hopefully during the coming months of the campaign Giuliani will explain the phrase “engaging aggressively the global economy” as committed to here. It is good practice for voters to demand clarification when a politician wields the term “aggressively” in an ambiguous manner. Likewise, conservatives should demand explanation of the phrase “expand America’s involvement in the global economy.” There are many methods an administration could use to expand involvement, but Giuliani does not outline the ones he would favor.
On the whole, Giuliani’s 12 Commitments contain many encouraging features and many seemingly unrealistic political promises offered by all politicians seeking votes. With additional clarification of meanings and implementation logistics, Giuliani could cement himself further as the clear front-runner among candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. The Contract with America was a novel and successful election strategy, and Giuliani’s advisers were wise to move him to present his 12 Commitments before any of his opponents did so. Will he live up to them? Voters have 7 months to make that determination, but for the candidate in most need of firming up his conservative credentials, these 12 Commitments were timely and decidedly conservative.
Technorati Tags:
Rudy Giuliani, 12 Commitments, Presidential Candidates, Terrorists' War on Us, Illegal Immigration, Tort Reform, Ron Paul, Tax Cuts, Campaign Strategy, 9/11 Generation
1) I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us.
Winning the terrorists’ war on us is the greatest responsibility of the 9/11 Generation. We need to continue taking the fight to the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists by increasing the size, strength, and support of our military — beginning with ten new Army combat brigades.
Giuliani has good advisers and speech consultants if, like most politicians, he does not write for
himself. With his first commitment Giuliani achieves three critical feats: first, he alters the politically divisive and mostly ambiguous phrase “War on Terror” to “the Terrorists’ War on Us,” which unites America into “us” and reminds Americans that we were attacked and thus are justified in conflict against terrorists; second, Giuliani introduces the phrase “9/11 Generation” as a formal title, drawing a historical parallel with the revered Greatest Generation that fought WWII and the evil totalitarianism and brutality of Nazism, which in its aims and doctrines differed little from the current brand of radical Islamic terrorist rule with which we are engaged in war. This formal title unites all Americans who can remember 9/11 and more importantly, prepares Americans for what will surely be a generational struggle requiring sacrifice and patience over a very long period of sustained engagements; and third, Giuliani calls for increased military buildup, which is necessary not only for combat with terrorists, but also as preparation for potential conflict with more powerful nation states such as Iran, Syria, and if relations deteriorate, Russia or China.2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders and identify every non-citizen in our nation. We can end illegal immigration with tough but realistic laws that put security first. We need to secure the border with a physical fence and a technological fence. We need to require a tamper-proof I.D. card for all non-citizens coming into the United States and tracking their entry and exit. And we need to encourage Americanization by requiring new citizens to read, write, and speak English.
Candidates should be careful not to promise what they cannot deliver. Even if Giuliani achieves the most securely enforced border in the history of modern man, he cannot put a 100% end to illegal immigration. There will always be enterprising and desperate foreign nationals with good and bad intentions who will probe incessantly until a vulnerable border area is identified. I do not mean to imply that because 100% is impossible it should not be the goal, but the media and his opponents in both parties, if he is elected president, will beat him over the head with the 100% promise anytime a report surfaces of an illegal alien who commits a crime. I can already picture Wolf Blitzer, with gleeful sneer in full bloom, asking: “President Giuliani, an illegal alien recently killed a family of 4 in a DUI incident, but according to your promises you put an end to illegal immigration. Doesn’t this make you personally liable for the deaths of this family since you allowed an illegal alien across our border?” Giuliani should learn from Former President Bush’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. A broken promise, unintentional or calculated, will spell doom for candidates and sitting presidents.
The rest of this commitment is solid; an ID (though nothing is tamper-proof, as I wrote yesterday) for all non-citizens, tracking entry and exit, and requiring English language proficiency are all in line with conservative principles. I would have preferred that he first commit to full enforcement of the existing laws to determine how well they could work if actually implemented before entering a long legislative battle to adopt new laws. Voters should beware Giuliani’s phrase “tough but realistic laws” when it comes to illegal immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff has certainly been criticized by conservatives for suggesting that amnesty “bows to reality.’ Thus it is critical for voters that Giuliani identify the specific meaning of the word “realistic” as used in this commitment. I do not see how “realistic” and “end illegal immigration” coexist in the same sentence, as much as I wish it were possible. Limit, yes. Curtail, certainly. Eliminate? That is unlikely, as long as there are foreign nationals who are willing to risk arrest or deportation because life here is better than life in their homeland.
3) I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending. Over the next two presidential terms, 42 percent of the federal civilian workforce is due to retire. We should only hire back half, replacing non-essential workers with technology. I’ll ask agency heads to identify annual budget cuts of 5 to 20 percent. With entitlement costs scheduled to explode, we need fiscal discipline to avoid passing an unsupportable burden on to the next generation.
Giuliani makes an interesting argument here. Apparently Giuliani believes that the most egregious source of government overspending is the federal workforce, rather than the combination of pork barrel projects, earmarks, subsidies, and grants that empty government coffers at an alarming rate. This commitment will not win him any votes from federal employees, or roughly 3 million voters. While I concur that there are agencies and departments that could and should be disbanded because they offer services or fulfill responsibilities that exceed the constitution’s vision of a limited central government, across the board federal workforce reductions and budget cuts may exacerbate already understaffed agencies struggling to retain capable employees. I am no Ron Paul fan, as the ire of his supporters toward me has demonstrated, but Giuliani should instead consider a Ron Paul-like reduction of federal agencies that are extra-constitutional. Doing so would likely eliminate a significant portion of Washington’s wasteful spending. Addressing earmarks and legislative pork would eliminate most of the rest. A workforce, especially in important national security related agencies, is an asset, not a drain.
4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. Pro-growth policies lead to broader prosperity. The next president needs to simplify the tax code and keep taxes low — including the personal income tax, the capital-gains tax and the corporate tax. And we can eliminate double taxation and protect family businesses by giving the Death Tax the death penalty.
Cutting taxes will always be an effective political promise to conservatives, and if Giuliani actually reduced government spending as I outlined above, there would be far less need for taxes. Simplifying the tax code is a political cliché that has meant nothing and will continue to mean nothing until someone actually simplifies it by, gasp, eliminating income tax and replacing it with a simple tax policy, whether that is a flat tax, fair tax, or consumption tax. Giuliani did not mention any of these, stating only that he would keep taxes low, which implies that he intends to keep the existing income tax in place but cut the rate. This would be good, but it could be better.
5) I will impose accountability on Washington.We need to restore Americans’ faith that government can work again. That’s why we’ll implement the first constant measurement of government effectiveness, known as “FedStat,” and put the results online so the public can hold agencies accountable.
How does a president impose accountability on Washington? Isn’t that what elections are for? I find it ironic that Americans complain long and loud about out of control spending, arrogance in Washington, and the “disconnect between Americans and Congress” mentioned frequently by Sean Hannity, yet they expect a president to ride in on a white horse and restore sanity and accountability in the nation’s capital. Rather than hope for a political messiah to deliver them from their unfeeling and seemingly deaf representatives, Americans have the power to replace their elected officials when necessary, through recalls and special elections. Giuliani here appeals to the sense of outrage all Americans feel when they read of government corruption, waste, or incompetence, but the reality is that only the people have the ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their performance. While “FedStat” sounds catchy, who will determine the “measurement of government effectiveness?” Another government agency? The White House? Rather than relying on “FedStat” to tell them how government is performing, voters should make clear for their elected officials what they want accomplished by government agencies and then vote out or recall anyone who does not work to achieve the electorate’s wishes.
6) I will lead America towards energy independence. We must decrease America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil. We can meet this challenge through diversification of our energy portfolio, innovation, and conservation. We must increase public and private investment in nuclear power, clean coal, and alternative-energy sources across the board. America must lead the world in energy-efficient, environmentally responsible, commercially viable innovation, including wind, solar, geo-thermal, ethanol, and biofuel technologies.
I agree with everything in this statement. It is to President Bush’s condemnation that Giuliani is using a near verbatim version of the president’s 2000 and 2004 election promises regarding energy independence. In over 6 years, the president has not accomplished any of these goals, which sounded good then and sound good now. How will Giuliani specifically accomplish what President Bush could not, even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate up to November 2006? Note also Giuliani’s lack of confidence in this policy area. With illegal immigration he committed to end it. With energy independence, he commits only to lead America towards it.
7) I will give Americans more control over their health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. We can improve the quality of health care while decreasing costs through increased competition. Solutions can include reforming the tax treatment of health care, expanding portable health-savings accounts, encouraging state-by-state innovations, and reforming the legal system.
If by reforming the legal system here he is referring to placing caps on malpractice lawsuits, then his stated priorities in health care are solidly conservative.
8) I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children. We need to take advantage of the common ground in America to reduce abortions by increasing adoptions and assuring that individual choice is well informed. We need to measure our progress toward these goals. We need to reduce the high costs of adoption. And we need to protect our children against sexual predators and online pornography.
Encouraging adoptions is Giuliani’s way to join hands with conservatives who would otherwise shun him for his pro-choice convictions. Reducing adoption costs and fostering the “culture of life” eloquently spoken of by Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee in the GOP debates are welcome ideas to combat Roe and its tragic results. There is nothing in this commitment to oppose.
9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges. America must reform its legal system. We need to eliminate nuisance lawsuits through “loser-pays” provisions. Tort reform can help us reduce costs passed on to the consumer, such as higher insurance premiums. Activist judges threaten to expand the power of the courts beyond the bounds established by the Constitution; we must reassert the proper balance.
A Washington, DC area judge is currently suing his dry cleaner for losing a pair of
pants, which was subsequently found. He is suing the cleaner for $54 million for the treatment he received. Giuliani’s commitment to eliminate such lawsuits and champion tort reform should be welcomed by conservatives and should be taken seriously given Giuliani’s reputation as a prosecutor. A man who can dismantle the mafia in New York could strike fear in the ambulance-chasing mafia fattening their bank accounts in America’s courtrooms.10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.Homeland security and national security are now inseparable. We need to ensure that local first responders are trained to meet natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks. We must improve information-sharing between local, state, and federal authorities. And we need to repair vulnerable infrastructure to minimize the impact of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
I agree that homeland security and national security are inseparable but disagree strongly with the notion that natural disasters are homeland security related. Should hurricanes and tornadoes occupy the time, resources, and attention of intelligence and national security agencies? The inclusion of FEMA within Homeland Security has diverted that department’s attention away from terrorism and other domestic threats and focused it instead on weather reports and a desire never to repeat any Katrina-like snafus. I am also skeptical of the idea that the federal government is qualified to train local first responders to meet natural disasters or terrorist attacks. In most cases, local police, fire, and rescue personnel are experienced and well trained and do not need federal training or guidance in the performance of their duties. If by stating “ensure that local first responders are trained” Giuliani means through minimal federal grants in the interest of protection for citizens, it would eliminate my concerns over the wording here.
11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents. Education reform is a civil-rights struggle and the key to improving America’s competitiveness in the global economy. We need to empower parents and children by expanding school choice. We need to promote math and science, while ending the digital divide.
School choice and vouchers are great ideas that are working in some areas (Utah is pioneering this concept currently). “Digital divide?” Could a politician be any more cryptic? If Giuliani believes there is a gap in computer literacy between segments of our society or between American children and their counterparts in other nations, then he should say so, not use a cliché like “digital divide” that sounds ominous but explains nothing.
12) I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.We need to strengthen our country by engaging aggressively the global economy. The mission of the State Department needs to be focused on acting first and foremost as an advocate for America. Fostering trade and educational and cultural exchange will promote the expansion of freedom.
I appreciated the fact that Giuliani chastises the State Department for not always advocating American interests. No department in government contains more liberal, anti-American sentiment among its employees than State, as ironic as that may seem. I also agree that increased trade and cultural relations is the surest way to spread freedom or at least the seeds that could one day sprout up as liberty in unexpected places. Hopefully during the coming months of the campaign Giuliani will explain the phrase “engaging aggressively the global economy” as committed to here. It is good practice for voters to demand clarification when a politician wields the term “aggressively” in an ambiguous manner. Likewise, conservatives should demand explanation of the phrase “expand America’s involvement in the global economy.” There are many methods an administration could use to expand involvement, but Giuliani does not outline the ones he would favor.
On the whole, Giuliani’s 12 Commitments contain many encouraging features and many seemingly unrealistic political promises offered by all politicians seeking votes. With additional clarification of meanings and implementation logistics, Giuliani could cement himself further as the clear front-runner among candidates for the GOP nomination in 2008. The Contract with America was a novel and successful election strategy, and Giuliani’s advisers were wise to move him to present his 12 Commitments before any of his opponents did so. Will he live up to them? Voters have 7 months to make that determination, but for the candidate in most need of firming up his conservative credentials, these 12 Commitments were timely and decidedly conservative.
Technorati Tags:
Rudy Giuliani, 12 Commitments, Presidential Candidates, Terrorists' War on Us, Illegal Immigration, Tort Reform, Ron Paul, Tax Cuts, Campaign Strategy, 9/11 Generation
Friday, May 25, 2007
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:
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.
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 ofconditions 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 Greeknation 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.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
GOP Second Debate Report Cards
The second GOP candidates’ debate last night in Columbia, South Carolina was in every respect superior to the sophomoric production by MSNBC in the previous debate. The audience was treated to professionalism, “gotcha” questions, and a brilliant terrorism scenario designed by Fox News to reveal what the candidates would or would not do to protect America; Carl Cameron, who prophetically (or was it conspiratorially?) predicted moments before the debate that he anticipated one of the second tier candidates saying something unusual or controversial that would trip up some of the top tier candidates. See the Giuliani and Paul grade summaries for details of that magically fulfilled prophecy.
For a review of Capital Cloak grades from the first debate, click here.
Rudy Giuliani Grade A-
Strengths: Was very forceful and reassuring on terrorism and national security issues. Personally condemned Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his declaration that the war in Iraq is already lost and aggressively criticized efforts to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Insisted America cannot show weakness to its enemies. Giuliani produced the comment most quoted in the media after the debate. After soon to be ex-candidate Ron Paul blamed America for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Giuliani interrupted and stated the following:
Initially, as this exchange with Paul continued, it seemed somewhat suspicious, given Carl Cameron’s pre-debate prophecy, that Giuliani alone immediately responded, spectacularly fulfilling Cameron’s prediction of a decisive moment sparked by a second tier candidate. However, after replaying the exchange several times and studying the responses and body language of Paul, Giuliani, and the Fox panel, I determined that Giuliani’s response was spontaneous and emotionally sincere. As Giuliani interrupted and condemned Paul, his left thumb began to twitch against his podium, indicating a mixture of nervousness (fight or flight response) for the confrontation and genuine anger at Paul’s blame America first theory. Giuliani was fortunate to seize that moment. Unfortunately, by allowing only Giuliani the opportunity to rebut and rebuke Paul, Fox News awarded Giuliani a tremendous advantage and significant individual attention. That advantage was expanded in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity. Giuliani was the first to be interviewed and successfully parlayed his decisive debate moment into further replays and sympathetic commentary from Hannity.
In addressing how far he would go in the hypothetical scenario of three suicide bombings in American malls and a terrorist in custody at Guantanamo who may have information about a fourth bomb, Giuliani gave a heartening response, declaring that he would order interrogators to “use every method they can think of” short of torture but including “enhanced interrogation techniques” which was clarified to mean water boarding.
Giuliani explained his abortion position much more clearly in this debate, emphasizing that he opposes the practice but respects opposing views and accepts the right of a woman to choose abortion. He cited his successes as mayor with reducing abortions while increasing adoptions. Although Mike Huckabee hit him hard in rebuttal for being opposed to something morally but doing nothing to stop it, Giuliani remained consistent despite the fact that his abortion stance is anything but conservative.
Weaknesses: Those who have worked in or dealt with Washington, DC, know that it has no parallel when it comes to bureaucracy, waste, or glacial pace of progress. Giuliani, in touting his success as mayor of New York, stated that if he could get things done there, Washington will be easy. That is comparable to saying that because you defeated Grenada in a war, taking on China, Russia, and Iran would be easy. Mayors have far more hands-on authority to control city government than our presidents have over the federal government. Giuliani also made the claim that as president he would not refill 50% of government jobs that will be open after a wave of retirees leave federal service during the next presidential term. He offered no details of what jobs he would cut and in what departments or agencies, nor was he pressed for specifics. I am not opposed to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but I am opposed to campaign platitudes. Unless Giuliani will delineate the departments and jobs he would specifically leave unfilled or eliminate altogether, his pledge to do so should be considered mere pandering to the conservative base. Every candidate claims he will change Washington, but few have the courage to detail who they would fire or how many federal employees (who do vote and pay taxes) will be out of work.
Mitt Romney: Grade A-
Strengths: Speaks with an economy of words, which helped since of the three top candidates he had the fewest in which to address questions. Romney led off with the statement that America cannot project failure in Iraq or the War on Terror because the war is larger than Iraq, it is a fight against a global jihad bent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with radical Islamic rule, and once that is accomplished the jihad will focus on toppling western democracies.
Romney asked why Congress is so intent on establishing benchmarks for the war but never imposes benchmarks on itself for government performance. He pledged to establish performance benchmarks for all departments and agencies in the federal government. This is how he resurrected Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his statements left the impression that he would be a master reorganizer of the bloated federal bureaucracy.
Romney’s best moment came during the hypothetical terrorist mall bombings scenario mentioned above. Addressing the same question asked of McCain and Giuliani, how far would he go to extract information from a captured terrorist, Romney pointed out that if three bombs had already detonated and a fourth was out there and known only to a terrorist in Guantanamo, the government would have already failed the American people and that prevention is far better than reaction. He assured voters that he would authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including water boarding in the hypothetical situation and continued by stating:
McCain, of course, is one who has called for closing Guantanamo. Romney received the second loudest applause of the evening for this answer. Overall, Romney was just as polished, articulate, and convincing as in the first debate, if not more so.
Weaknesses- Romney defended the evolution of his pro-life position adequately, but through no fault of his own was denied an opportunity to address the topic of his faith. Ordinarily, I would view that as a positive, in that a candidate’s religion should not be a determining factor or “litmus test” for voters. However, if there ever was a venue where addressing the issue of religion would have helped Romney, it would have been in South Carolina, a state that continues to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, despite 6 million U.S. members and 13 million members worldwide, as a cult rather than a church. Curiously, when introducing each candidate, Fox News projected on screen graphics which included vital information: Age, Religion, Family, Career. Whoa, was that religion at #2 on the list of vital information?
The Fox News Panel knew there would be no questions about religion, but drew a distinction between Romney and the other candidates by including religion in the on screen bios. Why? By reminding the audience that Romney is different without allowing him to address those differences and how they influence him politically, Romney was placed at a distinct disadvantage. Think of it this way: if these candidates were applicants for a federal job, which in essence they are, it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to require applicants to list their religious affiliation on the application. The reason for this is that an employer would be drawn to differences in personal beliefs rather than job qualifications such as education or experience. By displaying each candidate’s resume, including religion, on screen, Fox pointed out Romney’s differences from the other job applicants without providing an opportunity for context.
John McCain: Grade C
Strengths: Started out strong on Iraq and the larger War on Terror, reminding that when we lost in Vietnam, Vietnam did not follow us home, but the War on Terror will.
Weaknesses: Repeated his ridiculous assertion from the first debate that the GOP did not lose the 2006 elections because of the war, they lost because of out of control spending. I defy McCain or any of his campaign staffers to back up that assessment with any polling numbers or statistics. Virtually all pre and post-election polls, with or without the expected MSM liberal bent, identified a lack of perceived progress in the Iraq War as the #1 reason for voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. Most vulnerable Republicans lost to opponents who vowed to support measures that would bring the war to a close and make the Iraqis responsible for their own security.
McCain made another false assertion while attempting to defend the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which although he refuses to accept the label, is amnesty. McCain was factually inaccurate when he claimed that the thwarted Ft. Dix attackers did not cross our borders illegally, insisting that they abused the visa program to remain in America. Three of the arrested terrorists actually entered the U.S. illegally by crossing from Mexico into Texas in 1984, as reported previously. McCain’s defense of his immigration bill was nearly as porous as the border he claimed was never crossed.
The greatest weakness exhibited by McCain was his repeated emphasis on his ability to reach across the aisle in the Senate and work with Democrats. That may seem like a virtue rather than vice, but McCain’s bipartisan outreach has resulted in McCain-Feingold, a horrible piece of legislation that violates the First Amendment, and may yet produce amnesty with McCain-Kennedy. Bipartisanship for McCain translates into fence straddling. McCain is far too concerned with opinion, whether it is public opinion of him or world opinion of the United States. This was most evident in McCain’s response to the terrorist bombing scenario in which he was asked if he would order the torture of a terrorist if it would save American lives. McCain, who of course suffered 5 years of torture in Vietnam has a unique perspective, but he opposed torture not because it was wrong but because it would make America unpopular:
Senator Brownback responded to McCain by reminding that the first responsibility of an American president is to protect American lives, not go to the UN or worry about world opinion. McCain is sadly mistaken if he thinks conservatives are as obsessed with world opinion as he seems to be. Americans are not willing to die by the thousands or millions for the “cause” of world opinion. McCain touts his military experience as his best qualification as a Commander in Chief, yet he prefers popularity to protection.
Other Candidates
Duncan Hunter: Grade C
He did not gain or lose ground because he merely repeated everything he said in the first debate. See my post on the first debate for a duplicate summary of Hunter.
Tommy Thompson: Grade C-
Not the Thompson everyone wants to see in these debates, and like Hunter, this performance was a clone of the first debate, although Thompson opposes cloning. Nothing new here.
Mike Huckabee: Grade C-
Huckabee gets two awards: funniest line of the night; and “worst pass the buck” of the night. Huckabee drew hysterical laughter when he stated that the government “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” He drew dead silence when he was asked about a letter he wrote to a convicted Arkansas rapist prior to the rapist’s appearance before a parole board, in which letter Huckabee stated his desire that the rapist would be paroled. The rapist was paroled and later killed a woman in Missouri. Huckabee started to take responsibility, but waffled, stating “I did not let him out, the parole board did.” He compounded that by incredibly admitting “I don’t have foresight. I have great hindsight like everyone else.” This response was remarkably poor and should by itself make anyone uncomfortable voting for Huckabee. First, a prisoner in a state prison appears before a state parole board holding a letter from the top state official expressing a desire that the prisoner would be paroled. What did Huckabee think a state parole board would do when the governor of the state wants the prisoner paroled?
Of course, they paroled the rapist because governors have direct authority over state employees. Huckabee blamed the parole board that acted out his stated desire. That is the antithesis of executive leadership. Second, leaders are supposed to have foresight, or vision to use an appropriate synonym. Reagan had vision, and Huckabee compares himself at every opportunity to Reagan. It did not require much foresight or vision to imagine that paroling a convicted rapist might lead to, gasp, repeated offenses or worse. In Huckabee’s case, it resulted in worse and he apparently never saw it coming. That is frightening for a man who wants to be president. Perhaps he should lower his sights and join the Iraq Study Group or the next 9/11 Commission, as those entities specialize in hindsight.
The only saving grace for Huckabee was that he challenged Giuliani on abortion, stating that if a person truly believes abortion is morally wrong, he ought to oppose it in every way. Unfortunately for Huckabee, this was not nearly enough to compensate for his horrific response to the rapist release question.
Ron Paul: Grade D-
Paul trotted out his tired and disingenuous argument that America never declared war on Iraq and thus the war is illegal and should be ended immediately. Never mind that the current war is merely a resumption of hostilities brought about by Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire that suspended the first Gulf War, Paul does not like to cloud the issue with facts. Of course, Paul provided the highlight of the debate by stating that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our own provocations in Iraq and other Middle East nations over a ten year period following the Gulf War. Giuliani’s rebuttal was already described, but Paul doggedly maintained that 9/11 was our fault and we should have no troops or presence in the Middle East. Paul also made a huge blunder by implying that Ronald Reagan turned tail and fled from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Insisting that Reagan displayed cowardice will never endear a candidate to the conservative base. Paul is not a serious candidate for president, and serves only as a foil, and a cranky, factually challenged one at that. His theatrics detract from serious debate and his presence at future debates should be reconsidered. Wendell Goler asked Paul the best question of the night: “Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”
Sam Brownback: Grade C+
As he did in the first debate, Brownback makes some valid points but sounds and expresses himself so much like Al Gore that he has no chance of gaining national appeal. Brownback reminded that America cannot win a war with one party for it and the other against it. That is so obvious that it should have gone without saying. Brownback’s most memorable answer came when he was asked what he would tell a rape victim who became pregnant if she wanted to have an abortion. He handled that thorny question by turning the questions to the rape victim: is the baby a person; does the baby have a right to life? Brownback answered his own questions by declaring that yes, he opposes abortion even in rape cases because it ends the life of a child. He also doubted that a woman would be better off after suffering a rape and compounding it by terminating a baby’s life. He concluded his response with the phrase, “pro-life and whole life for everyone.” Whatever one thinks of the hypothetical rape/abortion question, Brownback was honest, committed, and sensitive.
Tom Tancredo: Grade C
Tancredo, like Paul, is an issue pusher, with immigration topping his list. When Tancredo strays from immigration into cultural issues, his ship starts taking on water. His performance in this debate was no better than the first. His defining response of the debate came on the issue of terrorism, not immigration. In response to the terrorist bombing scenario, Tancredo stated that Islamic terrorists are not trying to kill Americans because we are wealthy, “they will kill us because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it.” He further left no doubt that he would utilize all interrogation options to extract information that could save American lives: “At that point I’m looking for Jack Bauer.” In conclusion, he looked rather maniacally into the camera and warned that America must “make them fearful” so that they will be deterred from attacking America again.
James Gilmore: Grade D
Gilmore gets my “tacky move of the night” award for accusing his rivals of being phony conservatives, and then declining to name names, referring the audience to his web site and blog where he would be more specific. That cheap trick to drive traffic to his site was cut off at the knees when Chris Wallace demanded that Gilmore identify which opponents he was referring to while they stood on stage with him. For the second time in two debates, Gilmore has blustered about the fact that he was Virginia’s governor on 9/11 and that the Pentagon, which is technically in Arlington, VA, was attacked, thus he has first hand knowledge of grappling with terrorism. I would ask Gilmore to explain what he did as governor that in any way influenced the response to the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon may be in Arlington, but it is a federal facility with federal security, federal response units, and federal jurisdiction. The attack was on the Pentagon, not on Virginia. Gilmore should cease taking credit for his strong leadership on 9/11, which by his own admission in both debates consisted mainly of participating on a Homeland Security committee assembled to discuss how to get it right next time. Committee experience is not a qualification for a Commander in Chief.
The Winner:
Giuliani, by default, because his memorable exchange with Paul will be the most replayed highlight and that is free advertising. A strong position on national defense washes away many sins, in Giuliani’s case abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. Few will remember anything he said about those issues, but no one will forget his emotional and patriotic anger at Paul. When voters choose a debate winner, they will consider which candidate they think will cause the most fear among terrorists or other enemies of America. In last night’s debate, Giuliani seized the opportunity to be that candidate. Romney was a very close second, and perhaps if he had been asked more questions he would have surpassed Giuliani. I found his Guantanamo statement just as effective and memorable as Giuliani’s tussle with Paul, but because it was in a less dramatic context it received far less media attention. McCain, again, was a distant third.
Photo Credits: Time.com
For a review of Capital Cloak grades from the first debate, click here.
Rudy Giuliani Grade A-
Strengths: Was very forceful and reassuring on terrorism and national security issues. Personally condemned Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his declaration that the war in Iraq is already lost and aggressively criticized efforts to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Insisted America cannot show weakness to its enemies. Giuliani produced the comment most quoted in the media after the debate. After soon to be ex-candidate Ron Paul blamed America for bringing 9/11 upon itself, Giuliani interrupted and stated the following:
That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.
Initially, as this exchange with Paul continued, it seemed somewhat suspicious, given Carl Cameron’s pre-debate prophecy, that Giuliani alone immediately responded, spectacularly fulfilling Cameron’s prediction of a decisive moment sparked by a second tier candidate. However, after replaying the exchange several times and studying the responses and body language of Paul, Giuliani, and the Fox panel, I determined that Giuliani’s response was spontaneous and emotionally sincere. As Giuliani interrupted and condemned Paul, his left thumb began to twitch against his podium, indicating a mixture of nervousness (fight or flight response) for the confrontation and genuine anger at Paul’s blame America first theory. Giuliani was fortunate to seize that moment. Unfortunately, by allowing only Giuliani the opportunity to rebut and rebuke Paul, Fox News awarded Giuliani a tremendous advantage and significant individual attention. That advantage was expanded in the post-debate interview with Sean Hannity. Giuliani was the first to be interviewed and successfully parlayed his decisive debate moment into further replays and sympathetic commentary from Hannity.
In addressing how far he would go in the hypothetical scenario of three suicide bombings in American malls and a terrorist in custody at Guantanamo who may have information about a fourth bomb, Giuliani gave a heartening response, declaring that he would order interrogators to “use every method they can think of” short of torture but including “enhanced interrogation techniques” which was clarified to mean water boarding.
Giuliani explained his abortion position much more clearly in this debate, emphasizing that he opposes the practice but respects opposing views and accepts the right of a woman to choose abortion. He cited his successes as mayor with reducing abortions while increasing adoptions. Although Mike Huckabee hit him hard in rebuttal for being opposed to something morally but doing nothing to stop it, Giuliani remained consistent despite the fact that his abortion stance is anything but conservative.
Weaknesses: Those who have worked in or dealt with Washington, DC, know that it has no parallel when it comes to bureaucracy, waste, or glacial pace of progress. Giuliani, in touting his success as mayor of New York, stated that if he could get things done there, Washington will be easy. That is comparable to saying that because you defeated Grenada in a war, taking on China, Russia, and Iran would be easy. Mayors have far more hands-on authority to control city government than our presidents have over the federal government. Giuliani also made the claim that as president he would not refill 50% of government jobs that will be open after a wave of retirees leave federal service during the next presidential term. He offered no details of what jobs he would cut and in what departments or agencies, nor was he pressed for specifics. I am not opposed to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy, but I am opposed to campaign platitudes. Unless Giuliani will delineate the departments and jobs he would specifically leave unfilled or eliminate altogether, his pledge to do so should be considered mere pandering to the conservative base. Every candidate claims he will change Washington, but few have the courage to detail who they would fire or how many federal employees (who do vote and pay taxes) will be out of work.
Mitt Romney: Grade A-
Strengths: Speaks with an economy of words, which helped since of the three top candidates he had the fewest in which to address questions. Romney led off with the statement that America cannot project failure in Iraq or the War on Terror because the war is larger than Iraq, it is a fight against a global jihad bent on replacing moderate Islamic governments with radical Islamic rule, and once that is accomplished the jihad will focus on toppling western democracies.
Romney asked why Congress is so intent on establishing benchmarks for the war but never imposes benchmarks on itself for government performance. He pledged to establish performance benchmarks for all departments and agencies in the federal government. This is how he resurrected Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics, and his statements left the impression that he would be a master reorganizer of the bloated federal bureaucracy.
Romney’s best moment came during the hypothetical terrorist mall bombings scenario mentioned above. Addressing the same question asked of McCain and Giuliani, how far would he go to extract information from a captured terrorist, Romney pointed out that if three bombs had already detonated and a fourth was out there and known only to a terrorist in Guantanamo, the government would have already failed the American people and that prevention is far better than reaction. He assured voters that he would authorize “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including water boarding in the hypothetical situation and continued by stating:
You said the person is going to be in Guantanamo. I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons. I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is, we ought to double Guantanamo.
McCain, of course, is one who has called for closing Guantanamo. Romney received the second loudest applause of the evening for this answer. Overall, Romney was just as polished, articulate, and convincing as in the first debate, if not more so.
Weaknesses- Romney defended the evolution of his pro-life position adequately, but through no fault of his own was denied an opportunity to address the topic of his faith. Ordinarily, I would view that as a positive, in that a candidate’s religion should not be a determining factor or “litmus test” for voters. However, if there ever was a venue where addressing the issue of religion would have helped Romney, it would have been in South Carolina, a state that continues to classify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, despite 6 million U.S. members and 13 million members worldwide, as a cult rather than a church. Curiously, when introducing each candidate, Fox News projected on screen graphics which included vital information: Age, Religion, Family, Career. Whoa, was that religion at #2 on the list of vital information?
The Fox News Panel knew there would be no questions about religion, but drew a distinction between Romney and the other candidates by including religion in the on screen bios. Why? By reminding the audience that Romney is different without allowing him to address those differences and how they influence him politically, Romney was placed at a distinct disadvantage. Think of it this way: if these candidates were applicants for a federal job, which in essence they are, it would be a civil rights violation for an employer to require applicants to list their religious affiliation on the application. The reason for this is that an employer would be drawn to differences in personal beliefs rather than job qualifications such as education or experience. By displaying each candidate’s resume, including religion, on screen, Fox pointed out Romney’s differences from the other job applicants without providing an opportunity for context.
John McCain: Grade C
Strengths: Started out strong on Iraq and the larger War on Terror, reminding that when we lost in Vietnam, Vietnam did not follow us home, but the War on Terror will.
Weaknesses: Repeated his ridiculous assertion from the first debate that the GOP did not lose the 2006 elections because of the war, they lost because of out of control spending. I defy McCain or any of his campaign staffers to back up that assessment with any polling numbers or statistics. Virtually all pre and post-election polls, with or without the expected MSM liberal bent, identified a lack of perceived progress in the Iraq War as the #1 reason for voter dissatisfaction with the GOP. Most vulnerable Republicans lost to opponents who vowed to support measures that would bring the war to a close and make the Iraqis responsible for their own security.
McCain made another false assertion while attempting to defend the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which although he refuses to accept the label, is amnesty. McCain was factually inaccurate when he claimed that the thwarted Ft. Dix attackers did not cross our borders illegally, insisting that they abused the visa program to remain in America. Three of the arrested terrorists actually entered the U.S. illegally by crossing from Mexico into Texas in 1984, as reported previously. McCain’s defense of his immigration bill was nearly as porous as the border he claimed was never crossed.
The greatest weakness exhibited by McCain was his repeated emphasis on his ability to reach across the aisle in the Senate and work with Democrats. That may seem like a virtue rather than vice, but McCain’s bipartisan outreach has resulted in McCain-Feingold, a horrible piece of legislation that violates the First Amendment, and may yet produce amnesty with McCain-Kennedy. Bipartisanship for McCain translates into fence straddling. McCain is far too concerned with opinion, whether it is public opinion of him or world opinion of the United States. This was most evident in McCain’s response to the terrorist bombing scenario in which he was asked if he would order the torture of a terrorist if it would save American lives. McCain, who of course suffered 5 years of torture in Vietnam has a unique perspective, but he opposed torture not because it was wrong but because it would make America unpopular:
We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people. It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know.
Senator Brownback responded to McCain by reminding that the first responsibility of an American president is to protect American lives, not go to the UN or worry about world opinion. McCain is sadly mistaken if he thinks conservatives are as obsessed with world opinion as he seems to be. Americans are not willing to die by the thousands or millions for the “cause” of world opinion. McCain touts his military experience as his best qualification as a Commander in Chief, yet he prefers popularity to protection.
Other Candidates
Duncan Hunter: Grade C
He did not gain or lose ground because he merely repeated everything he said in the first debate. See my post on the first debate for a duplicate summary of Hunter.
Tommy Thompson: Grade C-
Not the Thompson everyone wants to see in these debates, and like Hunter, this performance was a clone of the first debate, although Thompson opposes cloning. Nothing new here.
Mike Huckabee: Grade C-
Huckabee gets two awards: funniest line of the night; and “worst pass the buck” of the night. Huckabee drew hysterical laughter when he stated that the government “spent money like John Edwards at a beauty shop.” He drew dead silence when he was asked about a letter he wrote to a convicted Arkansas rapist prior to the rapist’s appearance before a parole board, in which letter Huckabee stated his desire that the rapist would be paroled. The rapist was paroled and later killed a woman in Missouri. Huckabee started to take responsibility, but waffled, stating “I did not let him out, the parole board did.” He compounded that by incredibly admitting “I don’t have foresight. I have great hindsight like everyone else.” This response was remarkably poor and should by itself make anyone uncomfortable voting for Huckabee. First, a prisoner in a state prison appears before a state parole board holding a letter from the top state official expressing a desire that the prisoner would be paroled. What did Huckabee think a state parole board would do when the governor of the state wants the prisoner paroled?
Of course, they paroled the rapist because governors have direct authority over state employees. Huckabee blamed the parole board that acted out his stated desire. That is the antithesis of executive leadership. Second, leaders are supposed to have foresight, or vision to use an appropriate synonym. Reagan had vision, and Huckabee compares himself at every opportunity to Reagan. It did not require much foresight or vision to imagine that paroling a convicted rapist might lead to, gasp, repeated offenses or worse. In Huckabee’s case, it resulted in worse and he apparently never saw it coming. That is frightening for a man who wants to be president. Perhaps he should lower his sights and join the Iraq Study Group or the next 9/11 Commission, as those entities specialize in hindsight.
The only saving grace for Huckabee was that he challenged Giuliani on abortion, stating that if a person truly believes abortion is morally wrong, he ought to oppose it in every way. Unfortunately for Huckabee, this was not nearly enough to compensate for his horrific response to the rapist release question.
Ron Paul: Grade D-
Paul trotted out his tired and disingenuous argument that America never declared war on Iraq and thus the war is illegal and should be ended immediately. Never mind that the current war is merely a resumption of hostilities brought about by Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the terms of the cease fire that suspended the first Gulf War, Paul does not like to cloud the issue with facts. Of course, Paul provided the highlight of the debate by stating that America was responsible for 9/11 because of our own provocations in Iraq and other Middle East nations over a ten year period following the Gulf War. Giuliani’s rebuttal was already described, but Paul doggedly maintained that 9/11 was our fault and we should have no troops or presence in the Middle East. Paul also made a huge blunder by implying that Ronald Reagan turned tail and fled from Lebanon after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. Insisting that Reagan displayed cowardice will never endear a candidate to the conservative base. Paul is not a serious candidate for president, and serves only as a foil, and a cranky, factually challenged one at that. His theatrics detract from serious debate and his presence at future debates should be reconsidered. Wendell Goler asked Paul the best question of the night: “Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?”
Sam Brownback: Grade C+
As he did in the first debate, Brownback makes some valid points but sounds and expresses himself so much like Al Gore that he has no chance of gaining national appeal. Brownback reminded that America cannot win a war with one party for it and the other against it. That is so obvious that it should have gone without saying. Brownback’s most memorable answer came when he was asked what he would tell a rape victim who became pregnant if she wanted to have an abortion. He handled that thorny question by turning the questions to the rape victim: is the baby a person; does the baby have a right to life? Brownback answered his own questions by declaring that yes, he opposes abortion even in rape cases because it ends the life of a child. He also doubted that a woman would be better off after suffering a rape and compounding it by terminating a baby’s life. He concluded his response with the phrase, “pro-life and whole life for everyone.” Whatever one thinks of the hypothetical rape/abortion question, Brownback was honest, committed, and sensitive.
Tom Tancredo: Grade C
Tancredo, like Paul, is an issue pusher, with immigration topping his list. When Tancredo strays from immigration into cultural issues, his ship starts taking on water. His performance in this debate was no better than the first. His defining response of the debate came on the issue of terrorism, not immigration. In response to the terrorist bombing scenario, Tancredo stated that Islamic terrorists are not trying to kill Americans because we are wealthy, “they will kill us because it is a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it.” He further left no doubt that he would utilize all interrogation options to extract information that could save American lives: “At that point I’m looking for Jack Bauer.” In conclusion, he looked rather maniacally into the camera and warned that America must “make them fearful” so that they will be deterred from attacking America again.
James Gilmore: Grade D
Gilmore gets my “tacky move of the night” award for accusing his rivals of being phony conservatives, and then declining to name names, referring the audience to his web site and blog where he would be more specific. That cheap trick to drive traffic to his site was cut off at the knees when Chris Wallace demanded that Gilmore identify which opponents he was referring to while they stood on stage with him. For the second time in two debates, Gilmore has blustered about the fact that he was Virginia’s governor on 9/11 and that the Pentagon, which is technically in Arlington, VA, was attacked, thus he has first hand knowledge of grappling with terrorism. I would ask Gilmore to explain what he did as governor that in any way influenced the response to the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon may be in Arlington, but it is a federal facility with federal security, federal response units, and federal jurisdiction. The attack was on the Pentagon, not on Virginia. Gilmore should cease taking credit for his strong leadership on 9/11, which by his own admission in both debates consisted mainly of participating on a Homeland Security committee assembled to discuss how to get it right next time. Committee experience is not a qualification for a Commander in Chief.
The Winner:
Giuliani, by default, because his memorable exchange with Paul will be the most replayed highlight and that is free advertising. A strong position on national defense washes away many sins, in Giuliani’s case abortion, illegal immigration, and gun control. Few will remember anything he said about those issues, but no one will forget his emotional and patriotic anger at Paul. When voters choose a debate winner, they will consider which candidate they think will cause the most fear among terrorists or other enemies of America. In last night’s debate, Giuliani seized the opportunity to be that candidate. Romney was a very close second, and perhaps if he had been asked more questions he would have surpassed Giuliani. I found his Guantanamo statement just as effective and memorable as Giuliani’s tussle with Paul, but because it was in a less dramatic context it received far less media attention. McCain, again, was a distant third.
Photo Credits: Time.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)