George W. Bush, that's who, with his surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday.
Meeting with the newly convened Iraqi government. Lifting the morale of the troops.
Leadership.
Nice.
For a reverse, dare I say perverse, take on leadership - I point you to John Kerry making a speech this week pandering to a leftist Democrat group.
The "highlight" of Kerry's speech, and his biggest applause lines, appears to be his disavowal of the war that he voted for - which he now calls a big mistake for our country - and his apology for casting the wrong vote on the war. A vote he claims that President Bush "misled" him into casting.
Really, this is what you guys are looking for in a President? This is leadership? This is what makes you proud?
Never mind his really bad timing in disavowing our war efforts when we're experiencing real progress there. Never mind that he is completely wrong on the war being wrong, and on being manipulated into it. All factually incorrect. Never mind that.
The really troubling part is that he thinks that standing up and confessing that he is such a malleable and influence-able Senator that he can be "tricked" into casting a "wrong vote" for something as serious as sending our nation's soldiers to war makes him Presidential material. Huh? Unbelieveable.
Well, there you have it. Two examples of leadership this week. One bold and optimistic. The other craven and apologetic. I know who I choose to admire.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Rove off the Hot Seat
More good news today! Karl Rove has been notified by the Special Prosecutor that he will not be charged in the Valerie Plame case.
Now, can we please end this ridiculous charade of a non-case of non-leaking of a non-covert CIA officer's name? There is no case here.
Do you think Mr. Rove, in his new capacity leading Repbulicans into the 2006 midterm elections, is going to take out some frustration from his months-long slandering on some hapless Democrats? Do you think?
Now, can we please end this ridiculous charade of a non-case of non-leaking of a non-covert CIA officer's name? There is no case here.
Do you think Mr. Rove, in his new capacity leading Repbulicans into the 2006 midterm elections, is going to take out some frustration from his months-long slandering on some hapless Democrats? Do you think?
Reactions to Zarqawi's Death are Telling
My reaction to the death last week of archterrorist and leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq al-Zarqawi was simple. Elation. And I had a little extra bounce in my step, as a U.S. Air Force veteran, that the boys in blue delivered the 1000 pounds of justice that took him out.
Make no mistake - Zarqawi was the enemy. Our purpose in war is to defeat the enemy. To deal death and destruction to them in sufficient force that we disable their ability to hurt us. That is the stated goal of war. Therefore, Zarqawi's death - despite the efforts of Democrats and the media to lowball it - is a significant milestone in our war effort. Are we done? No, they can still hurt us. But we're closer to being done. And I say three cheers to our fine military folks who are getting the job done.
Things are looking up in Iraq. Our troops have been doing a fine job winning the war against militant Islam, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I don't know if you saw the news article last week that stated that 40% of the terrorists that we identified after 9/11 are now dead. 40%. That's a significant and successful number. The rest are weakened and dispersed. They cannot defeat us, unless we quit. Which, thankfully, George W. Bush will never do.
I was dismayed by general reaction to Zarqawi's death from the left. Their naysaying reactions, denying victorious credit to our war effort, are telling and are just more evidence that the left wants us to fail in this effort. It's disgraceful.
The most curious reaction you will have heard by now. It came from Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg who was beheaded at the hands of al-Zarqawi. Mr. Berg, a pacifist and an anti-war activist, said this:
and this:
He also said that George Bush was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of dead in Iraq.
This is both curious and sad.
I think the same things about Michael Berg that I thought about Cindy Sheehan. Two things:
1. As a grieving father who lost his son in this conflict he is entitled to say whatever he wants to say - crazy or sane. I could not even begin to relate to his grief and only have empathy for him personally.
2. When he uses that situation in public activism - in his case as a candidate for Congress from the Green Party - then his views are subject to scrutiny and criticism. In this case, I would repudiate his expressed views totally and would never consider voting for him.
There is just so much wrong about his statements. Not just the factual errors, such as attributing hundreds of thousands of deaths to President Bush, when no such numbers have perished. No, it's his moral equivalence argument comparing President Bush to al-Zarqawi, and finding Bush worse, that is repugnant.
If you're a progressive and you find yourself in general agreement with Mr. Berg's statements equating Mr. Bush with al-Zarqawi - and finding Bush worse - I would seriously urge you to re-evaluate your thinking on this war. Because if that's your postion you have unquestionably lost perspective, and you don't have grief as a mitigating factor.
Well done, U.S. Air Force. Aim High!
Make no mistake - Zarqawi was the enemy. Our purpose in war is to defeat the enemy. To deal death and destruction to them in sufficient force that we disable their ability to hurt us. That is the stated goal of war. Therefore, Zarqawi's death - despite the efforts of Democrats and the media to lowball it - is a significant milestone in our war effort. Are we done? No, they can still hurt us. But we're closer to being done. And I say three cheers to our fine military folks who are getting the job done.
Things are looking up in Iraq. Our troops have been doing a fine job winning the war against militant Islam, both in Afghanistan and in Iraq. I don't know if you saw the news article last week that stated that 40% of the terrorists that we identified after 9/11 are now dead. 40%. That's a significant and successful number. The rest are weakened and dispersed. They cannot defeat us, unless we quit. Which, thankfully, George W. Bush will never do.
I was dismayed by general reaction to Zarqawi's death from the left. Their naysaying reactions, denying victorious credit to our war effort, are telling and are just more evidence that the left wants us to fail in this effort. It's disgraceful.
The most curious reaction you will have heard by now. It came from Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg who was beheaded at the hands of al-Zarqawi. Mr. Berg, a pacifist and an anti-war activist, said this:
I think al-Zarqawi's death is a double tragedy," Michael Berg told The Associated Press after learning a U.S. airstrike had killed the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. "His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge."
and this:
Berg said the blame for most deaths in Iraq should be placed on President Bush, who he said is "more of a terrorist than Zarqawi."
"Zarqawi felt my son's breath on his hand as held the knife against his throat. Zarqawi had to look in his eyes when he did it," Berg added, pausing to collect himself. "George Bush sits there glassy-eyed in his office with pieces of paper and condemns people to death. That to me is a real terrorist."
He also said that George Bush was responsible for "hundreds of thousands" of dead in Iraq.
This is both curious and sad.
I think the same things about Michael Berg that I thought about Cindy Sheehan. Two things:
1. As a grieving father who lost his son in this conflict he is entitled to say whatever he wants to say - crazy or sane. I could not even begin to relate to his grief and only have empathy for him personally.
2. When he uses that situation in public activism - in his case as a candidate for Congress from the Green Party - then his views are subject to scrutiny and criticism. In this case, I would repudiate his expressed views totally and would never consider voting for him.
There is just so much wrong about his statements. Not just the factual errors, such as attributing hundreds of thousands of deaths to President Bush, when no such numbers have perished. No, it's his moral equivalence argument comparing President Bush to al-Zarqawi, and finding Bush worse, that is repugnant.
If you're a progressive and you find yourself in general agreement with Mr. Berg's statements equating Mr. Bush with al-Zarqawi - and finding Bush worse - I would seriously urge you to re-evaluate your thinking on this war. Because if that's your postion you have unquestionably lost perspective, and you don't have grief as a mitigating factor.
Well done, U.S. Air Force. Aim High!
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Waving my Magic Wand
A charming new acquaintance asked me a engaging question during a lively dinner exchange last week. She asked me "if you could change one thing about America, what would it be?"
It was a serious question, genuinely offered. And I'm glad she asked it, because it gave me reason to think broadly about our country this week past my glib answer at the table - which was to fix the foster care system and do a better job taking care of children at risk. (A parochial answer for an ex-foster parent)
Thinking broadly about our country, from a pro-active fix-it perspective, made me realize that I'm generally very optimistic about America. We are a generous country. We are a compassionate country. We are a country of opportunity. We are a melting pot. We are a force for good in the world.
When you listen to talk radio as much as I do, you tend to focus on the things that are going wrong. And there are plenty of those. But we are an entrepenuerial country at heart and, over time, we fix those things.
So, I'll answer her question in a broadly idealistic manner and say that if I could change one thing about America, I would wish for more "clarity" in our public life.
What do I mean? Well, there are serious issues that we confront in all manner of our public life. And what troubles me is the lack of clarity. Of commonly understood analysis of those issues. Of intense polarization on policy, because there is not agreement on the underlying facts.
Why is there such deep "red state" / "blue state" disagreement over the basic big issues of the day? For example:
- Are we engaged in a global "War on Terror", or aren't we?
- If so, is the Administration conducting it in the way the American people would conduct a war, or not?
- Were there WMD's before the Iraq war, or not?
- Was Iraq a state sponsor of terror, and therefore a threat to us, or not?
- Do both sides in the Israel / Palestinian issue have a legitimate stake to that land or not?
- Is there verifiable, human caused, human fixable Global Warming, or not?
- Is "judicial activism" happening or not, and is that good or bad for America?
- Are our borders secure?
- Can we appropriately assimilate all of the foreign nationals who understandably want to live here, or not?
- Is the government too big and inefficient, or not big enough?
- Is the national debt that supports a war and hurricane relief appropriate or not?
- Is our culture life in America declining into coarseness, or progressing?
I could think of many more.
We face big questions in our day. And even with a proliferation of news and information sources we've divided into camps with two completely opposing set of facts on every big issue. How can we harmful partisan bickering, and solve problems, if we can't even agree on the facts of an issue.
So, if I could change one thing in America I would challenge our leaders in media and government to think about how their efforts contribut to "clarity" rather than just power and gamesmanship.
And if that's too idealistic an approach to the question, then my answer is: more pecan pie for every American.
It was a serious question, genuinely offered. And I'm glad she asked it, because it gave me reason to think broadly about our country this week past my glib answer at the table - which was to fix the foster care system and do a better job taking care of children at risk. (A parochial answer for an ex-foster parent)
Thinking broadly about our country, from a pro-active fix-it perspective, made me realize that I'm generally very optimistic about America. We are a generous country. We are a compassionate country. We are a country of opportunity. We are a melting pot. We are a force for good in the world.
When you listen to talk radio as much as I do, you tend to focus on the things that are going wrong. And there are plenty of those. But we are an entrepenuerial country at heart and, over time, we fix those things.
So, I'll answer her question in a broadly idealistic manner and say that if I could change one thing about America, I would wish for more "clarity" in our public life.
What do I mean? Well, there are serious issues that we confront in all manner of our public life. And what troubles me is the lack of clarity. Of commonly understood analysis of those issues. Of intense polarization on policy, because there is not agreement on the underlying facts.
Why is there such deep "red state" / "blue state" disagreement over the basic big issues of the day? For example:
- Are we engaged in a global "War on Terror", or aren't we?
- If so, is the Administration conducting it in the way the American people would conduct a war, or not?
- Were there WMD's before the Iraq war, or not?
- Was Iraq a state sponsor of terror, and therefore a threat to us, or not?
- Do both sides in the Israel / Palestinian issue have a legitimate stake to that land or not?
- Is there verifiable, human caused, human fixable Global Warming, or not?
- Is "judicial activism" happening or not, and is that good or bad for America?
- Are our borders secure?
- Can we appropriately assimilate all of the foreign nationals who understandably want to live here, or not?
- Is the government too big and inefficient, or not big enough?
- Is the national debt that supports a war and hurricane relief appropriate or not?
- Is our culture life in America declining into coarseness, or progressing?
I could think of many more.
We face big questions in our day. And even with a proliferation of news and information sources we've divided into camps with two completely opposing set of facts on every big issue. How can we harmful partisan bickering, and solve problems, if we can't even agree on the facts of an issue.
So, if I could change one thing in America I would challenge our leaders in media and government to think about how their efforts contribut to "clarity" rather than just power and gamesmanship.
And if that's too idealistic an approach to the question, then my answer is: more pecan pie for every American.
Right Principle, Wrong Application
As the U.S. Senate takes up consideration today of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, there is only one thing that I can be sure of. And that is, that there will plenty of ridiculous political sophistry in evidence on both sides of this issue. Senators will say silly things, in spades.
For example, to get us off to a good start today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced his intention to vote no on the issue. In doing so he quoted Barry Goldwater's assertion that we should keep government out of the bedroom.
That's a good conservative principle, for which I'm generally in agreement.
However, the application here is laughable. That train has already left the station.
Government is already deeply involved in "marriage", in the bedroom or out. Governments issue marriage liscenses. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this debate.
Laws are already on the books defining marriage. Courts already decide case law.
The issue is not now whether or not government should be in the bedroom on marriage. It already is. The question is what policy government should favor. Do thousands of years of traditions from every civilization in history prevail, or do current understandings of equal protection under the law? It's a valid debate. Let's have it.
So, to Senator Specter - make a different argument. Oppose it or support it on the merits, not on the specious assertion that government shouldn't be involved in this question.
For example, to get us off to a good start today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced his intention to vote no on the issue. In doing so he quoted Barry Goldwater's assertion that we should keep government out of the bedroom.
That's a good conservative principle, for which I'm generally in agreement.
However, the application here is laughable. That train has already left the station.
Government is already deeply involved in "marriage", in the bedroom or out. Governments issue marriage liscenses. If they didn't we wouldn't be having this debate.
Laws are already on the books defining marriage. Courts already decide case law.
The issue is not now whether or not government should be in the bedroom on marriage. It already is. The question is what policy government should favor. Do thousands of years of traditions from every civilization in history prevail, or do current understandings of equal protection under the law? It's a valid debate. Let's have it.
So, to Senator Specter - make a different argument. Oppose it or support it on the merits, not on the specious assertion that government shouldn't be involved in this question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)