Thursday, September 30, 2004
Mythology and Mythmaking (redux)
Okay, so blogger ate my posting. Anyway here it is again, an commentary from the Village Voice about the flaws in the "good ol' boy" cowboy image that Bush is trying to cultivate.
While American soldiers gave the Iraqi children candy during a celebration over the openning of a new sewage facility, the enemies of a free Iraq slaughtered them.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
CBS getting involved in the draft rumors. Apparently Drudge has linked to a few blogs regarding this story.
Putting the Cat Out
"I am a victim of an unjust and arbitrary system, hastily imposed, that serves only to belittle America's image as a defender of the civil liberties that so many dearly struggled and died for over the centuries," Islam writes.
If Mr. Stevens was talking about transportation security, then I would heartily agree with one thing: it is an unjust and arbitrary system. When Norm Mineta refused to allow the profiling of air passengers, he pretty well assured that not only will airport security be less effective, but it will also be a major pain in the rear for all of us. But that is not what Mr. Stevens was referring to. Instead, he was upset at being on a Homeland Security watch-list and ultimately deported from the U.S.
To clear up some facts about Mr. Steven’s ordeal:
First, no civil liberties were violated. None. The U.S. Constitution does not give foreigners a right to enter the U.S. I know of several people who have been unable to gain entrance visas (mostly student and work visas) back into the U.S. for unknown reasons, and each of those instances is more tragic than Mr. Stevens supposes his instance to be, because those others had spouses or loved ones already in the country or were trying to finish their education, etc. Still, the U.S. is perfectly within its rights to deny entrance to any foreigner coming into the country.
Second, despite Mr. Steven’s belief to the contrary, there have been no allegations levied by the U.S. against him to suggest that he is somehow connected with terrorism. He was not arrested or charged with any wrongdoing. He was simply on a watch-list. The U.S. was not entitled to make any allegations whatsoever in order to deport him.
Now, there are a couple of reasons why he may have been flagged. It may have been a spelling error. Or, it may have been that he donated money to front groups that fund organizations like Hamas. It really doesn't matter. It was not illegal, unethical or immoral to turn him away from our shores.
But it seems that Yusuf mainly wants to paint himself as a victim. In the first sentence of his official statement, Yusuf declares:
“First, I thank God for relieving me of my ordeal and delivering me home safe; also, thanks to all those who prayed for me and supported me through this whole dark episode, from eminent politicians, the press and religious leaders, to plain, everyday people.”
This statement comes in the same week that two American civilians in Iraq were beheaded followed by an Englishman. It seems that they would have a better claim to terms like “ordeal” or “dark episode.” I’m sorry to Yusuf if I cannot spare much sympathy for his dramatic deportation from the U.S.A., but that’s simply because it loses significance when compared to how infidels have been treated by radical Muslims.
He’s being a bit heavy-handed when he frets: “The most upsetting thing at this point was being separated from my daughter, Maymanah, not knowing how she was or when and where we might be united.” Really? Afraid she might be mistreated or executed, were ye?
And then he goes on to describe that his family was “relegated to watching the whole frightening episode on TV and surviving on scraps of information shown by the media.” Frightening? Surviving on scraps of information? Did his family suppose that the U.S. would lop of his head or toss him eternally into Guantanamo Bay? It was not as if he was some Palestinian summarily executed by some radical Palestinian terror gang on a Gaza street, or some gay Egyptian arrested at a party because of his sexual orientation, or some civilian beheaded by radical Islamists in Iraq or some hapless Sudanese refugee poisoned by Syrian gas. It’s not as if he spent any time at all in the prison of virtually any Islamic country.
He was simply deported.
Mr. Steven’s victim plea comes off as arrogant and misdirected. He seems completely oblivious as to why Homeland Security might have such a list in the first place. I don’t believe that Mr. Stevens is a terrorist, or even a threat to our national security. It may have even been possible to feel for him if he had simply gone quietly back without making any stink, or saying something like “I’m disappointed in how this situation was handled, but understand that the watch-list is meant to help provide some security for the American people. That such a bureaucratic incident occurred is to be expected.”
But no such statement came from is lips. Instead of looking where the real misery in the world is, he directs the attention on himself and willingly, nay, eagerly accepts the mantle of victim.
There’s an excellent scene in a John Ford western called Wagon Master where some settlers are the guests at an Indian camp. Two of settlers compromise the integrity of one of the Indian women. Before the tribe has a chance to enact their own punishment on the two white men (and very likely the rest of the wagon train) the wagon-master has the two men tied to a wagon wheel and mercilessly whips the snot out of them in front of the Indians.
Moderate Islam should take notes. It has been insufficient in dealing with the radical parts of their own religion. It’s not enough to condemn the 9/11 attacks or the Beslan slaughter, like Yusuf has done. That is merely lip service. Instead, if he’s upset that his donations to some Islamic charity may have resulted in his name on a watch list, then perhaps he should look towards the charity organization that he supports. The sad truth is that if only 1% of Islamic charity organizations secretly fund terror groups, the rest are tainted, especially if moderate Muslims come across as unable or unwilling to weed out the rotten eggs. The U.S. government (or any western government) is going to be ill equipped to know which organization is good and which is bad. However, someone like Yusuf, who has been inside the Islamic community for a third of a century could be more effective by scrutinizing the charity organizations he donates to and calling on them to be more transparent. If Yusuf could break himself away momentarily from playing the victim, perhaps he could spare some energy towards stopping the loons that have hijacked his religion and made a mockery of good will and righteousness. It’s not a question of just or unjust, but rather the law of the jungle that says that somebody is going to have to confront radical Islam. One would think that corrective action from peace-loving Muslims, like Mr. Stevens, is preferrable to some inevitably ham-fisted U.S. action.
If Mr. Stevens was talking about transportation security, then I would heartily agree with one thing: it is an unjust and arbitrary system. When Norm Mineta refused to allow the profiling of air passengers, he pretty well assured that not only will airport security be less effective, but it will also be a major pain in the rear for all of us. But that is not what Mr. Stevens was referring to. Instead, he was upset at being on a Homeland Security watch-list and ultimately deported from the U.S.
To clear up some facts about Mr. Steven’s ordeal:
First, no civil liberties were violated. None. The U.S. Constitution does not give foreigners a right to enter the U.S. I know of several people who have been unable to gain entrance visas (mostly student and work visas) back into the U.S. for unknown reasons, and each of those instances is more tragic than Mr. Stevens supposes his instance to be, because those others had spouses or loved ones already in the country or were trying to finish their education, etc. Still, the U.S. is perfectly within its rights to deny entrance to any foreigner coming into the country.
Second, despite Mr. Steven’s belief to the contrary, there have been no allegations levied by the U.S. against him to suggest that he is somehow connected with terrorism. He was not arrested or charged with any wrongdoing. He was simply on a watch-list. The U.S. was not entitled to make any allegations whatsoever in order to deport him.
Now, there are a couple of reasons why he may have been flagged. It may have been a spelling error. Or, it may have been that he donated money to front groups that fund organizations like Hamas. It really doesn't matter. It was not illegal, unethical or immoral to turn him away from our shores.
But it seems that Yusuf mainly wants to paint himself as a victim. In the first sentence of his official statement, Yusuf declares:
“First, I thank God for relieving me of my ordeal and delivering me home safe; also, thanks to all those who prayed for me and supported me through this whole dark episode, from eminent politicians, the press and religious leaders, to plain, everyday people.”
This statement comes in the same week that two American civilians in Iraq were beheaded followed by an Englishman. It seems that they would have a better claim to terms like “ordeal” or “dark episode.” I’m sorry to Yusuf if I cannot spare much sympathy for his dramatic deportation from the U.S.A., but that’s simply because it loses significance when compared to how infidels have been treated by radical Muslims.
He’s being a bit heavy-handed when he frets: “The most upsetting thing at this point was being separated from my daughter, Maymanah, not knowing how she was or when and where we might be united.” Really? Afraid she might be mistreated or executed, were ye?
And then he goes on to describe that his family was “relegated to watching the whole frightening episode on TV and surviving on scraps of information shown by the media.” Frightening? Surviving on scraps of information? Did his family suppose that the U.S. would lop of his head or toss him eternally into Guantanamo Bay? It was not as if he was some Palestinian summarily executed by some radical Palestinian terror gang on a Gaza street, or some gay Egyptian arrested at a party because of his sexual orientation, or some civilian beheaded by radical Islamists in Iraq or some hapless Sudanese refugee poisoned by Syrian gas. It’s not as if he spent any time at all in the prison of virtually any Islamic country.
He was simply deported.
Mr. Steven’s victim plea comes off as arrogant and misdirected. He seems completely oblivious as to why Homeland Security might have such a list in the first place. I don’t believe that Mr. Stevens is a terrorist, or even a threat to our national security. It may have even been possible to feel for him if he had simply gone quietly back without making any stink, or saying something like “I’m disappointed in how this situation was handled, but understand that the watch-list is meant to help provide some security for the American people. That such a bureaucratic incident occurred is to be expected.”
But no such statement came from is lips. Instead of looking where the real misery in the world is, he directs the attention on himself and willingly, nay, eagerly accepts the mantle of victim.
There’s an excellent scene in a John Ford western called Wagon Master where some settlers are the guests at an Indian camp. Two of settlers compromise the integrity of one of the Indian women. Before the tribe has a chance to enact their own punishment on the two white men (and very likely the rest of the wagon train) the wagon-master has the two men tied to a wagon wheel and mercilessly whips the snot out of them in front of the Indians.
Moderate Islam should take notes. It has been insufficient in dealing with the radical parts of their own religion. It’s not enough to condemn the 9/11 attacks or the Beslan slaughter, like Yusuf has done. That is merely lip service. Instead, if he’s upset that his donations to some Islamic charity may have resulted in his name on a watch list, then perhaps he should look towards the charity organization that he supports. The sad truth is that if only 1% of Islamic charity organizations secretly fund terror groups, the rest are tainted, especially if moderate Muslims come across as unable or unwilling to weed out the rotten eggs. The U.S. government (or any western government) is going to be ill equipped to know which organization is good and which is bad. However, someone like Yusuf, who has been inside the Islamic community for a third of a century could be more effective by scrutinizing the charity organizations he donates to and calling on them to be more transparent. If Yusuf could break himself away momentarily from playing the victim, perhaps he could spare some energy towards stopping the loons that have hijacked his religion and made a mockery of good will and righteousness. It’s not a question of just or unjust, but rather the law of the jungle that says that somebody is going to have to confront radical Islam. One would think that corrective action from peace-loving Muslims, like Mr. Stevens, is preferrable to some inevitably ham-fisted U.S. action.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Flip-flopper In Chief, or, George Goes All Wobbly
The Bush administration is talking about pulling out of Iraq next year, regardless of the outcome. Note that the article is not by Alterman or rather, but by Novak.
Scare Tactics!
Democrats unleash the Bush-will-start-the-draft talking point:
Web logger Betsy Newmark said that college students at the University of Arizona have been getting an e-mail that says: "There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S 80 and HR 163, to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.
"The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election."
There are bills in the House and Senate calling for reinstitution of conscription. They have attracted a handful of sponsors and cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats.
Web logger Betsy Newmark said that college students at the University of Arizona have been getting an e-mail that says: "There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S 80 and HR 163, to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.
"The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election."
There are bills in the House and Senate calling for reinstitution of conscription. They have attracted a handful of sponsors and cosponsors, all of whom are Democrats.
Message to Old Europe:
Do not underestimate the power of the wand.
Incidentally, Kerry said to NPR last week that Bush has shown a lack of imagination regarding how to deal with our reluctant allies and get them to help in alternate ways. One thing he suggested was to load Iraqis on a 747 and send them off to Europe to be trained. Well, I'm not sure what type of aircraft they are using, but it seems like we're already doing that according to the article:
"Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so."
Incidentally, Kerry said to NPR last week that Bush has shown a lack of imagination regarding how to deal with our reluctant allies and get them to help in alternate ways. One thing he suggested was to load Iraqis on a 747 and send them off to Europe to be trained. Well, I'm not sure what type of aircraft they are using, but it seems like we're already doing that according to the article:
"Berlin already trains Iraqi security forces outside Iraq and France has said it would do so."
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Tax cuts as a moral issue
Cutting income, estate, and dividend taxes while not cutting spending by the same amount, continuing to promise entitlements, and even expanding entitlements (prescription drug benefit) is morally wrong. Allowing continued and even increased spending means that we're passing on a tax hike to the next generation. Not to mention that it's taking money out of my pocket (in the form of the payroll tax) and putting it into rich people's pockets.
As of December 2003, I have paid in $13,090 into Social Security and $3,074 into Medicare. My employers have met that same amount. All that for a service that I will probably never see.
Call it putting lipstick on a pig, but if a president cannot fix a broken system with a surplus (or at least, closer to running in the black then the country is now) and with approval ratings over 80%, he's not politically courageous. He's simply pandering for votes with his tax cuts.
Lastly, about 1/3 of the national debt is held by foreigners. The deeper in debt we go, the more vulnerable we are to foriegn interests. China and Japan are the two largest foreign holders of U.S. Treasury bonds. If China decided to take their investments elsewhere, our economy could be hosed.
As of December 2003, I have paid in $13,090 into Social Security and $3,074 into Medicare. My employers have met that same amount. All that for a service that I will probably never see.
Call it putting lipstick on a pig, but if a president cannot fix a broken system with a surplus (or at least, closer to running in the black then the country is now) and with approval ratings over 80%, he's not politically courageous. He's simply pandering for votes with his tax cuts.
Lastly, about 1/3 of the national debt is held by foreigners. The deeper in debt we go, the more vulnerable we are to foriegn interests. China and Japan are the two largest foreign holders of U.S. Treasury bonds. If China decided to take their investments elsewhere, our economy could be hosed.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Some blogs blocked for troops
With little rhyme or reason. Coincidentally, my girlfriend works for Websense, the company providing the filtering service for the Air Force.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Nostalgia
It’s nice to see someone praising the score of Where Eagles Dare. I remember watching that credit sequence over and over, copied off a grainy squished channel 34 print. What a great movie. Probably the best from an Alistair McLean book. Guns of Navarone is a better novel, and an excellent film, but it lacks the catharsis of Clint Eastwood mowing down Nazis by the score. It also lacks hot Bavarian cleavage.
Where Eagles Dare has great atmosphere, and Richard Burton is at his coolest. Plenty of plots and counter plots and counter-counter plots.
Lileks is too harsh on American military music. Who can possibly dislike "Anchors Aweigh"? Sheesh! All that Victory at Sea stuff is great.
Where Eagles Dare has great atmosphere, and Richard Burton is at his coolest. Plenty of plots and counter plots and counter-counter plots.
Lileks is too harsh on American military music. Who can possibly dislike "Anchors Aweigh"? Sheesh! All that Victory at Sea stuff is great.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Revised Answers to Steve's Questions
First, perhaps you should say Republican friend, singular, as the other conservative members of this blog have been virtually silent.
Going after Hussein before getting bin Laden:
I’m not sure it was an either/or situation. Had we not gone into Iraq, would we now have bin Laden? I really don’t think you can put the rest of the war on hold until you capture a man that no one has seen for three years. Who knows when we’ll catch him. I’m not fully convinced that Osama’s not buried in the rocks somewhere.
I don’t see how you can make the argument that the war is best fought by doing one thing at a time, especially when the enemy is in many places at once doing several things at a time. The War on Terror is not just about Osama or al Qaeda, but a web of terror networks that spawn from a depraved midsection of the world.
Also, I apologize if I come across as an armchair general. That is certainly not my intention. My view is that I simply believe we should fight this war aggressively on multiple fronts, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. The overall strategy of going after states that support terror is one that I believe is sound. I try to refrain from “generalship” and leave the specifics up to the commanders. I also realize that even successful wars are a mess, so there is no point confusing victory with perfection.
Tax cuts:
To me, it is a moral issue. Money is property and belongs to the person that earned it. Government does not have a mandate (so far as I know) to redistribute wealth. However, government is responsible for national security and upholding constitutional freedoms. As such, taxes are necessary, but they should be as minimal, and they should cut evenly. I personally believe in a flat tax, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As for now, the rich get the bigger part of the tax cut because they pay the most taxes. Who am I to say that a dollar for a millionaire is not more precious than a dollar for a pauper? Most hand-to-mouth people I know piss their money away as it is (including myself). I have religious feelings about sharing wealth, but that does not mean that I can impose those feelings on others? I am not currently in the income bracket to fully enjoy the tax cuts, but someday I plan to be. (When I get a chance, I’ll look at my tax records and get back to you on that). I have recently joined the investing class, and the dividend tax cuts (I wish they were eliminated altogether) will be welcome. At first, since my dividends are still small, those cuts will be small. However, since I plan on increasing my wealth, I look forward to having a fair and (if Bush can come through during a second term) simplified tax code to help me gain wealth. Once I gain wealth, it's my business about what I do with it.
Tax cuts on the economy:
Most economists that I read (except Paul Krugman) seem to agree that tax cuts and tax certainty (i.e. making the tax cuts permanent) encourage investment, which encourages economic growth, which will create business and jobs. It’s an immense topic and I don’t pretend to know half of it, but I’m learning, slowly but surely. I’m still trying to figure out how much the deficit plays into things. I do believe that part of the reason why a big nation like the U.S. has better unemployment figures than smaller European countries (or the rest of the world, for that matter) is that it taxes lighter and puts more emphasis on individual freedom. Also, the tax cuts are meant for long-term benefit and haven't all gone into effect yet, so it’s impossible to estimate its effects this quickly. However, I certainly think they've played a part in the recovery. I know you don't want to hear about numbers so much, but allow me this one: in 2001 the CSMonitor was posting massive layoffs on an almost daily basis. Since the tax cuts, that trend stopped and has turned around. Aside from a slow mid summer period, this year has posted some pretty steady job creations. Those numbers mean something. When there were 9 democrats running for office, the talking point was that Bush lost 3 million net jobs. Now, Kerry is forced to say it's under a million. Considering that you agreed that the job hemorraging at the beginning of Bush's term was not due to Bush, I'm not sure what your gripe is.
No Child Left Behind:
I don’t have children at the present time, but it does not take much revisionist history to realize that education has been problematic throughout civilization -especially universal education. In fact, such a thing was not feasible until the last two hundred years. I’m not sure what you expect, but to think that a single initiative by the federal government, which accounts for an average of less than 6% of funding for public schools, is going to turn around education is just not realistic. I don’t know how this plan will work out, but I’m willing to give it time. I think that if the federal government is going to give money to schools, then they should set criteria. The schools can always opt out of the funding if they believe they can do better without it. Ultimately, education reform is going to come about locally. I think vouchers are an interesting alternative that I would like to see tried.
Defense of Marriage:
I oppose any amendment to the Constitution, whether for gay marriage or foreigners wanting to run for President. I strongly support leaving the Constitution alone. However, I don’t mind settling the issue of gay marriage through the amendment process. Why? For a couple of reasons. I would rather have the states decide through the legislative branch what is legal and what is not. If unelected judges decide that marriage can constitutionally be same sex, then forty-nine states will have to recognize Massachusetts law. Again, I have no qualms about same sex marriage, but I think it should be decided by the states. At least a amendment has to get a 2/3 vote through congress and then pass through three fourths of the state. At that point, Massachusetts is still able to approve gay marriage, but no other states are obligated to uphold their law. At least, that is how I understand it. The second reason: despite the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with same sex marriage, I don’t see how there’s enough support to pass the amendment. Ultimately, I know some conservatives see gay marriage as a long term threat, but since I don't share that view so I hesitate to explain that position.
The PATRIOT Act:
I don't know all the ways that this act has been used effectively, but I noticed that during the 9/11 Comission hearings, people from both sides of the aisle testified that it was long overdue. Not only am I not a armchair general, I'm not an armchair lawyer or cop either. If people in law enforcement thinks it will help them fight terror, and I don't see significant violations in civil liberties, then I say go for it. I have no problem at all about tweeking the law before renewing - strengthening it in some areas and cutting other areas out.
Whether it is due to the war abroad or the PATRIOT Act at home, I have taken note that there has not been a major terror attack on this soil since 9/11. I attribute that to us and not to the terrorists. I'd like to see that trend continue.
Ultimately, for 2004, I'm a single issue voter. It's about the war. That my candidate supports tax cuts, the 2nd Amendment, overhauling social security, and supporting judges that take a strict interpretation of the Constitution is all gravy.
In short: 1) I feel safer when we are fighting the war aggressively and everywhere; I'm not an armchair general, I'm an armchair cheerleader; 2) tax cuts promote investment in the economy; 3) No Child Left Behind is not an end-all reform measure, but deserves time to work; 4) I believe that government should stay out of the bedroom, and the bedroom should stay out of government; and 4) the only thing regrettable about the PATRIOT act is its awful name.
Going after Hussein before getting bin Laden:
I’m not sure it was an either/or situation. Had we not gone into Iraq, would we now have bin Laden? I really don’t think you can put the rest of the war on hold until you capture a man that no one has seen for three years. Who knows when we’ll catch him. I’m not fully convinced that Osama’s not buried in the rocks somewhere.
I don’t see how you can make the argument that the war is best fought by doing one thing at a time, especially when the enemy is in many places at once doing several things at a time. The War on Terror is not just about Osama or al Qaeda, but a web of terror networks that spawn from a depraved midsection of the world.
Also, I apologize if I come across as an armchair general. That is certainly not my intention. My view is that I simply believe we should fight this war aggressively on multiple fronts, militarily, economically, and diplomatically. The overall strategy of going after states that support terror is one that I believe is sound. I try to refrain from “generalship” and leave the specifics up to the commanders. I also realize that even successful wars are a mess, so there is no point confusing victory with perfection.
Tax cuts:
To me, it is a moral issue. Money is property and belongs to the person that earned it. Government does not have a mandate (so far as I know) to redistribute wealth. However, government is responsible for national security and upholding constitutional freedoms. As such, taxes are necessary, but they should be as minimal, and they should cut evenly. I personally believe in a flat tax, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As for now, the rich get the bigger part of the tax cut because they pay the most taxes. Who am I to say that a dollar for a millionaire is not more precious than a dollar for a pauper? Most hand-to-mouth people I know piss their money away as it is (including myself). I have religious feelings about sharing wealth, but that does not mean that I can impose those feelings on others? I am not currently in the income bracket to fully enjoy the tax cuts, but someday I plan to be. (When I get a chance, I’ll look at my tax records and get back to you on that). I have recently joined the investing class, and the dividend tax cuts (I wish they were eliminated altogether) will be welcome. At first, since my dividends are still small, those cuts will be small. However, since I plan on increasing my wealth, I look forward to having a fair and (if Bush can come through during a second term) simplified tax code to help me gain wealth. Once I gain wealth, it's my business about what I do with it.
Tax cuts on the economy:
Most economists that I read (except Paul Krugman) seem to agree that tax cuts and tax certainty (i.e. making the tax cuts permanent) encourage investment, which encourages economic growth, which will create business and jobs. It’s an immense topic and I don’t pretend to know half of it, but I’m learning, slowly but surely. I’m still trying to figure out how much the deficit plays into things. I do believe that part of the reason why a big nation like the U.S. has better unemployment figures than smaller European countries (or the rest of the world, for that matter) is that it taxes lighter and puts more emphasis on individual freedom. Also, the tax cuts are meant for long-term benefit and haven't all gone into effect yet, so it’s impossible to estimate its effects this quickly. However, I certainly think they've played a part in the recovery. I know you don't want to hear about numbers so much, but allow me this one: in 2001 the CSMonitor was posting massive layoffs on an almost daily basis. Since the tax cuts, that trend stopped and has turned around. Aside from a slow mid summer period, this year has posted some pretty steady job creations. Those numbers mean something. When there were 9 democrats running for office, the talking point was that Bush lost 3 million net jobs. Now, Kerry is forced to say it's under a million. Considering that you agreed that the job hemorraging at the beginning of Bush's term was not due to Bush, I'm not sure what your gripe is.
No Child Left Behind:
I don’t have children at the present time, but it does not take much revisionist history to realize that education has been problematic throughout civilization -especially universal education. In fact, such a thing was not feasible until the last two hundred years. I’m not sure what you expect, but to think that a single initiative by the federal government, which accounts for an average of less than 6% of funding for public schools, is going to turn around education is just not realistic. I don’t know how this plan will work out, but I’m willing to give it time. I think that if the federal government is going to give money to schools, then they should set criteria. The schools can always opt out of the funding if they believe they can do better without it. Ultimately, education reform is going to come about locally. I think vouchers are an interesting alternative that I would like to see tried.
Defense of Marriage:
I oppose any amendment to the Constitution, whether for gay marriage or foreigners wanting to run for President. I strongly support leaving the Constitution alone. However, I don’t mind settling the issue of gay marriage through the amendment process. Why? For a couple of reasons. I would rather have the states decide through the legislative branch what is legal and what is not. If unelected judges decide that marriage can constitutionally be same sex, then forty-nine states will have to recognize Massachusetts law. Again, I have no qualms about same sex marriage, but I think it should be decided by the states. At least a amendment has to get a 2/3 vote through congress and then pass through three fourths of the state. At that point, Massachusetts is still able to approve gay marriage, but no other states are obligated to uphold their law. At least, that is how I understand it. The second reason: despite the fact that a majority of Americans disagree with same sex marriage, I don’t see how there’s enough support to pass the amendment. Ultimately, I know some conservatives see gay marriage as a long term threat, but since I don't share that view so I hesitate to explain that position.
The PATRIOT Act:
I don't know all the ways that this act has been used effectively, but I noticed that during the 9/11 Comission hearings, people from both sides of the aisle testified that it was long overdue. Not only am I not a armchair general, I'm not an armchair lawyer or cop either. If people in law enforcement thinks it will help them fight terror, and I don't see significant violations in civil liberties, then I say go for it. I have no problem at all about tweeking the law before renewing - strengthening it in some areas and cutting other areas out.
Whether it is due to the war abroad or the PATRIOT Act at home, I have taken note that there has not been a major terror attack on this soil since 9/11. I attribute that to us and not to the terrorists. I'd like to see that trend continue.
Ultimately, for 2004, I'm a single issue voter. It's about the war. That my candidate supports tax cuts, the 2nd Amendment, overhauling social security, and supporting judges that take a strict interpretation of the Constitution is all gravy.
In short: 1) I feel safer when we are fighting the war aggressively and everywhere; I'm not an armchair general, I'm an armchair cheerleader; 2) tax cuts promote investment in the economy; 3) No Child Left Behind is not an end-all reform measure, but deserves time to work; 4) I believe that government should stay out of the bedroom, and the bedroom should stay out of government; and 4) the only thing regrettable about the PATRIOT act is its awful name.
Just Curious...
Since it seems to be getting shrill around these parts concerning Mythical WMDs, historical revisionism on elections (stolen or whatever) or when a world body criticizes the United States by voicing the opinions of the rest of the planet...
I would like to hear from our republican friends why it was so necessary to go after Hussein when we were after (and quite possibly close to capturing) Bin Laden? Erm... wouldn't it have been better to finish one job before starting on another? Maybe this has been addressed before... but I want to read it succinctly stated (hopefully minus a flow chart, diagrams and lots of quotes from other blogs/news services/ whatever)
Or better yet, how about taking a break from the armchair generalship (as I'm sure our republican friends are mighty military commanders in their wargames or wherever it is they work out these brilliant strategies) and please tell me how their candidate is going to help things back home.
Please explain to me how the economy has improved thanks to the tax cuts... or marked improvements that the "no child left behind" act has made in American education... or perhaps to keep a little bit closer to the flavor of the times of late - how the Patriot Act has kept America safe. To venture into the absurd - let's even look at what if's. Like the defense of marriage act... please explain to me how this would improve the lives of americans. Really, I want to know.
And now here's the tricky part.
Instead of just quoting from the blogosphere... how about telling me how such things have made you feel safer, or you child has been better educated, or your job position has been improved. Or your marriage is better off for nearly having been made a constitutionally protected instituion. How have the tax cut and that 300~600 dollars we got way back in the day has overall improved your life?
Seriously, I'd like to hear it. Granted, I may critique it, but for now, I just want to hear some of the positive things you feel that Bush has done here.
I would like to hear from our republican friends why it was so necessary to go after Hussein when we were after (and quite possibly close to capturing) Bin Laden? Erm... wouldn't it have been better to finish one job before starting on another? Maybe this has been addressed before... but I want to read it succinctly stated (hopefully minus a flow chart, diagrams and lots of quotes from other blogs/news services/ whatever)
Or better yet, how about taking a break from the armchair generalship (as I'm sure our republican friends are mighty military commanders in their wargames or wherever it is they work out these brilliant strategies) and please tell me how their candidate is going to help things back home.
Please explain to me how the economy has improved thanks to the tax cuts... or marked improvements that the "no child left behind" act has made in American education... or perhaps to keep a little bit closer to the flavor of the times of late - how the Patriot Act has kept America safe. To venture into the absurd - let's even look at what if's. Like the defense of marriage act... please explain to me how this would improve the lives of americans. Really, I want to know.
And now here's the tricky part.
Instead of just quoting from the blogosphere... how about telling me how such things have made you feel safer, or you child has been better educated, or your job position has been improved. Or your marriage is better off for nearly having been made a constitutionally protected instituion. How have the tax cut and that 300~600 dollars we got way back in the day has overall improved your life?
Seriously, I'd like to hear it. Granted, I may critique it, but for now, I just want to hear some of the positive things you feel that Bush has done here.
Kofi's Conscience
In the wake of Kofi’s recent comments claiming that the U.S. invasion was illegal, (I’m not sure how that squares with UN resolutions 1441, 1511 and 1546, but I digress) it is prudent to look at a more egregious crime against humanity.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Why WMDs are Still a Valid Reason for the Iraqi Invasion and Why Circumstantial Evidence is Enough
And a little bit about the state of our intelligence
I don’t think that the WMD argument proved false. Granted, the stockpiles haven’t been found & many believe won’t be found, but it was not necessarily the stockpiles that were a threat to the U.S. so much as Saddam’s ability to make WMDs and provide them to terrorists. And we know that he had dormant programs, and we still firmly believe that he intended to restart them. In fact, many on the left have been quick to acknowledge Saddam’s possession of chemical weapons whenever they could blame the U.S. for providing them, so I fail to see how they rationalize that he did not have them in 2003. What has been found to suggest that Saddam would not have been able to supply terrorists with WMD? In fact, after the USS Cole bombing, Iraqi intelligence seemed open to providing al Qaeda with help in procuring chemical weapons. That threat was too real to ignore. In a post 9/11 world, the burden of proof was with the dictator to convince us that he meant no harm. He failed by not upholding the provisions of 1441.
As for keeping Saddam in a box, the clock was ticking on that. It was only through U.S. military pressure that weapons inspectors were able to get back into Iraq - costly military pressure. Certainly France, who had routinely opposed inspections and previous UN resolutions throughout the decade before, knew that it would hurt the U.S. to keep a large force cramped in Qatar, indefinitely, while the inspection charade dragged on. The longer the inspections went, the more difficult it was going to be for us to use those forces to advance a solution. There were only two options: 1) Saddam could come clean; or 2) the clock would run out.
Since Bush’s job is to protect the U.S., he had to assume the worst regarding Saddam. Given the intelligence, given the trauma of 9/11 on our economy, culture and security, given Saddam’s aspirations, how could Bush justify not toppling Saddam? Since he had been blamed for not connecting the dots with 9/11, how on earth could he explain another catastrophe that might have been facilitated by Iraq? He was looking at a region that was breeding and supporting terrorism. We definitely know that Saddam and the Taliban supported terror. We know that Saudi Arabia supported terror. We know that Egypt supports terror. We know that Syria, Libya, and Iran all support terror. The “stability” of the Middle East produced 9/11. That status quo was unacceptable. So who to go after first? When a cheetah hunts, it goes after the weakest in the herd. In this case, after the Taliban, it was the country that we had been exchanging fire with on a routine basis for the past 12 years and had 17 UN resolutions against it, making it outside the community of nations. It was the country with a dictator that had a vested interest in keeping the Middle East oppressed and problematic for the West.
Obviously Iraq is not the only threat. There’s Iran and Saudi Arabia. Look at the map. As Iran continues its support of nuclear weapons, is it not better that the U.S. has it pinched between Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey? It looks like a nasty zit, ready to pop if need be.
Going back to stockpiles…that we haven’t accounted for what was once out there is very troubling. I’m probably the only person on the planet who doesn’t believe that our intelligence was an overwhelming failure, but I was still alarmed at how little we knew. I was surprised to learn that the CIA did not have agents operating in Iraq. Subsequently, I doubt we have agents in N. Korea (though I hope to God S. Korea does) or Iran. We obviously have a lot of work to do on our intelligence in order to fight this war, but that does not mean we have the luxury of putting it off. We don’t. We put it off for over a decade and instead of changing our intelligence to fit the new threat, we concentrated on budget cuts. I don’t think Clinton should be singled out as the only culprit for this – we were all asleep. It was the climate of the 90’s. But that period is over.
I don’t think that the WMD argument proved false. Granted, the stockpiles haven’t been found & many believe won’t be found, but it was not necessarily the stockpiles that were a threat to the U.S. so much as Saddam’s ability to make WMDs and provide them to terrorists. And we know that he had dormant programs, and we still firmly believe that he intended to restart them. In fact, many on the left have been quick to acknowledge Saddam’s possession of chemical weapons whenever they could blame the U.S. for providing them, so I fail to see how they rationalize that he did not have them in 2003. What has been found to suggest that Saddam would not have been able to supply terrorists with WMD? In fact, after the USS Cole bombing, Iraqi intelligence seemed open to providing al Qaeda with help in procuring chemical weapons. That threat was too real to ignore. In a post 9/11 world, the burden of proof was with the dictator to convince us that he meant no harm. He failed by not upholding the provisions of 1441.
As for keeping Saddam in a box, the clock was ticking on that. It was only through U.S. military pressure that weapons inspectors were able to get back into Iraq - costly military pressure. Certainly France, who had routinely opposed inspections and previous UN resolutions throughout the decade before, knew that it would hurt the U.S. to keep a large force cramped in Qatar, indefinitely, while the inspection charade dragged on. The longer the inspections went, the more difficult it was going to be for us to use those forces to advance a solution. There were only two options: 1) Saddam could come clean; or 2) the clock would run out.
Since Bush’s job is to protect the U.S., he had to assume the worst regarding Saddam. Given the intelligence, given the trauma of 9/11 on our economy, culture and security, given Saddam’s aspirations, how could Bush justify not toppling Saddam? Since he had been blamed for not connecting the dots with 9/11, how on earth could he explain another catastrophe that might have been facilitated by Iraq? He was looking at a region that was breeding and supporting terrorism. We definitely know that Saddam and the Taliban supported terror. We know that Saudi Arabia supported terror. We know that Egypt supports terror. We know that Syria, Libya, and Iran all support terror. The “stability” of the Middle East produced 9/11. That status quo was unacceptable. So who to go after first? When a cheetah hunts, it goes after the weakest in the herd. In this case, after the Taliban, it was the country that we had been exchanging fire with on a routine basis for the past 12 years and had 17 UN resolutions against it, making it outside the community of nations. It was the country with a dictator that had a vested interest in keeping the Middle East oppressed and problematic for the West.
Obviously Iraq is not the only threat. There’s Iran and Saudi Arabia. Look at the map. As Iran continues its support of nuclear weapons, is it not better that the U.S. has it pinched between Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey? It looks like a nasty zit, ready to pop if need be.
Going back to stockpiles…that we haven’t accounted for what was once out there is very troubling. I’m probably the only person on the planet who doesn’t believe that our intelligence was an overwhelming failure, but I was still alarmed at how little we knew. I was surprised to learn that the CIA did not have agents operating in Iraq. Subsequently, I doubt we have agents in N. Korea (though I hope to God S. Korea does) or Iran. We obviously have a lot of work to do on our intelligence in order to fight this war, but that does not mean we have the luxury of putting it off. We don’t. We put it off for over a decade and instead of changing our intelligence to fit the new threat, we concentrated on budget cuts. I don’t think Clinton should be singled out as the only culprit for this – we were all asleep. It was the climate of the 90’s. But that period is over.
Monday, September 20, 2004
Kerry doesn't understand the war
from yahoo
Kerry said Monday, "Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."
Kerry ignores the pre-war debate about attacking a country before it was an imminent threat. He also fails to acknowledge the evidence that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda (I realize that others on this blog don’t believe any Iraq/al Qaeda links. Too bad that you don’t consider very real circumstantial evidence in such a link to be as credible as fake memos and ax grinding charges from Bill Burkett towards our president).
He said Bush's invasion of Iraq has created a crisis that could lead to unending war and raises questions about whether Bush's judgment is up to presidential standards. He offered his own four-point plan starting with pressing other nations for help.
_ Get more help from other nations.
_ Provide better training for Iraqi security forces.
_ Provide benefits to the Iraqi people.
_ Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.
? Wow! Kerry is sooo creative!
"By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war," Kerry said. "If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded."
I haven’t counted the reasons, myself, but I know there were more than one. And each one, including WMDs, holds up.
Kerry said Bush's two main rationales — weapons of mass destruction and a connection between al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 attacks — have been proven false by weapons inspectors and the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks.
Again, the deliberate blurring of al Qaeda and 9/11. (Note: even a Saddam-9/11 link hasn’t been proven false. Kerry should know that.)
Conclusion: Not only is the Bush/Cheney ticket the only sane one on the ballot, but I believe Bush is the only elected official in DC that is as patient as the terrorists.
Kerry said Monday, "Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."
Kerry ignores the pre-war debate about attacking a country before it was an imminent threat. He also fails to acknowledge the evidence that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda (I realize that others on this blog don’t believe any Iraq/al Qaeda links. Too bad that you don’t consider very real circumstantial evidence in such a link to be as credible as fake memos and ax grinding charges from Bill Burkett towards our president).
He said Bush's invasion of Iraq has created a crisis that could lead to unending war and raises questions about whether Bush's judgment is up to presidential standards. He offered his own four-point plan starting with pressing other nations for help.
_ Get more help from other nations.
_ Provide better training for Iraqi security forces.
_ Provide benefits to the Iraqi people.
_ Ensure that democratic elections can be held next year as promised.
? Wow! Kerry is sooo creative!
"By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war," Kerry said. "If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded."
I haven’t counted the reasons, myself, but I know there were more than one. And each one, including WMDs, holds up.
Kerry said Bush's two main rationales — weapons of mass destruction and a connection between al-Qaida and the Sept. 11 attacks — have been proven false by weapons inspectors and the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks.
Again, the deliberate blurring of al Qaeda and 9/11. (Note: even a Saddam-9/11 link hasn’t been proven false. Kerry should know that.)
Conclusion: Not only is the Bush/Cheney ticket the only sane one on the ballot, but I believe Bush is the only elected official in DC that is as patient as the terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
