The recent comments made by Barak Obama about the arrest of a black professor who claimed he was arrested out of racial prejudice in Cambridge, Massachusetts suggest Obama’s own prejudice. Although the President has since partially taken back his words, he judged the arresting officer as having acted “stupidly” before he knew the facts. In other words, Obama prejudged the white police officer.
Regardless of whether Obama went so far as to accept the allegation of racism made by the professor, whom he knows personally, he nonetheless asserted that the arrest must have been stupid, at least because “cooler heads” should have prevailed. But the facts that have emerged since then suggest that it was the professor who was the only one who did not remain cool, which is why he was charged with disorderly conduct after the officer responded to a dispatch for a suspected burglary that turned out to be based upon the fact that the professor was breaking into his own home. It was the professor – not the police officer – who was uncooperative in proving his residence there, prejudging the white officer’s actions as having been based upon racial bigotry, which turned out to be an unfounded judgment.
Although Obama did not allege that the arrest was racially motivated, his knee-jerk criticism of the white police officer accused by the black professor of racism lent credence from the office of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States not only to criticism of the officer’s actions, but to the more controversial accusation of racism. Obama’s comments reveal that beneath the veneer of coolness, is the angry black man he does not want the world to see, but whose associations, statements and policies reflect.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Health Care "Access" vs. Health Insurance
I discussed in an earlier post the difference between health care and health insurance and observed that the issue is not the former, but the latter. Indeed, most people are satisfied with the health care they receive and no one can be denied emergency health care.
No one is proposing a government takeover of health care, per se, but President Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats are proposing a federalization of health insurance. However, the federalization of health insurance will lead to increased government regulation of health care, to the point that it will resemble fascism more so than socialism, just like the Obama Administration's takeover of much of the automobile industry. The main concern with federal regulation of health care is that it will lead to the rationing of health care by a massive federal bureaucracy in order to reduce costs, as well federal government decision making in what foods or behavior are acceptable. In short, although the federal government will not take over health care beyond veterans' care and certain other exceptions, it will essentially control it.
Liberal supporters of the federalization of health insurance and federal government-run health care sometimes use another misleading term in addition to "health care" when referring to health insurance in order to conflate the two: "access" to health care. Saying that they want to give people "access to health care" implies that they currently lack access to health care and worse, that such people may even be denied health care. No one may be denied health care who can pay for it -- as even many of those without health insurance can do to at least some degree -- and no one may be denied emergency health care even if one cannot pay for it. In other words, no one totally lacks access to health care. Obama and the Congressional Democrats are not proposing to give people access to health care who already have it. Their intent is to subsidize health insurance as a form of welfare -- to the point of driving all private health insurance providers out of the business in order to establish a federal monopoly.
Although federalized health insurance might increase some people's access to preventative or other non-emergency health care because they would otherwise not be able to afford it, it will not increase access to health care for many people because they already have it, even many who do not have health insurance. Worse, federalized health insurance will come at the expense of other patients who will be denied access to health care -- even lifesaving treatment -- because of the need to ration health care in order to hold down costs.
There are less Draconian ways to decrease the costs of health care and give greater access to health care. Alas, one of the best ways to reduce health care costs -- tort reform, which would reduce the medical malpractice insurance premiums doctors must pay -- is strongly opposed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats.
No one is proposing a government takeover of health care, per se, but President Barak Obama and Congressional Democrats are proposing a federalization of health insurance. However, the federalization of health insurance will lead to increased government regulation of health care, to the point that it will resemble fascism more so than socialism, just like the Obama Administration's takeover of much of the automobile industry. The main concern with federal regulation of health care is that it will lead to the rationing of health care by a massive federal bureaucracy in order to reduce costs, as well federal government decision making in what foods or behavior are acceptable. In short, although the federal government will not take over health care beyond veterans' care and certain other exceptions, it will essentially control it.
Liberal supporters of the federalization of health insurance and federal government-run health care sometimes use another misleading term in addition to "health care" when referring to health insurance in order to conflate the two: "access" to health care. Saying that they want to give people "access to health care" implies that they currently lack access to health care and worse, that such people may even be denied health care. No one may be denied health care who can pay for it -- as even many of those without health insurance can do to at least some degree -- and no one may be denied emergency health care even if one cannot pay for it. In other words, no one totally lacks access to health care. Obama and the Congressional Democrats are not proposing to give people access to health care who already have it. Their intent is to subsidize health insurance as a form of welfare -- to the point of driving all private health insurance providers out of the business in order to establish a federal monopoly.
Although federalized health insurance might increase some people's access to preventative or other non-emergency health care because they would otherwise not be able to afford it, it will not increase access to health care for many people because they already have it, even many who do not have health insurance. Worse, federalized health insurance will come at the expense of other patients who will be denied access to health care -- even lifesaving treatment -- because of the need to ration health care in order to hold down costs.
There are less Draconian ways to decrease the costs of health care and give greater access to health care. Alas, one of the best ways to reduce health care costs -- tort reform, which would reduce the medical malpractice insurance premiums doctors must pay -- is strongly opposed by Obama and the Congressional Democrats.
What a Difference Four Years Makes
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) stated on FOX News on July 20 that the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats were not “rushing through” their proposed federalization of health insurance, as some critics have alleged. He explained that the charge of “rushing” was unfair because the federalization of health insurance has been proposed since 1993.
If one accepts Hoyer’s argument that 16 years is not “rushing,” then four years must make all the difference between what is “rushing” and what is not. In 1993, when President George W. Bush launched the Liberation of Iraq after 12 years of numerous violations by Saddam Hussein’s regime of several UN resolutions and the 1991 cease-fire Agreement, as well as continued sponsorship of terrorism, many Congressional Democrats and other liberals accused him of “rushing to war.” In other words, 12 years is “rushing,” but 16 is not, according to Congressional Democratic thinking. Four years must make all the difference in their minds.
Hoyer’s argument that Obama’s federalization of health insurance is not being rushed through because it was first proposed 16 years ago fails to refute the critics who insist that it is. The critics are referring to the current proposal, which was made by President Barak Obama only a few weeks ago, and which he is pushing to be approved almost immediately, not to the topic in general. The Democratic bill is so complicated that a flow chart had to be created in order to understand all of the bureaucracy it will require. See the chart on the webpage of its creator, Rep. Kevin Brady, (R-TX): www.house.gov/brady. A federal takeover of such a large segment of the economy, which would require much more spending, borrowing and taxing than Obama has already approved, is not something to be rushed through in just a few weeks. It is something to oppose. One way to oppose it effectively is to slow it down in order to give people the opportunity to learn what is in the bill and to contemplate its effects.
If one accepts Hoyer’s argument that 16 years is not “rushing,” then four years must make all the difference between what is “rushing” and what is not. In 1993, when President George W. Bush launched the Liberation of Iraq after 12 years of numerous violations by Saddam Hussein’s regime of several UN resolutions and the 1991 cease-fire Agreement, as well as continued sponsorship of terrorism, many Congressional Democrats and other liberals accused him of “rushing to war.” In other words, 12 years is “rushing,” but 16 is not, according to Congressional Democratic thinking. Four years must make all the difference in their minds.
Hoyer’s argument that Obama’s federalization of health insurance is not being rushed through because it was first proposed 16 years ago fails to refute the critics who insist that it is. The critics are referring to the current proposal, which was made by President Barak Obama only a few weeks ago, and which he is pushing to be approved almost immediately, not to the topic in general. The Democratic bill is so complicated that a flow chart had to be created in order to understand all of the bureaucracy it will require. See the chart on the webpage of its creator, Rep. Kevin Brady, (R-TX): www.house.gov/brady. A federal takeover of such a large segment of the economy, which would require much more spending, borrowing and taxing than Obama has already approved, is not something to be rushed through in just a few weeks. It is something to oppose. One way to oppose it effectively is to slow it down in order to give people the opportunity to learn what is in the bill and to contemplate its effects.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
500 Visits to My Blog
I am pleased to report that my blog has received its 500th visit since April 2, 2009. As I have noted in earlier blog hit reports, I do not count my own visits, and I strictly define a visit as a page view at least one hour later than the previous one. If I were to count each additional page viewed as a hit, then the total would be 550, and if I were to count every page load as a hit, as many others do, then the total is around 730 hits. Thank you for your patronage of my blog!
Health Insurance Is Not a Federal Issue or Constitutional Right
President Barak Obama proposes to federalize health insurance and to make it a “right.” However, health insurance is neither a right, nor is it even generally a federal issue under the United States Constitution in the first place.
As I note in an earlier post (Misleading Media Phrases), in which I observe that the issue is not about “health care,” but health insurance, many people who lack health insurance chose not to obtain health insurance because they are wealthy enough to afford to pay for their own health care, do not need it or believe in it for cultural or religious purposes, or are too young and healthy to justify the expense that seems unnecessary. In the case of the last group, catastrophic health insurance should suffice. A last major group of people who lack health insurance lack it only temporarily, as they are people between jobs, which is why there have been some reforms like Health Savings Accounts that President George W. Bush signed into law that allow people to maintain coverage even if they lose their jobs. Obama’s proposal moves in the wrong direction by forcing a return to the system whereby health insurance is only obtainable through one’s employer.
Health insurance premiums began to be provided by employers because of federal government interference in the free market in the first place. General Motors Corporation first began providing health benefits to its employees because of federal wage controls during World War II. Thus, over time most people’s health insurance has been provided by their employers, with often generous “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Employer-provided plans have allowed people to feel as if their health care is free, even though it costs them compensation they would otherwise have made, which provides no incentive to them to reduce costs. Now, in response to such employer generosity, Obama and Congressional Democrats led by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) propose to mandate all but the smallest employers to provide health insurance to their employees or face a federal penalty. They also propose the provision of health insurance, which will compete with private plans and eventually drive them out of business.
An argument can reasonably be made that federal mandates or provision of health insurance benefits would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate (between states) commerce, which means that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to regulate intrastate (within states) commerce. Alas, the Commerce Clause has routinely been ignored by the federal government unconstitutionally for decades without any serious debate about whether to repeal it with a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the constitutional question, it is not appropriate for the federal government, nor any government at all, to be involved in the matter of health insurance, as it is a private matter. Even if it were a government issue, it is not a federal one, as there is nothing particularly federal about it. The federal government’s only interest in health is generally limited to communicable diseases because non-communicable diseases do no pose a threat to the health of others like contagious ones do, while state governments’ interests are similar. Once the federal government subsidizes all health care, then it will have the total power to regulate all health issues totally. For example, it could decide which foods people could eat, let alone ration health care.
The argument that Obama and other liberals claim is that health insurance improves health because it provides people the opportunity to avail themselves of preventative care, which, in turn, saves the federal government money, is irrelevant, even if it were only interested in communicable diseases. The main reason that liberals claim government interest in health care besides for veterans is because of federal government subsidization of health insurance in the first place (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid). The circular argument is that government has an interest in health insurance once it takes an interest by subsidizing health care. But government should not have begun to subsidize health care because it has no constitutional authority to take money from one person and give it to another, which is a form of welfare. It is never too late to privatize health insurance, which would eliminate federal interest in health insurance.
A right is a legal claim, which necessarily imposes a duty on others. The analogy between the federal government providing health care and providing an accused person with a lawyer fails because the provision of the lawyer is arguably a facet of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution; a bundle of rights, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, attaches once a person is accused of a crime. However, a person cannot claim health insurance as a right, just as he cannot claim food as a right, for he cannot generally impose upon someone else the duty to pay for his needs. Note: I say “health insurance,” because emergency health care is a right; no one can be denied emergency health care, but one can be denied health insurance, just as one cannot be denied food if one were dying of starvation but could not pay for it, but can be denied food absent starvation otherwise. But although one cannot be denied food or healthcare in emergencies, their provision to one person does not impose a duty upon another to pay for it. Obama’s proposal to create a right to non-emergency health care at other people’s expense would be like creating a right to be fed at others’ expense, which would establish a precedent to be housed or clothed at other people’s expense, even on a non-emergency basis. Thus, welfare would be expanded to a federal right of unlimited degree.
As with Obama’s massive so-called stimulus plan, the danger to liberty goes beyond the massive spending and borrowing and taxing his proposed federalization of health insurance would necessitate, but to the increase in federal control over our lives. If Obama and other liberals get their way, the federal government will decide who gets what health care or not, what foods we may eat and what behaviors in which we may engage. For the sake of liberty, the federalization of health insurance must be stopped.
As I note in an earlier post (Misleading Media Phrases), in which I observe that the issue is not about “health care,” but health insurance, many people who lack health insurance chose not to obtain health insurance because they are wealthy enough to afford to pay for their own health care, do not need it or believe in it for cultural or religious purposes, or are too young and healthy to justify the expense that seems unnecessary. In the case of the last group, catastrophic health insurance should suffice. A last major group of people who lack health insurance lack it only temporarily, as they are people between jobs, which is why there have been some reforms like Health Savings Accounts that President George W. Bush signed into law that allow people to maintain coverage even if they lose their jobs. Obama’s proposal moves in the wrong direction by forcing a return to the system whereby health insurance is only obtainable through one’s employer.
Health insurance premiums began to be provided by employers because of federal government interference in the free market in the first place. General Motors Corporation first began providing health benefits to its employees because of federal wage controls during World War II. Thus, over time most people’s health insurance has been provided by their employers, with often generous “Cadillac” health insurance plans. Employer-provided plans have allowed people to feel as if their health care is free, even though it costs them compensation they would otherwise have made, which provides no incentive to them to reduce costs. Now, in response to such employer generosity, Obama and Congressional Democrats led by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) propose to mandate all but the smallest employers to provide health insurance to their employees or face a federal penalty. They also propose the provision of health insurance, which will compete with private plans and eventually drive them out of business.
An argument can reasonably be made that federal mandates or provision of health insurance benefits would violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate (between states) commerce, which means that the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to regulate intrastate (within states) commerce. Alas, the Commerce Clause has routinely been ignored by the federal government unconstitutionally for decades without any serious debate about whether to repeal it with a constitutional amendment. Regardless of the constitutional question, it is not appropriate for the federal government, nor any government at all, to be involved in the matter of health insurance, as it is a private matter. Even if it were a government issue, it is not a federal one, as there is nothing particularly federal about it. The federal government’s only interest in health is generally limited to communicable diseases because non-communicable diseases do no pose a threat to the health of others like contagious ones do, while state governments’ interests are similar. Once the federal government subsidizes all health care, then it will have the total power to regulate all health issues totally. For example, it could decide which foods people could eat, let alone ration health care.
The argument that Obama and other liberals claim is that health insurance improves health because it provides people the opportunity to avail themselves of preventative care, which, in turn, saves the federal government money, is irrelevant, even if it were only interested in communicable diseases. The main reason that liberals claim government interest in health care besides for veterans is because of federal government subsidization of health insurance in the first place (e.g. Medicare and Medicaid). The circular argument is that government has an interest in health insurance once it takes an interest by subsidizing health care. But government should not have begun to subsidize health care because it has no constitutional authority to take money from one person and give it to another, which is a form of welfare. It is never too late to privatize health insurance, which would eliminate federal interest in health insurance.
A right is a legal claim, which necessarily imposes a duty on others. The analogy between the federal government providing health care and providing an accused person with a lawyer fails because the provision of the lawyer is arguably a facet of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution; a bundle of rights, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, attaches once a person is accused of a crime. However, a person cannot claim health insurance as a right, just as he cannot claim food as a right, for he cannot generally impose upon someone else the duty to pay for his needs. Note: I say “health insurance,” because emergency health care is a right; no one can be denied emergency health care, but one can be denied health insurance, just as one cannot be denied food if one were dying of starvation but could not pay for it, but can be denied food absent starvation otherwise. But although one cannot be denied food or healthcare in emergencies, their provision to one person does not impose a duty upon another to pay for it. Obama’s proposal to create a right to non-emergency health care at other people’s expense would be like creating a right to be fed at others’ expense, which would establish a precedent to be housed or clothed at other people’s expense, even on a non-emergency basis. Thus, welfare would be expanded to a federal right of unlimited degree.
As with Obama’s massive so-called stimulus plan, the danger to liberty goes beyond the massive spending and borrowing and taxing his proposed federalization of health insurance would necessitate, but to the increase in federal control over our lives. If Obama and other liberals get their way, the federal government will decide who gets what health care or not, what foods we may eat and what behaviors in which we may engage. For the sake of liberty, the federalization of health insurance must be stopped.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Obama's Approval Rating Falls to All-Time Low
Recent public opinion polls suggest a decline in President Barak Obama's popularity. First, a reliable poll of likely voters suggested that Obama's strongly disapproval rating exceeded his strongly approval rating for the first time. Second, a major poll suggested that Obama's approval rating had declined for the first time to below 54%, the percentage of the popular vote the Obama-Biden ticket received in the election for presidential electors in 2008. Third, a poll suggests a drop in Obama's approval rating to below 50% in the major swing state of Ohio.
All of these ratings reflect personal lows for Obama, but the media consistently reported personal lows for his predecessor, George W. Bush, as "all-time" lows, as if they were the lowest in the history of public opinion polling, which they were not. Indeed, as Bush had been a popular president during his first term, despite the Bush-Cheney ticket not having received a majority of the popular vote, as soon as his approval rating dropped below 50%, it marked a personal low. The constant reporting of personal lows as "all-time" lows -- often in polls commissioned by the media itself -- exaggerated Bush's decline in popularity and probably reinforced it, much as the frequent polling of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal probably reinforced his popularity.
There are at least three of Obama's policies that have decreased his popularity: 1) Obama's announced closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists captured on the battlefield without a plan to detain them elsewhere, 2) His federal subsidization with taxpayer dollars for organizations that promote abortion abroad, and 3) Perhaps especially, Obama's massive spending and borrowing.
In a future post, I shall discuss public opinion polling more broadly, but for now I took the opportunity of this post to create a headline that demonstrates how the liberal media uses polling in a biased manner by turning the tables on them.
Please feel free to post a comment in order to query about public opinion polling in general in preparation for my upcoming post on the topic.
All of these ratings reflect personal lows for Obama, but the media consistently reported personal lows for his predecessor, George W. Bush, as "all-time" lows, as if they were the lowest in the history of public opinion polling, which they were not. Indeed, as Bush had been a popular president during his first term, despite the Bush-Cheney ticket not having received a majority of the popular vote, as soon as his approval rating dropped below 50%, it marked a personal low. The constant reporting of personal lows as "all-time" lows -- often in polls commissioned by the media itself -- exaggerated Bush's decline in popularity and probably reinforced it, much as the frequent polling of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal probably reinforced his popularity.
There are at least three of Obama's policies that have decreased his popularity: 1) Obama's announced closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists captured on the battlefield without a plan to detain them elsewhere, 2) His federal subsidization with taxpayer dollars for organizations that promote abortion abroad, and 3) Perhaps especially, Obama's massive spending and borrowing.
In a future post, I shall discuss public opinion polling more broadly, but for now I took the opportunity of this post to create a headline that demonstrates how the liberal media uses polling in a biased manner by turning the tables on them.
Please feel free to post a comment in order to query about public opinion polling in general in preparation for my upcoming post on the topic.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Robert McNamara Never Vindicated Bill Clinton
Robert McNamara, who served as U.S. Defense Secretary under President Lyndon Johnson, died earlier this week. He was known as the architect of the Vietnamese War. But in his 1995 memoir, McNamara shockingly concluded that the Vietnamese War had been wrong because it was unwinnable. At the time of the publication of the memoir, President Bill Clinton stated that he felt vindicated in having protested the War (even, in Clinton’s case, on foreign soil) because McNamara admitted the war had been a mistake. Clinton was wrong.
There are two parts to the Just War Theory. The first part is whether a war is morally justified. If it is, then the second part is whether a war is prudent. One factor as to whether a war is prudent is whether it is winnable. Unwinnable wars are imprudent. If, for the sake of argument, McNamara were correct that the Vietnamese War were unwinnable, then it would have been an unjust war, because it would have been imprudent. However, imprudence was not the reason that Bill Clinton and many other anti-Vietnamese War protests regarded the war as unjust. They believed that the Vietnamese War was morally unjust because, for various reasons, they were sympathetic to the cause of the Communists. Therefore, it did not matter to these protestors whether the war were winnable. Anti-Vietnamese protestors like Clinton were not concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might lose, but were concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might win, which is why Clinton worked with the Soviet KGB in the 1969 Fall Campaign of propaganda intended to strengthen the Communists’ morale and weaken the morale of the South Vietnamese and their American and other allies. Indeed, Clinton was among a select group of Americans who were allowed to visit the Soviet Union in 1970, apparently to be honored for their efforts. The details surrounding this trip remain a mystery, as Clinton will not admit to this day what he was doing there, nor offer any apology to veterans for his war-protesting and draft-dodging.
McNamara’s admission of the imprudence of the Vietnamese War – even if correct – cannot possibly vindicate Clinton’s contention that the War was morally unjust in the first place. Regardless of the argument over whether the War were prudent, the suffering of the millions of Indochinese who were oppressed, imprisoned, tortured or killed because of the Communist takeover of Indochina vindicates not Clinton and his comrades in the so-called “peace movement” who succeeded in forcing the United States to withdraw from the War that permitted the Communist victory, but those who regarded the Vietnamese War as a noble cause.
There are two parts to the Just War Theory. The first part is whether a war is morally justified. If it is, then the second part is whether a war is prudent. One factor as to whether a war is prudent is whether it is winnable. Unwinnable wars are imprudent. If, for the sake of argument, McNamara were correct that the Vietnamese War were unwinnable, then it would have been an unjust war, because it would have been imprudent. However, imprudence was not the reason that Bill Clinton and many other anti-Vietnamese War protests regarded the war as unjust. They believed that the Vietnamese War was morally unjust because, for various reasons, they were sympathetic to the cause of the Communists. Therefore, it did not matter to these protestors whether the war were winnable. Anti-Vietnamese protestors like Clinton were not concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might lose, but were concerned that the War was unjust because the United States might win, which is why Clinton worked with the Soviet KGB in the 1969 Fall Campaign of propaganda intended to strengthen the Communists’ morale and weaken the morale of the South Vietnamese and their American and other allies. Indeed, Clinton was among a select group of Americans who were allowed to visit the Soviet Union in 1970, apparently to be honored for their efforts. The details surrounding this trip remain a mystery, as Clinton will not admit to this day what he was doing there, nor offer any apology to veterans for his war-protesting and draft-dodging.
McNamara’s admission of the imprudence of the Vietnamese War – even if correct – cannot possibly vindicate Clinton’s contention that the War was morally unjust in the first place. Regardless of the argument over whether the War were prudent, the suffering of the millions of Indochinese who were oppressed, imprisoned, tortured or killed because of the Communist takeover of Indochina vindicates not Clinton and his comrades in the so-called “peace movement” who succeeded in forcing the United States to withdraw from the War that permitted the Communist victory, but those who regarded the Vietnamese War as a noble cause.
A Comparison of Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who recently admitted to marital infidelity, had voted in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton when he was a U.S. Representative because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Predictably, liberals are calling him “hypocritical.” They are wrong.
First of all, liberals, like many people, often confuse hypocrisy with inconsistency. Hypocrisy suggests insincerity because it means making a show of virtue, which is not the same as failing to live up to one’s own standard. It is necessarily judgmental, therefore, to call someone a “hypocrite,” for although it is easy to observe an inconsistency, it is more difficult to judge someone’s motivations.
In the case of Sanford, it is not even necessary to judge whether his actions were inconsistent because Clinton was not impeached for marital infidelity, but for perjury and obstruction of justice. Perjury (i.e. lying under oath) is a crime inconsistent with an office for which an oath is required in order for it to be held. Unlike Clinton, Sanford is not facing a civil trial for sexual harassment in which he was questioned under oath about his pattern of behavior, and has been cooperative with the investigation.
Both Clinton and Sanford abused their office. Clinton used his physical office (the Executive Mansion) in order to commit adultery, but he also abused his office in the sense that his affair was conducted with a subordinate. Worse, he gave his mistress a federal job in order to remove her from the White House discretely and keep her quiet. In short, Clinton’s affair was far from a “private matter,” as his defenders contended. Sanford used official trips to conduct his affair, regardless of whether any by public money were spent on his dalliance. Like Clinton, Sanford was dishonest about it, although not under oath in a civil trial. Sanford was incommunicado on his trip, which was irresponsible, although not as critical as a presidential escape from the Secret Service (such as John Kennedy did in order to commit adultery). Sanford, like Clinton, could have been blackmailed. Indeed, in Clinton’s case, his mistress testified that his phone conversations were being subjected to eavesdropping by a foreign government, an averment he never denied. Blackmail of a public official is a temptation for that official to commit financial impropriety.
Unlike Clinton, Sanford admitted to infidelity. Despite the widespread belief to the contrary, Clinton never admitted to infidelity. All he admitted to, even after the DNA evidence proved his adultery, was that he had had “an inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky. The phrase, “an inappropriate relationship,” like Clinton’s statement on PBS as a candidate for president about his affair with Gennifer Flowers while he was Governor of Arkansas, that he had “caused pain” in his marriage, necessarily admitted no adultery, but allowed the listener to read into Clinton’s statement what the listener wanted to hear, just like many of Clinton’s political statements, which is the modus operandi of a con man. Although many of Clinton's defenders categorized his abuse of his public office and his perjury as a “private matter” that was not reflective of his public performance, they missed the point that if Clinton would lie under oath about a matter as supposedly insignificant as a sexual harassment case, he could not be trusted to tell the truth on more significant matters because in both cases, he was foremost concerned with his popularity above anything else.
It is noteworthy that Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the basis that his marriage was strong after his aforementioned supposed admission of adultery on PBS. A video about the strength of his marriage was prominently featured at the Democratic National Convention. In other words, Clinton's marriage was not a private matter, but something about which to boast publicly when it was policitally expedient to do so, but it became a private matter once it was not expedient to do so when Clinton's lie was exposed. It is an unanswered question as to whether Clinton was the one who was hypocritical in 1992, or whether he suddenly lapsed back to philandering in the late 1990s once Monica Lewinsky stepped into the Oval Office. Regardless, the American people were either deceived by candidate Clinton, or the premise upon which he was elected later became false, and Clinton deceived them at the time of its discovery by lying about it. In contrast, Sanford's affair appears to have begun after his election, which was not as clearly based upon a premise of marital fidelity in the first place.
The reactions of the wives of Clinton and Sanford are different, with Mrs. Clinton publicly standing by her husband and Mrs. Sanford publicly rebuking him, but their reactions are irrelevant. Many of Clinton's defenders excused his adultery because his wife did not appear to be angered relatively by his infidelity, but the degree of the moral wrong of adultery does not depend upon the degree to which a spouse feels victimized.
In conclusion, although Clinton's behavior was far worse than Sanford's, both men's behavior was wrong and unbecoming of a public official. However, Sanford was neither hypocrical nor inconsistent to have voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Indeed, Sanford would have been right to vote the way he did even if he had been adulterous at the time of the impeachment vote, for lesser federal officials had been impeached and removed from office for perjury, a fate which Clinton should have shared regardless of any imperfections of anyone who oppsed him.
First of all, liberals, like many people, often confuse hypocrisy with inconsistency. Hypocrisy suggests insincerity because it means making a show of virtue, which is not the same as failing to live up to one’s own standard. It is necessarily judgmental, therefore, to call someone a “hypocrite,” for although it is easy to observe an inconsistency, it is more difficult to judge someone’s motivations.
In the case of Sanford, it is not even necessary to judge whether his actions were inconsistent because Clinton was not impeached for marital infidelity, but for perjury and obstruction of justice. Perjury (i.e. lying under oath) is a crime inconsistent with an office for which an oath is required in order for it to be held. Unlike Clinton, Sanford is not facing a civil trial for sexual harassment in which he was questioned under oath about his pattern of behavior, and has been cooperative with the investigation.
Both Clinton and Sanford abused their office. Clinton used his physical office (the Executive Mansion) in order to commit adultery, but he also abused his office in the sense that his affair was conducted with a subordinate. Worse, he gave his mistress a federal job in order to remove her from the White House discretely and keep her quiet. In short, Clinton’s affair was far from a “private matter,” as his defenders contended. Sanford used official trips to conduct his affair, regardless of whether any by public money were spent on his dalliance. Like Clinton, Sanford was dishonest about it, although not under oath in a civil trial. Sanford was incommunicado on his trip, which was irresponsible, although not as critical as a presidential escape from the Secret Service (such as John Kennedy did in order to commit adultery). Sanford, like Clinton, could have been blackmailed. Indeed, in Clinton’s case, his mistress testified that his phone conversations were being subjected to eavesdropping by a foreign government, an averment he never denied. Blackmail of a public official is a temptation for that official to commit financial impropriety.
Unlike Clinton, Sanford admitted to infidelity. Despite the widespread belief to the contrary, Clinton never admitted to infidelity. All he admitted to, even after the DNA evidence proved his adultery, was that he had had “an inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky. The phrase, “an inappropriate relationship,” like Clinton’s statement on PBS as a candidate for president about his affair with Gennifer Flowers while he was Governor of Arkansas, that he had “caused pain” in his marriage, necessarily admitted no adultery, but allowed the listener to read into Clinton’s statement what the listener wanted to hear, just like many of Clinton’s political statements, which is the modus operandi of a con man. Although many of Clinton's defenders categorized his abuse of his public office and his perjury as a “private matter” that was not reflective of his public performance, they missed the point that if Clinton would lie under oath about a matter as supposedly insignificant as a sexual harassment case, he could not be trusted to tell the truth on more significant matters because in both cases, he was foremost concerned with his popularity above anything else.
It is noteworthy that Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the basis that his marriage was strong after his aforementioned supposed admission of adultery on PBS. A video about the strength of his marriage was prominently featured at the Democratic National Convention. In other words, Clinton's marriage was not a private matter, but something about which to boast publicly when it was policitally expedient to do so, but it became a private matter once it was not expedient to do so when Clinton's lie was exposed. It is an unanswered question as to whether Clinton was the one who was hypocritical in 1992, or whether he suddenly lapsed back to philandering in the late 1990s once Monica Lewinsky stepped into the Oval Office. Regardless, the American people were either deceived by candidate Clinton, or the premise upon which he was elected later became false, and Clinton deceived them at the time of its discovery by lying about it. In contrast, Sanford's affair appears to have begun after his election, which was not as clearly based upon a premise of marital fidelity in the first place.
The reactions of the wives of Clinton and Sanford are different, with Mrs. Clinton publicly standing by her husband and Mrs. Sanford publicly rebuking him, but their reactions are irrelevant. Many of Clinton's defenders excused his adultery because his wife did not appear to be angered relatively by his infidelity, but the degree of the moral wrong of adultery does not depend upon the degree to which a spouse feels victimized.
In conclusion, although Clinton's behavior was far worse than Sanford's, both men's behavior was wrong and unbecoming of a public official. However, Sanford was neither hypocrical nor inconsistent to have voted to impeach Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Indeed, Sanford would have been right to vote the way he did even if he had been adulterous at the time of the impeachment vote, for lesser federal officials had been impeached and removed from office for perjury, a fate which Clinton should have shared regardless of any imperfections of anyone who oppsed him.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Quaterly Blog Hit Report
I am pleased that my blog has received nearly 460 visits, not including my own. If I were to define a hit as loosely as many other do (as a page view), as opposed to a visit (a page view at least an hour apart from the first page view), then it received around 670 hits during the quarter that began April 2. Hits came from at least 39 states and the District of Columbia and 33 foreign states. In addition to my homepage, searchers landed on 37 posts, whence several of them went on to view additional posts. Those whose visit to my blog started at my blog homepage came from PA, VA, CA, MD and as far away as India. The most searchers from the U.S. came from CA, while the most foreign searchers came from the United Kingdom.
Thank you for your patronage! Your comments, questions or suggestions are welcome. I have been enjoying blogging very much. I am grateful for your support.
Thank you for your patronage! Your comments, questions or suggestions are welcome. I have been enjoying blogging very much. I am grateful for your support.
Happy Independence Day
Happy Independence Day! July 4 is the 223rd Anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Continental Congress. Richard Henry Lee's resolution for independence had been approved two days earlier, but the prominent Fourth of July date on the Declaration caused the latter date to supersede the one that John Adams had recommended by celebrated with parades and fireworks. It is especially important to thank our veterans and soldiers today for the liberty we enjoy. May God Bless America.
On a few other notes, the Minnesota Supreme Court gave U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Al Franken, a victory in the contested senate election over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, despite the application of inconsistent standards for what constituted a vote. I suppose that had the case been in federal courts, the Bush v. Gore standard would have applied. In that landmark 2000 case about the disputed election for Florida's Electors, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Al Gore's attempt to use inconsistent standards for the definition of a vote violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 5-4 vote was only in regard to the remedy: the Court ruled that the manual recount caused a spoliation issue for the evidence (the more the chads on the paper ballots were handled). George W. Bush was therefore derided by liberal critics as having been "selected, not elected," despite the fact that the Bush-Cheney ticket had won the Florida vote count and recount, and even the partial recounts, which later unofficial recounts confirmed. More importantly, unlike U.S. Senators, Electors need not be elected in the first place, but may be appointed by state legislatures, as has happened numerous times in American history, and as Florida's Republican legislature would have done had the validity of its originally-elected Electors been questionable. Indeed, no president or vice president is popularly elected. They are elected by Electors, on separate ballots, whose votes are ratified by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court did not elect the president. It settled a constitutional dispute about the election -- which was not even necessary -- of Florida's presidential electors by confirming the original vote and recount. I doubt that the same liberals who questioned Bush's legitimacy will declare Al Franken "selected, not elected," nor make their usual complaints about a denial of equal protection.
Of course, a recent Supreme Court ruling which declared discrimination against whites or Hispanics as a supposed remedy against discrimination against blacks a violation itself of the Equal Protection clause also exposed the liberal inconsistency in applying the principle of equal protection. The Court overturned a decision by President Obama's Supreme Court liberal nominee, Sonia Sotomayor that upheld such discrimination.
Another recent Court decision relevant to equal protection upheld the principle of federalism. Although the Court did not overturn the entire Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted in order to protect the voting privileges of blacks against discrimination by states, it did loosen its burdensome provisions that required polling precincts in certain states to receive permission from the federal government to make even the slightest changes, even absent any history of discrimination in that particular precinct. Several Justices seemed troubled by the inconsistency in applying specific standards (e.g. for voter turnout) to certain states, especially southern ones, that are higher than the outcomes in states not covered by the Voting Rights Act. Some of the Justices even questioned the constitutionality of a law that is applied to some sovereign states and not to others, but it was not necessary for them to decide the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in order to rule on the issue before them.
Another liberal inconsistency is apparent in foreign policy, where Obama was cautious about "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs, which directly impact the security of the United States, but not cautious about meddling in Honduras's internal affairs, even though the president that was removed from power there was in league with the Castros of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who are hostile to American interests. If the Iranian regime is able to crush the nascent democratic opposition, Obama will be second-guessed for having been so cautious toward Iran, especially if it develops nuclear weapons. He should increase support for Voice of America and Radio Farda, among other appropriate moves in support of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, he is wrong to criticize the coup in Honduras, as I note in my post, A Coup for Democracy in Honduras. Obama is apparently contemplating some sort of punishment for Honduras' new democratic government that does not appear to be hostile to the U.S. Any sort of punishment must be opposed and the new regime must instead be supported as the first example of a democratic rolling back of the creeping return of authoritarianism in Latin America.
Meanwhile, let us remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our liberty as Americans.
On a few other notes, the Minnesota Supreme Court gave U.S. Senate Democratic candidate Al Franken, a victory in the contested senate election over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, despite the application of inconsistent standards for what constituted a vote. I suppose that had the case been in federal courts, the Bush v. Gore standard would have applied. In that landmark 2000 case about the disputed election for Florida's Electors, the United States Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Al Gore's attempt to use inconsistent standards for the definition of a vote violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 5-4 vote was only in regard to the remedy: the Court ruled that the manual recount caused a spoliation issue for the evidence (the more the chads on the paper ballots were handled). George W. Bush was therefore derided by liberal critics as having been "selected, not elected," despite the fact that the Bush-Cheney ticket had won the Florida vote count and recount, and even the partial recounts, which later unofficial recounts confirmed. More importantly, unlike U.S. Senators, Electors need not be elected in the first place, but may be appointed by state legislatures, as has happened numerous times in American history, and as Florida's Republican legislature would have done had the validity of its originally-elected Electors been questionable. Indeed, no president or vice president is popularly elected. They are elected by Electors, on separate ballots, whose votes are ratified by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court did not elect the president. It settled a constitutional dispute about the election -- which was not even necessary -- of Florida's presidential electors by confirming the original vote and recount. I doubt that the same liberals who questioned Bush's legitimacy will declare Al Franken "selected, not elected," nor make their usual complaints about a denial of equal protection.
Of course, a recent Supreme Court ruling which declared discrimination against whites or Hispanics as a supposed remedy against discrimination against blacks a violation itself of the Equal Protection clause also exposed the liberal inconsistency in applying the principle of equal protection. The Court overturned a decision by President Obama's Supreme Court liberal nominee, Sonia Sotomayor that upheld such discrimination.
Another recent Court decision relevant to equal protection upheld the principle of federalism. Although the Court did not overturn the entire Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted in order to protect the voting privileges of blacks against discrimination by states, it did loosen its burdensome provisions that required polling precincts in certain states to receive permission from the federal government to make even the slightest changes, even absent any history of discrimination in that particular precinct. Several Justices seemed troubled by the inconsistency in applying specific standards (e.g. for voter turnout) to certain states, especially southern ones, that are higher than the outcomes in states not covered by the Voting Rights Act. Some of the Justices even questioned the constitutionality of a law that is applied to some sovereign states and not to others, but it was not necessary for them to decide the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in order to rule on the issue before them.
Another liberal inconsistency is apparent in foreign policy, where Obama was cautious about "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs, which directly impact the security of the United States, but not cautious about meddling in Honduras's internal affairs, even though the president that was removed from power there was in league with the Castros of Cuba and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who are hostile to American interests. If the Iranian regime is able to crush the nascent democratic opposition, Obama will be second-guessed for having been so cautious toward Iran, especially if it develops nuclear weapons. He should increase support for Voice of America and Radio Farda, among other appropriate moves in support of human rights in Iran. Meanwhile, he is wrong to criticize the coup in Honduras, as I note in my post, A Coup for Democracy in Honduras. Obama is apparently contemplating some sort of punishment for Honduras' new democratic government that does not appear to be hostile to the U.S. Any sort of punishment must be opposed and the new regime must instead be supported as the first example of a democratic rolling back of the creeping return of authoritarianism in Latin America.
Meanwhile, let us remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our liberty as Americans.
Monday, June 29, 2009
A Coup For Democracy in Honduras
The recent coup d'etat in Honduras is not a coup against democracy, but one in defense of it, even though it was against an elected president. The Honduran President had violated the Constitution in undertaking to conduct an illegal referendum in order to rule for another term beyond the constitutional limit. In circumventing the constitution, he was emulating his left-wing comrade, the authoritarian Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has been trying to spread his style of socialist/communist dictatorship accross Latin America.
The Honduran military was not acting on its own in overthrowing the President, but on the orders of the Supreme Court, with congressional support. The President's moves had also been opposed by his own attorney general. Elections remain on schedule for later this year.
The Honduran coup is like the coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002. At that time, liberals criticized U.S. President George W. Bush for appearing sympathetic to the coup against an elected leader. Bush and other conservatives have been vindicated by the subsequent flagrant authoritarianism by Chavez. Yet the Obama Administration is repeating the same mistake that liberals made in 2002 in regard to Venezuela by condemning the coup in Honduras.
Indeed, the pattern is recognizable at least as far back as the early years of the Clinton Administration, after the overthrow of Haiti's elected left-wing president, Aristide. Bill Clinton demanded the restoration of Aristide, and backed up his demand by sending troops to keep peace after his restoration. Aristide turned out to be authoritarian and had to be forced from power once again during the Bush Administration. By that time, there were few complaints about Aristide's departure, as it had become obvious that he was not democratic. Indeed, his departure has permitted Haiti to become a relatively peaceful representative republic, which makes it an extraordinary event in Haitian history.
Liberals must put aside their sympathy toward left-wing anti-American leaders just because they are democratically elected and remember that history shows that such a leader can be become a dictator, like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolph Hitler. Thus, a coup that prevents a representative democracy from becoming a dictatorship is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. In short, it is not so much how a government came to power that matters but whether that government protects the freedom of its people.
The Honduran military was not acting on its own in overthrowing the President, but on the orders of the Supreme Court, with congressional support. The President's moves had also been opposed by his own attorney general. Elections remain on schedule for later this year.
The Honduran coup is like the coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002. At that time, liberals criticized U.S. President George W. Bush for appearing sympathetic to the coup against an elected leader. Bush and other conservatives have been vindicated by the subsequent flagrant authoritarianism by Chavez. Yet the Obama Administration is repeating the same mistake that liberals made in 2002 in regard to Venezuela by condemning the coup in Honduras.
Indeed, the pattern is recognizable at least as far back as the early years of the Clinton Administration, after the overthrow of Haiti's elected left-wing president, Aristide. Bill Clinton demanded the restoration of Aristide, and backed up his demand by sending troops to keep peace after his restoration. Aristide turned out to be authoritarian and had to be forced from power once again during the Bush Administration. By that time, there were few complaints about Aristide's departure, as it had become obvious that he was not democratic. Indeed, his departure has permitted Haiti to become a relatively peaceful representative republic, which makes it an extraordinary event in Haitian history.
Liberals must put aside their sympathy toward left-wing anti-American leaders just because they are democratically elected and remember that history shows that such a leader can be become a dictator, like Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolph Hitler. Thus, a coup that prevents a representative democracy from becoming a dictatorship is not anti-democratic, but pro-democratic. In short, it is not so much how a government came to power that matters but whether that government protects the freedom of its people.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Victory in Iraq
The imminent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraqi cities is being hailed by Iraq's government as a victory over the insurgency. The withdrawal had been planned long in advance once conditions permitted it to occur. Although the insurgents have not yet been completely vanquished, the move means that Iraqi troops are taking an increasingly lead role in putting down the insurgency themselves, which will allow the eventual withdrawal of all foreign forces, if the Iraqis desire.
It is an appropriate time to consider what American troops, together with their allies in the Coalition of the Willing, as well as the Iraqis themselves, have achieved thus far in the Liberation of Iraq.
First, United Nations resolutions were enforced. The resolutions had required Iraq to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, which it had refused to prove that it had done. The Liberation of Iraq removed from power Saddam Hussein's Baath regime that maintained a WMD program. Not only is the regime no longer able to threaten its neighbors and U.S. allies, interests and troops in the region conventionally or by WMDs because it has been removed from power, but hundreds of chemical weapons (WMDs) were discovered and destroyed, as well as many chemicals that could have been weaponized quickly and other materials such as enriched uranium. Baathist leaders who had used WMDs (e.g. "Chemical" Ali) were captured and punished. Enforcement of UN resolutions is critical in international efforts to limit the proliferation of WMDs and keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
Second, the removal of the Baathist regime also represented a victory in the War on Terrorism, insofar as it removed from power a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq had harbored and financed terrorists, including some who targeted and killed Americans. For example, Abu Abbas, a Palestinian terrorist who had killed an American, had been given safe harbor in Iraq, where he was the conduit for Hussein's funneling of money to Palestinian suicide bombers, some of whom killed Americans. Because state sponsorship of terrorism not only gives terrorists a haven and money, but confers legitimacy to terrorism, the removal of state sponsors of terrorism is critical to defeating terrorists.
Third, Iraq's neighbors no longer must live in fear of another invasion by Hussein -- the world's only serial aggressor since World War II. As a result, the United States no longer needed to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia, where they were targeted by militant Islamist bombers. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia was the major source of irritation for Islamists like Osama bin Laden. The U.S. was able to withdraw its troops on its own terms instead of through the intimidation of Muslim militants, while taking away their chief excuse for opposing the U.S.
Fourth, the Iraqi people were liberated from one of the most brutal tyrants of his time. Liberated from oppression, Iraqis were free to determine their own destiny. They have chosen freedom and representative democracy for their republic, which provides a model for others in the Arab and Muslim world. Oppression is another one of the excuses that terrorists use in order to attempt to overthrow Muslim governments and replace them with more militant Islamist ones. Because of the Liberation of Iraq, freedom is now an acceptable alternative for Arabs and Muslims.
Fifth, the war in Iraq led to an additional victory in the War on Terrorism -- a military victory over al-Qaeda. As in Afghanistan, jihadis from around the Muslim world came to Iraq to fight the Coalition in the hope of defeating it and establishing an Islamist state there. Al-Qaeda was defeated military by the Coalition and the Iraqi government in part because the Iraqi people themselves rejected the foreign terrorists. As a battle in the War on Terrorism, the Liberation of Iraq represents a strategic defeat for al-Qaeda, which has diminished its credibility as a military force.
We should be grateful to the American troops who led the Liberation of Iraq. They have accomplished much in the fight for freedom and against terrorism and militant Islam.
It is an appropriate time to consider what American troops, together with their allies in the Coalition of the Willing, as well as the Iraqis themselves, have achieved thus far in the Liberation of Iraq.
First, United Nations resolutions were enforced. The resolutions had required Iraq to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, which it had refused to prove that it had done. The Liberation of Iraq removed from power Saddam Hussein's Baath regime that maintained a WMD program. Not only is the regime no longer able to threaten its neighbors and U.S. allies, interests and troops in the region conventionally or by WMDs because it has been removed from power, but hundreds of chemical weapons (WMDs) were discovered and destroyed, as well as many chemicals that could have been weaponized quickly and other materials such as enriched uranium. Baathist leaders who had used WMDs (e.g. "Chemical" Ali) were captured and punished. Enforcement of UN resolutions is critical in international efforts to limit the proliferation of WMDs and keep them out of the hands of terrorists.
Second, the removal of the Baathist regime also represented a victory in the War on Terrorism, insofar as it removed from power a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq had harbored and financed terrorists, including some who targeted and killed Americans. For example, Abu Abbas, a Palestinian terrorist who had killed an American, had been given safe harbor in Iraq, where he was the conduit for Hussein's funneling of money to Palestinian suicide bombers, some of whom killed Americans. Because state sponsorship of terrorism not only gives terrorists a haven and money, but confers legitimacy to terrorism, the removal of state sponsors of terrorism is critical to defeating terrorists.
Third, Iraq's neighbors no longer must live in fear of another invasion by Hussein -- the world's only serial aggressor since World War II. As a result, the United States no longer needed to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia, where they were targeted by militant Islamist bombers. The presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia was the major source of irritation for Islamists like Osama bin Laden. The U.S. was able to withdraw its troops on its own terms instead of through the intimidation of Muslim militants, while taking away their chief excuse for opposing the U.S.
Fourth, the Iraqi people were liberated from one of the most brutal tyrants of his time. Liberated from oppression, Iraqis were free to determine their own destiny. They have chosen freedom and representative democracy for their republic, which provides a model for others in the Arab and Muslim world. Oppression is another one of the excuses that terrorists use in order to attempt to overthrow Muslim governments and replace them with more militant Islamist ones. Because of the Liberation of Iraq, freedom is now an acceptable alternative for Arabs and Muslims.
Fifth, the war in Iraq led to an additional victory in the War on Terrorism -- a military victory over al-Qaeda. As in Afghanistan, jihadis from around the Muslim world came to Iraq to fight the Coalition in the hope of defeating it and establishing an Islamist state there. Al-Qaeda was defeated military by the Coalition and the Iraqi government in part because the Iraqi people themselves rejected the foreign terrorists. As a battle in the War on Terrorism, the Liberation of Iraq represents a strategic defeat for al-Qaeda, which has diminished its credibility as a military force.
We should be grateful to the American troops who led the Liberation of Iraq. They have accomplished much in the fight for freedom and against terrorism and militant Islam.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Blog Post Recieves 100th Hit
I am pleased to report a significant milestone for my blog. One of the posts on my blog, "The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization," has received its 100th hit. Hits from this post alone have come from the United States and 21 foreign states on 5 continents. I am not including several readers who viewed my blog homepage when this post was still among the seven that are always viewable there, some of whom I know also viewed the post. Several of those searchers who viewed my post viewed the post multiple times (I define a second hit as a visit at least one hour later than the first one) or went on to view other posts, especially "Follow-up to the Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization."
I am especially pleased that a post on my blog has reached such a milestone, considering that I do not publicly advertise this blog, which has received almost 430 hits overall since April 2, not including my own. Thank you, dear readers, for your support!
I am especially pleased that a post on my blog has reached such a milestone, considering that I do not publicly advertise this blog, which has received almost 430 hits overall since April 2, not including my own. Thank you, dear readers, for your support!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Let Us Stand with the Iranian People
In my last post, "Follow-up on the Definition of Terrorism," I discuss how a protest organized by a terrorist group or terrorist-sponsoring regime could itself be an act of terrorism. But the converse -- a protest against a terrorist-sponsoring regime -- could be an act of terrorism, which is a major reason why we must stand with the Iranian people in their struggle for liberty.
The current demonstrations against the Iranian theocratic dictatorship are the largest observed since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. I recall how the daily protests then forced the Shah to flee, which allowed the Islamist forces led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to take power in what has thus far been the only other revolution besides the American Revolution to be successful. The current demonstrations against the Islamist dictatorship represent a grave threat to the Khomeinist regime.
The opposition to the Iranian dictatorship is led by a former prime minister who served during the worst period of oppression of the Islamic Revolution who has accepted the popular demand for reform. Although his proposals represent only modest reform, those Iranians opposed to the regime supported him, as well as another moderate candidate in recent presidential elections against the current president who is backed by the tyrannical mullahs who represent the real center of power of the regime. The dictatorship prohibits more reformist candidates from running for president or parliament. The demonstrators are protesting allegations of voter fraud committed by the regime in the election, in which it claims the incumbent easily won reelection, but their cause is broader than the election dispute; the demonstrators seek the overthrow of the dictatorship. Many of them want it to be supplanted by a representative democracy.
The regime's harsh repression of the peaceful demonstrations underscores the lack of liberty in Iran, in contrast to its neighbors to the east and west, namely Afghanistan and Iraq. The stakes are high for the world and the War on Terrorism, not only because Iran is the mother of terrorism and is seeking to build nuclear weapons, but because it has been an example to militant Muslims as the first modern Islamist state, that is to say one ruled by theocrats who impose Islamic law based upon a strict interpretation of Islamic Scripture. A popular Muslim counter-revolution against Islamist rule in Iran would be a major blow to militant Islam, as it would suggest that Islamist rule is intolerable even for Muslims. Many Muslims, like the people of Iran, crave their birthright of the blessings of liberty. Therefore, let us stand with the Iranian people in support of their freedom.
The current demonstrations against the Iranian theocratic dictatorship are the largest observed since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. I recall how the daily protests then forced the Shah to flee, which allowed the Islamist forces led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to take power in what has thus far been the only other revolution besides the American Revolution to be successful. The current demonstrations against the Islamist dictatorship represent a grave threat to the Khomeinist regime.
The opposition to the Iranian dictatorship is led by a former prime minister who served during the worst period of oppression of the Islamic Revolution who has accepted the popular demand for reform. Although his proposals represent only modest reform, those Iranians opposed to the regime supported him, as well as another moderate candidate in recent presidential elections against the current president who is backed by the tyrannical mullahs who represent the real center of power of the regime. The dictatorship prohibits more reformist candidates from running for president or parliament. The demonstrators are protesting allegations of voter fraud committed by the regime in the election, in which it claims the incumbent easily won reelection, but their cause is broader than the election dispute; the demonstrators seek the overthrow of the dictatorship. Many of them want it to be supplanted by a representative democracy.
The regime's harsh repression of the peaceful demonstrations underscores the lack of liberty in Iran, in contrast to its neighbors to the east and west, namely Afghanistan and Iraq. The stakes are high for the world and the War on Terrorism, not only because Iran is the mother of terrorism and is seeking to build nuclear weapons, but because it has been an example to militant Muslims as the first modern Islamist state, that is to say one ruled by theocrats who impose Islamic law based upon a strict interpretation of Islamic Scripture. A popular Muslim counter-revolution against Islamist rule in Iran would be a major blow to militant Islam, as it would suggest that Islamist rule is intolerable even for Muslims. Many Muslims, like the people of Iran, crave their birthright of the blessings of liberty. Therefore, let us stand with the Iranian people in support of their freedom.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Follow-up on the Definition of Terrorism
A timely story was reported about the U.S. Department of Defense's employee test that asked a multiple-choice question of what would be an example of "low-level terrorism." I am not certain what was meant by "low-level," as all terrorism terrorizes the populace, the only difference being the degree of terror an attack causes. However, it was not the question that has generated controversy, but the answer.
The four choices for what would constitute an example of low-level terrorism on the Pentagon's test were the following: 1) "Attacking the Pentagon," 2) "IEDs," 3) "Hate crimes against racial groups" and 4) "Protests." The correct answer was #4, "Protests." So-called civil libertarians objected to the implication that dissent equates to terrorism, however an analysis of the question and answers would suggest that the so-called civil libertarians are not necessarily correct.
First, it is necessary to demonstrate why the first three answers are incorrect, and therefore why the fourth answer is the most correct. Attacking the Pentagon would be attacking a military target, which would not represent an example of terrorism, as terrorism targets innocent civilians (by "innocent," I do not mean civilians working for government, such as civilian employees working at the Pentagon, which does not imply in any way that civilian employees of the government are "guilty," as opposed to "innocent," as the latter terms means only that they are not participants in any conflict, such as to be considered a legitimate target in war). Note: The September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon is a terrorist attack, however, because of the method of the attack, which was the hijacking and crashing of a civilian airliner into the building. Also, the attack on the Pentagon was part of a coordinated terrorist attack on other civilian targets. However, the September 11 attack was an exception to earlier other attacks on the Pentagon, which were militant attacks like other attacks that target the military, and thus not examples of terrorism. It is critical to understand that attacks on the military are not examples of terrorism because a failure to understand the particular evil of terrorism, which targets innocent civilians, allows both the terrorists and their sympathizers and apologists to make a moral equivalence between terrorist acts and military forced used in resistance to terrorism.
IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are not an example of terrorism because they are weapons, not attacks. Yet even an attack by IED would not necessarily constitute terrorism because the target might be military, or the reason for the attack may not be in order to terrorize the populace. For example, it could be an act by an insane person, a crook, a disgruntled employee or a jilted lover, let alone be motivated by some sort of political reason. Even if it were politically motivated, it would not necessarily be a terrorist act. As I have noted before, terrorism is in the target (innocent civilians, not individuals whom the attacker opposes), not the method.
The third answer, "Hate crimes against racial groups," would not necessarily constitute a terrorist act, even if the attack were some sort of massacre. Genocide is the killing of a people. Terrorists often kill people, but not strictly for the sake of killing out of some bigotry that causes them to want to eliminate entirely that group of people. Terrorists kill some people within a populace in order to terrorize all of the other people in that populace. In other words, the intended target of the terrorist is not only the innocent people he kidnaps, injures or kills, but every other innocent person within that populace because he wants to intimidate them into acquiescing to his demands. A terrorist cannot get a populace to give in to his demands if he kills all of them. A person whose intent is strictly to hurt or kill people is not a terrorist. Regardless of how much hatred a terrorist might have for the people he targets, a terrorist's intent is to terrorize, as the word terrorism implies because a terrorist terrorizes people not necessarily out of hatred for them, but for a political motivation.
The fourth answer, "Protests," is the most correct, even though some protests may not be terrorists act at all because they may have nothing to do with terrorism or resistance to it. Some protests, however, might be examples of terrorism, which makes this answer the least incorrect, and thus the most correct one on the Pentagon's test. A mass protest organized by a terrorist group or terrorist-sponsoring regime is obviously an act intended to terrorize by intimidating a populace to give into the terrorists' demands. It is critical to understand that an act does not necessarily have to injure or cause any damage in order to terrorize people. For example, even though an unexploded bomb planted in a public place does not cause any any physical harm, it is sufficient to terrorize people. Even a false bomb scare has the same effect. Therefore, the media is wrong to call all false bomb scares "hoaxes," as these might be acts intended to terrorize even if no physical harm potentially can be caused, or are intended to probe defenses or cause such weariness as to decrease vigilance (in other words, in order to get people to become complacent and drop their guard). The possession of weapons of mass destruction by a terrorist-sponsoring regime is ipso facto an act of terrorism, such as North Korea's current attempts to intimidate all Americans within range of its nuclear missiles. A protest by terrorists or their sponsors demonstrates the terrorists' zeal for their cause and is an attempt to show their popular support, which suggests that they have adequate motivated personnel in order to carry out numerous attacks.
A protest by those sympathetic to, or who are apologists for, terrorists, is not quite as obvious a terrorist act, however, it could nonetheless also be an example of terrorism. If someone improves the morale of an enemy, while harming the morale of the soldiers of his own country, he is aiding and abetting that enemy, which, in wartime, meets the definition of treason. A protest that opposes fighting the enemy is an example of aiding and abetting that enemy. Thus, "peace" protests are truly violent acts, whether intentional or not, just as the so-called peace protests during the Vietnamese War led to the violent deaths of more than a million Indochinese civilians because the protesters achieved their goal of ending U.S. involvement in that war. Protests against the War on Terrorism are protests against fighting the terrorists, which means that they are protests in favor of victory by the terrorists, just as protests against the Vietnamese War were intended to produce a victory by the Communists. Just as Communists and their sympathizers helped to organize the protests against the Vietnamese War, so too do those sympathetic to terrorism or other anti-Americans help to organize protests against the War on Terrorism. Note: I am referring in particular to protests against the War on Terrorism in general, which I have observed firsthand, which are not protests against this or that particular government policy, but against the entire concept of opposing terrorism militarily. Protests that suggest that it is illegitimate to fight terrorists are intended to unilaterally disarm the United States in the terrorists' asymmetrical fight against the U.S.
As I have noted, the goal of terrorists is to intimidate a populace. When some within that populace begin to agitate for acquiescence to the terrorists' demands, even if they are doing so out of fear, they are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do, even if unintentionally. Thus, they are force multipliers of terrorists, especially within a pluralistic society, even if they are not part of a "Fifth Column" like terrorist sympathizers and apologists. However, such foolish protesters are not guilty of committing an act of terrorism, even if the act is effectively an example of terrorism, because their intent is not malice, but cowardice. I am not referring to such cowards, but to those anti-Americans who protest against the moral legitimacy of any resistance to terrorism at all, who are demagogues because they use the legitimate fear of terrorist attacks as a justification to avoid fighting terrorists, all the while falsely claiming to be patriotic by availing themselves of the right to assemble, and claiming to represent the best interests of the U.S. that they truly despise. They fail to note the qualifier "peaceably" before the right "to assemble" in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A protest intended to give a military victory to an enemy is not a peaceable assembly, even if no violence occurs at the protest. Protests are violent if they are intended in favor of rewarding violence, whether organized by terrorists or their anti-American sympathizers. Therefore, protests may be acts of terrorism, which would make the fourth answer in the Pentagon's multiple-choice question the most correct one.
The four choices for what would constitute an example of low-level terrorism on the Pentagon's test were the following: 1) "Attacking the Pentagon," 2) "IEDs," 3) "Hate crimes against racial groups" and 4) "Protests." The correct answer was #4, "Protests." So-called civil libertarians objected to the implication that dissent equates to terrorism, however an analysis of the question and answers would suggest that the so-called civil libertarians are not necessarily correct.
First, it is necessary to demonstrate why the first three answers are incorrect, and therefore why the fourth answer is the most correct. Attacking the Pentagon would be attacking a military target, which would not represent an example of terrorism, as terrorism targets innocent civilians (by "innocent," I do not mean civilians working for government, such as civilian employees working at the Pentagon, which does not imply in any way that civilian employees of the government are "guilty," as opposed to "innocent," as the latter terms means only that they are not participants in any conflict, such as to be considered a legitimate target in war). Note: The September 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon is a terrorist attack, however, because of the method of the attack, which was the hijacking and crashing of a civilian airliner into the building. Also, the attack on the Pentagon was part of a coordinated terrorist attack on other civilian targets. However, the September 11 attack was an exception to earlier other attacks on the Pentagon, which were militant attacks like other attacks that target the military, and thus not examples of terrorism. It is critical to understand that attacks on the military are not examples of terrorism because a failure to understand the particular evil of terrorism, which targets innocent civilians, allows both the terrorists and their sympathizers and apologists to make a moral equivalence between terrorist acts and military forced used in resistance to terrorism.
IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are not an example of terrorism because they are weapons, not attacks. Yet even an attack by IED would not necessarily constitute terrorism because the target might be military, or the reason for the attack may not be in order to terrorize the populace. For example, it could be an act by an insane person, a crook, a disgruntled employee or a jilted lover, let alone be motivated by some sort of political reason. Even if it were politically motivated, it would not necessarily be a terrorist act. As I have noted before, terrorism is in the target (innocent civilians, not individuals whom the attacker opposes), not the method.
The third answer, "Hate crimes against racial groups," would not necessarily constitute a terrorist act, even if the attack were some sort of massacre. Genocide is the killing of a people. Terrorists often kill people, but not strictly for the sake of killing out of some bigotry that causes them to want to eliminate entirely that group of people. Terrorists kill some people within a populace in order to terrorize all of the other people in that populace. In other words, the intended target of the terrorist is not only the innocent people he kidnaps, injures or kills, but every other innocent person within that populace because he wants to intimidate them into acquiescing to his demands. A terrorist cannot get a populace to give in to his demands if he kills all of them. A person whose intent is strictly to hurt or kill people is not a terrorist. Regardless of how much hatred a terrorist might have for the people he targets, a terrorist's intent is to terrorize, as the word terrorism implies because a terrorist terrorizes people not necessarily out of hatred for them, but for a political motivation.
The fourth answer, "Protests," is the most correct, even though some protests may not be terrorists act at all because they may have nothing to do with terrorism or resistance to it. Some protests, however, might be examples of terrorism, which makes this answer the least incorrect, and thus the most correct one on the Pentagon's test. A mass protest organized by a terrorist group or terrorist-sponsoring regime is obviously an act intended to terrorize by intimidating a populace to give into the terrorists' demands. It is critical to understand that an act does not necessarily have to injure or cause any damage in order to terrorize people. For example, even though an unexploded bomb planted in a public place does not cause any any physical harm, it is sufficient to terrorize people. Even a false bomb scare has the same effect. Therefore, the media is wrong to call all false bomb scares "hoaxes," as these might be acts intended to terrorize even if no physical harm potentially can be caused, or are intended to probe defenses or cause such weariness as to decrease vigilance (in other words, in order to get people to become complacent and drop their guard). The possession of weapons of mass destruction by a terrorist-sponsoring regime is ipso facto an act of terrorism, such as North Korea's current attempts to intimidate all Americans within range of its nuclear missiles. A protest by terrorists or their sponsors demonstrates the terrorists' zeal for their cause and is an attempt to show their popular support, which suggests that they have adequate motivated personnel in order to carry out numerous attacks.
A protest by those sympathetic to, or who are apologists for, terrorists, is not quite as obvious a terrorist act, however, it could nonetheless also be an example of terrorism. If someone improves the morale of an enemy, while harming the morale of the soldiers of his own country, he is aiding and abetting that enemy, which, in wartime, meets the definition of treason. A protest that opposes fighting the enemy is an example of aiding and abetting that enemy. Thus, "peace" protests are truly violent acts, whether intentional or not, just as the so-called peace protests during the Vietnamese War led to the violent deaths of more than a million Indochinese civilians because the protesters achieved their goal of ending U.S. involvement in that war. Protests against the War on Terrorism are protests against fighting the terrorists, which means that they are protests in favor of victory by the terrorists, just as protests against the Vietnamese War were intended to produce a victory by the Communists. Just as Communists and their sympathizers helped to organize the protests against the Vietnamese War, so too do those sympathetic to terrorism or other anti-Americans help to organize protests against the War on Terrorism. Note: I am referring in particular to protests against the War on Terrorism in general, which I have observed firsthand, which are not protests against this or that particular government policy, but against the entire concept of opposing terrorism militarily. Protests that suggest that it is illegitimate to fight terrorists are intended to unilaterally disarm the United States in the terrorists' asymmetrical fight against the U.S.
As I have noted, the goal of terrorists is to intimidate a populace. When some within that populace begin to agitate for acquiescence to the terrorists' demands, even if they are doing so out of fear, they are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do, even if unintentionally. Thus, they are force multipliers of terrorists, especially within a pluralistic society, even if they are not part of a "Fifth Column" like terrorist sympathizers and apologists. However, such foolish protesters are not guilty of committing an act of terrorism, even if the act is effectively an example of terrorism, because their intent is not malice, but cowardice. I am not referring to such cowards, but to those anti-Americans who protest against the moral legitimacy of any resistance to terrorism at all, who are demagogues because they use the legitimate fear of terrorist attacks as a justification to avoid fighting terrorists, all the while falsely claiming to be patriotic by availing themselves of the right to assemble, and claiming to represent the best interests of the U.S. that they truly despise. They fail to note the qualifier "peaceably" before the right "to assemble" in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A protest intended to give a military victory to an enemy is not a peaceable assembly, even if no violence occurs at the protest. Protests are violent if they are intended in favor of rewarding violence, whether organized by terrorists or their anti-American sympathizers. Therefore, protests may be acts of terrorism, which would make the fourth answer in the Pentagon's multiple-choice question the most correct one.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Analysis of Recent Foreign Elections
The recent elections for European Parliament represented a general shift toward conservative parties, including some Euroskeptic (those opposed to greater European integration) ones. It is a harbinger for the impending loss of power of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom and victory for the Conservative Party.
Some of the parties that gained seats were labeled “far-right” by the media, even though they are fascist (national socialist), which makes them far-left. At least one of the parties that the media labeled “anti-Islamic” was not, namely the one led by Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, which is anti-Islamist (meaning it is against Islamic militancy), but not necessarily anti-Muslim.
Some in the media have blamed the loss by liberal and socialist parties in these elections on the economy. The fact that leftists were blamed in those foreign states for the recession abroad is inconsistent with the blame by the left in the United States for conservatives for the recession. Indeed, the general anti-incumbent trend during this decade suggests that the recession was not so much caused by government policy at all, especially not conservative policies, but by external forces. The blame by liberals of American conservatives for deregulatory policies is inconsistent with the worse economic downturn being experienced in those European quasi-socialist states with even more regulation. The natural boom and bust cycle seems more to blame for the recession: the global prosperity of the 2000s led to higher energy demand, which led to higher energy prices, which led to higher interest rates, which caused the housing bubble to burst. If government policies played any role in causing the recession, it was excessive regulatory policies, such as the Carter and Clinton Administration policies of encouraging risky lending to home buyers that only contributed to the problem, not insufficient regulation.
There has been a general anti-incumbent trend in the West since a few years after the War on Terrorism, which is to say, well before the global recession, which has become even more noticeable since. It is noteworthy, therefore, that conservatives gained seats in the European Parliament even in states like France and Italy that were led by relatively new conservative governments. The anti-incumbent trend has been noticeable the last few years beyond the West, as well. One of the most noticeable exceptions has been Iraq, which underscores public contentment there with improved security and a rejection of Islamist terrorism.
Incumbent parties also won in two other states recently, India and Lebanon. India’s elections were understandable because it has enjoyed strong economic growth, albeit unevenly. The election victory of the pro-Western coalition in Lebanon despite the strong challenge from the Hezbollah-led coalition is highly significant to the War on Terrorism. A win by the Iranian-backed Shi’ite terrorist Hezbollah would have necessitated a cut-off of most U.S. aid to the fledgling representative democracy and possibly led to a second war with Israel, or at least complicated efforts toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Sunni Muslims were joined with some Christians and others over the Shi’ite Muslims, who had attracted a bloc of Christians to their coalition. The Lebanese people thereby asserted their independence from Syria, which also backs Hezbollah, the main power-broker in the Land of the Cedars. They also demonstrated that representative democracy has spread beyond Iraq in the Arab world.
Some of the parties that gained seats were labeled “far-right” by the media, even though they are fascist (national socialist), which makes them far-left. At least one of the parties that the media labeled “anti-Islamic” was not, namely the one led by Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, which is anti-Islamist (meaning it is against Islamic militancy), but not necessarily anti-Muslim.
Some in the media have blamed the loss by liberal and socialist parties in these elections on the economy. The fact that leftists were blamed in those foreign states for the recession abroad is inconsistent with the blame by the left in the United States for conservatives for the recession. Indeed, the general anti-incumbent trend during this decade suggests that the recession was not so much caused by government policy at all, especially not conservative policies, but by external forces. The blame by liberals of American conservatives for deregulatory policies is inconsistent with the worse economic downturn being experienced in those European quasi-socialist states with even more regulation. The natural boom and bust cycle seems more to blame for the recession: the global prosperity of the 2000s led to higher energy demand, which led to higher energy prices, which led to higher interest rates, which caused the housing bubble to burst. If government policies played any role in causing the recession, it was excessive regulatory policies, such as the Carter and Clinton Administration policies of encouraging risky lending to home buyers that only contributed to the problem, not insufficient regulation.
There has been a general anti-incumbent trend in the West since a few years after the War on Terrorism, which is to say, well before the global recession, which has become even more noticeable since. It is noteworthy, therefore, that conservatives gained seats in the European Parliament even in states like France and Italy that were led by relatively new conservative governments. The anti-incumbent trend has been noticeable the last few years beyond the West, as well. One of the most noticeable exceptions has been Iraq, which underscores public contentment there with improved security and a rejection of Islamist terrorism.
Incumbent parties also won in two other states recently, India and Lebanon. India’s elections were understandable because it has enjoyed strong economic growth, albeit unevenly. The election victory of the pro-Western coalition in Lebanon despite the strong challenge from the Hezbollah-led coalition is highly significant to the War on Terrorism. A win by the Iranian-backed Shi’ite terrorist Hezbollah would have necessitated a cut-off of most U.S. aid to the fledgling representative democracy and possibly led to a second war with Israel, or at least complicated efforts toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord. Sunni Muslims were joined with some Christians and others over the Shi’ite Muslims, who had attracted a bloc of Christians to their coalition. The Lebanese people thereby asserted their independence from Syria, which also backs Hezbollah, the main power-broker in the Land of the Cedars. They also demonstrated that representative democracy has spread beyond Iraq in the Arab world.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Analysis of Recent Media Comments on Terrorism and U.S.-Muslim Relations
In my recent post, "Terrorism" vs. "Militancy," I defined the word terrorism and explained the difference between it and general militancy. Subsequently, there were numerous comments expressed in the media that described certain acts of domestic political violence as "terrorism." I had kept my post general, but in this one I shall be more specific in order to refute the argument that such acts are terrorism.
Anti-abortion militants target the abortion industry specifically because their goal is to limit abortion by targeting abortion centers (which is sabotage) or those that perform abortions. They do not target the general populace. Therefore, they do not terrorize the populace in order to intimidate it into submitting to their demands. Similarly, animal rights militants specifically target research laboratories where animal experiments are performed, not the general populace. Animal rights militants are saboteurs. Environmental militants also specifically target only certain targets they oppose, usually with sabotage. They, too, do not target the general populace. Environmental militant Ted Kazinski, the "Unabomber," only crossed over into terrorism once he threatened to blow up a civilian airliner, which terrorized innocent civilians instead of only government officials or those whom he opposed. Anti-government militants target the government -- not civilians -- which does not terrorize the populace. Such militancy crosses over into terrorism only if the government target is filled with innocent civilians (which is why bombings of embassies are acts of terrorism).
As noted in my earlier post, terrorism is particularly evil because it targets innocent civilians. The word terrorism should not be diluted by applying it to all forms of political violence, which is usually done in order to discredit the cause in support of which the militant acts were performed. Whether the cause is just or not is irrelevant as to whether the militancy constitutes terrorism. Unless the distinction between terrorism and other forms of militancy is learned, terrorism will never be eliminated.
In analyzing President Barak Obama's address to the Muslim world, there was some media commentary that he had broken from the "arrogance" and "bullying" of the administration of President George W. Bush. I submit that Bush was neither the one who was arrogant or the bully in regard to relations between the United States and the Muslim world.
It was Bill Cinton who was arrogant during his presidency when he attempted to force peace upon the Israelis and Palestinians when Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat was not ready to make peace. The result of Clinton's "peace process" was a Palestinian uprising that killed thousands of people, including many civilians, that lasted for years. Clinton had wanted the photo opportunity of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands with each other with him in the middle, as well as the legacy of being a peacemaker. He should have pursued a policy of justice instead. Bush pursued a policy of humility and did not try to force peace on parties that were unwilling to make it. For doing so, liberals criticized him for failing to engage as actively as Clinton in peace talks because his humility did not match their characterization of him as arrogant. Bush's policies did not lead to any bloody Palestinian uprising and his overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who had been financing Palestinian suicide bombings, together with Israeli security measures, led to relative peace, with the exception of the 2008 war between Israel and Hamas. Israel even withdrew permanently from the Gaza Strip, which represented more progress than Clinton had made. It is difficult for liberals to accept the fact that phony peace negotiations cause more bloodshed than all-out war and tend to prolong conflicts.
As for the charge of bullying made against Bush, it was Saddam Hussein who was the bully, not Bush. Hussein had invaded and attempted to annex all or part of two of his neighbors, which gave him the unique distinction of being the only serial aggressor since the Second World War. I should note that the distinction that Obama and most other liberals as well as isolationists who opposed the Liberation of Iraq, make between Afghanistan and Iraq is not one made by militant Muslims. While Obama and some of the other critics see Afghanistan as a just war and Iraq as unnecessary, militant Muslims accuse the United States of bullying for overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbored the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for September 11. Thus, the concern that liberating Iraq angered Muslims, which supposedly proves that Iraq was an unnecessary war, is inconsistent because even liberating Afghanistan had angered them. Liberating tens of millions of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal tyrants who sponsored terrorism is the antithesis of bullying.
Anti-abortion militants target the abortion industry specifically because their goal is to limit abortion by targeting abortion centers (which is sabotage) or those that perform abortions. They do not target the general populace. Therefore, they do not terrorize the populace in order to intimidate it into submitting to their demands. Similarly, animal rights militants specifically target research laboratories where animal experiments are performed, not the general populace. Animal rights militants are saboteurs. Environmental militants also specifically target only certain targets they oppose, usually with sabotage. They, too, do not target the general populace. Environmental militant Ted Kazinski, the "Unabomber," only crossed over into terrorism once he threatened to blow up a civilian airliner, which terrorized innocent civilians instead of only government officials or those whom he opposed. Anti-government militants target the government -- not civilians -- which does not terrorize the populace. Such militancy crosses over into terrorism only if the government target is filled with innocent civilians (which is why bombings of embassies are acts of terrorism).
As noted in my earlier post, terrorism is particularly evil because it targets innocent civilians. The word terrorism should not be diluted by applying it to all forms of political violence, which is usually done in order to discredit the cause in support of which the militant acts were performed. Whether the cause is just or not is irrelevant as to whether the militancy constitutes terrorism. Unless the distinction between terrorism and other forms of militancy is learned, terrorism will never be eliminated.
In analyzing President Barak Obama's address to the Muslim world, there was some media commentary that he had broken from the "arrogance" and "bullying" of the administration of President George W. Bush. I submit that Bush was neither the one who was arrogant or the bully in regard to relations between the United States and the Muslim world.
It was Bill Cinton who was arrogant during his presidency when he attempted to force peace upon the Israelis and Palestinians when Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat was not ready to make peace. The result of Clinton's "peace process" was a Palestinian uprising that killed thousands of people, including many civilians, that lasted for years. Clinton had wanted the photo opportunity of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands with each other with him in the middle, as well as the legacy of being a peacemaker. He should have pursued a policy of justice instead. Bush pursued a policy of humility and did not try to force peace on parties that were unwilling to make it. For doing so, liberals criticized him for failing to engage as actively as Clinton in peace talks because his humility did not match their characterization of him as arrogant. Bush's policies did not lead to any bloody Palestinian uprising and his overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who had been financing Palestinian suicide bombings, together with Israeli security measures, led to relative peace, with the exception of the 2008 war between Israel and Hamas. Israel even withdrew permanently from the Gaza Strip, which represented more progress than Clinton had made. It is difficult for liberals to accept the fact that phony peace negotiations cause more bloodshed than all-out war and tend to prolong conflicts.
As for the charge of bullying made against Bush, it was Saddam Hussein who was the bully, not Bush. Hussein had invaded and attempted to annex all or part of two of his neighbors, which gave him the unique distinction of being the only serial aggressor since the Second World War. I should note that the distinction that Obama and most other liberals as well as isolationists who opposed the Liberation of Iraq, make between Afghanistan and Iraq is not one made by militant Muslims. While Obama and some of the other critics see Afghanistan as a just war and Iraq as unnecessary, militant Muslims accuse the United States of bullying for overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbored the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for September 11. Thus, the concern that liberating Iraq angered Muslims, which supposedly proves that Iraq was an unnecessary war, is inconsistent because even liberating Afghanistan had angered them. Liberating tens of millions of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal tyrants who sponsored terrorism is the antithesis of bullying.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Obama's Anti-American Address to Muslims Fails to Achieve its Purpose
During his campaign for President of the United States, Barak Hussein Obama and his supporters discouraged the use of his middle name and dismissed any other references to his Muslim background as unfair, but now that he is in office, he uses his background as an asset in his efforts to establish better relations with Muslims abroad.
Obama used much of his address in Cairo to Muslims to criticize the West, the United States in particular, and especially former President George W. Bush. Obama even criticized Western colonization of Muslim lands, even though the U.S. never colonized one square inch of any Muslim state.
Obama says that he wants a new relationship between the United States and the Muslim world based upon mutual respect, as if the liberation by the U.S. under Bush of tens of millions of Muslims from brutal tyrannies was disrespectful. Obama's frequent criticism of the U.S. throughout his speech, makes the U.S. seem weak. His weak foreign policy, characterized by his offering of olive branches to mortal enemies like Iran without preconditions, have thus far proven unsuccessful. Obama's comments on Iran's nuclear program seeme to make a moral equivalence with the possession by the U.S. of nuclear weapons, which will only undermine his own opposition to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Obama's criticisms of the U.S. were disproportionate to his criticisms of Islamic militants. He never even used the words terrorist or terrorism, and yet made a moral equivalence between terrorist attacks by Muslim militants and the aggressive interrogation by the U.S. of three of the terrorists, which was enough for him to claim that the U.S. had failed to abide by its own principles. To make it even worse, Obama blamed the aggressive interrogations on anger, instead of on the intent of preventing any further attacks.
Obama criticized the Liberation of Iraq in three ways, although he did acknowledge that Iraqis were better off now that they are living in freedom than they were under the oppression of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. He criticized the imposition of a system of government on Iraq, called its liberation a "war of choice,"as if it were unnecessary, and suggested it were avoidable by declaring that he believed that the war proved that the U.S. should have depended more upon diplomacy. All three of Obama's criticisms were contradictory of his praise for the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban.
First, the U.S. did not impose a system of government on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was the one who had imposed a tyrannical system of government on the Iraqi people. I note that his Baathist regime imposed socialism, for example, which was an idea foreign to the Iraqi people. The U.S., out of necessity, did choose a provisional goverment during the occupation, but even some of its leaders, like the Khurds, had been popularly elected, while others were leaders of other opposition parties or were religious or tribal leaders. But the system of government that Iraqis adopted oncen they approved their new constitution for the Republic of Iraq was one that they chose, not one imposed by the U.S. The proof that it was not the same as our system was that although it is representative, it is parliamentary in form, unlike the American system. Also, the Iraqi constitution acknowledges Islam. In short, the U.S. did not impose any system of government on Iraq, but liberated that country so that it could exercise self-determination. The recent reelection of the Iraqi governing party suggests contentment on the part of the Iraqi people, which is hardly a sign that Iraqis consider their government system to be one that was imposed by foreigners. In referring to Iraq's system of government, Obama undermined the premise of his speech of trying to establish mutual respect between the U.S. and the Muslim world by disrepecting the free choice of millions of Iraqis.
Second, Obama dismissed the Liberation as a "war of choice." All wars are wars of choice, even invasions by foreigners, as one could choose to make peace or even surrender instead of resisting. But what Obama and other liberal critics of the war, as well as isolationists, mean is that the U.S. could have survived without having liberated Iraq, as if U.S. survival were the standard for justification of war. Apparently, the survival of individual Americans does not justify war to them. Iraq's almost daily firing of missles at U.S. aircraft and its harboring and financing of terrorists who had targeted and killed Americans were acts of war, but to Obama, these attacks on the U.S. were tolerable acts, as was Iraq's defiance of United Nations resolutions to disarm its weapons of mass destruction programs. But one of the lessons of September 11 is that the U.S. must not tolerate terrorism anywhere. Obama made no mention in his speech of Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism.
Obama's third criticism of the Liberation of Iraq is that it might have been avoidable had the U.S. made more use of diplomacy. Apparently, 12 years and 14 U.N. resolutions was not enough diplomacy. And when liberals and isolationists argue that the U.S. should have relied more upon diplomacy, I ask: diplomacy with whom? With Saddam Hussein? He was already bound by a cease-fire and U.N. resolutions. No, they apparently mean diplomacy with the French and Germans. And to do what? To buy Hussein more time to stall weapons inspectors while he undermined the sanctions? The evidence learned since his overthrow is that he did retain some chemical weapons and materials and could have restarted his weapons of mass destruction program quickly once the sanctions, upon which he was cheating, had been lifted. Hussein also had missiles with ranges longer than permitted. Indeed, American troops in Kuwait were within his range, which refutes the notion that he did not pose a threat to Americans. Obama did not explain what he meant by more diplomacy. But he did attempt to justify more diplomacy by quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said "the less we use our power the greater it will be." However, Obama should contemplate why Jefferson used power against Muslims for economic reasons --the wars against the Barbary pirates.
In all his criticisms of Bush's decision to liberate Iraq, Obama contradicts his justifications for the war in Afghanistan. Obama, like other liberals opposed to the Liberation of Iraq, claims the U.S. imposed democracy on Iraq, but does not complain of an imposition of democracy in Afghanistan. He calls the overthrow of a terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iraq with the blood of Americans on its hands a "war of choice," but regards the overthrow of a terrorist-sponsoring regime in Afghanistan that itself had never attacked Americans as justified. The Taliban, had never attacked Americans, although it had harbored terrorists who did. Hussein had both harbored terrorists who had targeted and killed Americans, as well as financed suicide bombers who also had targeted and killed. Obama makes the same error as other opponents of the Liberation of Iraq in claiming that Iraq had never attacked Americans. Finally, Obama complains of insufficient diplomacy after 12 years in Iraq, but does not complain of the shorter wait in Afghanistan. In short, Obama, like other supporters of the War in Afghanistan who oppose the Liberation of Iraq, are inconsistent because they oppose the Liberation of Iraq for other reasons, either because of ignorance of the facts or political opposition to Bush, or as political cover to conceal their discomfort even with the overthrow of the Taliban, as many isolationists and those on the far left opposed.
Moreover, Obama's criticisms of the overthrow of Iraq's terrorist-sponsoring regime disrepects the American troops he commands who have been serving there. Instead, he should express gratitude to them for their service in the War on Terrorism. As I have noted in previous posts, Obama mostly has continued Bush's policies in the War on Terrorism, including in Iraq, but Obama's statements continue to be irresponsible. Going to such absurd lengths to seem humble in order to be sensitive to any Muslim perception of American arrogance only makes the U.S. seem all the weaker to its enemies, and therefore, all the more contemptible. Indeed, Obama undermines his own policy of mutual respect between Americans and Muslims if he fails to demonstrate enough respect for America, for if he cannot respect America, he cannot expect Muslims to reciprocate. Furthermore, no one can win an idealogical conflict, such as the struggle against Islamic militancy, by undermining the truth, as Obama does every time he criticizes the U.S. for defending itself and its allies against Muslim militants.
Obama used much of his address in Cairo to Muslims to criticize the West, the United States in particular, and especially former President George W. Bush. Obama even criticized Western colonization of Muslim lands, even though the U.S. never colonized one square inch of any Muslim state.
Obama says that he wants a new relationship between the United States and the Muslim world based upon mutual respect, as if the liberation by the U.S. under Bush of tens of millions of Muslims from brutal tyrannies was disrespectful. Obama's frequent criticism of the U.S. throughout his speech, makes the U.S. seem weak. His weak foreign policy, characterized by his offering of olive branches to mortal enemies like Iran without preconditions, have thus far proven unsuccessful. Obama's comments on Iran's nuclear program seeme to make a moral equivalence with the possession by the U.S. of nuclear weapons, which will only undermine his own opposition to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Obama's criticisms of the U.S. were disproportionate to his criticisms of Islamic militants. He never even used the words terrorist or terrorism, and yet made a moral equivalence between terrorist attacks by Muslim militants and the aggressive interrogation by the U.S. of three of the terrorists, which was enough for him to claim that the U.S. had failed to abide by its own principles. To make it even worse, Obama blamed the aggressive interrogations on anger, instead of on the intent of preventing any further attacks.
Obama criticized the Liberation of Iraq in three ways, although he did acknowledge that Iraqis were better off now that they are living in freedom than they were under the oppression of Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime. He criticized the imposition of a system of government on Iraq, called its liberation a "war of choice,"as if it were unnecessary, and suggested it were avoidable by declaring that he believed that the war proved that the U.S. should have depended more upon diplomacy. All three of Obama's criticisms were contradictory of his praise for the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban.
First, the U.S. did not impose a system of government on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was the one who had imposed a tyrannical system of government on the Iraqi people. I note that his Baathist regime imposed socialism, for example, which was an idea foreign to the Iraqi people. The U.S., out of necessity, did choose a provisional goverment during the occupation, but even some of its leaders, like the Khurds, had been popularly elected, while others were leaders of other opposition parties or were religious or tribal leaders. But the system of government that Iraqis adopted oncen they approved their new constitution for the Republic of Iraq was one that they chose, not one imposed by the U.S. The proof that it was not the same as our system was that although it is representative, it is parliamentary in form, unlike the American system. Also, the Iraqi constitution acknowledges Islam. In short, the U.S. did not impose any system of government on Iraq, but liberated that country so that it could exercise self-determination. The recent reelection of the Iraqi governing party suggests contentment on the part of the Iraqi people, which is hardly a sign that Iraqis consider their government system to be one that was imposed by foreigners. In referring to Iraq's system of government, Obama undermined the premise of his speech of trying to establish mutual respect between the U.S. and the Muslim world by disrepecting the free choice of millions of Iraqis.
Second, Obama dismissed the Liberation as a "war of choice." All wars are wars of choice, even invasions by foreigners, as one could choose to make peace or even surrender instead of resisting. But what Obama and other liberal critics of the war, as well as isolationists, mean is that the U.S. could have survived without having liberated Iraq, as if U.S. survival were the standard for justification of war. Apparently, the survival of individual Americans does not justify war to them. Iraq's almost daily firing of missles at U.S. aircraft and its harboring and financing of terrorists who had targeted and killed Americans were acts of war, but to Obama, these attacks on the U.S. were tolerable acts, as was Iraq's defiance of United Nations resolutions to disarm its weapons of mass destruction programs. But one of the lessons of September 11 is that the U.S. must not tolerate terrorism anywhere. Obama made no mention in his speech of Iraq's sponsorship of terrorism.
Obama's third criticism of the Liberation of Iraq is that it might have been avoidable had the U.S. made more use of diplomacy. Apparently, 12 years and 14 U.N. resolutions was not enough diplomacy. And when liberals and isolationists argue that the U.S. should have relied more upon diplomacy, I ask: diplomacy with whom? With Saddam Hussein? He was already bound by a cease-fire and U.N. resolutions. No, they apparently mean diplomacy with the French and Germans. And to do what? To buy Hussein more time to stall weapons inspectors while he undermined the sanctions? The evidence learned since his overthrow is that he did retain some chemical weapons and materials and could have restarted his weapons of mass destruction program quickly once the sanctions, upon which he was cheating, had been lifted. Hussein also had missiles with ranges longer than permitted. Indeed, American troops in Kuwait were within his range, which refutes the notion that he did not pose a threat to Americans. Obama did not explain what he meant by more diplomacy. But he did attempt to justify more diplomacy by quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said "the less we use our power the greater it will be." However, Obama should contemplate why Jefferson used power against Muslims for economic reasons --the wars against the Barbary pirates.
In all his criticisms of Bush's decision to liberate Iraq, Obama contradicts his justifications for the war in Afghanistan. Obama, like other liberals opposed to the Liberation of Iraq, claims the U.S. imposed democracy on Iraq, but does not complain of an imposition of democracy in Afghanistan. He calls the overthrow of a terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iraq with the blood of Americans on its hands a "war of choice," but regards the overthrow of a terrorist-sponsoring regime in Afghanistan that itself had never attacked Americans as justified. The Taliban, had never attacked Americans, although it had harbored terrorists who did. Hussein had both harbored terrorists who had targeted and killed Americans, as well as financed suicide bombers who also had targeted and killed. Obama makes the same error as other opponents of the Liberation of Iraq in claiming that Iraq had never attacked Americans. Finally, Obama complains of insufficient diplomacy after 12 years in Iraq, but does not complain of the shorter wait in Afghanistan. In short, Obama, like other supporters of the War in Afghanistan who oppose the Liberation of Iraq, are inconsistent because they oppose the Liberation of Iraq for other reasons, either because of ignorance of the facts or political opposition to Bush, or as political cover to conceal their discomfort even with the overthrow of the Taliban, as many isolationists and those on the far left opposed.
Moreover, Obama's criticisms of the overthrow of Iraq's terrorist-sponsoring regime disrepects the American troops he commands who have been serving there. Instead, he should express gratitude to them for their service in the War on Terrorism. As I have noted in previous posts, Obama mostly has continued Bush's policies in the War on Terrorism, including in Iraq, but Obama's statements continue to be irresponsible. Going to such absurd lengths to seem humble in order to be sensitive to any Muslim perception of American arrogance only makes the U.S. seem all the weaker to its enemies, and therefore, all the more contemptible. Indeed, Obama undermines his own policy of mutual respect between Americans and Muslims if he fails to demonstrate enough respect for America, for if he cannot respect America, he cannot expect Muslims to reciprocate. Furthermore, no one can win an idealogical conflict, such as the struggle against Islamic militancy, by undermining the truth, as Obama does every time he criticizes the U.S. for defending itself and its allies against Muslim militants.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Monthly Blog Hit Report
I am pleased to report that in the two months since I installed my blog's new counter, Statcounter.com, my blog has received nearly 320 hits. Almost 20 people visited my blog directly or after searching for my name, while nearly 220 others landed on my blog after searches led them to various posts.
Readers were attracted to my blog by 34 posts, including several from as far back as January, not including those who visited my blog homepage directly. Several of these readers also viewed my blog homepage or went on to view other posts, including several in addition to the 34 posts upon which they landed.
Hits have come from 34 states and the District of Columbia, as well as 26 foreign states on six continents! The most hits in the United States have come from California, New York, New Jersey and Florida. The most foreign hits have come from the United Kingdom, Canada and Malaysia.
My blog's most popular post has been The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization (with hits from the U.S. and 14 foreign states on 4 continents), which has recieved over 70 total hits. The next most popular posts have been Father Stanley Jaki, Rest in Peace, Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy From Bush; The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration and Lepanto, by GK Chesterton.
In addition to the hits from the Holy See and the New York Times mentioned in my first monthly blog hit report, since then other interesting hits came from JP Morgan Chase, the Faculty of Advocates, the Province of British Columbia and the U.S. House of Representatives. Hits have also continued to come from numerous secondary schools, colleges and universities.
Thank you for visiting my blog, dear readers, especially those who are Followers, or who post comments, or have passed along comments to me externally from my blog. I appreciate your support!
Readers were attracted to my blog by 34 posts, including several from as far back as January, not including those who visited my blog homepage directly. Several of these readers also viewed my blog homepage or went on to view other posts, including several in addition to the 34 posts upon which they landed.
Hits have come from 34 states and the District of Columbia, as well as 26 foreign states on six continents! The most hits in the United States have come from California, New York, New Jersey and Florida. The most foreign hits have come from the United Kingdom, Canada and Malaysia.
My blog's most popular post has been The Rise and Fall of Islamic Civilization (with hits from the U.S. and 14 foreign states on 4 continents), which has recieved over 70 total hits. The next most popular posts have been Father Stanley Jaki, Rest in Peace, Obama Did Not Inherit the Economy From Bush; The Economy, Deficit and Debt at George W. Bush’s Inauguration and Lepanto, by GK Chesterton.
In addition to the hits from the Holy See and the New York Times mentioned in my first monthly blog hit report, since then other interesting hits came from JP Morgan Chase, the Faculty of Advocates, the Province of British Columbia and the U.S. House of Representatives. Hits have also continued to come from numerous secondary schools, colleges and universities.
Thank you for visiting my blog, dear readers, especially those who are Followers, or who post comments, or have passed along comments to me externally from my blog. I appreciate your support!
"Terrorism" vs. "Militancy"
The recent shooting of Army personnel in Arkansas by a Muslim apparently motivated by Islamic militancy, which followed a shooting days before of a notorious abortionist, raises the question of the definition of terrorism, in order to answer the question about whether such domestic political acts of violence constitute terrorism. These attacks were examples of militancy, not terrorism.
The word terrorism has been used so broadly that it has become diluted. Thus, its degree of evil has been minimized. When one labels all forms of violence as terrorism, one minimizes the particular evil of terrorism. Indeed, terrorism has been confused with all acts of political violence -- and even some that are not political. On the other hand, terrorism has been confused with other great evils such as mass-murder motivated by revenge or genocide. In short, terrorism has become so broadly used a word that it has lost its meaning.
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians with violence or the threat of violence in order to intimidate a certain populace into demanding that its government change its policies according to the wishes of the terrorists. Although I could write an essay explaining each point in great detail, I shall let the above definition suffice for now.
Indeed, not all forms of political violence are acts of terrorism. Terrorism is a strategy defined by its target, not its cause. Whether a certain cause is just or not is irrelevant to the definition of terrorism. Therefore, it is not true that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The particular evil of terrorism is that it targets innocent civilians instead of political or military leaders.
Terrorism is not defined by its methods, either. A bombing, for example, even if motivated by political purposes, is not necessarily a terrorist attack. A bombing may be motivated by political opposition or revenge, or be intended to target only a few individuals, neither of which would be intended to intimidate the populace.
Those who target political leaders or military forces are "militants" and could be called "insurgents" or "guerrillas," while those who militants who target property are "saboteurs" specifically. Attacks that are targeted on specific individuals with whom the attacker has a grievance are not terrorists because the target is not innocent civilians with the intent to intimidate them. In contrast, although some people might be frightened by attacks that target others, such attacks are not terrorism because the intent of a terrorist is to intimidate all innocent civilians within a certain populace, not to harm just certain individuals.
Most political acts of violence that have occurred within the United States have been called "terrorism" by the media, politicians and other commentators. These acts are not terrorism, but are militancy of some kind or another, in contrast to the September 11 Attacks. All such militancy is unacceptable and must be prevented or punished, but it is not the same thing as terrorism. Even the legitimate exercise of self-defense by the United States or others is called "terrorism" by its foreign and domestic opponents, but the charge is baseless because legitimate self-defense targets enemy military forces in order to prevent more attacks, not innocent civilians.
The purpose of the War on Terrorism is to eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks against Americans or their interests, but although one of its aspects is to eliminate terrorism against the United States in particular, its broader aspect is to eliminate all militancy that is hostile to the U.S. Islamic militancy, both abroad and domestically, especially continues to pose a threat to Americans. It must be resisted in all its strategies and tactics.
The word terrorism has been used so broadly that it has become diluted. Thus, its degree of evil has been minimized. When one labels all forms of violence as terrorism, one minimizes the particular evil of terrorism. Indeed, terrorism has been confused with all acts of political violence -- and even some that are not political. On the other hand, terrorism has been confused with other great evils such as mass-murder motivated by revenge or genocide. In short, terrorism has become so broadly used a word that it has lost its meaning.
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians with violence or the threat of violence in order to intimidate a certain populace into demanding that its government change its policies according to the wishes of the terrorists. Although I could write an essay explaining each point in great detail, I shall let the above definition suffice for now.
Indeed, not all forms of political violence are acts of terrorism. Terrorism is a strategy defined by its target, not its cause. Whether a certain cause is just or not is irrelevant to the definition of terrorism. Therefore, it is not true that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The particular evil of terrorism is that it targets innocent civilians instead of political or military leaders.
Terrorism is not defined by its methods, either. A bombing, for example, even if motivated by political purposes, is not necessarily a terrorist attack. A bombing may be motivated by political opposition or revenge, or be intended to target only a few individuals, neither of which would be intended to intimidate the populace.
Those who target political leaders or military forces are "militants" and could be called "insurgents" or "guerrillas," while those who militants who target property are "saboteurs" specifically. Attacks that are targeted on specific individuals with whom the attacker has a grievance are not terrorists because the target is not innocent civilians with the intent to intimidate them. In contrast, although some people might be frightened by attacks that target others, such attacks are not terrorism because the intent of a terrorist is to intimidate all innocent civilians within a certain populace, not to harm just certain individuals.
Most political acts of violence that have occurred within the United States have been called "terrorism" by the media, politicians and other commentators. These acts are not terrorism, but are militancy of some kind or another, in contrast to the September 11 Attacks. All such militancy is unacceptable and must be prevented or punished, but it is not the same thing as terrorism. Even the legitimate exercise of self-defense by the United States or others is called "terrorism" by its foreign and domestic opponents, but the charge is baseless because legitimate self-defense targets enemy military forces in order to prevent more attacks, not innocent civilians.
The purpose of the War on Terrorism is to eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks against Americans or their interests, but although one of its aspects is to eliminate terrorism against the United States in particular, its broader aspect is to eliminate all militancy that is hostile to the U.S. Islamic militancy, both abroad and domestically, especially continues to pose a threat to Americans. It must be resisted in all its strategies and tactics.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Misleading Media Phrases
There are several phrases used lately by the media, politicians and other commentators that are misleading. Although some of them are of particular interest to conservatives, there are others that are more generally problematic.
“Health care” vs. “health insurance”
The issue of how to pay for health care, as opposed to the providing of health care itself, is being called “health care.” Many of the current issues concerning health are not related to the quality or manner of health care, but are about how to pay for it. The matter of paying for health care is called “health insurance,” not “health care.” Indeed, the United States has the finest health care system in the world, which is evidenced by the fact that many foreigners come to the U.S. for treatment (especially Canadians fleeing their government health care system). Moreover, no one legally may be denied emergency health care because of an inability to pay for it. In short, health care is not the main problem, but health insurance is. There is a point to be made that having health insurance is healthier because it makes one likelier to avail one’s self of health care, but despite any degree of relationship between the two, health care and health insurance are nevertheless two distinct matters. The media is deliberately conflating the two in order to make it appear as if the issue is about providing health care to people who otherwise would not have access to it (Note: the media and others use the code word access to health care in order to mean insurance, in order to imply the right to receive health care; thus, when they advocate for government health insurance, they refer to government health care misleadingly as "access to health care," as if the lack of health insurance necessarily equals a lack of access to health care).
Furthermore, the media and other commentators are wrong when they describe those who do not have health insurance as individuals “who cannot afford health care” or even “health insurance.” As noted, emergency health care is free, but even referring to people without health insurance as those who are “unable to afford it” is not necessarily correct, as many are wealthy people who do not need health insurance because they can afford to pay for their health care or others (like the Amish) who not believe in it. Many others are simply between jobs, and the most are healthy young people who exercise the choice not to purchase health insurance after calculating that the benefit of having it is not worth the cost, even if they could afford it.
“Technically at war” vs. “legally at war”
The media often describes North and South Korea as still “technically at war,” as if they have been at peace since the 1953 Armistice, except only for the legal formality of not having concluded a peace treaty. The term “technically” is misleading because it appears to reduce the situation to a mere technicality, that is to say, one that implies that the opposite is true (in this case, it falsely implies that they really are enjoying peace), instead of accurately reflecting reality. What the media means to say is that the two Koreas are still “legally at war,” meaning that they are effectively only in a truce, not at peace. However, it has been a shaky truce, one that has been violated often. Indeed, the two Koreas have been effectively in a continuous state of war since the signing of the Armistice – albeit sporadically or at a relatively low level – which has caused several hundred fatalities, including many Americans. Referring to the Koreas as "technically at war" minimizes the threat from North Korea, which has frequently violated the Armistice and even engaged in terrorism. Now that North Korea has renounced the Armistice, it will be interesting to see how the media explains the state of war without even any legal truce that exists between the two Koreas, regardless of whether any more combat occurs.
“Abortion rights” vs. “the [supposed] right to an abortion”
Without examining the issue of whether abortion is a right in the first place -- which it is not --even if it were, it would be one right, not a plural amount of “rights.” There is either a "right to an abortion," as to any other medical procedure, or there is not, but there are not multiple rights associated with abortion. A supposed "right to abortion" is not like “property rights,” which include a bundle of specific rights (the right to buy, the right to sell, the right to lease, etc.). It is one right, if it were a right at all. The media is referring to "abortion rights" in order to make the concept of a right to an abortion seem even more acceptable by implying that it is based upon multiple rights.
“Homicide attack” vs. “suicide attack”
Some in the media have adopted the practice of referring to terrorist attacks carried out by suicide attackers as “homicide attacks” or “homicide bombings,” etc. Although their intention to take the focus of the attack from the terrorist and place it on the victims is good, the term is misleading because it reduces clarity. All terrorist attacks that cause fatalities, whether they are carried out by suicide attackers or not, are homicidal, whereas only those specific attacks carried out by suicide attackers are “suicide attacks.” Referring to all attacks as “homicide attacks,” therefore, loses the distinction between the general kind and the specific kind of attack.
On a related note, the media has adopted the practice of referring to the Taliban, at times, as “militants,” instead of referring to them as “Taliban militants.” Leaving aside the issue of whether it as appropriate to refer to terrorist sponsors like the Taliban as “militants” just because they engage in lawful combat in addition to sponsoring unlawful combat, the point is that when the media refers to combat fatalities in Afghanistan, its reference to the deaths of “militants,” a term general enough to include presumably even American allies, fails to express clearly that the Taliban are the ones suffering most of the fatalities. Instead, the general term “militants” allows the media to continue its narrative that the United States has been losing the war in Afghanistan, the evidence for which they cite being the increase in combat fatalities, especially of “militants,” even though it is the Taliban who have suffered the overwhelming majority of the fatalities. In other words -- in a shocking twist of the facts -- the fact that the Taliban enemy is killed by the dozens every week, while the U.S. and its allies suffer relatively few fatalities, is used by the media as propaganda for the notion that the Taliban is winning the war in Afghanistan because the media uses the total number of combat fatalities in Afghanistan as evidence that the U.S. is losing the war!
We conservatives, as well as anyone else concerned about accuracy, should avoid these misleading phrases.
“Health care” vs. “health insurance”
The issue of how to pay for health care, as opposed to the providing of health care itself, is being called “health care.” Many of the current issues concerning health are not related to the quality or manner of health care, but are about how to pay for it. The matter of paying for health care is called “health insurance,” not “health care.” Indeed, the United States has the finest health care system in the world, which is evidenced by the fact that many foreigners come to the U.S. for treatment (especially Canadians fleeing their government health care system). Moreover, no one legally may be denied emergency health care because of an inability to pay for it. In short, health care is not the main problem, but health insurance is. There is a point to be made that having health insurance is healthier because it makes one likelier to avail one’s self of health care, but despite any degree of relationship between the two, health care and health insurance are nevertheless two distinct matters. The media is deliberately conflating the two in order to make it appear as if the issue is about providing health care to people who otherwise would not have access to it (Note: the media and others use the code word access to health care in order to mean insurance, in order to imply the right to receive health care; thus, when they advocate for government health insurance, they refer to government health care misleadingly as "access to health care," as if the lack of health insurance necessarily equals a lack of access to health care).
Furthermore, the media and other commentators are wrong when they describe those who do not have health insurance as individuals “who cannot afford health care” or even “health insurance.” As noted, emergency health care is free, but even referring to people without health insurance as those who are “unable to afford it” is not necessarily correct, as many are wealthy people who do not need health insurance because they can afford to pay for their health care or others (like the Amish) who not believe in it. Many others are simply between jobs, and the most are healthy young people who exercise the choice not to purchase health insurance after calculating that the benefit of having it is not worth the cost, even if they could afford it.
“Technically at war” vs. “legally at war”
The media often describes North and South Korea as still “technically at war,” as if they have been at peace since the 1953 Armistice, except only for the legal formality of not having concluded a peace treaty. The term “technically” is misleading because it appears to reduce the situation to a mere technicality, that is to say, one that implies that the opposite is true (in this case, it falsely implies that they really are enjoying peace), instead of accurately reflecting reality. What the media means to say is that the two Koreas are still “legally at war,” meaning that they are effectively only in a truce, not at peace. However, it has been a shaky truce, one that has been violated often. Indeed, the two Koreas have been effectively in a continuous state of war since the signing of the Armistice – albeit sporadically or at a relatively low level – which has caused several hundred fatalities, including many Americans. Referring to the Koreas as "technically at war" minimizes the threat from North Korea, which has frequently violated the Armistice and even engaged in terrorism. Now that North Korea has renounced the Armistice, it will be interesting to see how the media explains the state of war without even any legal truce that exists between the two Koreas, regardless of whether any more combat occurs.
“Abortion rights” vs. “the [supposed] right to an abortion”
Without examining the issue of whether abortion is a right in the first place -- which it is not --even if it were, it would be one right, not a plural amount of “rights.” There is either a "right to an abortion," as to any other medical procedure, or there is not, but there are not multiple rights associated with abortion. A supposed "right to abortion" is not like “property rights,” which include a bundle of specific rights (the right to buy, the right to sell, the right to lease, etc.). It is one right, if it were a right at all. The media is referring to "abortion rights" in order to make the concept of a right to an abortion seem even more acceptable by implying that it is based upon multiple rights.
“Homicide attack” vs. “suicide attack”
Some in the media have adopted the practice of referring to terrorist attacks carried out by suicide attackers as “homicide attacks” or “homicide bombings,” etc. Although their intention to take the focus of the attack from the terrorist and place it on the victims is good, the term is misleading because it reduces clarity. All terrorist attacks that cause fatalities, whether they are carried out by suicide attackers or not, are homicidal, whereas only those specific attacks carried out by suicide attackers are “suicide attacks.” Referring to all attacks as “homicide attacks,” therefore, loses the distinction between the general kind and the specific kind of attack.
On a related note, the media has adopted the practice of referring to the Taliban, at times, as “militants,” instead of referring to them as “Taliban militants.” Leaving aside the issue of whether it as appropriate to refer to terrorist sponsors like the Taliban as “militants” just because they engage in lawful combat in addition to sponsoring unlawful combat, the point is that when the media refers to combat fatalities in Afghanistan, its reference to the deaths of “militants,” a term general enough to include presumably even American allies, fails to express clearly that the Taliban are the ones suffering most of the fatalities. Instead, the general term “militants” allows the media to continue its narrative that the United States has been losing the war in Afghanistan, the evidence for which they cite being the increase in combat fatalities, especially of “militants,” even though it is the Taliban who have suffered the overwhelming majority of the fatalities. In other words -- in a shocking twist of the facts -- the fact that the Taliban enemy is killed by the dozens every week, while the U.S. and its allies suffer relatively few fatalities, is used by the media as propaganda for the notion that the Taliban is winning the war in Afghanistan because the media uses the total number of combat fatalities in Afghanistan as evidence that the U.S. is losing the war!
We conservatives, as well as anyone else concerned about accuracy, should avoid these misleading phrases.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Politicians Influence Consumer Confidence
Consumer confidence is crucial to the economy, as the more confidence people have, the more consumption they are willing to do or risk they are willing to take, which means the more investments they are willing to make. Conversely, the less confidence people have, the less investment is made. Politicians can significantly effect the economy by influencing consumer confidence, for better or worse.
The always-optimistic President Ronald Reagan inspired confidence in the American people that the obvious-distressed economy would recover, despite the challenges his recovery plan encountered. His tax cuts allowed people to keep more of their earnings and to work more without the fear of losing their increased earnings to greater taxation, but Americans needed the confidence to spend their greater disposable income, which the cheerful Reagan amply supplied. In this sense, even his liberal critics gave him a left-handed compliment when claiming that all he did was to make people feel better; they are admitting that at least his encouragement caused some benefit to the economy.
After the prosperity of 1982-1990, the economy entered into a mild, brief recession. However, the recovery took longer than usual. By 1992, Bill Clinton adopted the economy as his main presidential campaign issue, exaggerating its condition as "the worst economy in fifty years." There was no criticism of him for reducing consumer confidence with his pessimism. The recovering economy was growing robustly by the final quarter of the administration of President George H.W. Bush, but Clinton took the credit soon after taking office for the increased prosperity, by which point Clinton had switched sharply to being optimistic about the economy. He then boasted about the state of the economy during his time in office, despite some of his harmful policies, like tax increases, and the contribution made by Congress in blocking his worst proposals, and once Republicans gained the majority, of forcing Clinton to acquiesce to better policies. Clinton bragged as if it were the greatest economy ever, even though the economic statistics were similar to those of the 1980s, which Democrats and liberals had mostly dismissed.
By the end of the Clinton Administration, economic growth began to slow. As a candidate for the office of president, George W. Bush cited the "warning signs" of an economic slow-down as a need for his proposed tax cuts, which represented a refund of the budget surplus. Liberal Democrats accused him of "talking down" the economy, the danger of which they suddenly recognized now that they were in power at a time of economic stress. No one seemed to notice the contradiction that these liberal defenders of Clinton were making, that the economy supposedly was still strong, but yet vulnerable to being undone by a few carefully-chosen words by one man. But in a sense they were admitting that Bill Clinton had done the same thing in 1992. The difference was that Bush had done so far more responsibly, and necessarily, than Clinton had. Moreover, Bush did so in order to propose policies to improve the economy (tax cuts), instead of ones Clinton proposed (tax increases) that worsened it. The liberals were right that even presidential candidates can effect the economy, but their inconsistency about it is noteworthy.
Like Clinton, Barak Obama also campaigned on the economy, making the "worst financial crisis," meaning the worst banking crisis, "since the Great Depression" sound like the economy was in even worse distress than it was. And like Clinton, Obama talked the economy down irresponsibly in order to win election. Although Obama proposed some tax cuts, he also proposed some tax increases, along with massive borrowing and spending. Unlike Clinton, however, Obama continued to sound pessimistic during the first few months of his administration, even though the overwhelming majority of ecnomists predicted the economy would recover on its own, in order to gain approval for his radical policies, blaming Bush for the bad economy all the while. When Obama's pessimism became too much for the market to bear, he made a belated sudden sharp turn toward optimism, attributing the early signs of the expected recovery to his own policies. Just as his pessimism was harmful to the economy, his optimism was probably beneficial. The recent jump in consumer confidence suggests that consumers will begin to increase spending, and investors their investing, although how much of their optimism is attributable to recent better economic news or to Obama's change in attitude remains to be seen.
One noteworthy difference between Ronald Reagan as a candidate, and Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, is that Reagan's strong criticisms of the economy were not exaggerations, as the economy during the Carter Administration was obviously in poor condition. Indeed, President Jimmy Carter adopted pessimism as his official policy, notably in his infamous "Malaise" speech, in which he urged Americans to accept economic decline, which precluded any criticism of Reagan for talking the economy down. Like Reagan, Clinton and Obama deserve credit that their expressions of optimism benefited the economy. The more important difference between Reagan and the two Democratic presidents who took office after him is that he proposed, and later implemented, economically beneficial policies, which he could boast had benefited the economy, whereas Clinton and Obama's proposals were more more mixed, at best. George W. Bush was different from all of these presidential candidates in offering only tempered criticism of the economy, and yet was the only one who received criticism for his comments about the economy as a candidate.
Obama should continue to sound optimistic about the American economy, but, like Reagan and Bush and unlike Clinton, this optimism should be based upon confidence in American resilience more so than in specific policies. He should resist the temptation to attribute all economic improvements to government, and give the American people any credit they might deserve for economic recovery. Obama's optimism would be more effective in inspiring consumer confidence if he adopted more economically beneficial policies.
The always-optimistic President Ronald Reagan inspired confidence in the American people that the obvious-distressed economy would recover, despite the challenges his recovery plan encountered. His tax cuts allowed people to keep more of their earnings and to work more without the fear of losing their increased earnings to greater taxation, but Americans needed the confidence to spend their greater disposable income, which the cheerful Reagan amply supplied. In this sense, even his liberal critics gave him a left-handed compliment when claiming that all he did was to make people feel better; they are admitting that at least his encouragement caused some benefit to the economy.
After the prosperity of 1982-1990, the economy entered into a mild, brief recession. However, the recovery took longer than usual. By 1992, Bill Clinton adopted the economy as his main presidential campaign issue, exaggerating its condition as "the worst economy in fifty years." There was no criticism of him for reducing consumer confidence with his pessimism. The recovering economy was growing robustly by the final quarter of the administration of President George H.W. Bush, but Clinton took the credit soon after taking office for the increased prosperity, by which point Clinton had switched sharply to being optimistic about the economy. He then boasted about the state of the economy during his time in office, despite some of his harmful policies, like tax increases, and the contribution made by Congress in blocking his worst proposals, and once Republicans gained the majority, of forcing Clinton to acquiesce to better policies. Clinton bragged as if it were the greatest economy ever, even though the economic statistics were similar to those of the 1980s, which Democrats and liberals had mostly dismissed.
By the end of the Clinton Administration, economic growth began to slow. As a candidate for the office of president, George W. Bush cited the "warning signs" of an economic slow-down as a need for his proposed tax cuts, which represented a refund of the budget surplus. Liberal Democrats accused him of "talking down" the economy, the danger of which they suddenly recognized now that they were in power at a time of economic stress. No one seemed to notice the contradiction that these liberal defenders of Clinton were making, that the economy supposedly was still strong, but yet vulnerable to being undone by a few carefully-chosen words by one man. But in a sense they were admitting that Bill Clinton had done the same thing in 1992. The difference was that Bush had done so far more responsibly, and necessarily, than Clinton had. Moreover, Bush did so in order to propose policies to improve the economy (tax cuts), instead of ones Clinton proposed (tax increases) that worsened it. The liberals were right that even presidential candidates can effect the economy, but their inconsistency about it is noteworthy.
Like Clinton, Barak Obama also campaigned on the economy, making the "worst financial crisis," meaning the worst banking crisis, "since the Great Depression" sound like the economy was in even worse distress than it was. And like Clinton, Obama talked the economy down irresponsibly in order to win election. Although Obama proposed some tax cuts, he also proposed some tax increases, along with massive borrowing and spending. Unlike Clinton, however, Obama continued to sound pessimistic during the first few months of his administration, even though the overwhelming majority of ecnomists predicted the economy would recover on its own, in order to gain approval for his radical policies, blaming Bush for the bad economy all the while. When Obama's pessimism became too much for the market to bear, he made a belated sudden sharp turn toward optimism, attributing the early signs of the expected recovery to his own policies. Just as his pessimism was harmful to the economy, his optimism was probably beneficial. The recent jump in consumer confidence suggests that consumers will begin to increase spending, and investors their investing, although how much of their optimism is attributable to recent better economic news or to Obama's change in attitude remains to be seen.
One noteworthy difference between Ronald Reagan as a candidate, and Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, is that Reagan's strong criticisms of the economy were not exaggerations, as the economy during the Carter Administration was obviously in poor condition. Indeed, President Jimmy Carter adopted pessimism as his official policy, notably in his infamous "Malaise" speech, in which he urged Americans to accept economic decline, which precluded any criticism of Reagan for talking the economy down. Like Reagan, Clinton and Obama deserve credit that their expressions of optimism benefited the economy. The more important difference between Reagan and the two Democratic presidents who took office after him is that he proposed, and later implemented, economically beneficial policies, which he could boast had benefited the economy, whereas Clinton and Obama's proposals were more more mixed, at best. George W. Bush was different from all of these presidential candidates in offering only tempered criticism of the economy, and yet was the only one who received criticism for his comments about the economy as a candidate.
Obama should continue to sound optimistic about the American economy, but, like Reagan and Bush and unlike Clinton, this optimism should be based upon confidence in American resilience more so than in specific policies. He should resist the temptation to attribute all economic improvements to government, and give the American people any credit they might deserve for economic recovery. Obama's optimism would be more effective in inspiring consumer confidence if he adopted more economically beneficial policies.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Memorial Day Is Not Meant to Be a Happy Holiday
I am pleased to return to my blog to post, after an absence of over a week in order to tend once again to local political matters. Thank you for your patience and continued loyalty to my blog.
The United States will commemorate Memorial Day on Monday, May 25. This federal and state holiday, first observed after the War Between the States, honors those who gave their lives in service to the U.S. Thus, it is not a day of celebration, but a day of mourning, albeit one tempered by gratitude for the liberty won by the supreme sacrifice of others.
As such, it is inappropriate to speak of "celebrating" the holiday, or to wish someone a "Happy Memorial Day," or to make some similar statement. Although the intention is good, it is disrespectful to our war dead to dilute the purpose of the day by watering it down with extraneous concerns.
The time will come soon to celebrate the blessings of liberty -- on Independence Day, but for now it is the time to honor the dead who made that liberty possible. Perhaps it is no irony that Memorial Day comes before Independence Day on the calendar, just as the blood of the first patriots had to be shed in order to water the tree of liberty.
The United States will commemorate Memorial Day on Monday, May 25. This federal and state holiday, first observed after the War Between the States, honors those who gave their lives in service to the U.S. Thus, it is not a day of celebration, but a day of mourning, albeit one tempered by gratitude for the liberty won by the supreme sacrifice of others.
As such, it is inappropriate to speak of "celebrating" the holiday, or to wish someone a "Happy Memorial Day," or to make some similar statement. Although the intention is good, it is disrespectful to our war dead to dilute the purpose of the day by watering it down with extraneous concerns.
The time will come soon to celebrate the blessings of liberty -- on Independence Day, but for now it is the time to honor the dead who made that liberty possible. Perhaps it is no irony that Memorial Day comes before Independence Day on the calendar, just as the blood of the first patriots had to be shed in order to water the tree of liberty.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Pelosi Is the One Who Is Misleading on WMD in Iraq, Not the CIA
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has been attempting to defend herself by accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of "misleading" on the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Pelosi, who was among the liberal Democratic critics of the Bush Administration's enhanced interrogations of terrorist suspects, is trying to deny the CIA's claim that she was briefed about the techniques, along with other members of Congress, and did not object to the interrogation techniques at the time or afterward.
In order to dismiss the convincing evidence that she was, in fact, briefed about the enhanced interrogations, Pelosi is attempting to impeach the CIA's credibility by smearing it with the canard that it misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The charge that WMD were not found in Iraq has been repeated so frequently -- without challenge --that it has become widely believed. But it is not true. Coalition forces have found several hundred weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the form of artillery shells with chemical warheads. According to a declassified report by the Department of Defense, over 500 chemical weapons had been found already as of three years ago. Moreover, other prohibited chemicals have been found that could have quickly been weaponized, a fact which would have made the question of assembled weapons of mass destructive moot. Although no stockpiles of WMDs were found, it is false to say that none were found, as many WMDs were scattered amidst Iraq's conventional munitions.
What was more misleading than any exaggerations by intelligence officials or others about Iraq's WMD programs during the Saddam Hussein era, were the claims before the Liberation of Iraq by liberals and isolationists that Iraq did not have WMD. These claims were based upon a belief that the dishonest Hussein had told the truth that he had destroyed his known WMDs, despite his refusal to prove that he had done so, as he was obligated to do by United Nations resolutions. It was not necessary to find WMDs or WMD materials in order to be skeptical of Hussein's claims that Iraq did not have WMDs. But the finding of Iraq's WMDs and materials proves beyond any doubt that it is liberals like Pelosi, not the Bush Administration and its supporters, who are misleading about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, something that needs to be said more often. In short, with her attempt to impeach the CIA's credibility, Pelosi has impeached her own.
In order to dismiss the convincing evidence that she was, in fact, briefed about the enhanced interrogations, Pelosi is attempting to impeach the CIA's credibility by smearing it with the canard that it misled about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The charge that WMD were not found in Iraq has been repeated so frequently -- without challenge --that it has become widely believed. But it is not true. Coalition forces have found several hundred weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in the form of artillery shells with chemical warheads. According to a declassified report by the Department of Defense, over 500 chemical weapons had been found already as of three years ago. Moreover, other prohibited chemicals have been found that could have quickly been weaponized, a fact which would have made the question of assembled weapons of mass destructive moot. Although no stockpiles of WMDs were found, it is false to say that none were found, as many WMDs were scattered amidst Iraq's conventional munitions.
What was more misleading than any exaggerations by intelligence officials or others about Iraq's WMD programs during the Saddam Hussein era, were the claims before the Liberation of Iraq by liberals and isolationists that Iraq did not have WMD. These claims were based upon a belief that the dishonest Hussein had told the truth that he had destroyed his known WMDs, despite his refusal to prove that he had done so, as he was obligated to do by United Nations resolutions. It was not necessary to find WMDs or WMD materials in order to be skeptical of Hussein's claims that Iraq did not have WMDs. But the finding of Iraq's WMDs and materials proves beyond any doubt that it is liberals like Pelosi, not the Bush Administration and its supporters, who are misleading about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, something that needs to be said more often. In short, with her attempt to impeach the CIA's credibility, Pelosi has impeached her own.
Obama Reverses Himself on Military Tribunals
President Barak Obama has decided to reverse his earlier decision to suspend military tribunals for suspected terrorists. In addition, he will continue to detain some terrorists indefinitely, without trial -- even on American soil!
Obama will make minor changes to the military tribunals, such as eliminating hearsay evidence, in returning to the policy of the Bush Administration that Democrats and liberals had criticized and that he had sought to eliminate. Some terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay will be released to foreign governments or tried in civilian courts.
The indefinite detention of terrorists who cannot be released to foreign states or tried in civilian courts represents yet another continuation of another policy of former President George W. Bush that was criticized harshly by Democrats, liberals and other civil libertarians. Obama had promised during the presidential election campaign to close down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, although so did his Republican opponent, John McCain. Indeed, even the Bush Administration had agreed to close it down. But Obama authorized the camp's closure early in his Administration without having announced any plan for what to do with the inmates there. Now the supposedly un-Bush president will continue with the indefinite detention of terrorists, which was the most controversial part of the Bush policy for terrorists captured on the battlefield abroad. The Bush Administration sent the detainees to Guantanamo because it is not U.S. soil, believing it to be out of the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. That the Obama Administration will detain the terrorists on American soil is all the more extraordinary.
As I have noted in previous posts, Obama is vindicating Bush by following most of his predecessor's policies after having been his harshest critic. Apparently, either Obama has concluded that Bush was right and he was wrong, or that the difference between him and Bush was more personal, that is to say, that the policies are good as long as Obama is the one who implements them, instead of Bush.
I should note that the military tribunal reversal comes just days after Obama reversed himself on the publication of photographs of excessive interrogations (not the enhanced interrogations currently in controversy, but ones that went beyond the legal limit, for which the perpetrators have already been punished) during the Bush Administration, apparently coming to the conclusion that the concerns expressed most vociferously by Dick Cheney, and echoed by the military's top generals responsible for the War on Terrorism, were valid.
Obama's decision on the photographs comes after his decision not to prosecute Bush Administration lawyers for their advice that the enhanced interrogations would not constitute torture. Both decisions disappointed liberal critics of the Bush Administration, although there remains the concern that Obama's consideration of prosecutions of interrogators and even lawyers (the latter of which would have been unprecedented) were sufficient to have a chilling effect on intelligence agencies, even though he eventually came to the right decision.
Obama's vindications leave only one significant policy change in the War on Terrorism remaining -- his elimination of aggressive interrogations and his publication of what techniques are permissible. But one change could be all the terrorists need in order to carry out their next successful attack.
Obama will make minor changes to the military tribunals, such as eliminating hearsay evidence, in returning to the policy of the Bush Administration that Democrats and liberals had criticized and that he had sought to eliminate. Some terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay will be released to foreign governments or tried in civilian courts.
The indefinite detention of terrorists who cannot be released to foreign states or tried in civilian courts represents yet another continuation of another policy of former President George W. Bush that was criticized harshly by Democrats, liberals and other civil libertarians. Obama had promised during the presidential election campaign to close down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, although so did his Republican opponent, John McCain. Indeed, even the Bush Administration had agreed to close it down. But Obama authorized the camp's closure early in his Administration without having announced any plan for what to do with the inmates there. Now the supposedly un-Bush president will continue with the indefinite detention of terrorists, which was the most controversial part of the Bush policy for terrorists captured on the battlefield abroad. The Bush Administration sent the detainees to Guantanamo because it is not U.S. soil, believing it to be out of the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. That the Obama Administration will detain the terrorists on American soil is all the more extraordinary.
As I have noted in previous posts, Obama is vindicating Bush by following most of his predecessor's policies after having been his harshest critic. Apparently, either Obama has concluded that Bush was right and he was wrong, or that the difference between him and Bush was more personal, that is to say, that the policies are good as long as Obama is the one who implements them, instead of Bush.
I should note that the military tribunal reversal comes just days after Obama reversed himself on the publication of photographs of excessive interrogations (not the enhanced interrogations currently in controversy, but ones that went beyond the legal limit, for which the perpetrators have already been punished) during the Bush Administration, apparently coming to the conclusion that the concerns expressed most vociferously by Dick Cheney, and echoed by the military's top generals responsible for the War on Terrorism, were valid.
Obama's decision on the photographs comes after his decision not to prosecute Bush Administration lawyers for their advice that the enhanced interrogations would not constitute torture. Both decisions disappointed liberal critics of the Bush Administration, although there remains the concern that Obama's consideration of prosecutions of interrogators and even lawyers (the latter of which would have been unprecedented) were sufficient to have a chilling effect on intelligence agencies, even though he eventually came to the right decision.
Obama's vindications leave only one significant policy change in the War on Terrorism remaining -- his elimination of aggressive interrogations and his publication of what techniques are permissible. But one change could be all the terrorists need in order to carry out their next successful attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)