~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, November 7, 2003
Honorable Mention
Theophrastus, posting by the nome de plume rakhiir, has moved and has some good posts up, including one on a Friedman piece that I happened to miss amid all chaos and vagaries of life.
That chaos and vagaries stuff took its toll a bit this week. I meant to have more good stuff to say about the Bush speech, myself, but didn't get to it. I also meant to have the Democrats & Iraq post up this morning instead of this afternoon (the time stamp says morning, but it wasn't actually publicly posted until afternoon, because I hadn't gotten around to finishing it due to a variety of interruptions). But enough lame "the dog ait my blog post" nattering on my part. Check out Darren & rakhiir's blogs.
At this point in the war, we should be enraged by Baathist counter-attacks, not rattled.
Too true. But as a general rule (sort of like this one), it's a reasonable predictor of how you're going to vote, whether at this point you have resolve or are panicking.
Armed Liberal is putting together a discussion among Liberals, Democrats, and the like on security, foreign policy, and defense issues. This is a good thing, and it's a discussion they need to have. They need to be more candid and serious-minded among themselves than Democratic officials, candidates, and Liberal pundits have been so far, and separate the real world from political polemic. What do I mean?
Well, lets take a couple recent examples. Wesley Clark gave a speech outlining his Iraq policy yesterday, which, among other things, called for anyone but an American to be in charge. Which is fairly typical, really, of Democratic positions on the war. Joe Lieberman said that Clark had lifted Lieberman's plan, and indeed other candidates said much the same thing. So Clark's outline serves as a suitable proxy for the more serious Democratic positions on Iraq.
I have always believed that before initiating military action, crucial tests must be met: For example, every diplomatic option should be explored and exhausted. We must do everything possible to gain international and domestic support. And there must be a realistic post-war plan.
The Bush Administration failed every one of these tests. Instead of basing life and death decisions on hard-headed realism, they were guided by wishful thinking.
This is a fairly typical argument among Democrats and Liberals - that Bush didn't seriously try diplomacy, and so it failed. However, in saying that Bush is "guided by wishful thinking" instead of "hard-headed realism", the people making statements like this are projecting. Anyone who looks with open-eyed, hard-headed realism at the diplomatic picture will see that various other countries that the Democrats are pretending could have been persuaded if only we had been more nuanced and less bullying in our diplomacy had already made up their mind to oppose any strong action, due to their own perceived interests that are not identical with ours. Just as Nancy Pelosi isn't going to be persuaded by anyone, no matter how smooth-tongued, to support cutting taxes on upper income brackets - she is opposed to such cuts, as many Democrats are, on ideological and principled grounds, and is not going to change her mind with some warm diplomacy. France, Germany, Russia, and others had established a position on Iraq and Saddam long before Bush even announced his candidacy for President. Honest Democrats will remember that when Clinton was trying to push for a strong response to Saddam's obstructionism in '98, the French and Russians were pushing for Sanctions to be lifted so they could resume their warm commercial relations with Saddam. Clinton couldn't get a stern resolution passed, for all his warm personal relations with several of these European leaders. He ordered a bombing of Iraq late that year without a UN Resolution (nothing like 1441), and the only support he received was from the same nations that supported Bush, the ones Democrats like Kerry now call "fraudulent". The point isn't that Clinton's diplomacy was bad, it is that there are some gaps that cannot be bridged with diplomacy and Democrats need to be honest not only with the American people, but with themselves, about this reality: That it isn't just America that plays a role in determining these things with other nations simply responding to whatever stimuli we give them. In point of fact, arguably Bush's diplomacy has been fairly successful given the international situation.
Mr. Bush made a series of strategic mistakes that have put us in danger and plunged us into Iraq. After September 11, all Americans understood that fighting terror was America's number one national security priority. All Americans understood it was crucial that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.
Just as important - the world agreed with this approach.
This is not really true, either. This is another revision of the actual historic record. "The world" was not all too keen on the approach we took with respect to Afghanistan, with many of the same countries that opposed our action in Iraq voicing their "concerns". Remember also Afghanistan was the first Bush Quagmire. They only came to an accommodation with it retroactively, after the fact. During the fact they wanted negotiations with Mullah Omar, power-sharing with the Taliban, &tc. Now for rhetorical purposes they claim to have supported that all along, but the historical record indicates otherwise.
Also, because it will be important later in contrast with the model that is argued for in Iraq, note that Afghanistan follows the outline that Democrats insist will fix Iraq, and yet few Democrats claim that Afghanistan is going swimmingly. Indeed, quite the contrary, they insist that we (America) should be pouring more troops and money into Afghanistan. Note I said they insist America should be - not "our allies" (who say they have no more troops or money to give to Afghanistan. Logic would dictate that if this is true, then they lack the same for Iraq as well). The emphasis is quite different, and makes one wonder if what is at issue in any of these areas really isn't a matter of the substantive contribution others could make, but the issue of control and who will have decision-making authority. As we shall see:
Our focus should have been on winning the war on terrorism - working with our allies to track down the terrorists themselves; to develop new initiatives in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to rip out the roots of radical terror.
Clark, and Democrats in general, continue to fuzz on the the fact that the roots of radical terror lay in countries that support, facilitate, fund, and provide training bases for terrorists, and that such regimes need to be tackled if terrorism is to be tackled. The point of this post isn't to argue why Saddam's Iraq was the best place to create an example of the consequences of continuing to foster support for terrorism. But Democrats need to be more honest in grappling with this issue than they generally are.
The Administration then offered the notion of pre-emption. American Presidents have always had the option of striking preemptively - it is inherent in the right of self-defense. And I would not hesitate to use that right if America was in imminent danger.
Rather than arguing the point, I'll just ask two questions here. Does this demonstrate that Democrats are at the forefront of strategic thinking, or still trying to put a different strategic threat into a mindset of past strategic thought? That is, in a strategic environment, faced with the type of threat where we won't necessarily know we are in imminent danger until after the fact, until it's too late, is this sound policy?
Now, that's a policy debate rather than one on facing hard facts, and if Democrats, after thoughtful consideration, want to make this their policy, then that's fine. We'll have a real debate over different strategic options in handling these threats.
Finally, after training our forces on Iraq, the Administration essentially declared - we're going it alone. Instead of using diplomacy backed by force - as we did so effectively in the Balkans
Remember that in the Balkans, we did not get a UN Resolution either. Why? Failed diplomacy? Or because Russia felt its interests were different from ours, and were not going to be persuaded by negotiation to change their mind? Wesley Clark also, and again he is not alone here, elides over the numerous problems that our policy towards the Balkans faced and still faces, and the fact that it took quite some time to achieve the sort of international consensus he is applauding here, in the meantime with much ethnic-cleansing and UN "Safe Zones" used as free-fire zones. Clark is eliding over and ignoring some of the problems he and others experienced, which presaged and forshadowed the current situation, with difficult, obstructionist allies, countries playing games and working at cross-purposes to try and undermine what we were trying to accomplish, and the like. Many Democrats who directly experienced the frustrations of diplomacy and getting anything accomplished there are now forgetting, or wanting others to forget, the difficulties and consequences of the Balkan experience. More on that later in the post, however.
Second, we must be honest with the American people. That's something that President Bush hasn't done. There is no silver bullet - no magic solution in Iraq.
However, that's not the impression Bush has given - the Democrats are the ones giving the impression that there is a silver-bullet magic solution; just get allies to send troops and put the UN or NATO in charge of handling things ("they do this better" being the argument) and the implication is that American soldiers will stop dying. I would argue that they are creating a misleading impression.
End the American monopoly.
From the beginning, the Administration has insisted on exclusive control of the reconstruction and occupation of Iraq. This has cost us the support of other nations and made America a bigger target for terrorists. We must end this American monopoly.
Doing so will change the way this enterprise is viewed -- in Iraq, internationally, and here at home. The Coalition Provisional Authority, by which America controls Iraq today, should be replaced. But it is simply unrealistic to have the United Nations take over this daunting task - it's not able and it's not willing. Instead we must create a new international structure - the Iraqi Reconstruction and Democracy Council -- similar to the one we created in Bosnia with representatives from Europe, the United States, Iraq's neighbors, and other countries that will support our effort.
Now, to Clark's credit, he at least recognizes that the UN is not up to the task. This makes him an exception from the Democratic norm. However, Iraq's neighbors are Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait. With the possible exception of Kuwait and partial exception of Jordan, none of these countries are likely to be a positive influence. Furthermore, the Iraqis are not very enthusiastic about the idea of their neighbors meddling in Iraq's affairs.
Of course, a number of countries in Europe and elsewhere do have input in Iraq. Britain, Spain, Norway, Poland, Italy, and others have a voice. Clark is thus saying that others, currently uninvolved, should be brought in. Which ones is he alluding to? France, Germany, and perhaps even Russia - which, in Clark's Balkan experience, may have other axes to grind which are at odds not only with our interests, but the interests of the people of Iraq. Failing to acknowledge this is a failure to face hard realities. Clark goes on to say "Nations are more likely to share burdens if they are also sharing decisions", which is true, but begs the question about what sort of decisions they would insist on, what qualities and direction those decisions would have, and whether they would be positive from either our point of view or the Iraqis. Some "help". . .isn't. If the Democrats have thought about this aspect of things, they give no sigh of it. They simply assume that such decisions would be at least as good, if not better, than the ones that are being made. But there are good grounds to believe this would not be the case, and even Tom Friedman has noticed that France hasn't exactly been acting like a friend just waiting for us to ask nicely for their help.
We would still have a leading role - but you can't be a leader if no one comes along - you're not a leader if you're all alone.
Statements like this, frequently made by Democrats, are inaccurate to the point of deception in that they mislead people into believing we are alone in Iraq. In point of fact, we have led a coalition in Iraq. It happens to be one that shares the vision and goals we have, rather than consisting of countries that do not.
We must also transform the military operation - turning it into a NATO enterprise. General Abizaid, commander of US forces in the Middle East, would remain in charge of the operation, but he would report to the NATO Council as well.
In other words, General Abizaid would not be in charge, but would report to others who would oversee him. What becomes clear in proposals like this is that they trust the leadership of other countries more than they trust America's. But they need to be clear-eyed about the track record of some of these countries that they want to grant supervisory authority to.
Again, the current fact is that most NATO member-countries have troops in Iraq. Clark is desirous of involving those who currently do not in supervising things there. He does this without really looking into whether these countries are absent because they do not share the same interests we do, and that involving them may be pernicious rather than helpful. So when Clark says "But our friends and allies have a stake in a stable Iraq" that may be true, but those countries may not see stability in the same way we do now. I would argue they don't. They were happy with the kind of stability the Ba'ath Party offered, and would be satisfied with a similar outcome now. By the way, if we're judging by success, the Balkan outline that Clark proposes, now six years in, has not really reached a resolution.
And our allies would be more willing to help us on Iraq if we are willing to work together on issues of concern to them, like climate change, the International Criminal Court, and a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. With a US commander, NATO involvement, and UN endorsement, I believe we can also get Muslim countries to step in, as we did in the Balkans.
The first part of that statement contains policy matters that I'm trying not to debate in this post. These items are a matter of Democratic Party policy, and I'll reserve my arguments over them for another post. However, what is interesting about the treaties on these things that Clark alludes to is that they were all negotiated in the late '90s, that is, during Clinton's term, and failed to pass then. Indeed, in most of these cases, Clinton did not even try to get the Senate to ratify the treaties. Why? It's not that Clinton didn't want treaties on these issues that he could get passed. It's that our "friends" wouldn't give him such treaties.
Now, before anyone gets all upset, I raise this matter not as a dig at Clinton. I believe that, whatever you think about the merits or demerits of these treaties, Clinton and his diplomatic team tried sincerely to negotiate treaties that would be acceptable to America on all these issues. He failed not because of a lack of effort, but because the countries that Clark wants us to defer to refused to compromise. This is important because it highlights the disconnect I have been pointing to throughout: it is not always America's Fault that this or that "friend" abroad does not want to help us. That pattern is not going to reverse itself simply because there is a Democrat in the White House again. Democratic and Liberal candidates, office-holders, and commentators need to be more honest, both with the American people and perhaps even with themselves, about the facts of this situation. Otherwise, they're simply unserious.
The implication that these countries will not help us on one issue until we give in to them on others, and that we should bend to such extortion, is a very odd position to take: That if we don't do what they want on the ICC then they won't help us in the war on terror until we conceed, and this is a legitimate tactic for our "friends and allies" to take, is a very. . .well, I'm not sure how to politely describe it. I'll say that for anyone who gives it any thought and makes the connections, it's a dubious position to take. Who are the bullies here, anyhow? This kind of bullying would be considered outré if done by America, but somehow it's perfectly acceptable, even laudably progressive, when done by our supposed friends overseas. This doesn't wash with me and I doubt it will appeal to most Americans.
Since in the above I have already discussed other additional forces and the realistic prospects of them being helpful, I will be brief on his #2, "Force Mix". I will simply note that Clark fails to recognize that it may conflict with his third point "Give the Iraqis a Stake in Our Success". See here where I make that point. Many of the other countries that the Democrats want to involve in Iraq are countries that the Iraqis are not very enthusiastic about being present in their country (see here). Likewise, Point #3 conflicts with his first point; many of these other countries that Clark wants to see helping make decisions in Iraq would divide up the oil and other resources to their own benefit if they could, forcing the Iraqis to accept bad deals made and debts incurred during the Saddam era in exchange for their "help" (presence in Iraq deciding Iraq's future). This would not warm the hearts of Iraqis or make them feel they have a stake in things.
Moving along, related to this matter, we have this piece by Peter Beinart, which makes many of the points I made here but also evidences some of the, in my opinion, failure to confront reality that is endemic in Democratic and Liberal statements on the subject. (For example, the assertion that but for Bush's failed diplomacy, the French &tc would have supported everything we wanted). Beinart is very candid, however, on where the logic of Democratic arguments are taking them.
Also worth looking at is this piece by Michael O''Hanlon. It makes somewhat different arguments - many of which are quite to the point. But again in some places it shows a skewed view of reality. The Democrats need to correct this, have a solid and realistic view of the world situation, which includes the fact that other country's interests, and behavior, are not simply decided by how effective or ineffective our diplomacy is, and that certain countries once thought allies may not always share the same interests as we do. Then we need to forthrightly determine what to do based on a candid and honest assessment of that reality. What sort of positions and policies they want to take based on reality is then up to them - again, it is not my purpose in this post to argue what that should be for them.
But if they're going to make policy, it should be based on reality rather than wishful thinking and misportrayals or misperceptions (I don't know which would be worse). Until then, they are not fit to govern in the post-9/11 world.
Sebastian Holsclaw has a three-part series on why we're in Iraq that's worth reading. Part I, Part II, and part III. Even if you're familiar with some of the arguments, it's good to have them all layed out in a comprehensive form.
Elsewhere, in less welcome news, I KNEW IT!!! All along I knew they were the spawn of something malevolent. . .
Guest Blog by George W. Bush, speech before the National Endowment for Democracy on its 20th aniversary:
The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights.
President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. (Applause.)
A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." (Laughter.) Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. (Applause.)
The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country -- ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state.
As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world -- and I can assure you more are on the way. (Applause.) Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised.
We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.
The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world.
Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control -- and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.
Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth.
The progress of liberty is a powerful trend. Yet, we also know that liberty, if not defended, can be lost. The success of freedom is not determined by some dialectic of history. By definition, the success of freedom rests upon the choices and the courage of free peoples, and upon their willingness to sacrifice. In the trenches of World War I, through a two-front war in the 1940s, the difficult battles of Korea and Vietnam, and in missions of rescue and liberation on nearly every continent, Americans have amply displayed our willingness to sacrifice for liberty.
The sacrifices of Americans have not always been recognized or appreciated, yet they have been worthwhile. Because we and our allies were steadfast, Germany and Japan are democratic nations that no longer threaten the world. A global nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union ended peacefully -- as did the Soviet Union. The nations of Europe are moving towards unity, not dividing into armed camps and descending into genocide. Every nation has learned, or should have learned, an important lesson: Freedom is worth fighting for, dying for, and standing for -- and the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
And now we must apply that lesson in our own time. We've reached another great turning point -- and the resolve we show will shape the next stage of the world democratic movement.
Our commitment to democracy is tested in countries like Cuba and Burma and North Korea and Zimbabwe -- outposts of oppression in our world. The people in these nations live in captivity, and fear and silence. Yet, these regimes cannot hold back freedom forever -- and, one day, from prison camps and prison cells, and from exile, the leaders of new democracies will arrive. (Applause.) Communism, and militarism and rule by the capricious and corrupt are the relics of a passing era. And we will stand with these oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives. (Applause.)
Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China's people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China's leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible -- that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country.
Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)
Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.
Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy -- as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As men and women are showing, from Bangladesh to Botswana, to Mongolia, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path.
It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.
More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments. They succeed in democratic societies, not in spite of their faith, but because of it. A religion that demands individual moral accountability, and encourages the encounter of the individual with God, is fully compatible with the rights and responsibilities of self-government.
Yet there's a great challenge today in the Middle East. In the words of a recent report by Arab scholars, the global wave of democracy has -- and I quote -- "barely reached the Arab states." They continue: "This freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development." The freedom deficit they describe has terrible consequences, of the people of the Middle East and for the world. In many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling. Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves ahead. These are not the failures of a culture or a religion. These are the failures of political and economic doctrines.
As the colonial era passed away, the Middle East saw the establishment of many military dictatorships. Some rulers adopted the dogmas of socialism, seized total control of political parties and the media and universities. They allied themselves with the Soviet bloc and with international terrorism. Dictators in Iraq and Syria promised the restoration of national honor, a return to ancient glories. They've left instead a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin.
Other men, and groups of men, have gained influence in the Middle East and beyond through an ideology of theocratic terror. Behind their language of religion is the ambition for absolute political power. Ruling cabals like the Taliban show their version of religious piety in public whippings of women, ruthless suppression of any difference or dissent, and support for terrorists who arm and train to murder the innocent. The Taliban promised religious purity and national pride. Instead, by systematically destroying a proud and working society, they left behind suffering and starvation.
Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere. But some governments still cling to the old habits of central control. There are governments that still fear and repress independent thought and creativity, and private enterprise -- the human qualities that make for a -- strong and successful societies. Even when these nations have vast natural resources, they do not respect or develop their greatest resources -- the talent and energy of men and women working and living in freedom.
Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle East need to confront real problems, and serve the true interests of their nations. The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long, many people in that region have been victims and subjects -- they deserve to be active citizens.
Governments across the Middle East and North Africa are beginning to see the need for change. Morocco has a diverse new parliament; King Mohammed has urged it to extend the rights to women. Here is how His Majesty explained his reforms to parliament: "How can society achieve progress while women, who represent half the nation, see their rights violated and suffer as a result of injustice, violence, and marginalization, notwithstanding the dignity and justice granted to them by our glorious religion?" The King of Morocco is correct: The future of Muslim nations will be better for all with the full participation of women. (Applause.)
In Bahrain last year, citizens elected their own parliament for the first time in nearly three decades. Oman has extended the vote to all adult citizens; Qatar has a new constitution; Yemen has a multiparty political system; Kuwait has a directly elected national assembly; and Jordan held historic elections this summer. Recent surveys in Arab nations reveal broad support for political pluralism, the rule of law, and free speech. These are the stirrings of Middle Eastern democracy, and they carry the promise of greater change to come.
As changes come to the Middle Eastern region, those with power should ask themselves: Will they be remembered for resisting reform, or for leading it? In Iran, the demand for democracy is strong and broad, as we saw last month when thousands gathered to welcome home Shirin Ebadi, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The regime in Teheran must heed the democratic demands of the Iranian people, or lose its last claim to legitimacy. (Applause.)
For the Palestinian people, the only path to independence and dignity and progress is the path of democracy. (Applause.) And the Palestinian leaders who block and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people.
The Saudi government is taking first steps toward reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections. By giving the Saudi people a greater role in their own society, the Saudi government can demonstrate true leadership in the region.
The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the way toward democracy in the Middle East. (Applause.) Champions of democracy in the region understand that democracy is not perfect, it is not the path to utopia, but it's the only path to national success and dignity.
As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.
There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society, in every culture. Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military -- so that governments respond to the will of the people, and not the will of an elite. Successful societies protect freedom with the consistent and impartial rule of law, instead of selecting applying -- selectively applying the law to punish political opponents. Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions -- for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media. Successful societies guarantee religious liberty -- the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution. Successful societies privatize their economies, and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption, and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women. And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people. (Applause.)
These vital principles are being applies in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq. With the steady leadership of President Karzai, the people of Afghanistan are building a modern and peaceful government. Next month, 500 delegates will convene a national assembly in Kabul to approve a new Afghan constitution. The proposed draft would establish a bicameral parliament, set national elections next year, and recognize Afghanistan's Muslim identity, while protecting the rights of all citizens. Afghanistan faces continuing economic and security challenges -- it will face those challenges as a free and stable democracy. (Applause.)
In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy -- and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization. Our coalition is responding to recent attacks with precision raids, guided by intelligence provided by the Iraqis, themselves. And we're working closely with Iraqi citizens as they prepare a constitution, as they move toward free elections and take increasing responsibility for their own affairs. As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test. (Applause.)
Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women's rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves -- police and borders guards and local officials -- are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.
This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.)
Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we're strong of heart. And we're not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.
With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this Endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty. And I thank you. May God bless your work. And may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)
More to the point, one has to be prepared to support a campaign—or a cause—that is going badly. The president has been widely lampooned by many a glib columnist for saying that increased violence is not necessarily a cause for despair and may even be evidence of traction. He is, in fact, quite right to take this view, which was first expressed, to my knowledge, by Gen. John Abizaid. Those who murder the officials of the United Nations and the Red Cross, set fire to oil pipelines and blow up water mains, and shoot down respected clerics outside places of worship are indeed making our point for us. There is no justifiable way that a country as populous and important as Iraq can be left at the mercy of such people. And—here is my crux—there never was.
The counsel of prudence offered above by Bush and Scowcroft was all very well as far as it went. But it did leave Saddam Hussein in power, and it did (as its authors elsewhere concede) involve the United States in watching from the sidelines as Iraqis were massacred for rebelling on its side and in its name. It left the Baathist regime free to continue work on weapons of mass destruction, which we know for certain it was doing on a grand scale until at the very least 1995. And it left Saddam free to continue to threaten his neighbors and to give support and encouragement to jihad forces around the world. (The man most wanted in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled straight from New Jersey to Baghdad, though there are still those in our "intelligence" services who prefer to grant Saddam the presumption of innocence in this and many other matters.) It also left Saddam Hussein free to try and assassinate former President Bush on his postwar visit to Kuwait—an act of such transparent lunacy that it far transcends any sneers about George W. wanting to avenge his daddy. (It also demonstrates, by the way, Saddam Hussein's urgent personal need for a revenge for 1991—a consideration that deserves more attention than it has received.)
He goes on:
The question then, becomes this: Should the date or timing of this unpostponable confrontation have been left to Saddam Hussein to pick? The two chief justifications offered by the Bush administration (which did mention human rights and genocide at its first presentation to the United Nations, an appeal that fell on cold as well as deaf ears) were WMDs and terrorism. Here, it is simply astonishing how many people remain willing to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt. The late Dr. David Kelley, whose suicide has so embarrassed the Blair government, put it very plainly in an article he wrote just before the war. Seriousness about "inspections" required a regime change in Iraq—no credible inspection could be conducted on any other terms. This point has since been amply vindicated by the Kay inquiry, still in its early stages, which has already unearthed compelling evidence of a complex concealment program, of the designing of missiles well beyond the permitted legal range, of the intimidation of scientists and witnesses, and of the incubation (in some cases hidden in scientists' homes) of deadly biological toxins.
This point is also on the mark:
The literal-minded insistence that all government rhetoric be entirely scrupulous strikes me, in view of the above, as weird. It can only come from those who were not willing to form, or to defend, positions of their own: in other words, those for whom Saddam would not have been a problem unless Bush tried to make him into one.
And, on the Unquestionable Authoritah of the International Community:
Arguments about democracy and reform cannot be phrased in terms of U.N. resolutions—especially when two of the relevant regime's clients are among the permanent membership of the Security Council—but there is every reason to believe that the United States has chosen the right side in the region, in principle as well as in practice.
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty"
Ray Phelps writes, via e-mail, in response to yesterday's Dean Machine post:
In my opinion, Dean is the victim of bad timing. If he were THE Democrat nominee, he would have been given a pass on this comment. As it is, he's still fighting eight others over the nomination. So the other candidates trot this out to lambast him so THEY can get the nomination.
Personally, I think this should get as much attention as 'Bush went to Bob Jones Univ therefore he's a racist' but I have no delusions that the mainstream press would do this. Dean is on the 'correct' team and Bush was not. Therefore, Dean would normally get a pass. Unfortunately for him, he wouldn't wait six months to say it.
As a born and raised, real live Southerner, I'm more insulted that he said this. To me, the implication is that all Southern White Men (since obviously, their the only ones with Confederate battle flags on their trucks) are racist. I may be misreading his intentions or what he truly means by this, but after the National Democrat Parties treatment of the South for the last few years, how else am I supposed to take a comment like that. Basically, he looks down on us as a bunch of hickish, racist rednecks. But unfortunately, he's gonna need some hickish, racist rednecks votes to pick off a Southern State or two (which he would have to do to win).
Rays First Postulate: The only Dem that can win the Presidency is a Southern Governor, because no Southerner in their right mind votes for a North Eastern Liberal. But thats a topic for another day. :)
I do have to say that Dean's gaff yesterday, which will certainly get a pass, where he said:
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told a Tallahassee audience today that southerners have to quit basing their votes on "race, guns, God and gays."
displays a lot of contempt for the people he claims he wants to appeal to. Like I wrote in the "Additional" to the Dean Machine post, he's not really helping me cut him much slack. I'm trying, but he's going to have to try harder himself.
The problem is these folks are as clueless about their outreach to Southern voters as the Republicans can be in their outreach efforts to Black American voters; the attempt, while worthy, often ends up digging their hole deeper because it displays just how much they don't know about the people they're trying to reach. Dean seems to have gotten his impressions of what your typical Southern voter is from old "Dukes of Hazzard" episodes. I think he should keep trying, but he needs to get some people around him to advise him. People who have a clue. I'd really recommend someone on the Dem side pick up Donna Brazile. Yah, I know she didn't do wonders for Gore, but unlike some others (including Gore), she seems to have learned from experience.
Actually, what I really think is that if the Democrats were smart they'd toss out Terrible Terry and make Donna Brazile DNC Chairman. She knows what the Democrats need to do, and no one would mistake her for "Republican Lite".
Update: Margaret Holt writes, via e-mail:
I am a white southerner who lives in California. Mr. Dean's remarks display only that he has no understanding of us or our history. To many traditional liberal supporters of civil and women's rights of a certain age the Democratic party is the party of Jim Crow, economic backwardness, and the power of the federal government. If the Dems nominate him the south and the border states will go Republican. The Dems are in danger of going the way of the Whigs. I would hate to see Jefferson's party decline so. The North East cannot elect a President alone. Perhaps a long anticipated realignment will happen.
Yah; I'm somewhat torn because I respect the effort Dean is trying to make, but on the other hand everything he says demonstrates the Democrat's problem in connecting with Southern voters, 'cause he hasn't a clue. Well, as he said himself, it isn't going to be an easy discussion, it's going to be a hard one. On the other hand, usually when someone like that says such a thing, they mean mostly hard on others.
I think Dean's statements show that he recognizes that the Northeast cannot elect a President alone, the problem is they also demonstrate why candidates from the Northeast are unable to connect with voters in large sections of the country. In a way, Dean's quandry is a Catch-22. Perhaps that's why I have some sympathy for him, since his situation in this respect is tragic in the old sense; he recognizes a problem that must be overcome if he is to win but lacks the ability to overcome it, and never the less tries anyhow.
Following up on this post and this one, more along the lines of a "Newspeak Watch": Apparently, objecting to Stalinistic airbrushing of history is Stalinism. As BotW yesterday quoted one of their readers, Wayne Clements:
"If this had been a hit piece on Martin Luther King, the NAACP would have called for, and gotten, a boycott, and they would have been hailed as heroes by the same people that are today crying censorship."
Too true. But, then, different rules are applied depending on whose ideological ox is being gored.
Update: Anne Cunningham comments. I'll note a couple things. First, that people objecting and a company making a decision based on the fact that this is bad business is not censorship. Secondly, that Les Moonves said he pulled it from CBS because he (a Democrat and friend of Clinton) saw it and found it to be biased and not a balanced portrayal of Reagan. I think if people want to do fiction, that's fine.
Regarding being able to see it or not, it is still going to appear, on Showtime. For those who want to see what the people involved put together, this is probably a better outcome than if CBS aired it. Why? CBS was in the process of making a score or so of cuts to take out bits that they themselves had problems with. According to reports, Showtime will air it as the producers, director, et al wanted, with only one cut.
The Cambridge Spies series is IMO of a piece with this in that it (not too surprisingly) comes from the same worldview. I mean, it's one thing to laud Stalinists (as the BBC series did, and as Barbra did in The Way We Were, a whitewash of the era), but anyone who opposed them must be some sort of demon.
Returning to censorship, people expressed their in my opinion legitimate concerns and opinions about what was going on. Perhaps the only way to prevent the outcome that happened would be for those of us who voiced our opinions on it to keep them to ourselves. However, that doesn't so much stir public debate as stifle it. CBS saw that much of the likely audience for a program on Reagan was. . .not pleased. . .with what was coming out. They made a sensible business decision. Meanwhile, a public debate did occur and is occurring - not just on the real Reagan vs. the imaginary one of the Left, but the sort of debate we're having right now. Now anyone who still wants to see it can; it'll be on Showtime and will probably come out on DVD subsequently.
I'm not a big fan of the Confederate battle flag. Never have been, likely never will. Not that I think it's racist in and of itself, and I am aware that some very honorable people fought and died for what they believed was right (though I believe they were wrong) under that banner. But its re-emergence into American political life, let us be frank, was in the modern Civil Rights era, and in that time (50s-60s) it was raised as the banner of segregationism.
Never the less, I don't think people should harsh on Dean too badly for arguing that the Democrats should reach out to a certain type of voter. I pretty much agree with what he said in his statement today:
"I started this discussion in a clumsy way. This discussion will be painful, and I regret the pain that I may have caused either to African-Americans or Southern white voters in the beginning of this discussion. But we need to have this discussion in an honest, open way"
I understood all along what Dean meant by the statement, which is one reason I didn't zing him on it before. I thought, as he said today, that it was a clumsy (add to that crude, caracaturish) way to make a point that was worthy of being made: that Democrats need to reach out to voters that once supported them, but that they've been losing.
Regardless of how people would pounce on a Republican who said much the same thing - as Dean has been pounced on for what he said - it's the kind of point, or at least along the lines, of what I've been writing about with respect to what the Democrats need to do. People will always make verbal blunders, gaffs, and the like. But if we want to have the sort of "open honest discussion" Dean talks about in his statement, we're going to have to not be hypersensitive, be a little charitable when we understand the point someone was trying to make, see that he made it in a somewhat clumsy way that might alow us to have a "Aha!" moment if we want to be cheap about it, but go on. It can be very hard, and I am certainly not arguing for rhetorical unilateral disarmament if and when it's done to us.
But cutting each other some slack and showing a willingness to be understanding is something we're going to have to do if we want to restore sensible civil dialogue. Now, on something more substantive that Dean is getting some kudos for, I have to say puh-leeze:
Democrat Howard Dean is turning over the most important decision of his presidential campaign to 600,000 supporters, asking them whether he should join President Bush and abandon the federal election financing system.
This is not a partisan point, it applies across the board: if you ask your supporters to give you permission for something you want to do, they are, with rare exceptions, going to give it to you. That's why they're called "supporters". Things like this they will readily rationalize for their guy something that they would never do for others. Again, that's why they're your supporters, not someone else's. They'll be happy to say "yes, you need to, because of what the other guy did or will do". I'd be shocked and surprised if Dean gets less than 80% of his supporters to vote the way he wants on this.
Nothing wrong with him playing it this way, mind. Indeed, it's politically savy and defuses much of the criticism he would otherwise come in for. I'm just saying the outcome is a fait acompli.
Update: Yes, I'm actually probably being more generous to Dean than I would to a Republican on this, in no small part because it's simply a matter of fact that, politically, Republicans do need to be more careful, and also - well, just because.
Additional: Dean isn't helping me in the cut-him-some-slack department. The Good Doctor seems to have caught foot-in-mouth disease. And at a delicate time in the campaign cycle, too.
Ok, last post on this subject, at least until it comes up again. Via Joe Katzman at Winds I'm reminded of this piece written by Christopher Hitchens last year, wherein he writes:
The most annoying thing, in arguing with peaceniks last fall, was confronting their refusal to see that a wholly new situation had arisen. They would insist on translating the fresh, challenging information back into the familiar language they already knew, of Vietnam or Nicaragua or the West Bank.
Oh, wait. That's just a reminder that the "oh, we all supported the Afghanistan campaign, just not Iraq" meme that certain people are propagating is a crock. But I'm really blogging the article because Hitchens supports my points on the centrality of ideas and what we have learned and discovered from a long, broad (not just restricted to Universities) inquiry into the Humanities. He writes:
It has taken us a long time to evolve a society that, however imperfectly, respects political pluralism and religious diversity and the emancipation of the sexual life. A society that attempts to employ the objective standards of scientific inquiry and that has brought us the Hubble telescope and the unraveling of the chain of DNA. Clearly, there can be no compromise between this and the ravings of those who study dreams and are deluded by wild prophecies and who regard women as chattel and unbelievers as sacrificial animals.
Not just science, but including science and also "soft subject" stuff (respect for political pluralism, religious diversity, &tc). Later he writes:
We have time and force on our side, and we also have a culture that rightly claims superiority because of its attachment to objectivity and pluralism. This attachment is not emotional, it is intellectual.
Also, I'd recommend this book (by a somewhat controversial author), which makes a point about "meta-inventions", which are ideas, not things, and pre-requisites for later accomplishments. Most of the ones he lists are what we would consider in the sphere of humanities, though many have obvious benefits with respect to making scientific discovery possible (I've only had a chance to skim the first part of the book so far, not read the whole thing). Check out the PoMoish "Publisher's Weekly" review quoted on the Amazon page. Makes for a good pairing, contrasting what we're trying to sustain with the forces that are derisive and dismissive of it. See also Thomas Sowell's The Quest for Cosmic Justice for an analysis of the attitude on display in the "Publisher's Weekly" review.
While Democrats and their hangers-on warn Republicans against using the war as a "wedge issue", they plot to do just that, as usual exempting themselves from the expectations they have for others. Democratic staff under the direction of Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) writing in a memo regarding their strategy to use the war as a wedge issue:
"We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
"1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.
"For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
"The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
"2) Assiduously prepare Democratic 'additional views' to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.
"In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
"The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]
"3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.
"The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:
"A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
"B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
"In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
"SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
"The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives." [End of Memo Excerpt.]
Everything is a tradeoff with something else. Nothing comes without a cost. You have to weigh the costs and trade offs and decide if they're worth whatever benefit you seek. It is not as if we couldn't use the support of Turkish troops, at least in some areas of Iraq. Turks have, whatever their faults, often fought at our side and done well.
"We felt that the Coalition Provisional Authority and also officials here in Washington could have probably persuaded the Iraqi Governing Council earlier on this issue,"
We could probably twist arms on the Governing Council. Or we could probably just impose something by diktat. But we have to ask ourselves in this case which is more important to us: the cooperation and help of Turkey, or the cooperation and help of Iraqis?
To twist the arms of the Governing Council and tell them how it is going to be means sacrificing another good: a sense of trust that we mean what we say when we tell them that we're only here to help them on the road to self-governance. If getting them to accede to the presence of Turkish troops means alienating the Iraqis themselves and giving a sign that if we want something that they don't, we're going to push it through regardless, then it is not worth the trade-off. Even looking at it from the point of security. Turkey may send ten thousand or so troops, but the Iraqis themselves may provide upwards of 200,000 security forces by some time next year, and are already providing a hundred thousand or so for the security of their own nation. A nation they have a greater stake in than the Turks do (except perhaps in a negative sense).
If it's a choice between getting Turkish help - or French help, or the help of any of the others who were close to Saddam - and continuing to get the help of Iraqis working for their own security and building self-governance in their own country, then the choice is clear.
John Kerry, among other Democrats, has been going around displaying the diplomatic tact and skill that he says is so lacking in the Bush Administration. Kerry has been saying things like this about our allies:
''This president has done it wrong every step of the way. He promised that he would have a real coalition. He has a fraudulent coalition.''
What's ''fraudulent'' about the coalition that toppled Saddam? The principal players -- the Americans, British and Australians -- are three of only a handful of countries to have been on the right side of every major conflict of the last century: the First World War, the Second, the Cold War and now the war on terror. I bet on form. When it comes to standing up against totalitarianism, the heavy lifting has been done by America and the British Commonwealth. Kerry's the first to get all hoity-toity if he feels someone is insufficiently deferential to his war service. So who's he to mock the brave Royal Marines, Desert Rats and other British forces who took and held southern Iraq? Who's he to mock the Australian SAS who did such a great job in seizing so many Baathist bad guys in northern and western Iraq? Or the Polish troops leading the multinational contingent in central Iraq right now?
It's taken as a given among Democrats that somehow this administration has needlessly offended the French and Germans. But insulting Britain, Australia and Poland as a cheap way to get at Bush demonstrates your superior sense of the subtleties of foreign policy? I'd say it's going to be very difficult for President Kerry to work with these chaps after his election victory -- or I would say it if I could type that sentence without collapsing in giggles.
The really ''fraudulent'' coalition is the one Kerry wants: one that gives the Belgians and Syrians a veto over U.S. action for nothing in return. The ''fraudulent'' coalition is Clark's from the Kosovo war, where all ''allies'' were entitled to advance operational information regardless of whether they were actually contributing to any of the operations, and where, as Clark himself noted in his memoir, ''one of the French officers working at NATO headquarters had given key portions of the operations plans to the Serbs.''
I can stand anything from politicians except being taken for an idiot.
Too true. The Dems are so into being jackasses about Bush that they're slamming our foreign friends by errant mistake. I'm betting Kerry didn't even stop to consider the possible import of his words. And yet Bush is the moron. Yah. . .if so, what does that make Kerry & the rest of the Dems?
In any case, if this coalition is "fraudulent", I'd rather have a fraudulent one than an insincere one, like the Democrats seem to want us to pursue.
Starts kinda slow but gets better as it goes along. Here's a choice bit:
I was sitting at my beautiful old mahogany desk in the Senate chamber not long after I arrived — a desk that has the names Russell, Talmadge and Nunn carved in it — when Joe Biden of Delaware, a senator for 30 years, came over and sat down.
"I've watched a lot of you former governors come up here and invariably you go through three phases," Biden said. "The first phase is disbelief. You just can't believe how legislation and decisions are made."
He was right. I arrived in the middle of the appropriations process, and I could not believe the feeding frenzy.
"The next phase," he said, "is anger. You stay mad most of the time, and you want to change the system and make it more orderly."
The third phase, he said, is "acceptance."
I have not reached that third phase yet. Not even close. I'm still angry because of the petty partisanship on both sides of the aisle. Angry that one single senator representing less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the American people can stop any president — even during wartime — from making a crucial appointment to his own team.
Angry because of the thoughtless, needless waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money. Angry because soft money — big money — from special interests to both parties controls things in a way that is nothing short of bribery. Angry that this money pays for cynical consultants who sneeringly brag, "We do campaigns; we don't do government."
I'm angry at a process in which 59 votes out of 100 cannot pass a bill because 41 votes out of 100 can defeat it. Explain that to Joe Six Pack at the Kmart.
Supporting the president
The process has become so politicized and so polarized and so ingrained that we cannot even put it aside in time of war. It is a system that "Cuisinarts" individual thought into a mushy party pudding, that expects one to go along with the team even if the quarterback is calling the wrong signals.
A guest blog today. Lucas Moody writes in regard to this post on Cultural Marxism (see here for a second post on the subject and here for the first "Combatting" post, but this would apply for fighting all bad ideas).
Combatting Bad Philosophy By Lucas Moody
I was reading through some links from a more current article and came across this one, and I feel that there is no way to directly confront this problem, as long as there is free speech this will be a problem. I do believe though that there is a way to perhaps box it into a place where it becomes less bothersome. Since the institutions that are insulated from public will the most are the ivory towers of learning, the easiest way and most effective would be to cut public funding and force them out. There is a huge problem with this solution though for it will when the squeeze is first felt in the worst of the institutions cause those who are not so far in lock step with the ideology be the first to go, and this could cause them to become bitter, particularly if they realize the loss of their job is because they are being punished for something they did not do, of course the sane thing to do would be to blame the ones behind the ideology, but the human animal is less than sane particularly where earning a living is concerned. So that is really not a solution.
Now there are two types of people that follow this ideology I found, those that are true believers and are fanatics about it. And I choose the word Fanatic because that is what they are, for they willingly blind themselves to any objective proof or any inconvenient fact. These people can be found in any field and it is truly sad.
The second solution is to re-educate those who have been I guess the best word is brainwashed into accepting things blindly. I refer back to the young lady who supported a treaty that allowed other countries to define what Free speech was. It then becomes restricted speech. She has since looked up many of the treaties and found them to be rather disgusting, and she is a bit upset with herself for being blind. This is probably the best approach but it needs to be done carefully, and with tact and facts to back it up. Also you need to generally have a personal connection with the person as when I attempted the same thing with an acquaintance it did not go quite so well. But this presupposes that the person in question is willing to listen.
So what do you do about the second group, well two things, the first thing you do is ignore them, for I have found when you ignore there argument, these same people tend to become extremely loud and more fanatical which marginalizes them with the general public. This is in fact what appears to have happened and is continuing to happen in the left. I know that many democrats that I know after hearing some of the rhetoric that was spewed in the primaries are thinking of not voting at all for they can not bring themselves to vote for Bush, but can not in good conscious vote for people who are so out of touch with reality.
The second thing to do is if you can not ignore there argument do not use rhetoric do not use hyperbole, but instead calmly and rationally speak about the subject matter, and above all be confident, but not arrogant in that which you speak. A good example of this is how the President has handled his Presidency, do you think he would have the popularity he currently does if he were flicking back and fourth on the problem of Terrorism. I do not, I know that compromises have to be reached to govern, but I believe when Bush has made a compromise it is with the goal of protecting this country from all threats in his mind. That does not mean I necessarily agree with his decision but as long as he continues to stay the course I can respect it.
Porphyrogenitus comments:
"How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always and in the final act, by determination and faith."
I think it can and should be confronted directly. Not with limitations on speech, as they impose with speech codes. But we can and should learn something from them, in that we should be at least as active in challenging them with our views as they were in pushing their way through the door of various institutions. Take this example from this summer, one at CalPoly, and this more recent example.
Yes, we aren't likely to change the mind of the fanatics, as Lucas Moody calls them. But we're waging a battle for the middle, and for the next generation. I personally don't believe in ignoring them, not as a meta-method; they prosper by being able to do things in the shadows when no one is paying attention, things that could never be done in the light of day (see here). In my opinion, it's a matter of pressing them at every turn, especially when in large groups and they are trying to sway the minds of others. We have as much right to persuade as they do.
Which brings me to a crucial point. I find it highly ironic, as Lucas Moody apparently does, that these people who have little or no use for the country or its emblems are paid by it. They cash their checks and then talk in the classroom about how dissent of people with views like theirs is being stifled by the government. They get on university-based NPR stations, similarly funded by the very government they claim is denying people with their views a voice (the local college NPR station, KDUR, being a case in point
