Ron Paul

Ron Paul was on Glenn Beck the other morning, talking about economics. The main place where Ron & I disagree is the bit about pulling out of Iraq & Afghanistan immediately. Remember, I have voted for Ron Paul for President once before. Glenn and I agree on the Iraq/Afghanistan bit, but Glenn had him on to talk economics and they stuck to that.

The most enlightening thing I got out of the interview -- and this came from Glenn himself, Ron didn't bring it up... in this interview. But he'd interviewed Ron on another show and Ron said that if we eliminated the federal income tax completely in 2005 .... the Federal Government would still be bringing in the same amount of money it brought in in 1995.

Glenn said that he wanted to correct him on that point, that that couldn't be true. But he didn't have the facts and he thought he'd bring it back up and correct him later. He went back and did his research, and found out....

Ron Paul is technically correct on this point.

Think about that. 10 years ago all federal taxes, income taxes & otherwise, totalled the same amount as all federal taxes today, without counting income taxes.

Wow.

How much better is government today than it was 10 years ago? It's bigger. It's nosier. But what about it has made life enough better to account for ALL of the income tax we pay today?

Still, it's only technically correct. Because apparently right now the 1 trillion dollar difference would only be worth a 700 billion dollar difference back then, leaving a good 300 billion dollar deficit.

It begs the question ... what is the budget of the IRS? Because if it's anything close to 300 billion dollars.... it's a wash. I'll admit, that sounds a bit high to me, but I have no idea.

But suppose ... just suppose everybody paid only 1/4 of the taxes they pay today. Oh hell let's be generous and say 1/3 of the federal income taxes we pay today. Even the most die-hard Libertarian would have to say it would be a gigantic step in the right direction. And if a $600 tax "rebate" for everyone will stimulate the economy... imagine how much more just plain cutting our taxes by 2/3 would do for it!

Here's the sad thing. Except for Iraq and Afghanistan ... Ron Paul is mostly right in my book and could easily be my next choice down the list of candidates if it weren't for that big "except".

I'm not opposed to a military isolationist policy. It has a lot of merit, a lot going for it. It's a very respectable position.

It's just that my sense of responsibility won't allow us to suddenly and prematurely disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan. We started what we started and we need to see it through. We can talk about not going in to help anywhere else after this. But after this, hey, I'm open.

I do find it ironic that a lot of America critics even long before 9/11 complained that we go in to places and then pull out and leave a mess. Most of those same people are the ones screaming loudly that we need to pull out of Iraq and/or Afghanistan -- without regard as to what happens to Iraqis and Afghans as a direct result.

And I think that's because they want to be able to "prove" to the world that BushHilter-CheneyHalliburton are evil, genocidal, blood-for-oil-thirsty Crusaders for Jesus. In other words, it's not about doing what's right. It's about vidication.

Political Positions

Call this my "mini-manifesto". It's a "what issues are important to me" and "where do I stand on them" post.


Presidential Candidates, are you listening?

• The Islamist threat. We should relentlessly infiltrate, disrupt, chase, kill Al-Queda and related groups.


• Iraq. Finish what we started. Two big criticisms of the U.S. are that we meddle where we "shouldn't" and we don't meddle where we "should". But a third and more embarassing criticism is that we start stuff and don't finish it, leaving a mess behind. AQ believes we are weak because of it. It is certainly a weakness they have been able to exploit in the past. 1) finish because we now owe it to Iraq. 2) finish to prove Al Queda wrong.


• Personal Responsibility: We need to focus more on our expectations of the individual rather than what we should be doing collectively for the individual that fails. Our current society of victimhood rewards failure and punishes success. It's not difficult to imagine where that leads. Most of the rest of the following -- follow from this.


• Second Amendment: What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not understand? I want the ability to protect myself when and where I feel I need protection. Gun control laws ultimately punish law-abiding citizens.


• Federal Government: The Federal Government is too big, too powerful, too encompasing and it continues to grab more and more power from the states. We need to get back to the United States of America, not the United America of States. Moving away from Judicial activism in the Supreme Court is a very important step in that direction.


• Energy Independence, exhibit A: One of the most stinging ways to deal with a desire to re-establish the Caliphate is to cut off the funding for it. This is somewhat of a pipe dream, to be sure since other countries will swoop in to buy what we don't -- but it will be at much lower prices (limiting their funds) and -- we won't literally be "over a barrel".


• Energy Independence, exhibit B: This means drill in the Arctic, drill in the Gulf, drill all sorts of places Enviro-ligion doesn't want us to drill. It probably also means nuclear power. We should continue to research alternative energy sources, the cleaner the better.


• Pollution & Environment: I do consider myself an envrionmentalist. It is not my religion, however. I'm more a la Patrick Moore. Clean water and clean air top my concerns. I love wild, open spaces probably more than most people do. We have the technology to do this right with minimal disturbance.


• Immigration: We have immigration laws. Enforce them. If we don't like existing immigration laws, change them. By vote, not judicial fiat. And don't do it retroactively, especially if you've no intention of enforcing the new ones, either.


• Health Care: Is not the business of the government.


• Social Security: Personally, I'm not counting on it. I'd support privitization. At least then I would have some control over my "share" and politicians couldn't dip in to it to fund politically popular progams du jour to get them re-elected at my expense. One way to "fix" it would be to return the program to its orignal scope. This would require taking less money that I'll probably never see again out of my paycheck.


• Taxes: We don't need more stinking taxes. Roughly 40% of my income goes to some form of government when all is said and done. That's enough. It should be more than plenty. Government needs to prioritize. It also needs to cut down on entitlements. See "Personal Responsibility".


• Abortion: I'm personally against it in general (if there are serious issues involving the life or health of the mother, it should be up to the mother & her family. I realize there are complexities when there's more than one life on the line). At the very least I don't think it should be allowed through the entire 9 months of pregnancy. If we're talking about human rights and a baby can be removed from the womb and function, albiet sometimes with help -- that's a human, sorry -- inside or outside. You can pull the head out, poke a hole in it and suck its brain out, and that's apparently cool. But if you pull the whole thing out and throw it in a dumpster, you can be prosecuted for murder. If B is wrong, then A is wrong. The "Pro-Anything-Goes" folks don't want to quibble with the "birth" line. The pro-life folks don't want to quibble with the conception line. I find the latter more defensible than the former. If some compromise could be reached, at least fewer conscious babies might be killed. At any rate, the Supreme Court apparently trumped Congress on this in a piece of judicial activism. It was done wrong. It should be done right.


• Gay "marriage": If people want to extend benefits that currently go to married couples to committed gay couples, I would not stand in the way. Do not, however, force the social agenda bit of making everyone officially call it the same thing -- down the people's throats. They can have the same rights. But don't make us call it marriage. They can even call it marriage if they like, that's their First Amendment right. But don't force people who don't believe it is marriage to call it marriage by encoding it into law. That's all I ask. I think that's what most people who are against it ultimately object to. Do that, and I expect a majority will vote for it. (Or at least not vote against it). If it's really about rights and not about social engineering, using a different word shouldn't be a problem.
• Subsidies: In general, I am anti-subsidy.

I know, this, in the eyes of progressives, makes me a big, fat, callous meanie. I am not. There was a time when the poor and downtrodden were looked after by private charity, often religious-based, but often not. When government guarantees aid, demand for aid skyrockets. The expectations of the individual in the social contract erodes, and people tend to live up or down to their expectations. When we expect people to work, we expect people to save, and we expect people to take charge of their own lives, they win and society wins.

Yes, people fall through the cracks. But lower expectations make the cracks wider and deeper. 40% of my earnings go to government. Probably half of it, if not more, goes to programs sold to us to stop up those cracks. More and more is promised, and over the years, more and more is taken away from the productive. And over the years, the cracks remain, and people still fall through them.

Eventually, it won't be worth it for the productive to produce.

And then who are you going to tax?

Failed Strategy

I keep reading hearing that the Bush Administration is "persuing the same failed strategy" in Iraq. Over and over, ad nauseum.

I would like to ask these perenial critics just what that failed strategy is? Not what is failed about it, but about what "it" is in the first place? They keep insisting that it's been the same one all along.

I would like to ask them because I don't think they'd know "strategy" if it bit them on the nose.

I think, in the end, the only way you could interpret the answer you'd get from them would be:

Fighting

Any strategy that involves fighting is, well .... fighting, and that's the resolution of their measuring devices (this from the keepers of the Holy Book of Nuance).

Sectarian Violence measures: Sunni-on-Sunni, Shiite-on-Shiite?

The leftist web is all abuzz over an article written by Paul Krugman in the New York Times on 09/07 called "Time to Take a Stand". (I know this because while trying to find the source of Krugman's claim via Google all I was overwhelmed by references to the column by lefty blogs. I've yet to locate the source.)

What they're mostly abuzz about is this particular sentence:

Here’s what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he’ll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq - as long as you don’t count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Now since I can't find the source of Krugman's assertation, I can't be sure of this. But smell something rotten, and I have a sneaking hunch that there's at least as much bait and switch going on here as he claims Petraeus used.

See, it all boils down to context, as usual. Paul says that Petraeus will "assert that the surge has reduced violence." But what Petraeus asserted that the surge has reduced sectarian violence, which is a specific goal in counterinsurgency -- where his expertise lies.

Al Queda violence, contrary to the MSM & Democrats' (but I largely repeat myself) constant efforts at blurring or erasing the line between the two, is not sectarian violence. AQ is forigners trying to start sectarian violence, or keep it going. And no, we don't want that, either. But that's not what Petraeus is addressing here.

If your mission is to reduce sectarian violence, you first of all will want to try to measure what violence is sectarian and which is not. And since most murderers don't leave a little card or note on the scene specifying their motives, the military had to come up with some way to figure out what "sectarian" violence looked like.

It looks to me like they decided that Sunni-on-Sunni violence or Shiite-on-Shiite violence is not sectarian. Seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to me.

They further decided that car bombs are not a signature tactic of sect-A vs sect-B.... it's more a signature of Al Queda, perhaps. I don't know. I'm not an expert on it and I doubt Mr. Krugman is. Apparently they also decided that most sectarian killings were carried out execution style -- ie, shots through the back of the head. Not the front. I don't have trouble buying this. Is it always true? Maybe not. But when you're trying to get a general idea, I can see it being a good indicator.

The implication being spread all over the web is that the Military is not telling the truth about "the violence" because they are excluding some of it from their statistics. I seriously doubt this is true. It's in the overall numbers, and all of that was presented.

When the military talks about drops in sectarian violence, they are talking about certain kinds of killings. When they talk about overall violence, the numbers are different. What the left is cleverly doing here is taking the General's words out of context and putting them in a context where they would not be true, and then claiming it is he that is lying.

Here's the deal. As long as the same formula is used for all the periods being compared, we're comparing apples to apples. And if the fruit you want to look at is apples, then excluding oranges makes no difference as to how many fewer apples rotted. It doesn't matter that just as many or more oranges and overall fruit rotted. Not when your priority is apples. Part of Petraeus' mission was to reduce sectarian violence to foster better trust between the two major Iraqi Muslim groups. Petraeus didn't say that "violence" had been reduced. He said sectarian violence had been reduced. That was a specific mission goal.

Would we like it if all violence had been reduced? Of course we would have. And hopefully as Al Queda fades and the government gets stronger, it will. But Petraeus is reporting on his mission, not on the headlines.

To say the man is lying because you assert that he is saying something he is not, in fact, saying at all -- is disingeneous.

Sunnis, who used to support Al Queda before the surge, now have a better idea who the real enemy is, and Al Queda is being run out. Might a major drop in Shiite-Sunni killings possibly have something to do with this?

The truth is no amount of progress in Iraq would be enough for the Left. As a matter of fact, it has become very clear that they don't want progress in Iraq at all. What they want is vindication. They want to be able to point at Bush and say "he failed. Bad. Bad Bush! Bad Voters! You should have elected our guy." Well they say it every day, but until "everyone" agrees with them they will not stop. What that failure would mean to the country is not important. As a matter of fact, success would be disaster for them, and a few of them have said as much. They claim they're all about peace, but while peace can be patriotic (to paraphrase a leftist slogan to bring it more into line with the truth), vindictiveness is not.

Hence, Krugman et. al are constantly looking for "lies" to catch anyone related to the Bush administration in. When you're looking that hard, you're liable to see things that aren't there because that's what you want to see.

Nice Summary

From a comment by Pat Hickey

The Progressive demands that all things skew and with their argument at the moment.

Stalin is a great guy; Catholic Church is fascist; Jews are Neo-Nazis; al Queda is freedom fighters; Police abuse minorites; Gun Manufacturers go over to black neighborhoods kill black children and blame ‘victimized’ gang members - read community activists; Iraq is war of occupation; soldiers are rapists and serial tortureers; the ACLU protects religion.

But Pat, it's not the perfect country song. Not yet.

Thomas Miller adds:

Pat,

You forgot a couple 1). All conservatives are racists 2). Rich people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

I could go on but this wears me out Rosie.

Well Put

From Charles Krauthammer:

Having poisoned one country and been expelled from it (Afghanistan), al-Qaeda seized upon post-Hussein instability to establish itself in the very heart of the Arab Middle East -- Sunni Iraq. Yet now, in front of all the world, Iraq's Sunnis are, to use the biblical phrase, vomiting out al-Qaeda. This is a defeat and humiliation in the extreme -- an Arab Muslim population rejecting al-Qaeda so violently that it allies itself in battle with the infidel, the foreigner, the occupier.

Just carrying this battle to its successful conclusion -- independent of its larger effect of helping stabilize Iraq -- is justification enough for the surge. The turning of Sunni Iraq against al-Qaeda is a signal event in the war on terrorism. Petraeus's plan is to be allowed to see it through.

Sums it up pretty well.

Intolerable

This morning on NPR I heard Steve Inskeep comment that Patreus' critics say that while violence in Iraq may have decreased, it has only decreased from "unbelievable" to "intolerable".

Of course, Patreus' critics want us to leave.

What they don't want to say is that if we do, the violence will go from "intolerable", shoot right past "unbelievable" and straight to "monumentally and tragically horrific".

Don't let them kid you. It's not about violence and lives. It's about seething hatred for Bush.

And Then What?

My man Sowell, talking about the question that needs to be asked of the "pull out now" crowd:

And Then What?

says:

Should American troops stay in Iraq indefinitely?

Nobody has ever wanted that. Our whole history shows that American troops have repeatedly pulled out of countries around the world when wars ended and enough order was restored to turn the country over to its own people.

The political conflict today is between people who think that pulling out should depend on conditions in Iraq, as those conditions unfold, rather than on arbitrary timetables created by politicians with no military experience, and with a time horizon that extends no further than the 2008 elections.

Extends no further than the 2008 elections is the key phrase here. It means, we want to be able to use the unpopularity of the war against our political enemies, but we don't actually have a solution to the problem. We prefer it get neatly wrapped up with this administration so that 1) it will be the fall guy for all the pre-war, war, and post-war problems, and 2) we won't have to address these important problems at all.

And this crowd is gaining a few Republican members, too. Sad.

Remember when Hillary outright complained about the possibility of inheriting the war?

"I think it's the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." [..] "This was his decision to go to war, he went with an ill-conceived plan, an incompetently executed strategy and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office."

No mention of what the implications for Iraq and America and the rest of the West for that matter -- would be. It's like "If we pull out, it's like a do-over. Like it never happened." except we get to say "bad! bad Bush!"

And never mind the constant encouragement she and hers give the enemy by telling them "just wait, America will prove you right and leave. We have no stomach for a fight." Just like Bin Laden has said over and over and predicted for Iraq.

This isn't about what is the best thing to do. This is about what I think will get me in to office.

Veterans For Peace - Think. It's Patriotic

I mentioned that I didn't run in to any obnoxious protestors at yesterday's Memorial Day parade.

I didn't run in to any, but I ended up with a leaflet from an outfit called "Veterans For Peace". (A lady I ran into wrote her email address on it and gave it to me so I could send her a couple of pictures I took of her kids at the parade.)

I've seen them before. I salute anyone who has fought honorably to defend America -- for doing that. With this group, though, the first thing that comes to mind is the smugness, the moral high ground declaration in the name. (Read today's Thomas Sowell for a little more on that kind of talk).

"Veterans for Peace." There is an unstated suggestion that if you're not with them, you're not for peace. As if the "other" flavor of veterans must be "Veterans for War". As if anyone is not for peace.

I'm for peace. It's not a question of being against peace. It's what kind of peace are you willing to accept? Dihimitude is peace. But that's not what America is about. America is not about peace. It's not about being patriotic. It's about liberty. It's about freedom. It is, by design, a nation of free men (and ladies, when I say "men" in that context, that includes you, too just as "horses" includes "mares". English is spoken here.)

So I'm reading this, and it asks:

All around the world, people wish for the same things -- a place to live, food to eat, and health for our families. Does our government facilitate this? Is it an example for our kids, teaching them to value life, love, and community?

Well, our government does facilitate this. It facilitates a system where free men are free to choose what they do for a living, who they associate with, and how they care for their families and friends.

Is our government an example for our kids, teaching them to value life, love, and community?

Our government is not supposed to be an example to our kids, teaching them anything. At least that's not the way it was designed. That has traditionally been the role of religion over the ages. How ironic it is that those who cry loudest about "separation of church and state" want the state to become the new church now that they have pretty much disconnected the values and culture of the church that produced the state. This is precisely why they put that clause in the first amendment. The state should teach our kids values? Isn't that pretty much religion? No, families get to teach their own kids their own values.

That aside, the underlying suggestion is that our government is an aggressive war-mongering machine and is thus a bad example to our kids. But our government isn't an aggressive, war-mongering machine. It does, however, when it goes to war teach kids that some things are worth defending, and that is a value that should be well understood.

It should also be understood that

All around the world, people wish for the same things -- a place to live, food to eat, and health for our families -- and some of them wish for a world without infidels.

And if you're not a Muslim, no matter how much you support them -- you're still an infidel.

At any rate, then they go on to say that "this is not about pro-peace vs pro-war. This is about being a part of a democracy." (Distributed by Mid-Missouri Peaceworks -- right).

Right before they basically go and cast it that way in carefully chosen language to make their balanced-sounding "thinking points". After all, the slogan (remember those, John Edwards?) on the pamphlet is "Think. It's Patriotic." Right before they go ahead try to subtly tell you what you should think (so you don't have to -- see, they've already done it for you).

"Some people think Memorial Day should be celebrated with dispays of weapons and planes, while others hold to its original purpose: to honor all who've died in the tragedy of war."

Well first of all, bub, those two ain't mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, a display of power is a great way to honor them, as it shows we are still here and still strong, thanks to them. That it wasn't just a tragedy, but it was a tragedy in the line of duty to a higher purpose. The continuation of the idea that is America.

And secondly, it is not to honor all who have died in the tragedy of war. It is to honor all of our soldiers (or soldiers from other armies fighting for us) who have died tragically -- in the tragedy of war. It is not to honor Hitler or Saddam or his sons, or Zarqawi or the filthy bits of sub-humanity who purposely kill civillians in an attempt to sway public opinion through fear and sorrow. The war deaths of those people is not tragic, and this day is not to honor them, but to thank those who died killing them and those like them.

Some people think Memorial Day is an opportunity to recruit more young people into the military while others think our young people should serve our country in ways that don't involve participating wars of aggression.

Well didn't that one come with a truckload of presumptions? Remember, this isn't about pro-peace vs. pro-war. Riiiiiiight. Look at the language. Opportunists are preying on our children to fight for Halliburton is pretty much what they're saying. But "some people think this" and "some people think that". Look how balanced we are! We don't have an agenda, no sir. We just want you to think. In our terms.

Secondly, yes, if it is honorable to die fighting for our country, then it is honorable for young people to pick up the swords of the fallen and follow in their footsteps so they will have died preserving something that we still think is worth preserving.

Some think making war against countries like Iraq or Iran is defending our freedom. But others point out that they have done nothing to us and pose no threat.

Some people apparently haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years if they "point" that "out" -- or they are lying. And check that language out -- see, "some people think" -- but now the other side is "pointing out" -- implying fact, now, not opinion. It's not even "they think" - "we think" anymore. Iran has made no secret that it wishes to undermine and destroy Western Civilization, for it is incompatible with Islam. Iraq invaded a soveriegn country, the U.N. (mostly us, as usual, providing the teeth) kicked his ass back into Iraq. But then the U.N. said - "wait! stop! cease fire!". Uh, only who stayed there to enforce the conditions of that cease-fire? And whose planes were continually shot at (they did nothing to us my round bippie). 17 resolutions. 11 years. America takes the heat (along with Great Britain). As usual.

Where did we station the military force we needed to enforce the "cease fire"? A:Saudi Arabia. And what pissed Bin Laden off more than anything ... something about infidels on holy soil. What could he have been referring to?

Of course, then we get to the whole "blood for oil" thing:

Rather, they think these countries have resources (such as oil) our nation covets and that's the real reason for making war.

Which is the biggest load of bullshit the "Pro-Peace" folks keep repeating. Listen, if we were that big an aggressive, swaggering, thieving bastard... we. would. go. take. the. oil.

We do not. We pay these countries handsomely to use our technology and know-how to basically mine the only natural resource these countries have other than sand. They can't do it. They benefit from it anyway. We pay them for it. Is it in our best interest if that area of the world is kept as stable as possible? Sure it is. But as far as I can see, and nobody has shown me any credible evidence to the contrary - If Iraq is stabilized, she will own her oil and sell it to the highest bidder -- and it ain't just us bidding.

That's the way it works, and that's why oil prices are so high. Because demand not only from us, but from every other developed country in the world is high, and they all bid on it and pay what the market will bear.

If Mid-Missouri Peaceworks gets its way, Iraq will not be stabilized, so that they can gloat about what a mistake it was to try to end the 1991 war once and for all, and leave Iraq free from the tyranny that started it, and their oil won't be any good to us or Iraqis. Just the terrorist-supporting, Islamist government that will take over. Won't that be pretty? (Well, until our technology breaks down and they can't get it out of the ground anymore without commercial mercenaries they might recruit to help them under the table).

Then they go on to babble about "energy independence" through renewable energy rather than through "domination in the Persian Gulf". Well, folks, domination in the Persian Gulf doesn't give us energy independence at all -- so it's a false comparison. And we don't dominate the Persian Gulf. We influence it, for sure, and that's not only good for us but for the rest of the developed world.

Renewable energy is great. Make it work on the scale we need it to, and I'll sign on.

Some think U.S. policy promotes democracy, but others think aggressive militarism makes more enemies, robs our economy of funds needed for productive investments and does not contribute to our real security.

Well, the ones who think U.S. policy promotes democracy actually really think that democracy promotes democracy, and democracy promotes peace. No democratic nation has ever declared war on another one. Right now what I care about is that the Islamists see that the U.S. isn't going to appease them or merely pretend-slap them on the wrists. They wanted our attention, they got it. "Some people" seem to think that if we just ignore them they'll go away. Well, we pretty much ignored them for the better part of 30 years and they kept trying more and more spectacular acts to get our attention. They did not go away. Like undisciplined children, they kept screaming louder and louder until we put the newspaper down and gave them more than a stern look for once.

I saved this one for last, because it is a question worth answering.

Some folks think supporting our troops mean you have to support the orders they've been given, while others think bringing our troops home safe and alive and providing them with healthcare and education (ed. wtf???) is the best way to support the troops.

Ok. No, supporting the troops doesn't mean you have to support the orders they've been given (or even the mission -- which is a word I noticed they carefully avoided using). But we do expect a few things. We expect you not to accuse them of things they haven't done. We expect you not to judge their actions by the same standards you would expect someone to hold in a quiet restaurant in peacetime. These people are getting shot at with bullets and missiles and grenades. They have split-seconds to react, then split-seconds to react again, and again, and again. We expect you to give them the benefit of the doubt. We expect you to recognize that the vast majority of them are decent human beings who don't torture, rape, or kill indiscriminately. We expect you not to wish them dead so that the other side wins so that you can claim you were "right". And we expect you not to do your utmost to undermine them by aiding and comforting the enemy.

We can talk about the wisdom of starting it later before the next round, but we had that debate and we won. We expect you to talk about it rationally when its all over. Quitting now would be far, far worse than starting it and accomplishing the mission would have been -- even the "some folks" on the other side agree about that -- so we expect you to at the very least respect the fact that we're trying our best so that we only have one enemy prolonging the fight, not two.

Memorial Day

This morning, over the skies of my hometown.

We went to the Memorial Day parade, and there was quite a good turnout. And I didn't run in to any obnoxious protesting leftists, either. Our town is full of them, so I thank them for that.

The parade started out with some parachuters, followed by a flyover by these fighter jets. They passed fairly low, and the roar -- especially after they passed, made you glad they were on YOUR side. I couldn't help it. That "America, F* Yeah!" feeling. And darned proud to feel it knowing the quality of the American character behind it.

Yesterday the wife watched The Patriot, Pearl Harbor, and Behind Enemy Lines. Today, she's doing the "A Band of Brothers" marathon. We bought it after seeing it Memorial Day last year. It's a lot of stuff to watch, but it was really well put together. It does not sugar-coat war, and it puts you in the thick of WWII Europe. It was a chunk of change to buy it, but it's worth it, especially for what you get.

My step son is an Iraqi veteran now. Around 3,000 of his comrades in arms have fallen in this war on Islamism in Iraq alone. Thankfully, he was not among them. All in all, we're talking at worst a 3% casualty rate. Every single one of them is a tragedy. Every single one of them is a tribute to our resistance to this 7th century idealism, the ultimate in cultural centrism, this deadly, black disease that will have itself spread all over the planet if we only let it. If we show it we don't have the will to fight it. It thinks we don't have the will to fight it. Our Democrats have been doing their damnedest to prove them right.

Me, I thank each and every one of our soldiers who fought honorably and died, or fought honorably and lived. And dispite what many would have you believe, most of our soldiers, the vast majority of our soldiers, fight in the most honorable fashion, to the most honorable standards in the world.

Changing Course II

It occurs to me that to the Democrats (Joe Lieberman notably excepted), "Changing Course" in Iraq means "Reversing Course" and nothing else.

Because as I mentioned before, the administration has changed course, but the Democrats continue to insist that it has not.

Cheney (no surprise) was right

From Omar at Iraq the Model:

“Evacuate all houses in the area around the Americans’ base for we shall attack it soon… Those occupiers will soon be gone from this land. Who will protect you then?”

These were roughly the words in a leaflet the “mujahideen” distributed in Adhamiya a few days ago. A distant relative who lives there received one.

And just what part of Cheney's assertation that a withdrawal date validates the Islamists' strategy does that not jive with?

Changing Course

Senator Reid:

“If the president vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

The president has changed course in Iraq. It just isn't the change Mr. Reid et. al. had in mind. Still, Reid's no dummy. He knows that "change course" is much more vague and palatable than "withdraw".

Lack of Moral Authority, or Backbone?

Max Hastings of the Guardian says that Global reaction to the seizure of British marines on the Shatt-al-Arab is a measure of our loss of moral authority over Iraq.

The Iranians seem to have planned this operation for days. They wanted western hostages, probably to exchange for their own people held by the Americans, and would have been untroubled by a firefight.

Their own people being people we caught in Iraq fighting the Iranian's war in Iraq. But to the Guardian, they are morally equivalent.

More than that, because of Iraq (almost every twist of western foreign policy is influenced by those fatal words) the British position is nowhere near as strong as it should be in haggling to get its people back.

Never mind the fact that past successes exploiting that very willingness to haggle is precisely what triggered the event in the first place. Right before the UN was to vote on sanctions against Iran for ignoring the U.N.'s worthless resolutions.

Here we go again:

Here is a new manifestation of the loss of moral authority resulting from the Iraq policies of George Bush and Tony Blair. Iran is controlled by one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Its cruelties fall not merely on its opponents, but upon its entire female population. It is a proponent of international terrorism, committed to the illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons. Its president is a Holocaust denier.

In western progressive's eyes, this is true. In Amadinnerjacket's eyes, it's got nothing to do with moral authority (although he'll gladly use the disdain of western useful idiots to his advantage). No, in Amadinnerjacket's eyes, the West, or just about all that's left of what was once the West -- just gave a big signal that they are about to cut and run from Iraq like they did from Somalia. They are about to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory like they did in Vietnam. The west is the weak horse like the Islamists believe -- not in strength but in will. He knows that he can nab 15 Brits and get something out of it. It has nothing to do with moral authority. It has everything to do with moral backbone, and the West's lack of it -- which they've shown over and over again. The west believes in nothing anymore, except for its belief in nothing.

Opinion polls show many people around the world are more fearful of President Bush launching strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities than of the consequences of President Ahmadinejad acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Which just goes to show how successful western progressives have been in demonizing nobility and nobilizing demons.

Despite the strong line towards Iran's nuclear defiance adopted by the UN security council, now with unexpected Russian support, it is generally assumed that the country will achieve its aim of making nuclear weapons.

Strong line? You mean the UN Security Council said that they were really really unhappy about it? That's a strong line? It's generally assumed that the country will achieve its aim because a) that's what it wants to do, and b) it knows that nobody in the UN will ever approve of any concrete action to stop it. What are they going to do, taunt them a third time? Amadinnerjacket is laughing.

Don't kid yourself. Do you really think if we never went to Iraq, after watching the actions of the UN leading up to the 2003 invasion -- that the UN Security Council would authorize any action to stop Tehran?

The victim culture, the belief that Iran is a beleaguered nation, oppressed economically, culturally, politically and militarily by the US and its allies, is deeply rooted. It has been intensified by President Bush's pronouncements and actions over the past six years.

How so?

The European nations have always believed that engagement with Iran is the most plausible policy, for lack of any other.

Like Chamberlain engaged Nazi Germany?

It will be a rash coalition commander in Iraq who again exposes British or American troops to Iranian arms.

I don't hear anybody saying that is going to happen.

Iran is a tormented society, flailing and thrashing in a quest for international respect and influence. So long as its only claim to these things rests upon its capacity for violence and destruction, much more grief lies ahead for its own people and the rest of the world.

I am quite sure the US and British Administrations are aware of this.

So to sum up your article, nobody should do anything concrete to stop Iran's nuclear program, because the Mullahcracy is about to crumble from within. Bush is unable to do what we shouldn't do anyway because we've lost the "moral high ground" because Bush is evil and stupid. The Brits can't negotiate for their hostages because Blair and Bush are evil - and presumably negotiating with Tehran over hostages they took specifically to bring about negotiations is ... a good thing, somehow. Child screams. Child gets ice cream. Child screams. Child gets ice cream. Child wants ice cream, child screams.

Hope you like screaming children.

Chickens coming home to roost

Can't put it any better than Sowell did.

Anti-war protesters in Washington and outside her home in San Francisco are denouncing Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats for not cutting off the money to fight the war in Iraq.

If the war in Iraq is such an unnecessary and futile expenditure of blood and treasure as Pelosi et al. have been saying, why not put an end to it?

But to do that would mean taking responsibility for the consequences -- and those consequences would be disastrous and lasting. They would probably still be lasting when the 2008 elections come around.

The Democrats cannot risk that. They have taken over Congress by a very clever and very disciplined strategy of constantly criticizing the Republicans, without taking the risk of presenting an alternative for whose results they can be held responsible.

There is no sign that they want to change that politically winning strategy now. Their non-binding resolutions against the war are a perfect expression of that strategy.

These resolutions put them on record as being against the war without taking the responsibility for ending it.

Support Our Iraqi Supporters

By supporting our troops and their mission.

Must reading from Mohammed at Iraq the Model.

Changing Semantics

Osama Bin Laden, 2004:

"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad."

Ayman al-Zawahiri (Osama's right-hand man), 2006:

"The jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate - over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage:... the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity."

Democrats, 2006/2007

Withdraw from re-deploy from disengage from end participation in the war in Iraq.

A rose by any other name.... of course, when Cheney pointed out that this all means "being expelled from Iraq", Pelosi quickly changed the subject by accusing Cheney of questioning her patriotism.

One thing I like about Cheney is he doesn't mince words. He responded "I'm not questioning her patriotism. I'm questioning her judgement."

Looks to me like he has a very good point.

Karzai, tribal leaders sentiments back Cheney

From a VP Pool report filed by Mike Silva of the Chicago Tribune

At Cheney's luncheon with Karzai, the Afghan leader told a story of meeting with tribal leaders and trying to get them to cooperate. "The only question they wanted to ask me, was, 'Is the United States with you?" Karzai said, according to this account.

People are concerned about the US commitment to the region, and Democrats in DC talking about withdrawal from Iraq make them concerned - though that debate back home had no bearing on the VP's decision to come here, sao said. "That would have devastating consequences to what we're trying to do" in this part of the world.

Karzai was reportedly "upbeat" - with all the money and troops that the US is committing to Afghanistan, the sao said, "It's all taken as a sign" of commitment.

"They worry about that... If they see weakness on the part of the US... They worry about our commitment."

The proposals of people in the US to withdraw from Iraq have "consequences in this part of the world," the official said. "The al Qaeda strategy is based on the notion that they can break the will of the American people."

I'm going to guess "The Official" is Cheney himself in that last paragraph since it's the same wording Cheney has used before. And he's just as right. It is in Iraq as it is in Afghanistan.

The Surge: Democrats' worst nightmare?

I see real hope from Omar & Mohammed over at Iraq the Model. I remember they started out hopeful, and went through a really depressed period. Then the posts came few and far between. Suddenly it's back, and cautiously upbeat.

Apparently a couple of liquor stores have even opened. Al Queda and Al Sadr would never tolerate that.

And this morning an Iraqi employee of NPR was interviewed on Morning Edition -- and the end of the interview certainly did not sound like the "gloom and doom" lost cause stuff we've been hearing.

When NPR airs something like this, I really take notice.

It sounds like the surge, so far, is working.

So with news like this coming out, one has to ask.... might the Democrats' strategy backfire? What happens if there's finally some serious success and Iraqi's get a foothold. I thought at first that the Dems would just take credit for "shaking up" Bush's strategy by winning a majority in both houses. But with the recent "rush to pull the plug" and condemnation of the surge -- they won't be able to say they did it. It will be easy to show that it was done in spite of their efforts to derail it.

And I don't think Americans will like it.

Perfect Example of the "Change The Subject" tactic

Via Powerline.

Cheney re-states, for clarity, his statement on Al Queda's strategy and what Democrats' "re-deploy" policy would mean in light of it.

Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al Qaeda.

How much clearer can you get than that? Where's the "spin"?

So do Democrats argue with his statement? Any of the premises? Well, no. Pelosi complains "how dare you question my patriotism?" And E.J. Dionne starts screaming about "smearing" and Scooter Libby.

When you can't argue with facts, change the subject. Often several times within the same sentence.

Statement: "If we abandon Iraq, we validate Al Queda's strategy"

"Counter" Statement: "But Imperial-Industrio-Bushitler-Halliburton-Cheney-ScooterGate! Dissent is Patriotic!"

---

update: Morgan observes the change the subject strategy in the Al Gore camp.