Weak on Defense

The Democrats rail against Republican suggestions that, as a party, they're weak on Defense. They may have a point: they certainly don't need the Republicans pointing out what is obvious to even the most casual of observers.

The latest proof-statements came yesterday, in no less form than Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Speaker Pelosi. Both took to the microphones, triumphantly extolling the virtues of the pork-laden war funding bill that is doomed to fail with President Bush's veto.

Said Sen. Reid: "We've spoken the words the American people wanted us to speak." He continued, "There must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq, the civil war in Iraq." [News flash Sen. Reid - there is a change, and it's called a "troop surge". It's working, too.]

Said Speaker Pelosi: "This war without end has gone on far too long and we're here to end it."

Before pushing through their respective bills, two key facts were known: (1) the President wanted a clean bill to sign, and (2) he'd veto any bill that wasn't clean. Despite this foreknowledge, both leaders pushed forth, with nothing short of bribes, to attain the majority of votes both needed to pass. To what end? Certain defeat? Certain confrontation with the President?

There is no more serious function of government than the conduct of war. It is not to be entered lightly, and it is not to be treated lightly once entered. This war in Iraq has taken its toll, both in human costs, and in taxpayer burden. But it was entered with the overwhelming support of both Houses of Congress. We cannot reverse time and un-do this fact. As we are in Iraq, and our bravest and finest citizens are in harms way, all Americans owe them a duty. A duty to treat them with the utmost respect, care, and seriousness of purpose.

Instead, we have the key leadership of the Democratic party playing a dangerous political game, with our troops' very lives in the balance. If they were honest, they'd attempt passage of the bill they really want: de-funding of the war. If they were serious, they'd send the President a clean funding bill for signature. They are neither honest, nor serious.

Speaker Pelosi said one other thing yesterday: "The President has to accept that there's a new Congress in town." It may be a new Congress, but these Democrats are as weak on Defense as the majority, as they were as the minority. Unfortunately for our troops, their intransigence now has consequences.

Out Fox (UPDATE!)

UPDATE 2007-04-04: Exercising his prerogative, President Bush today made a recess appointment of Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium. Will Sen. Kerry restrain himself and let this issue rest? Well, what do you think? Get the popcorn ...

Original post follows:

As is their wont, Presidents nominate wealthy and influential friends and supporters as Ambassadors to foreign nations. For major and developed nations, these political appointees receive this as a reward for loyalty, and are expected to represent the best interests of our nation. Such is the case of Missourian Sam Fox. At the age of 77, and having lead an enviable life, he was nominated by President Bush to serve as US Ambassador to Belgium. For Mr. Fox, this would have been a fitting cap to an impressive career.

Would have been, had Mr. Fox realized that the US Constitution's guaranty of free speech does not apply when it comes to criticism of Democrats. You see, Mr. Fox had the audacity to give $50,000 of his own money to the group known as the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth", or SVTs, during the 2004 presidential election cycle. You will recall that the SVTs were very critical of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and his conduct during and after the Vietnam War. This money apparently was spent on political free speech by the SVTs, in apparent violation of the "Thou Shalt Not Criticize Democrats" provision of the 1st Amendment.

As an aside, Sen. Kerry had the opportunity to put all of the SVT criticism to rest by authorizing the release of his military records by signing form SF-180. He might say he did, but this would be akin to the Clintonesque "non-denial denial". He signed a form allowing records to be released to a hand-picked journalist from Boston (presumably under the same confidentiality expectation that landed Judith Miller in jail during the real investigation of the non-leak of the name of a non-covert employee of the CIA). Had Sen. Kerry instead signed a blanket form, held a press conference, and provided full copies of all records to the 30 most prominent news agencies (both left- and right-leaning), we could have separated truth from fiction. Instead, he chose the course of belligerent denial and confrontation in a bitter "he-said, she-said" public debate ("How dare you question me! I'm John Kerry!!"). If they're as clean as Sen. Kerry would have us believe, he was a fool for not releasing them, as he'd most likely be President today. One can only wonder what is in those files.

Fast-forward to 2007, and we see Mr. Fox's name come before the Senate as Ambassador-nominee. Sen. Kerry now has the opportunity to rise above partisanship and petty politics, and recognize both the lifelong achievements of a great American, and the Presidential prerogative of naming Ambassadors (I'm picturing a head-shot of Sen. Kerry with, in the best Looney Tunes fashion, "Politicus Pettymaximus" as his identified species). Would Sen. Kerry be inspired to move on, as would be the rallying cry of many of his supporters at Moveon.org? Of course not! Sen. Kerry simply cannot keep himself from digging up the past and halting the nomination. Talk about your politics of personal destruction!

So Mr. Fox will presumably return to Missouri to enjoy his retirement, and without having had the opportunity to represent his beloved country as Ambassador to Belgium. I can only hope that, deep inside, Sam Fox takes solace that Sen. John F. Kerry has, once again, shown himself to be undeserving of the title: "President of the United States".

Gutless wonders

Yesterday, the Democrats in the Senate followed their brethren in the House, like lemmings into the sea. They decided that cutting the legs out from under our military in Iraq is preferable to victory in Iraq. Many of these cowards are the same Democrats that voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. [I can hear the cries of "Bush lied us into war!" from my liberal friends. Stop whining ... we both know that's not true.]

My take? The Democrats have used the war as a bludgeon, and the Republicans have been their victims. Of course it's not going as well as we would like. Of course there are lives lost, it's a war afterall. But shouldn't we be proud that we're willing to take a hard road to spread and share freedom and liberty? Should we stand back and allow tyranical dictators to have free reign while committing genocide?

Back to the main point: the Democrats used the war as a way to beat down Republicans, and to win back the House and Senate. Their rhetorical excess undoubtedly HAS emboldened our enemies, and undoubtedly HAS resulted in more death and despair. It worked beyond their wildest dreams, as they now enjoy majorities in both houses of Congress. But now they realize that the Iraq war will be the millstone around THEIR necks after the 2008 elections if they don't act to end it first. [What? You think the August 2008 deadline is just coincidentally 3 months before the general election? ]

So, to hell with the US military; to hell with the brave Iraqis that stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us fighting for their freedom; and to hell with our nation's reputation as the pre-eminent defender of freedom and liberty around the globe. These are all subordinate to the Democrats' raw lust for power.

So the funding bill comes out, laden with more than a modicum of pork, and with strings attached that will cripple our military efforts. This isn't a military funding bill ... it's the first draft of our surrender treaty with Al Qaeda!

There was a time when the Senate was thoughtful, deliberative, even sage. It's sad to see it in its current state of Democratic leadership. These leaders at one time might have looked forward to an epitaph that read "Conscience of the Senate". One should now read: "Shrinking Violet & Political Hack".

President Bush vowed to veto the bill. I pray that he does.

Red and Green?

It seems to be some sort of consensus that only Democrats care about environmental issues, and that Republicans are satisfied, if not happy, to breathe dirty air and drink polluted water. At least that's what those with a vested interest in garnering Democratic votes would have you believe. It's also complete rubbish.

I view being "green" as an extension of my larger philosophy of taking and exhibiting personal responsibility.

To wit:

1. We fill 3 recycling bins weekly, but the big main trash receptacle only once every two weeks;
2. We have a hybrid vehicle (Lexus RX400h), largely because it's a nice ride [ :-) ], but also because our round-town MPG doubled vs. the Acura MDX it replaced. My other vehicle is conventional gas, but gets 24 MPG around town and 30 on the highway.;
3. We use compact fluorescent lights where practical, replacing incandescent bulbs when they burn out. I won't do so on lights with dimmers, or lights that support close work (like reading) where fluorescents give me headaches, but other lights are just fine;
4. Although we have many computers around the home, and most are "on" all the time, each has it's power settings set to turn off the monitor and hard-drives after 15 minutes of inactivity;
5. My home's HVAC systems are on automatic set-back thermostats;
6. Upon its demise, I replaced my natural gas hot-water heater with a natural gas, tankless, on-demand water heater (from Takagi ... highly recommended!). I'm no longer paying to keep 50 gallons hot 24/7 ... I heat water only when I use it, and pay accordingly.

I could go on, but you likely get the point. At an early age, while in Boy Scouts, I was taught and adopted a philosophy of leaving things better than you found them. I don't have (or need) the government looking over my shoulder to live what I consider to be a responsible lifestyle. In America, we enjoy more freedom than the people of any other country, and we enjoy the world's highest standard of living. I refuse to feel guilty about this, and will enjoy all the fruits that our country's founders, my ancestors, and I personally, have worked so hard to achieve.

Kick-off

So why would I risk the slings and arrows of the blog-o-sphere by creating a blog about my admittedly conservative politics? Perhaps to vent? Perhaps to explain and expound? Perhaps to attempt a civil discourse with those with contrary views? I guess all of the above.

The most important driver was really my own frustration with the way conservatives and Republicans are perceived and portrayed by those on the left and the main-stream media (if that's not redundant!), as well as the pitiful job that Republican leaders do in presenting and defending their own thoughts, values, and policies.

We'll see how well it goes. To those inclined to read and reply, I commit to maintain civility on my part, and can only ask that you do the same.