A Sane Democrat?

Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) penned a powerful editorial in today's Washington Post. He also delivered a sober and well reasoned speech from the well of the Senate, rising against passage of the pork-laden, deadline setting, General hand-cuffing, Iraq War funding bill. I call these to your attention for two specific purposes: (1) to demonstrate that there are sane Democrats, and (2) that the Democratic party is far from united in opinion on how to deal with Iraq. Here are some quotes to whet your appetite:

From the Washington Post:

"The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaeda's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do -- abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities -- or whether we stand and fight.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win."

... and from his Senate Floor Speech:

"For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all."

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?"

So, despite the portayal most common in the main-stream media, President Bush is not universally opposed in his Iraq war strategy; not even in the opposition party.

Defeatocrats

Attempting to make sense of nonsense has been occupying my mind for several days ... ever since Senate Leader Harry Reid declared that "this war [in Iraq] is lost". In addition to those words being un-patriotic, even traitorous, they're factually incorrect. The war against Iraq was won in mere weeks with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. The skirmishes continue, however, as Iraqis fight over who will have the most control of their new government, and while external provocateurs prosecute their own anti-US and anti-west agendas.

So why then is Senator Reid so invested in retreat and defeat?

It's often useful to view politicians through a cynical filter to devine their true motivations. One of, if not the most powerful influences of political behavior is also a driver of economics and society: self-interest. And one need look no further to understand Sen. Reid's rantings.

Since January, Senator Reid has been the leader of the Senate. This was, as we've now seen, but one unfortunate result of the national hissy-fit the Democrats instigated in the run-up to the 2006 elections. To remain Senate leader, with all the power and trappings, the Senate must remain in Democratic hands. There is no more important objective of Sen. Reid's than to see that the Democrats preserve, or expand, their current whisker-thin majority.

The Democrats in general, and Senator Reid in particular, have gone way out on a limb in predicting a US failure in Iraq. They were elected because of their infantile rantings and, to remain in power, they must be proven to have been correct.

If you recall, the entire election campaign of the left was based on how bad the Republican/Bush management of the war was, and not on any prescription for relief. The Democrats had no better ideas and, therefore, offered none. They had ample criticism for the Bush administration, but had no plan of their own. Oh sure, there were calls for a change of direction, more troops, less troops, "redeployment", etc. But the Dems couldn't even agree on what their different or better strategy would be as individuals, let alone as a party.

Senator Reid's words and actions of today are best explained by understanding that what he is doing is making a trade-off. His objective is the preservation of the Democratic majority and with it, his own power. For that he is willing to have the world view the US as having lost the war; to have the terrorists believe we lack the resolve to deal with them; and to subject the Iraqi people, and the citizens of the middle-east, to unimaginable fates.

You see, in Senator Reid's cynical mind, this is a no-lose situation. No matter how badly things go after a precipitous US exit from Iraq, he gets to blame President Bush. To boil it all down, US defeat is the best possible outcome for Senator Reid's personal future, and that of the Democrats at large.

I say they're Defeatocrats, and now you know why.

R.I.P. VT

It was nothing short of human tragedy yesterday, as a clearly disturbed and deranged student shot and killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. The murderer also took his own life. He did so in what can only be described as cold-blooded and cold-hearted murder. Everyone should take a moment (or more!) to reflect on this, and to offer prayers for the victims, their families, and all others affected and touched by the event.

There are a lot of emotions swirling in peoples minds, across our media's airwaves, and in the press and blogs. I'm going to veer into controversy here. If you think you can read my thoughts and react reasonably and rationally, and without letting your own emotion cloud your thoughts, then read on. If not, then bookmark this blog entry and come back when you can.

First, there is only one person to blame for this massacre and that is the perpetrator of the crime. He bought the gun, he bought the bullets, and he pulled the trigger. Those 32 people are dead because of his actions. Not because the University's president did or didn't react properly or with enough force; not because we have a (constitutionally protected) right to bear arms; and not because the law-enforcement community didn't act fast enough or smartly enough. The anti-gun crowd will most certainly use this tragedy as a new rallying cry, and to achieve their political ends. They're wrong, and I'll tell you why.

Second, to believe that this event is proof of a need for more gun restrictions and gun laws, or to believe that these would be the prescription required to prevent events of this sort in the future, would also require you to believe the following:

1. Criminal-elements will continue to break other laws, including existing gun laws, but respect newly enacted gun laws;
2. Elimination of 100% of all existing guns in America is attainable;
3. Outlawing guns will mean that no new guns will ever enter America. (works real well with drugs and illegal aliens today, huh?);
4. Guns are only used by those with murderous intent, and are never used to stop and prevent other crimes, or to defend oneself;
   
5. Elimination of guns will mean an end to violence, rather then violence through other means;
6. There is a realistic chance of amending the US Constitution to eliminate our right as citizens to bear arms (remember 2/3 of the House; 2/3 of the Senate; signature of the President; and ratification by 3/4 of the States).

So, assuming you've read through this and conclude that we need an alternate AND realistic thought process, welcome to my side of the argument. Allow me to make a few additional observations:

1. One of the existing laws of the State of Virginia, and enacted under the pretense of providing an additional measure of protection to students, prevents event legally-permitted gun owners from carrying their weapons within 1000-feet of a school. While perhaps well intentioned, this law practically guaranteed that the perpetrator would meet no resistance while on his killing spree. One additional armed citizen could have made a difference yesterday.
   
2. Moral relativism is doing more harm than good. As a society, we don't criticize the actions of individuals enough, nor do we hold individuals in judgment when and as we should. We forgive too easily at times, and will readily attribute these behaviors to external agents. In other words, we have too many people comforting society's worst elements with hugs and "it's not your fault". That's not to say we should revert to stockades in the town square, but nor should we give someone a pass because their Mommy yelled at them when they were 3. It may be too early to draw a such a conclusion at this point, but reports seem to indicate that the shooter in this instance was known to have harbored violent thoughts, and was also thought to have undergone treatment for at least one psychosis (depression). Were these warning signs that observers, not pre-disposed to diminish, might have heeded?
   
3. The same politicians and "leaders" that try to get mileage from the deaths of so many innocents will call for abridging our citizen's rights under the 2nd Amendment. These will invariably be the same people that believe: enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay have US Constitutional protections; that non-signatories to the Geneva Convention are guaranteed the same protections as actual-signatories; that terrorists and non-terrorists should not have their international phone conversations subject to monitoring; and that convicted felons should have the same voting rights as you and me. [Kind of makes you wonder whose side they're on, doesn't it?]

Finally, I'd ask that you take your open mind and read this interview with John R. Lott, Jr., resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, former Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School, and author of the book "More Guns, Less Crime".

Maybe I'll have some more thoughts on these weighty matters over the coming days and, if so, I'll post again or update this blog entry. Until then, it is my prayer that God's grace and blessings be with those in grief.

I'm Still in Charge Here!

Almost as if to say "HEY! I'm still in charge around here!", God has recently sent the following reminders:

As the global-warming alarmists run around in attempts to convince us all that the sky is, indeed, falling, the following climate news has occurred in the span of 2 weeks:

1. For the first time in recorded history, Austin and Dallas - Ft. Worth, Texas experienced snow in the month of April;
2. At last weekend's Masters tournament in Augusta, Georgia (the golf community's annual ritual and rite of spring) the start of play was delayed on 3 of 4 mornings due to frost on the greens. The last time I checked a US atlas, Augusta was still in the deep-south, a region known more for oppressive heat and humidity than pond-hockey;
3. Charlotte, North Carolina (where I reside) set a record low temperature of 21-degrees Fahrenheit during the over-night hours of April 8th. This was the lowest temperature ever recorded for the month of April, not just for April 8th.
4. And, as if to add an exclamation point to the above, in Boston, MA (home of Sen. John Kerry, one of the most vocal of the alarmist crowd) the famous Boston Marathon was contested in miserable weather, and where the Boston Globe described: as "among the worst conditions in the event's 111-year-history"; where spectators "were shivering, bundled in heavy coats and ponchos"; and where "The cold and damp conditions sent at least two runners to the emergency room of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, where they were treated for hypothermia."

I hope all affected have now recovered, and I'm glad my God has a sense of humor!

Bashing Cheney

Six-plus years into the Bush/Cheney administration, the media pattern is as consistent as it is predictable: when Vice President Cheney gets out being spokesman for, and advancing the agenda of, the administration, all coverage must have a negative slant. So it was with little surprise that headlines, “news” stories, and editorials of the past two days have again cast him in a negative light.

• Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel: “Bush/Cheney Still Lie with Abandon”;

• AP: “Cheney repeats assertion on Saddam-Al Qaeda prewar links” (as picked up by the NY Times’ International Herald Tribune);

• CBS: “Cheney Sticks To His Guns”;

• KABC Los Angeles: “Cheney Insists al-Qaeda-Saddam Link Exists”;

… and there were more.

Cheney's offense? He had the temerity to speak the truth in an April 5 interview granted to Conservative pundit and radio host, Rush Limbaugh.

Why the broad and consistently negative coverage? Defense, pure and simple. It is liberal dogma that Saddam and al-Qaeda had no linkage, thereby providing a convenient rationale for simultaneously applauding efforts in Afghanistan, while criticizing the war in Iraq. If the left were to allow any back-slide in this position, one in which they have invested so much, their anti-Bush foundation could begin to crack and crumble. I can here them now: "If we let Cheney get away with this, the next thing you know, he'll be talking about the success of the troop surge in Iraq! Attack!!".

You see, the liberals have staked themselves to this position. They’ll now go to any lengths to mount a vigorous defense. So, in this instance, they deliberately changed the meaning of Vice President Cheney’s remarks. The “reporters" created a false Cheney straw-man, specifically so they could knock it down with their vicious critiques.

Where’s the proof, you ask? You’ll find it through a casual comparison of VP Cheney’s ACTUAL remarks, with those imagined in the articles and editorials linked above. The pertinent quote from the Limbaugh interview was this:

“Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the booming of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

In reading, you will find that 100% of what the Vice President said about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was true: he WAS in Afghanistan before the Iraq war, both training and leading al-Qaeda terrorists; he DID flee to Baghdad prior to our attack of Iraq; he DID lead al-Qaeda in Iraq; he DID orchestrate a campaign do incite sectarian violence; and we DID kill him last summer.

So what’s the media’s beef with this litany? Apparently, not finding one, the esteemed media attributed additional thoughts to VP Cheney that were never uttered:

• The articles and editorials say VP Cheney linked Saddam and al-Qaeda. Read it again; he did not.
• The articles and editorials say VP Cheney said Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated before our attack on Iraq. Read it again; he did not.
• The articles and editorials cite 3rd parties and GAO reports that “prove” no Iraq-al Qaeda links existed, when those reports say no such things.
• The articles and editorials refer to the 9/11 Commission finding no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Read the quote again: VP Cheney didn’t assert one.

So again the pattern is revealed. Bash Cheney; bash Bush; bash the administration. The media needs to be called on this. In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”.

Dog-pile on Nancy

[No, not THAT kind of dog-pile! It's meant to refer to "piling on".]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is under fire this week, taking flak from all quarters. Even the liberal Washington Post editorialized that she'd gone too far in attempting her own diplomatic mission to the Middle East.

The criticism I've read is spot-on, and well-founded. She has absolutely no business meeting with America's enemies, including Syria, who's known as a state-sponsor of terrorism. She breached so many protocols, I wouldn't know where to begin with my own critique.

Rather, I want to focus on something she said on Sunday (April 1), and that was not widely reported. She held a conference call with Syrian President Assad, apparently to express her support in helping end the war of words between Britain and Iran over the latter's taking 15 British military members hostage. During the call, she was quoted as saying:

"We completely support the British troops in this matter, as we support our troops currently on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. But at the same time, we realize the British are using harsh language that is only serving to inflame Muslim and Persian passions regarding this unfortunate incident of unauthorized trespassing, and insist the British tone down their rhetoric. It is entirely up to the United Nations to issue words such as "unacceptable", "inexcusable" and "an intentional violation of international law. National pride has no business in this affair"

What is most disturbing in this quote is that Ms. Pelosi seems to think that sovereign nations should defer to the United Nations when other nations conduct acts of war against them. This is both dangerous and short-sighted.

In the first place, Iran's actions were clearly pre-meditated. They were also clearly an act of war:

• British Prime Minister Blair provided ample evidence that their military personnel were NOT in Iran's territorial waters when taken;
• Even had the British entered Iranian waters, the U.N. protocols clearly call for the violated state/nation to escort the offenders back to international waters, or to their own borders. Taking hostages is not, in any definition, an acceptable action;
• Iran further violated international norms (addressed clearly in the Geneva Convention) by showing video-taped images of the hostages, including clearly coerced "confessions".

With this backdrop, Ms. Pelosi is most concerned that the British are inflaming Islamic and Persian passions; called the incident an "unauthorized trespassing"; and she feels British leaders' use of words like "inexcusable" and "unacceptable" are over the line, or are reserved to the U.N.

I simply cannot imagine how anyone, let alone the Speaker of the House, could harbor such thoughts, let alone express them to terrorist, er, Syrian leader Assad!

So, while again showing that there is little, if anything, that Democrats feel worthy of defending, Ms. Pelosi may have tipped her hand: like many in the liberal intelligentsia, she apparently believes that we are all subordinate to the U.N.!

As if the Democrats being back in power wasn't scary enough!