2 Comments Posted on Random Musings

just a little self-promotion

it has become a tradition in the blogosphere to note milestone posts or blog anniversaries…and i’m all about keeping up with these traditions. so this is the official announcement of the one year anniversary of this blog. thanks to everyone who has commented here. i appreciate it very much.

here’s how this whole thing started:
(from random musings on live 8)

perhaps we have lost our ability to believe in something bigger than ourselves. we can easily lose sight of the bigger picture when we get bogged down in the details. we look at the fortunate fools who still believe and trust in the power of a big dream, and we are envious. we are envious because we used to be where they are. we know better now. we are smarter, too smart to believe, to dream, or to act like our lives mean something. here’s to the ones who haven’t become jaded and cynical enough to settle for being ordinary. dreamers with a plan can change the world. we have seen it throughout history. we can’t all be singers, or actors, or people with a great big stage to influence huge crowds of people. but we all have a part to play. we all can make a difference where we are.

here’s a few more of my favorite posts from the past year(will open in new window):

coming up… thoughts on lamont/lieberman, baseball prediction revisions, and more on the plame affair that wasn’t. stay tuned. 🙂

2 Comments Posted on Iraq

there’s an interesting idea

interesting perspective by ralph peters on our treatment of terrorists. the overall idea is that we should kill them in battle instead of capturing them. it makes a lot of sense. excerpt here.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral – or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans – but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies – beyond the pale of law.

i’ve never understood the inclination to give terrorists the same rights as prisoners of war. the rules of engagement have changed. we can’t apply the same rules in this case. not only that, but as peters points out, the enemy we face does not fit the description of prisoners of war laid out in the geneva conventions. i’m not an expert in international law, but i do think that modification of this and similar treaties is necessary to deal with the current threat we are facing with terrorists and those affliated with terrorists.

i’m not suggesting that there should be no guidelines for terrorist treatment. there should be a clear idea of what is acceptable and what is not in interrogation of enemy combatants, terrorists, or legitimate prisoners of war. we just can’t get into this politically correct mentality where we don’t take the threat to our country and to other countries seriously. we are getting to the point where we are looking to international law to determine what the united states is allowed to do.

this bothers me. the increasing dependence on international law to determine the actions of the united states, a sovereign nation, is a disturbing trend. the responsibility of the united states government should first be to its citizens, and its primary duty is to ensure america’s safety and security. if the UN or the EU or any foreign body makes treaties or laws that threaten to take away our ability to defend our country from our enemies, the united states shouldn’t be obligated to sign on to any such treaties. i’m not sure what is so hard to accept about such a proposition.

we can set guidelines for interrogation, but we also must keep in mind the nature of the enemy the world faces today. we may need to modify existing treaties and our current laws to effectively deal with the terrorist threat. we just can’t allow those who are confirmed to be terrorists back into iraq and afghanistan to cause more chaos. it’s hard enough for us to win in those two countries as the situation stands right now.

Technorati Tags: , ,

6 Comments Posted on Editorials, Iraq

patriotism

yesterday was a great day. july 4th is worth celebrating. there’s something totally right with the way america celebrates independence day. we eat food that wouldn’t be the first choice of any legitimate medical professional, we recognize the outstanding job our military men and women have done and are doing now, and we shoot off big, noisy, pretty explosives. some of us are even lucky enough to watch some live baseball games. 🙂 what’s not to love about that? if you want to be cynical and adopt the predictable connection the left would make with the fireworks, and the explosives going off in iraq right now, go ahead. however, i believe that the left’s opposition to the way we celebrate july 4th is about more than just being against the war in iraq. it is about seeing patriotism as blind support of everything our country does and says. that’s not what patriotism means.

why is that it has suddenly become popular to oppose patriotism? is it such a crime to believe that the united states is the best country in which to live and that it is a country that gives its citizens the best opportunity for happiness and prosperity? is it so terrible to show respect to the men and women of our military, whether or not we agree with their mission? that’s what i would consider patriotism. we can have an overall positive view of the united states without whitewashing the flaws we do have as a country. there can be dissent. there’s nothing wrong with objecting to the policies of the bush administration on various subjects. many of us do. the problem is that what may have started out as honest, principled disagreement has turned into america-bashing.

here’s the difference between dissent and america-bashing. dissent says, “i disagree with this policy for reasons x, y, and z. here’s what we should do instead.” america-bashing is something that has now become chic for the elite enlightened leftists. the message generally expressed is less of a constructive criticism and it is primarily designed to make an emotional appeal to the conspiracy theorists.

here’s a good example of what i’m talking about, from our favorite pro-peace advocate, cindy sheehan.

The star-spangled banner, which I can now see whipping in the wind outside of an airport terminal where I am writing this from does not fill me with pride: it fills me with shame and that flag symbolizes sorrow and corruption to me right now. The flag represents so much lying, fixed elections, profiting by the war machine, high gas prices, spying on Americans, rapid erosion of our freedoms while BushCo literally gets away with murder, torture and extreme rendition, contaminating the world with depleted uranium, and illegal and immoral wars that are responsible for killing so many. A symbol which used to represent hope to so many around the world now fills so many with disgust.

i am probably going to catch a little flak for writing this, but I sincerely believe that there are some on the left who are rooting for america to fail in iraq. they keep bringing up vietnam as an example for how we should handle iraq. we lost in vietnam. do we really want to adopt a strategy based on a war that we lost? it’s one thing to say that we need to look at whether we have made enough progress in iraq at this point, or whether we need to re-adjust our strategy to deal with the current status on the ground. the goal should be to finish the job. the strategy should focus on the best way to do that.

you can disagree with the bush administration on iraq. you can be violently opposed to some other policy decisions he’s made. the freedom to speak out against any of these bush policies is a freedom that was bought and paid for with the lives of the united states military. that’s why we need to respect their sacrifice, regardless of our feelings about their current mission. we need to make sure they have the resources they require to finish the job in iraq. once that happens, both sides will get what they want – the troops will start coming home.

Technorati Tags: , ,

10 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

suggestions for republicans

iraq is not a black-and-white issue. that’s something i think both republicans and democrats should keep in mind in all of their election prep work, whether it’s for the november election this year or the presidential election in ’08. i’ll get to my suggestions for republicans in just a minute, but i want to address this first, because i think that the democrats may be misreading the mood of the american people on iraq.

there is a very comprehensive pew research poll here that has mixed results for the bush administration on the views of the american people on the iraq war. while the american people may disagree with bush’s handling of the war, a small majority of them generally believe that we should stay until iraq is stabilized. i realize that public opinion is split on whether we are winning in iraq or not, but i’m fairly certain that most of us would agree that we should win. that’s why even though bush’s iraq strategy isn’t terribly popular, the democrats’ calls for withdrawal from iraq are even less popular. the american people see those calls for withdrawal as some kind of admission of failure in iraq, and that’s something that most of us don’t want to accept.

i don’t believe that withdrawing troops at this point in the war is the best strategy. others may disagree. that’s fine. let’s have the debate, but let’s have an honest one.

keeping this in mind…i offer the following suggestions to my fellow republicans for november ’06:

  • don’t run from iraq. if you voted for the war, admit it. don’t waffle. point out some of the good things happening there, ie. elections, death of zarqawi, completion of new iraqi government. the thing to remember is that whether we agreed or disagreed with the war, the future of iraq is what we have to be concerned about now. we need to finish what we started there.
  • acknowledge mistakes but don’t dwell on them. the voters may forgive you for those mistakes or they may not. it will depend on (if you’re an incumbent) your overall record.
  • if you are in the senate and you voted against the senate immigration bill proposing amnesty to illegal immigrants, make sure to point this out. illegal immigration has become a huge issue, especially in border states. those who are concerned about this issue want to know that their representatives are taking this seriously and that they will put a higher priority on border security than on temporary worker programs.
  • any support of the house immigration bill should be emphasized as well. border security, not rewarding those who break the law, etc, are phrases that will resonate with people. if we really value the american worker, we should always give them the first opportunity to get any available job here in this country. we must hold employers accountable to only hire workers who are legally able to work in this country, and punish the ones who disobey the law.
  • know your audience. find out the important issues to the voters that you will be representing. be able to articulate why you believe what you believe, whether you have a sympathetic audience or not. focus on areas where you can agree with the view of that audience.
  • values, values, values. this is the main difference between republicans and democrats right now…not that democrats are all heathen hell-bound folks, because they are not. it’s fair to say, however, that on issues of concern to social conservatives and christians, they can find more common ground with us than with the democrats. i don’t think i have to spell out what those common values are.
  • always be positive about america, the state you want to represent, and the future of both. sell yourself as the best choice, not as the alternative to a bad choice. constant negativity is a turn-off to voters. we want to be positive and optimistic about where our country is going. give us that opportunity.

that’s my advice. if karl rove gives you different advice, then please listen to him instead. 🙂

10 Comments Posted on Democrats, Editorials

strategery

what is more important to the democrats – winning elections or fighting over iraq? some might suggest that the war in iraq is so polarizing that the democrats can take back control of the white house, and possibly even pick up some congressional seats in the fall, BY fighting with the bush administration over iraq policy. i’m not so sure about that. being against the war in iraq is a legitimate point of view. i’m not saying it isn’t. it’s just that making this the main qualification for a candidate might not be the best strategy for the democrats.

lucky for the democrats, i’m here to help them with their strategy. no mortal human being can completely fix the fissure currently on display with the democratic party between the centrists and those who are, um…not so centrist. total unity between those two groups may not be possible. however, there are ways for the democrats to appeal to more voters, as long they start thinking more in big picture terms.

larry sabato asks several questions that democrats will have to answer when deciding the best strategy for picking a presidential candidate who could win the ’08 election. ***while it’s true that his questions have the most relevance to ’08 strategy, i believe that some of these questions also come into play when discussing potential congressional candidates. In some current mid-term races, the question of whether to throw their support behind someone like ned lamont in connecticut who opposes the iraq war, or joe lieberman who supports it and several other policies of the bush administration, is something currently being debated in democratic circles.  it’s all part of the big picture as far as i’m concerned. ***

now to the questions.

“will they…

  • … help themselves by nominating the candidate most likely to win, or will they insist on ideological purity?
  • ….choose a person with broad popular appeal, or pick a controversial standard-bearer?
  • …broaden their base, or merely attempt to produce the highest turnout possible among liberal constituency groups, a tactic that failed in 2004?
  • …find a nominee fully able to compete with a Republican on national security, or simply hope to skate by on this greatest of all issue-clusters in the current age of terrorism?

for the first question, the answer to it should be pretty obvious. you go for the candidate who can get you the most votes, and the candidate who is the most electable.

controversial standard-bearers are only useful if they force electable candidates to re-think their positions on issues, or change them to appeal to those sympathetic to that person’s views. people who admit to unpopular views aren’t usually electable. maybe there are exceptions to this, but the conventional wisdom is usually true in this area.

how many votes can you get from the aforementioned liberal constituency groups? even if a majority of the people in those groups vote, my guess is that the democrats might be a few votes short. aren’t the democrats supposed to be famous for their inclusion, “big tent” philosophy, etc? so why not prove this inclusion by letting those who are in the minority on issues like abortion and the war in iraq have equal access to their party? broaden the base.

national security is important post 9/11. the voters want to know that their candidate’s party has a credible plan for national security. this plan should be more specific than “we won’t do what bush is doing”. it should include not only an alternative to iraq policy, but also a strategy to deal with securing our country’s borders. border security and tougher enforcement of current immigration law is essential as part of an overall national security plan.

i think the voters are smart enough to know when a candidate is pretending to be something he or she is not. so i think the democrats should say what they believe, and be willing to make the argument for why they believe it. if your position is defensible, defend it. it’s not about how awful, terrible, and horrible you think bush is. it’s about why voters should elect you. sell yourself.

my last bit of advice may be more cosmetic than any of the others, but this is something i don’t usually see from the modern democratic party. the spice girls called it “positivity”. be positive. america’s a great country. we have problems. there are inequalities in our society. nothing is ever perfect. we still should have hope and optimism that, in spite of everything going on in the world today, america’s best days are still ahead. i believe that. i would love to hear something like this from the democrats. that’s how reagan inspired the people of this country.

so those are my suggestions for the democrats. i just hope this is one of the days the dnc doesn’t come to visit this blog. i also hope, as always, that they will not take my suggestions seriously.

1 Comment Posted on Democracy, Iraq

that’s a good question

what is more important to iraq and iraqis as they look toward their future: liberty or democracy? one doesn’t automatically equal the other. while it’s true that democracy is generally preferable to other systems of government, it may not produce desired results in other areas. it may not produce the free society that we all want for the iraqis. in his attempt to simplify the message, president bush has distorted it. you can have liberty without democracy, but you won’t always have both.

maybe we should shift our focus from one to the other. we have elections there, and that’s great, but without removing the restrictions on individual rights, will the iraqis notice much of a change? their new constitution suggests that there will be more freedoms for the iraqi people. we shall see how well that constitution is enforced.

Technorati Tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on Random Musings

closing time

relax. i’m not talking about this blog. it’s still going to be around to annoy my misguided friends on the left, unfortunately for them.  one of my favorite political bloggers is officially calling it quits.  a few of you may know the british guy i’m referring to, who wrote that little blog known as the cognoscenti. i have enjoyed reading his work in the past, even though i passionately disagreed with just about everything he had to say. i wish him well and hope that he changes his mind about blogging someday.  if you have enjoyed that blog as much as i did, stop by and leave him a comment. thanks. 

more politics to come.

5 Comments Posted on Editorials

what she meant to say

if you were looking for a diplomat, she wouldn’t be the first person on your list. if miss manners was out sick one day, you woudn’t ask this woman to ghostwrite her column. she is often abrasive and doesn’t really care too much about the feelings of her critics on the right and on the left. she gets paid handsomely for saying and writing outrageous things. that doesn’t mean ann coulter can’t possibly be right.

i totally disagree with the way ann coulter has framed this question of whether a victim should be immune from criticism just because of their status as victims. i certainly wouldn’t say exactly what she said about the jersey girls. i think it’s a low blow to say those kinds of things about anyone who has suffered a loss like those women have. i’ve never been in their shoes, and i can’t identify with their loss. that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have the right to criticize what they say and what they do just because they lost their husbands on 9/11.

being a victim doesn’t make you immune from criticism. this means you, cindy sheehan and michael berg. we can feel sorry for their losses, but this doesn’t automatically make them experts on foreign policy. it also doesn’t give their statements and arguments any more weight than they would have otherwise.

that’s what i think coulter was trying to say, and if that’s what she meant, then i agree with her.

3 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

about that religion of peace

religions of peace don’t behead people. people of peace do not make signs promoting violence. the late ayatollah khomeini’s words would have spun all this conventional wisdom to the contrary on its head. if its proponents tell the truth about the kind of islam they are promoting, what else is left to say? (h/t to lgf). here’s what the ayatollah had to say:

Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. …

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

that settles the question for me. it’s interesting that he says the struggle is against repression and cruelty, when those are two characteristics of hard-core islamic states. even some of the real-life events depicted in the fictional story the kite runner are glaring examples of how extremists don’t really practice what they preach. they don’t seem to be very concerned that the struggle between repression and cruelty had been lost. looking in from the outside world, it’s hard to understand why anyone would desire to have an islamic state, at least from a citizen’s POV.

if you need more evidence of the twisted intent of this kind of islam, how about this fatwa against jews and against the united states, originally issued in 1998:

World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
(excerpt dated February 23, 1998)

…On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah:”And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? — women and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'”

We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

should it really be necessary to attach caveats to every criticism of islam that this extremism does not represent every single muslim? i think all reasonable people would agree that it does not. however, it would be impossible to address the war on terror without dealing with the religious aspect of that war. what we are seeing today is a result of the implementation of radical islam, and we need to be honest about this: islam, as it is practiced by extremists, is NOT a religion of peace.

other interesting reading:

Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment (pdf)
Thomas F. Madden on Crusades on National Review Online

Technorati Tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on George W. Bush, Iraq, Tony Blair

unbelievable

Every day we hear of the death toll through the fomenting of civil strife, a campaign of murder and kidnapping and brutality, all of it designed to stifle Iraqi democracy at birth, and al-Zarqawi was its most vicious persecutor. The death of al-Zarqawi is a strike against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and therefore a strike against Al Qaeda everywhere. But we should have no illusions. We know that they will continue to kill, we know that there are many, many obstacles to overcome. But they also know that our determination to defeat them is total, their methods, their ideas, their extremism that seeks to infect the overwhelming desire of the overwhelming majority of people, whatever their religion and whatever their nation, to live together in peace and harmony.

So I do not minimise the enormous challenges that remain in Iraq and elsewhere, but the election of the new government and its full formation today shows a new spirit to succeed, and our task obviously is to turn that spirit, that willingness and desire to succeed into effective action. If we are able to do so then we will have accomplished something that goes far beyond the borders of Iraq.

—british prime minister tony blair —

zarqawi is dead. this is a very positive development in the war in iraq. iraq’s government is now complete with the appointment of the last three cabinet members. we can also rejoice in that positive step. we still have a long way to go in iraq, but these two developments are certainly something the american people can look at as positive news from iraq. while we are not quite ready for the “mission accomplished” sign, we still should acknowledge the positive when we see it.

others are not so convinced that zarqawi should be dead, however. this blew my mind when i heard the father of nicholas berg, the guy zarqawi beheaded, basically say that it shouldn’t have happened. it’s one thing to forgive the guy that killed your son, but zarqawi was a terrorist and he got what was coming to him.

this was an exhange between charlie gibson of abc and michael berg. (h/t- newsbusters)

Charlie Gibson: “I wonder as you watch this now happening in repetition, if there are feelings of a desire in you for revenge?”

Michael Berg: “I would like these people to be stopped, I would like them to be arrested, I would like them to receive justice. I would not want to see any of them killed and I don’t want revenge. I don’t want to personally attack those people.”

wow. zarqawi was not simply a murderer, he was also a terrorist. being arrested and receiving justice in a court of law is not an appropriate punishment for the many crimes zarqawi has committed against not only nick berg, but others as well. he did receive justice, and that kind of justice was exactly what zarqawi deserved.

iraq was about more than WMDs, although that was part of the case for the invasion of iraq. andy mccarthy makes the case here.

The American people vigorously support, and have always vigorously supported, the deployment of our military for the purpose of capturing and killing terrorists in promotion of American national security—taking the battle to enemy so we don’t need to fight them here. That is the Iraq mission we have always stood behind—more than finding Saddam’s WMD, a lot more than grand democracy-building initiatives, and a whole lot more than crafting new governments that establish Islam as the state religion.

Of course we must support the long-term goals of the democracy project. But we must be realistic that they are long-term goals. Democracy in the Islamic world is a matter of cultural upheaval over years, not just a few elections. Whether the project can ultimately succeed is debatable. One thing, however, is surely indisputable: Like the U.S. national security it is intended to promote, the democracy project cannot be sustained unless the enemy is first defeated.

It was not democracy that killed Zarqawi. It was the United States military.

We began the war on terror with the clear-eyed understanding that Islamic militants cannot be reasoned with; they have to be eradicated. Winning the war on terror will require the resolve to let our forces do their job—despite occasional vilification from fair-weather allies who bask in the protection of American power while shouldering none of its burdens.

Today reminds us that we have the power to get the job done. The remaining question is whether we have the will.

that’s a hard question to answer. when all that we see on the news about iraq seems to be bad news, it’s hard for anyone to believe that there is progress being made there. that doesn’t mean that nothing positive is happening there. the death of zarqawi and the completion of the new government are positive developments for iraq, but will this be enough to convince the american people that it’s worth completing the mission in iraq? i’m not sure that it is.

Technorati Tags: , ,