Month: December 2006

Posted on Iraq

saddam’s death

cnn has the story and the video of his execution here(with a graphic content warning) if you really want to see it.

andy mccarthy at NRO:

This is a solemn, important moment. It’s not a joyous one. An evil man deserved to die. His elimination was necessary — not close to sufficient, but necessary — for achieving, over time, a semblance civilized stability in Iraq. The celebration in the streets, though, the dancing and firing guns in the air, does not augur well for that achievement.

This wasn’t victory. It didn’t end suffering. It was, in the heat of a war that has actually gotten more vicious and more uncertain since Saddam’s capture three years ago, the carrying out of an essential but unpleasant duty. It marginally enhances Iraq’s propects, and ours. But Saddam’s death (as opposed to his deposing) has no impact whatsoever on the deep dysfunction and hatred that is rending what passes for Iraqi society. The unbridled display of dancing and shooting says more about that than the death of one man — monstrous though he was — who has been imprisoned for three years.

Saddam’s death is a marker worth observing. It is not something to go up in a balloon over.

saddam’s death won’t heal all wounds he inflicted on his victims, but it will be some measure of justice for them. it was primarily a victory for the iraqi people, not for the united states government. we can breathe a sigh of relief that saddam is gone, and that he will not return to power. that is the only guarantee we have. we can’t guarantee that saddam loyalists will now join the political process and help stabilize iraq’s new government. i hope that they will, but deep ethnic and religious divisions among the iraqi people can’t be bridged without a struggle, even with the death of a dictator.

tags: ,

10 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans

just take the field

things aren’t going so well for senator rodham in her possible bid to be our next president. is it possible that she would decide that ’08 is not her year after all? well…no. just because a few polls haven’t gone her way, that doesn’t automatically translate into votes or a nomination for any of the other contenders. that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take those contenders seriously. there is reason to believe that democrats are not so thrilled about a hillary candidacy, and they are looking for someone else to support in ’08. have they found that someone else in senator barack obama? maybe their savior could be mr. “two americas”.

john edwards and barack obama could pose a threat to hillary’s chances if they can present themselves as that someone else, and perhaps even a more electable someone else. they certainly have the capacity to raise ridiculous amounts of money. edwards is still relatively popular, even though he couldn’t seem to deliver his own state to kerry in ’04. obama has come out of relative obscurity (to the non-political folks at least) to become the next big thing in candidates. i’m always skeptical of that tag because that phrase is used too frequently to have any significant meaning. obama should be wary of all the hype, because eventually the honeymoon will be over and people will start to ask serious questions about his record and whether he has the right experience to hold the highest office in the land.

have we found a worthy democratic nominee in this group? the democrats will get the opportunity to decide that later on this year.

for unabashed mockery of john edwards that you would never find on this blog, enjoy wonkette and scrappleface.

tags: , , ,

4 Comments Posted on Random Musings

paradise still MIA

i don’t know if there is anything left to say about the Christmas holiday that hasn’t been already said. there are those who wish to bash consumerism, materialism, and the american desire to spend insane amounts of money on gifts for each other when there is still so much poverty and need in the world. it’s an old story line, and even though there is always room to make a deeper sacrifice to help those in need, we should always be grateful for what we have. for those who believe in God, we can take another opportunity to thank Him for providing for us, and for being everything that we need. Christmas is a great time to reflect on the past year — the things we have gained, and even what we have lost.

in this life, nothing is ever permanent. everything is temporary. material things get scratched and damaged. relationships and friendships begin and end too soon. wasn’t it the bard who said that it was better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all? the sentiment is true. if you risk nothing, you gain nothing. sometimes you win. sometimes you don’t. sometimes you just have to accept that a friendship is over, no matter how much you love that person, and even though you still don’t understand the reasons for it.

maybe none of this makes sense to anyone but me, but it’s something i had to write.

i would also like to thank my current sparring buddies residing here and here for their kind support, and also to a former blogger and duke basketball fan who keeps this conservative honest.

to my former sparring buddy…thanks for the wild ride and the good times. i have no regrets, and i hope you don’t either. i’m sure you will forgive me someday. happy christmas to you.

to everyone else…Merry Christmas!

Posted on '08 Election, Conservatives, Republicans

good point

ramesh ponnuru on romney and the abortion question:

I think we ought to be unsentimental about this question. Those of us who favor Romney’s position on sanctity-of-life issues ought to care less about its sincerity than about its stability. We ought to care about whether he will abandon the position, that is, not whether he truly believes it. Pro-lifers would win very few votes in Congress if every representative voted his conscience, after all. Presumably a politician is more likely to stick with a position if he deeply believes it; but it is too facile to say that having flipped before, a politician will flop again.

As a test case, I offer the first President Bush. He converted from pro-choice to pro-life, and many questioned his sincerity since the conversion dovetailed so perfectly with his political needs. I myself think that he genuinely became a moderate pro-lifer: But does the answer really matter? He was a steady friend of pro-lifers during his administration, vetoing one pro-abortion bill after another.

If a politician can’t project sincerity even when he is insincere—or worse, can’t do it when he really is sincere—then he is probably in the wrong business. The suspicious timing of Romney’s change of mind may end up dooming his candidacy. But in that case, the most likely beneficiary is John McCain, the sincerity of whose own pro-life convictions has been questioned, and we will have to answer the same questions about him.

if pro-lifers want to support a romney candidacy, that’s really the question we need to ask — whether romney’s current position on abortion will change if he is elected. his earlier interviews weren’t helpful in determining the answer to this. i think that that his apparent change of heart is genuine, but i can certainly understand why many social conservatives aren’t convinced.

dean barnett offers a similar defense of romney’s past record here.

social conservatives will never get everything they want. we have had some of the most socially conservative presidents and some of the most liberal-friendly oval office occupants. what has been gained by the social conservatives as a result of their endorsement of certain candidates? abortion is still legal, gay marriage now exists in several states, and congress couldn’t make any progress on that flag-burning amendment. isn’t it possible that the president of the united states might not have the ability to make any major changes, no matter what his personal beliefs may be on these issues?

the same is true for mitt romney. he was lucky to accomplish as much as he did in massachusetts with the opposition he had.

tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

be careful what you wish for

i will never completely understand why being the president of the united states is such a desirable job. yeah, sure, you get a cool jet to fly around in, and there are quite a few other great perks, but ultimately it’s your job to figure out what to do about iraq. let’s not forget about north korea, china, russia, and iran, other countries we need to keep an eye on. the next president of this country gets to deal with all that, plus he or she will have to figure out how to pass any of their wonderful proposals through congress, while enduring daily abuse by the press and the blogosphere. yep…that’s a job i really want.

of course, if a candidate successfully navigates the gauntlet — that is, the rough-and-tumble campaign for the nomination of their party– and then wins the general election, that does deserve some kind of reward. not every potential candidate has this ability. does obama have it? that is yet to be determined. he hasn’t faced a serious challenge of the type that he will face if he goes head to head with hillary clinton in a fight to be the democrats’ presidential candidate in ’08.

barack obama’s appeal is not so much about who he is, but it is also about who he is not. he’s the anti-hillary. he’s a fresh face with none of the political baggage that she carries. he looks like such a charming guy, and speaks to people from the heart, and it could be easy to forget that his record on social issues isn’t much different from senator clinton’s. democrats aren’t that sold on hillary, and they are actively looking for other alternatives. john fund makes that point here.

i think that the honeymoon will be over for obama when people start to take a harder look at his record, because what they will find out is that there is more to the guy than his positive press clippings and fawning media coverage.

tags: ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

bye bayh

senator evan bayh is not running for president. that’s definitely a surprise to many of us who speculated that he could possibly make a strong run for the white house. of course, all of the speculation was made before the obama hype began. with hillary clinton, barack obama, and the possible entrance of john edwards into the race for the democratic nomination in ’08, there doesn’t seem to be room for another big dog.

here’s senator bayh’s official statement:

During my two terms as Governor and now in the United States Senate, it has always been more about the people I was able to help than the job I held. As you know I have been exploring helping the people of my state and our country in a different capacity. After talking with family and friends over the past several days, I have decided that this is not the year for me to run for President and I will not be a candidate for the presidency in 2008. It wasn’t an easy decision but it was the right one for my family, my friends and my state. I have always prided myself on putting my public responsibilities ahead of my own ambitions.

The odds were always going to be very long for a relatively unknown candidate like myself, a little bit like David and Goliath. And whether there were too many Goliaths or whether I’m just not the right David, the fact remains that at the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue. This path – and these long odds – would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.

I am immensely grateful for the support of my family and friends and the thousands of people around the country who helped me with their time and their resources. There may be no campaign in the near future, but there is much work to be done. When the Senate returns, I will focus on the issues that matter to the people of my state and are critical to the future of the nation including reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating opportunity for middle class families, and implementing a national security strategy that is both tough and smart.

i think that the wrong guy dropped out of the race. it should have been john edwards. edwards has the name recognition, the cash, and the personality to be a strong candidate if he can make a dent in the hillary-obama juggernaut. there’s no denying that on a political level, former senator edwards has everything going for him. he has everything except that lack of experience i mentioned in the previous post, which could keep him from being president. while acknowledging that there probably wouldn’t be a democrat that i could reasonably support in their bid to be the democratic nominee, i think that senator bayh is certainly more credible on national security than former senator john edwards.

senator bayh made a wise choice here. i am not second-guessing his decision here, because the deck was stacked against him. there may be a place for him in ’08 as a possible VP candidate. we will have to wait and see what happens.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

i feel so much better now

once upon a time we had another political lightweight running for president of this country. he was a handsome guy with a nice-looking family. he made his great fortune looking out for the downtrodden while punishing big, bad corporations. only this man could save america from continuing to be the unfeeling monolith it had become under bush 43. america swooned over this guy too, at least until they started paying attention to the obvious holes in his resume.

perhaps you remember this man — i’m referring to former senator and Democratic VP nominee john edwards.

he’s still interested in being president, in case you were wondering about that. someday soon we could all be hearing once again about the two americas, and how these inequalities are the fault of big oil and evil corporations. i can’t tell you how much i’m looking forward to hearing that speech. it always warms the heart to hear proposals for punishing rich people and corporations, suggestions that will somehow exclude senator edwards and his former partner in crime john kerry.

anyway, the shrill shill chris matthews of hardball with chris matthews fame just happened to invite our hero on his college tour. this was home base for edwards, as the show was broadcast from UNC-Chapel Hill. it started out with a discussion of iraq.

MATTHEWS: How many more months of this would you support if you were president now? I know it‘s—you haven‘t announced yet, formally, but with two more years of this administration, should we spend the whole next two years grinding this thing down to its inevitable conclusion and have a couple thousand more American guys killed, another 100,000 Iraqis?

J. EDWARDS: Well, we‘ve got to change and we ought to change dramatically. I mean, I have been saying that for a year or more, that we ought to have a significant drawdown of American presence there to send the signal that we are not going to be there forever and we‘re not there for oil. The president of the United States needs to say that very directly, because the rest of the world does not believe it. They don‘t believe it.

MATTHEWS: He‘s saying the opposite. He‘s talking about permanent bases over there.

J. EDWARDS: That‘s right, and he‘s wrong about that. We have to say the opposite, which is what the Baker Study Group said, we‘re not going to have permanent bases in Iraq and we‘ve got to start pulling our troops out.

MATTHEWS: We‘ve got 140,000 people over there now. How many would you withdraw fairly quickly?

J. EDWARDS: Forty to fifty thousand.

he didn’t answer the question. the question was about a specific timetable for determining whether we can achieve our current goals in iraq or not. it was probably wise not to answer this question, since i’m not sure there is a good answer to it. john edwards simply repeats the tired mantra that we must change our policy, and says that we should significantly reduce our troop presence in iraq. he also says that we should withdraw forty to fifty thousand ‘fairly quickly’, although he still doesn’t say when that could be.

if senator edwards is operating under the assumption that his strategy is what the ISG proposed, he needs to re-read it. it was very clear about the consequences of pulling troops out ‘fairly quickly’, and did not recommend this. the report did make some rather unrealistic assumptions about syria and iran and many other neighboring countries, so i hope that edwards is not completely endorsing the findings of the ISG. it does seem clear, however, that he doesn’t believe we can achieve the goal of a stable iraq. whether that’s true or not, troop withdrawals on the level edwards is suggesting could only hurt our ability to achieve this goal.
Continue reading →

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Moonbats

the dark horse rides again

rejoice, america! there is now a bright light to save us from our warmongering and our stubborn attempts to protect our country and its people from the threats we face from terrorism. one should applaud such a selfless individual, as well as outgoing UN secretary-general kofi annan, for showing us the error of our ways.

so for these and other useful reasons, i am compelled to announce that dennis kucinich, ohio’s #1 useful idiot, has now decided to run for president again.

that will be an interesting addition to a crowded field of democratic candidates, which could possibly include barack obama, al gore, john kerry, john edwards, evan bayh, and other knowns/ unknowns in addition to hillary, who still refuses to tell us that she’s running for president. wake me up when there’s news.

it’s probably going to shake down to obama and hillary, but it’s anyone’s game at this point. except for john kerry. he’s done.

tags: ,

4 Comments Posted on Iraq

unrealism

that is the best way to describe the majority of the baker/hamilton commission (ISG) report. it is long on analysis, and short on workable solutions. full text here(pdf). the most delusional part of this report is the part where the authors insist that neighboring countries such as iran and syria really do want a stable iraq. not only that, but if the united states would just sit down with them and talk to them, they would be willing to help us with stabilizing iraq.

look at recommendation 12 for example. it says:

The United States and the Support Group should encourage and persuade Syria of the merit of such contributions as the following:

• Syria can control its border with Iraq to the maximum extent possible and work together with Iraqis on joint patrols on the border. Doing so will help stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.
• Syria can establish hotlines to exchange information with the Iraqis.
• Syria can increase its political and economic cooperation with Iraq.

i can tell you without help from any commission how well this would work. concessions are only given when the opposition is in a position of strength, like the united states was after the initial invasion of iraq. that’s not where we are now.

even though the ISG acknowledges to some degree that iran is causing some of the instability, it still insists that iran could be persuaded to help us.

look at these recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 10: The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the United Nations Security Council and its five permanent members (i.e., the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China) plus Germany.

brilliant. great idea. more talking and listening, but no effective threats of punishments or sanctions. that will show mahmoud ahmadinejad who’s boss.

RECOMMENDATION 11: Diplomatic efforts within the Support Group should seek to persuade Iran that it should take specific steps to improve the situation in Iraq.
Among steps Iran could usefully take are the following:
• Iran should stem the flow of equipment, technology, and training to any group resorting to violence in Iraq.
• Iran should make clear its support for the territorial integrity of Iraq as a unified state, as well as its respect for the sovereignty of Iraq and its government.
• Iran can use its influence, especially over Shia groups in Iraq, to encourage national reconciliation.
• Iran can also, in the right circumstances, help in the economic reconstruction of Iraq.

again, what does iran get out of the deal? concessions from the rest of the international community? acceptance of its nuclear ambitions? there would be a heavy price to be paid by the rest of the world to get iran’s help with iraq. the same is true with syria.

do we want to do what it would require to get the help of these two countries? that would be very unwise. it is a game we can’t afford to play. surrender is never is a good solution.

related:

Half Baked – NRO editorial
Blogging the Release of the Baker Commission Report’s Recommendations– vital perspective (h/t atlas)
Asking for chaos –frederick kagan (nydn)
Grading the Report— dean barnett (townhall)

tags: , , ,

2 Comments Posted on College Football, Michigan Wolverines, Ohio State Buckeyes, Random Musings

controversy

so it’s ohio state vs. florida for the BCS national championship game. i’m ok with this. michigan fans are not. michigan fans are understandably upset that they don’t get a second chance to beat ohio state. i won’t disagree that the BCS is unfair. i have no doubt that michigan would have given ohio state a good game the second time around, but if we are going to let computers and voters decide who plays in the BCS title game, then we have to live with the results. florida is a worthy choice, and they have just as much right to be in the BCS title game as michigan does.

everybody likes to complain about the BCS. somehow there is never a serious effort to change the BCS or blow it up altogether. maybe after enough universities get snubbed by the BCS, they might decide that there needs to be a drastic change, and then actually do something about it.

tags: , , ,