Political Fred

Silver Spoon?

2006-01-27T16:22:00.000-08:00

From today's White House briefing:

Q: Can I also ask you, on Senator Kerry's comments, what is your reaction to the filibuster call by Senator Kerry, on Judge Alito?
MR. McCLELLAN: On his call yesterday? It was a pretty historic day. This was the first time ever that a Senator has called for a filibuster from the slopes of Davos, Switzerland. I think even for a Senator, it takes some pretty serious yodeling to call for a filibuster from a five-star ski resort in the Swiss Alps. (Laughter.)

Commentary:

Sweet.

Judges gone wild

2006-01-14T09:00:00.000-08:00

American's are blessed to have strong constitutional protections. Unfortunately some persons, including federal judges have gone wild concluding that very reasonable searches are illegal in their view. Here is an excellent example from the Weekly Standard. Read the whole thing.

As presented to the three-judge panel, the case revolved around the following issue. In applying for the search warrant, the two officers had filled in a box entitled "specific description of premises and/or persons to be searched." The language is taken from the Fourth Amendment and officers must be very careful in filling it out. Warrants are routinely thrown out by appeals-court judges who decide that the application did not adequately describe "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

By the time the officers had finished describing the suspect's premises and listing his name, address, physical description, and Social Security number, they had no room left to include any further information. "As you can see, that box is filled," testified one officer in court. "You can't include everything. . . . It's impossible to fit everything we want in these little boxes they give us."

In order to continue their application, the officers attached an affidavit in which they added a request to search "all occupants" of the house. Fulfilling the Fourth Amendment's requirement that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause," they stated that, in their experience, drug dealers, when faced with "impending apprehension," often gave evidence to other persons present in the hope that "said persons will not be subject to search when police arrive." The judge signed the warrant and its accompanying affidavit.

Unfortunately, two of the judges on the appeals panel decided ipso facto that it wasn't valid to attach an additional piece of paper to describe the search.

I saved the best for last. The dissenting judge, who argued that common sense indicated that the police had sought, received and executed a valid warrant ... his name: Alito.

Democrats Lie, People Cry

2006-01-11T20:07:00.000-08:00

Democrat lies and slander drive Alito's wife to tears.

Which party is qualified to lead this country?

Applying the "Broken Windows" Theory to Terrorists

2006-01-10T11:21:00.000-08:00

David Medienkritik writes a moving blog entry quoting the brother of Robert Dean Stethem. Petty Officer Stethem was a fatal victim of the terrorist hijacking of Trans World Airlines Flight 847 on June 14, 1985.

Mr. President,

I would like to provide you with an explanation as to why Muhammed Ali Hammadi's recent release by Germany, and your Administration's lack of any attempt to prevent it, is so upsetting to our family and to Americans everywhere. (...)

You have rightly said, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." You have truly said that "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Robert lived by them. Robert also died by them. The motto of the USS SSTETHEM (DDG-63), named in Robert's honor, is "Steadfast and Courageous." I hope that his example, and the example of other heroes like him can inspire you to understand why allowing Germany to release Hammadi was a wrong. Justice was not done, Robert was not honored and Americans are not safer by allowing Hammadi to return to Lebanon and Hezbollah.

You know this, we know this and the American people know this.

The Stethem family

You can read the whole sad, but brave tale from the web site of the Navy Destroyer named in his honor.

In a cruel twist the German government has released the terrorist responsible for killing Robert, one Muhammed Ali Hammadi. I wonder if we should apply the "broken windows" theory to terrorists acts as was done in cleaning up NYC. We could put particular energy into finding and dispatching Hammadi using secret agents as ordinary judicial means seems to have failed at this point. Perhaps, if this policy were pursued without exception, this could serve to provide a deadly effective disincentive to terrorists. I think this policy should be pursued in addition to other approaches (legal, military, etc.) but that in no case should any terrorist ultimately be allowed to be free.

Bush consults Dems on Iran?

2006-01-04T00:18:00.000-08:00

I think that Lorie Byrd has nailed the real reason the GW Bush is meeting with promenent Democratic and Republican national security experts.

Iran.

I commented:

GWB has said that he would act preemptively to prevent future 9/11s that could include WMDs. Iran should have gotten the message when we took care of Saddam, but the present leader of Iran is building Nuclear Weapons – if we take him at his word. I’m not a UN diplomat, but I’m pretty sure that’s a treaty violation – not that the NNPT is the only relevent issue here. Bush will act to proactively protect the US from Iran’s Nuclear capabilities, much like JFK acted to force the missles out of Cuba. JFK was ready to go to war.

THe Dems in the meeting will have their words recorded, but I am sure the president will extend them the courtesy of keeping everything off the record. (I also suspect that he has a similair conversation on tape about Iraq from 2002, but with the same off the record agreement). It would be very interesting to see what they say. I am sure that there are a few true pacifists/isolationists – probably Jimmy Carter types. I am sure there are a few that sway with the wind (Kerry). And there are some Liebermans too.

I don’t know what the options are; but I suspect that the military options are fraught with lots of negatives: civilian casualties, low likelyhood of completely destroying all WMD related items, Iranian backlash, European backlash, Democratic backlash. But this has to be balanced against the possibility of a nuclear 9/11 in Tel Aviv, or Rome, or London, or Washington DC.

Perhaps a miltary naval/air blockade. This would be ugly on TV, as the pictures of starving children would appear in days but it might be better than bombing.

Understanding our Enemies...

2006-01-03T17:21:00.000-08:00

Much as been made of the fact that terrorism and the underlying, supportive philosophy of Wahabism has been funded by the oil wealth of the house of Saud. Many have argued that we should do our part to defund the Saudis by reducing our use of oil.

While this argument has merit on its face, as 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the ring leader Bin Ladin hails from there, it draws the incorrect conclusion -- that the problem is oil -- not that the problems is Islamo-fascism. A superb analogy demonstrating this point comes from "Gates of Vienna"

Look at it from another angle: For the past thirty years Norway has received enormous revenues from North Sea oil. Therefore it would be a good idea to cut back on petroleum usage in order to de-fund the export of Scandinavian terror, and keep the Viking zealots from imposing strict Norse law on the rest of the world. If they had their way, we'd all be eating lutefisk and climbing into the sauna with --gasp!-- members of the opposite sex.

Obviously, the problem isn't the transfer of wealth, but the behavior of the recipients.

2005-12-31T10:32:00.000-08:00

Day 337 of captivity...

Democracy 3 Terrorists 0

2005-12-29T11:34:00.000-08:00

Not bad results for our struggles this year. Read the whole thing [Dartblog.com]

Predictions for 2006

2005-12-29T10:42:00.000-08:00

Predictions:

By the end of 2006, the number of US troops deployed in Iraq will be reduced by the president to less than 100,000.
The democratic gov't of Iraq will continue to function. The army and security forces will continue to improve in quality and number. Both Iraqi oil exports and regular economy will improve at astounding rates. There will still be terrorist acts committed in Iraq, and NPR will lead their reporting with the daily death toll.
Bird Flu will not become a pandemic. Another natural disaster, predicted in advance, will befall us -- we will not be a prepared as we could have been. The left will earnestly place 100% of the blame on GW Bush. Leading candidates: Volcanic eruption in the Pacific NW, earthquake in LA, SF or other less likely US city (SLC, St Louis, Seattle).
99% of all pundits will not be talking about truly significant developments in technology today that will revolutionize our live 20 years or more in the future. Leading candidates: biotech/genetic tech, nanotech material advances, data mining and internet tech.
Politicians will continue to swoon over hydrogen powered cars, solar photovoltaic installations and nuclear fusion research. Hydrocars, solar electric power and fusion power plants will continue to be very economically impractical. Economically practical energy sources and novel clean tech will quietly advance. Leading candidates: Hybrid cars, Wind power, non-traditional oil.
A major company in the computer/internet space will make a major stab at TV and movies on demand. The other majors will follow suit; Apple, Google, Microsoft. The content-owning entertainment companies will complain, complicate, and overprice all efforts ultimately hurting their own shareholders. Niche players on the internet, both legal and extra-legal, will drive the adoption curve.
Everyone will ignore the social security time bomb in 2006. Ultimately, while there will be much political hay made of it during the next 20 years, the problem will be solved by the surprisingly strong growth in personal income allowing the politicians to tax the struggling, low-turnout young to pay for the wealthy, retired, high-turnout, golf set.

Please add any predictions you have to the comments.

More Allies Stay the Course...

2005-12-27T20:46:00.000-08:00

I previously reported that our allies in Iraq continued to stand with us. Now there is more good news: Poland is staying in Iraq through 2006, reversing a previous decision to withdraw.

Beyond Sloganeering; Analyzing the Patriot Act

2005-12-27T12:18:00.000-08:00

John Hinderaker at PowerLine takes the Minnesota Star Tribune to task by going beyond sloganeering to quote and analyze the actual provisions in the Patriot Act. Most of us don't know what's in the Patriot Act; go and read the whole thing to learn more.

Here's a choice bit of media criticism from the article:

...claimed that the administration had cited no instances where the Patriot Act helped thwart terrorists, [not true --editor] while at the same time, they argued hysterically that the Act is a threat to basic American freedoms. But the Patriot Act has been in effect for four years now. If it were such a grave threat to Americans' civil liberties, then the Strib should be able to cite any number of instances where the administration has used it to infringe on those liberties improperly. Right? So how many such instances does the Strib's editorial cite? Zero.

CatBlogging: The Boys

2005-12-23T10:54:00.000-08:00

The boys like to watch TV

My Lunch Crew reacts to the NSA wiretapping story

2005-12-22T09:47:00.000-08:00

Based upon some informed speculations on what the NSA may be doing, we had a lively discussion at lunch over the propriety of domestic wiretapping without warrants. Marty contributed the following in an email afterward. I quote it here in its entirety, along with some editorial comments.

Well meaning people do not engage in secret, covert conduct when they believe their actions to be legal. [even spy agencies like the CIA, NSA, FBI?]

I believe that, under the law, wiretapping is intended as a tool to confirm and substantiate suspicions generated through other means. Wire taps are not, in and of themselves, intended as a means to generate suspicions or as a means to engage in evidentiary "fishing expeditions" where no other reasonable suspicion exists before hand. Therefore, its one thing to wiretap people in an emergency situation before going to a court, if at the time of the wiretapping there existed both a reasonable suspicion and a reasonable urgency, and that it can be subsequently demonstrated to a court that both reasonable suspicion and reasonable urgency existed at that time. Its quite another to engage in blanket wiretapping without prior court approval against large numbers of people when there exists no reasonable suspicion against any (or many) of them at the time the wiretapping is performed. [Well said. Is the context for these rules only domestic non-combatants or foreign terrorist overseas too? What about domestic persons knowingly cooperating with terrorists in a legal way?]

Should we really give that much weight to the legal opinions of lawyers who work for the Justice Department, or anywhere else within the executive branch, on matters dealing with the power of the executive? These are hardly unbiased opinions, whether prepared for Mr. Bush or one of his predecessors. After all, when is the last time a President solicited the opinion of congressional lawyers on matters relating to the power of the executive branch? When such opinions are tested before a court, and upheld by a court, then the opinion should be given its due weight. Not before. [Again, well argued and I agree.]

I also suspect that most of these 'opinions' written by lawyers in the executive branch, when drafted at the behest of a President, tend to be disingenuous, written not as a genuine expression of legal merit, but with the intent that they could later be used as tools to cover the President's ass. [Concur.]

Congress does not have the power to pass a law that allows the President to violate the 4th amendment rights of US Citizens. Congress derives its authority solely from the constitution, and such a law would be unconstitutional. Any part of a law that conflicts directly with the constitution is unconstitutional, and when Congress passes a law that contains elastic language such as "all necessary and appropriate force", the effect of the law is a) unconstitutional to the extent that its provisions would otherwise allow for the violation of the constitution and b) necessarily limited by the framework of the constitution. There are many examples of the courts striking down laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the president as unconstitutional. The notion then that any Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force allows the President to violate the 4th amendment rights of the US Citizenry is unfounded. [This is true as far as it goes. I would point out however, that the constitution is not limited to the 4th amendment.]

Any argument that using satellites to do the wiretapping without a warrant is legal under the 4th amendment is absurd - someone used the satellite after all. That's akin to arguing that the murder victim was slain by the bullet, or the gun that fired the bullet, and not by the man that pulled the trigger.

Commentary: First off, I'd like to make clear that it is in all of our interests to adhere to and respect our Constitution. We are a nation of laws, not men. The points raised above and in our discussion showed an understanding and passion for our ideals of personal freedom as protected by our laws.

It is my contention (and obviously that of the administration) that the NSA wiretapping actions are legal and proper. By this I mean to argue both the narrow case of legal by present rules and precedent, and the broad case of proper by the spirit of the constitution.

The constitution has remarkably little to say about Presidential powers. It is more explicit in defining the legislative branch powers. Congress has the power to define rules that the Executive must adhere to; even beyond what is written in the constitution. I would call out the explicit power granted to suspend habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." The 3rd amendment, rarely noted in modern times provides that "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Clearly, the framers understood that one set of rules applied to civilized law and another to the conduct of war.

The 4th amendent provides explicit protections against "unreasonable searches":

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Through legislative rules and judicial case decisions we have properly come to define a framework for reasonable searches. That is to say that the constitution authorizes searches -- the details of which are defined by congress and judicial interpretation. It is a defensible argument that a new concept in searches (computerized data mining through the indexing of telephone connections) could be ruled a "reasonable search" given the probable cause provided by the existence of terrorist organizations. This would have to be legislated by Congress or be interpreted to exist within current legislation and stand up to potential post-facto court challenges.

Lastly, I would point out that I have blogged about the direct precedents for this type of wiretapping. The current understand of what is allowed has stood firm for 30 years. I don't believe this issue is settled sufficiently. I hope that through discussion we can provide a framework that convinces the majority of Americans that their freedoms and their security are protected.

NSA Wiretaps: Googling for Terrorists

2005-12-21T10:57:00.000-08:00

There are excellent articles at Ars Technica and Winds of Change explaining how specific, hypothetical computerized "wiretapping" scenarios would be nearly impossible to pass through the FISA court system. The basic concept is that an automated computer program would tap many lines simultaneously, or automatically switch the wiretaps to persons of interest. The volume would be so tremendous so as to make the traditional court process literally impossible.

Such systems (think google for telephone calls) would amass and sift enormous amounts of data attempting to aggregate and discern patterns that would lead to the enemy. If you've used google, you already understand how effective such a system can be. If we had been aggressively using these techniques prior to 9/11 things might have turned out differently.

Of course there are costs. In these processes, regular citizens would have their calls processed by the monitoring system. Such information databases could be used expose many non-terrorist related connections. The gov't has used its intelligence agencies for political purposes before; cite 1 and cite 2. I don't downplay these facts. I do remember our 3000 dead Americans -- and I ask you: can't we use our best techniques against the enemy to protect ourselves from another 9/11?

Taking the Politics Out of National Security Issues

2005-12-21T10:37:00.000-08:00

In an article from the American Thinker, Noel Sheppard documents and comments on extra-legal searches conducted under the Clinton Administration. Here are some key grafs:

...a number of key points:

* The two searches of Ames' home were illegal under existing law at the time;

* The Clinton administration authorized these illegal searches with full support of former Attorney General Janet Reno and the Justice Department;

* Former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick had stated at the time that if the Justice Department tried to meet all the strict rules imposed on police in criminal matters, it would "unduly frustrate" America's counter-intelligence efforts;

* The Clinton administration ended up supporting changes to FISA, the Intelligence Authorization Act, in order to protect it from future legal challenges to its espionage procedures.

Yet, there was little media coverage or outrage about this at the time. In fact, Byron York reported yesterday at the National Review that the Washington Post ran a story on this subject on July 15, 1994 entitled "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches":

The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administrationÂs quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.

As this 1994 article buried on page A19 continued: that's right, this wasn't even front-page news! Post writer Jeffrey Smith referred to these searches in an offhand manner quite different from the press evisceration of President Bush today for instructing the NSA to listen in on international calls either from or to known members of al Qaeda:

But government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes", a goal of such vital national security interest that they said it justified extraordinary police powers.

Imagine that. " goal of such vital national security interest that [government officials] said it justified extraordinary police powers." And this was more than seven years before al Qaeda terrorists killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11. Isn't protecting the nation from further terrorist attacks at least as important as identifying a mole within the CIA working for a country that no longer exists or represents a threat to national security?

Bold Emphasis Mine.

Comentary: I've written on this subject before. I want to emphasize that I acknowledge that under the NSA wiretaps civil liberties are being treated differently than they would be under non-wartime conditions. However, as the story above demonstrates, wartime conditions can and do exist and have been used throughout our history to justify extra-legal searches.

We would all like to live in a free, safe and just society and we are blessed to be living under a remarkably well balanced system based upon our constitution. The civil liberties in our constitution are protected by the power given to the executive branch to wage war to protect and defend the constitution.

Reason number 47 for the Battle of Iraq...

2005-12-19T10:11:00.000-08:00

The NYT reported the following. [Hat tip to Glen Reynolds and Ann Althouse]

Click graph for larger version

Commentary: From the graph it is clear that the human cost of war, while tragic, pales in comparision to the human cost of not waging war.

Mark Steyn Pithy Extrodinaire

2005-12-18T10:20:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn has got to be the pithiest writer today. Here's a small excerpt from a real gem of a column. Read the whole thing.

...And the point is, even if I was in the mood for a story about two rugged insecure men who find themselves strangely attracted to each other in a dark transgressive relationship that breaks all the rules, who needs Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger when you've got Howard Dean and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi? Yee-haw! And, if that sounds unfair, pick almost any recent statement by a big-time Dem cowboy and tell me how exactly it would differ from the pep talks Zarqawi gives his dwindling band of head-hackers -- Dean arguing that America can't win in Iraq, Barbara Boxer demanding the troops begin withdrawing on Dec. 15, John Kerry accusing American soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi women and children, Jack Murtha declaring that the U.S. Army is utterly broken. Pepper 'em with a handful of "Praise be to Allahs" and any one of those statements could have been uttered by Zarqawi.

GW Bush gives remedial lesson on 9/11 wiretaps

2005-12-17T10:01:00.000-08:00

President Bush responds to the NYT smear campaign: [From The Corner at NRO Read the whole thing. ]

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
...
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.

Commentary: Amen.

In the post 9/11 climate where it is understood that the domestic vs. international intelligence "wall" caused great damage to our safety, I am surprised that there are Americans that would question presidential actions designed to improve intelligence gathering. There are other less damaging ways to argue that wiretapping terrorists is wrong; the Senate debate on the Patriot Act for one.

I am also suspicious of the timing of this story. The Iraqi elections should be dominating the news, but instead we have overly magnified attention on a story that the NYT has sat on, by their own admission, for 1 year.

The President has said to the NYT prior to publication that this story would hurt our security. What responsible paper would run with this? If you have a subscription to the NYT this would be a great reason to cancel it.

Wire tapping Terrorists...

2005-12-16T11:36:00.000-08:00

Think you heard the whole story concerning the NSA wire taps on NPR, on the DrudgeReport or in the NYT article? Perhaps not, here's some addtional information from Michelle Malkin, you be the judge.

Commentary: In the spirit of a national debate, we must tackle the issue of rights. What rights are inherent to a terrorist whose purpose is the destruction of our society?

In our society, enshrined in our constitution, we have recognized rights that protect us from excessive gov't intrusion and persecution. This is based upon the idea that we as individuals are part of a society that is living together in virtuous cooperation. If instead, there are persons that are bent upon undermining civil society and all the rights it infers then is it proper to extend those protections to the partys that intend the destruction of society?

No, it is not proper to extend such rights to terrorists. Society already recognizes the reality of war. In war, citizens are joined together into armies and explicitly empowered to violate civil rights of the enemy; in fact, the aim is to destroy the enemy.

The proper treatment of the enemy is always driven first by the primary goal; defeat and destruction of enemy threat. Only when that threat is rendered entirely destroyed (as in complete surrender) can some rights be extended to enemy combatants.

It would not be appropriate to extend special rights to this enemy as we do for soldiers of civilized societies that have signed and adhered to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. It is not appropriate to extend the enemy legal protections except to document and reassure OUR civil populations that they are, in fact, enemies. Capture on the battlefield, for example, is clearly evidence enough of enemy intent and action.

The present enemy recognizes no mercy. Beslan: School children targeted and murdered. Iraq: Aid workers captured and beheaded. London: Civilian subway riders bombed.

Our response as civilized (but threatened) society should be clear. Complete and utter destruction of the enemy encumbered by legalistic concerns.

Civilization begins with order, grows with liberty, and dies with chaos.
-- Will Durant (1885 - 1981)

Raise a Purple Finger for Freedom...

2005-12-14T21:45:00.000-08:00

Today is Iraqi election day. Pro-War, Anti-War, Democrat, Republican, American or Iraqi -- today is a day to celebrate. So raise a purple finger for freedom today.

Conflicting Reports of Iraqi Election Tampering Attempts from Iran

2005-12-14T10:08:00.000-08:00

There are conflicting reports of election tampering originating from Iran. The NYT has reported "Police Seize Forged Ballots Headed to Iraq From Iran". While the Confederate Yankee points to an Iraqi source that denies the report. The NYT has a record of getting things wrong.

Commentary: It appears that the terrorists have changed tactics and decided to participate in the election (perhaps through illegal means). This is a good sign that the old tactics were not working.

The Names of The Victims

2005-12-13T10:00:00.000-08:00

The Names of The Victims

ALBERT OWENS
TSAI-SHAI YANG
YEN-I YANG
YE-CHEN LIN

May they rest in peace.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

Democracy Matters

2005-12-12T11:15:00.000-08:00

A democracy is being born in Iraqi. Why is this significant? [read it all at Wikipedia]

The democratic peace theory ... is a theory in political science and philosophy which holds that democracies, specifically, liberal democracies, never or almost never go to war with one another. A more general version is that all kinds of systematic violence is rare in and by democracies. Despite criticism, it has grown in prominence among political scientists and has become influential in the policy world.

Do you stand with democracy or with dictatorship?

Poll finds Iraqis optimistic

2005-12-12T11:06:00.000-08:00

In the run up to the Iraqi election this Thursday I'll be posting about Iraq this week. There are some very positive signs in Iraq:

Interviewers found that 71% of those questioned said things were currently very or quite good in their personal lives, while 29% found their lives very or quite bad. When asked whether their lives would improve in the coming year, 64% said things would be better and 12% said they expected things to be worse.

Read the whole thing.

CatBlogging: BooBoo

2005-12-10T15:26:00.000-08:00

Our best Christmas present

Our "Multilateral" Allies in Iraq

2005-12-09T09:37:00.000-08:00

Our Allies in the battle for Iraq continue to stand with us. [Full Story]

Prime Minister John Howard indicated that Australia will extend the deployment of its troops to Iraq to continue guarding Japanese military engineers operating in the south of the country.

Japan announced on Thursday that it would keep its 600 troops in Iraq until late next year, around a year longer than planned.

Australia deployed about 450 soldiers in May to guard the Japanese contingent and Howard said late Thursday that they would pursue their mission in line with Tokyo's decision.

Commentary: This story provides facts that contradict the assertion that the battle for Iraq was unilateral. If the "unilateral" war isn't unilateral then can we trust the other descriptors attached to the battle of Iraq by anyone claiming we went in alone?

War, what is it good for?

2005-12-08T13:00:00.000-08:00

ABC news reports some pro-US, good news...

...77 percent of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction, compared with 30 percent in the vastly better-off United States. Ninety-one percent prefer the current Afghan government to the Taliban regime, and 87 percent call the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban good for their country. Osama bin Laden, for his part, is as unpopular as the Taliban; nine in 10 view him unfavorably.

Progress fuels these views: Despite the country's continued problems, 85 percent of Afghans say living conditions there are better now than they were under the Taliban. Eighty percent cite improved freedom to express political views. And 75 percent say their security from crime and violence has improved as well. After decades of oppression and war, many Afghans see a better life.
...
Women
The survey also finds broad majority support for women's rights in Afghan society, albeit, as in other readings, with more modest strength of commitment behind it. Nine in 10 Afghans support girls' education and women voting, three-quarters support women holding jobs and two-thirds support women holding government office, remarkable in a country where the Taliban so thoroughly repressed such rights. Perhaps surprisingly, support for most of these is nearly as high among men as it is among women.

Read the whole thing.

Commentary: I see a whole lot of bumper stickers here in Los Angeles that say "War is not the Answer". I pose the above story as exhibit number one that a just War, while enormously tragic, can lead to a better future that is worth fighting for. Perhaps the Feminist groups in the country could laud the great advancements for Afghan women that have ccurred under GWB's presidency.

Democrat Defeatist verses Democrat Warrior

2005-12-07T08:39:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean: [quoted from WaPo]

(SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: [HT Red State]

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.
As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

Commentary: On this Dec 7th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor I can't help but be struck by the dichotomy between the Democrat defeatists of today verses the resolute FDR. There were defeatist in WWII too, and also those that betrayed their country. But history shows us that the resolute can recognize and confront the enemies of the US abroad.

John Kerry Slanders US Troops

2005-12-05T10:27:00.000-08:00

John Kerry said on Nation TV: (Full Text PDF)

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not...

Commentary: John Kerry is a US Senator and a ex-navy soldier. From the former he should know that his words are closely followed and carry heavy responsibilities. From the latter he should have learned to show some loyalty and respect.

Regardless if this was a rhetorical slip of the tongue, John Kerry has slandered the whole cloth of the US military. He should immediately retract his remarks and apologize to the brave and professional US military.

Thank God he is not President.

Reason #47 for the liberation of Iraq

2005-12-04T09:02:00.000-08:00

Why isn't this story running in the NY Times, and WaPo? Did you hear this on CNN? Probably not.

The obsession of many journalists and commentators with the fruitless hunt for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons has meant much of the evidence of Saddam's atrocities in liberated Iraq has been under-reported. Sinje Caren Stoyke, a German archeologist and president of Archeologists for Human Rights, catalogues 288 mass graves, a list that is already out of date with the discovery of fresh sites every week.

Read the whole article.
HT: LGF

Go Bruins

2005-12-03T10:18:00.000-08:00

The game that defies prediction is being played today. USC vs. UCLA. The experts have USC highly favored based upon their impressive play to date: 11-0. UCLA has also played well this season with a record of 9-1. The UCLA defense has been almost non-existant at times, but our offense has averaged 40+ points per game.

My prediction: UCLA over USC 41 to 37. The UCLA defense stopping USC's last drive.

Go Bruins.

Cat Blogging: Don't you Hate When that Happens?

2005-12-01T13:20:00.000-08:00

Don't you hate when your cat's life if more interesting than yours? For the record, my three cats are safely inside my home.

Senator Clinton not in favor of protecting the US from another 9/11

2005-11-30T14:12:00.000-08:00

Senator Hillary Clinton attempts to placate the Anti-Victory, far Left by sending them an email that she didn't post in the "statements" section of her own website. With the poliferation of information channels on the Internet, who does she think she is fooling? After Googling a bit I did find it here. Reading through the statement, she makes sure to hit all the hot-button excuses as to why the war isn't associated with the democrats that voted to authorize the use of force:

Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq. And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction, and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate Bin Laden and al Qaida, and fully uproot the Taliban.

[added bolding --editor] Wow, that is some fancy foot work! Notice the lack of definition in who is doing the asking"Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority". Really? That's an assertion that doesn't really stand up. I think that GWB would have asked. In fact, we don't have to wonder. He did ask.

She follows with if "Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed". Notice that she did not say that she would have voted differently: Congress might have not agreed. Notice that she does not say that she stands behind her vote, if fact she leaves the impression that she would have voted "nay". But she doesn't really say either way. Having it both ways!

She goes on to hit some more sour, Lefty notes:

...the President and his Administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war.

while at the same time describing herself as " firmly in support of our troops".

And in summary Senator Clinton couldn't resist taking this shot:

That means rejecting the Administration's doctrine of preemptive war and their preference to going it alone rather than building real international support.

Didn't Saddam invade Kuwait? Didn't he violate the agreements that ended hostilities? Isn't the UK, Poland, Japan, Spain, Italy, etc, etc real international support?

I'm surprised that she would come out against preemptive war. President Bill Clinton had no problem launching preemptive war (by her definition of preemptive) on Iraq in 1998. If another 9/11 were being planned in Somalia (or pick any other State) and we had the chance to prevent it by invading/bombing/taking preemptive action would Senator Clinton reject the doctrine of preemptive war?

Upgrade your Browser, Firefox 1.5 released

2005-11-29T16:43:00.000-08:00

If you are browsing the web, (and yes, you are!) then you might like to do it in the fastest, safest, and coolest web browser. Firefox 1.5 was released today. You can get it here:

http://www.mozilla.com/

You can also add some nifty features from Google via their toolbar plug-in. Click the Button on the right side of this site to download the GoogleBar. Works for IE as well.

Follow the Money...

2005-11-28T13:25:00.000-08:00

Michelle Malkin does some important reporting on the connections between RINOs and George Soros. Another fine example of the original reporting in the Blogosphere.
Commentary: Money buys influence. It is very clear to me that a politician who accepts money that originated from George Soros is beholden to him. George Soros represents and funds ideas and policies that are antithetical to mainstream conservative ideas.

I urge all those that value mainstream conservative ideas to reject all dealings with any organization that has accepted funds from George Soros. Furthermore, I urge all voters to vote against any candidate, including Republican candidates, that have accepted money or support from George Soros or any organization that has accepted money sourced from George Soros.

Happy Thanksgiving

2005-11-24T10:14:00.000-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Here a great list of non-confrontational questions to use to deflect any "Bush Lied" propaganda you might get from your family today. Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt.

Revisiting Reasons for the Second Iraqi War

2005-11-23T15:03:00.000-08:00

The basis for going to war included (at least) the following reasons:

* Non-compliance with the existing cease fire agreement
* Non-compliance with UN weapons agreements and inspectors (1)
-- Medium Range Ballistic missiles
-- Chemical Weapons
-- Biological weapons
-- Nuclear program
* Past demonstrated use of WMDs
* Past demonstrated attacks on neighboring nations
* Past demonstrated assassination attempts on US gov't officials
* Ongoing support for Palestinian terrorist actions (this wasn't part of the GWB's public reasons)
* Suspected ties to Muslim terrorists
* Suspected existence of Muslim Terrorist training camps
* Promotion of a new Democratic System within the Arab world
* Ending a tyrannical regime
* Ending genocidal activities
* Ending the corruption of oil funds into:
-- The UN
-- Terrorists
-- Iraqi military

There is supporting evidence for each of the listed reasons with the possible exception of WMDs (1). The facts collected on the ground in post-war Iraq do not conclusively prove that large stockpiles of WMDs existed at the time of the invasion. It is possible that these did exist and that the evidence has been removed. I will set this aside because it is not a defendable position, although it may be true. There is circumstantial evidence of WMD activities within Iraq; WMD antidotes, HazMat suits, protected bunkers.

This extensive list of justifications leads to the question that should be asked now: Why have so many Democrats flip-flopped on their support for this country's foreign policy? Is it their position that all of the reason listed above that have proved out do not remain a significant justification for the war?

Did John Kerry Lie?

2005-11-23T14:42:00.000-08:00

Some folks (especially in the MSM) are under the impression that "Bush lied us into War". There are multiple layers of misleading assumptions built into that statement. Let's assume for the moment that if person X said the same as GWB at the same time then he would be lying too. Then go read this:

http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582
HT: Glenn Reynolds

Yeah, I guess Kerry lied and people died!

Seriously though, it is an increasingly ridiculous assertion to believe that GWB some how convinced those in Congress, the UN, the NYT, the WaPo, the Clinton Administration (in 1998!) by some kind of retroactively dated argument that we should go to war. The start of the second Iraq war was a widely supported operation at the time.

These are the times that try men's souls.

2005-11-22T13:19:00.000-08:00

Excerpted from JOHN O'NEILL's essay

On December 23, 1776, with Washington's army freezing in tatters at Morristown, Thomas Paine in "Common Sense" wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls." He noted many mistakes by the American army, but noted that "tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered" and that heaven charges a high price for freedom because it is so precious. It was a time when "the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot shrink ... " but those who stood firm would someday receive the love and appreciation of the nation.

Brilliant and inspiring, is this quote, especially in context of today's difficult and unpopular effort in Iraq. Yes it is difficult to stand up and back the mission through the constant drumbeat of bombings and beheadings reported by NPR and others. I will not be distracted by minor accusations of supposed coalition misdoings; I will not be deterred by quibbles about equipment or numbers of troops; I will not be swayed by calls for withdraw from weak-kneed American politicians. Tyranny (and terrorism) is not easily conquered, and I will stand and support the effort resolutely.

Cowards cut and run, Marines never do

2005-11-22T10:22:00.000-08:00

Jack Kelly wrote on his blog Irish Pennants:

No one in the administration called Murtha a coward. No Republican in Congress called Murtha a coward. The closest anyone came was freshman Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), who repeated on the floor of the House what a constituent, a Marine reserve colonel currently serving in Iraq, said:
"He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course," Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." She later withdrew the remarks, saying she meant no insult to the Pennsylvania Democrat.

Emphasis mine. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The conservative mantra

2005-11-18T09:47:00.000-08:00

Hugh, you just coined a phrase:

Win the war.
Confirm the judges.
Cut the taxes.
Control the spending.

Spread the word...

Worst Case Scenario...

2005-11-15T11:29:00.000-08:00

If the US experiences a nuclear 9/11 would we reply (somewhere) with a nuclear strike? With a nuclear barraige? This is a serious question that is considered seriously over at Winds of Change. I reprint my comment here:

First off, I should state my base assumptions. I am an extreme hawk with respect to the GWOT. I believe that 9/11 gave the US the casus belli to invade, blockade, bomb, assassinate, incarcerate, physically/psychologically abuse any nation, group or person as necessary in order to pursue, disrupt and destroy those involved and associated with 9/11 style terrorists. The rest, in my view, is simply tactics.

Tactically, it may be smart to refrain from actions that described by the unfriendly media as torture. But in the cruel calculus of war, would not a few abused terrorist be a morally superior choice to a 9/11 times 10 or times 100 attack?

So tactically speaking would a nuclear attack against the terrorist make sense?

* Targeting
-- Can we identify a target that requires a nuclear weapon?

* Collateral Damage
-- Is the expected value of the attack greater than the collateral damage expected?
-- Is the negative reaction from allies, non-aligned states and enemy civilians greater than the expected value of the attack?

I must admit that I'm not convinced that that nuclear weapons have much value in actual use. Consider a the situation in Tora Bora when it was thought that OBL was there. If we had used nuclear munitions on that area would that have achieved our goal better than a carpet bombing campaign? I suspect that equal or greater military value can be had by simply using excessive amounts of conventional bombs rather than nuclear weapons.

If we assume that a nuclear terrorist strike in the USA has changed our current tactical thinking by reducing the sensitivity to civilian casualties then I suspect that the military could achieve its objectives without going nuclear. Can someone posit a situation to contradict my assertion? Perhaps going after the military industrial complex in Iran?

I see zero value in killing civilians for the sake of reducing the enemy civilian population. I do not follow the arguments that this will change the enemy's mindset. I believe that the analogy to Japan does not hold; the gov't ultimately surrendered -- the people would have gone on. We don't need to nuke Saudi Arabia to get them to surrender.

I do understand that there will be some domestic political pressure to reply in kind to a nuclear strike on the US. I also see some deterrent potential in a 100% certain retaliatory policy. Given this posture, it is quite unclear upon whom we would bomb if struck by terrorists.

The way to frame the debate...

2005-11-13T11:09:00.000-08:00

Australian treasurer Peter Costello:

If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law.

We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.

We do not derive our laws from religious instruction.

There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that’s your object you may well be much more at home in such a country than trying to turn Australia into one of those countries, because it’s not going to happen.

Brilliant. That's true here in the USA. If you want to emigrate and become a freedom-loving, capitalist, democratic, law abiding American then welcome.

HT: Tim Blair

Protecting our Freedom of Speech

2005-11-10T10:45:00.000-08:00

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

'nuff said. Or, at least it should be, but sadly it is not. Some in Congress are busy trying to limit your freedom of speech. I stand with my fellow patriots against this. Please follow this link to the onlinecoalition.com to learn more about what Congress is trying to do. Then take action.

EnviroNut Humor

2005-11-08T22:47:00.000-08:00

Some of the best writing anywhere is to be had is in a Slashdot thread:

Environut: Global warming is going to kill us all. We have to stop the evil oil companies bent of world destruction.

Engineer: Well then, let's invest some money in clean, reliable nuclear power plant design

Environut: Are you kidding. Those things are radioactive and they meltdown all the time. Plus Tom Brokaw says terrorists can blow them up with molotav cocktails and kill us all.

Engineer: I don't think you understand the issue fully, but ok, how about natural gas.

Environut: I heard through from my neighbor's, best friend's, third cousin who is an expert in environmental peace engineering at Evergreen Community College that natural gas tankers can explode with the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Engineer: The stored gas has equivalent chemical energy, yes, but it's release is dependent on the oxygen that can be supplied. The absolute worst case scenario is a really big fire. Still, if you're not comfortable with that, how about hydro power in locations where it's available?

Environut: Disrupts salmon spawning.

Engineer: Wind power?

Environut: Kills birds

Engineer: Geothermal?

Environut: Haven't you seen Core? You'll stop the earth's core from spinning, cause earthquakes, and kill the yellowstone geysers.

Engineer: Umm, how about tidal generators for coastal cities?

Environut: Absolutely not. They destroy the reefs to build them and devastate the shoreline ecostructure by reducing wave action

Engineer: How about investing in Fusion research?

Environut: Doesn't that involve atoms? I don't like atoms and I think they should be banned by international treaty because terrorists can build dirty bombs out of them.

Engineer: I suppose you have something against solar power too?

Environut: Oh no. I love solar power. It will save us from global warming, cure world hunger, end racism, and get Barbara Streisand elected president.

Engineer: Well, it does have its benefits, but it's only practical in a limited part of the world and it's currently nowhere near as cost-effective as other forms of energy production

Environut: I knew it! You're just another puppet for big oil. Why do you hate the baby seals? What did they ever do to you? Murderer!

Greenpeace caught destroying the environment

2005-11-04T11:16:00.000-08:00

In my favorite story of the day, Greenpeace caught destroying the environment. I wonder how much diesel fuel the rainbow Warrior uses? ;-)

Hey, I like coral reefs too, but it is important to realize that the environment is in a constant state of change. At the moment, the climate is warming (due to Human and non-Human factors). 300 years ago the climate had a distinct, brief cooling episode. Climate changes do cause plants and animals to die off in some areas and populate in others. It is a silly premise to expect the environment (and the coral reefs) to remain the same forever*. A much more nuanced view would embrace the changes as part of our world.

Footnote: I do realize that a more sophisticated Green argument is that Humanity is forcing environmental changes at a rate so fast that the natural systems do not adjust gracefully, resulting in (arguably) negative outcomes. While this is harder to disprove, it really comes down to a set of opinions on what comprises a "negative outcome".

If Arctic Tundra is replaced with Northern woodland is that negative? I don't presume to answer this question, because the answer depends opun the implicit "To Whom". So called Environmentalist Issues tend to boil down to "change is bad", so we should do X, or ban Y so that change doesn't happen. This is a false premise, change is not necessarally bad. X costs money and Y has value; these factors need to be considered.

NRO reports on protecting online Free Speech ...

2005-11-04T10:36:00.000-08:00

This NRO story has the latest info on preemptive legislation to protect bloggers' First Amendment rights. The long and the short of it is that this attempt to preemptively ban regulation of online speech has failed in Congress.

It is my opinion that the First Amendment clearly extends to internet speech, and that any and all regulation of speech by the gov't is wrong and illegal. Unfortunately, the campaign finance law has passed Congress, was signed by the President, and has not been struck down by SCOTUS. A trifecta of constitutional shame.

This blog will continue to follow this issue and tirelessly advocate to protect our First Amendment rights.

GWOT as compared to WW II

2005-11-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

Over at Winds of Change, Cicero wonders:

So this week I am wondering: Is November, 2005 similar to March, 1939?

This week, appeasment has delivered two unfortunate results. First, Iran has elected a new, ultra-Islamofascist president, who has now recalled what it considers to be its 'moderate' ambassadors from Europe, while stepping up uranium production. There is no longer any realistic hope that European carrots will prevent an Iranian bomb. And second, Europe itself is seeing an intifada explode on its own soil. France is burning as I write this. The Netherlands is in a state of high tension, one year after Van Gogh's murder. European immigrants are teaming with passion and fury, with a fire not unlike the ones that raged in Europe 60 years ago.
Is this the point at which Europe collectively recognizes that appeasement has hit a dead end?

The analogy between the so called Global War on Terror (GWOT) and WW II continues. I think the analogy, while as imperfect as all analogies tend to be, is useful.

To answer Cicero's question; I would say NO this isn't March 1939, but rather this is 1940, prior to the blitzkrieg of France. The USA is at war (as Britain and France were in 1940) but much of the rest of the world is not fully involved, even though the enemy is known. The present day France and Germany remain frustratingly on the sidelines, as the USA did until Dec 7th 1941.

I believe there will be several horrific future events that will bring various countries and constituencies into the struggle against Islamo-fascism. I shudder to think what else needs to take place beyond what has happened already: 9/11, Beslan, 3/11, 7/7 ad nauseum.

Pork Busters

2005-11-03T11:20:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately, our congress-persons cannot see fit to allocate Federal moneys away from their own districts and toward the hurricane devastated states of Louisiana and Mississippi. This is to be expected, based upon their past behavior, but it is NOT to be tolerated. Please support Pork Busters. I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package. You should too.

Another Pearl Harbor, Another 9/11?

2005-11-02T10:27:00.000-08:00

Dan's post at Winds of Change led me over to this post at Regime Change Iran. This information , if believed, should alarm everyone. Shouldn't an open declaration of hostilities by a foreign gov't official matter? When they are building atomic weapons?

If the energy of the Democrats is focused on accusing, investigating and proving that GWB "lied us into the War"( See Yesterday's Senate Shenanigans) then it would be nearly impossible for them to process the information about Iran and politically support the needed policy actions against the Iranian threat. I am very troubled that the Dems have moved to the far left Anti-war position. Bill Clinton led the US to attack Iraq (and Afghanistan and Sudan) in 1998; proof that the Dems can act like hawks when it suits them. For the good of the USA it is critical that the Dems rediscover their inner hawk and stand with the rest of us when it matters most.

That's free speech for ya...

2005-11-01T14:39:00.000-08:00

Enjoy this video from China
HT: Cicero at Wind of Change.net

Reason number 47 that Radical Islam should be opposed...

2005-11-01T09:35:00.000-08:00

Warning: disturbing images of child abuse.
Hat tip: bareknucklepolitics.com

Any comment from Kofi? ACLU? Dick Durbin? ... crickets chirping.