Perhaps it has become trendy for the media to report on Muslim demands that society accomodate their religious practices, or perhaps these demands are truly on the rise. In either case, some thoughts on the limits of "freedom of religion" are in order.
The Constitution prohibits the creation of a state religion - the government may not tell us where or when or how or what to worship. That prohibition has been expanded to also prohibit government interference with religion and government support of religion. Thus every December some atheist brings suit against some municipality that has foolishly erected a creche on public land. It has also driven the criticism of the Bush Administration support for "faith-based initiatives."
Yet all these concerns seemingly disappear if the faith in question is Islam:
Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis want to be free to deny transport passengers carrying alcohol.
That is discrimination based on religion and a clear violation of federal law. Pretend the cabbies were white Christians who did not want to transport non-whites.
If the cabbie doesn't want to offend his religious principles, let him find another job. The government should not let him impose his PREJUDICES on others, particularly when it vigorously prevents from others from imposing their prejudices.
Muslim students and workers are pressing for foot washing stations so they may wash their feet before they pray. If that is part of their religion, well and good. But let them pay for it.
There is the crucial limit to the "freedom of religion." One may worship as one pleases, but one may not require the rest of us to subsidize it. Imagine the outcry if a Baptist church demanded use of a public swimming pool for baptisms. (To tell the truth, if they wanted to pay a reasonable rental fee, we would not be offended.)
Clearly being a Muslim should not make one a second-class citizen. Neither should it entitle one to special rights, privileges or treatment not available to non-Muslims.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Bush Lied - IMPEACH HIM!!!
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep.Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
Rep.Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Senator Feingold, Please Clarify
The distinguished senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, showing that he is a true successor to that other great Wisconsin legislator, Joe McCarthy, has proposed to censure President Bush.
Senator, Please advise which part of the Constitution gives Congress this power?
By the way, it is amusing to note that the last president "censured" by Congress was Andrew Jackson. He was so disgraced that his portrait was expunged from the public record and appears only on the $20 bill.
Senator, Please advise which part of the Constitution gives Congress this power?
By the way, it is amusing to note that the last president "censured" by Congress was Andrew Jackson. He was so disgraced that his portrait was expunged from the public record and appears only on the $20 bill.
Why We Fight
It is said that, when Eisenhower learned of the Nazi death camps, he ordered Allied troops to tour them, commenting "I want them to see what we are fighting against."
With that in mind, we offer a simple illustration.
We are fighting in Iraq so that women may CHOOSE to dress like this:
Not Like This:
Questions?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Eat Your Heart Out, John Kerry
The question of John Kerry's war record is back in the news.
We do not question that he is indeed a hero - to the enemy.
We therefore offer a glimpse at the record of a genuine AMERICAN hero:
For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944 in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.
---Medal of Honor citation (posthumous) of Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
A few additional facts to illuminate Gen. Roosevelt's accomplishments:
He was the son of President Roosevelt, well off and getting on in years. He could easily have stayed home and let others fight for him. Given his age, no one would have faulted him. Instead he volunteered, was the highest ranking officer in the first wave of the invasion and was the first soldier off his landing craft.
Discovering that the ocean currents had carried his force a mile off course, he improvised brilliantly and made a material contribution to the success of the invasion. On the beach he played every possible role, from commander to inspiration to traffic cop.
His bad heart killed him a month later. He is buried in Normandy, beside his brother Kermit, who was killed in WWI.
Now then, let's imagine Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, George W or any of our other make-believe leaders performing any one of these acts, let alone all of them.
We do not question that he is indeed a hero - to the enemy.
We therefore offer a glimpse at the record of a genuine AMERICAN hero:
For gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty on 6 June 1944 in France. After 2 verbal requests to accompany the leading assault elements in the Normandy invasion had been denied, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt's written request for this mission was approved and he landed with the first wave of the forces assaulting the enemy-held beaches. He repeatedly led groups from the beach, over the seawall and established them inland. His valor, courage, and presence in the very front of the attack and his complete unconcern at being under heavy fire inspired the troops to heights of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Although the enemy had the beach under constant direct fire, Brig. Gen. Roosevelt moved from one locality to another, rallying men around him, directed and personally led them against the enemy. Under his seasoned, precise, calm, and unfaltering leadership, assault troops reduced beach strong points and rapidly moved inland with minimum casualties. He thus contributed substantially to the successful establishment of the beachhead in France.
---Medal of Honor citation (posthumous) of Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
A few additional facts to illuminate Gen. Roosevelt's accomplishments:
He was the son of President Roosevelt, well off and getting on in years. He could easily have stayed home and let others fight for him. Given his age, no one would have faulted him. Instead he volunteered, was the highest ranking officer in the first wave of the invasion and was the first soldier off his landing craft.
Discovering that the ocean currents had carried his force a mile off course, he improvised brilliantly and made a material contribution to the success of the invasion. On the beach he played every possible role, from commander to inspiration to traffic cop.
His bad heart killed him a month later. He is buried in Normandy, beside his brother Kermit, who was killed in WWI.
Now then, let's imagine Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, John Edwards, George W or any of our other make-believe leaders performing any one of these acts, let alone all of them.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Thought for Today
“Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.”
----Winston Churchill
----Winston Churchill
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Where Have All The Leaders Gone
A recent example of the piercing intellect of Bill Clinton:
“[N]ow that I’m a millionaire, I get more help from the federal government than anybody. I think it’s inconsistent with the common good to give me huge tax cuts.”
For comparison, Herbert Hoover was a wealthy man before becoming president. During his term he routinely returned his salary to the Treasury, noting that his private resources were sufficient to meet his needs.
Giving money back does not seem to have occurred to Uncle Bill.
“[N]ow that I’m a millionaire, I get more help from the federal government than anybody. I think it’s inconsistent with the common good to give me huge tax cuts.”
For comparison, Herbert Hoover was a wealthy man before becoming president. During his term he routinely returned his salary to the Treasury, noting that his private resources were sufficient to meet his needs.
Giving money back does not seem to have occurred to Uncle Bill.
"It is time to end this war"
Or so declares Hillary Clinton, vainly trying to lead opinion and break from her husband's only commitment - FOLLOWING opinion.
But the princples of the Clintons - or their lack thereof - are too easy a target and we wish to address substantive questions.
Mrs. C has declared it is time to end the war.
But the princples of the Clintons - or their lack thereof - are too easy a target and we wish to address substantive questions.
Mrs. C has declared it is time to end the war.
HOW?
The Instant Solution - Surrender
Harry Reid has once again demonstrated his intellectual bankruptcy and moral cowardice by staging an hours-long debate demanding withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
How would he respond to the killing in Iraq that would undoubtably follow?
How would he respond to renewed terror attacks on the US at home and abroad?
Has he ever read the Constitution and noticed that the Congress does not have operational control of the armed forces? Or does he believe he is part of some European parliment?
Yes, Congress could cut off funding, but then what? There is a precedent. 100 years or so ago Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send the Fleet around the world to demonstrate America's new military prowess. Congress refused to budget the money.
TR discovered he had enough money to send the Fleet half way, which he did, and then left Congress with a dilemma - leave the Fleet to rust in the Philippines or cough up the money to bring it home.
W could do the same thing - spending every cent at his disposal to continue to conflict and leaving it to Congress to find a way to stop him. For instance, he could divert funding from the troops in South Korea or Germany or in Bosnia.
Would that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be seen as what they are - hacks who put their will to power ahead of the best interests of the nation. They call to mind the tactic Lenin took after the Tsar fell and a more or less moderate government took over Russia. He instructed his followers to oppose everything, to block every change or reform to defeat the moderates, push the nation deeper into chaos and to set the stage for a Communist take over.
But there is one bit of comfort in Comrade Reid's antics - his ever increasing level of hysteria suggests that the "surge" is working, and he wants desperately to derail it before success becomes undeniable.
Harry Reid almost makes us wish the Constitution did not prohibit bills of attainder.
How would he respond to the killing in Iraq that would undoubtably follow?
How would he respond to renewed terror attacks on the US at home and abroad?
Has he ever read the Constitution and noticed that the Congress does not have operational control of the armed forces? Or does he believe he is part of some European parliment?
Yes, Congress could cut off funding, but then what? There is a precedent. 100 years or so ago Teddy Roosevelt wanted to send the Fleet around the world to demonstrate America's new military prowess. Congress refused to budget the money.
TR discovered he had enough money to send the Fleet half way, which he did, and then left Congress with a dilemma - leave the Fleet to rust in the Philippines or cough up the money to bring it home.
W could do the same thing - spending every cent at his disposal to continue to conflict and leaving it to Congress to find a way to stop him. For instance, he could divert funding from the troops in South Korea or Germany or in Bosnia.
Would that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be seen as what they are - hacks who put their will to power ahead of the best interests of the nation. They call to mind the tactic Lenin took after the Tsar fell and a more or less moderate government took over Russia. He instructed his followers to oppose everything, to block every change or reform to defeat the moderates, push the nation deeper into chaos and to set the stage for a Communist take over.
But there is one bit of comfort in Comrade Reid's antics - his ever increasing level of hysteria suggests that the "surge" is working, and he wants desperately to derail it before success becomes undeniable.
Harry Reid almost makes us wish the Constitution did not prohibit bills of attainder.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Socialized Medicine
The idea does have an attractive simplicity – protect everyone, drive costs down, eliminate price gouging, improve quality and create a better society. Unfortunately, these are goals, not methods to achieve those goals. The basic premise – that government can fix everything, simply because it is government – is unpersuasive.
Imagine:
- Doctors whose pay is based on seniority, not merit.
- Treatments that do not change because there is no incentive to innovate.
- Hospitals with no incentive to compete.
- Decisions based on opinion polls, not science.
- A health care system that resembles the Department of Motor Vehicles or the local school system.
The entire debate calls to mind an old British joke about their national system:
George notes that his pal Bill has lost a tremendous amount of weight. When asked about it, Bill explains “The doc gave me a pill. At night I dream I’m running on the beach with all the women of my dreams. The weight comes right off.”
George goes to his doc and gets his pills. But he complains that he dreams of running from blood-thirsty cannibals.
“Oh” replies the doc. “Bill is a private pay. You are on national health.”
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Mr. President, Please Explain
In recent days we have heard a number of prominent persons announce that there is reputable information that Iran IS sending munitions and bombs into Iraq and that at least three terrorist training camps exist in Iran.
It is possible that we will never be able to completely interdict the arms smuggling, given that the Iran/Iraq border is long and rugged and hard to police.
But why haven't those camps been simply obliterated? Of course there would be "outrage," as there was after Reagan bombed Libya. But, oddly enough, Libya's sponsorship of terrorism came to a dramatic halt.
Isn't our over-riding strategy to take the war to the enemy?
Mr. President, what are you waiting for?
It is possible that we will never be able to completely interdict the arms smuggling, given that the Iran/Iraq border is long and rugged and hard to police.
But why haven't those camps been simply obliterated? Of course there would be "outrage," as there was after Reagan bombed Libya. But, oddly enough, Libya's sponsorship of terrorism came to a dramatic halt.
Isn't our over-riding strategy to take the war to the enemy?
Mr. President, what are you waiting for?
Run Away! Run Away!
We are comforted that the troop surge in Iraq is indeed succeeding, as demonstrated by the increasing calls for immediate withdrawal coming from the Smart Set. If we stick around and succeed, dreams of a Libertine electoral landslide in '08 could be as short lived as a passenger in any auto driven by Ted Kennedy.
As exhibit one, we offer the following mass of laughable sophistry, recently issued by Senate Majority Leader Reid.
Press Release of Senator Reid
Reid: As Civil War Rages Six Months After Bush Annouces Surge, Democrats Again Push Strategy To Bring Our Troops Home
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Washington, D.C.—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada made the following statement today in response to President Bush’s remarks on the progress of the war in Iraq:
“In the six months since President Bush announced his surge, nearly 600 brave Americans have been killed while trying to provide Iraq’s political leaders with the breathing space needed to unite their country. But Iraq’s leaders have been frozen in a dangerous stalemate and have met virtually none of the critical political and economic benchmarks they set for themselves. Meanwhile, American taxpayers are being asked for more than $10 billion per month to finance the war and support an Iraqi government that shows little interest in helping itself. In short, the President’s strategy and the surge in particular have delivered few of the promised results.
“Unfortunately, we are learning that President Bush is unwilling to offer a strategy other than more of the same – plunging our brave military forces even deeper into a civil war in hopes that Iraqis will eventually act. That path is not sustainable. Democrats believe we need a new strategy, one that forces the President to change the mission and bring our troops home responsibly. We hope Republicans will join us to deliver the real change of course in Iraq that the American people and our troops deserve.”
###
Escalation Simply Failing
Today, the six-month anniversary of the President announcing the escalation, it is clearer than ever that this stay-the-course strategy is failing. Violence has increased inside and outside of Baghdad, Iraqi forces have yet to stand up, and the Iraqi government is making no real progress. It is time Senate Republicans put our nation’s security and the American people’s desires over a stubborn President, and vote for redeployment.
Despite Escalation, Violence is Increasing
Sectarian Violence in Baghdad is Increasing.
Pentagon Reports that Violence is Increasing Outside of Baghdad. “And it [the Pentagon Quarterly Report] described in more detail than officials had until now how security conditions in other parts of the country had worsened when American and Iraqi forces shifted in large numbers into the capital.” [New York Times, 6/14/07]
Pentagon Says Suicide Attacks More Than Doubled During Escalation. “Suicide attacks more than doubled across Iraq -- from 26 in January to 58 in April -- said the report, which covers the three months from mid-February to mid-May.” [Washington Post, 6/14/07]
During Escalation, U.S. Troops Faced Deadliest Two Month Period Since Invasion. “In April and May, 230 U.S. troops were killed, making it the war’s deadliest two month period.” [USA Today, 6/27/07]
Sectarian Cleansing of Baghdad Neighborhoods Continues. “Christian leaders say 500 families left Dora in April and May… The flight of Dora's Christians is an example of how the initial phase of the U.S. security crackdown here has failed to establish security and stop the sectarian "cleansing" of Baghdad's neighborhoods. The U.S. military conducted a major clearing operation in Dora last fall, then largely pulled out, turning security over to Iraqi forces. Sunni Arab militants with ties to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq quickly reestablished themselves and late last year began harassing Christians.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/27/07]
Despite Escalation, Iraqi Government Failing to Make Progress
Iraq Unlikely to Meet Any Benchmarks Set By President Bush. “The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter.” [Washington Post, 7/8/07]
Iraqi Government Barely Functioning. “At least 12 ministers from the 38-member cabinet are no longer attending cabinet meetings. There has been little progress on benchmark legislation, including oil revenue-sharing and a law to set a date for provincial elections. Seventy-four members of Parliament are boycotting the 275-member body, which, when combined with the members who rarely attend anyway, means that Parliament often lacks a quorum and cannot do any official business.” [New York Times, 6/6/07]
Shiites Beset by Infighting - Maliki’s Cabinet is “Teetering on the Edge.” “Iraq's government is teetering on the edge. Maliki's Cabinet is filled with officials who are deeply estranged from one another and more loyal to their parties than to the government as a whole. Some are jostling to unseat the prime minister. Few, if any, have accepted the basic premise of a government whose power is shared among each of Iraq's warring sects and ethnic groups.” [Las Angeles Times, 6/6/07]
Despite Escalation, Iraqi Security Forces Still Unable to Stand Up
Iraqi Forces Still Unable to Hold Areas Cleared by U.S. Troops.
Iraqi police corrupt, fueling sectarian violence. “Iraq's 135,000-strong police force continues to be plagued with problems, U.S. commanders say. Up to 70% of Iraqi police leaders have been replaced because they had ties to sectarian violence, Petraeus says. About 5,000 police deserted the force in the 18 months before January, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said at a Pentagon news conference Wednesday. Another 7,000 or 8,000 police officers are unaccounted for. "I have great concerns about the police," Lynch says. "There are large areas in (central Iraq) where there are no police. And in areas where we do have police, we have corrupt police.” [USA Today, 6/14/07]
Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda Regaining Sanctuary in Afghanistan and Pakistan
As Iraq becomes a breeding ground for terrorism, the Bush Administration has become distracted from fighting al-Qaeda along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding. It’s time to refocus our nation’s efforts on a strategy to effectively fight terrorism.
Taliban Regrouping, Increasing Attacks, and in Control of Large Parts of Afghanistan. “Five years after the Taliban's ouster, the militia is again a serious adversary, seizing control of swaths of the south, despite the presence of more NATO, U.S. and Afghan troops. …In eastern Afghanistan, attacks were up 83 percent during the first half of the year compared with the same period of 2006, according to the U.S. units who operate there.” [AP, 7/1/07]
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell Says Al Qaeda Leadership in Afghanistan/Pakistan is Much More Likely to Guide Next Attack on the U.S. than Terrorists in Iraq.
Senator Jack Reed: Well, the question would be: If you had to establish a probability of a successful attack being organized and directed against the United States, would it emanate from Pakistan, with this newly revised Al Qaida leadership, or would it come out of Iraq?
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell: My belief is the attack most likely would be planned and come out of the leadership in Pakistan. [Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/27/07]
Iraq War Czar Lt. General Lute Admits Al-Qaeda Has Sanctuary on Afghanistan-Pakistan Border.
As exhibit one, we offer the following mass of laughable sophistry, recently issued by Senate Majority Leader Reid.
Press Release of Senator Reid
Reid: As Civil War Rages Six Months After Bush Annouces Surge, Democrats Again Push Strategy To Bring Our Troops Home
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Washington, D.C.—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada made the following statement today in response to President Bush’s remarks on the progress of the war in Iraq:
“In the six months since President Bush announced his surge, nearly 600 brave Americans have been killed while trying to provide Iraq’s political leaders with the breathing space needed to unite their country. But Iraq’s leaders have been frozen in a dangerous stalemate and have met virtually none of the critical political and economic benchmarks they set for themselves. Meanwhile, American taxpayers are being asked for more than $10 billion per month to finance the war and support an Iraqi government that shows little interest in helping itself. In short, the President’s strategy and the surge in particular have delivered few of the promised results.
“Unfortunately, we are learning that President Bush is unwilling to offer a strategy other than more of the same – plunging our brave military forces even deeper into a civil war in hopes that Iraqis will eventually act. That path is not sustainable. Democrats believe we need a new strategy, one that forces the President to change the mission and bring our troops home responsibly. We hope Republicans will join us to deliver the real change of course in Iraq that the American people and our troops deserve.”
###
Escalation Simply Failing
Today, the six-month anniversary of the President announcing the escalation, it is clearer than ever that this stay-the-course strategy is failing. Violence has increased inside and outside of Baghdad, Iraqi forces have yet to stand up, and the Iraqi government is making no real progress. It is time Senate Republicans put our nation’s security and the American people’s desires over a stubborn President, and vote for redeployment.
Despite Escalation, Violence is Increasing
Sectarian Violence in Baghdad is Increasing.
“Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics.” [Washington Post, 7/5/07]
Pentagon Reports that Violence is Increasing Outside of Baghdad. “And it [the Pentagon Quarterly Report] described in more detail than officials had until now how security conditions in other parts of the country had worsened when American and Iraqi forces shifted in large numbers into the capital.” [New York Times, 6/14/07]
Pentagon Says Suicide Attacks More Than Doubled During Escalation. “Suicide attacks more than doubled across Iraq -- from 26 in January to 58 in April -- said the report, which covers the three months from mid-February to mid-May.” [Washington Post, 6/14/07]
During Escalation, U.S. Troops Faced Deadliest Two Month Period Since Invasion. “In April and May, 230 U.S. troops were killed, making it the war’s deadliest two month period.” [USA Today, 6/27/07]
Sectarian Cleansing of Baghdad Neighborhoods Continues. “Christian leaders say 500 families left Dora in April and May… The flight of Dora's Christians is an example of how the initial phase of the U.S. security crackdown here has failed to establish security and stop the sectarian "cleansing" of Baghdad's neighborhoods. The U.S. military conducted a major clearing operation in Dora last fall, then largely pulled out, turning security over to Iraqi forces. Sunni Arab militants with ties to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq quickly reestablished themselves and late last year began harassing Christians.” [Los Angeles Times, 6/27/07]
Despite Escalation, Iraqi Government Failing to Make Progress
Iraq Unlikely to Meet Any Benchmarks Set By President Bush. “The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy, according to senior administration officials closely involved in the matter.” [Washington Post, 7/8/07]
Iraqi Government Barely Functioning. “At least 12 ministers from the 38-member cabinet are no longer attending cabinet meetings. There has been little progress on benchmark legislation, including oil revenue-sharing and a law to set a date for provincial elections. Seventy-four members of Parliament are boycotting the 275-member body, which, when combined with the members who rarely attend anyway, means that Parliament often lacks a quorum and cannot do any official business.” [New York Times, 6/6/07]
Shiites Beset by Infighting - Maliki’s Cabinet is “Teetering on the Edge.” “Iraq's government is teetering on the edge. Maliki's Cabinet is filled with officials who are deeply estranged from one another and more loyal to their parties than to the government as a whole. Some are jostling to unseat the prime minister. Few, if any, have accepted the basic premise of a government whose power is shared among each of Iraq's warring sects and ethnic groups.” [Las Angeles Times, 6/6/07]
Despite Escalation, Iraqi Security Forces Still Unable to Stand Up
Iraqi Forces Still Unable to Hold Areas Cleared by U.S. Troops.
“Iraq faced more troubles on the military and political fronts on Sunday: some American commanders expressed doubts about the ability of Iraqi troops to hold the gains made in areas north of the capital last week, and two Sunni Arab blocs boycotted a Parliament session, demanding the reinstatement of the speaker. …The American commander in Baquba, Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, and his counterpart south of Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, pointed to a variety of problems with the Iraqi forces, including a shortage of trained troops and a lack of basic supplies like ammunition, radios and trucks. ‘They're not quite up to the job yet,’ General Bednarek said in an interview with The Associated Press in Baquba.” [New York Times, 6/25/07]
Iraqi police corrupt, fueling sectarian violence. “Iraq's 135,000-strong police force continues to be plagued with problems, U.S. commanders say. Up to 70% of Iraqi police leaders have been replaced because they had ties to sectarian violence, Petraeus says. About 5,000 police deserted the force in the 18 months before January, Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey said at a Pentagon news conference Wednesday. Another 7,000 or 8,000 police officers are unaccounted for. "I have great concerns about the police," Lynch says. "There are large areas in (central Iraq) where there are no police. And in areas where we do have police, we have corrupt police.” [USA Today, 6/14/07]
Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda Regaining Sanctuary in Afghanistan and Pakistan
As Iraq becomes a breeding ground for terrorism, the Bush Administration has become distracted from fighting al-Qaeda along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding. It’s time to refocus our nation’s efforts on a strategy to effectively fight terrorism.
Taliban Regrouping, Increasing Attacks, and in Control of Large Parts of Afghanistan. “Five years after the Taliban's ouster, the militia is again a serious adversary, seizing control of swaths of the south, despite the presence of more NATO, U.S. and Afghan troops. …In eastern Afghanistan, attacks were up 83 percent during the first half of the year compared with the same period of 2006, according to the U.S. units who operate there.” [AP, 7/1/07]
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell Says Al Qaeda Leadership in Afghanistan/Pakistan is Much More Likely to Guide Next Attack on the U.S. than Terrorists in Iraq.
Senator Jack Reed: Well, the question would be: If you had to establish a probability of a successful attack being organized and directed against the United States, would it emanate from Pakistan, with this newly revised Al Qaida leadership, or would it come out of Iraq?
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell: My belief is the attack most likely would be planned and come out of the leadership in Pakistan. [Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing, 2/27/07]
Iraq War Czar Lt. General Lute Admits Al-Qaeda Has Sanctuary on Afghanistan-Pakistan Border.
“I don’t think there’s any question that the relative sanctuary for, especially, Taliban senior leadership in Pakistan, today, in the border regions of Pakistan, is a major factor in the ability of the Taliban to be resurgent and probably quite active military this spring in Afghanistan. There’s no question that that sanctuary exists and that it’s a major asset for the Taliban.” [Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/1/07]
Strategy For Victory In Iraq
Administration strategy in Iraq is an easy target. Even those of us who believe the war was and is necessary are puzzled, distressed and disappointed by its management.
But we think it only fair to give the White House's side of the argument.
The full text of this document may be found at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.
Failure is Not an Option
Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated
The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.
Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.
Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.
Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.
The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:
Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.
The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:
Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:
Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing
Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.
For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.
Victory Will Take Time
Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.
Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.
It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.
Our comprehensive strategy will help Iraqis overcome remaining challenges, but defeating the multi-headed enemy in Iraq -- and ensuring that it cannot threaten Iraq's democratic gains once we leave -- requires persistent effort across many fronts.
Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based
With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.
No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.
But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.
We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.
While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.
Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.
But we think it only fair to give the White House's side of the argument.
The full text of this document may be found at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.
The fate of the greater Middle East -- which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security -- hangs in the balance.
Failure is Not an Option
Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies.
Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region -- a historic opportunity lost.
The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.
The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated
The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.
Each element shares a common short-term objective -- to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down -- but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.
Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.
Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.
The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:
Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq;
Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and
Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.
The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:
Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;
Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and
Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.
The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:
Restore Iraq's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;
Reform Iraq's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and
Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.
This Strategy is Integrated and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing
Progress in each of the political, security, and economic tracks reinforces progress in the other tracks.
For instance, as the political process has moved forward, terrorists have become more isolated, leading to more intelligence on security threats from Iraqi citizens, which has led to better security in previously violent areas, a more stable infrastructure, the prospect of economic progress, and expanding political participation.
Victory Will Take Time
Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.
Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.
It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power.
Our comprehensive strategy will help Iraqis overcome remaining challenges, but defeating the multi-headed enemy in Iraq -- and ensuring that it cannot threaten Iraq's democratic gains once we leave -- requires persistent effort across many fronts.
Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based
With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.
No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.
But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.
We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.
While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.
Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Treason
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has recently described capitalists as "traitors" and called for them to be dealt with appropriately.
Whilst piercing intellect does not seem to be a characteristic of the current generation of the Kennedy Klan, one would be forgiven for expecting someone as closely associated with government as RFK, Jr. to know that "treason" is very narrowly defined in the Constitution. It is waging war on the US or giving "aid and comfort" to its enemies. Traitors are eligible for the death penalty.
Which leaves us troubled: Is the very wealthy Mr. Kennedy saying it is now a capital offense to make a profit? To disagree with him and the other pseudo scientists of the Smart Set?
Is he suggesting that DISSENT is now treason? Perhaps he is also ignorant of the First Amendment. Alternatively, perhaps he has been studying his father's notes from his time working for Senator McCarthy.
But for the moment we have a better understanding of how Jane Fonda must have felt when people objected to seeing her perched on an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi.
Whilst piercing intellect does not seem to be a characteristic of the current generation of the Kennedy Klan, one would be forgiven for expecting someone as closely associated with government as RFK, Jr. to know that "treason" is very narrowly defined in the Constitution. It is waging war on the US or giving "aid and comfort" to its enemies. Traitors are eligible for the death penalty.
Which leaves us troubled: Is the very wealthy Mr. Kennedy saying it is now a capital offense to make a profit? To disagree with him and the other pseudo scientists of the Smart Set?
Is he suggesting that DISSENT is now treason? Perhaps he is also ignorant of the First Amendment. Alternatively, perhaps he has been studying his father's notes from his time working for Senator McCarthy.
But for the moment we have a better understanding of how Jane Fonda must have felt when people objected to seeing her perched on an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi.
Nancy Pelosi Ends Womans' Liberation
Do you remember Nancy Pelosi's visit to the Middle East, back in April, when she dutifully wore a head scarf to show her respect for Islam?
We ran across a copy of one of those photos recently and had to ask whether she would wear a scarf to her own church. After all, St. Paul and the Koran both advocate the subjugation of women. We refer you to Paul's First Letter to Timothy:
2:9In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 2:10but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. 2:11Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 2:12But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 2:14and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 2:15but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Readers old enough to recall the Catholic church pre-Vatican II will also recall when the Roman Church, took this passage to heart - before Vatican II women were once REQUIRED to cover their heads in Catholic churches. Discarding this restriction was one of the reforms of Vatican II and was hailed as evidence that the Roman Church had entered the modern age.
Which leaves us bemused:
Why would a modern, educated, liberated woman willingly submit to a custom her entire culture has rejected?
Is Ms. Pelosi a religious conservative who routinely wears a scarf to church?
Is Ms. Pelosi so naive that she believes that extremists will leave us alone if we pander to them by showing token respect for their customs?
We ran across a copy of one of those photos recently and had to ask whether she would wear a scarf to her own church. After all, St. Paul and the Koran both advocate the subjugation of women. We refer you to Paul's First Letter to Timothy:
2:9In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 2:10but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. 2:11Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 2:12But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 2:14and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 2:15but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
Readers old enough to recall the Catholic church pre-Vatican II will also recall when the Roman Church, took this passage to heart - before Vatican II women were once REQUIRED to cover their heads in Catholic churches. Discarding this restriction was one of the reforms of Vatican II and was hailed as evidence that the Roman Church had entered the modern age.
Which leaves us bemused:
Why would a modern, educated, liberated woman willingly submit to a custom her entire culture has rejected?
Is Ms. Pelosi a religious conservative who routinely wears a scarf to church?
Is Ms. Pelosi so naive that she believes that extremists will leave us alone if we pander to them by showing token respect for their customs?
Millions For Defense
We have recently come across various commentators suggesting that advanced weapons systems being developed by the US are simply not needed and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. The argument is roughly as follows:
The Soviet Union is gone, taking with it the threat of massive “conventional” warfare;
Current US weapons are vastly superior to anything a potential enemy can field, and will remain that way for the foreseeable future;
Massive weapons are out of place in an era of “small wars” and “asymmetric” conflicts. After all, Iraq remains in turmoil despite the quality and quantity of US arms.
It is an argument that merits scrutiny.
On the question of massive weapons and small wars, we submit that America’s current one-sided military advantages are not obsolete; but that they help keep wars “small.” Hit and run tactics, rather than sustained invasions, are preferred by parties with smaller numbers or fewer weapons than their opponents. They are frightening and destructive, but generally lack the destructive impact of a column of invading tanks or carpet bombing with cluster bombs. 9/11 was a tragedy, and a brilliant piece of unconventional tactics. But it was also a “one hit wonder” by an opponent who lacked the ability to either launch a conventional attack against US forces or to capitalize on the confusion and terror they engendered. There is some comfort in the knowledge that 9/11 was the best a resourceful and determined enemy could do in the face of American military might.
But, the argument goes, an aircraft carrier cannot deter a nut with a suitcase nuke. No doubt; but nuts, but definition, are not influenced by rational considerations. It is unwise to let core policy be driven by such wildcards. In contrast to the “nut,” an aircraft carrier can deter a rogue nation from indulging in terror attacks or proxy wars. Recall how abruptly terror attacks in Europe declined after the US air raids on Libya. The message was clear: “You may harm us, but we can obliterate you.” The lesson was repeated in Afghanistan after 9/11. The Taliban was deposed with remarkable speed. We attribute part of the security the US has enjoyed since 9/11 to that fact – no other nation has, we believe, been willing to risk the consequences of “hosting” another attack on the US homeland. Such security comes only from the ability to project massively superior force anywhere in the world.
Yet questions remain. Why are new weapons needed given the current superiority and the likelihood that it will remain unchallenged for some time to come. Without claiming to be weapons experts, we note some general principals. History teaches us that “superiority” is often illusory. In 1905 the Russian Empire thought they would easily crush the “inferior” Japanese. The French thought the massive Maginot Line was superior to anything a foe could throw against it. Perhaps it was. But the Nazis simply went around it. More recently, 25 years ago even scholars would have scoffed at the thought that remote, impoverished Pakistan could acquire the atomic bomb. We should also bear in mind the fact that our enemies are unlikely to tell us about their latest innovations and that the “foreseeable future” might be an extremely short period of time. Consider the advances in computer technology in just the past five years.
We would prefer to deter would-be enemies by constantly raising the bar, rather than risking attack by a determined opponent who believes he has parity in material terms and superior morale and dedication. Thus the old saying: “To have peace, prepare for war.”
There remains the question of America’s industrial power – our perceived ability to turn out more and better weapons, faster than anyone else, as demonstrated in World War II. World War II, however, is a troubling example. Would it have been avoided had the Allies possessed all those ships, tanks, planes and trained troops in 1939? Consider also that, but for a number of lucky blunders, the Nazis could have won the war in Europe, despite all of America’s manufacturing power. Neither should we conclude that US industrial might is absolute. China’s capacity grows daily, along with the sophistication of its products. North Korean missiles are advanced, and for sale. A well funded opponent may well be able to buy what is needed to pose a significant conventional threat to US interests.
Bear in mind that US interests do not end at the water’s edge. A suitcase nuke in NY or LA would be terrifying. A systematic attack on the nation’s oil supply could be devastating. But that is something an aircraft carrier can help prevent.
We agree with the general principle that defense funds should be spent wisely and that all systems should be tested in light of current and future needs. We disagree, however, with the theory that the nation needs only “just enough” weapons – that we need only enough weapons to respond effectively and ultimately prevail. History teaches that such “parity” invites aggression – witness Pearl Harbor. Better to win without firing a shot. We do not want weapons system an opponent thinks he can defeat. We want weapons that will make a would-be aggressor pee his pants.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Islam, The Oppressed Minority
The Smart Set assures us that terror in the name of Allah is solely as a result of Christian misconduct, such as the Crusades and the creation and maintenance of the nation of Israel.
A glance at the history of Islam, however, raises troubling questions. Islamic forces invaded Europe, via modern-day Spain and Portugal, early in the 8th Century. The Crusades were not launched until the 12th Century, roughly 400 years later. Islamic forces were not driven from Spain until the late 15th Century, some 700 years after they arrived uninvited.
Was this invasion the ultimate pre-emptive strike?
We need not comment on the Islamic "logic" that Spain should be returned to them because they took it by force, making it improper, if not immoral and illegal, for the resident Christians to take it back by force.
A glance at the history of Islam, however, raises troubling questions. Islamic forces invaded Europe, via modern-day Spain and Portugal, early in the 8th Century. The Crusades were not launched until the 12th Century, roughly 400 years later. Islamic forces were not driven from Spain until the late 15th Century, some 700 years after they arrived uninvited.
Was this invasion the ultimate pre-emptive strike?
We need not comment on the Islamic "logic" that Spain should be returned to them because they took it by force, making it improper, if not immoral and illegal, for the resident Christians to take it back by force.
What Would Mohammed Do?
Islam, the Smart Set insists, is a "religion of peace."
The facts suggest otherwise.
Please follow the link: www.thereligionofpeace.com
The facts suggest otherwise.
Please follow the link: www.thereligionofpeace.com
Run Away, Run Away!
Some thoughts on combat deaths the US has incurred in armed conflict:
Revolutionary War: 8000
Civil War: 212,000
WWI: 53,000 (in one year)
WWII: 291,000
Vietnam: 47,000
Current Iraq: 3,500
Consider also that some 6,800 Americans were killed during the battle of Iwo Jima, which lasted only five weeks.
Losing 3,500 troops in four years, although truly tragic, hardly seems a compelling reason to declare defeat and run away.
For comparison:
In 2000 alone, approximately 15,000 Americans were murdered;
An estimated 20,000 Americans die each year from the flu;
In 2001 more than 42,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents.
Revolutionary War: 8000
Civil War: 212,000
WWI: 53,000 (in one year)
WWII: 291,000
Vietnam: 47,000
Current Iraq: 3,500
Consider also that some 6,800 Americans were killed during the battle of Iwo Jima, which lasted only five weeks.
Losing 3,500 troops in four years, although truly tragic, hardly seems a compelling reason to declare defeat and run away.
For comparison:
In 2000 alone, approximately 15,000 Americans were murdered;
An estimated 20,000 Americans die each year from the flu;
In 2001 more than 42,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Some thoughts on appeasement
As Ronald Reagan said in 1964:
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum....
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." ...Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.
We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.
Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum....
You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." ...Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
Monday, July 2, 2007
News Flash - The Media Got It Wrong AGAIN
Saturday, 30 June 2007
MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQPRESS DESKBAGHDAD, Iraqhttp://www.mnf-iraq.com703.343.8790
June 30, 2007Release A070630c
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Friday, news media reported a mass killing in a village near Salman Pak where 20 men were allegedly found beheaded. It now appears that the story was completely false and fabricated by unknown sources. Upon learning of the press reports, coalition and Iraqi officials began investigating to determine if the reports were true. Ultimately it was concluded the reports were false. Anti-Iraqi Forces are known for purposely providing false information to the media to incite violence and revenge killings, and they may well have been the source of this misinformation.
“Extremists promote falsehoods of mass killings, collateral damage and other violence specifically to turn Iraqis against other Iraqis,” said Rear Admiral Mark Fox, spokesperson for MNF-I. “Unfortunately, lies are much easier to state, the truth often takes time to prove,” said Fox.
Not all media reports can be immediately substantiated by Government of Iraq or Coalition Forces. They must go through a process to verify such claims, to include checking with various Iraqi Ministry’s, local police and security forces. Meanwhile, extremists have achieved their goal of spreading false information aimed at intimidating civilians and destabilizing Iraqi security.
Ultimately, media reporting based on verifiable sources will reduce the possibility of misinformation unnecessarily alarming citizens.
MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQPRESS DESKBAGHDAD, Iraqhttp://www.mnf-iraq.com703.343.8790
June 30, 2007Release A070630c
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Friday, news media reported a mass killing in a village near Salman Pak where 20 men were allegedly found beheaded. It now appears that the story was completely false and fabricated by unknown sources. Upon learning of the press reports, coalition and Iraqi officials began investigating to determine if the reports were true. Ultimately it was concluded the reports were false. Anti-Iraqi Forces are known for purposely providing false information to the media to incite violence and revenge killings, and they may well have been the source of this misinformation.
“Extremists promote falsehoods of mass killings, collateral damage and other violence specifically to turn Iraqis against other Iraqis,” said Rear Admiral Mark Fox, spokesperson for MNF-I. “Unfortunately, lies are much easier to state, the truth often takes time to prove,” said Fox.
Not all media reports can be immediately substantiated by Government of Iraq or Coalition Forces. They must go through a process to verify such claims, to include checking with various Iraqi Ministry’s, local police and security forces. Meanwhile, extremists have achieved their goal of spreading false information aimed at intimidating civilians and destabilizing Iraqi security.
Ultimately, media reporting based on verifiable sources will reduce the possibility of misinformation unnecessarily alarming citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
