|
"This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This
conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others.
It
will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." -
President Bush, National Day of Prayer and Remembrance |
"The Calling of Our Generation"
9/11/2006
"Five years ago, this
date -- September the 11th -- was seared into America's memory. Nineteen men
attacked us with a barbarity unequaled in our history. They murdered people of
all colors, creeds, and nationalities -- and made war upon the entire free
world. Since that day, America and her allies have taken the offensive in a war
unlike any we have fought before. Today, we are safer, but we are not yet safe.
On this solemn night, I've asked for some of your time to discuss the nature of
the threat still before us, what we are doing to protect our nation, and the
building of a more hopeful Middle East that holds the key to peace for America
and the world.
On 9/11, our nation saw the face of evil.
Yet on that awful day, we also witnessed something distinctly American:
ordinary citizens rising to the occasion, and responding with extraordinary
acts of courage. We saw courage in office workers who were trapped on the high
floors of burning skyscrapers -- and called home so that their last words to
their families would be of comfort and love. We saw courage in passengers
aboard Flight 93, who recited the 23rd Psalm -- and then charged the cockpit.
And we saw courage in the Pentagon staff who made it out of the flames and
smoke -- and ran back in to answer cries for help. On this day, we remember the
innocent who lost their lives -- and we pay tribute to those who gave their
lives so that others might live.
For many of our citizens,
the wounds of that morning are still fresh. I've met firefighters and police
officers who choke up at the memory of fallen comrades. I've stood with
families gathered on a grassy field in Pennsylvania, who take bittersweet pride
in loved ones who refused to be victims -- and gave America our first victory
in the war on terror. I've sat beside young mothers with children who are now
five years old -- and still long for the daddies who will never cradle them in
their arms. Out of this suffering, we resolve to honor every man and woman
lost. And we seek their lasting memorial in a safer and more hopeful world.
Since the horror of 9/11, we've learned a great deal
about the enemy. We have learned that they are evil and kill without mercy --
but not without purpose. We have learned that they form a global network of
extremists who are driven by a perverted vision of Islam -- a totalitarian
ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. And
we have learned that their goal is to build a radical Islamic empire where
women are prisoners in their homes, men are beaten for missing prayer meetings,
and terrorists have a safe haven to plan and launch attacks on America and
other civilized nations. The war against this enemy is more than a military
conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century, and the
calling of our generation."
Read the rest of President Bush's speech to
the nation on this horrible anniversary
here. |
|
* * * * * |
|
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is Dead
6/09/2006
Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al Maliki announced that "Today, al-Zarqawi has been eliminated" at a
press conference yesterday. The reaction to that announcement speaks volumes.
Iraqi journalists cheered and broke into songs of celebrations. American
journalists sat silent, marking notes on their papers. To Iraqis, whose lives
are tormented daily by the presence of bloodthirsty madmen like al Zarqawi, his
death was cause to celebrate. To American journalists, it was not. That's all
that needs to be said about that.
Congratulations to the dedicated
soldiers and airmen who tracked and killed this most wanted
enemy. |
|
* * * * * |
|
How the Republican Party has Irritated Conservatives, Part
MCXLVII 2/09/2006 As detailed in this editorial by George Will, the
Congress - excuse me, the Republican Majority Congress - is poised to further
anger the fiscal conservatives in the GOP and deepen our financial deficit for
an assinine stunt. It appears our fearless leaders have passed legislation
which would provide vouchers to all owners of analog televisions to facilitate
their transition to digital television broadcasts. As Will writes,
...(T)his story illustrates the timeless truth that no
matter how deeply you distrust the government's judgment, you are too
trusting. Here, as explained by James L. Gattuso of the Heritage
Foundation, is the crisis du jour: The nation is making a slow transition from
analog to digital television broadcasting. Why is this a crisis? Because,
although programming currently is broadcast in both modes, by April 2009
broadcasters must end analog transmissions and the government will have
auctioned the analog frequencies for various telecommunications purposes. For
the vast majority of Americans, April 2009 will mean . . . absolutely nothing.
Nationwide, 85 percent of all television households (and 63 percent of
households below the poverty line) already have cable or satellite service.
What will become of households that do not? Leaving aside
such eccentric alternative pastimes as conversation and reading, the digitally
deprived could pursue happiness by buying a new television set, all of which
will be digital-capable by March 2007. Today a digital-capable set with a
flat-screen display can be purchased from liberals, please pardon the
mention of your Great Satan Wal-Mart for less than $460. But
compassionate conservatism has a government response to the crisis. Remember,
although it is difficult to do so, that Republicans control Congress. And
today's up-to-date conservatism does not stand idly by expecting people to
actually pursue happiness on their own. Hence the new entitlement from Congress
to help all Americans acquire converter boxes to put on top of old analog sets,
making the sets able to receive digital programming. All Americans rich
and poor; it is uncompassionate to discriminate on the basis of money when
dispersing money will be equally entitled to the help.
The $990 million House version of this entitlement
call it No Couch Potato Left Behind is (relatively) parsimonious:
Consumers would get vouchers worth only $40 and would be restricted to a measly
two vouchers per household. The Senate's more spacious entitlement would pay
for most of the cost $50 to $60 of the converter boxes. But there
is Republican rigor in this: Consumers would be required to pay $10. That is
the conservatism in compassionate conservatism.
Now, the hardhearted will, in their cheeseparing
small-mindedness, ask: Given that the transition to digital has been underway
for almost a decade, why should those who have adjusted be compelled to pay
money to those who have chosen not to adjust? And conservatives who have not
yet attended compassion reeducation camps will ask: Why does the legislation
make even homes with cable or digital services eligible for subsidies to pay
for converter boxes for old analog sets which may be worth less than the
government's cost for the boxes?
Gattuso says defenders of this entitlement argue that
taxpayers will not be burdened by its costs because the government's sale of
the analog frequencies will yield perhaps $10 billion. Think about that:
Because the government may get $10 billion from one transaction, taxpayers are
unburdened by government's giving away $3 billion with another transaction.
Such denial that money is fungible fuels the welfare state's expansion.
Republicans in Congress have abandoned the principle of small
government, and operate in the knowledge that the Executive Branch is currently
unwilling to wield veto-power over their favor-seeking re-distribution of yours
(and my) tax receipts. This is a symptom of their majority-minded incumbency,
the cure for which may be administered by conservative voters who stay home in
2006 rather than vote for Republican office-holders with one hand while
pinching their nostrils shut with the other.
|
|
* * * * * |
|
Osama bin Laden is Dead
1/09/2006
Since we ended the
year with a heartwarming story about Baby Noor [update available
here], let's begin the year with some great news. According
to Micheal Ledeen, resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American
Enterprise Institute, Osama bin Laden is now suffering his richly deserved
eternal anguish. Ledeen writes in the National Review Online
the news that contacts in Iran have told him of the
terrorist's death late last year.
And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden
finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney
failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the
destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note
that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his
number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first
time. Ledeen argues that this is an unique moment in history
when revolutionary change is possible in the Middle East, not just because of
the death of many former bad agents but also due to the widening gap between
the hardline rulers and the freedom-seeking citizens of Iran and Saudi Arabia,
for example.
In short, both demography and geopolitics make this an
age of revolution, as President Bush seems to have understood. Rarely have
there been so many opportunities for the advance of freedom, and rarely have
the hard facts of life and death been so favorable to the spread of democratic
revolution.
The architect of 9/11 and the creator of Palestinian
terrorism are gone. The guiding lights of our terrorist enemies are sitting on
cracking thrones, challenged by young men and women who look to us for support.
Not just words, and, above all, not promises that the war against the terror
masters will soon end with a premature abandonment of what was always a
miserably limited battlefield. This should be our moment.
George
W. Bush has seized the moment to lay the foundation for democracy in the Middle
East and secure our safety here at home. History will place him in high regard
for his leadership.
|
|
* * * * * |
|
"No Better Friend..."
12/30/2005
The following story
seems like a good way to end our first year on the web publishing political
commentary. It is frustrating dealing with the lack of leadership out of
Washington while we are at war at home and abroad. Frequently, this space
features commentary that is irritated, concerned, angry, confused or all of the
above. That's why
this story had such a welcome tone and is our feature
article for year end.
When troops from the Georgia National Guard raided a
Baghdad home in early December, they had no idea that their mission in Iraq
would take a different turn. As the young parents of an infant girl nervously
watched the soldiers search their modest home, the baby's unflinching
grandmother thrust the little girl at the Americans, showing them the purple
pouch protruding from her back.
Little Noor, barely three months old, was born with spina
bifida, a birth defect in which the spinal column fails to completely close.
Iraqi doctors had told her parents she would live only 45 days. But she was
tenaciously clinging to life, and the soldiers in the home -- many of them
fathers themselves -- were moved. "Well, I saw this child as the firstborn
child of the young mother and father and really, all I could think of was my
five children back at home and my young daughter," Lt. Jeff Morgan told CNN
from Baghdad. "And I knew if I had the opportunity whatsoever to save my
daughter's life I would do everything possible. "So my heart just kind of went
out to this baby and these parents who ... were living in poverty and had no
means to help their baby. I thought we could do that for them," he added.
So Morgan and his fellow soldiers began working to get
Noor the help she needs. "We ... collectively decided this is going to be our
project," said Sgt. Michael Sonen. "If this is the only contribution we have to
defeating the war on terrorism, this is going to be it."
So these
brave warriors arranged to have the Baby Noor evaluated at a military hospital,
and working with charities and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, (R) Georgia, are making
arrangements for her to have surgery to close the hole in her back. By the
first of the year she should be recovering from surgery in Atlanta, her
grandmother by her side.
So while John Kerry, (D) Massachusetts
would have you believe American troops are "terrorizing children" in Iraq, (a
slander against our troops he has been consistent in spewing since Vietnam),
the troops are busy "defeating terrorism" in ways big and small, brutal and
tender. As the Marines like to say, "no better friend - no worse
enemy".
To help Baby Noor, visit
Lifeover
Ministry and make a contribution.
Happy New
Year. |
|
* * * * * |
|
Wiretapping vs. Mass Graves
12/28/2005
While the moonbats are
howling about "illegal" domestic spying via wiretapping, another
mass grave has been discovered in Iraq. Rational people
recognize the outrage over wiretapping as another symptom of Bush-hating, while
recognizing the mass grave as a bona fide example of a heinous man reigning
horror on his own nation.
Iraqi officials said they found the skeletal remains of
31 people in what they described as a mass grave in the Shi'ite holy city of
Kerbala on Tuesday.
A senior official at the laboratory to which the bodies
were taken said the people appeared to have died during the suppression of a
Shi'ite uprising against Saddam Hussein after the 1991 Gulf War. "There are 31
bodies. We're still testing but it appears they are victims of the events of
1991," the official told Reuters. One man authorizes wiretaps
on phone conversations between suspected terrorists. One man orders mass murder
to put down popular unrest. And the Democrats line up on the wrong side of
history to express their condemnation.
There is a reason the
majority of American citizens do not believe they are serious about our
national defense. |
|
* * * * * |
|
Endangered Humans
12/14/2005
I don't think this
site has included comments about abortion prior to today's entry, but something
I read recently has haunted me since I saw it. The statement I read was that
between 80 and 90 percent of pregnant women whose babies test positive for
Down's Syndrome choose to abort their baby rather than have a child with Down's
Syndrome. Between 80 and 90 percent.
Having had two perfectly healthy children
I cannot imagine the anxiety that overwhelms an expectant parent to learn their
baby has Down's. Still - 80 to 90 percent choose to abort their
pregnancy.
Kathryn Jean Lopez argues that it is time to have a national
discussion about that fact in an article
here on National Review Online.
I know abortion is one of our most contentious issues.
People don't want to judge. They don't want to put their rosaries on your
ovaries. People often just don't want to talk about it. But we have to talk
about it. And we have to especially talk about Down Syndrome and abortion
and this class of people "sophisticated" types seem to think can (and
should?) be eliminated. A civilized society cannot tolerate this reality.
Lopez refers to an article written in the Washington Post by Patricia
Bauer, mother of Margaret, a child with Down's Syndrome. Quoting Bauer, she
writes:
As Margaret bounces through life, especially out here in
the land of the perfect body, I see the way people look at her: curious,
surprised, sometimes wary, occasionally disapproving or alarmed. I know that
most women of childbearing age that we may encounter have judged her ... to be
not worth living. To them, Margaret falls into the category of avoidable human
suffering. At best, a tragic mistake.
What I don't understand is how we as a society can
tacitly write off a whole group of people as having no value. I'd like to think
that it's time to put that particular piece of baggage on the table and talk
about it, but I'm not optimistic. People want what they want: a perfect baby, a
perfect life. To which I say: Good luck. Or maybe, dream on.
Read the
whole article, then forward it to someone you respect. Talk with them about it.
Start a national conversation. |
|
* * * * * |
|
Pearl Harbor Day
12/07/2005
Excerpts from the
President's speech commemorating the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day
appear below. Read the whole speech
here.
Liberty's ultimate triumph was far from clear in the
early days of World War II. When our country was attacked at Pearl Harbor,
America was emerging from the Great Depression, and several nations had larger
armies than the United States. In Asia and Europe, country after country had
fallen before the armies of militaristic tyrants. However, the brave and
determined men and women of our Nation maintained their faith in the power of
freedom and democracy. They fought and won a world war against two of the most
ruthless regimes the world has ever known. In the years since those victories,
the power of freedom and democracy has transformed America's enemies in World
War II into close friends.
Today, our goal is to continue to spread freedom and
democracy and to secure a more peaceful world for our children and
grandchildren. We are grateful to the men and women who are defending our flag
and our freedom in the first war of the 21st century. These patriots are
protecting our country and our way of life by upholding the tradition of honor,
bravery, and integrity demonstrated by those who fought for our Nation in World
War II. The service and sacrifice of our World War II veterans continue to
inspire people across our country, and we remain deeply grateful for all that
these heroes have done for the cause of freedom.
|
|
* * * * * |
|
"We Are Winning"
12/04/2005
James Q. Wilson offers
a sample speech for George W. Bush to give to the American people in
this article on OpinionJournal Online. The speech
begins:
My fellow Americans: We are winning, and winning
decisively, in Iraq and the Middle East. We defeated Saddam Hussein's army in
just a few weeks. None of the disasters that many feared would follow our
invasion occurred. Our troops did not have to fight door to door to take
Baghdad. The Iraqi oil fields were not set on fire. There was no civil war
between the Sunnis and the Shiites. There was no grave humanitarian crisis.
Saddam Hussein was captured and is awaiting trial. His two murderous sons are
dead. Most of the leading members of Saddam's regime have been captured or
killed.
After our easy military victory, we found ourselves
inadequately prepared to defeat the terrorist insurgents, but now we are
prevailing. Iraq has held free elections in which millions of people voted. A
new, democratic constitution has been adopted that contains an extensive bill
of rights. Discrimination on the basis of sex, religion or politics is banned.
Soon the Iraqis will be electing their first parliament. An independent
judiciary exists, almost all public schools are open, every hospital is
functioning, and oil sales have increased sharply. In most parts of the
country, people move about freely and safely. According to surveys, Iraqis are
overwhelmingly opposed to the use of violence to achieve political ends, and
the great majority believe that their lives will improve in the future.
The Iraqi economy is growing very rapidly, much more
rapidly than the inflation rate. In some places, the terrorists who lost the
war are now fighting back by killing Iraqi civilians. Some brave American
soldiers have also been killed, but most of the attacks are directed at decent,
honest Iraqis. This is not a civil war; it is terrorism gone mad. And the
terrorists have failed. They could not stop free elections. They could not
prevent Iraqi leaders from taking office. They could not close the schools or
hospitals. They could not prevent the emergence of a vigorous free press that
now involves over 170 newspapers that represent every shade of opinion.
Terrorist leaders such as Zarqawi have lost. Most Sunni leaders, whom Zarqawi
was hoping to mobilize, have rejected his call to defeat any constitution. The
Muslims in his hometown in Jordan have denounced him. Despite his murderous
efforts, candidates representing every legitimate point of view and every
ethnic background are competing for office in the new Iraqi
government.
The progress of democracy and reconstruction has occurred
faster in Iraq than it did in Germany 60 years ago, even though we have far
fewer troops in the Middle East than we had in Germany after Hitler was
defeated.
I have heard it argued by members of the MSM that good
news is hardly ever "news" at all -- you don't ever read in the paper about all
the successful flights that land at the airport each day, only the one that
crashed in the last 10 years. I think the same is true in Iraq. All the
progress that is being made is incremental and not "newsworthy" by MSM
standards. That leaves it to the White House to communicate the message that we
are winning the war in Iraq and doing great good there.
The MSM will keep us all acutely aware of the painful
cost of our efforts in the Middle East on behalf of civilized people
everywhere. I am grateful that the President has recently begun increasing his
efforts to communicate the results. |
|
* * * * * |
|
Losing Their Backbone
11/25/2005
Vice President Dick
Cheney gave a speech last week on the occasion of the Frontiers of Freedom
Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala. He inserted remarks at the beginning of
his message that ruffled some of the (chicken) feathers of
the Democrats, so I felt obliged to reproduce them here:
Most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public
service, and first came to work in Washington back in the late 1960s. I know
what its like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in
which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak
forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in
Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and
good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we
have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion thats
been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any
member of this administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war
intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired
in this city.
Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course,
come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing the use of
force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the
intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the
same judgment about Iraqs capabilities and intentions that -- made by
this Administration and by the previous administration. There was broad-based,
bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat, that he had violated
U.N. Security Council Resolutions, and that, in a post-9/11 world, we could not
afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of weapons of mass
destruction programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the
demands of the international community, whose nation had been designated an
official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder. Those are
the facts.
What were hearing now is some politicians
contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in
the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been
subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.
American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions
and desert temperatures - conducting raids, training Iraqi forces,
countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers - and back
home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians
from losing their memory, or their backbone - but were not going to
sit by and let them rewrite history.
It is impossible to imagine VP Cheney running for
President in 2008, which is a crying shame, because the man knows how to put
the smack down. Those are the facts, indeed... |
|
* * * * * |
|
Happy Thanksgiving
11/24/2005
We will not be posting
commentary from the frontlines of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy today in order
to celebrate Thanksgiving with our families.
We are thankful for this great country, it's many
opportunities and freedoms for which so many have paid (and are paying) so
great a sacrifice. We are thankful for our families and friends. We are
thankful for the church and all those who work at her mission. We are thankful
for the rough courage of the men and women of our armed forces, both military
and domestic. And much, much more...
Happy Thanksgiving and God
Bless You. |
|
* * * * * |
|
23 Reasons
11/23/2005
Just read the first
two lines of this
article by Victor David Hanson in National Review and savor
it's clarity and truthfulness:
This is the mantra of the extreme Left: "Bush lied,
thousands died." A softer version from politicians now often follows: "If I
knew then what I know now, I would never have supported the war." These
sentiments are intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible for a variety
of reasons beyond the obvious consideration that you do not hang out to dry
some 150,000 brave Americans on the field of battle while you in-fight over
whether they should have ever been sent there in the first place.
Brilliant! As the Left scrambles to revise the history of
this war's origins, Hanson lays out the indisputable record from which these
jerks are running:
Even more importantly, the U.S. Senate voted to authorize
the removal of Saddam Hussein for 22 reasons other than just his possession of
dangerous weapons. We seem to have forgotten that entirely.
If the Bush administration erred in privileging the
dangers of Iraqi WMDs, then the Congress in its wisdom used a far broader
approach (as Sen. Robert Byrd complained at the time), and went well beyond
George Bush in making a more far-reaching case for war genocide,
violation of U.N. agreements, breaking of the 1991 armistice accords, attempts
to kill a former U.S. president, and firing on American aerial patrols. It was
the U.S. Senate a majority of Democrats included not Paul
Wolfowitz, that legislated a war to reform and restore the wider Middle East:
"...whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore
international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region".
So read the senators' October 2002 resolution. It is a
model of sobriety and judiciousness in authorizing a war. There are facts cited
such as the violation of agreements; moral considerations such as genocide;
real worries about al Qaeda's ties to Saddam (e.g., "...whereas members of
al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United
States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq"); fears of terrorism (" ...whereas
Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations,
including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American
citizens."
The Senate resolution authorizing war in Iraq cited 23
reasons why the United States was going to war with Iraq. Let that sink in for
a minute, because when you turn on the nightly news or pick up the paper all
you will read about is WMD's and 'lies' the Bush administration told about
them.
Hanson also correctly pinpoints the reason the Left is
running for cover on this war, and it has nothing to do with pre-war
intelligence or democratic progress in Iraq and Afghanistan or the magnificent
conduct of our troops under fire:
...What then is really at the heart of the current
strange congressional hysteria? Simple the tragic loss of nearly 2,100
Americans in Iraq.
The "my perfect war, your messy postbellum
reconstruction" crowd is now huge and unapologetic. It encompasses not just
leftists who once jumped on the war bandwagon in fears that Democrats would be
tarred as weak on national security (a legitimate worry), but also many
saber-rattling conservatives and Republicans including those (the most
shameful of all) who had in earlier times both sent letters to President
Clinton and Bush demanding the removal of Saddam and now damn their
commander-in-chief for taking them at their own word.
So without our 2,100 losses, nearly all the present
critics would be either silent or grandstanding their support in the
manner that three quarters of the American population who polled that they were
in favor of the war once they saw the statue of Saddam fall. [Emphasis
mine.] |
|
* * * * * |
|
Obsessing over WMD's and Katrina?
11/21/2005
I accidently stumbled
upon NPR on the radio tonight while driving home from work, and let my judgment
lapse long enough to listen to a "man on the street" segment they were doing
with a group of people from Louisville, Kentucky who were unanimous in their
upset with President Bush. (Not one supporter in the whole city could be found
for the piece? Curious...)
Anyway, average person after person
listed off their official grievances about the President, each of them
mentioning WMD's and Katrina near the top of the list. No one's upset with
Mayor Nagin or Governor Blanco made the airwaves, if anyone had the good sense
to mention their roles at all. But President Bush was cited as racially
prejudiced and unconcerned with the poor based on "his" response to the natural
disaster. What utter crap.
What was the difference between relief
efforts in Alabama and relief efforts in Louisiana immediately following the
hurricane? Answer - NOT the federal government. The feds played the same role
in both states, but the presence of competent, mature leadership in Alabama
lead to relief for it's citizens, and the presence of corrupt, ill-prepared
nitwits in Louisiana lead to chaos for it's citizens.
Thank goodness we have the MSM to help sort all of this
out for us. Headline: "The Government will save you from anything ever - unless
they are those meanie-Republicans who 'stole' the
election".
As to the oh-so-tired WMD charge, Norman Podhertz writes
(again) on the facts of the charge in the
Wall
Street Journal OpionionJournal.
The main "lie" that George W. Bush is accused of telling
us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction,
or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the
subsidiary "lie" that Iraq under Saddam's regime posed a two-edged mortal
threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even
"imminent") possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us
or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous
possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already
attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.
Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of
argument--that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period
leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was
lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows
to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush
believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet,
his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase
would later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all
15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. In the
National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were
summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that
"Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological,
nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia,
China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans
Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam
had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the
weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further
credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the
invasion
Please don't let the facts in this case interfere with
your "Bush lied - people died" judgment over on NPR though. That just looks so
much more pithy on a bumper sticker than "Savage madmen want to destroy utterly
our country and civilization itself, so we must kill them before they kill
us". |
|
* * * * * |
|
The Culture Revolution
11/18/2005
The gay "marriage"
argument in this country is frustrating and typical of disagreements over
culture in this country. The side of the argument advocating a profoundly
radical revision of the historic definition of marriage is seen as reasonable
and inclusive, while those who would conserve marriage's historic meaning are
seen as hatemongers and homophobes. Is there really no thoughtful argument to
be made in favor of leaving the definition of marriage unchanged, or are all
words spoken in favor of defining marriage as "one man and one woman" hate
speech?
Katherine Kersten, writing in the
Minneapolis Star Tribune, offers an account of one front in
the culture revolution under way in Canada over this very issue.
How could a simple law redefining marriage as a union of
"two persons" have such a revolutionary effect? There are two reasons.
First, marriage is Western society's most fundamental
institution. As such, it is embedded throughout our law, child-rearing
practices and culture in general. When marriage is redefined, other social
institutions are likewise transformed.
Second, when male-female marriage and same-sex marriage
become equal in the eyes of the law, treating them differently becomes
discrimination. In Canada, "privileging" male-female marriage in any way is now
a violation of human rights. According to Henry, "Canadians who believe in the
historic definition of marriage, who believe that children need a mother and
father, are now the legal equivalent of racists."
Today, Canada is combing through its laws and
institutions to remove evidence of heterosexist discrimination. Terms such as
husband and wife are now forbidden across the spectrum of Canadian law and
government programs. The legal meaning of parenthood is being transformed, with
consequences no one can predict.
Henry says Canadian schools are becoming battlegrounds.
"Children will have to be taught about homosexual acts in health class, as they
now are about heterosexual acts. Books that promote same-sex marriage are being
introduced in some elementary schools. In one action, complainants have
demanded 'positive queer role models' across the whole curriculum. If parents
complain, they'll be branded as homophobes." Sound farfetched? People who
disagree with same-sex marriage risk charges of hate speech. In British
Columbia, teacher Chris Kempling has been found guilty -- and disciplined --
for defending male-female marriage in newspaper opinion pieces. Henry himself
has been hauled before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for promoting
traditional marriage in his pastoral letters. "The human rights tribunals have
become like thought police," he says. "In Canada, you can now use the coercive
powers of the state to silence opposition."
When I read "the coercive powers of the state" it sends
shivers up my spine. The full force of the U.S. Government does not need to be
brought to bear on a culture that by an overwhelming majority believes that the
definition of marriage should not change. Radicals in the gay minority and
their sympathizers should not be allowed to unleash the many consequences,
including those we can't even imagine, that would result from turning our
definition of marriage upside-down. |
|
* * * * * |
|
Death by Government Negligence 11/17/2005 Our second piece on the rioting in France is intended to
provide a little perspective.
Denis Boyles, writing in the
National Review Online chides the French President for
hiding away from the spotlight while it is turned on him for leadership instead
of moralizing.
According to Elaine Sciolino, the New York Times Paris
correspondent, writing in the International Herald Tribune, "President Jacques
Chirac has never been one to shun the spotlight. But in the face of the most
serious social crisis of his 10-year presidency, the 72-year-old French leader
seems like the invisible man."
I can't remember when Sciolino first went to France to
report for the Times, but if she thinks this is the "most serious social
crisis" Chirac has faced, she's as wrong as she is when she says he's never
been one to shun the spotlight. The award for "most serious social crisis" must
go to the 2003 heatwave in which a collapse of government services resulted in
the deaths of 15,000-old people in the space of about three weeks that's
five 9/11s, one every four days while Chirac lounged through his
holiday, far from every spotlight. Maybe she forgot. Or, more likely, she just
didn't see it for what it was.
She's certainly not alone. I've written about this event
often because 15,000 deaths by governmental negligence is what you call
serious, social-crisis-wise. It's overlooked or ignored now, as it was
then, because it's an cautionary tale embarrassing to the Left: It clearly
illustrates what happens to you and your loved ones if you become accustomed to
relying on the government and especially the French one to meet
your personal responsibilities. The French learned then what
Tocqueville knew long ago, that by the time you learn to depend on your
government to save you, you're already a goner. The crisis of 2003 was not only
a social crisis, for the Left, it was an ideological and spiritual one.
[Emphasis mine.]
During that awful summer, as bodies choked morgues and
doctors begged for help, Chirac said and did nothing for weeks nothing
at all, except to have his functionaries announce there was no crisis and
punish those who said there was. After the crisis peaked, Chirac went on TV
from his vacation home but only to tell the country not to worry. A year after
the event, the health minister resigned and the government announced that in
future heatwaves, everybody should go to the movies because they're
air-conditioned. Otherwise, that most serious of social crises caused
absolutely no visible change in French political life. A country that can shrug
off manslaughter on a massive scale can easily overlook a few weeks of juvenile
mischief. If they're smart, next year they'll just declare it a holiday. Or
perhaps the French government will produce a typically Gallic remedy and ban
the rioters' traditional headcoverings so we won't be able to tell the Muslims
from the Marxists.
If 15,000 Americans died from a heatwave, the President
would be sunk politically, morally and legally. In France, it doesn't even
affect the President's vacation. There are any number of good reasons not to
like the French, their pompous sermonizing on the evils of American Imperialism
high on the list. I wouldn't trade one of our corporals in Iraq for the whole
bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. |
|
* * * * * |
|
"The Explosive Arab Street" Turns Out to be in
France 11/16/2005 I do not believe it is appropriate to gloat or point
fingers at France while they undergo a major civil disturbance at the hands of
disaffected Muslim youths. Nevertheless, the fact that the MSM has virtually
ignored this major piece of the global war on terror leads me to think a couple
of articles are in order.
Today let us hear from Mark Steyn,
writing in the
Chicago Sun-Times.
Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the
European powder keg's about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning
buildings, street riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote
in Canada's Western Standard back in February.
Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started
some years ahead of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the
Guardian reported in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over
300 cars last night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of
violence in a week of urban unrest.''
''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and
Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens
of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to
discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'':
They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the
broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an
assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find
in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there
really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.
The notion that Texas neocon arrogance was responsible
for frosting up trans-Atlantic relations was always preposterous, even for
someone as complacent and blinkered as John Kerry. If you had millions of
seething unassimilated Muslim youths in lawless suburbs ringing every major
city, would you be so eager to send your troops into an Arab country fighting
alongside the Americans? For half a decade, French Arabs have been carrying on
a low-level intifada against synagogues, kosher butchers, Jewish schools, etc.
The concern of the political class has been to prevent the spread of these
attacks to targets of more, ah, general interest. They seem to have lost that
battle. Unlike America's Europhiles, France's Arab street correctly identified
Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war for what it was: a sign of weakness.
I wish the French government all the best in restoring
order to their troubled country and to pulling their collective heads out of
the sand to face the major cultural war already underway.
|
|
* * * * * |
|
"A Universal Pathology"
11/15/2005
Victor Davis Hanson
should be read and re-read every time he publishes an
article online about the war - period, end of introduction.
Writing about the world's continuing attention deficit when it comes to
recognizing the global nature of the threat of radical Islamists, Hanson
suggests the following formula for focusing our attention on winning this
war.
Instead, the worldif it is to save its present
liberal system of free trade, safe travel, easy and unfettered communications,
and growing commitment to constitutional governmentmust begin seeing
radical Islamism as a universal pathology rather than reactions to regional
grievances, if it is ever to destroy it materially and refute it ideologically.
Yet the antidote for radical Islam, aside from the
promotion of democratization and open economies, is simple. It must be
militarily defeated when it emerges to wage organized violence, as in the cases
of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Zarqawis terrorists in Iraq,
and the various killer cliques in Palestine.
Second, any who tolerate radical Islam should be
ostracized. Muslims living in the West must be condemned when they assert that
the Jews caused 9/11, or that suicide bombing is a legitimate response to
Israel, or that Islamic immigrants own unique culture gives them a pass
from accustomed assimilation, or that racial and religious affinity should
allow tolerance for the hatred that spews forth from madrassas and mosques
before the patience of Western liberalism is exhausted and the
rules of the game in Tony Blairs words change quite
radically and we begin to see mass invitations to leave.
Third, nations that intrigue with jihadists must be
identified as the enemies of civilization. We often forget that there are now
left only four major nation-states in the world that either by intent or
indifference allow radical Islamists to find sanctuary.
If Pakistan were seriously to disavow terrorism and not
see it as an asset in its rivalry with India and as a means to vent
anti-Western angst, then Osama bin Laden, Dr. Zawahiri, and their lieutenants
would be hunted down tomorrow.
If the petrolopolis of Saudi Arabia would cease its
financial support of Wahhabi radicals, most terrorists could scarcely travel or
organize operations.
If there were sane governments in Syria and Iran, then
there would be little refuge left for al Qaeda, and the money and shelter that
now protects the beleaguered and motley collection of ex-Saddamites, Hezbollah,
and al Qaedists would cease.
So in large part four nations stand in the way of
eradicating much of the global spread of jihadism and it is no accident
that either oil or nuclear weapons have won a global free pass for three of
them. And it is no accident that we dont have a means to wean ourselves
off Middle East oil or as yet stop Iran from becoming the second Islamic
nuclear nation. |
|
* * * * * |
|
"No Evidence"
11/14/2005
With the Democrat
party currently enjoying a good lather over the prospect of an indictment of an
aide to the Vice President over conversations held with reporters several years
ago, the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal editorialists offer this
helpful article to help focus the conservative mind. To
wit,
In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee
released a bipartisan 500-page report that found numerous failures of
intelligence gathering and analysis. As for the Bush Administration's role,
"The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials
attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments
related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," (our emphasis).
The Butler Report, published by the British in
July 2004, similarly found no evidence of "deliberate distortion," although it
too found much to criticize in the quality of prewar intelligence.
The March 2005 Robb-Silberman report on WMD
intelligence was equally categorical, finding "no evidence of political
pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of
Iraq's weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance
did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical
judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor
analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the
inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments."
Finally, last Friday, there was Mr. Fitzgerald:
"This indictment's not about the propriety of the war, and people who believe
fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who are--have mixed
feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how
they feel or any vindication of how they feel."
In short, everyone who has looked into the question of
whether the Bush Administration lied about intelligence, distorted
intelligence, or pressured intelligence agencies to produce assessments that
would support a supposedly pre-baked decision to invade Iraq has come up with
the same answer: No, no, no and no.
The certifiable nitwit Joseph Wilson IV continues
to wring every last ounce of publicity available out of his discredited
assertion that his wife's covert CIA status was maliciously leaked to the press
to intimidate and/or punish him. And the desperate Democrats continue to hand
him the microphone, hoping that more people watch the nightly news than read
the actual reports about pre-war intelligence.
In the meantime, the President
continues the war on terror in spite of poor public opinion over the war, the
soldiers continue to sacrifice for the cause of our safety, and ordinary people
in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to build the democratic foundations upon which
peaceful, prosperous lives can be made for their children.
And the Libs say we should
'move on'... |
|
* * * * * |
|
Racial Arsonists
11/13/2005
Deroy Murdock,
Contributing Editor to
Nation Review Online wrote recently on the passing of a
generation of dignified, classy champions of civil rights typified by Rosa
Parks. In regard to her passing, he wrote:
When the late Rosa Parks was laid to rest Wednesday at
Detroits Woodlawn Cemetery, Americans also paid their last respects to
the brand of civil-rights activism that she embodied. By refusing to yield her
seat to a white man in the front of a segregated Montgomery, Alabama bus on
December 1, 1955, Parks (who died October 24 at age 92) both launched and
epitomized a dignified, determined fight against hardened bigotry. It spread
from the ultimately successful, 381-day Montgomery bus boycott, to sit-ins at
Whites-Only lunch counters, to Dr. Martin Luther Kings I Have A
Dream speech, to President Lyndon Baines Johnsons signature on the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. In just eight and a half years, Parks, King, Medgar
Evers, Bayard Rustin, and other civil-rights pioneers killed and buried Jim
Crow by being serious, self-respecting citizens who challenged their countrymen
to supersede real, palpable racism and achieve true equality for all Americans.
Their victory was one of this nations finest hours.
Compare the grace and magnanimity of their struggle with
the behavior of todays civil-rights activists and their liberal,
Democratic allies. As black Americans run the State Department, Time-Warner,
Merrill-Lynch, and even Interpol, todays charlatans promiscuously play
the race card, not as the rarely deployed, ultimate defense against ethnic
bias, but as the first response to any inconvenience that anyone of color might
perceive. Rather than appeal for unity and calm to overcome bigotry,
todays racial arsonists spray lighter fluid on the nations
still-cooling embers of ethnic animus. Instead of conserving their energies to
fight genuine hatred when it makes an increasingly rare appearance,
todays race-obsessed liberals see prejudice as often as the white rays of
the morning sun scatter the black shadows of the night. Indeed, Jim Crow might
have survived for years were Parks, King, and their contemporaries as
buffoonish as todays race-propelled Left.
Murdock goes on to list examples of behavior by
those who would claim to "lead" the civil rights movement today. Unfortunately
for the country, these "leaders" refuse to acknowledge the real gains made by
minorities in this country, or to work with conservatives to try solutions to
problems that don't involve massive government control (school vouchers
anyone?). |
|
* * * * * |
|
Women's Rights
11/10/2005
Carrie Lukas &
Michelle D. Bernard write an
article in Nation Review Online about a recent conference
for women in Iraq which provided training about democracy and limited
government.
The Iraqi women wanted to attend this conference because
they want the things embodied in the conference agenda. They want democracy and
a government beholden to its people. They want a limited government, a free
press, and economic liberty. The women who attended represented almost every
ethnic and religious group in Iraq. Some dressed in western garb, while others
wore headscarves. Some were dressed in black abayas, and still others wore the
brightly colored dress of Kurdistan. But they shared a common vision of a free
and democratic Iraq.
The five-day conference provided an overview of the
concepts that underpin a stable, democratic country such as limited government,
religious freedom, and economic liberty. Not only were these fundamental ideas
explored, but there was a "democracy in action" session taught by Rep.
Kay Granger (R.,Tex.), Rep. Tom Osborne (R., Neb.) and several other Members of
Congress dedicated to the practical application of these principles.
Women roleplayed, learning how to lobby and influence policymakers. At the end
of the conference, the women were given ways to continue to work together
through follow up events and communication networks.
Today, these women are working toward their common goal.
They continue to participate in regional conferences to encourage more women to
become politically active. These women can draw upon a women-experts panel,
which consists of some top scholars from around the global, who offer advice
about the ongoing efforts to protect women's rights in the new government. They
continue to partake in networking events so they remain in contact and
coordinate their efforts. And they are making a difference, laying the
groundwork for women's full participation in Iraq's
government. One lunatic with an improvised
explosive device can create such immediate havoc that his actions will dominate
the US news cycle for 24 hours. Yet these 150 women who put their lives and the
lives of their families in jeopardy to blaze the trail for all Iraqi women do
so without notice or recognition for their heroism. They are the reason that so
many of us are hopeful for the future of Iraq and the entire Middle
East. |
|
* * * * * |
|
The Next Nuclear Power?
11/09/2005
The President of Iran,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the destruction of the nation of Israel, as
noted
here.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, cheered by thousands of
supporters, signaled on Friday he stood by his call for Israel to be wiped off
the map, while Iran's foreign ministry sought to defuse a diplomatic
storm.
Israel said it would request an emergency session of the
United Nations Security Council over the comments, which have drawn the
condemnation of the West and Tehran's ally Russia.
Iranians chanting "death to Israel" and "death to
America," converged from nine points in the Iranian capital for a rally
attended by most of Iran's top officials. Some protesters set fire to or
trampled on Israeli and U.S. flags.
Ahmadinejad took a short walk in the crowd, rallying in
support of his comments that the Islamic world could not tolerate the Jewish
state in its heartland. He said Western criticism carried no weight. "My words
are the Iranian nation's words," he told the official IRNA news agency, when
asked if he had a message for the world.
Meanwhile, Iran is ramping up its production of
nuclear power facilities. We are repeated offered assurances that they are
strictly pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and with a leader like
Ahmadinejad, why should anyone worry about his intentions?
Still, Democrats
in Washington remain more worried about Karl Rove than madmen like this, to
their shame and utter unseriousness. |
|
* * * * * |
|
"A Great Struggle of Wills"
11/08/2005
President Bush gave a
funny and stirring speech at the Opening Ceremony for the Air Force One
Pavilion at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.
The entire text of the speech can be foundhere but the funniest part was this:
No matter how many hours he spent in the air, President
Reagan never lost his sense of humor. One of his favorite pastimes on board Air
Force One was prowling the staff cabin with a White House photographer in tow
looking for somebody who was asleep. (Laughter.) He would pose next to the
unknown victim and then send him a signed picture when they got home. (Laughter
and applause.) One day, Secretary of State George Schultz received a photo of
himself asleep with his mouth wide open -- (laughter) -- as the President waved
his arms in mock desperation. The inscription read, "George, wake up, the
Soviets are coming." History will continue to increase the
reputation of our 40th President as a funny, tough, principled, smart leader -
the perfect man for that moment in history. Our history involves a new type of
threat, about which President Bush spoke these words:
Because of Ronald Reagan's leadership, America prevailed
in the 20th century's great struggle of wills. And now in this new century, our
freedom is once again being tested by determined enemies. The terrorists who
attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are followers of a radical and violent
ideology. They exploit the religion of Islam to serve a violent political
vision, the establishment of a totalitarian empire that denies all political
and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call
for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus, and against
Muslims from other traditions who they regard as heretics.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy is elitist,
led by a self-appointed vanguard of Islamic militants that presume to speak for
the Muslim masses. Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that
the innocent can be murdered to serve a political vision. Like the ideology of
communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Like the ideology of
communism, our new enemy is dismissive of free peoples, claiming that men and
women who live in liberty are weak and decadent. And like the ideology of
communism, Islamic radicalism is doomed to fail. (Applause.)
It will fail because it undermines the freedom and
creativity that makes human progress possible and human societies successful.
The only thing modern about our enemy's vision is the weapons they want to use
against us. The rest of their grim vision is defined by a warped image of the
past, a declaration of war on the idea of progress, itself. And whatever lies
ahead in the war against this ideology, the outcome is not in doubt: Those who
despise freedom and progress have condemned themselves to isolation, decline,
and collapse. Because free peoples believe in the future, free peoples will own
the future. President Bush is as idealistic a man as the office of President has
seen since Ronald Reagan. He is a champion of freedom for all people and
history will remember him as a great President, too. |
|
* * * * * |
|
"Tough History is Coming"
11/06/2005
After the busiest
hurricane season in history, a devastating tsunami (Indonesia) and earthquake
(Pakistan), war in the Middle East, nuclear threats from nutcase countries
(Iran and North Korea) and a potential bird flu pandemic, I've had a feeling of
uneasiness settle in over me these last few weeks. It appears that I'm not
alone.
Peggy Noonan wrote
this article in the Opinion Journal Online expressing both
her sense of difficult times and the moral failure of the country's elite from
addressing difficulties head on. She begins:
I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national
political culture right now. In fact I think it's a subtext to our society. I
think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated
and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the
trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way
things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon.
That our pollsters are preoccupied with "right track" and "wrong track" but
missing the number of people who think the answer to "How are things going in
America?" is "Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown
destination."
I'm not talking about "Plamegate." As I write no
indictments have come up. I'm not talking about "Miers." I mean . . . the whole
ball of wax. Everything. Cloning, nuts with nukes, epidemics; the growing
knowledge that there's no such thing as homeland security; the fact that we're
leaving our kids with a bill no one can pay. A sense of unreality in our courts
so deep that they think they can seize grandma's house to build a strip mall;
our media institutions imploding--the spectacle of a great American newspaper,
the New York Times, hurtling off its own tracks, as did CBS. The fear of
parents that their children will wind up disturbed, and their souls actually
imperiled, by the popular culture in which we are raising them. Senators
who seem owned by someone, actually owned, by an interest group or a financial
entity. Great churches that have lost all sense of mission, and all authority.
Do you have confidence in the CIA? The FBI? I didn't think so.
But this recounting doesn't quite get me to what I mean.
I mean I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken
and tough history is coming.
Read the entire article and decide if it is enough
to have made "a separate peace" with what is going on in the world, or to risk
leaving the shelter of our little lives to try and save the world.
Literally. |
|
* * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|