Verbosities

O'Reilly: Traditional values people put others on a par with themselves. That's the Judeo-Christian tenet. Love your neighbor as yourself. Secular Progressives put themselves above all others. That philosophy says "Me first, then I'll worry about you."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The global war on terrorism is not a game from which we can simply walk away when it seems it isn't going our way. At the same time critics of the Bush administration insist it should have done more to combat al Qaeda in Afghanistan before Sept. 11 (on the basis of intelligence far weaker than that pointing to Hussein's weapons of mass destruction), they miss the more profound lesson that national tragedy should have instilled: that the only deterrent to terrorism is strength and that weakness--real and perceived--is an incitement to further attacks.

(W)hen Saddam Hussein was being given a last chance to open Iraq to U.N. weapons inspectors, posters appeared around America asking "What would Gandhi do?"



And that's a pretty good question. At what point is it okay to fight dictators like Saddam or the al Qaeda terrorists who want to take his place?



It turns out that the answer, according to Gandhi, is never.

No matter how much evidence of Iran's determination to destroy or dominate us, no matter how many times Khamenei or Ahmadinejad leads the chant of "Death to America," no matter how many American fighters and Iraqi citizens are killed as a result of Iranian support for the terrorists, she and the Kissingers of this world continue to convince themselves that things are getting better, that Iran shares our goals for peace in the region, and that if we only make one more generous offer, the whole unpleasant situation will work out for the best.



It is not so. They are not like us, and they do not share our dreams. Diplomacy will not tame them. Only our victory will.

Doesn't Patrick Fitzgerald look like a man who has dodged a bullet and is ready to get out of town? That was my first impression after watching the special-prosecutor's press conference after news came down Wednesday about Scooter Libby. It would seem that prosecuting a Bush official before a Washington jury is not necessarily a slam dunk after all when the gruel is this thin.



Two crucial decisions were made in order for this sorry state of affairs to have played out this way. The first was when the Justice Department folded under political and media pressure because of the Plame leak and appointed a special counsel. When DOJ made the appointment they knew that the leak did not constitute a violation of the law. Yet, instead of standing on that solid legal ground they abdicated their official responsibility.



The Plame/Wilson defenders wanted administration blood because the administration had had the audacity to question the credibility of Joe Wilson and defend themselves against his charges. Therefore, the Department of Justice, in order to completely inoculate themselves, gave power and independence to Fitzgerald that was not available to Ken Starr, Lawrence Walsh, or any prior independent counsel under the old independent-counsel law. Fitzgerald became unique in our judicial history in that he was accountable to no one. And here even if justice had retained some authority they could hardly have asked Fitzgerald why he continued to pursue a non-crime because they knew from the beginning there was no crime.

Let us stipulate--appealing to the authority of such diverse legal authorities as David Boies and Victoria Toensing--that the Scooter Libby perjury case should not have been brought in the first place. It is also true that decisions by the trial judge made it difficult for Libby's team to put its best defense forward and that a D.C. jury was going to be tough for any Bush-Cheney official. Still, the verdict of guilty on the part of the jury was, as Hamilton might put it, "unfortunate."

The only problem is: There was nothing wrong with firing eight U.S. attorneys. Of course the Department of Justice was inept in the way they did it, trying to conceal things that didn't need to be concealed but the U.S. attorneys, like innumerable other public officials serve at the pleasure of the president. He fired eight of his own appointees apparently because they we not aggressive enough in pursuing voting fraud cases. In 1993 Attorney General Janet Reno rode into town and fired every U.S. attorney in the country but one--all Republican appointees.



Amidst all this foolishness there is a serious question here. Considering the times we live in, do we really want to continue to try to chip away at the traditional powers of the president?

(Quoting AEI Scholar John Yoo) We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.

People who want to blow Jews off the face of the earth. The regime that stormed our embassy in 1979 and kept Americans captive for 444 days. Iran’s Hezbollah puppets have killed more Americans, than any other terrorist group except al Qaeda. Explosive devices from Iran are being used right now against our soldiers in Iraq. They’re clearly more skittish about cultural warfare than the sort that actually kills people--like the one against Israel that Iran financed just a few months ago.



I must say that I’m impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.

But Ahmadinejad's ambitions are not confined to the destruction of Israel. He also wishes to dominate the greater Middle East, and thereby to control the oilfields of the region and the flow of oil out of it through the Persian Gulf. If he acquired a nuclear capability, he would not even have to use it in order to put all this within his reach. Intimidation and blackmail by themselves would do the trick.



Nor are Ahmadinejad's ambitions merely regional in scope. He has a larger dream of extending the power and influence of Islam throughout Europe, and this too he hopes to accomplish by playing on the fear that resistance to Iran would lead to a nuclear war. And then, finally, comes the largest dream of all: what Ahmadinejad does not shrink from describing as "a world without America." Demented though he may be, I doubt that Ahmadinejad is so crazy as to imagine that he could wipe America off the map even if he had nuclear weapons. But what he probably does envisage is a diminution of the American will to oppose him: that is, if not a world without America, he will settle, at least in the short run, for a world without much American influence.



Not surprisingly, the old American foreign-policy establishment and many others say that these dreams are nothing more than the fantasies of a madman. They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in the interest not of the United States but only of Israel. But the irony is that Ahmadinejad's dreams are more realistic than the dismissal of those dreams as merely insane delusions.

There's a lot in the bill I don't understand, but this sort of makes sense. There's $50 million for repairs to the plant that supplies electrical power to the Capitol--where Congress works. To fund and win the war, Congress does need electricity at least to do its job.



Ah, I get it. This bill isn't just about funding the war for democracy and freedom in Iraq. It's a political statement. And it's about buying enough votes with pork in order to make that statement. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing, if Congress did have its power cut off every once in a while.

Over the years, America has earned opprobrium in the Arab world for its realpolitik backing of repressive dictators like Hosni Mubarak and the Saudi royal family. This could be the chance to right the scales, to establish the first Arab democracy, and to show the Arab people that America is as committed to freedom for them as we were for the people of Eastern Europe. To turn Iraq into a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East: Now that would be a historic war aim.

Now, as before, politicians are itching to fund their pet projects with the short-term revenue increases that come from tax hikes, ignoring the long-term pain they always cause. Unfortunately, the tax cuts that have produced our record-breaking government revenues and personal incomes will expire soon. Because Congress has failed to make them permanent, we are facing the worst tax hike in our history. Already, worried investors are trying to figure out what the financial landscape will look like in 2011 and beyond.



This issue is particularly important now because massive, unfunded entitlements are coming due as the baby-boom generation retires. We simply cannot afford higher taxes if we want an economy able to bear up under the strain of those obligations. And beyond the issue of our annual federal budget is the nearly $9 trillion national debt that we have not even begun to pay off.



To face these challenges, and any others that we might encounter in a hazardous world, we need to maintain economic growth and healthy tax revenues. That is why we need to reject taxes that punish rather than reward success.

One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the "have-nots" and the "haves" engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability.

We're also hopeful that, eventually, our ostrich-headed allies will realize there's a world war going on out there and they need to pick a side--the choice being between the forces of civilization and the forces of anarchy. Considering the fact that the latter team is growing stronger and bolder daily, while most of our European Union friends continue to dismantle their defenses, that day may not be too long in coming.

Taken together, American principles, interests, and systemic responsibilities argue strongly in favor of an active and expansive stance of strategic primacy and a continued willingness to employ military force. Within that context, and given the ways in which nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction can distort normal calculations of international power relationships, there is a compelling need to hold open the option of--and indeed, to build forces more capable of--preemptive strike operations. The United States must take a wider view of the traditional doctrine of "imminent danger," considering how such dangers might threaten not only its direct interests, but its allies, the liberal international order, and the opportunities for greater freedom in the world.

Tenet acknowledged that before the Gulf War, the CIA had underestimated how far along Saddam was on his nuclear program.



All of this hardly fits with the notion that Saddam posed no threat. As Tenet made the media rounds, he may have helped the administration as much as hurt it

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

Imagine what it would be like to live, knowing that a rocket could fall on you or your children at any minute. Half of those who live nearest to Gaza have fled their homes. Those remaining are traumatized by daily warning sirens and explosions.



The irony is that Israel has the military might to easily win the war that is being waged against them today. They haven’t used that might, in the past, out of compassion for Palestinian civilians and because it could trigger a wider regional conflict.



That balance of power is about to change, though. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, the very existence of this tiny nation of Israel will be threatened. The Iranian regime has left little doubt that it intends to see Israel "wiped off the map." Hamas is using the same language, not coincidentally, and has announced it will begin launching missiles into Israel from the West Bank too.



If the world doesn’t act to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, it must be prepared for the consequences of Israel defending itself.

Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) first guest blog posting (that is, on a blog other than her own) is raising a few eyebrows in Democratic political circles.

Not because of what Clinton wrote, but because of where she chose to post it.

GOP Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter’s campaign contacted me and asked if I’d be interested in posting a message from him, on the subject of Israel. Just to be clear, this isn’t an LGF endorsement of Congressman Hunter (and no, he isn’t paying me to post it)—but I think the lizard army will really appreciate his straightforward assessment of the situation.

I’d like to thank Charles Johnson for giving me an opportunity to talk to his readers at Little Green Footballs about Israel...

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vowed Friday to remain in his post through the end of President Bush’s second term, in a “sprint to the finish line.”

In his most definitive statement on the issue to date, Gonzales made clear to his critics during a speech on crime that he would continue to reject their calls for his resignation.

“I know that I only have 18 months left in my term as attorney general, and that really does not feel like a lot of time to accomplish all of the goals that are important to me. So often Washington seems to run at a marathon pace, but I intend to spend the next year and a half in a sprint to the finish line,” Gonzales said.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The unfree governments now understand that they have to provide a good economy to keep citizens happy, and they understand that free-market econ­omies work best. Also, nearly all of the unfree nations are developing countries. History shows they grow faster, at least for a while, than mature nations. But being unfree may be an economic advantage. Dictatorships are not hamstrung by the preferences of voters for, say, a pervasive welfare state.



So the future may look something like the 20th century in reverse. The unfree nations will grow so quickly that they will overwhelm free nations with their economic might. The unfree will see no reason to transition to democracy.



Meanwhile, democracies may copy many of the market-friendly policies of the dictatorships, but it seems unlikely that free citizens will choose to reduce their own political freedoms.



Democracies will stay in the game, but, as Arrow showed long ago, their victory is not assured.

A government is really just a mechanism that makes collective decisions for a large number of cit­izens who have different preferences. I might want to spend our tax dollars on dog parks; you might prefer more police. The government’s job is to work it out. This job is called “aggregating preferences.” In the U.S., we send signals with voting to help the government aggregate preferences.



Arrow was able to show that no voting scheme can be devised that will create a government that has rational preferences, where rationality is defined precisely by Arrow as meeting a number of condi­tions. Democracy might be a form of government that many prefer to live under, but there is nothing theoretically compelling that suggests that it is the form of government that best reflects the underly­ing preferences of citizens. As a result, democracies will not necessarily outperform other types of mech­anisms for preference aggregation as a route to economic prosperity. Democracies will not always win.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in Kelo v New London, that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permits state governments to redistribute private property with the aim of maximizing tax revenue. In this case, a handful of homeowners will be evicted against their will to make room for a pharmaceutical plant. Liberals take note: If you really support the common man against big corporations, then you too should be outraged by this case.



While the decision reaffirms a position that has been the status quo for quite some time, still I am puzzled. The Takings Clause reads,

Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation.

That’s a full stop at the end, with not a word about tax revenue.



As Randy Barnett has argued in Restoring the Lost Constitution, we are certainly not to interpret the adjective “public” here to imply that government takings for private use are ever permitted–with or without just compensation. Such a power was never contemplated at the adoption of the Constitution, except to regard it with horror: The power itself implies strongly that private landowners hold their land only by virtue of a “public” utility, and, ultimately, that the property does not truly belong to them. In the final analysis, all property would then belong to the government.



[snip]



Provided that “just compensation” is given, it seems there is nothing at all preventing any sort of taking, so long as some legislature votes to do it. Let’s also not forget that just compensation is largely in the eye of the beholder. Its very existence in the Constitution is something of a necessary evil: If the compensation truly were just, then governmental “takings” would not exist at all. Instead, the government would simply raise its offer enough to induce the property owners to sell of their own accord.

(S)omeone just explain to me how our government remains one of limited powers in light of Raich, Kelo, and the indefinite detentions of those who are neither accused of crimes nor are POWs. From where I sit, the circle has finally closed: The enemies of liberty on the left and the right have all come to an agreement in which big government wins no matter what the rationale or the venue. I only hope we will realize what is happening before even more damage is done.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Remember that anonymous hold placed on the Open Government Act? Looks like it was placed by Jon Kyl of Arizona.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., says the Justice Department is concerned that it could force them to reveal sensitive information.

In a statement Thursday, Kyl said the agency's "uncharacteristically strong" opposition is reason enough to think twice about the legislation, and he will block a vote until both sides can work out the differences.

Powered by ScribeFire.

It was in June of 2005 that I officially joined Team Pokerstars. It was the beginning of an incredible two year journey that ended last month, when I found out that I won't be on the team after June 15th of this year.

I had been expecting to be cut from the team ever since Bill Frist snuck the UIGEA into an entirely unrelated port security bill in the middle of the night on the last day of Congress' session in 2006. Because he wanted to suck up to his daddy-needing ultra-conservative moralizing base. For his presidential bid. Which he dropped shortly after. Hey, diagnose this, asshole.

Uh. Sorry. Anyway, with the future of online poker in the USA in serious doubt as a result of this Fristfucking, PokerStars and the other online rooms need to focus on Europe and Asia to expand and fortify their business. It totally makes sense, and it didn't surprise me at all when I got the call last month.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I give you my favorite quotation from the Bush administration, put forward by the proverbial "unnamed Administration official" and published in the New York Times Magazine by the fine journalist Ron Suskind in October 2004. Here, in Suskind's recounting, is what that "unnamed Administration official" told him:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Meanwhile, in a separate opposition to the prosecution's sentencing memorandum, Libby's lawyers address an issue that has caused no small amount of controversy recently, the prosecution's assertion that Valerie Plame (also known by her married name, Valerie Wilson) -- the former CIA agent whose outing sparked the investigation that ultimately ensnared Libby -- was indeed a covert agent. Libby's lawyers argue that the assertion Plame was covert, based on an unclassified summary of her classified file, "is tantamount to asking the Court and Mr. Libby to take the government's word on Ms. Wilson's status, based on secret evidence, without affording Mr. Libby an opportunity to rebut it. Such a request offends traditional notions of fairness and due process."

Libby's lawyers don't specifically refute the prosecution's assertion that Plame qualified as covert under the relevant statute, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but they do call it into question. They observe that the IIPA definition only includes those CIA agents "serving outside the United States" or who have "within the last five years served outside the United States," and that the unclassified summary says that within the relevant time-frame Plame "engaged in temporary duty travel" while otherwise remaining the U.S., and say that "it is not clear" that travel meets the IIPA definition. "In fact," they write, "it seems more likely that the CIA employee would have to have been stationed outside the United States... the meaning of the phrase 'served outside the United States' in the IIPA has never been litigated. Thus, whether Ms. Wilson was covered by the IIPA remains very much in doubt."

(1) The term “classified information” means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.



[snip]



(4) The term “covert agent” means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

From Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler:

Chairman Nadler Announces Hearings Series: “The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America”

Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Subcommittee to Explore Administration Programs Threatening Americans’ Liberties;

Kicks Off with June 7 Hearing on NSA Wiretapping Program

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, announced a series of hearings titled “The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America.” In these hearings, the Subcommittee will examine the Bush Administration’s policies, actions and programs that threaten Americans’ fundamental constitutional rights and civil liberties and also hear proposals for potential legislative fixes.

The series will begin with a hearing on June 7, 2007, which will examine the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and the Administration’s proposals for expanding it.

“This Congress must void the blank check the White House has enjoyed for the last six years,” said Rep. Nadler. “The time for real accountability and meaningful oversight is now, and this Subcommittee will fulfill its constitutional duty to protect the fundamental freedoms of all Americans.”

Powered by ScribeFire.

As we noted the other day, we've heard two reports from what appears to have been the same visit some Texas-based bigs paid to George W. Bush recently.

In the president's version of the story, "a bunch of our buddies from Texas" visited the White House and asked him, "Man, how come you're still standing?" And he told them: "I'm inspired by doing this job. I believe strongly in the decisions I have made. I firmly believe that we are responding to this initial challenge of the 21st century in proper fashion."

In the version of the story posted by the Nelson Report, some "big money players up from Texas" managed to "get out exactly one question" before Bush went off on "an extended whine, a rant, actually, about [how] no one understands him, the critics are all messed up, if only people would see what he's doing things would be OK, etc."

Now, as Think Progress reports, there's a third version of the story. In the version set forth today by columnist Georgie Anne Geyer in the Dallas Morning News, friends of the president from Texas were "shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated, 'I am the president!' He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of 'our country's destiny.'"

Powered by ScribeFire.

(Fred) Thompson is in some ways a mere vessel right now for Republicans dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates. Despite his fame, his non-acting background, record and policy views aren't well known. He'll need to make certain who he is, what he believes and why he's running while his public image is still as favorable as it is and before others muddy the waters.

Powered by ScribeFire.

President Bush's conception of a global war on terror is not the Cold War. There is no consensus around its assumptions. On the contrary, its premises have been refuted by their own applications. The collision of Bush's fantasies with reality has stripped them bare.

The current challenge is not a struggle against a totalitarian foe.

It is not, as Bush has said, "the ideological struggle of our time."

It is not an ideological war.

It is not a battle against an enemy called "Islamofascism" -- a confected category that conflates Bush's idea of war not only with the Cold War but also with World War II.

Most important, it is not a struggle for national survival against an existential threat. Jihadism and its use of terror are, of course, a dangerous threat, but they do not, and cannot, destroy the United States as the Soviet Union could do.

From these false assumptions flow false choices, including the false choice between law enforcement and the administration's so-called war paradigm. Instead, law enforcement and military force both must be essential instruments, along with diplomacy, including public diplomacy.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Newsweek's Howard Fineman -- last seen expressing admiration for the "reassuring" "male" qualities exuded by the GOP presidential field -- was on Hardball last night heaping praise on Fred Thompson. According to Fineman, Thompson not only is "tough on defense," but he himself is "a tough guy." Fineman also swooned: "He's got a strong record on cultural issues as a cultural conservative from the South."

What, in Fineman's mind, makes Thompson "tough on defense" and gives him credibility as "a tough guy"? Fineman obviously means that as a high compliment, but what -- in actuality -- has Thompson ever done that makes him a "tough guy"?

Here is Thompson's biography -- his own official, endorsed version. He's been a government lawyer, an actor and a Senator. Though Thompson does not mention it, he also has been -- for two decades -- what a 1996 profile in The Washington Monthly described as "a high-paid Washington lobbyist for both foreign and domestic interests." This folksy, down-home, regular guy has spent his entire adult life as a lawyer and lobbyist in Washington, except when he was an actor in Hollywood. And -- like the vast, vast majority of Republican "tough guys" who play-act the role so arousingly for our media stars, from Rudy Giuliani to Newt Gingrich -- Thompson has no military service despite having been of prime fighting age during the Vietnam War (Thompson turned 20 in 1962, Gingrich in 1963, Guiliani in 1964). He was active in Republican politics as early as the mid-1960s, which means he almost certainly supported the war in which he did not fight.

So what exactly, in Fineman's eyes, makes Thompson such a "tough guy"?

"Toughness" can be demonstrated by actually fighting in a war. "Toughness" is demonstrated when a political candidate tells people what they do not want to hear. "Toughness" is not demonstrated by sending other people to war. But people like Fineman (i.e., media purveyors of Beltway conventional wisdom) reflexively, and incoherently, equate blind militarism and warmongering with "toughness" even though it is anything but.

This is what Thompson said last month when interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News:

WALLACE: What would you do now in Iraq?

THOMPSON: I would do essentially what the president's doing.

Powered by ScribeFire.

What do you do?



Without question, I hunt down the organizers of the terrorist groups and I kill them. I kill them in such a way that there is no question that I intended to kill them. I continued to kill them until there are no more to kill.



So, most supporters of the current war would suggest that's what we're doing in Iraq. We're working to kill the people who tried to kill us. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence to support that. I've yet to see evidence that Iraq provided serious support to Osama Bin Laden or his people. I've yet to see serious evidence that Saddam had much success in building weapons of mass destruction. So, launching an assault on Iraq and deposing Saddam might have been a good idea. I'm not saying it wasn't. What I'm saying is, 9/11 wasn't justification for it. What I'm saying is America is in the middle of a crisis of its own making and the only people winning are the Haliburtons of the corporate world.



People sound so hopeless. What possible series of US/world events leads to people sounding hopeful?



Maybe I'm being naive. Maybe there was reason to occupy Iraq for four-plus years in an effort to fight terrorism. Maybe the trillions we've spent destroying and rebuilding Iraq is actually making my family safer. However, I don't think that.



I have an in-law who once said, "If we don't find them over there, your son will have to fight them over here."



My question: Who is "them?" Iraqis? Muslims? Middle Eastern people? Brown people?



Supporters of the war seem to draw a clear connection between The War on Terror and the occupation of Iraq. I don't see one.



So, what of hope? What would make me hopeful?



Hard to say anymore I guess. Looking back, I wish we would've spent trillions in covert missions and undercover work to find and kill terrorists. I wish we had not gone to war in Iraq. Had we decided to depose Saddam, I wish it would've been a CIA mission as opposed to a full-scale military assault. I wish we would've listened to the intelligence about the insurgency problems we were sure to face. I wish thousands of American soldiers hadn't had to die for a war with no clear goal or exit strategy.



But, hope in one hand, yada, yada.



So, what would give me hope now?



A gradual drawdown of the American presence in Iraq.



A clear timetable for our eventual exit.

You've observed the type of people that get involved in seeking power. If you can solve that situation with the simplistic demands your cite in your article, it would seem you've lost understanding of the process that gets us into these situations.



It is great to have a collection of ideals to espouse. You and the beauty pageant winner who wants to end world hunger are in good company.



Quoting NYT op-ed's aren't the way to win over a lot of us. Balanced isn't part of their editorial process on that page.



You indite the politican and I don't have a problem with that. I tend to indite the media. All they want to give us today is body counts. Who are the Iraqi people? What are their goals? Where is it better? Where is it worse? Is that on my nightly news? No, but I can find it on the Internet without problem.



I mentioned Michael Yon's site in my weekend blog. I come from that with a different picture. It isn't handing out simple solutions but it shows an important side that is left out by those with your more liberal view.



The fact is we are in a shitty situation that should have never happened. So, do we go for a shitty exit strategy that runs that cesspool up over the hipboots? That isn't being answered by the liberals or anybody else. Simple reason why...there isn't a simple answer.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Someone found mentally incompetent to stand trial in New Hampshire still may be competent to own guns, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.



The court overturned a Concord District Court ruling in which a man was denied his weapons after being found mentally incompetent to stand trial on theft, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest charges for an outburst at Division of Motor Vehicles headquarters in Concord three years ago.



Scott Buchanan took the issue to court after authorities refused to give two guns back.



The court ruled the criteria for being found incompetent to stand trial were different from the legal standard for being declared mentally defective under federal law -- the standard by which gun ownership can be denied.

The charges were dismissed after Buchanan was found incompetent to stand trial because of his excessive and unusual paranoia about police and government, according to court records.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Not-so-great moment? Biden defending his vote on last week's war-funding bill with a time-honored Republican talking point, telling the Des Moines Register yesterday that those who voted against the bill harmed the troops. "As long as there are troops who are in a position where, if we don't fund them they are going to be hurt, I'm not going to cut off funding," Biden said in a meeting with Des Moines Register editors and reporters. "That's what the other candidates said, too, but they changed their mind."

Powered by ScribeFire.

One more thought about Fred Thompson's momentum and why it may not be as great or as sustainable as some pundits speculate.

There is a great fear in the GOP that Hillary is approaching with Bill in the sidecar and Senator Obama on the bottom of the ticket, MoveOn and Kosputin whipping the fever swamp into a frenzy and Soros pouring his last cent into his last play. Thompson as Reagan meant for a lot of these people not Thompson as a conservative's conservative, but Thompson as a powerful candidate capable of summoning a huge outpouring of energy and enthusiasm from the base and the old Reagan Democrats alike leading to a big win as in 1980 and 1984. Couldn't we please have a candidate who could establish and keep a lead like the Gipper.

Except, of course, Ronald Reagan did not establish and keep a lead in 1980. Until the last few days of the race, President Carter and Governor Reagan were viewed as neck-and-neck in a race too close to call. There isn't any reason to believe that Fred would have any easier a go of it than Rudy or Mitt, and as that becomes obvious in the days and weeks and months after his entry, the folks hoping for an easy win are going to drop that enthusiasm and start looking hard again at all three, asking which one is the best candidate.

These are the Al Davis Republicans --"Just win, baby"-- and their support will be decisive in 1Q08. One reason I suspect the Fred boom may be over before it has even really begun is the recognition that on the stump Fred will be seen as the southerner he is --slow, folksy, plain spoken. In a year when an anti-Bush may be needed, a Brookyln-born Mob-busting tough guy, or the hyper-intelligent, hyper-eloquent investment banker turnaround executive may emerge quickly as far more likely to be the "something completely different " that Reagan was in 1980, and thus the strong prefernce of the Al Davis GOPers.

Powered by ScribeFire.

(The elders of the current Christian Right have) already raised several million kids in this cultural hothouse, and carefully indoctrinated them to carry on God's work in spite of Satan's (er, our) efforts. So we need to ask: Where will these kids be in another ten or 20 years?

Statistically, at least one-third of them (perhaps considerably more -- the numbers on this are fuzzy, but we know they're high) will to leave fundamentalism as adults to join us here in the Reality-Based World. And if the Emerging Church movement succeeds -- and given the energy and intellectual quality of its young leadership, that seems likely -- another large chunk will become engaged with a more socially conscious vision of Christianity that has little interest in pursuing theocratic goals. (Internally, EC theology has strong themes of submission and authority. These are more evident in some parts of the movement than others, and not all of them are benign. But, generally, the movement sees itself in active opposition to the highly political Evangelicalism of the recent past, and focuses on goals other than worldly power.)

But, when those two groups have moved on, what remains could be a significant core -- perhaps including those Christian Soldiers mentioned in the earlier post -- for whom their early indoctrination will continue to be the defining fact of their lives. And these are the ones we will need to watch and worry about -- both because they are most likely to become the militants; and because any future re-emergence of religious authoritarianism will almost certainly begin with them.

And, compared with today, they'll be driving without brakes. Freed from the cooling, calming influence that more moderate fellow-believers provided back in the day when their churches were big and influential and concerned with their public image; and furious beyond words at their loss of cultural and political influence, there will be nothing to keep them from hurling themselves farther out to the extremes. There, they could readily meet up with white supremacists, anti-environmentalists, anti-choice terrorists, and the other groups on the far-right fringe who've already decided that violence is the answer. The coalitions that might form if the Christian Soldiers move right in large numbers could very well be the catalyzing force of a true American fascism.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert

Powered by ScribeFire.

Because you can't look at the Manchester School of Technology without realizing that it didn't happen by accident. It was built by the people of this state who, even 25 years ago, understood that to compete in today's economy, young people need the skills for today's jobs. That's what we've always done here in America: When our economy changes, we don't panic or give up or wring our hands -- we simply change with it. That's what has happened here at MST. I really applaud you for doing that, because we have to look for examples like this to figure out what we need to do more broadly across our nation.

Now we've done this before. We did the same thing back at the turn of the 20th century. Back then, the American economy was dominated by large corporate monopolies. Corruption was far too common and good government far too rare. Women couldn't vote, and the minimum wage, well, that wasn't heard of and worker rights were completely unimagined. Back then, America was a country filled with haves and have nots -- and not enough people in between.

In response to these excesses, the progressive movement was born. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, the progressives busted trusts and fought for safe working conditions and fair wages. They created the national park system, and replaced a government rife with cronyism with a merit-based civil service. They understood, as the great progressive President Teddy Roosevelt once said, that "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."

Well, today, at the beginning of the 21st century, I think it's time we remembered those lessons. For the first time in history, we have a truly global economy...

[snip]

Like it or not, that is the reality of globalization. And it isn't going away. However, if managed properly, globalization may offer the promise of new markets, new growth, and new opportunities for broadly shared prosperity to young people like Colleen.

Unfortunately, for the past six years it's as though we've gone back to the era of the robber barons. Year after year the president has handed out massive tax breaks to oil companies, no-bid contracts to Halliburton, tax incentives to corporations shipping jobs overseas, tax cut after tax cut to multimillionaires, while ignoring the needs and aspirations of tens of millions of working families.

And how has he paid for all of this largess? By running up record deficits. He has simply charged it to our national credit card and left our children and grandchildren to pay the bill.

In fact, every baby born today starts like with $29,000 of national debt on his or her tiny shoulders, the largest birth tax in our nation's history.

It's also important to understand these policies are consistent with the administration's theory about how we should manage our economy: leave it all up to the individual.

That's why they want to privatize Social Security and let individuals bear the risks. It's why their answer to the health care crisis is limited to creating health savings account, which allows the healthiest people to get the best deal, with little concern if the sickest get worse.

They call it the ownership society. But it's really the "on your own" society.

(W)e can't restore the American dream unless you're a very visible part of it.

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.

Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.

When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Bush administration appears to me to have thrown its stated policy for dealing with Iran in favor of beseeching the mullahs for "a decent interval" in which to withdraw American troops. I don't think that's the correct approach for dealing with a country that has been at war with us for 28 years and that is engaged in killing American soldiers in Iraq.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Conservative Mind: The American right is a cauldron of debate; the left isn't.

BY PETER BERKOWITZ
Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The left prides itself on, and frequently boasts of, its superior appreciation of the complexity and depth of moral and political life. But political debate in America today tells a different story.

On a variety of issues that currently divide the nation, those to the left of center seem to be converging, their ranks increasingly untroubled by debate or dissent, except on daily tactics and long-term strategy. Meanwhile, those to the right of center are engaged in an intense intra-party struggle to balance competing principles and goods.

One source of the divisions evident today is the tension in modern conservatism between its commitment to individual liberty, and its lively appreciation of the need to preserve the beliefs, practices, associations and institutions that form citizens capable of preserving liberty. The conservative reflex to resist change must often be overcome, because prudent change is necessary to defend liberty. Yet the tension within often compels conservatives to wrestle with the consequences of change more fully than progressives--for whom change itself is often seen as good, and change that contributes to the equalization of social conditions as a very important good.

To be sure, some standard-order issues remain easy for both sides. Democrats instinctively want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, establish government supervised universal healthcare, and impose greater regulation on trade. Just as instinctively Republicans wish to extend the Bush tax cuts, find market mechanisms to broaden health care coverage and reduce limitations on trade.

But on non-standard issues--involving dramatic changes in national security and foreign affairs, the power of medicine and technology to intervene at the early stages of life, and the social meaning of marriage and family, the partisans show a clear difference: the left is more and more of one mind while divisions on the right deepen.

Consider Iraq. The split among conservatives has widened since Saddam was toppled in the spring of 2003. Traditional realists continue to put their trust in containment, and reject nation-building on the grounds that we lack both a moral obligation and the requisite knowledge of Arabic, Iraqi culture and politics, and Islam. Supporters of the war still argue that, in an age of mega-terror, planting the seeds of liberty and democracy in the Muslim Middle East is a reasonable response to the poverty, illiteracy, authoritarianism, violence and religious fanaticism that plagues the region.

In contrast, Democrats today are nearly united in the belief that the invasion has been a fiasco and that we must withdraw promptly. Indeed, rare is the Democrat (Sen. Joe Lieberman was compelled to run as an Independent) who does not sound like a traditional realist denying both America's moral obligation to remain in Iraq and its capacity to bring order to the country.

Consider also abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research. Here too, the right is torn, with the social conservative wing opposed to both, and the small government, libertarian wing supporting both. No such major divisions are in evidence on the left. Rare is the progressive man or woman who opposes abortion rights, or who regards the destruction of embryos as the taking of human life, or even as a dangerous precedent corroding our respect for the most vulnerable among us.

And look at same-sex marriage. Again, the right is rent by serious difference of opinion. A crucial segment of those who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 think that the Constitution should be amended to protect the traditional understanding of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Another crucial segment of the Republican coalition rejects alteration of the Constitution to advance debatable social policy, preferring that states function as laboratories of innovation.

Meanwhile, on the left, despite ambivalence among the rank and file, all that remains to be decided at the elite level is how and in what ways to endorse same-sex marriage. Few doubt that presidential candidate John Kerry's opposition to same-sex marriage in 2004 was driven more by political calculation than moral conviction. And rare is the man or woman of the left who, in public debate, identifies competing principles and goods that ought to cause hesitation or doubt about same-sex marriage's justice or benefits to the nation.

This absence on the left of debate or dissent about moral and political ends has been aided and abetted by many of the party's foremost intellectuals, who have reveled in denouncing George W. Bush as a dictator, in declaring democracy in 21st-century America all but illegitimate, and in diagnosing conservatism in America as in the grips of fascist sentiments and opinions.

A few months ago, Hoover Institution research fellow Dinesh D'Souza published a highly polemical book, "The Enemy at Home," which held the cultural left responsible for causing 9/11 and contended that American conservatives should repudiate fellow citizens on the left and instead form alliances with traditional Muslims around the world. Conservatives of many stripes leapt into the fray to criticize it. But rare is the voice on the left that has criticized Boston College professor and New Republic contributing editor Alan Wolfe, former secretary of labor and Berkeley professor Robert Reich, New Republic editor-at-large and Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Peter Beinart, Berkeley professor George Lakoff, and New York University law professor Ronald Dworkin--all of whom have publicly argued in the last several years that conservatives form an enemy at home.

One explanation of the unity on the left is its belief that today's divisive political questions have easy answers--but because of their illiberal opinions and aims, conservatives are unable to see this and, in a mere six years, have brought democracy in America to the brink. This explanation, however, contradicts the vital lesson of John Stuart Mill's liberalism that political questions, as opposed to mathematical questions, tend by their very nature to be many-sided. Indeed, it contradicts the left's celebration of its own appreciation of the complexity and depth of politics.

Another explanation is that blinded by rage at the Bush administration and resentment over its own lack of power, the left has betrayed its commitment to grasp the many-sidedness of politics, and, in the process, has lost appreciation of modern conservatism's distinctive contribution to the defense of a good, liberty, which the left also prizes. Indeed, the widespread ignorance among the highly educated of the conservative tradition in America is appalling.

In contrast to much European conservatism, which harks back to premodern times and the political preeminence of religion and royalty, in America--which lacked a feudal past to preserve or recover--conservatism has always revolved around the preservation of individual liberty. Of course modern conservatism generally admires virtues embodied in religious faith and the aristocratic devotion to excellence. It also tends to emphasize the weaknesses of human nature, the ironies and tragedies of history, and the limitations of reason and politics. At the same time, it wishes to put these virtues and this knowledge in liberty's service.

Balancing the claims of liberty and tradition, or showing how liberty depends on tradition, is the very essence of modern conservatism, the founding text for which was provided by Whig orator and statesman Edmund Burke in his 1790 polemic, "Reflections on the Revolution in France." The divisions within contemporary American conservatism--social conservatives, libertarians, and neoconservatives--arise from differences over which goods most urgently need to be preserved, to what extent, and with what role for government.

Powered by ScribeFire.

You see, the Pentagon is so strapped for cash --- every single year --- that they have to come begging for more money just to put shoes on the troops' feet. They do this on purpose so they don't have to cut any of that juicy delicious Military Industrial Complex pork. We know this. It's on the record, easily found in 30 seconds worth of Googling. But because of this absurdly cryptic, symbolic way we have of communicating in this country now, not to mention the ownership of our politics by big money interests, we aren't even allowed to bring it up. The yearly "supplemental" battle is really just the latest administration blackmail demand for more taxpayer money for their contributors, with Bush holding a gun to the troops' heads and saying "don't make me do it." We are arguing about a solution for a problem that wouldn't exist if the president didn't create it each and every year.



But that is such an obscure point that it isn't even relevant. Instead of questioning why we are funding anything in this clearly opaque and illegal way, we are stuck in this confusing feed-back loop of PR, marketing and spin, struggling forward to 2008 trying to see through the dirty political water to what is actually going on. It's difficult.

Polls consistently demonstrate that Americans overwhelmingly favor compelled withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. Other than defunding, they overwhelmingly favor every legislative mechanism for achieving that goal -- from a straightforward bill setting a mandatory time deadline to a rescission of the resolution authorizing military force to compulsory benchmarks. Yet polls are equally uniform in showing that a solid majority of Americans oppose de-funding.

Powered by ScribeFire.

A few weeks ago – in between Hillary Clinton’s official entry into the presidential race and the first Republican primary debate of the cycle – the fiery online conservative forum Free Republic marked a decade in operation as one of the premier online forums for right-wing political discussion.

It also experienced one of the biggest internal battles to rock the site since the 2000 election of George W. Bush -- a tumultuous campaign year that nearly tore the site apart, as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support.

At the heart of the latest controversy: the fight over the conservative bona fides of Rudy Giuliani.

Over the past few weeks, chaos has reigned in the “Freeper” community as members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign on the popular conservative web forum. Another significant chunk of commenters have migrated away from the controversial site over the action, according to a number of former site members and conservative bloggers who have been tracking the situation.

[snip]

Why Rudy? Why now? Some conservative bloggers and former commenters contacted for their view of the continuing controversy say they believe that site founder Jim Robinson holds ideologically middling Republicans like Mr. Giuliani responsible for the GOP’s congressional loss and current woes. (They asked that their names be kept out of this story for fear of antagonizing the famously frisky site regulars.)

Others claim that the former mayor’s top-tier status is spurring frantic site administrators into action.
Finally, one popular theory holds that the Free Republic is secretly hoping for another Clinton presidency that would send its Alexa ratings soaring back to levels it hasn’t experienced since its halcyon days of the Clinton impeachment, when a since-soured relationship with blog pioneer Matt Drudge and overwhelming anti-Clinton sentiment in Republican ranks helped make Free Republic one of the hottest Web sites in the nation. It hasn't recovered that luster since the Bush administration took over.

Powered by ScribeFire.

In the 27th State District of Virginia, Mike Tate (R) was indicted Monday on two counts of voter fraud and nine counts of perjury concerning previous campaign finance reports. Meanwhile, with the primary election only 18 days away, Tate's lawyer, Edward MacMahon Jr., is crying foul. "I find it outrageous that charges like this would be brought in the middle of a primary campaign, which has the effect of subverting the democratic process."

Powered by ScribeFire.

Don Surber and Wretchard at The Belmont Club note the silence of the human rights crowd and the MSM in regard to the al Qaeda torture manual published at The Smoking Gun.

Powered by ScribeFire.

I'm not sure my friend, the owner of this blog, knows what beset means. Fred Thompson is not talking about the immigrants currently in our country. Beset actually means hemmed in or surrounded. Fred Thompson is not warning you about the immigrants already in our country. He's not talking about the "brown person behind you." Fred Thompson is warning you about the terrorists outside of the United States who want to get inside our borders and do us harm.

Perhaps BG has already forgotten the ease by which the 9/11 terrorists penetrated our country. We have an immigration policy that winks at the criminals pouring across our border. We have an immigrantion policy that turns a blind eye to the countless industries that reward these criminals for crossing our border. And we have an immigration policy that is unable to separate those illegal immigrants who are coming to this country in search of the American dream and those illegal immigrants who want to buy automatic weapons and attack Fort Dix.

BG may live in a world in which illegal immigrants only want to earn an honest living doing jobs "Americans don't want to do." But Fred Thompson lives in a world in which people want to kill innocent Americans. And Fred Thompson understands that words mean things. And when he says it, he means it.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Fred Thompson, a potential Republican presidential candidate, suggested that the 1986 immigration law signed by President Reagan is to blame for the country's illegal immigrants and he bemoaned a nation beset by "suicidal maniacs."

"Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world," the former Tennessee senator said. "We're sitting here now with essentially open borders."

Powered by ScribeFire.