To its enemies, the most endearing quality of the Bush administration must be the frequency with which the Bushies act as if they've done something wrong, even when they haven't.
President Bush caused himself no end of grief when he apologized for saying in his 2003 state of the union address "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," even though every word of it was true.
That blunder may have been topped by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at his news conference last Wednesday. The "senior Justice Department official" who told reporters Mr. Gonzales' performance was "disastrous" was being kind.
Mr. Gonzales called the news conference to respond to the manufactured "scandal" of the administration's decision to fire eight of the 93 U.S. attorneys.
"Mistakes were made," Mr. Gonzales said, without explaining what those mistakes were, or who made them. The Justice department has issued shifting explanations for why these U.S. attorneys were dismissed. The Attorney General said he supported the firings, but was unaware of the specific details of how they came about. Which is curious, because his chief of staff was heavily involved in them.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Scandal That Wasn't
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Give Victory a Chance?
From Boortz:
Here's some good news: the troop surge in Iraq is working. The killing of U.S. soldiers is way down. You would think Democrats would be happy about this development, but you would be wrong. They have been invested in American defeat in Iraq for quite some time. It doesn't matter how well things are going...we must surrender.
Not only is the killing of our troops way down, so are the deaths of civilians. Since the new operation began 30 days ago, civilian deaths in Iraq are down from 1,440 to 265. That's a huge drop. Murders and executions are off by 50%. Car bombs have decreased as well. And this is without the full 21,500 troop surge in place. Think how well things will be going once we're firing on all cylinders over there.
But don't expect to hear about this from the mainstream media. The press doesn't particularly like to report good news from Iraq. In an effort to elect Hillary Clinton president of the United States, the media will continue to report that the war in Iraq is a failure and that we should surrender immediately. They have bought the lie that the war can't be won...and are intent on convincing the American public of the same.
Maybe somebody could stick a microphone in Nancy Pelosi's face and ask her what she thinks of our new successes in Iraq.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
The Cowardly Vote for Defeat
The first is particularly good.
Cowards Give up on GIS - & Give in to Evil
by: Ralph Peters
February 17, 2007 -- PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."
The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.
The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.
The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."
We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.
Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?
This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.
And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.
This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.
If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?
Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need.
Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?
As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops."
As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.
And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America.
If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?
On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad.
The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.
Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained.
They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.
As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.
Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform.
You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.
This is despicable:
The Democrats' 'Slow-Bleed' Strategy
A disgraceful moment in Congress.
by William Kristol
02/26/2007, Volume 012, Issue 23Politicians often say foolish things. Members of both parties criticize cavalierly and thunder thoughtlessly. They advance irresponsible suggestions and embrace mistaken policies. But most of our politicians, most of the time, stop short of knowingly hurting the country. Watching developments in Congress this past week, though, one has to ask: Can that be said any longer about the leadership of the Democratic party?
President Bush is sending reinforcements to join our soldiers fighting in Iraq. Democrats are entitled to doubt this will work. They are entitled to conclude the whole cause is hopeless or unjust--and that we should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible or on some other more responsible timetable. They are entitled to move legislation in Congress to compel such a withdrawal, on a schedule and with provisions that seem to them appropriate.
But surely they should not fecklessly try to weaken the U.S. position in Iraq, and America's standing in the world, by raising doubts as to our commitment in Iraq without advancing an alternative. That is precisely what they are doing with the nonbinding resolution condemning the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq. The fact that some Republicans have embraced this resolution does not excuse the Democratic party for its virtually monolithic support of it. The GOP has its share of fools and weaklings. But it is the Democratic party that now seems willing to commit itself, en masse, to a foreign policy of foolishness and weakness.
For the nonbinding resolution passed by the House Friday is merely the first round. What comes next are legislative restrictions and budgetary limitations designed to cripple our effort in Iraq. As Politico.com reported Thursday:
Top House Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq, and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options. . . . The House strategy is being crafted quietly. . . . [Rep. Jack] Murtha, the powerful chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will seek to attach a provision to an upcoming $93 billion supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It would restrict the deployment of troops to Iraq unless they meet certain levels of adequate manpower, equipment and training to succeed in combat. That's a standard Murtha believes few of the units Bush intends to use for the surge would be able to meet. . . . Additional funding restrictions are also being considered by Murtha.So the nonbinding resolution is only the first step in the slow-bleed strategy. The Murtha plan intends to block further relief and reinforcement for American troops, leaving them exposed and unable to succeed. Surely Democrats (and fellow-traveling Republicans) will turn back from this path while they still have time to save some of their honor. But the antiwar groups won't make it easy. John Bresnahan's Politico.com report continues:
Anti-war groups like [Tom] Mazzie's are prepared to spend at least $6.5 million on a TV ad campaign and at least $2 million more on a grass-roots lobbying effort. Vulnerable GOP incumbents . . . will be targeted by the anti-war organizations, according to Mazzie and former Rep. Tom Andrews, D-Maine, head of the Win Without War Coalition. . . . Mazzie also said anti-war groups would field primary and general election challengers to Democratic lawmakers who do not support proposals to end the war. . . . Andrews, who met with Murtha on Tuesday to discuss legislative strategy, acknowledged "there is a relationship" with the House Democratic leadership and the anti-war groups, but added, "It is important for our members that we not be seen as an arm of the Democratic Caucus or the Democratic Party. We're not hand in glove." . . . "I don't know how you vote against Murtha," said Andrews. "It's kind of an ingenious thing."No, the Democrats and the antiwar groups shouldn't "be seen" as "hand in glove." But they are. The national Democratic party has become the puppet of antiwar groups. These groups do not merely accept-reluctantly--American defeat in the Middle East. They seek to hasten it. Some seem to welcome it.
The leaders of those groups believe their slow-bleed strategy is "kind of an ingenious thing." In truth, it's not really so "ingenious." But it is disgraceful. In our judgment, it will fail as a political strategem, it will fail to derail the president's policy--and we will ultimately prevail in Iraq. The slow-bleed strategy will, however, stain the reputation of its champions, and of the useful idiots in both parties who have gone along with it.
See also: OpinionJournal
See also for some soldier comments: MRC
More to come later, I'm quite sure.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Letter from Iraq
(on a side note, how can you "support the troops" while trying to destroy the armed forces? And how exactly does "bring them home" show any support? We support you, but not what you're doing...? Non-sequitur, it seems)
Hey Rush,
I am scratching my head here. None of this makes any sense...but I wonder what you think about all of this...
The national news media shows lots of our American servicemen and women dying over there in Iraq and getting killed, helicopters being shot down, roadside bombs going off...etc...etc. Yet, when you are there, when you work with Americans and Iraqis who are actively engaged in re-building the country, who are out going after the enemy...there’s this ever-present sense of optimism, this prevailing upbeat mood of doing good. Just go talk to the wounded servicemen at Brooks or Bethesda. [RUSH: And I have. He's right.] They’ll tell you the same. Likewise, the Iraqi gentlemen (civilians) I worked with were excited about their economic prospects. They were eager for their families to experience a better life than the life they had under a totalitarian regime.
Rush, there’s an upbeat mood out there in Iraq.
The country and its new democracy are moving forward. And the enemy hates it. On the subject of “civil war” or “civil strife” in Iraq... From what we can tell...there’s no “civil war” or “civil strife” as the news media puts it. The terrorists are coming from outside the country and killing civilians – as many as possible – to gain a foothold in Iraq. And they play this stuff on TV to make us sick. It’s working. We are getting sick, but Iraq is getting strong. If there really is civil strife in the country...then WHY don’t WE hear statements in the news about Shia leaders taking responsibility for Sunni killings, and vice-versa? WHY? This is why: Because they aren’t doing that Rush! THAT’S WHY we NEVER hear news reports from the so-called “civil strife” combatants themselves. Because there aren’t any. The IRAQIS are trying to build-up their country and make it work. MEANWHILE the enemy comes and kills everyone they can, and they run away from the scene (or die in the blast themselves).
One more thought...
I hate doing math, but think about this…
Rush...there’s anywhere from 500 to 1,000 road vehicle convoys per day in the country of Iraq. [RUSH: Five hundred to 1,000 road vehicle convoys per day in the country of Iraq.] One or three of these vehicle convoys (at most) get hit by an IED each day, which destroys maybe one or two vehicles. Most convoys have anywhere from 20 to 100 vehicles. NOW, what are your odds (e.g. CNN reporter) of being tagged by an IED????
In Summary... I remain confused, amazed, and dumbfounded by the news media view on the war. And yet Americans are buying it. WHY??? How can we believe only one side of the story without seeing the whole picture, the whole story as it unfolds? Does ANYONE really know (other than those who are there) what’s REALLY happening in Iraq??? Is there any chance of getting any of this news reporting being done right???
America is doing good things over there. Our troops are awesome. They are an inspiration, a model of courage and of selfless patriotism. Why don’t people back home trust them?
Mega Dittos Rush.
Very Respectfully,
Tazz
A Little Sense on Illegals
CRIMINAL ALIENS?
Yeah .. you heard me right. Though it will take me time to get my tongue trained .. I've decided to join the politically correct crowd when it comes to referring to the invasion force from South of the border. The politically correct left wants to call them "undocumented workers" or "immigrants."
I'm part of the politically correct right ... so the "undocumented" thing doesn't work for me. I was "undocumented" right up until the time I got my hideous Social Security number from the Imperial Federal Government.
They're also not "immigrants." Immigration is a legal procedure. The "immigrant" title is given to those who follow this procedure. The Mexican invasion force has decided not to follow the law. They come across the border illegally. They get jobs illegally. They remain here illegally. That's why we've been calling them illegal aliens up to this point. But when you think about it, what do we call people who violate our laws? What do you call people who engage in a pattern of continuing illegal behavior? Why, we call them criminals!
The gall of these people waving signs saying "I am not a criminal"! Why hell yes you are! You broke the law coming here. You're breaking the law staying here. You break the law by working here. You break the law .. .you're a criminal!
So ... to the extent to which I can remember .. from now on the Hispanic invasion force shall be known as and referred to as "criminal aliens" on the show and in my writings.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Global Warming Hysteria
First, the report coming out today is just a summary for policymakers, created not by scientists, but by bureaucrats.
Consider...
Senator Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, also exposed how the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
Senator Inhofe pointed out to CNN’s American Morning anchor O’Brien that the international media buzz surrounding the new UN Summary for Policymakers fails to note that this week’s final draft of the UN release was not approved by scientists but by politically motivated UN bureaucrats. [Note: The UN’s political agenda prompted one of the most respected experts on hurricanes, Dr. Christopher Landsea, to resign as one of the lead authors of the IPCC process. Landsea accused the UN of pursuing a political rather than a scientific agenda. In addition, Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT meteorologist, who was a contributing author to a Chapter in the IPCC’s third assessment, among others has said that the Summary for Policymakers did not reflect the scientific work he conducted.
“What you're going to get on Friday is not the fourth assessment of the IPCC. You're going to get the summary for policymakers. Now, you won't get the report from scientists probably until May or June,” Inhofe said on CNN Wednesday morning.
Get a load of this....
Inhofe then went on to quote an excerpt directly from the IPCC guidelines. The “Principles Governing IPCC Work” clearly states in its Appendix A on page four that the scientific work will be altered to conform to the media-hyped Summary for Policymakers:
"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter," the IPCC guidelines on page read.
In other words, you will make the scientific findings say what we want.
Further...
Other critics of the IPCC process like Steve McIntyre (one of the individuals responsible for debunking the Hockey Stick temperature graph) agree with Senator Inhofe and have already pointed out the serious problems with the UN mandating that the scientific work be altered to fit its political agenda.
“So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me,” McIntyre explained.Harvard University Physicist Lubos Motl also slammed the UN.
"These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it. Instead, they will "adjust" the technical report so that it looks consistent," Motl said.
NOTE: Links to most of these in the original document up at the top. Also, I suggest reading the entire document.
See also this WSJ section for more thoughts.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Senator Webb
Senator Jim Webb: Clueless
DaveScot
As I was watching the Democratic response to President Bush’s State Of The Union speech tonight Senator Jim Webb played the United States Marine card three times (for himself, his brother, and his son all Marines). I take it personally when someone does that.
The first thing Webb does is claims to know better than the president and all the president’s advisors how to effectively fight terrorism because, well, Jim was a Marine in Vietnam. Well Jim, I was a Marine at the end of the Vietnam war. I didn’t go, it was mostly over by then, but one thing I noticed was that all the non-commissioned officers senior to me were real combat veterans. They knew how to survive guerilla warfare in an Asian backwater. Me and my generation of Marines, all we did was play at wargames 4 weeks a year in the Mojave desert. No one was trying to kill us, no foreign language was spoken by the natives, no guerillas in civilian clothes running around, none of that. After 30 years of that kind of experience our military was virtually without anyone in any rank who’d had actual combat experience. Here’s the deal Jim. In order to have an effective force in fighting guerilla and urban wars in Arab countries we need actual combat veterans seasoned in that type of warfare leading the unseasoned troops. Use your head, Jim. Now we have an effective force led by NCOs who know how to survive urban and guerilla wars in Arab countries. And Bush managed to build that force without losing 58,000 American lives as were sacrificed in Vietnam but rather limited the losses to 3,000. Use your head for something other than a place to put your hat, Jim. We needed a veteran ground combat force for the Middle Eastern theater. Now we have one. Now what happened to Russia in Afghanistan won’t happen to us.
The next bit of cluelessness was Webb on the economy. He said "When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day."
This is just utter dreck. The average CEO salary in the United States today is $1.2 million according to a survey by Pearl Meyer & Partners mentioned on Money Central. What Webb failed to mention is that at the largest 50 companies the average is $10.7 million. Meanwhile the average worker salary in the U.S. was $37,000 in 2002 according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I don’t know about Senator Webb’s calculator but when I divide 1,200,000 by 37,000 the answer is 32. The average CEO salary today is 32 times the average worker salary. That’s up from when Senator Webb and Elvis Presley were serving in the armed forces but it’s a long ways from the 400 times that Webb gave in his speech.
Even worse, the average CEO loses 50% of his salary in state & local income taxes while the average worker loses 20%. So it’s really $600,000 vs. $30,000 which is a factor of 20. Wow. When take-home pay is compared the average CEO makes 20 times the average worker. Just like when Elvis was singing in the Army. How about that. And speaking of fair, the average CEO pays almost 100 times as much in taxes ($600,000 vs. $7,000) as the average worker. Some people might not call that fair as it’s unlikely the CEO is using 100 times as much in government services as the average worker.
Color me disgusted. I expect most politicians to lie and be stupid about how to create a seasoned, finely tuned military but I expect my fellow Marines to have a bit more integrity and military savvy than most politicians. What a letdown. Drop and give me 500 Webb, then issue an apology to the public you tried to deceive.
Also, someone pointed out they had used the Korea example back in July, coming to the opposite conclusions as the senator:
Iraq alternatives: Vietnam - or North Korea?
Those advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq cite as their rationale a fear that Iraq conflict may turn into another Vietnam - that is, into a war without end, but with mounting American casualties.But there is another side to the Vietnam story: after Americans withdrew from Vietnam, nothing particularly terrible happened: Vietnam turned into an innocuous, stagnant Communist state that didn’t threaten anyone. In Vietnam, there were no major consequences to leaving the job undone.
Not so in the Korean conflict: the unfinished job festered into a major problem, all
complete with nuclear weapons and development of their delivery systems. Iran was left to its own devices - to the similar effect.Which facts should make us pause and think about alternatives we are now facing in Iraq. If Americans withdrew, what would be the result? Would Iraq follow the Vietnam model, or the North Korea one?
The guarantee of Vietnam-type consequences of American withdrawal would warrant a Vietnam-type withdrawal - and that is why the “Vietnam“ argument is so popular. But we should know by now that such outcome is far from assured, because there can be other kinds of consequences too: the North Korean one, or the Iranian. Which should give a pause to those shouting “Iraq is the next Vietnam!” Because what if, after the American withdrawal, Iraq turns not into a post-withdrawal Vietnam, but into the post-war North Korea?
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
We Do Know One Thing That Doesn't Work
This time the U.S. stays on the anti-terror offense. Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
It may be some time before we learn whether Sunday's air strikes by an AC-130 gunship in southern Somalia succeeded in killing the terrorists who were the intended targets--particularly Abu Taha al-Sudani, reportedly an al Qaeda explosives expert, and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, mastermind of the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. But the attacks--along with the deployment of a carrier battle group off the African coast--are welcome evidence that the U.S. has learned the lessons of May 19, 1996.
That's the date Osama bin Laden and his associates left Sudan for Afghanistan on a chartered plane. The Clinton Administration was aware that Sudan intended to expel bin Laden, and the U.S. might have easily tracked and destroyed the flight en route. The consequences of its failure to do so is only too well known, and the Bush Administration is right to be determined not to let terrorists get away again, whether by land, air or sea.
The strikes in Somalia are also a reminder that in the war on terror there is no "exit strategy" short of victory. The last U.S. military venture in Somalia is broadly remembered as a military and political fiasco, particularly after the notorious "Black Hawk Down" battle in which 18 U.S. servicemen were killed, in part for want of adequate armor.
Yet America's sheepish withdrawal from the country had consequences. Bin Laden viewed it as yet another sign that America can't take casualties and will retreat when hit hard. Somalia descended into anarchy and became a haven for al Qaeda operatives and affiliated terrorist groups. Last June, the capital of Mogadishu fell into their grip, and the rest of the country surely would have fallen as well had it not been for the timely military intervention of neighboring Ethiopia.
That intervention has been criticized by some for running the risk of fueling regional conflict rather than checking it. Thus a British newspaper report from December frets that Ethiopia's invasion offers "Islamic jihadists the chance to establish a new front in Africa after Iraq and Afghanistan, and to wage another proxy war between East and West." Maybe.
Then again, a Taliban-style regime on the horn of Africa, capable of harboring, training, financing and equipping terrorists was an intolerable threat to global security. By contrast, the main risk now is that some Islamists will escape to fight another day, an excellent reason for the U.S. to take action when they are dispersed and on the run. Our forces were able to hit the terrorists this week because Ethiopia's offensive had pushed them out of their safe houses and into the open. It is a useful reminder to other terrorists that the U.S. can hit them anywhere in the world.
None of this requires the U.S. to deploy militarily to Somalia. Our security interests in the region are already well-served by our military deployment in neighboring Djibouti, from where we can monitor the region and, when necessary, rapidly deploy force.
What the U.S. can do for Somalia is offer meaningful logistical, military and humanitarian assistance to the Transitional Federal Government, which the CIA previously eschewed in favor of financing local warlords. TFG President Abdullahi Yusuf may not be a model democrat, but he showed his stripes well enough when he said of Sunday's air strikes that the U.S. "has a right to bombard terrorist suspects who attacked its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania." If only we received the same level of candid cooperation from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
The story of Somalia is far from over, and America's involvement in the area will not soon end. But U.S. interests are well-served by putting terrorists on the run, wherever they may be. We will be better served still if we take the lesson that the only exit for us in the war against terrorists--whether in Somalia, Afghanistan and especially Iraq--is to make sure there is no exit for them.
Monday, December 18, 2006
A Plan for Victory?
We're Going to Win'
The president finally has a plan for victory.
by Fred Barnes
12/25/2006, Volume 012, Issue 15
It turns out you only have to attend a White House Christmas party to find out where President Bush is headed on Iraq. One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win." Another guest informed Bush he'd given some advice to the Iraq Study Group, and said its report should be ignored. The president chuckled and said he'd made his position clear when he appeared with British prime minister Tony Blair. The report had never mentioned the possibility of American victory. Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo-op with Blair, is "victory."
Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.
It's not to be found among the 79 recommendations of Jim Baker's Iraq Study Group. The ISG report was tossed aside by the White House. Nor was the scheme leaked by the Pentagon last week ever close to being adopted. That plan would pull thousands of American troops out of a combat role and turn them into trainers of the Iraqi army. The result would be increased sectarian violence and an Iraqi army not yet equipped to quash the swelling insurgency-leading to a gap of time in which there would likely be a further--probably fatal--collapse of civic order in Baghdad, and then elsewhere in Iraq.
Last Monday Bush was, at last, briefed on an actual plan for victory in Iraq, one that is likely to be implemented. Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, gave him a thumbnail sketch of it during a meeting of five outside experts at the White House. The president's reaction, according to a senior adviser, was "very positive." Authored by Keane and military expert Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, the plan (which can be read at aei.org/publication25292) is well thought-out and detailed, but fundamentally quite simple. It is based on the idea--all but indisputable at this point--that no political solution is possible in Iraq until security is established, starting in Baghdad. The reverse--a bid to forge reconciliation between majority Shia and minority Sunni--is a nonstarter in a political environment drenched in the blood of sectarian killings.
Why would the Keane-Kagan plan succeed where earlier efforts failed? It envisions a temporary addition of 50,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. The initial mission would be to secure and hold the mixed Baghdad neighborhoods of Shia and Sunni residents where most of the violence occurs. Earlier efforts had cleared many of those sections of the city without holding them. After which, the mass killings resumed. Once neighborhoods are cleared, American and Iraqi troops in this plan would remain behind, living day-to-day among the population. Local government leaders would receive protection and rewards if they stepped in to provide basic services. Safe from retaliation by terrorists, residents would begin to cooperate with the Iraqi government. The securing of Baghdad would be followed by a full-scale drive to pacify the Sunni-majority Anbar province.
The truth is that not all of Iraq needs to be addressed by an increased American presence. Most of southern Iraq and all of the Kurdish north are close to being free of sectarian violence. It's Baghdad that has become the "center of gravity" for the insurgency, according to Keane. And it could be brought under control by the end of 2007.
The Keane-Kagan plan is not revolutionary. Rather, it is an application of a counterinsurgency approach that has proved to be effective elsewhere, notably in Vietnam. There, Gen. Creighton Abrams cleared out the Viet Cong so successfully that the South Vietnamese government took control of the country. Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.
Before Bush announces his "new way forward" in Iraq in early January, he wants to be assured of two things. The first is that his plan can succeed. Initial evaluations of the Keane-Kagan plan at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the government have been positive. Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan strategy has a chance to succeed. Bush's second concern is to avert an explosion of opposition on Capitol Hill. Because this plan offers a credible prospect of winning in Iraq, moderate Democrats and queasy Republicans, the White House thinks, will be inclined to stand back and let Bush give it a shot.
The sooner Bush orders the plan into action, the better chances are that next Christmas he'll be telling White House guests that winning in Iraq is not just a goal. It could actually be happening.
--Fred Barnes, for the Editors
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Iraq Surrender Group
A Commission’s Follyand
By Sean Daniels
Headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the Iraq Study Group issued its highly anticipated report yesterday, stating that the “situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating” and “violence is increasing in scope and lethality.” So far, the obvious. While not an absolute failure, as some analysts assert, the ISG report is nonetheless a self-contradictory mix of recommendations that affirms some of President Bush’s Iraq policy in the short term, while threatening to undermine the War on Terror by calling for a “new diplomatic offensive” [1] that will only empower Iran, Syria and, by extension, their terrorist proxies who are responsible for the “scope and lethality” of Iraqi violence. It suggests American troops may begin redeploying, setting an estimated date of early 2008. This will only add credence to leftist demands that Bush withdrawal troops even sooner, leading to the fall of Baghdad, a terrorist rampage, new fodder for terrorist recruitment, and a low point for American prestige unmatched since Vietnam.
Already, terrorists are rejoicing at the report, calling the new plan a victory for “Islamic resistance.” Hamas asset Abu Abdullah exclaimed, “The big superpower of the world is defeated by a small group of mujahedeen. Did you see the mujahedeens' clothes and weapons in comparison with the huge individual military arsenal and supply that was carrying every American soldier?” In this, he sounds very much like Osama bin Laden's assessment of Vietnam, Beirut, and Mogadishu.
Pro-American Iraqi politicians, working to establish a non-sectarian democracy in the midst of the Muslim world, expressed their dismay at the plan. Kurdish parliamentarian Mahmud Othman responded with outrage: “They have no right to do this. This is unfair.” A leading advisor to Prime Minister al-Maliki said the U.S. has an obligation to support Iraq “all the way,” adding, “We need their support to go forward.”
Ironically, the ISG affirms its support of the Iraqi democracy: “We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq.” [2] Elsewhere, the authors reject an immediate troop withdrawal, [3] which in itself rebuffs the antiwar Left and much of the Democratic leadership (Murtha, Pelosi, Kerry, and others).
Although the report avoids confirming the prejudices of the antiwar Left in terms of withdrawal, its recommendation that the Bush administration reverse policy in regard to Iran and Syria mistakes the nature and interests of the enemy we face. On this count, moreover, the study actually contradicts itself, since it says at another point that promoting unrest in Iraq allows Iran to frustrate American aims in the region. The report calls for the immediate launch of a “diplomatic offensive” to engage Iran and Syria by appealing to “their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.” [4] However, bogging our forces down in Iraq and focusing international attention on the supposed failure of U.S. foreign policy particularly suits Iranian and Syrian interests. Chaos in Iraq only deflects international attention from Iran’s nuclear program as well as Iran and Syria’s covert war against Lebanon and Israel, through its terror proxy Hezbollah. For these reasons, Iran has worked so diligently to further chaos in Iraq; why anyone would anyone presume that they would suddenly change their ways when they are beginning to pay off?
The other option that the report gives for engaging these two terror regimes is the use of incentives. But we have already offered both countries various economic incentives, which they have spurned. On top of this, believing that “incentives” or “disincentives” can influence Islamist fanatics like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who avow that the United States must submit to Islam or be destroyed, is folly. Rewarding the leading state sponsors of terrorism for facilitating the killing of Americans is a recipe for increased militancy, as the terrorsts' reactions demonstrate.
The report also ridiculously demands a “sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Israeli peace,” including a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. [5] How settling a sixty-year-old Arab-Jewish dispute will settle a civil war between Muslim sectarians, fueled by Iran and Syria, defies comprehension. Nor does it make sense to push for a two-state solution at a time when the Palestinians have so clearly demonstrated, in Gaza in particular, that they will merely convert any acquired territory into a staging ground for their own terrorist war against Israel. There have, in fact, been reports of al-Qaeda assets in “Palestine.”
The Left’s unremitting criticism of a war its elected officials voted to launch, fueled by its hatred of President Bush personally, has spread dissatisfaction throughout the nation and amplified the calls of those who demand we get out. Their rhetorical success has forced the president to consider quick solutions in Iraq. President Bush has repeatedly told the American public that Iraq is part of a long War on Terror, requiring sacrifice and patience. It will take time to stabilize Iraq and fend off our enemies. To declare failure and urge a significant retreat by 2008 when Iraq’s present government has only been six months in office will only embolden our enemy and hand Iraqis into the hands of those who seek to perpetrate a massive bloodbath before establishing a new Caliphate, from whence they may export terrorism to new vistas. At this stage, it will be the greatest folly for us to abandon this central front in the War on Terror and, along with it, the hope for democracy in the Middle East.
Incoming Congress Prepares to Launch "Operation Surrender"More to come later.
By Ann Coulter
The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.
Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism. They've started a runaway train and can't stop it now.
The Democratic base is at a fever pitch with visions of storm troopers listening to their phone calls and ruthlessly torturing innocent accountants at Guantanamo, where the average inmate has his own lawyer, his own prayer rug, and is wondering what to do about that extra weight – known as the "Gitmo 20" – he's put on since being captured. They are oddly copacetic about actual storm troopers' daily harassment of actual citizens at airport security checkpoints. Leftists have no problem with government oppression as long as it's mandatory and applied equally to all Americans.
In a broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, NBC's Matt Lauer tried to nail down the Manhattan portion of his audience by aggressively questioning President Bush about the possible use of "waterboarding" against terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Lauer said ominously, "It's been reported that with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was what they call 'waterboarded.'"
At NBC, they apparently expected most Americans to react to this fact by exclaiming: They did WHAT to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Wait – are you sure about that? OK, that's it. I will never vote Republican again!
President Bush refused to discuss techniques used on terrorists, saying, "We don't want the enemy to adjust." But Americans "need to know," he said, "we're using techniques within the law to protect them."
While normal people would be happy if we were using cattle prods on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Lauer was testy about the possible use of waterboarding against him. "I don't want to let this 'within the law' issue slip," he said.
"I mean, if, in fact, there was waterboarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – and for the viewers, that's basically you strap someone to a board, and you make them feel as if they're going to drown. You put them under water. If that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why'd you have to go to a secret location around the world?"
In point of fact, we strap people to wooden boards and make them feel like they're drowning all the time in this country. Mostly at theme parks like Six Flags.
Bush again said he wasn't going to talk about techniques. But Lauer's relentless grilling was getting to him. If he'd been at Gitmo, at this point Bush would have demanded a lawyer, another copy of the Quran, and a couple of chocolate eclairs.
Lauer continued to pester the president, demanding to know whether these "alternative techniques you use...if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there's a blurring the lines of – between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"
Hey, I forget: When did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed use aggressive interrogation techniques against a known mass murderer in an effort to thwart another 9/11-style attack on thousands of innocent civilians?
There are few better examples of how out of touch leftists are. They go right to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and expect Americans to be outraged that he may have been waterboarded.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is believed to have played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the filmed beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a thwarted 2002 attack on a bank tower in Los Angeles, and Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 11 commercial airliners simultaneously. Oh, and he took home the coveted "world's craziest terrorist" prize at al-Qaeda's end-of-season office party last year.
I think waterboarding should be a reward for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: OK, you've been good, Mohammed, we're only going to waterboard you today. Let's get you out of those cold electrodes and onto a nice, warm waterboard, OK?
Now that they're our new best friends, how about we turn to Iran and Syria for help on our interrogation techniques?
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Apologize for the War
Of course, such idiocy got my blood boiling. Apologize for the war? Yeah, Saddam wasn't really so bad, was he? They stop just sort of going all glazed-over nastalgic, but only just.
Honestly, the idea is moronic. I don't know if I'm really a neocon, though I suppose when it comes to the war I am. And I am not going to apologize, because I see no reason to. I'm not an ends justify the means kind of guy. Saddam was a brutal dictator who deserves what hes going to get, and it should've been 12 years ago.
Oh, but the violence and death, right? So I guess Saddam's torture chambers were better, eh? Well, at least we didn't see them every day on the news, so what you don't know can't hurt you. Right? Sure thing. And as Christopher Hitchens said just the other day, the violence we see today is really just a part of the lingering effects of Saddam's rule. We waited 12 years too long to take this guy out.
The entire issue is basically devoted to the coming to power of "moderates" and more importantly the return of realists (who, as the WSJ has noted here, "deny reality, and embrace an ideology where talk is productive and governments are sincere"; see also this article). Of course, realists want "stability". Well, I'm a neocon, and I think stability is overrated. I happen to think it was right to take out Saddam and his murderous regime. Here is, again (I don't know how many times I've pointed this article out) perhaps the best column of the year, by Mark Steyn, worth quoting at length for the sheer brilliance it is:
Three years ago, in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq, it fell to the then prime minister of Canada to make the most witless public statement on the subject by any G7 leader.
"Your president has won," Jean Chretien told ABC News in early March 2003. So there was no need to have a big ol' war because, with 250,000 American and British troops on his borders, Saddam was "in a box." "He won," said Mr. Chretien of Bush. "He has created a situation where Saddam cannot do anything anymore. He has troops at the door and inspectors on the ground... You're winning it big."
That's easy for him to say, and committing other countries' armies to "contain" Iraq is easy for him to do. A quarter million soldiers cannot sit in the sands of Araby twiddling their thumbs indefinitely. "Containment" is not a strategy but the absence of strategy - and thug states understand it as such. In Saddam's case, he'd supposedly been "contained" since the first Gulf War in 1991, when Bush Sr. balked at finishing what he'd started. "Mr. President," Joe Biden, the Democrat Senator and beloved comic figure, condescendingly explained to Bush Jr. in 2002, "there is a reason your father stopped and did not go to Baghdad. The reason he stopped is he didn't want to be there for five years."
By my math, that means the Americans would have been out in spring of 1996. Instead, 12 years on, in the spring of 2003 the USAF and RAF were still policing the no-fly zone, ineffectually bombing Iraq every other week. And, in place of congratulations for their brilliant "containment" of Saddam, Washington was blamed for UN sanctions and systematically starving to death a million Iraqi kids - or two million, according to which "humanitarian" agency you believe. The few Iraqi moppets who weren't deceased suffered, according to the Nobel-winning playwright and thinker Harold Pinter, from missing genitals and/or rectums that leaked blood contaminated by depleted uranium from Anglo-American ordnance. Touring Iraq a few weeks after the war, I made a point of stopping in every hospital and enquiring about this pandemic of genital-less Iraqis: not a single doctor or nurse had heard about it. Whether or not BUSH LIED!! PEOPLE DIED!!!, it seems that THE ANTI-WAR CROWDS SQUEAK!!! BUT NO RECTUMS LEAK!!!!
A NEW study by the American Enterprise Institute suggests that, aside from the terrific press, continuing this policy would not have come cheap for America: if you object (as John Kerry did) to the $400-600 billion price tag since the war, another three years of "containment" would have cost around $300 billion - and with no end in sight, and the alleged death toll of Iraqi infants no doubt up around six million. It would also have cost more real lives of real Iraqis: Despite the mosque bombings, there's a net gain of more than 100,000 civilians alive today who would have been shoveled into unmarked graves had Ba'athist rule continued. Meanwhile, the dictator would have continued gaming the international system through the Oil-for-Food program, subverting Jordan, and supporting terrorism as far afield as the Philippines.
So three years on, unlike Francis Fukuyama and the other moulting hawks, my only regret is that America didn't invade earlier. Yeah yeah, you sneer, what about the only WMD? Sorry. Don't care. Never did. My argument for whacking Saddam was always that the price of leaving him unwhacked was too high. He was the preeminent symbol of the September 10th world; his continuation in office testified to America's lack of will, and was seen as such by, among others, Osama bin Laden: In Donald Rumsfeld's words, weakness is a provocation. So the immediate objective was to show neighboring thugs that the price of catching America's eye was too high. The long term strategic goal was to begin the difficult but necessary transformation of the region that the British funked when they cobbled together the modern Middle East in 1922.
Realism isn't really a strategy, its more like an absence of one. Let's cross out fingers and close our eyes and hope nothing bad happens. We can sit down with our enemies and settle things by conducting studies and setting up commisions. We can talk rationaly with murders and thugs, and those whose only objective is to kill us.
Spreading democracy may be like "making ice cream out of sand" to Time, but it is really the only solution. And if it doesn't work, nothing really will. Everything else is just short-sighted "realism".
Apologize? Ridiculous. The only thing to apologize for is waiting 12 years to do it.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Rumsfeld and the Realists
Rumsfeld and the Realists
Consistency is irrelevant to progressives.
BY MICHAEL RUBIN
Monday, November 13, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
On Dec. 20, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, then Ronald Reagan's Middle East envoy, met Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. According to declassified documents, the Reagan administration sought to re-establish long-severed relations with Baghdad amid concern about growing Iranian influence. While U.S. intelligence had earlier confirmed Saddam's use of chemical weapons, Mr. Rumsfeld did not broach the subject. His handshake with Saddam, caught on film by Iraqi television, represented a triumph for diplomatic realism.
Iran and Iraq would fight for five more years, leaving hundreds of thousands dead on the battlefield. Then, two years after a ceasefire ended the war, Saddam invaded Kuwait. In subsequent years, he would subsidize waves of Palestinian suicide-bombers, effectively ending the Oslo peace process. Saddam's career is a model of realist blowback.
On Sept. 23, 2002, as Saddam defied international inspectors and U.N. sanctions crumbled under the greed of Paris, Moscow and Iraq's neighbors, Newsweek published a cover story, "How we Helped Create Saddam," that once again thrust the forgotten handshake into public consciousness. Across both the U.S. and Britain, the story provoked press outrage. NPR conducted interviews outlining how the Reagan administration allowed Saddam to acquire dual-use equipment. Mr. Rumsfeld "helped Iraq get chemical weapons," headlined London's Daily Mail. British columnist Robert Fisk concluded that the handshake was evidence of Mr. Rumsfeld's disdain for human rights, and Amy and David Goodman of "Democracy Now!" condemned Mr. Rumsfeld for enabling Saddam's "lethal shopping spree." While 20 years too late, progressives decried the cold, realist calculations that sent people across the third world to their graves in the cause of U.S. national interest.
What a difference a war makes. Today, progressives and liberals celebrate not only Mr. Rumsfeld's departure, but the resurrection of realists like Secretary of Defense-nominee Robert Gates and James Baker. Mr. Gates was the CIA's deputy director for intelligence at the time of Mr. Rumsfeld's infamous handshake, deputy director of Central Intelligence when Saddam gassed the Kurds, and deputy national security advisor when Saddam crushed the Shiite uprising. Mr. Baker was as central. He was White House chief of staff when Reagan dispatched Mr. Rumsfeld to Baghdad and, as secretary of state, ensured Saddam's grip on power after Iraqis heeded President George H.W. Bush's Feb. 15, 1991, call for "the Iraqi people \[to\] take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside." In the months that followed, Saddam massacred tens of thousands of civilians.
While Mr. Rumsfeld worked to right past wrongs, Messrs. Gates and Baker winked at the Iraqi dictator's continuing grip on power. For progressives, this is irrelevant. Today, progressivism places personal vendetta above principle. Mr. Rumsfeld is bad, Mr. Baker is good, and consistency irrelevant.
***Progressive inconsistency will only increase with the unveiling of the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations calling for reconciliation with both Syria and Iran. In effect, Mr. Baker's proposals are to have the White House replicate the Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake with both Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The parallels are striking. First, just as Saddam denied Kuwait's right to exist, Mr. Assad refuses to recognize Lebanese independence (Damascus has no embassy in Beirut) and Mr. Ahmadinejad calls for Israel's eradication. Washington realpolitik enabled Saddam to act out his fantasies; evidence suggests both Mr. Assad and Mr. Ahmadinejad aspire to do likewise.
Second, just as the Reagan-era Rumsfeld turned a blind eye toward Iraqi chemical weapons, so too does Mr. Baker now counsel ignoring their embrace by the Syrian and Iranian leadership. Tehran used chemical munitions in its war against Iraq, and senior Iranian officials have also threatened first-strike use of nuclear weapons. Syria is just as dangerous: On April 20, 2004, Jordanian security intercepted Syrian-based terrorists planning to target Amman with 20 tons of chemical weapons. Mr. Assad has yet to explain the incident.
And, third, there is the issue of detente enabling armament. Following his rapprochement with Washington, Saddam transformed investment into replenishment. The cost of ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait was far greater than any benefit borne of engagement.
Trade with Tehran has likewise backfired. Between 2000 and 2005, European Union trade with Iran almost tripled. During this same period, Iranian authorities used their hard currency windfall not to invest in schools and hospitals, but rather in uranium processing plants and anti-aircraft batteries. Mohammad Khatami, Mr. Ahmadinejad's predecessor and a man often labeled reformist by U.S. and European realists, showed the Islamic Republic's priorities when he spent two-thirds of his oil-boom windfall on the military. Said Mr. Khatami on April 18, 2002: "Today our army is one of the most powerful in the world. . . . It has become self-sufficient, and is on the road to further development." Subsequent discovery of Iran's covert nuclear facilities later that year clarified his boast. The Assad regime has shown its willingness to spend its discretionary income on a wide-range of weaponry and terror groups.
Realism promotes short-term gain, often at the expense of long-term security. With hindsight, it is clear that Mr. Rumsfeld's handshake with Saddam backfired. While it may have constrained Iran in the short-term, its blowback in terms of blood and treasure has been immense.
Why then do so many progressives then celebrate the return of realism? The reasons are multifold. First, having allowed personal animosities to dominate their ideology, they embrace change, regardless of how it impacts stated principles. Hatred of Mr. Rumsfeld became a principle in itself. Likewise, the same progressives who disparage John Bolton seldom explain why they feel forcing the U.N. to account for its inefficiencies or stick to its founding principles is bad. They complain not of his performance, but rather of his pedigree.
Second is a tendency to conflate analysis with advocacy. Progressives find themselves in a situation where they both embrace realism but deny reality. An Oct. 13 Chronicle of Higher Education article regarding a Columbia University professor's attacks on Azar Nafisi, author of "Reading Lolita in Tehran," highlighted the issue: "The conundrum, say these \[Middle East studies\] scholars, is how to voice opposition to the actions of the Islamic Republic without being co-opted by those who seek external regime change in Iran through a military attack." By embracing a canard, intellectuals convinced themselves of the nobility of ignoring evidence. Thus, Western feminists march alongside Islamists who seek their subjection while progressive labor activists join with Republican realists to ignore Tehran's attacks on bus drivers seeking an independent union, even as a Gdansk-type movement offers the best hope for peaceful change in Iran.
Both realism and progressivism have become misnomers. Realists deny reality, and embrace an ideology where talk is productive and governments are sincere. While 9/11 showed the consequences of chardonnay diplomacy, deal-cutting with dictators and a band-aid approach to national security, realists continue to discount the importance of adversaries' ideologies and the need for long-term strategies. And by embracing such realism, progressives sacrifice their core liberalism. Both may celebrate Mr. Rumsfeld's departure and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, but at some point, it is fair to ask what are the lessons of history and what is the cost of abandoning principle.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Lets not Jump to Conclusions
One myth of the elction:
—President Bush now must give up on the Iraq War. The rebuke to Bush was unquestionably an expression of voters’ frustration with the progress of the war, but they are not ready to give up yet. According to pollster Whit Ayers, less than one-third of voters favor withdrawal. A late-October New York Times poll found that 55 percent of the public favors sending more troops to Iraq, a position now endorsed by the paper’s liberal editorial board. Bush still has a window to take decisive action to reverse the downward slide in Iraq.
Just because people are upset with how its going, doesn't mean they favor retreat.
Lest We Forget
CLICK HERE
Monday, November 13, 2006
Media Bias
The Media's Dark Role
By: Douglas MacKinnon
Nov. 7, 2006, will be remembered as the day the Democratic Party took back control of Congress for three distinct and critically important reasons.
First and foremost was the series of Republican missteps -- such as corruption, the leadership turning a blind eye to the corruption, budget-busting earmarks and a lack of real action on illegal immigration. These actions not only suppressed the vote for the Republican Party, but actually energized a number of Democratic voters.
Second was the number of incredibly well-run Democratic campaigns and their own very impressive get-out-the-vote machine. This was great stuff by any honest assessment.
Third, Nov. 7 needs to be remembered for something even Republicans don't have the stomach to address at the moment: that the remnants of objectivity in the mainstream media were all but exterminated by some on the left. A chilling and ominous development that played some role in the Democratic wave that is still splashing around the red states.
Make no mistake. Along with the multitude of Republican gaffes, and the hard work of the Democrats, there can be no doubt that the left-of-center mainstream media helped to manufacture this election victory for the Democratic Party. For parts of the last two years, many in the media have worked in concert with the Democratic spin doctors to indoctrinate the American voter into believing this election had to be a referendum on President Bush and the "failed" war in Iraq.
Horrified by Mr. Bush's re-election in 2004, as well as the historic Republican gains in the House and the Senate that year, some liberals in the media were determined to do everything in their power to ensure that there was no GOP celebration in 2006, even if that meant confirming to the world that they proudly abandon professionalism and ethics in the name of partisanship and ideology.
To make the election of 2006 a referendum on Mr. Bush and "his" war, the media knew full well they had to present that conflict in the worst possible light for as long as possible on their nightly newscasts, cable programs and front pages. Then, after force-feeding the American people a steady diet of this carnage for weeks at a time, the same media outlets would then "poll" the voters to get their impressions of Iraq and Mr. Bush.
Amazingly, against the protests of soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq, the mainstream media stuck with this partisan plan to only showcase the negative, the misery and the gore. They ignored the pleas of these soldiers to show that not only did they liberate a nation from a genocidal tyrant, but with compassion and great decency (often at the cost of their own lives), they helped to rebuild the country and connect with its people on a much-needed human level. The good far out-numbers the bad in Iraq, but the good was the enemy of a Democratic victory on Nov. 7.
Worse than becoming a public-relations arm for the Democrats, did some in the media actually aid and abet al Qaeda with their biased coverage? It has been fully documented that al Qaeda and the insurgents believe that if you kill enough American soldiers and have those deaths played on a loop by the American media, then the American people and their politicians will grow weak in the knee and call for a withdrawal.
Knowing that to be a stated goal of al Qaeda, and just before the election, CNN still decided to take a horrific video given to them by the insurgents, and put it on the air for the world to see. And just what was on this video? Only heroic American soldiers being murdered in cold blood by al Qaeda snipers. Other than to damage the administration or advance a partisan agenda, why would CNN air such disgusting footage?
Next, to all but ensure the desired outcome, a number of left-of-center "journalists" decided it was necessary to prematurely crown the Democrats the victors. Their thinking was that if you tell a lie or predetermine the results often enough, it becomes fact. So, months before the election, on the front page of the top one hundred left-of-center newspapers in the United States -- with a readership well north of 70 million people -- banner headlines proclaimed that the Democrats were all but certain to take both houses of Congress. Day after day, week after week, these liberal papers foretold a future beneficial to the Democrats.
This is a future that has now come true. To be sure, the majority of the blame rests with the Republican Party and its lemming-like march to become what it defeated in 1994. That said, it is not partisan, nor out of line, to ask if some in the media carried water for the Democrats in this election.
While it is certainly true that left-of-center media outlets continue to hemorrhage readers and viewers in search of fairness and balance, for the moment they don't seem to care. Because of the unethical actions of some within their industry, they helped determine an election.
The Democrats won, but democracy has paid a price. Who in the media is willing to address that?
Immigration
AMERICAN VOTERS DID not TURN AGAINST TOUGHER ENFORCEMENT OR LOWER IMMIGRATION.
I have some important new statistics that should give you comfort -- and that you may want to share with a lot of others. Oh, I'm sure you've seen or read discouraging claims from Fred Barnes, Michael Barone, the Wall Street Journal, the L.A. Times, Tamar Jacoby or dozens of ivory tower newspaper editorial writers since the congressional election returns this week. Their spin is everywhere. According to them, the Republicans' loss of the House of Representatives -- and particularly the loss of Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona -- proves that getting tough on illegal immigration is a political loser.
But consider this:
11.5% of all Republican seats in Congress were lost as Democrats took back control of Congress
But only 6.7% of the Members of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus lost their seats.
I've seen various open-borders organizations even talk about Tancredo's Caucus being decimated! It just wasn't true. Members of the get-tough Caucus fared quite a bit better than Republicans in general. Caroline Espinosa, our NumbersUSA Media Coordinator, tells me most of the journalists to whom she has spoken understand that Republicans were swept from office because of high voter disgust at Republican scandals and frustration with Pres. Bush and particularly the war -- not because most Republican Members of Congress were the only force that stopped Pres. Bush and the Democrats from passing a massive amnesty. Unfortunately, many other journalists are not bothering to seek balanced information, do not call us and then rush out with the most ridiculous analysis of the election results. I hope you will help get the real story out to your friends, colleagues, neighbors and family as the subject comes up -- and to the public through letters to the editor of newspapers and by phoning radio talk shows (both local and national). Take a look at these additional percentages of Republicans who lost their elections:
Loss of Election by Republicans Based on Their Immigration-Reduction Grade of This Congress 9.6% with an A grade lost
25.0% with an F grade lost
9.2% with a B grade lost
6.4% with a C grade lost
9.5% with a D grade lost
There simply was no evidence that Members lost support because they were tougher on illegal immigration and on importing foreign workers. Exit polling failed to show any sign that voters disliked the immigration-reduction positions of the Republicans they were turning out of office. Rather, the polling found they were voting primarily on the basis of scandals and the war.
WHAT DID ARIZONA REALLY SHOW? Not a victory for the McCain AmnestyA number of commentators said the voting by Arizonans proved the lack of popularity of tough enforcement, even in a state with extreme levels of illegal immigration. And they say that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was the clear winner as voters showed they preferred his amnesty plan to enforcement-only. They say that because of the defeats of Republican congressional candidate Randy Graf and incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth who campaigned against McCain's amnesty and were beaten by Democrats who said they favored the Republican senator's amnesty (although their ads and public speeches obscured that behind a lot of tough talk about borders). But here is the counter evidence:
Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) was re-elected easily in the statewide race in which he clearly opposed McCain's amnesty and the (extremely well-funded) Democrat clearly supported McCain's amnesty. Kyl was particularly vulnerable because he has been a loyal supporter of Bush's war effort which Arizonans apparently hate. But voters there apparently gave him a pass on his Bush ties because of his other qualities, one of the most known of which is his law and order approach to immigration.
In another statewide show of support for the immigration-reduction position, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved ballot referenda that further toughen some already tough state laws against illegal aliens. The approved referenda will deny some state benefits to illegal immigrants, declare English the state's official language and bar illegal aliens from collecting punitive damages in civil lawsuits and from getting out of jail on bail if they commit serious crimes.
Polling of likely voters in Arizona and other battleground states and congressional districts found that large majorities of not only Republicans but of Independents and Democrats in all of them share our NumbersUSA desires for Attrition Through Enforcement on illegal immigration and reduced legal immigration.
So, what happened to Graf and Hayworth?
Some independent commentators say their loss was not due to their taking strong positions against illegal aliens but to their not talking enough about other issues. There was a sense among many voters that the two didn't have a broad enough agenda, the commentators said.
But Graf was also severely damaged by the fact that the retiring Republican Congressman (Kolbe) refused to endorse him and that huge amounts of national Republican money was used to advertise against him in the primary (which he won) as an extremist who had no chance to win. Then, when he won, the national Republicans refused to help him defeat the Democrat.
The treatment of Graf was one of the developments that has caused many people to contact me with their suspicion that the Bush political machine actually wanted House Republicans to lose their majority so he could work with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to push through his amnesty.
It is difficult for me to go that far on a Bush Team conspiracy. But there is no doubt that many of that Team are happy that the Republicans' losses have caused so many in the media to suggest that Bush can now get some cooperation on his amnesty.
Graf and Hayworth have been the most talked about election losers because the extravagantly funded open borders media machine pushed their story as being the one that would explain everything about voters' opinions about immigration.
But my statistics at the top of this Alert show that one could just as easily have focused on the losses of Republicans who support McCain's amnesty.
For example, Sen. DeWine (R-OH) was defeated, a tremendous victory for our side, as he has been one of McCain's chief tools on the Senate Judiciary Committee in pushing the open borders agenda. I will not claim that his horribly anti-Ohio-worker immigration stance was the reason he lost. But the somewhat higher incidence of McCain-type Republicans losing than Tom Tancredo-type Republicans losing ought to put a stop to claims that tough immigration positions were behind the Republicans losses.
We also know that in some races, the tough immigration stance helped stave off the anti-Bush tide and allowed a Republican to win. A key example would be the Roskam (R) & Duckworth (D) race for an open seat in Illinois' 6th District. The two traded aggressive charges on each other over the immigration issue, with Roskam pledging immigration toughness and charging Duckworth with supporting an amnesty. That brought Sen. Obama (D-IL) into the fray, saying that both Duckworth and he oppose an amnesty but support Republican Sen. McCain's "comprehensive" legislation. But McCain's bill was defined well enough in the campaign that most voters understood that it would give permanent residence to some 12 million illegal aliens.
Republican Roskam's immigration toughness approach won.
Democrat Duckworth's McCain amnesty approach lost.
Yet, the Washington Post analysis on immigration in the election states that the get-tough approach failed virtually everywhere.
ARE THE NEW DEMOCRATS REALLY CONSERVATIVES WHO WILL VOTE OUR IMMIGRATION-REDUCTION AGENDA?
There was a lot of press before the election and TV commentary the night of the returns suggesting that many of the Democrats who beat Republicans were really pretty conservative and not that different from the Republicans they are replacing.
Then there was a rush of commentary since the election that the new Democrats in Congress may be pro-guns and anti-gay-marriage but that they are really typical economic liberals.
I still owe you a more detailed look at the new Democratic Members of Congress. But my assessment thus far is that most of these three dozen have indeed taken some conservative positions on hot-button social issues and more liberal positions on helping the working classes. But they aren't so much liberal or conservative as they are populist.
If they have some strong populist streaks, we've got a good shot at helping them truly help the working classes on immigration.
Liberal politics' most venerable magazine, The Nation, seems to have confirmed my optimism with an editorial this week that started with the paradox of Hayworth and Graf's defeats and the passage of the statewide anti-illegal alien referenda and then stated:
"It seems voters rejected anti-immigrant vitriol when it spewed from the mouths of candidates, but when that same rhetoric came in the faceless form of citizen's initiatives that mixed fiscal austerity with xenophobia -- voters swallowed the bait. Why should your tax dollars go to services for illegal immigrants? This was the message that anti-immigrant forces took to Arizonans. It was classic Lou Dobbs, class vs. race, and it worked.
"The apparent appeal of this message is what makes me nervous about the rising blue tide of economic populism in the Democratic Party. Raising the minimum wage and beating back the worst of free-market capitalism are all good things, of course. But Democrats have a long history of pandering to white, working-class 'Reagan Democrats' while cutting and running on racial minorities. Most recently, a raft of Democrats voted to build a fence along the US-Mexico border, including Prez. hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It was a do-nothing, symbolic vote, but it doesn't bode well for what will happen next on the "common ground" Bush and Dems hope to find on immigration issues.
"As Roberto Lovato points out, 'The crop of House and Senate members-elect includes many Democrats whose positions on immigration hardly differ from the border first Republicans they ousted.' "
I wish I could be quite so optimistic, but I think the three dozen new Democrats are closer to Graf's and Hayworth's immigration positions than they are to the presumed new Speaker of the House Pelosi's.
It will be up to all of our activism whether they end up voting on their constituents (and our) behalf or on Pelosi's (and The Nation's).
And I have hope that most of these new Democrats will join up with genuine Democratic populists who already are championing our cause -- Sen. Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Byrd (D-WV), Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), as examples. It is possible that a revved up core of Democratic populists could become what The Nation fears most and avoid racial polarization in favor of helping Americans of all ethnicities who are economically harmed by massive foreign labor flows. And if that happens, these Democrats could actually improve the "political soul" of the Republicans who are solidly on the side of immigration reduction.
It is around this kind of populist morality that we may see a middle-ground meeting of Republicans and Democrats that will show the true bi-partisanship that the media so desperately seems to covet.
It is also possible that the much larger role of Democrats in the still-Republican dominated immigration-reduction coalition will cause the media and many others to stop thinking of our immigration problems and solutions in terms of "conservative" or "liberal," much broadening the appeal of the solutions as being also "mainstream."
In my time on Capitol Hill after the elections, I got strong assurance from people who work regularly with the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition (most of whom vote with us on immigration) that most of the New Democrats should be inclined to join the Blue Dogs -- and that we will fail to get most of the new votes only if we fail to increase our level of activism.
A WORD ABOUT WHAT THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS FAILED TO DO RIGHT
The media are having a great time wagging their fingers at House Republicans and saying they were fools to think that standing tough against Bush's amnesty would save their majority.
They say that the House Republicans tried to sell the voters a fence when what the voters wanted was "comprehensive" answers to our immigration crisis.
That assessment is both wrong and right.
In fact, the House Republicans (with nearly 40 Democrats) last December passed "comprehensive" legislation (H.R. 4437) that dealt (a) with the border, (b) with workplace enforcement, (c) with interior enforcement, (d) with what to do with the illegal aliens already here (arrest somewhat more of them but mainly make life worse for them to cause them to go home on their own -- ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT) and to (e)deal with the labor needs of this country by beginning to REDUCE the annual number of new legal immigrants.
But when the Senate (primarily Democrats, plus McCain and his minority GOP team) and the President indicated they would not budge in September, House Republican leaders timidly forced through only the fence and a couple of other technicalities.
Those of us representing NumbersUSA (and you) on Capitol Hill met in late August and early September with top GOP leadership offices. We warned them that voters would not give Republicans credit -- and would not really trust their sincerity -- if they did not try to force through a substantial part of the workplace enforcement they had passed last December in the comprehensive bill.
We told them that the fence alone would likely not get them any political mileage -- just as the fence alone will not likely do much to deter illegal immigration (especially if we don't have mandatory workplace verification).
And then, Republican national leaders who assembled ads to try to help Republican candidates on the basis of their toughness on immigration tended to miss the powerful populist, pro-worker message.
OPTIMISM FOR IMMIGRATION REDUCTION FROM A DEMOCRATJoe Guzzardi ran as a Democrat for Governor of California during the recall election a few years ago. He teaches English to immigrants and writes columns in newspapers and on the internet. You can read his entire column at: http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/061110_chide.htm
Here are a few excerpts: To all my Republican immigration reform friends and colleagues, I have two words for you—“Chill out!”
During our movement’s moment of greatest triumph—the complete electoral humiliation of President George W. Bush, we should be basking in our glory at our collective victory.
Instead, most of you are wringing your hands and speculating on a worst-case scenario that would include amnesty for illegal aliens and various guest worker programs that will add greatly to the legal immigrant population.
But amnesty ain’t happening today, tomorrow or anytime soon.
Here’s why.
If we mount our typical fierce counter-insurgent assault on Congressional sensibilities by focusing on proving that amnesty would reduce to almost zero most incumbent’s Congressional 2008 re-election chances and therefore (in the broader picture) on retaining Democratic House control, we can cut the traitors off at the pass.
The election was not so much a triumph for the Democrats—remember, I am one—as it was a mandate for responsible, responsive government.
And if the Democrats should decide to ram through an amnesty in either the waning days 109th Congress or anytime during the 110th, they will rue the day.
If Bush bucks GOP sentiment by double-dealing with Pelosi, he can write off Republican support for prospective legislation during his remaining two years.
And if you are fretting about what might happen when the new Congress takes office in January 2007, consider that these Democratic representatives are only just months off the campaign trail—where they got an earful about amnesty—but within a few months of embarking on their re-election tour where voters will be harshly assessing their progress in the illegal immigration wars.
Do you really think that these new Congressmen—many of whom will face their same 2006 opponents—are going to vote for amnesty? Can you think of any surer way to lose in 2008?
FROM A CONSERVATIVE MAGAZINE: OPTIMISM FOR IMMIGRATION REDUCTIONI've quote from the liberal magazine The Nation, the following came from National Review, written by Mark Krikiorian, the head of the Center for Immigration Studies. You can read all of it at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjM1YmEwZmNiMDBiOGIwOTQ3NDc3N2Q4MWEwMDViM2Q=
Here are some excerpts that I think will add to your understanding of our political situation and hopefully encourage you to be of good cheer and of great engagement in the fight:
Before election night was even over, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the Democratic takeover of the House presented “interesting opportunities,” including a chance to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., the president’s plan for an illegal-alien amnesty and enormous increases in legal immigration, which failed only because of House Republican opposition.
At his press conference Wednesday, the president repeated this sentiment ...
Tamar Jacoby, the tireless amnesty supporter at the otherwise conservative Manhattan Institute, in a recent piece in Foreign Affairs eagerly anticipated a Republican defeat ...
In Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria shares Jacoby’s cluelessness about Flyover Land: “The great obstacle to immigration reform has been a noisy minority. … Come Tuesday, the party will be over. CNN’s Lou Dobbs and his angry band of xenophobes will continue to rail, but a new Congress, with fewer Republicans and no impending primary elections, would make the climate much less vulnerable to the tyranny of the minority.”
And fellow immigration enthusiast Fred Barnes earlier this week blamed the coming Republican defeat in part on the failure to pass an amnesty and increase legal immigration: “But imagine if Republicans had agreed on a compromise and enacted a ‘comprehensive’ — Mr. Bush’s word — immigration bill, dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants. They’d be justifiably basking in their accomplishment. The American public, except for nativist diehards, would be thrilled.”
“Emerging consensus”? “Nativist diehards”? Jacoby and her fellow-travelers seem to actually believe the results from her hilariously skewed polling questions, and those of the mainstream media, all larded with pro-amnesty codewords like “comprehensive reform” and “earned legalization,” and offering respondents the false choice of mass deportations or amnesty.
More responsible polling employing neutral language (avoiding accurate but potentially provocative terminology like “amnesty” and “illegal alien”) finds something very different. In a recent national survey by Kellyanne Conway, when told the level of immigration, 68 percent of likely voters said it was too high and only 2 percent said it was too low. Also, when offered the full range of choices of what to do about the existing illegal population, voters rejected both the extremes of legalization (“amnesty” to you and me) and mass deportations; instead, they preferred the approach of this year’s House bill, which sought attrition of the illegal population through consistent immigration law enforcement. Finally, three fourths of likely voters agreed that we have an illegal immigration problem because past enforcement efforts have been “grossly inadequate,” as opposed to the open-borders crowd’s contention that illegal immigration is caused by overly restrictive immigration rules.
...
What’s more, if legalizing illegals is so widely supported by the electorate, how come no Democrats campaigned on it? Not all were as tough as Brad Ellsworth, the Indiana sheriff who defeated House Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Hostettler, or John Spratt of South Carolina, whose immigration web pages might as well have been written by Tom Tancredo. But even those nominally committed to “comprehensive” reform stressed enforcement as job one. And the national party’s “Six for 06” rip-off of the Contract with America said not a word about immigration reform, “comprehensive” or otherwise.
The only exception to this “Whatever you do, don’t mention the amnesty” approach appears to have been Jim Pederson, the Democrat who challenged Sen. Jon Kyl (a grade of B) by touting a Bush-McCain-Kennedy-style amnesty and foreign-worker program and even praised the 1986 amnesty, which pretty much everyone now agrees was a catastrophe.
Pederson lost.
Speaker Pelosi has a single mission for the next two years — to get her majority reelected in 2008. She may be a loony leftist (F- on immigration), but she and Rahm Emanuel (F) seem to be serious about trying to create a bigger tent in order to keep power, and adopting the Bush-McCain-Kennedy amnesty would torpedo those efforts. Sure, it’s likely that they’ll try to move piecemeal amnesties like the DREAM Act (HR 5131 in the current Congress), or increase H-1B visas (the indentured-servitude program for low-wage Indian computer programmers). They might also push the AgJobs bill, which is a sizable amnesty limited to illegal-alien farmworkers. None of these measures is a good idea, and Republicans might still be able to delay or kill them, but they aren’t the “comprehensive” disaster the president and the Democrats really want.
Any mass-amnesty and worker-importation scheme would take a while to get started, and its effects would begin showing up in the newspapers and in people’s workplaces right about the time the next election season gets under way. And despite the sophistries of open-borders
Friday, November 10, 2006
A Referendum on the War?
It was not a referendum on Iraq. One of the most pro-Iraq lawmakers in Congress, Sen. Joe Lieberman, ran as an independent and trounced anti-Iraq Democratic nominee Ned Lamont. Meanwhile, of the five remaining Republican members of Congress who voted against Iraq's liberation, three lost: Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Rep. John Hostettler (Ind.) and Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa). Only two anti-Iraq Republicans will return to the 110th Congress: Reps. Jimmy Duncan (Tenn.) and Ron Paul (Texas).
The Associated Press reports that while "three-fourths of voters said corruption and scandal were important to their votes, . . . Iraq was important for just two-thirds." Both groups tended to favor Democrats. (LINK)
And as Mona Charen points out:
The war in Iraq was cited as an “extremely,” “very,” or “somewhat” important factor in the votes of 89 percent of the electorate according to exit polls. But the war on terror was cited by 92 percent voters as important to their votes. These nearly cancel each other out, as those who cited Iraq as crucial tended to vote Democrat and those who cited terror tended to vote Republican.Really, it had more to do with politicians. (and I can't really blame anyone for that. The republicans stopped being conservatives and were content being politicians)
Meanwhile, 57 percent of voters said they either “strongly” or “somewhat” disapproved of the job George Bush was doing as president, but more (61 percent) said they disapproved of Congress. Why Congress? Other polling, conducted before Election Day, found that 75 percent of voters were concerned about political corruption.
In Jonah Goldberg's words:
In other words, just as Democrats insisted, the GOP's drubbing had more to do with incompetence and scandal than program and ideology.
Indeed, if the conservative base hadn't been disgusted with Republican management, and if so many Democrats hadn't run as social conservatives, the GOP might have done just fine in this election.
Republicans lost because they behaved like self-indulgent politicians, not purists. Conservatives care a lot about ideas, so that's where we'll try to assign blame. But the ideologues aren't to blame. The Republicans are.
So, what do the Dems want to do?
1. Mandatory homosexuality
2. Drug-filled condoms in schools
3. Introduce the new Destruction of Marriage Act
4. Border fence replaced with free shuttle buses
5. Osama Bin Laden to be Secretary of State
6. Withdraw from Iraq, apologize, reinstate Hussein
7. English language banned from all Federal buildings
8. Math classes replaced by encounter groups
9. All taxes to be tripled
10. All fortunes over $250,000 to be confiscated
11. On-demand welfare
12. Tofurkey to be named official Thanksgiving dish
13. Freeways to be removed, replaced with light rail systems
14. Pledge of Allegiance in schools replaced with morning flag-burning
15. Stem cells allowed to be harvested from any child under the age of 8
16. Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor
17. Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery
18. God to be mocked roundly
19. Dissolve Executive Branch: reassign responsibilities to UN
20. Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement
21. Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy
22. Texas returned to Mexico
23. Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day
24. Carter added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA's motto to "Land of the French and the home of the brave"
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Election 2006
There is no real question that Democrats are more skilled at politics than the Republicans are. Democrats are more articulate, not to say glib, and they know how to stick together.
You don't see individual Democrats in the Senate going off to do their own thing in concert with the opposition and against the interest of their own party, as Senator John McCain has done with so-called "campaign finance reform" co-sponsored with ultra-liberal Senator Russ Feingold, and as he attempted to do on immigration with liberal icon Ted Kennedy.
Democrats know better than to betray their base of supporters — welfare state beneficiaries, the teachers' unions, environmental zealots, the ACLU and tort lawyers — the way the elder President Bush betrayed his supporters who relied on his "no new taxes" pledge and the way the current President Bush betrayed them by attempting to create amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
Republicans have too often forgotten the old-time admonition to the girl going to a party, to always remember to "dance with the one who brung you."
Even some Republicans have said privately that the Democrats have the edge in playing the game of politics. Given the greater political shrewdness of the Democrats and the overwhelming bias of the media in their favor, it is remarkable that Republicans have had any political success at all.
That the Republicans are still a viable party is one measure of how far the Democrats' policies and values differ from those of most Americans.
Nowhere is that difference greater than when it comes to defending the American people against crime at home and against military and terrorist threats from abroad. Liberal Democrats — which is to say, most Democratic politicians and all of their leaders — are ready to try almost any "alternatives to incarceration" of criminals and almost any alternative to maintaining military strength as a deterrent to enemy nations.
More is involved than an unwillingness to face unpleasant facts of life. There is a coherent ideology behind these positions. That ideology goes back more than two centuries — and has failed in country after country over those centuries. But it is an ideology that sounds good and flatters the vanity of those who consider themselves part of a wise and compassionate elite. Republicans have too eclectic a collection of beliefs to beat the Democrats on a purely ideological basis. Moreover, the liberal vision is a more attractive vision because it assumes away many of the painful and even brutal aspects of human life, especially the fatal dangers of relying on words when dealing with people who only respect force that is backed up by a willingness to use it.
Facts are the only real antidote to a seductive vision. But facts do not "speak for themselves." Somebody has to articulate those facts and explain their implications. The liberal media will certainly not do it and too often the Republicans do it badly or not at all.
How many people are aware that the black-white income difference and the male-female income difference both narrowed during the 1980s — that is, during the Reagan administration? Democrats talked a better game on both fronts and to this day are widely regarded as the best hope, if not the only hope, for minorities and women.
How many people are aware that crime rates soared when liberal ideas became part of the criminal justice system in the 1960s and only began declining in the 1980s after more criminals were put behind bars and kept there a longer time?
Democrats have learned to avoid admitting to being liberals and this year are running a number of moderate candidates.
If these new moderate candidates are elected and give the Democrats control of Congress, that control will be exercised by senior Democrats who will hold leadership positions — and all of them are liberal extremists, whether people like Nancy Pelosi in the House or Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in the Senate.
Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put extremists in power, may be the newest and biggest voter fraud.
I think this blog might see more regular updates....