I don't have any profound commentary or wisdom on the topic of today's historic election in Iraq. Other than to observe that it is truly historic. And to express goodd wishes to the people of Iraq as they set the course of their future, and to hope for a peaceful process and for the protection of the Iraqi people, coalition troops, and of course the brave men and women of the U.S. armed forces as they safeguard the process.
God bless and protect them on this day.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Friday, January 28, 2005
The Tragedy of Abortion
I can't let the 32nd Anniversary of the historic Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade pass without comment. In the last week many more eloquent columnists than I have written profound columns on the topic of abortion in light of the anniversary and the marches in Washington both on the pro-life side and the pro-choice side.
I'm not going to try to emulate the professional writers and try to address the issue in comprehensive detail. I'll just point you to where others have already done it well, as in this column by Ann Coulter addressing the need to change the law, not just "hearts and minds". She points out, rightly in my opinion, that an issue of life and death that is this divisive in the country needs to be a matter decided by representative democracy, not judicial fiat. Let the people vote! My opinion, after years of study and activism on this issue, is that the current status of abortion policy (available in all 9 months, for almost any reason, paid for by federal taxes if necessary) would not survive a public vote, and for good reason. It's an egregious affront to respect for life and it's entirely untenable.
Of course, in the week of the anniversary of Roe, the slogans and euphemisms were flying. Hillary Clinton began the pandering in one of her speeches designed to "move her to the center" to position for the 2008 presidential election. She said
In that, we agree. We just radically disagree on how to deal with the issue. Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is a hardcore abortion-at-all costs supporter, as demonstrated by her actions in public over the years. As was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who's first action on his first day in office was to immediately sign five bills to broaden the access to abortion. His first act, on purpose, to reward his most vocal supporters - the extreme abortion on demand for any reason activists.
Honestly, I find the whole issue of abortion slogans tiresome. How many times do we have to dissect the empty, deceptive, and misdirecting slogans of the abortion peddlers? Really, it's so easy to do that it's tiresome. Let's take a couple, for example:
Bill Clinton: who announced that he would like abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Ooohhhh. Have you stopped swooning at the total compassion and reasonableness of that wonderful statement yet? Then let me ask you two questions:
1. If abortion is just the removal of a clump of tissue, as abortion peddlers have argued for so long, analogous to a tonsillectomy and with absolutely no moral issues involved - then why do you care if it's "rare"? Do you care how many appendectomies are performed every year?
2. If, on the other hand, an unborn baby is a baby, a life deserving of the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that our country was founded on - and an abortion is the premature forced taking of that precious life by brutal force of a suction or saline abortion - then why do you only care that it is "safe, and legal"?
The vast majority of the activists on the other side of the rally carrying their "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" signs or waving coat hangers have never thought through those issues. But they are so very self-righteous in their zeal to make the death of an unborn baby as cavalier and meaningless and widespread as possible.
Other slogans are equally ridiculous platitudes designed to depersonalize the issue to hide the moral issues or to sound compassionate when they are in fact murderous. Let's take one more, for example:
Planned Parenthood's slogan: "Every child a wanted child". Fine. Wonderful. Compassionate. Progressive, even. Let's all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya. Oh, wait a minute. Given that Planned Parenthood is the single largest provider of abortions in the United States and that a majority of the 1.5 Million unborn babies end their short life on earth in a Planned Parenthood facility, shouldn't honesty in advertising require them to finish the thought: "...and every unwanted child a dead child - no questions asked at our facility for only $350 cash on the barrelhead". That's brutal, but it's true and it would at least be honest.
By the way, I toured a Planned Parenthood facility once. I called the United Way to ask them about exempting PP from my annual UW donation, and the perky and zealous activist that answered the phone offered to arrange a personal tour of the clinic for me to keep me from exempting them. I took her up on it and got a personal one-on-one tour by the director of the local clinic. During the tour of the death-mart, in the midst of all of the talk about how all of the abortion counseling was done by a qualified "nurse-practioner" (no doctor on board, what happened to all of that talk about abortion being between a woman and her doctor?), I asked the director if she referred patients to DCFS or other agencies for placement of the child for adoption. She was visibly baffled by the question, had no idea what the adoption options were, and assured me that DCFS did not do adoptions. I assured her, as a father who has adopted two children from DCFS, that they certainly do. So much for choice.
Instead of fighting the whole fight in this one column, let me just make it personal and declare my bias. I believe everyone, certainly the activists, bring a personal bias to this issue because it is a very personal issue. And just the sheer numbers of abortions in this country, 35 plus million in 32 years, make it inevitable that everyone has some experience with the issue: miscarriages, abortions as the woman or as the male or friend who counseled on the decision, parents and grandparents who were active or helpless accomplices, etc. Everyone has a reason to have an opinion. I have all of the standard moral and religious reasons, which are substantial and intellectually reasonable, but I also have a personal bias. So here's my bias:
My wife and I were childless for the first thirteen years of our marriage. Many attempts, many miscarriages and the trauma that accompanies that. We eventually set our hopes on adoption. Like many of the 1.5 million couples in America at any given time who are hoping to adopt, I saw the disconnect in the 1.5 million abortions at the same time that there are parents desperate to adopt. In the meantime, we became foster parents to help the many children in the system who need a home. In the course of fostering, we adopted two very special and precious boys who are alternately wonderful and trying. But they are always a blessing. And it hasn't escaped my attention that their two birth mothers, in the midst of their stressful and dysfunctional birth circumstances, opted to give birth. And even through everything these children went through, they are alive. And I thank God often for that. Had those two moms wandered into the clutches of a Planned Parenthood counselor, they very well might not be alive. And I can't fathom how that's an "enlightened choice" of an enlightened country. You tell me.
There's a building two blocks down from the office building I work in. It's non-descript and bland, barely marked. There's a parking lot in the back. And this week, the anniversary week of Roe v. Wade, like almost every week of the year, I will look at this building on my way out to lunch on Wednesday's and Thursdays and observe that the parking lot in the back is full. The real life, tangible, fruit of the abortion peddler's work. 70 desperate people filling the parking lot each week to slink in the back door with cash in hand. 35 precious babies on Wednesday and 35 precious babies on Thursday, each and every week, who will not live to meet their peers, or the couples who are desperately waiting to raise them. And I take that very personally. And yes, occasionally you will find me in respectful prayer out on the sidewalk of that horrible space.
I know that abortion is a sad and tragic and desperate choice for a woman. I know that, really I do. In this I agree with Hillary. I just disagree that we have to leave women in this desperation and provide them murder as a solution. Really, have we sunk so low as a people that this is our solution? Are we that morally bereft? That is the question for our generation. The great moral test that we face, as other generations have faced moral question before us. We are failing the test.
My choice, my answer to the test, is to work hard to support the abortion "alternatives" like Crisis Pregnancy Centers who support women in the choice to have the child and to find a way to make it work. (I find that most "pro-choice" shouter don't even know that the CPC's exist, or have a twisted view of their function). My question for each of you is: why is this an "alternative"? Why isn't this the preferred choice of a moral people?
I'm not going to try to emulate the professional writers and try to address the issue in comprehensive detail. I'll just point you to where others have already done it well, as in this column by Ann Coulter addressing the need to change the law, not just "hearts and minds". She points out, rightly in my opinion, that an issue of life and death that is this divisive in the country needs to be a matter decided by representative democracy, not judicial fiat. Let the people vote! My opinion, after years of study and activism on this issue, is that the current status of abortion policy (available in all 9 months, for almost any reason, paid for by federal taxes if necessary) would not survive a public vote, and for good reason. It's an egregious affront to respect for life and it's entirely untenable.
Of course, in the week of the anniversary of Roe, the slogans and euphemisms were flying. Hillary Clinton began the pandering in one of her speeches designed to "move her to the center" to position for the 2008 presidential election. She said
"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women."
In that, we agree. We just radically disagree on how to deal with the issue. Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is a hardcore abortion-at-all costs supporter, as demonstrated by her actions in public over the years. As was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who's first action on his first day in office was to immediately sign five bills to broaden the access to abortion. His first act, on purpose, to reward his most vocal supporters - the extreme abortion on demand for any reason activists.
Honestly, I find the whole issue of abortion slogans tiresome. How many times do we have to dissect the empty, deceptive, and misdirecting slogans of the abortion peddlers? Really, it's so easy to do that it's tiresome. Let's take a couple, for example:
Bill Clinton: who announced that he would like abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare". Ooohhhh. Have you stopped swooning at the total compassion and reasonableness of that wonderful statement yet? Then let me ask you two questions:
1. If abortion is just the removal of a clump of tissue, as abortion peddlers have argued for so long, analogous to a tonsillectomy and with absolutely no moral issues involved - then why do you care if it's "rare"? Do you care how many appendectomies are performed every year?
2. If, on the other hand, an unborn baby is a baby, a life deserving of the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that our country was founded on - and an abortion is the premature forced taking of that precious life by brutal force of a suction or saline abortion - then why do you only care that it is "safe, and legal"?
The vast majority of the activists on the other side of the rally carrying their "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" signs or waving coat hangers have never thought through those issues. But they are so very self-righteous in their zeal to make the death of an unborn baby as cavalier and meaningless and widespread as possible.
Other slogans are equally ridiculous platitudes designed to depersonalize the issue to hide the moral issues or to sound compassionate when they are in fact murderous. Let's take one more, for example:
Planned Parenthood's slogan: "Every child a wanted child". Fine. Wonderful. Compassionate. Progressive, even. Let's all hold hands and sing Kum-ba-ya. Oh, wait a minute. Given that Planned Parenthood is the single largest provider of abortions in the United States and that a majority of the 1.5 Million unborn babies end their short life on earth in a Planned Parenthood facility, shouldn't honesty in advertising require them to finish the thought: "...and every unwanted child a dead child - no questions asked at our facility for only $350 cash on the barrelhead". That's brutal, but it's true and it would at least be honest.
By the way, I toured a Planned Parenthood facility once. I called the United Way to ask them about exempting PP from my annual UW donation, and the perky and zealous activist that answered the phone offered to arrange a personal tour of the clinic for me to keep me from exempting them. I took her up on it and got a personal one-on-one tour by the director of the local clinic. During the tour of the death-mart, in the midst of all of the talk about how all of the abortion counseling was done by a qualified "nurse-practioner" (no doctor on board, what happened to all of that talk about abortion being between a woman and her doctor?), I asked the director if she referred patients to DCFS or other agencies for placement of the child for adoption. She was visibly baffled by the question, had no idea what the adoption options were, and assured me that DCFS did not do adoptions. I assured her, as a father who has adopted two children from DCFS, that they certainly do. So much for choice.
Instead of fighting the whole fight in this one column, let me just make it personal and declare my bias. I believe everyone, certainly the activists, bring a personal bias to this issue because it is a very personal issue. And just the sheer numbers of abortions in this country, 35 plus million in 32 years, make it inevitable that everyone has some experience with the issue: miscarriages, abortions as the woman or as the male or friend who counseled on the decision, parents and grandparents who were active or helpless accomplices, etc. Everyone has a reason to have an opinion. I have all of the standard moral and religious reasons, which are substantial and intellectually reasonable, but I also have a personal bias. So here's my bias:
My wife and I were childless for the first thirteen years of our marriage. Many attempts, many miscarriages and the trauma that accompanies that. We eventually set our hopes on adoption. Like many of the 1.5 million couples in America at any given time who are hoping to adopt, I saw the disconnect in the 1.5 million abortions at the same time that there are parents desperate to adopt. In the meantime, we became foster parents to help the many children in the system who need a home. In the course of fostering, we adopted two very special and precious boys who are alternately wonderful and trying. But they are always a blessing. And it hasn't escaped my attention that their two birth mothers, in the midst of their stressful and dysfunctional birth circumstances, opted to give birth. And even through everything these children went through, they are alive. And I thank God often for that. Had those two moms wandered into the clutches of a Planned Parenthood counselor, they very well might not be alive. And I can't fathom how that's an "enlightened choice" of an enlightened country. You tell me.
There's a building two blocks down from the office building I work in. It's non-descript and bland, barely marked. There's a parking lot in the back. And this week, the anniversary week of Roe v. Wade, like almost every week of the year, I will look at this building on my way out to lunch on Wednesday's and Thursdays and observe that the parking lot in the back is full. The real life, tangible, fruit of the abortion peddler's work. 70 desperate people filling the parking lot each week to slink in the back door with cash in hand. 35 precious babies on Wednesday and 35 precious babies on Thursday, each and every week, who will not live to meet their peers, or the couples who are desperately waiting to raise them. And I take that very personally. And yes, occasionally you will find me in respectful prayer out on the sidewalk of that horrible space.
I know that abortion is a sad and tragic and desperate choice for a woman. I know that, really I do. In this I agree with Hillary. I just disagree that we have to leave women in this desperation and provide them murder as a solution. Really, have we sunk so low as a people that this is our solution? Are we that morally bereft? That is the question for our generation. The great moral test that we face, as other generations have faced moral question before us. We are failing the test.
My choice, my answer to the test, is to work hard to support the abortion "alternatives" like Crisis Pregnancy Centers who support women in the choice to have the child and to find a way to make it work. (I find that most "pro-choice" shouter don't even know that the CPC's exist, or have a twisted view of their function). My question for each of you is: why is this an "alternative"? Why isn't this the preferred choice of a moral people?
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Dr. Dobson, Spongebob, and Liberal knee-jerking
Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and one of my personal heroes is taking a beating in the liberal press this week. In a week that should have been totally dominated by the Innauguration and by the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, all of the media is transfixed with the story of James Dobson vs. Spongebob Squarepants.
I heard the story everywhere: on WLS talk radio from Chicago, on MSNBC from the smug and self-righteous Keith Olberman, and even tonight on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update from the cute but equally smug Tina Fey. They all told the story essentially the same way. I'll paraphrase them: "Dr. James Dobson, the conservative Christian founder of Focus on the Family, is claiming that Spongebob Squarepants is gay, and is brainwashing schoolchildren through a video in schools that encourages tolerance." Ha, Ha, Ha. Let's all have a laugh at the crazy religious zealot.
Of course, I knew better. I've followed Dobson's ministry for many years. He's conservative and passionate and now even political. But he's very sane and very mainstream and does not throw around wild accusations. The story must be more complex than the knee-jerk liberal press was reporting. And it is.
Here are the facts:
- Record producer Nile Rodgers is producing the video and distributing 60,000 copies to elementary schools, with teacher's guides.
- The video features a selection of cartoon characters promoting a message of "tolerance". SpongeBob Squarepants is one of the characters.
- Dr. Dobson did not explicitly say that the character is gay. He "alluded to SpongeBob SquarePants' role in a 'pro-homosexual video' ". (AP article) The same AP article that quoted Dobson also acknowledges that some cultural analysts have mused about whether SpongeBob, a talking sponge, is "gay" and that "the cartoon character does have a loyal following among gay men". Oh, but it's crazy for Dobson to assert that the producer's use of Spongebob in his video may have something to do with a gay agenda.
- The video includes a "tolerance pledge" for the little kiddies to say which says:
Oh, but it's wrong to point out the "sexuality identity" part of the "pledge" which elementary school students are encouraged to pledge as a group. That's just crazy religious zealotry.
Okay, just to recap: the issue is not about Spongebob Squarepants. (Personal disclosure: I have kids and yes, they watch Spongebob - endlessly). The issue is about the agenda of the video's producers, who co-opted Spongebob, Clifford the Big Red Dog, and others.
I personally think it's egregious for the producer to use cartoon characters to advance an agenda in an elementary school. I think it's right for parents to challenge any agenda inserted into the school outside of the school board approved curriculum. And I think that Dobson was right to highlight it.
And, if you think that a Hollywood music producer produced 61,000 videos for free distribution to elementary schools, with teachers guides, including "pledges" for the students to recite, without having an agenda that needs to be challenged - then you need to rethink who is the crazy one here.
I heard the story everywhere: on WLS talk radio from Chicago, on MSNBC from the smug and self-righteous Keith Olberman, and even tonight on Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update from the cute but equally smug Tina Fey. They all told the story essentially the same way. I'll paraphrase them: "Dr. James Dobson, the conservative Christian founder of Focus on the Family, is claiming that Spongebob Squarepants is gay, and is brainwashing schoolchildren through a video in schools that encourages tolerance." Ha, Ha, Ha. Let's all have a laugh at the crazy religious zealot.
Of course, I knew better. I've followed Dobson's ministry for many years. He's conservative and passionate and now even political. But he's very sane and very mainstream and does not throw around wild accusations. The story must be more complex than the knee-jerk liberal press was reporting. And it is.
Here are the facts:
- Record producer Nile Rodgers is producing the video and distributing 60,000 copies to elementary schools, with teacher's guides.
- The video features a selection of cartoon characters promoting a message of "tolerance". SpongeBob Squarepants is one of the characters.
- Dr. Dobson did not explicitly say that the character is gay. He "alluded to SpongeBob SquarePants' role in a 'pro-homosexual video' ". (AP article) The same AP article that quoted Dobson also acknowledges that some cultural analysts have mused about whether SpongeBob, a talking sponge, is "gay" and that "the cartoon character does have a loyal following among gay men". Oh, but it's crazy for Dobson to assert that the producer's use of Spongebob in his video may have something to do with a gay agenda.
- The video includes a "tolerance pledge" for the little kiddies to say which says:
"To help keep diversity a wellspring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own."
Oh, but it's wrong to point out the "sexuality identity" part of the "pledge" which elementary school students are encouraged to pledge as a group. That's just crazy religious zealotry.
Okay, just to recap: the issue is not about Spongebob Squarepants. (Personal disclosure: I have kids and yes, they watch Spongebob - endlessly). The issue is about the agenda of the video's producers, who co-opted Spongebob, Clifford the Big Red Dog, and others.
I personally think it's egregious for the producer to use cartoon characters to advance an agenda in an elementary school. I think it's right for parents to challenge any agenda inserted into the school outside of the school board approved curriculum. And I think that Dobson was right to highlight it.
And, if you think that a Hollywood music producer produced 61,000 videos for free distribution to elementary schools, with teachers guides, including "pledges" for the students to recite, without having an agenda that needs to be challenged - then you need to rethink who is the crazy one here.
Friday, January 14, 2005
We Can Leave Today
Today I'd like to point you to Mona Charen's excellent column on "Muslims and the Tsunami" on Townhall.com . Mona does an excellent job capturing the disgust and irritation I feel concerning the ingratitude of the Muslim world toward America's involvement in the relief effort.
First it was the U.N. carping about America and the West being "stingy". Never mind the track record of America always being sacrifial and generous in disaster relief. The UN functionary had to poke his finger in our eye.
Now, it's the governments of the disaster affected Muslim nations, with legions of suffering citizens, who have to make a show of their hatred of America as we're flying aid in via military transport at great risk to the crews. Demanding that the U.S. Marines show up unarmed. That America agree to withdraw any military troops by March 31st. Why wait that long, I say. We can leave today. Ingrates.
Dennis Prager, an excellent editorial columnist, has pointed out this phenomenon before. Muslim countries routinely refuse aid from Israel in times of disaster. Israel has world class resue teams trained and ready and often offers them to countries that are overtly hostile to Israel's survival - like Iran. Muslim countries often refuse the help, preferring that their citizens suffer and die rather than accept aid from their enemy Israel. Apparently, we fall into that category now too.
Here's the unvarnished truth about America and the West, versus Muslim nations, regarding disaster aid. America and Western democracies provide a huge amount of aid to to the world because we can. Not because we're privileged or elitist or resource hogs or any of the other evils that liberals attribute to us. It's because we've built civilizations and technologies that are capable of supporting ourselves and generating excess capacity to give aid to others. Period. Muslim nations, on the other hand, are intentionally backward third world nations that cannot support themselves (without oil money) on a day-to-day basis, let alone rescue themselves in times of disaster.
How many Muslim nations are stepping up to aid Indonesia versus the amount of aid America will generate? They won't because they can't. They haven't built the infrastructure to do it. We have.
In fact, how many Indonesian ships, aircraft, water purification stations showed up in Florida last year to aid the hurricane victims?
Yet they want to insult us even as we gear up, once again, to rescue them.
I repeat: We can leave today.
First it was the U.N. carping about America and the West being "stingy". Never mind the track record of America always being sacrifial and generous in disaster relief. The UN functionary had to poke his finger in our eye.
Now, it's the governments of the disaster affected Muslim nations, with legions of suffering citizens, who have to make a show of their hatred of America as we're flying aid in via military transport at great risk to the crews. Demanding that the U.S. Marines show up unarmed. That America agree to withdraw any military troops by March 31st. Why wait that long, I say. We can leave today. Ingrates.
Dennis Prager, an excellent editorial columnist, has pointed out this phenomenon before. Muslim countries routinely refuse aid from Israel in times of disaster. Israel has world class resue teams trained and ready and often offers them to countries that are overtly hostile to Israel's survival - like Iran. Muslim countries often refuse the help, preferring that their citizens suffer and die rather than accept aid from their enemy Israel. Apparently, we fall into that category now too.
Here's the unvarnished truth about America and the West, versus Muslim nations, regarding disaster aid. America and Western democracies provide a huge amount of aid to to the world because we can. Not because we're privileged or elitist or resource hogs or any of the other evils that liberals attribute to us. It's because we've built civilizations and technologies that are capable of supporting ourselves and generating excess capacity to give aid to others. Period. Muslim nations, on the other hand, are intentionally backward third world nations that cannot support themselves (without oil money) on a day-to-day basis, let alone rescue themselves in times of disaster.
How many Muslim nations are stepping up to aid Indonesia versus the amount of aid America will generate? They won't because they can't. They haven't built the infrastructure to do it. We have.
In fact, how many Indonesian ships, aircraft, water purification stations showed up in Florida last year to aid the hurricane victims?
Yet they want to insult us even as we gear up, once again, to rescue them.
I repeat: We can leave today.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
No Need for Bush Apology on WMD's
The Bush administration announced yesterday that it was ceasing the search for WMD's in Iraq after more than a year of looking for them. Critics of the administration immediately pounced on the news and demanded an apology from the Bush adminstration for allegedly taking us to war based on a falsehood. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House of Representatives Democrat minority leader said:
This and other statements from the President's critics are based on the mistaken premise that Bush took us to war over proof of Sadaam having WMD's. This position willfully ignores the basic premise of the U.N. resolutions that were the principal cause of our invasion of Iraq, principally that the burden of proof was on Sadaam.
Let me say that again. The burden of proof was on Sadaam, not the U.S. The conditions of the cease fire at the conclusion of the Gulf War demanded that Sadaam not only destroy the WMD's that everyone knew he had, but also that he provide proof that he had done so. Yes, there were U.N. inspectors involved. But their mission was not to find the WMD's and prove that they were there. It was to verify Sadaam's proof. All of the ensuing sanctions and following on U.N. resolutions were to insist that Sadaam destroy the weapons, and provide proof to the world, or there would be "serious consequences". Sadaam scoffed. Bush lived up to the serious consequences. No apology needed.
The only apologies needed are from France / Germany / Russia for enabling Sadaam's defiance of the U.N. resolutions by throwing their vote in the Security Council in exchange for bribes from the oil-for-food program. Scandalous.
Also scandalous are the statements of Democratic leaders, like Congresswoman Pelosi, who know better and continue to accuse the President of the United States of lying to the world. It undermines our collective credibility as a people in the eyes of the world for cheap partisan gain.
"Now that the search is finished, President Bush needs to explain to the American people why he was so wrong, for so long, about the reasons for war,"
This and other statements from the President's critics are based on the mistaken premise that Bush took us to war over proof of Sadaam having WMD's. This position willfully ignores the basic premise of the U.N. resolutions that were the principal cause of our invasion of Iraq, principally that the burden of proof was on Sadaam.
Let me say that again. The burden of proof was on Sadaam, not the U.S. The conditions of the cease fire at the conclusion of the Gulf War demanded that Sadaam not only destroy the WMD's that everyone knew he had, but also that he provide proof that he had done so. Yes, there were U.N. inspectors involved. But their mission was not to find the WMD's and prove that they were there. It was to verify Sadaam's proof. All of the ensuing sanctions and following on U.N. resolutions were to insist that Sadaam destroy the weapons, and provide proof to the world, or there would be "serious consequences". Sadaam scoffed. Bush lived up to the serious consequences. No apology needed.
The only apologies needed are from France / Germany / Russia for enabling Sadaam's defiance of the U.N. resolutions by throwing their vote in the Security Council in exchange for bribes from the oil-for-food program. Scandalous.
Also scandalous are the statements of Democratic leaders, like Congresswoman Pelosi, who know better and continue to accuse the President of the United States of lying to the world. It undermines our collective credibility as a people in the eyes of the world for cheap partisan gain.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Leaving Dan Standing
A lot of commentary has been written this week regarding the release of the CBS report on Dan Rather / 60 minutes "memogate" forged document debacle. The report finds plenty at fault with the reporting of the story, and four CBS executives were fired or resigned in it's wake. The report also refuses to adequately address the main issues of the story (press bias, the authenticity of the forged documents,etc., and is therefore flawed. The main outcome is that it leaves Dan Rather damaged but still standing.
The most insightful editorials on the topic come from Tony Blankley, who points out that the "independent panel" is on the payroll of CBS and is certainly not independent (my thoughts exactly) and from Jay Bryant, who picks up on the angle of leaving Rather standing in his excellent piece "Not finding bias, or ducks" on towhhall.com. Bryant says:
Bryant is right on the money, and he's hit on one of my pet peeves as a Republican over the years. Our Republican leadership has two traits that you can always count on:
- they fall on their swords and resign when they've misbehaved. Examples include Nixon, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, etc. They don't have to be forced out of office.
- they always let Democrats off the hook. Examples, including those cited by Bryant above, abound. Republicans, especially U.S. Senators, are too civil to pull the trigger when they have the evidence. They simply let it fade away. In other words, they fail to do justice.
The downside of this second tendency is that they leave the Democrat misbehavors (Clinton, Reno, etc) still standing to claim innocence and victimhood. We all saw it in spades with Bill Clinton's autobiography. It's clear that he has no shame or remorse for his misdeeds and considers himself a persecuted man vindicated by history. As I've said before, I blame the Republicans in the U.S. Senate for leaving him standing to make that ridiculous claim.
And now, it's happened again. Dan Rather, who in my opinion misused the resources of a national network news organization to broadcast a one-sided smear piece using forged documents in a blatant attempt to affect a United States Presidential election and to defeat a sitting President for political reasons, will be left standing. His underlings took the hit and were fired. Rather, who is still on the air every evening, will be allowed to retire gracefully.
Wait a minute. That would be the result if we relied only on the MSM and their trumped up "independent report", and another Republican who couldn't pull the trigger. However, it's a new game now and the bloggers are not done yet. This story is not dead yet.
The most insightful editorials on the topic come from Tony Blankley, who points out that the "independent panel" is on the payroll of CBS and is certainly not independent (my thoughts exactly) and from Jay Bryant, who picks up on the angle of leaving Rather standing in his excellent piece "Not finding bias, or ducks" on towhhall.com. Bryant says:
Dick Thornburgh thereby joins the growing fraternity of establishment Republican report writers who have proven themselves unwilling to rake any real muck, call a spade a spade, a liberal a liberal or a bucket of hogwash a bucket of hogwash.
Other notables in this group include Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission and John Danforth, author of the official report on the Branch Dravidian disaster. Frankly, Ken Starr belongs in the wimp club, too, and I don't care what it says in Bill Clinton's library.
Bryant is right on the money, and he's hit on one of my pet peeves as a Republican over the years. Our Republican leadership has two traits that you can always count on:
- they fall on their swords and resign when they've misbehaved. Examples include Nixon, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, etc. They don't have to be forced out of office.
- they always let Democrats off the hook. Examples, including those cited by Bryant above, abound. Republicans, especially U.S. Senators, are too civil to pull the trigger when they have the evidence. They simply let it fade away. In other words, they fail to do justice.
The downside of this second tendency is that they leave the Democrat misbehavors (Clinton, Reno, etc) still standing to claim innocence and victimhood. We all saw it in spades with Bill Clinton's autobiography. It's clear that he has no shame or remorse for his misdeeds and considers himself a persecuted man vindicated by history. As I've said before, I blame the Republicans in the U.S. Senate for leaving him standing to make that ridiculous claim.
And now, it's happened again. Dan Rather, who in my opinion misused the resources of a national network news organization to broadcast a one-sided smear piece using forged documents in a blatant attempt to affect a United States Presidential election and to defeat a sitting President for political reasons, will be left standing. His underlings took the hit and were fired. Rather, who is still on the air every evening, will be allowed to retire gracefully.
Wait a minute. That would be the result if we relied only on the MSM and their trumped up "independent report", and another Republican who couldn't pull the trigger. However, it's a new game now and the bloggers are not done yet. This story is not dead yet.
Monday, January 03, 2005
A Great and Generous Nation
A tragedy reveals character. And I'm proud, once again, of the character of the United States in response to the unimaginable scope of the earthquake / tsunami disaster in Asia.
America, clearly, has the capacity and the will to bring to bear enormous resources of aid in that region to people who are not only strangers but are often hostile to the United States. It's not the first time we've stepped up to the plate and it's the reason that the world looks first to the United States, and not the United Nations, when disaster strikes.
Whether it's our government and it's offices with official aid, or private giving by individuals or through relief organizations we're there. With the military, flying in aid or purifying water, we're there. With our churches and their global reach, we're there. With today's announcement by President Bush of the work of ex-President's Bush and Clinton to raise disaster aid, we're there.
Despite the carping of petty minds or hostile bureaucrats, the United States is a great and generous nation and I'm proud to be a citizen. God bless those affected.
America, clearly, has the capacity and the will to bring to bear enormous resources of aid in that region to people who are not only strangers but are often hostile to the United States. It's not the first time we've stepped up to the plate and it's the reason that the world looks first to the United States, and not the United Nations, when disaster strikes.
Whether it's our government and it's offices with official aid, or private giving by individuals or through relief organizations we're there. With the military, flying in aid or purifying water, we're there. With our churches and their global reach, we're there. With today's announcement by President Bush of the work of ex-President's Bush and Clinton to raise disaster aid, we're there.
Despite the carping of petty minds or hostile bureaucrats, the United States is a great and generous nation and I'm proud to be a citizen. God bless those affected.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Happy New Year
Happy New Year from Partisan. Thank you if you've been reading my little blog.
I'm pondering some changes for the new year. Less top-of-my-head takes on current events, and the sometimes negative tone that that engenders. More topical analysis of specific issues.
See you all in the New Year.
And God Bless the people in Asia affected by the devastation of the earthquake and Tsunami. It's really unimaginable.
I'm pondering some changes for the new year. Less top-of-my-head takes on current events, and the sometimes negative tone that that engenders. More topical analysis of specific issues.
See you all in the New Year.
And God Bless the people in Asia affected by the devastation of the earthquake and Tsunami. It's really unimaginable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)