Posted on Editorials, Iraq

we were right to get rid of saddam (part 1)

saddam is no longer ruler of iraq, and that’s a huge step in the right direction for the future of iraq. we did the right thing by getting rid of him. he was a threat to us and to neighboring countries. bush said that saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he did have them in the past, and it was reasonable to believe that he still had them. of course, with saddam not fully co-operating with the UN weapons inspectors, there’s no way to have concrete proof that the US and the UK and others got it wrong. all saddam had to do to stop the invasion, if no WMDs were present, was to allow full access for the weapons inspectors. two possibilities exist. either saddam had a death wish, or he had something he was hiding from us. do you really think saddam was stupid enough to risk invasion of iraq just so that his neighbors could still have the illusion that iraq was armed with WMD? i guess it’s possible. after all, saddam was never known for his great military strategy.

based on what we knew about saddam’s history, isn’t it logical to err on the side of caution? ask yourself what would have happened if bush was right and saddam used those WMD’s. imagine the political fallout from that decision to do nothing about saddam. dubya was screwed either way with this decision. either he lets a guy with a known history of being evil to his own people and starting wars with other countries keep on breaking the rules and potentially acquire WMD, or he uses military force to remove saddam as a threat. what a tough decision.

there are many good reasons why saddam had to be replaced. that’s what the president was arguing — that saddam was a threat who needed to be dealt with. his press people were not on message when they responded affirmatively to the questions about saddam being an “imminent threat”. that’s just a matter of semantics, i guess, because even though the President didn’t use those exact words, he did emphasize the urgency of dealing with saddam sooner rather than later.

i don’t want the US to be the world’s policemen. i don’t want the US to be constantly bailing out countries that should be handling their own business. in an ideal world, the UN would be handling these international affairs and enforcing its own regulations against rogue members. this world can never, and will never, exist. the UN has too many of its own internal problems to effectively handle the problems and concerns of its members. that’s why i’m not convinced that even if the UN is reformed, it will ever meet our expectations.

(to be continued–comments return after part 2 is posted)

Technorati Tags: , , ,

5 Comments Posted on Baseball, Random Musings

in case it needs to be said…

chris berman is annoying. that’s something we should all agree on. if your favorite team is on tv, and chris berman’s doing that game…do yourself a favor and turn off the sound. if you are fortunate enough to have an XM radio, you can listen to the game there while watching the moving pictures on ESPN. technology is a great thing.

just a public service announcement to fellow sufferers and baseball fans. no need to thank me. oh yeah…and GO METS! 🙂

Posted on Democrats, Editorials, Republicans

you can’t blame newt for these republicans

read the first part of the contract that started the gingrich revolution:

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.

That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.

Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

it then goes on to list specific policy initiatives, designed to check spending, restore accountability to congress, and to reduce big government. that’s what the american people voted for then, and this is what they still want to see. this is what republicans said they stood for in 1994, and they put it in writing in the contract with america(full text here).

i suppose it’s easy to forget something that was written over ten years ago. we can argue about the effectiveness of the policy proposals here, but the contract for america set an agenda and made specific suggestions to address problems. it took the republicans quite some time to figure out what changes to suggest, and how to sell it to the voters. like the british labour party, they needed to re-package themselves and make their agenda marketable to the average person. the contract was part of the marketing strategy, and it worked pretty well.

what does the republican party stand for now? what can they point to as achievements during their time in power? do they even deserve to hold on to their majority? you know that the party is in trouble when the criticism leveled at them by the former leader of the revolution is quoted by democrats. i was flipping past c-span and i saw a virtually empty room with democrats talking to themselves, holding up clever posterboards with gingrich quotes and the ugly deficit numbers, and generally preaching to the very small choir that was assembled there. i’m not sure exactly what the purpose of the meeting was, but it sure was entertaining to watch. in any case, newt was right then, and he is right now. the republicans have fallen off the wagon. maybe it’s time for some tough love for them administered by the voters of this country.

i don’t really want to see the republicans lose congress. i still think they are a better alternative than the democrats. i will do all i can to help defeat the current democrat in my congressional district, because we need a change there. i’m just saying that a good hard slap in the face and defeat in ’06 wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen to the republican party. it might even produce the radical reforms needed to bring the party back to its small-government roots.

i guess i should say something about tom delay here. he did the right thing. the political fallout or non-fallout i will leave for pundits to determine.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

12 Comments Posted on Baseball

my 2006 MLB predictions

first of all…HAPPY OPENING DAY! these good wishes extend to everyone, including liberals and democrats, as long as we can all embrace the unifying force that is major league baseball. so let’s start the predictions. feel free to add to my list.

2006 MLB predictions:

  • the cubs will not win the world series.
  • barry bonds will continue not to answer questions about steroids.
  • yankees fans will still be rude and obnoxious to fans of other teams.
  • george steinbrenner will threaten to fire joe torre and brian cashman.
  • the yankees will still win the al east.
  • the red sox will make some excuse why that happened (other than their weak starting pitching).
  • tom glavine will show that the braves still own him.
  • victor zambrano (mets), danny graves(indians), and kris benson(o’s) will completely suck.
  • pedro martinez will miss significant time due to injury.
  • a team other than the mets will win the nl east. 🙁
  • roger clemens will almost hit a batter in the head.
  • all divisions except the nl central will have competitive races for the top spot.

that’s what i think, and i reserve the right to change any of this at any time in the future. for those who were able to get the day off, enjoy all those baseball games. as for me, i’m off to work.

tags: ,

Posted on Democrats

this might work

pollster frank luntz suggests a strategy for democrats that makes sense in this report(large PDF). h/t-kos

excerpt here:

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS

1. Don’t feel my pain – give me something to alleviate it. Democrats don’t want to be told what’s wrong with America. They want to be told what you plan to do about it. They’re not looking for the diagnosis – they know what ails them. They want the cure. The candidate most focused on “solutions” will have the advantage.

2. Leave Bush out of it. We know why we don’t like him. Tell us why we should like you instead. They hear enough Bush-bashing and engage in it themselves. They assume all the Democratic candidates feel as they do: it’s time for a change. They’re looking for the candidate that articulates the answer to the specific problem Bush created.

3. What would Jesus do? Tell me what YOU would do and leave Jesus out of it. The time for a conversation about faith and spirituality is in the general election, not the primaries. Democrats don’t want to hear about your church. If they really cared, they’d be Republicans.

4. Don’t tell me what’s wrong with America unless you can tell me what you’re going to do to make it right. A litany of all that has gone wrong in the past five years is telling them what they already know. The candidate who tells them what they plan to do about it will win their support.

5. Tell me something new. Tell me something I don’t already know. It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach. Been there, done that won’t sell in 2008.

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn’t much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

7. The 2008 Agenda: education, healthcare, prescription drugs, energy independence. The war in Iraq may grab the headlines and the attention, but Democrats are much more focused on concerns right here at home. `Bring the troops home,’ they complained. Tell us what you’re going to do to improve our quality of life right here in America.

8. The 2008 Attributes: intelligence, competence, accountability, getting things done, passion, honesty and being ethical. Attributes matter, as does style. The 2008 contest is not just about the issues. It’s also about who the candidates are and what they are truly about. Smart is in. Accountability and integrity are necessities. And passion – yes passion – is a prerequisite.

9. You are the message. Watch the negativity. Democrats want hope. Beating up on Republicans will generate applause, but it doesn’t generate votes. The candidates focused on the future will have a significant advantage. The candidate that generates the most hope in a better future will win the nomination.

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

makes sense to me.

Technorati Tags: ,

5 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

more on rahman

update: abdul rahman has been released and as far we know, is still alive. hopefully we can keep him that way.

this is not just about abdul rahman. this is also about others in afghanistan who have chosen to reject islam and choose christianity. will we raise our voices just as loudly for those who follow a similar path to rahman? will we object to the denial of religious freedom to others in afghanistan and press for a permanent policy change? the answer to those questions has yet to be determined.

william f. buckley jr(editor of national review) :

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns did not earn a medal of freedom for his public statement in the matter, but he was formally correct in saying, “This is a case that is not under the competence of the United States. It is under the competence of the Afghan authorities.”

That’s right. And the hell with Afghan supremacy. If an occupying military force whose presence every day continues to be critical to keep Afghanistan free cannot protect one citizen who embraces the faith of our fathers, then the government of Afghanistan should pause for a moment to worry not about the indignation of the Afghan people if Rahman is kept safe. Thought should be given to the indignation of the American people, who will stare in disbelief at the phenomenon of a country recently liberated by the expenditure of American lives and money failing to protect from the wrath of the mob a 41-year-old citizen whose crime was having chosen Christ.

couldn’t have said it better myself. read more.

more conflicting interpretations of the koran bring into question its “peaceful” nature. investor’s business daily has some tough queries for cair (council on american-islamic relations). what we would really like to know (and IMD dares to ask) is whether the koran actively promotes violence against infidels and those who choose to reject islam. i’m not an expert on the koran, but the evidence to support this seems to be there based on what i’ve read in the above article and others.

cair and others in muslim leadership owe it to those in their religion (who are not participating in acts of violence) to set the rest of us straight if we are misunderstanding islam. i don’t think we are. this doesn’t mean that i believe that all muslims are terrorists, or that they all support terrorists. what the rioters, suicide bombers, and spiritual leaders of islam are saying and doing does not represent the average muslim. that goes without saying. it’s harder to separate the koran from its own words about the appropriate punishment for unbelievers.

previous:
afghani democracy: a flaw in execution

Technorati Tags: ,

Posted on Editorials

maybe the world would be better off…

if the united states just left it alone to fend for itself. it’s not our problem that foreign dictators oppress people. it’s no business of ours if countries don’t get along with each other and make threats about destruction of their opposition with bombs and guns and shiny WMDs. why should we care if one country wants to invade another country, as long as we are not the target for possible invasion? after all, we have no right to tell other countries how they should act.

so don’t call the united states anymore. talk to the UN. see how well they help countries in need. why not just let the UN take charge of foreign affairs? after all, they have been so effective in controlling rogue elements in their membership and handling peacekeeping missions. why not let them handle military action in rebellious countries which may or may not have WMDs yet? this is a great idea. then none of the chaos happening in the world today can be blamed on president dubya or on the united states.

i would argue that the failures of the UN to deal with their own members have made US military action necessary in Iraq and elsewhere. maybe that’s just because i hate the UN and recognize how much they have screwed up their role in the international community. maybe not. in any case, i think the contributions made by the united states to the rest of the world have been generally positive, and that, while we have not handled every situation perfectly, we deserve much more credit that we could ever expect from the rest of the world. criticism of the united states is sometimes justified, and not entirely unexpected. i’m not asking for the international community as a whole to be our new best friends, just that they would say thanks for the help once in a while.

that’s all i have to say about that. comments return with future posts.

2 Comments Posted on Uncategorized

afghani democracy: a flaw in execution

Mark Steyn:

It’s not enough for Abdul Rahman to get off on a technicality. Afghanistan is supposed to be “the good war,” the one even the French supported, albeit notionally and mostly retrospectively. Karzai is kept alive by a bodyguard of foreigners. The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

this is where the neo-con theory is tested. the new democracy that the united states helped to create with the sacrifice of many of our military men and women is still struggling with sharia law. i don’t think this is what we had in mind when we kicked out the taliban — that a man could be executed under this new government’s laws for converting to Christianity . the legitimate question that should be asked here is whether our sacrifice has produced the kind of democracy that we intended to bring to afghanistan. based on the current state of affairs, that’s a debatable question. we cannot allow the sacrifice of american lives to be trivialized by allowing an execution like this to take place.

at this moment, the case against abdul rahman has been dismissed. this isn’t the end of the story. he could still be put to death. there is still the possibility that islamic radicals could take their own vigilante action against rahman regardless of what the government decides about him. we cannot allow this. the united states and its allies have sacrificed the lives of their men and women to bring freedom as well as self-governance to afghanistan, and we have the right to object to the treatment of rahman.

more reading:
Afghan Christian Rejects Islam— the koran vs. christianity (california conservative)
Free Abdul Rahman–washington times op-ed
Steyn: Will we stick our necks out for his faith?
Michelle Malkin: ABDUL RAHMAN TO BE RELEASED

Technorati Tags: ,

4 Comments Posted on Democrats

these democrats can win

In 2004, the hand wringing was constant and it was difficult to watch. It was difficult to watch because the reason we lost became painfully clear. Somehow over the last 30 years, Democrats stopped being authentic.

We stopped being the party of the people, and only for the people. The public came to view us as “the Government Party” that was more interested in being part of government than in connecting with regular people. We stopped sharing our personal beliefs and only shared our policy proposals. We stopped giving people a reason to trust us and voters began to doubt our convictions. And we stopped believing that giving voters a sense of who we are and where we come from was a critical part of communicating. It never stopped being important to voters, but somehow it stopped being important to Democrats.

If Democrats are not in sync with what is important to voters, then how can we be authentic–how can we regain their trust?

–al quinlan (real clear politics)

that’s exactly the point. issues matter. authenticity also matters in elections. of course voters want candidates who agree with them on issues that are important to them, like abortion, religion, and guns…but i believe that we also want them to be people who are geniune in their words and their actions. we want people that we can respect and people that we can trust. credibility is more easily achievable when a candidate takes consistent positions and doesn’t just pander to the groups that are politically popular. (this applies to both republicans and democrats.)

at times i do enjoy watching the democrats struggle. i’m partisan like that. it’s just that i don’t think that the average democrat is satisfied with the way the democratic leadership is representing their views. i also think it’s sad that the democratic leadership doesn’t seem to be interested in listening to that average democrat, and instead takes its marching orders from daily kos and arianna huffington. it shouldn’t be that way. if we really want to have a debate on ideas, and not just on personality/charisma, then we must have two strong alternatives. that’s not where we are with the republicans and democrats, who are currently looking to polls for their principles.

anyway…enough of me. read a better argument. read more of quinlan’s post here.

Technorati Tags:

2 Comments Posted on Tony Blair, UK

new labour and david cameron–a perfect match?

meet the new boss….same as the old boss? when tony blair steps down as british PM, there will be a pitched battle to determine the next occupant of 10 downing street. the upcoming contest between david cameron (conservatives) and british PM tony blair’s hand-picked successor (chancellor of the exchequer gordon brown) may not be the fierce ideological struggle everyone may have expected. the message of “cameronism” sounds familiar– very similar in fact to blair’s “new labour”.

Cameron has put a stake through Margaret Thatcher’s legacy. New Labour has triumphed beyond its wildest dreams: this is Blair’s brilliant legacy – to be outflanked on the left is an extraordinary achievement he should mark as his glory moment. If anyone doubts that Cameron means it, just chortle with glee as the Daily Mail’s Melanie Phillips shrieks in pain: “This leaves millions of natural conservatives effectively disenfranchised – and, even worse, demonised as dinosaurs by the party that is supposed to represent them, but is now telling them to go hang while it tears up everything they believe in … The ideas in his advertisement appear to define ‘what is right’ as the distorted doctrines of leftwing propaganda.” Tebbit weighs in too. Imagine how the Cameron clan must be whooping as the Mail is left gasping and spluttering. This is exactly what it wants.

polly toynbee in the guardian

i think she’s right that cameron has “put a stake through margaret thatcher’s legacy”. many observers of british political history may see this as a good thing. the baroness would not have signed on to wealth re-distribution through government largesse, an emphasis on global warming, or the idea that “strict ideologies should be foresworn in favor of a flexible approach to politics”(cal thomas). we can argue the overall effectiveness of thatcher’s policies, but at the end of the day, politics will always be about ideology. those who ignore this and choose style over substance do not give the voters what they need, which is a debate on ideas, not on personality.

david cameron isn’t any different from tony blair, at least in any visible way. so maybe that kind of ideological debate can’t take place between blair and cameron. the real question here is whether gordon brown believes in continuing blair’s policies in a future labour government. if brown intends to stay with what has worked under new labour, then i don’t see how cameron provides much of an alternative.

if he really believed that the blair government was ruining the country, he wouldn’t go out of his way to help the PM get his school reforms passed. he talks about fighting global poverty, bridging the gap between rich and poor, and reducing carbon emissions to deal with global warming. the problem cameron has is that he has more in common with tony blair than margaret thatcher. we shall see if the conservatives will follow cameron to the left, or whether they will be resigned to re-electing new labour.
Technorati Tags: , , ,