Democrats

Posted on January 27, 2006 Democrats, Liberals, Moonbats

harmless flirtation…or unholy alliance?

apparently it’s true that john kerry is now blogging at cindy sheehan’s second favorite blog (the first of course is huffpost). i thought that this was something kos made up, because john kerry couldn’t possibly be capable of making such a huge political gaffe. i have now despaired of guessing correctly any future moves by the democratic “leadership”. when you think you have seen everything, there’s always something else that the democrats do to surprise us. as a republican, i totally endorse this strategy by kerry and the democrats. after all, daily kos is a very influential blog. many bloggers would kill (figuratively, of course) for that kind of pull and traffic, me included. so, it makes sense to get the attention of that massive audience. the question is what effect it will have on more moderate kerry supporters?

let me put it to you this way. in relationships, there are those males or females that you would be proud to bring home to mom and dad. then there are the rebels we all love, possibly with tattoos, weird-colored hair, strange hobbies, etc. that’s the role currently played by the inhabitants of daily kos. so here comes john kerry with a convincing line to that audience. does he really want to make a serious commitment to the fringe left of his party? is that a smart move? i say… not so much. mom and pop voter may not be as understanding and as tolerant with kerry’s flirtation with the hard left than members of his own party seem to be. harmless flirtation, or future unholy alliance? you make the call.

Posted on January 25, 2006 Democrats, Republicans

soak the rich — and we all suffer.

liberals and conservatives love to argue about many things, but one issue that produces violent disagreement most often is the question of the redistribution of wealth by government largesse. who decides where the money goes? do we trust them to make smart decisions? judging from what we have seen so far, we are not getting much benefit from the taxes we are paying. at least in some socialist systems, you get healthcare or vacation benefits out of the 30-50+% you pay into that system. this is not to suggest that those socialist countries have discovered something worth copying here in the united states. not at all.

an excerpt from this post on voice potential makes a strong case:

Today, our highest income bracket is truthfully around 40%, a rate that has increased steadily since that time. Its often been said that the wealthiest 20% in the country bear almost 70% of the tax burden. Think about that. Think about all that money that could be reinvested in industry, used to start companies and create more jobs. Then, look at the alternative: a government that parasitically wastes money takes some, skims a little of the top, pays several bloated salaries and distributes a fraction of it back to the poor. Instead of believing in the power of Capitalism, which consistently has proven itself, liberals choose to follow the path that gives the government more and gives the poor less. The economic impact of an unruly tax burden is not only obvious, its crippling.

And sadly, Americans are blind to the real tax burden we face. When we tax industry, who do you think actually pays those costs? Its definitely not CEOs and boards of directors of these mega-corporations. No. Its you and me. They roll the taxes into the price of goods and services, passing them along to consumers. So, when you buy that hammer from Home Depot, youre paying for the taxes on steel, the taxes on the lumber company who purchased the wood, the property taxes for the land to grow the timber, the environmental taxes levied on the steel mill and the lumber mill, the gas taxes on the trucks, the sales tax on the sale of the hammer to Home Depot and the sales tax when you buy the hammer. And if you dont think that adds up, youre not paying attention. Bloated, ridiculous taxes like that dont just negatively affect the wealthiest 10%, they affect all Americans, even the poor.

the fact is that we end up paying for those high corporate taxes, not the businesses, who conveniently include the cost of these taxes in the prices of hammers, cheeseburgers, and so on. dan mitchell at townhall.com agrees.

chris demuth has an excellent piece at the american enterprise online called unlimited government. i recommend reading all of it, even though it is longer than the average blog post. i will quote a few paragraphs from it here.

Second, the principle of limited government is not a bit less urgent today than it was two centuries ago. It has now been 25 years since Ronald Reagan arrived in Washington announcing his intention to check and reverse the growth of government. That quarter century has been governed mainly by Republican Presidents, and increasingly by Republican legislatures, and even the one Democratic President declared that the era of big government is over. Yet the federal governments annual domestic spending doubled during the period, from about $900 billion to about $1.8 trillion (in 2000 dollars). Today the federal governments fiscal imbalancethe excess of projected future expenditures over projected future revenuesis close to $70 trillion. About $20 trillion of this enormous sum was tacked on just in 2003, with the addition of a massive, unfunded Medicare entitlement to prescription drug benefits. Increasing taxes to pay for our standing policy commitments would move U.S. rates to the levels prevailing in todays socialist European nations.

YIKES. many socialist european nations are seeing the negative effects of that policy on their country’s economy. if we don’t do something about spending now, we will see the same negative consequences on our economy that europeans, specifically france and germany, are experiencing. we can learn from our european friends an important lesson– what not to do with tax policy.

In recent years, with the Republicans in charge of both houses of Congress, domestic expenditures (even excluding post9/11 homeland security spending) have been growing faster than during the previous two decades of divided government, and the incidence of pork-barrel projects has reached an all-time high. The 2001-2005 period marks the transformation of the Republican Party from its traditional role as a win-or-lose guardian of limited government to that of a majority governing party just as comfortable with big government as the Democrats, only with different spending priorities.

exactly. the republicans have lost their way and forgotten their small-government roots. this could be one way to attack them in ’06, if the democrats could make coherent arguments about this, and about illegal immigration. these will be key issues. the first party with a plan to tackle some of these things, and with a positive vision for the country, will be the party that will be successful in ’06 and ’08. (it would also help if potential presidential candidates divorced themselves from Kos and democratic underground, but i won’t hold my breath on that…)

if the government didn’t waste our money, it wouldn’t need so much of it. we have to look at all spending to see where we can make cuts, and insist that those changes become permanent. i have heard the argument for increases in social program spending by the government, and what cold-hearted person could be against such a thing? if you really care about the poor, the unemployed, and the homeless, wouldn’t you want them to receive the most money possible to help them get back on their feet? of course you would. the question is: which group would be able to provide the most resources, private charities or the government? while i will grant that non-profits are not always the most frugal with the money we give, our money still goes much further toward meeting our social obligations with them than with the government.

ok…i’m stepping off of the soapbox now. 🙂 your thoughts?

related:
Unlimited Government — chris demuth
America’s capitalist system is creating more wealth and higher incomes— dan mitchell
inherent faith of liberalism — mark ervin of voice potential

Posted on January 19, 2006 Democrats

algore– fighting irrelevancy

original title: pot.kettle.black.

in a speech that was mostly about condemning illegal wiretaps, al gore added this interesting combination of words:

Moreover, in the Congress as a wholeboth House and Senatethe enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption. The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government.

if i’m al gore, and apparently still have the delusion of running for president again, this is not a good attack strategy… not with his fundraising background. two words: buddhist temple.

al gore has quite a bit of nerve condemning people involved with lobbyists. some of his closest personal friends had a few run-ins with similar type people to abramoff, including al’s new friend grover norquist.

democrats: steal this message!

it’s not surprising why virginia chose their new governor tim kaine over jerry kilgore. i don’t know either man very well, but i like tim kaine’s message, and i think it’s a message that other democrats running for election/re-election should adopt. it’s not enough to be against everything that is currently happening in congress and in the executive branch. the democrats (and republicans) need to say what they are FOR. that’s what 1994 was all about — setting an agenda for the country. you can agree or disagree with that agenda, but voters responded to it. more importantly, the democrats need to have a overall positive view of this country’s future, which is something rarely featured in current Dem speeches.

here’s my favorite part from the kaine inaugural address:

First, we reaffirm the necessity of courage. This is the defining trait of those who came to Virginia aboard the Discovery, Godspeed and Susan Constant, landing just a few miles from this place at Jamestown Island in 1607. They knew that earlier efforts, by the Spanish and English, to establish settlements in this region had ended in disaster. But they crossed treacherous seas to arrive at a new world because they understood the need to do and to dare. Their survival and success depended upon bold leadership. We must be equally bold to tackle the challenges of our day.

Second, we acknowledge that individual opportunity is the most powerful engine of progress. The first English settlers came as part of a commercial venture, the Virginia Company, seeking economic riches in the New World. Others came seeking the opportunity to worship as they pleased or to trade away an aristocracy of birth for an aristocracy of merit. When individuals have the opportunity to set their own purpose, and determine the bar for their own achievements, they are able to harness their God-given talents and ensure our economic and social success.

And third, we recognize that our destiny is a shared destiny and that our commitment to community is a condition of our advancement. Our Virginia might not exist today were it not for the generosity extended to those first settlers by the native Virginia tribes living in this region. Without the hospitality of Chief Powhatan or the compassion of Pocahontas, those in Jamestown would have perished. Throughout Virginias history, we have succeeded only when we have welcomed all to the table of Thanksgiving.

first of all, he’s got one fantastic speechwriter, if this isn’t kaine’s original work. having a positive vision and speaking to the values that resonate with voters — that’s the message that democrats need to adopt. they still haven’t figured out that it’s not enough to blame bush for everything wrong with the country and the world at large. the democrats need a unified message. they need to stand FOR something. let’s see how long it takes them to find that message.

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Tim Kaine, Virginia

Posted on January 11, 2006 Democrats

another bad precedent

i’m not talking about roe here. i’m talking about the bork precedent. what happened to judge bork during his confirmation hearings is the reason why we have the carefully scripted SCOTUS nominee answers today. i’m just waiting for alito to forget decorum for a second and say to these long-winded senators, “wake me up when it’s my turn to say something.” while there may have been legitimate questions in there somewhere from the democrats, they didn’t really want to know the answers to those questions. there’s already a filibuster taking place, and both sides are engaged in it. if anyone is expecting any breaking news out of this hearing, they will be sorely disappointed.

some excerpts from FNC:

Of course, almost nothing that occurs during televised confirmation hearings comes close to being spontaneous, said Richard Davis, author of “Electing Justice: Fixing the Supreme Court Nomination Process.”

“Interest groups want Alito to do what Bork did, and take on Kennedy and [California Democrat Dianne] Feinstein, but Republican senators and the White House know that is not how it works,” Davis said. “You dont do a head-on confrontation with these senators. You respond in vague statements, nod your head in response.”

this is the end result of judge bork’s confirmation hearings. both republicans and democrats are complicit in the game. they both pretend to ask questions (while making their own case pro or con) and pretend to want the answers. in this environment, how could SCOTUS confirmation hearings have any other outcome than they have now? if you want unvarnished straight answers from the nominees, then both sides must agree to base their votes on the nominee’s experience instead of his views on roe v. wade. don’t expect that to happen any time soon.

In fact, Democrats may find that is the only argument they have for rejecting Alito. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the ranking member on the panel, said in a statement after day two of the hearing that Alito needs to be more candid.

“Fresh in our memories and experience is the example of the testimony of Chief Justice Roberts, whose consistent answers helped build a record that gave many of us who voted for him the confidence in his candidacy that we needed to have. Judge Alito needs to do more than distance himself from his early, troubling writings and views he needs to explain why his views are different today and that what he says is not simply the pledge of an eager applicant trying to win a job,” Leahy said.

ok. so how much more candid was justice roberts than judge alito? let’s see the numbers from bench memos at NRO. it’s an interesting breakdown.

Judge Samuel A. Alito Answered A Higher Percentage (95%) Of Questions On His Opening Day Of Questioning Than Justices John Roberts (89%) Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg (79%) Did During Their Full Confirmation Hearings.

those poor democrats. they are trying so hard to find something damaging on this guy and they have been unsuccessful so far. they know they are fighting a losing battle here, and their only recourse is to make sure their left-wing special interest constituencies are still in their corner. forget what the rest of us think, because we don’t seem to matter to schumer, kennedy, feingold, and biden.

ALITO WATCH: BIGGEST SENATE WINDBAG–michelle malkin
Justice vs. politics–LA Times
Alito must avoid being ‘Borked’–sfgate.com
bench memos–NRO

Posted on December 21, 2005 Democrats, George W. Bush

the dems’ 2006 plan will self-destruct in 3-2-1

now is not the time to be playing games with our national security and trying to score political points on the bush administration. the democrats are engaged in this effort to bring down the president of the united states any way they can. some are even floating the idea of impeachment, like barbara boxer and john lewis. any presidential abuse of power should be harshly punished and would be considered an impeachable offense in my book. however, that’s not what happened here with the wiretapping/NSA situation.

mark levin:

Moreover, where is the historical precedent for a commander-in-chief, especially during war, being required to ask permission from a court to spy on the enemy, including intercepting communications? Did Abraham Lincoln (Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (World War I), FDR/Harry Truman (World War II), Ike (Korean War), and/or JFK/LBJ/Richard Nixon (Vietnam War) use probable cause as the basis for intercepting enemy communications? Did they go to court each time and ask permission from a judge to intercept foreign intelligence? Of course not. And as pointed out by Byron York and others, recent presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton have all issued presidential orders making clear that while they will attempt to follow FISA, they retain their inherent constitutional authority to gather foreign intelligence, protect our national security, and wage war. The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to al-Qaeda terrorists as they conspire to blow up our cities.

what he said. the president has the constitutional authority to do what he did.

he goes on to say:

The president has not acted in a reckless or lawless way. He has sought and received extensive legal advice from scores of legal experts, many of whom are no doubt civil servants. He has numerous internal checks built into the process, requiring a constant review of procedures. And despite the pronouncements of some on the Hill, certain members of Congress were briefed, i.e., it’s not as if they weren’t aware of the program. Sometimes a president has to do what’s right in his eyes and be prepared to defend it, as Bush is now. We used to call that leadership.

other legal eagles agree, including john schmidt, who was associate attorney general from 1994-1997 under president clinton.

President Bush’s post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

it’s important to note that no actual cases of abuse of the patriot act and its provisions have been alleged, simply the hypothetical possibility of such abuses taking place. also, according to a CNN/gallup/usa today poll… only 34 percent of the public thinks that the patriot act goes too far. sixty-two percent approve of it (44 percent) or think it doesn’t go far enough (18 percent).
(hat tip: nro)

yet some democrats have the temerity to ignore their own personal disregard for privacy (including chuck schumer and his interest in michael steele’s credit records) and act shocked and outraged that the president might want to authorize surveillance on suspected terrorists. it is understandable to be concerned that a president or a government would have the legal right and the desire to listen to our personal phone calls and read our emails. i am concerned about that, but according to what we know right now, it doesn’t seem that any law has been abused in the execution of this program.

the weekly standard’s mackubin thomas owens has more on that point here. i’ll give him the (almost) last word.

Today, once again we face the perennial tension between vigilance and responsibility as the United States is the target of those who would destroy it. In all decisions involving tradeoffs between two things of value, the costs and benefits of one alternative must be measured against the costs and benefits of the other. At a time when the United States faces an adversary that wishes nothing less than America’s destruction, President Bush is correctly taking his bearing from Lincoln, who understood that in time of war, prudence dictates that responsibility must trump vigilance. In response to criticism of his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln asked, “. . . are all the laws but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” Lincoln’s point is as applicable today as it was during the Civil War. If those responsible for the preservation of the republic are not permitted the measures to save it, there will be nothing left to be vigilant about.

i agree with that. if there needs to be changes in the patriot act to better protect the civil liberties of US citizens, fine. the democrats should go ahead and propose those changes. just don’t completely throw away legislation that will help to keep us safe from terrorism simply because one part or another is not acceptable. do you really want to fix the patriot act or do you want to kill it completely? that’s the question to the democrats. make up your minds, gentlemen. choose one position on something.

Privacy hypocrisy–michelle malkin
Patriot Act Showdown–opinionjournal.com
September 10 America— the excellent editorial from national review online

Posted on December 19, 2005 Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

bush to dems: get used to disappointment

here’s some of the highlights of the president’s iraq speech sunday night. read the whole thing at nro.

This work has been especially difficult in Iraq more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

our enemies don’t have any interest in following international law when dealing with their captives. their cruelty to those they have captured doesn’t show the restraint the geneva convention requires, and yet there’s no outrage. why? this doesn’t mean that the united states should abuse prisoners, and those who have have been disciplined for it. i just see a double standard here. if you’re going to criticize abuse, don’t leave out the terrorists and insurgents in that criticism.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

john murtha said that the war couldn’t be won militarily. the president disagrees. our military men and women also disagree. more importantly than that…the terrorists also have shown signs that they share the president’s view of our progress in iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.

and…

In all three aspects of our strategy security, democracy, and reconstruction we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

the president acknowledges that mistakes were made in iraq and that changes have been made to address what has gone wrong there. will his critics give him credit for this admission (that they never expected him to make)? i doubt it. he is right when he says that there is a difference between honest criticism and “defeatism”. mistakes were made. that doesn’t mean that iraq is a quagmire, or unwinnable on a military basis, as some are saying.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.

there’s your case right there. i believe that it’s convincing. you may not.

the president addresses the anti-war crowd.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

this speech was not memorable for its rhetoric…it was memorable for its tone. this is the kind of speech we should have been hearing from the president frequently during this time of war. while it may be true that the authorization of military action originates in D.C., it is the american people whose support will determine the success or failure of any war effort. i am glad that the president is making the effort to get their support.

THE BUSH SPEECH: NO CUT AND RUN–michelle malkin
Reaction to President Bush’s Speech–sfgate.com
Sunnis say they want to work with US–pajamas media

Posted on December 14, 2005 Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

the emperor strikes back

many of us have expressed frustration with the president and his apparent unwillingness to go on the offensive against his critics on iraq. this hands-off approach seems to have changed recently. president bush has not only started giving some speeches including specifics about iraq, but also subjected himself to a round of serious questions with nbc’s brian williams, as well as the audience after his philly speech. here are excerpts from his speeches and the interview.

the president’s interview with nbc’s brian williams

on iraq:

President Bush: Well, John Murtha’s a fine guy. And he’s, you know, he served our nation admirably. I just think he’s wrong. I think the idea of having a, you know, a timetable for withdrawal, does three things that would be bad.

One, it emboldens the enemy. That’s precisely what they want. They want us to withdraw. And and oh, by the way, here, we’re telling them when and how. And they will adjust accordingly.

Secondly, it sends a bad message to the Iraqis. We’ve said to the Iraqis, “We’ll help train you. We’ll stand with you. And we’ll get you on your feet so you can take the fight to the enemy.” And if our commanders on the ground say we’re not ready to, you know, stand down a timetable would dispirit the Iraqis.

Finally, it’ll dispirit our troops. Because our troops know the mission hasn’t been completed. But strategy and my plans are these. I will listen to the commanders. I understand war is objective-based, not timetable-based. And we will complete this mission for the good of the country.

on the perception of the United States globally and especially in arab nations

answering questions in philly after his speech:

Q. Mr. President, I’m a proud U.S. citizen, naturalized, and card-carrying Republican. I voted for you both times. I grew in India, a Sunni. In fact, the President of the Republic of India is a Sunni. And I think it’s a great testimony to this nation that was — the vision of which was laid out within a few — half a mile of here, that somebody like me can be in a position of leadership and be successfully engaged in contributing to the current and future economic well-being of this nation. Mr. President, I support your efforts in Iraq. But I’d like to know what are we going to do in the broader battle in creating a favorable image and reaching out to people across the world, so that people like me all over the world can be passionate supporters of the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I appreciate that. First of all, success will help the image of the United States. Look, I recognize we got an image issue, particularly when you got television stations, Arabic television stations that are constantly just pounding America, creating — saying America is fighting Islam, Americans can’t stand Muslims, this is a war against a religion. And we’ve got to, obviously, do a better job of reminding people that ours is not a nation that rejects religion; ours is a nation that accepts people of all faith, and that the great strength of America is the capacity for people to worship freely.

he understands the need to win the battle in the arab press. what he needs to find is an effective strategy in attacking the negative view of the united states in the arab world. our leaders need to be front-and-center on al-arabiya and al-jazeera, taking questions and presenting our case. if the people only see one side of the argument, it would be easy for them to believe what they are told about america and americans. we should do this, but after a good-faith effort to communicate with the arab world through their television stations, we should be prepared to accept that words may not be enough.

the president continues his answer.

It’s difficult. I mean, their propaganda machine is pretty darn intense. And so we’re constantly sending out messages, we’re constantly trying to reassure people, but we’re also — we’re also acting. And that’s what’s important for our citizens to realize. Our position in the world is such that I don’t think we can retreat. I think we have a duty and an obligation to use our vast influence to help.

I cite two examples of where I think it will make a big — of where American image in the Muslim world will be improved. One is the tsunami. The tsunamis hit; it was the United States military, through the USS Abraham Lincoln, that provided the logistical organization necessary to get the — to get the — to save a lot of lives. We moved. A lot of people kind of sat around and discussed; not us. We saw a problem and we moved.

Same in Pakistan. The earthquake in Pakistan is devastating. The United States of America was first on the scene. We got a lot of kids flying choppers all around that country providing help and aid.

And so I guess what I’m saying to you is, is that a proper use of influence that helps improve people’s lives is the best way to affect — to change the image of country, and to defeat the propaganda.

i agree with this. one way to win friends and influence people is to help with logistics and finances during natural disasters, such as the tsunamis and the earthquakes the president mentioned.

from his speech to the CFR in D.C. on the reconstruction efforts in iraq:

Reconstruction has not always gone as well as we had hoped, primarily because of the security challenges on the ground…

In the space of two-and-a-half years, we have helped Iraqis conduct nearly 3,000 renovation projects at schools, train more than 30,000 teachers, distribute more than 8 million textbooks, rebuild irrigation infrastructure to help more than 400,000 rural Iraqis, and improve drinking water for more than 3 million people.

Our coalition has helped Iraqis introduce a new currency, reopen their stock exchange, extend $21 million in micro-credit and small business loans to Iraqi entrepreneurs. As a result of these efforts and Iraq’s newfound freedom, more than 30,000 new Iraqi businesses have registered since liberation. And according to a recent survey, more than three-quarters of Iraqi business owners anticipate growth in the national economy over the next two years.

This economic development and growth will be really important to addressing the high unemployment rate across parts of that country. Iraq’s market-based reforms are gradually returning the proud country to the global economy. Iraqis have negotiated significant debt relief. And for the first time in 25 years, Iraq has completed an economic report card with the International Monetary Fund — a signal to the world financial community that Iraqis are serious about reform and determined to take their rightful place in the world economy.

With all these improvements, we’re helping the Iraqi government deliver meaningful change for the Iraqi people. This is another important blow against the Saddamists and the terrorists. Iraqis who were disillusioned with their situation are beginning to see a hopeful future for their country. Many who once questioned democracy are coming off the fence; they’re choosing the side of freedom. This is quiet, steady progress. It doesn’t always make the headlines in the evening news. But it’s real, and it’s important, and it is unmistakable to those who see it close up.

matt margolis at blogs for bush agrees.

abc news has interesting iraqi poll numbers here. to sum it up: the results are mixed. three quarters of iraqis are confident about the upcoming elections. 70% approve of the new constitution. the same percentage, of a group containing both sunnis and shiites, believe that iraq should have a unified government. there is a definite split between sunni and shiite perception for possible improvement in iraq over the next year, with shiites holding a more positive view.

from the breakdown of the poll:

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a “single strong leader.”)

Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there. However, in a sign of the many challenges ahead, this optimism is far lower in Sunni Arab-dominated provinces, where just 35 percent are optimistic about the country’s future

more positive economic news:

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country. In early 2004, 6 percent of Iraqi households had cell phones; now it’s 62 percent. Ownership of satellite dishes has nearly tripled, and many more families now own air conditioners (58 percent, up from 44 percent), cars, washing machines and kitchen appliances.

there are many interesting components to this poll. one of the most interesting is the 45% that want the U.S. to “leave now” (26%) or to pull out right after the elections (19%). this poll has some good news and bad news for the bush administration. the iraqis are positive overall about the elections, the future of the government, and the possibility of improving conditions in iraq over the next year. they still have concerns about the handling of the war by the united states and coalition forces. they are unsure whether their country has improved since the invasion, which is understandable, because there is still much work to be done with security and reconstruction. perception would also vary by region, because of the variability of each region’s progress toward these goals. i think this poll has a more complete, balanced picture than we have seen so far.

this is a good strategy for the president –to take his message directly to the american people. showing that there were changes made in the initial strategy to make the post-war operation more effective than it has been in some areas will improve his credibility and his poll numbers. will he continue to take this approach?

Brian Williams: …And will you keep doing this, having these conversations?

President Bush: I will. I’ll keep taking my message to the people in a variety of formats. It’s one way for me to be able to communicate directly with people. And, I unfortunately don’t get to edit what’s on your newscast.

On the other hand, I do know that by giving a speech that’s broadcast say, on some of these channels that broadcast speeches, more and more people will be able to hear my side of the story, which is very important for the president to be able to do. And I enjoy it. I enjoy getting out and being with I know listen, in the audience, I realize everybody didn’t agree with me. But that’s I’m confident in my message. And I am anxious to be able to talk to those that, you know, are willing to listen. I thought the reception was warm. And I appreciated it.

people can think for themselves, with no needed assistance from the MSM. make your case, mr. president. it’s up to you, not to the GOP or conservative bloggers. we’re listening.

related:
Operation Skinner: Major Success In Iraq-from california conservative
The voting has begun! (updated)–iraq the model (with pics!). actually, just read the whole blog.

Posted on November 30, 2005 Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

another view on iraq

this is one opinion that won’t get as much coverage as john murtha’s statements to the press. senator joe lieberman just returned from iraq, and he has a slightly different perspective on how things are going over there than murtha does.

sen. joe leiberman on iraq:

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of Iraq’s duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America’s commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November’s elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

that’s how we can lose our political will to stay until iraq is stabilized. both republicans and democrats see the writing on the wall and obsess over the polls, which is why you won’t see many in washington (outside of the bush administration) echoing what lieberman says here.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

i agree with senator leiberman. he goes on to admit that mistakes were made initially, but says that we are making changes to correct some of those mistakes.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan–Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the “build” part of the “clear, hold and build” strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future–and why the American people should be, too.

this is good news. we should listen to both sides of the argument and decide for ourselves which strategy makes more sense, keeping in mind the motivations of each side for their position on iraq. i have been critical of senator leiberman in the past for disguising his views while he was al gore’s VP pick, but he has been a strong supporter of the war in iraq from the very beginning, and he has always been consistent on this issue.
former U.S. secretary of state henry kissinger weighs in (courtesy: breitbart.com):

“I think to look at withdrawal from Iraq … could lead to disaster,” said Kissinger, who served as the top US diplomat in the administrations of presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

“We have to keep in mind what our objective should be, and if we leave Iraq under conditions at the end of which there will be a radical government in Baghdad, or part of the country becomes a haven for terrorism, it will have turned into a disaster that will affect the whole world,” Kissinger said in an interview with CNN television.

i will give the last word on this to iraq the model.

on the upcoming elections:

On the other hand, a war of words and speeches is growing among the different parties and candidates and two points issues to be taking more attention here, these are corruption accusations and the recurrence of former Ba’ath members in some lists.

Some candidates, namely Laith Kubba pointed out that he has political bombs regarding the above issues that will be revealed soon. Kubba who leads his own list has also challenged Ahmed Chalabi for an electoral debate.

However, people in the street think that candidates should focus more on their political platforms rather than on exchanging accusations and allegations.

the iraqis get it. i wish american politicians would figure this out.

from the post: The way to the parliament: fighting with posters and sometimes bullets.

I never had doubts in the hidden intentions of those in Iraq who keep saying that multinational troops must leave Iraq soon; they say their demands are essential for national sovereignty coming out of their patriotic feelings for Iraq while I see them as far as they could be from patriotism.

If those people put Iraq’s and Iraqis’ interests first, they wouldn’?t have asked the US to leave Iraq while the troops missions are yet to be accomplished and the Iraqi national forces are still not capable of protecting the country and the citizens.

We all know why some insist that US must leave or keep calling the presence of these troops an occupation. The problem is that the ordinary citizen here cannot talk about this in public for fear of being labeled as an agent or collaborator with the occupation and what can an unarmed citizen do to face such an accusation coming from this or that militia.

What pushes these politicians and militias to take this attitude is their dream of regaining sovereignty but not national sovereignty; it is their sovereignty over Iraq.

What is keeping these liars from making a large scale coup over the democratic change is the presence of coalition troops that are protecting the new Iraq.

Our newfound democracy is suffering a lot from the evil of neighboring dictatorships and the legacy of Saddam’s dictatorship and I see the only guarantee to the growth of our democracy until its institutions are firm enough and well established lies in the presence of coalition troops for a longer time. This requires not only the preparation of Iraqi security forces but goes beyond that to protecting the democracy until it passes the danger zone.

whether we like it or not, we will have to stay in iraq until the country is stabilized. we owe it to the iraqis who have risked their lives to vote in the elections (and to vote for the constitution) to see this through. we owe it to our soldiers who died to give iraq this new hope for a better future. at this point, we need to stop fighting about WMDs and playing political games. there’s more at stake than the political fortunes of the DC elite. what we are talking about is the future of iraq, and both sides need to stop playing games with that future.

Posted on November 25, 2005 Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

iraq exit strategy: win, then leave

“the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.” –george orwell

i’ve said previously that rep. murtha should not be subject to personal attacks on his reputation and character just because he dared to question the bush administration’s iraq strategy. i still believe that. however, there are some major flaws in his public statements and his suggestion for immediate troop withdrawal from iraq, as bill kristol and robert kagan point out in this weekly standard article.

according to that article:

Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that “our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence.” This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of “incidents” against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed–almost all of them supporting the coalition’s goals and harming the insurgents.

there are some areas where our iraq strategy needs to be improved. i don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest such a thing. but as kagan and kristol point out, we can succeed in iraq if we have the patience to see the mission to completion. at this point, i can’t say i believe that the american people are convinced that we can win in iraq. that’s what the polls seem to suggest. it is discouraging to me, as i’m sure it is to many other americans, that complete victory in iraq may take longer than we thought that it would.

an article by james fallows in the current atlantic monthly has a sobering look at post-war iraq strategy. the following quotes are from that article.

Let me suggest a standard for judging endgame strategies in Iraq, given the commitment the United States has already made. It begins with the recognition that even if it were possible to rebuild and fully democratize Iraq, as a matter of political reality the United States will not stay to see it through. (In Japan, Germany, and South Korea we did see it through. But while there were postwar difficulties in all those countries, none had an insurgency aimed at Americans.) But perhaps we could stay long enough to meet a more modest standard.

What is needed for an honorable departure is, at a minimum, a country that will not go to war with itself, and citizens who will not turn to large-scale murder. This requires Iraqi security forces that are working on a couple of levels: a national army strong enough to deter militias from any region and loyal enough to the new Iraq to resist becoming the tool of any faction; policemen who are sufficiently competent, brave, and honest to keep civilians safe. If the United States leaves Iraq knowing that non-American forces are sufficient to keep order, it can leave with a clear conscienceno matter what might happen a year or two later.

the whole article is brilliant. it’s worth getting a trial subscription to read more than the provided excerpt. the idea is that in order to get the iraqi army to the level of readiness it needs to keep the peace in iraq, it will require a longer commitment than the american people will support. unfortunately, i think this analysis is dead-on. the polls are already bruising the president on the iraq war. while i don’t believe any president should navigate by polls, i’m not sure that this war can succeed without the support of the american people. timetables are misguided, as i’ve said before, but the bush administration will continue to lose support for the war unless they can point to successful operations that resonate with the non-politicos in this country.

for the non-political blog post, please scroll down and enjoy the pandas. 🙂

unfiltered