With less than a week remaining until the first votes are cast in the Iowa caucuses, GOP voters will soon begin choosing our next President. The viable candidates have all had ample opportunity to explain to voters why they are the best choice to lead our nation. We are at war with Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic terrorists on a global level. The largest state sponsor of terror, Iran, is doggedly pursuing nuclear weapons (despite what the CIA theorizes) and is directly responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq. Pakistan faces a continuing crisis that could potentially place the security of their nuclear arms at risk. Axis of Evil charter member North Korea continues to be a major threat to sell nuclear weapons or technology to terrorists. Bin Laden remains at large, occasionally sending out a video to taunt us, and our military needs a major expansion and retooling. That list only scratches the surface, so it's clear our next CINC will face unprecedented international challenges and dangers.
Republican primary voters must keep their core values in mind when making their choice. When Republicans run on and successfully communicate steady, common sense conservative ideas, they are nearly unbeatable. It's the Dems who must ameliorate their views and shift them to be effective in the general election. Republicans need only adhere to their views, which generally reflect the sentiment of middle America and not necessarily the liberal media on the coasts. Modern conservatism can be defined in a few phrases: aggressive war policies, strong border security and national defense, small government, lower taxes, pro-life, and pro-2d Ammendment individual rights. If a candidate does not meet at least those basic criteria, they are something of a moderate and thus cannot represent the base of the party. The GOP Eleventh Commandment has traditionally been not to speak ill of fellow Republicans. That's generally a good idea, but the stakes here are enormous and the time is short. Allow me to commit a few sins here and blast the contenders who are really pretenders.
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has been all the rage with the liberal media elites lately, and his surge in Iowa caught everyone by surprise. Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, has apparently hit a nerve with Iowa social conservatives despite the National Right to Life endorsement of Fred Thompson. Governor Huckabee is essentially a social conservative who is has a questionable record on everything else. His record in Arkansas does is replete with tax increases and accommodation of illegal immigrants. He showed a disturbing lack of judgement in his many pardons and commutations. He has zero foreign policy or military experience, and that's been seen in his many factual mistakes over the last month. Huckabee may be a nice enough fellow, but he is not prepared to be President. The media support for him is a big red flag, considering their agenda to nominate the easiest to defeat Republican possible. Not a conservative and not prepared, scratch one Mike Huckabee.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has been near the tops of the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire. He's been a successful businessman, and as the wealthiest candidate has plenty of cash on hand. Despite his best efforts to explain and play it down, his transformation to a conservative is recent and seems to have coincided with his Presidential bid. He comes across as charming and confident, albeit he bears a strong resemblance to Count Chocula. Romney cannot be considered a reliable conservative. There's no way to tell how his views might change once elected. He said the liberal things he had to say to get elected governor of a blue state, and now he's saying the conservative things necessary to become the Republican nominee. His record on illegal immigration as governor is not encouraging. His lack of foreign policy and military experience speaks to his lack of readiness to serve. Not a conservative and not prepared, scratch one Mitt Romney.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani remains at the top of most national polls for some reason. Rudy's social views are decidedly liberal, and his vows to appoint strict constructionist judges ring hollow. His aggressive war policies are commendable, but his experience in international affairs is limited to travel. Guliani is trying to sell voters on the idea that successfully running a small corner store means he can run a global enterprise. His record has faced scrutiny that has revealed touches of scandal and moderate to liberal policies. His leadership of New York on September 11th was admirable, but his penchant for mentioning 9/11 in answering the most unrelated of questions is irritating. Rudy's strategy of losing at first and coming on strong later in more favorable primary venues appears flawed. Not a conservative and not prepared, scratch one Rudy Guliani.
Arizona Senator John McCain is a certified war hero, there's no doubt about it. He is an honorable man who is definitely willing to place the good of the nation ahead of his own political interests. The problem is that McCain has repeatedly shown a zeal for abandoning or compromising conservative principles to achieve consensus progress. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law he authored is a tangled mess of a joke that has done little but make it harder for Republicans to compete. McCain always seems to lead the pack in the rush to cut deals with liberals. His support of a "comprehensive" immigration reform bill that granted amnesty to illegals nearly sunk his campaign. While not disqualifying, his age is a concern. Not reliably conservative, scratch one John McCain.
That leaves former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. His reliably conservative record goes back decades. His foreign policy experience, while not commanding, is adequate and he displays a vast knowledge and clear understanding of the issues. The key is that Fred has the ability to communicate the values of the party in a clear and congenial manner to most Americans. He has a commanding presence that would go far in a general election campaign and especially debate. His support for strict border enforcement and a major investment in our military stands out above the crowd. No other candidate has laid out as many detailed proposals as Senator Thompson, despite the lateness of his entry. If the party of Lincoln is to continue as the party representing conservative values, Fred Thompson is the only possible choice. The Democrat nominee will be a liberal of the far left who can be philosophically exposed in the general, and Fred is the best man for that job. Republican caucus participants in Iowa can insure the continuation of a conservative agenda for their party by throwing their support to the only viable candidate, Fred Thompson.
There are a few other candidates, none of them electable. California Representative Duncan Hunter fits the bill but has gone nowhere and has gained no traction at all. Texas Representative Ron Paul is an ideological fossil whose presence has actually distracted from the process. California Representative Tom Tancredo recently dropped out after running an unsuccessful one issue campaign on illegal immigration, then mystifyingly endorsed Romney despite his highly suspect record on the issue.
Next Thursday starts the process. If Republicans want to win next November and guarantee a strong, secure nation run on conservative principles, Fred Thompson is the only choice.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
BHUTTO ASSASSINATION A REMINDER
The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto today in Pakistan is a stark reminder to all Americans of the dangerous world we face. Bhutto, shot and suicide-bombed following an election rally in preparation for national elections January 8, was the first female leader of a Muslim nation and had recently reiterated her support for democracy and opposition to radical Islamists like the Taliban. Pakistan is a mess despite American support estimated at $10B since 9/11, and the security of their nuclear warheads and missiles is highly questionable. It is another situation in which the United States must have a firm, adult hand on the tiller of state, because the stakes are too great to do otherwise.
Americans will begin choosing a President one week from today in the Iowa caucuses. Every caucus participant, and everyone voting in the Presidential election, must consider who they want in command of the United States military and national security policy when international crises arise. We face a suicidal, determined enemy bent on our destruction, with nuclear weapons if possible. We cannot afford to have a squishy or hesitant CINC. We may not be the world's policeman, but when the rest of the world dials 9-1-1, the phone rings at the Pentagon. America needs a firm and decisive leader who will project credibility and strength, a leader who makes it clear that the United States is always leaning forward and will respond to attack with overwhelming force. The Oval Office cannot be seen as a puzzle palace that rarely gives foreign powers identifiable signals. Our strategies and policies must be clearly communicated to avoid any little misunderstandings. The commander of our military men and women must be seen as unhesitatingly forceful in foreign capitals to best insure our security. The decisions of voters over the next ten months will determine who that next commander is, and it's a decision that should be made with great consideration of that role.
The idea of a modern nuclear arsenal complete with delivery vehicles in the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists is too apocalyptic to ignore. Musharraf has been a convenient if not perfect ally since September 11th. While he has failed to crack down on the Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in his own country, he at least provided control of the suspect Paki military and its nuclear assets. Or he did provide control until the United States and other western nations pushed him to resign as head of the military after a recent constitutional crisis between him and Pakistan's supreme court over his dual role as head of state and the military. Faced with lawyers in the streets and a myopic zeal for democratic reform from western powers, Musharraf knuckled under to the pressure and abandoned his position as military chief. Bhutto had hoped to return to power after a long exile and might have provided a stronger ally had she survived. Now the country is in turmoil and no one can say where it goes from here. The potential nightmare scenarios are too numerous to count. Musharraf is all we have in Pakistan. He may be a military dictator, but the alternative is even less acceptable. And since our unmistakable primary concern is the nuclear arsenal, we really have no choice but to back him for now.
The situation in Pakistan is a reminder to all Republican Presidential primary voters of the complex and dangerous problems with which our next CINC will wrestle. The safety of our families and children depend on picking the right person for the job. The GOP candidates have all made their cases well enough for those paying attention to make an informed choice. When all the candidates are judged on their ability to be our next CINC, the clear choice is Fred Thompson. Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain pale in comparison to Fred's ability to articulate policy in an understandable way that leaves no room for doubt about our intentions. We cannot afford to place our nation in the jeopardy that would be the result of any other choice. Fred Thompson's forthright and direct style are just what America needs in it's next President, and Iowa's voters should take heed of recent world events and give Fred the support he needs. The other gentlemen running simply do not fit the bill, and Thompson offers conservatives a strong leader in troubled times.
I blame the Neocons. I wrote at the time that we shouldn't push Musharraf too hard or too fast. The desire of certain administration members to force the democracy agenda in a nuclear armed nation rife with Islamic terrorists was clearly a mistake. Our national security interests should always be placed ahead of any plan to force democratic reform of foreign lands. The Neos failed to anticipate the resistance in Iraq, and they're efforts to support elections as a cure-all for Islamofascism have resulted in a Hamas government in the Palestinian territories and potential loose nukes in Pakistan. Free elections are all well and good, but they aren't always in our best interests. We should always be hesitant to micromanage the affairs of other nations. It's time America placed national security above ideological concerns, and a Fred Thompson administration would do just that.
Americans will begin choosing a President one week from today in the Iowa caucuses. Every caucus participant, and everyone voting in the Presidential election, must consider who they want in command of the United States military and national security policy when international crises arise. We face a suicidal, determined enemy bent on our destruction, with nuclear weapons if possible. We cannot afford to have a squishy or hesitant CINC. We may not be the world's policeman, but when the rest of the world dials 9-1-1, the phone rings at the Pentagon. America needs a firm and decisive leader who will project credibility and strength, a leader who makes it clear that the United States is always leaning forward and will respond to attack with overwhelming force. The Oval Office cannot be seen as a puzzle palace that rarely gives foreign powers identifiable signals. Our strategies and policies must be clearly communicated to avoid any little misunderstandings. The commander of our military men and women must be seen as unhesitatingly forceful in foreign capitals to best insure our security. The decisions of voters over the next ten months will determine who that next commander is, and it's a decision that should be made with great consideration of that role.
The idea of a modern nuclear arsenal complete with delivery vehicles in the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists is too apocalyptic to ignore. Musharraf has been a convenient if not perfect ally since September 11th. While he has failed to crack down on the Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in his own country, he at least provided control of the suspect Paki military and its nuclear assets. Or he did provide control until the United States and other western nations pushed him to resign as head of the military after a recent constitutional crisis between him and Pakistan's supreme court over his dual role as head of state and the military. Faced with lawyers in the streets and a myopic zeal for democratic reform from western powers, Musharraf knuckled under to the pressure and abandoned his position as military chief. Bhutto had hoped to return to power after a long exile and might have provided a stronger ally had she survived. Now the country is in turmoil and no one can say where it goes from here. The potential nightmare scenarios are too numerous to count. Musharraf is all we have in Pakistan. He may be a military dictator, but the alternative is even less acceptable. And since our unmistakable primary concern is the nuclear arsenal, we really have no choice but to back him for now.
The situation in Pakistan is a reminder to all Republican Presidential primary voters of the complex and dangerous problems with which our next CINC will wrestle. The safety of our families and children depend on picking the right person for the job. The GOP candidates have all made their cases well enough for those paying attention to make an informed choice. When all the candidates are judged on their ability to be our next CINC, the clear choice is Fred Thompson. Rudy, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain pale in comparison to Fred's ability to articulate policy in an understandable way that leaves no room for doubt about our intentions. We cannot afford to place our nation in the jeopardy that would be the result of any other choice. Fred Thompson's forthright and direct style are just what America needs in it's next President, and Iowa's voters should take heed of recent world events and give Fred the support he needs. The other gentlemen running simply do not fit the bill, and Thompson offers conservatives a strong leader in troubled times.
I blame the Neocons. I wrote at the time that we shouldn't push Musharraf too hard or too fast. The desire of certain administration members to force the democracy agenda in a nuclear armed nation rife with Islamic terrorists was clearly a mistake. Our national security interests should always be placed ahead of any plan to force democratic reform of foreign lands. The Neos failed to anticipate the resistance in Iraq, and they're efforts to support elections as a cure-all for Islamofascism have resulted in a Hamas government in the Palestinian territories and potential loose nukes in Pakistan. Free elections are all well and good, but they aren't always in our best interests. We should always be hesitant to micromanage the affairs of other nations. It's time America placed national security above ideological concerns, and a Fred Thompson administration would do just that.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
TORTURE AND THE TICKING BOMB
A brief comment on the use of torture to extract information in a "ticking timebomb" scenario in which American lives are at risk:
1. Properly conducted intelligence work should prevent 99.9 percent of all such scenarios. Unfortunately, the gutting of our intel services after the fall of the Soviet Union has greatly diminished our capabilities. While the rebuilding of these organizations is underway, these are not abilities that can be quickly recovered once lost.
2. The CIA claims of useful information being extracted from detainees subjected to waterboarding are highly suspect. The agency is rotten with an anti-administration agenda that is complemented by it's usual defiance of Congressional and Presidential authority of it's activities. How odd that the "interrogation" tapes were destroyed. Was it to prevent their use as enemy propaganda, or was it perhaps because any civilized person viewing them would find them disgusting and morally reprehensible? The CIA has been out of control for decades, much to the detriment of our national security.
3. Either we are a nation that respects human dignity, or we join the long list of cruel dictators and murderous regimes that have used torture as an instrument of national policy. That is not a crowd we should aspire to join, and it's not the image we should be cultivating abroad. This is a black and white issue: once torture is allowed in certain specific situations, it's use will become more and more widespread by more and more arms of government. Any rules originally instituted to control it will eventually slacken. Nations cannot dabble in evil because it eventually takes over completely. If it's use against enemy detainees is accepted, how long before it's use is considered against American citizens thought to hold vital information? If it's so harmless and innocent, why not use waterboarding on the next American accused of a murder, kidnapping, or molestation? Why not, if it works and it's not torture? It could save lives! The point is that it's unacceptable. The whole purpose of limited democratic government is to secure our rights by preventing the predictable abuses of power by the folks in charge.
4. The legal definition of torture under the Geneva Conventions is broad enough to allow plenty of slack to interrogators. The proper application of sleep deprivation, lighting and sound manipulation, and other softer techniques will break most men over time. Theatrical elements come into play as well. Outright lying and chicanery are well within bounds. The line is drawn at beating and the intentional infliction of physical pain. All the mental possibilities are open. Surely we are wise enough to implement effective techniques that don't cross the line.
5. Our enemies use propaganda to recruit new members and distort our efforts. Allowing the use of torture provides them a fiery example of American misdeeds. Even our best efforts will be spun by the terrorists and their Arab press allies to make us look bad, so something like torture is front page news. Look at America, they can say, the defender of democracy and human rights is a torturer of prisoners. All the years of good work done by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is partially erased in the mind of the Arab public each time America is even accused of wrongdoing.
6. Allowing the use of torture places us on the same moral plane as Al Qaeda and centuries of just plain evil men. We cannot claim moral authority if we do not engage in moral practices. Respecting the laws of land warfare is not a burden, it is a set of standards that raises our authority and morality in the world. Allies will be more likely to support our cause if we maintain our integrity.
7. I'll admit the ticking timebomb scenario is a rough one, especially if it's nuclear. But anyone involved in that brutal and sophisticated of an attack is unlikely to divulge any useful information even under duress. Capturing a 9/11 hijacker on 9/10 probably would not have prevented the attacks. They would have been carried out by the others regardless, and you're not likely to break a committed terrorist in a day or two. Any information he gave up would likely be a false lead to delay us. The work needed to prevent such attacks comes well before that stage.
8. We cannot expect captured Americans to be treated decently while allowing torture of enemy prisoners. Allowing harsh techniques practically guarantees their use against our troops.
PRIMARY THOUGHTS: It is possible the Republican Party may nominate someone for whom I cannot vote. I will never again vote for someone who is not a reliable conservative. And Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee are NOT conservatives, much less reliable. I am tired of voting for recent converts or candidates who run as conservatives and then govern as liberals. If Fred Thompson is not the nominee, I may be sitting this one out for the first time since I became eligible in 1984. There is very little difference between electing a Democrat and electing one of the gentlemen listed, so it wouldn't bother me at all.
1. Properly conducted intelligence work should prevent 99.9 percent of all such scenarios. Unfortunately, the gutting of our intel services after the fall of the Soviet Union has greatly diminished our capabilities. While the rebuilding of these organizations is underway, these are not abilities that can be quickly recovered once lost.
2. The CIA claims of useful information being extracted from detainees subjected to waterboarding are highly suspect. The agency is rotten with an anti-administration agenda that is complemented by it's usual defiance of Congressional and Presidential authority of it's activities. How odd that the "interrogation" tapes were destroyed. Was it to prevent their use as enemy propaganda, or was it perhaps because any civilized person viewing them would find them disgusting and morally reprehensible? The CIA has been out of control for decades, much to the detriment of our national security.
3. Either we are a nation that respects human dignity, or we join the long list of cruel dictators and murderous regimes that have used torture as an instrument of national policy. That is not a crowd we should aspire to join, and it's not the image we should be cultivating abroad. This is a black and white issue: once torture is allowed in certain specific situations, it's use will become more and more widespread by more and more arms of government. Any rules originally instituted to control it will eventually slacken. Nations cannot dabble in evil because it eventually takes over completely. If it's use against enemy detainees is accepted, how long before it's use is considered against American citizens thought to hold vital information? If it's so harmless and innocent, why not use waterboarding on the next American accused of a murder, kidnapping, or molestation? Why not, if it works and it's not torture? It could save lives! The point is that it's unacceptable. The whole purpose of limited democratic government is to secure our rights by preventing the predictable abuses of power by the folks in charge.
4. The legal definition of torture under the Geneva Conventions is broad enough to allow plenty of slack to interrogators. The proper application of sleep deprivation, lighting and sound manipulation, and other softer techniques will break most men over time. Theatrical elements come into play as well. Outright lying and chicanery are well within bounds. The line is drawn at beating and the intentional infliction of physical pain. All the mental possibilities are open. Surely we are wise enough to implement effective techniques that don't cross the line.
5. Our enemies use propaganda to recruit new members and distort our efforts. Allowing the use of torture provides them a fiery example of American misdeeds. Even our best efforts will be spun by the terrorists and their Arab press allies to make us look bad, so something like torture is front page news. Look at America, they can say, the defender of democracy and human rights is a torturer of prisoners. All the years of good work done by our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is partially erased in the mind of the Arab public each time America is even accused of wrongdoing.
6. Allowing the use of torture places us on the same moral plane as Al Qaeda and centuries of just plain evil men. We cannot claim moral authority if we do not engage in moral practices. Respecting the laws of land warfare is not a burden, it is a set of standards that raises our authority and morality in the world. Allies will be more likely to support our cause if we maintain our integrity.
7. I'll admit the ticking timebomb scenario is a rough one, especially if it's nuclear. But anyone involved in that brutal and sophisticated of an attack is unlikely to divulge any useful information even under duress. Capturing a 9/11 hijacker on 9/10 probably would not have prevented the attacks. They would have been carried out by the others regardless, and you're not likely to break a committed terrorist in a day or two. Any information he gave up would likely be a false lead to delay us. The work needed to prevent such attacks comes well before that stage.
8. We cannot expect captured Americans to be treated decently while allowing torture of enemy prisoners. Allowing harsh techniques practically guarantees their use against our troops.
PRIMARY THOUGHTS: It is possible the Republican Party may nominate someone for whom I cannot vote. I will never again vote for someone who is not a reliable conservative. And Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee are NOT conservatives, much less reliable. I am tired of voting for recent converts or candidates who run as conservatives and then govern as liberals. If Fred Thompson is not the nominee, I may be sitting this one out for the first time since I became eligible in 1984. There is very little difference between electing a Democrat and electing one of the gentlemen listed, so it wouldn't bother me at all.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS
Debate on the subject of torture is highly disturbing, because it is not a debate we should be having. Americans should find the matter equally disturbing, because it says volumes about who we are as a people. The United States of America should not let our standing in the world be denigrated by the use or even discussion of inhumane treatment of prisoners. While the legalities involved may seem complicated, the U.S. should always go the extra distance to insure proper treatment of detainees.
There has been much discussion of waterboarding of late. It's torture. If you don't think so, check it out on YouTube, but make sure to get one of the real vids, not one from the looney left. No sane human being can watch that procedure being performed and conclude it is anything but torture. Our standards in this area should be a "golden rule" standard. Would we want American POWs treated in a similar manner? Whatever information might possibly be obtained would come at great cost to our moral standing and would likely be highly unreliable. It took me about ten seconds of seeing waterboarding conducted to conclude that it is without a doubt torture, and it pains me to think my countrymen would engage in barbarity of this sort.
That brings up any number of questions about the definition of POWs or enemy combatants. According to the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, the terrorists we fight now don't technically fit into the definition of prisoner of war. They are not members of a recognized national armed force, they do not have commanders directly responsible for their subordinates, they do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, they do not openly carry arms, and they definitely do not conduct their operations according to the laws of warfare. The left would like to gloss over that reality, but it couldn't be any more clear. While the terms may exclude them, ANY prisoners taken by our armed forces should be accorded the full rights of POWs, and that means humane treatment. Granting full POW status not only is a gesture of civility, it stands in stark contrast to the conduct of our enemies for all the world to see.
Of course granting that full POW status also implies certain conditions on the enemy. No prisoners should be released as long as hostilities continue, period. If the detainess are to be accorded the status of prisoners in war, then nobody leaves until the war is over. If it's not over for fifty years, then so be it. Al Qaeda doesn't exactly operate with a strict chain of command, so no detainees should be considered "officers" and given special privilege. Only the few rights legally mandated for them should be granted, and never one bit more. Considering they behead their prisoners on the internet, that's more than fair. There are many tactics we can legally employ that are highly effective. Sleep deprivation, isolation, use of noise, and a system of increased privileges for cooperation are all within the limits. Prisoners who know they will not under any circumstances be released will fold more easily. We can beg, we can keep them up for days, we can blast them with nonstop Black Sabbath or bluegrass, but no torture.
America wears the white hat. We're the good guys, or at least strive to be. Proponents of harsh interrogation techniques always forward the ticking nuke story, but it's a red herring designed to eliminate further discussion. We are faced with a difficult conflict against elusive enemies who continually demonstrate their complete disregard for human dignity. Our response cannot be to descend to the depravity of our foes, but rather we should take every step we can to insure prisoners held by our forces are not mistreated under any circumstances. That provides not only a standard for others, but a standard we can live with afterward. Waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquisition and by the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, not exactly regimes we wish to mimic. John McCain has been very clear on this subject, and he should know. The United States must declare that all enemy combatants will enjoy full POW rights and that we do not torture people, ever. While we may not expect our enemy to do the same, we cannot climb down into the gutter with them. We're supposed to be the good guys, and good guys don't torture prisoners.
There has been much discussion of waterboarding of late. It's torture. If you don't think so, check it out on YouTube, but make sure to get one of the real vids, not one from the looney left. No sane human being can watch that procedure being performed and conclude it is anything but torture. Our standards in this area should be a "golden rule" standard. Would we want American POWs treated in a similar manner? Whatever information might possibly be obtained would come at great cost to our moral standing and would likely be highly unreliable. It took me about ten seconds of seeing waterboarding conducted to conclude that it is without a doubt torture, and it pains me to think my countrymen would engage in barbarity of this sort.
That brings up any number of questions about the definition of POWs or enemy combatants. According to the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is a signatory, the terrorists we fight now don't technically fit into the definition of prisoner of war. They are not members of a recognized national armed force, they do not have commanders directly responsible for their subordinates, they do not have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, they do not openly carry arms, and they definitely do not conduct their operations according to the laws of warfare. The left would like to gloss over that reality, but it couldn't be any more clear. While the terms may exclude them, ANY prisoners taken by our armed forces should be accorded the full rights of POWs, and that means humane treatment. Granting full POW status not only is a gesture of civility, it stands in stark contrast to the conduct of our enemies for all the world to see.
Of course granting that full POW status also implies certain conditions on the enemy. No prisoners should be released as long as hostilities continue, period. If the detainess are to be accorded the status of prisoners in war, then nobody leaves until the war is over. If it's not over for fifty years, then so be it. Al Qaeda doesn't exactly operate with a strict chain of command, so no detainees should be considered "officers" and given special privilege. Only the few rights legally mandated for them should be granted, and never one bit more. Considering they behead their prisoners on the internet, that's more than fair. There are many tactics we can legally employ that are highly effective. Sleep deprivation, isolation, use of noise, and a system of increased privileges for cooperation are all within the limits. Prisoners who know they will not under any circumstances be released will fold more easily. We can beg, we can keep them up for days, we can blast them with nonstop Black Sabbath or bluegrass, but no torture.
America wears the white hat. We're the good guys, or at least strive to be. Proponents of harsh interrogation techniques always forward the ticking nuke story, but it's a red herring designed to eliminate further discussion. We are faced with a difficult conflict against elusive enemies who continually demonstrate their complete disregard for human dignity. Our response cannot be to descend to the depravity of our foes, but rather we should take every step we can to insure prisoners held by our forces are not mistreated under any circumstances. That provides not only a standard for others, but a standard we can live with afterward. Waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquisition and by the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, not exactly regimes we wish to mimic. John McCain has been very clear on this subject, and he should know. The United States must declare that all enemy combatants will enjoy full POW rights and that we do not torture people, ever. While we may not expect our enemy to do the same, we cannot climb down into the gutter with them. We're supposed to be the good guys, and good guys don't torture prisoners.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
HOW TO BETTER ELECT A PRESIDENT
With only a few weeks left until both parties begin their primary process for choosing the next leader of the free world, it's appropriate to review that process and recommend possible improvements. Certainly no method devised by man could ever be perfect, but the current system has major problems that require attention. This cycle of campaigns began earlier than ever, and yet the electorate is still largely uncommitted or persuadable on both sides. The Democraps are faced with an array of candidates who are virtually identical on the issues. Their substantive differences are few and minor. The GOP candidates vary widely on policy, but the Republican primary voter is still largely unsatisfied with field. Improvements to the process are long over due and would help voters and the entire nation choose better leaders.
The first step should be to remove Iowa and New Hampshire from their dominating positions. I'm sure the citizens of both states are good folks, but their routine has grown tiresome. Why should every potential President have to pass muster with them first? Why not Virginia or Ohio or Hawaii or Texas? Now the state legislatures are competing with each other in setting the earliest primary date possible. The process is now compressed and will result in a snowball effect for winners and runners up in both early states. Why not rotate who gets to be first, or would that be too fair? As much as I am loathe to support Congressional involvement in light of their reverse Midas touch, the insanity of the state assemblies may force a legislative resolution. That should properly only be done by Congress, hopefully before the courts manafacture a remedy. In any event, the tired old dogs of Iowa and New Hampshire Presidential primaries always coming first should be retired permanently. There are fifty states in the union, not just two.
The debates in both parties have been painful to watch. The complete lack of focus on substantive issues and instead on sound bite one liners does not help differentiate the prospects from each other. The GOP debate hosted by PBS in Iowa this week, planned to be the last, was so bad the party may schedule another. The sheer number of candidates on both sides inhibits free debate. Organizations running these hootenannies need to pare down the numbers as time goes along. Anyone not garnering at least ten percent in national polls is wasting valuable speaking time. The GOP field should be down to four by now (Thompson, Romney, Guliani, McCain), and the Dems could be down to three (Billary, Hussein Obama, Little Lord Fauntleroy John Edwards). That would allow for deeper discussion of the issues and a higher degree of definition for voters. The inclusion of fringe candidates like Crazy Dennis Kucinich and Fossil Ron Paul does nothing to enhance the process or debate, and in fact is a major distraction and annoyance. Fewer participants would also mean more free duscussion instead of each person getting thirty or sixty seconds to explain a position on policy vital to our country. I would go even further. Can the YouTube nonsense and let us hear the candidates interact with each other. One of the plethora of debates conducted before voting even starts should involve prospects answering questions proposed live by candidates from the other party. Can you imagine the heat and tension? How we got from Lincoln-Douglas to here is beyond me, but the current Presidential debate system is a mortally wounded beast that should be put out of it's misery as soon as possible.
The media coverage of Presidential primaries is simultaneously too much and not enough. Their liberal slant is equalled only by their selective reporting. Most of that substandard reporting is plain horserace coverage with little regard for the issues. Coverage of live events is sparce and best and usually reported as shallow sound bites. Someone should launch a POTUS channel for coverage of stuff like this as well as Presidential history. Even Fox News is squeezing campaign coverage in between Drew Peterson and the weather. It's too superficial and more like a racing form. Who's ahead is more important than stance on the issues. And when the media get behind a candidate, it matters. Just ask Mike Huckabee. Serious media outlets should provide more serious coverage of the ultimate choice for American voters, and consumers should force them to do so by voting with their feet.
Americans in both parties should recognize the importance of improving the process of electing a President. Changes like the ones suggested are not some nefarious design to hamper the Dems. All of them can only help the voters of both parties in every state. In choosing a President of the United States, the deeper and more detailed the better. We're not choosing the next local dog catcher, we're choosing our CINC and representative to other nations. Improving the process will improve the result.
JINGOCON
The first step should be to remove Iowa and New Hampshire from their dominating positions. I'm sure the citizens of both states are good folks, but their routine has grown tiresome. Why should every potential President have to pass muster with them first? Why not Virginia or Ohio or Hawaii or Texas? Now the state legislatures are competing with each other in setting the earliest primary date possible. The process is now compressed and will result in a snowball effect for winners and runners up in both early states. Why not rotate who gets to be first, or would that be too fair? As much as I am loathe to support Congressional involvement in light of their reverse Midas touch, the insanity of the state assemblies may force a legislative resolution. That should properly only be done by Congress, hopefully before the courts manafacture a remedy. In any event, the tired old dogs of Iowa and New Hampshire Presidential primaries always coming first should be retired permanently. There are fifty states in the union, not just two.
The debates in both parties have been painful to watch. The complete lack of focus on substantive issues and instead on sound bite one liners does not help differentiate the prospects from each other. The GOP debate hosted by PBS in Iowa this week, planned to be the last, was so bad the party may schedule another. The sheer number of candidates on both sides inhibits free debate. Organizations running these hootenannies need to pare down the numbers as time goes along. Anyone not garnering at least ten percent in national polls is wasting valuable speaking time. The GOP field should be down to four by now (Thompson, Romney, Guliani, McCain), and the Dems could be down to three (Billary, Hussein Obama, Little Lord Fauntleroy John Edwards). That would allow for deeper discussion of the issues and a higher degree of definition for voters. The inclusion of fringe candidates like Crazy Dennis Kucinich and Fossil Ron Paul does nothing to enhance the process or debate, and in fact is a major distraction and annoyance. Fewer participants would also mean more free duscussion instead of each person getting thirty or sixty seconds to explain a position on policy vital to our country. I would go even further. Can the YouTube nonsense and let us hear the candidates interact with each other. One of the plethora of debates conducted before voting even starts should involve prospects answering questions proposed live by candidates from the other party. Can you imagine the heat and tension? How we got from Lincoln-Douglas to here is beyond me, but the current Presidential debate system is a mortally wounded beast that should be put out of it's misery as soon as possible.
The media coverage of Presidential primaries is simultaneously too much and not enough. Their liberal slant is equalled only by their selective reporting. Most of that substandard reporting is plain horserace coverage with little regard for the issues. Coverage of live events is sparce and best and usually reported as shallow sound bites. Someone should launch a POTUS channel for coverage of stuff like this as well as Presidential history. Even Fox News is squeezing campaign coverage in between Drew Peterson and the weather. It's too superficial and more like a racing form. Who's ahead is more important than stance on the issues. And when the media get behind a candidate, it matters. Just ask Mike Huckabee. Serious media outlets should provide more serious coverage of the ultimate choice for American voters, and consumers should force them to do so by voting with their feet.
Americans in both parties should recognize the importance of improving the process of electing a President. Changes like the ones suggested are not some nefarious design to hamper the Dems. All of them can only help the voters of both parties in every state. In choosing a President of the United States, the deeper and more detailed the better. We're not choosing the next local dog catcher, we're choosing our CINC and representative to other nations. Improving the process will improve the result.
JINGOCON
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
FRED STEALS THE SHOW FROM HUCKABOMB
The "Huckaboom" has now officially become a "Huckabust" after a "Huckabomb" performance over the past week for the formerly rotund Arkansas governor. What we've seen over the past several weeks is a flood of positive liberal media stories on Huckabee. Sure, some outlets have covered a few of the lower hanging fruits of scandal from his gubenatorial administration, but the mainstreams have given Huckabee a free ride. They have bent over backwards to cast his rise in the polls in as positive a light possible. The recent surge for Huckabee is a wholly manafactured product of the liberal media. One has to wonder why media outlets that never give conservatives an even break are suddenly and wildly enthusiastic in their support for a GOP Presidential candidate. Any conservative worth their salt knows it is because they consider Huckabee an easy mark for defeat in the general election. There would be no coverage of him at all, positive or negative, if he were considered a strong candidate. Reliable sources have reported that the DNC has issued directions telling members to lay off Huckabee. That's almost sinsiter when considered thoughtfully. Conservatives should always be wary of Republicans embraced by the media, especially at the national level. The few bits of scandal that have surfaced barely scratch the surface. Huckabee's use of pardons and commutations was exceedingly high. His long ago comments on AIDS patients would be used against him in the general. He faced sixteen ethics violation charges, one of which resulted in a $1,000 fine being paid. More importantly, he was not a fiscal conservative as Arkansas governor and was fully supportive of far too many tax increases. He may be a nice guy, but he's not a conservative. His ability to carry a campaign beyond Iowa and New Hampshire is highly questionable at best.
The GOP Presidential candidates gathered in Des Moines Wednesday for a PBS debate with the backdrop of the Huckabee media circus previously described. Once again there were too many people involved and a decidedly poor format. The worst part was moderator Carolyn Washburn, who performed a dour schoolmarm routine that irritated even the candidates. She enforced time restrictions like a grouchy traffic cop and did not allow for responses to attack as billed. Vitriolic Alan Keyes was involved for reasons that still are not clear, and his presence was an obnoxious distraction. The continuing presence of Ron Paul is just as annoying. Paul is a fossil, and when that remnant of an earlier time is dug up and dusted off, it's an isolationist policy of appeasement proven dangerous decades ago that does not mesh with the realities of the modern world. It was overall a very boring affair, thanks to the draconian limits placed on the candidates.
Let's review the performances. Former Massachussets Governor Mitt Romney (aka Count Chocula) was proclaimed the winner by the Frank Luntz panel on Fox even though he kept clearly enunciating his desire for "health care for everyone." The panel gave him big points for using the Reagan model of the GOP as a reference point, so that should tell you their mindset. Arizona Senator John McCain gave stuttering and disturbingly unsteady answers. McCain's reference to "reaching across the aisle" was code for cutting deals with liberals, reminding us of one of his flaws. Guliani was unimpressive and failed to adequately address questions about security details for his then girlfriend while mayor of New York. In what has to be a record low, Rudy only mentioned 9/11 once. California Representatives Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo gave adequate but uninspiring efforts.
The most glaring failure goes to Huckabee. His statement that the purpose of the tax code should be to make poor people rich smacks of socialism. His suggestion that music and art should be in every school is a federal program too far. Huckabee's constant Bible references launch him into an extremely unsettling preacher mode. Unfortunately for him, we're not choosing a cleric in chief. He has zero foreign policy experience at any level, and it shows. His reliance on cute sound bites and folksy little stories aren't enough. Huckabee demonstrated that he is clearly not ready for prime time. A continual smooch from the liberal media is not an advantage for a conservative candidate. See the smooch for what it is: a plot for defeat.
Fred Thompson stole the show. The candidates were asked to indicate their stance on global warming's causes by a show of hands, and Fred flatly refused. When Fred's request for a minute to explain his views was denied, he again refused to participate, channeling everyone's distaste for the format and getting a nice round of cheers. Fred's attack on the NEA as the main obstacle to improving education was even endorsed by Count Chocula. When his chance for a free statement came, Fred clearly made his case for a firm adult hand on the tiller of state in the coming years. His answers to the few other questions he had an opportunity to address were spot on and enforced his obvious supremacy among the field. We're just three weeks out from Iowa, and it's unlikely Fred will win there or in New Hampshire. The campaign then moves south, however, and it's there Thompson can really make hay. A reasonable showing in the first two states will help later.
Conservatives in Iowa better wake up and smell what the liberal media is cooking for them, and it certainly isn't victory in Novermber 2008.
JINGOCON
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
HARDBALL & SPOONS MAKE YOU FAT
CHRIS MATTHEWS NEEDS PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING: I dared to catch Hardball this evening, and I deeply regret it. The liberal disconnect from reality, law, and history never ceases to amaze me, but more about that later. Chris was all fired up about the latest NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) that claims Iran suspended it's nuke program in 2003. Matthews actually declared "Peace reigns."
The very same leftists who distort or ignore pre-war intelligence on Iraq to use it as a cudgel against the President are now insisting this bit of wisdom on Iran from the CIA is absolute, pulpit-pounding gospel that cannot be denied. That's because it fits their agenda of bashing the CINC no matter the risk to national security. First, we have to view any information coming from the CIA as suspect, and I'm sorry it's come to that. The American people deserve better than a top intelligence agency that has repeatedly demonstrated it's disdain for the President. They were wrong on the fall of the Soviet Union, wrong on Iraq, and they're wrong in this case. It's a shame one of the chief instruments of American defense is widely seen as not very credible, and this latest report does nothing to change that image. It's way past time to completely overhaul the Central Intelligence Agency to make it more effective and less roguish. Sometimes the spies try to function as a fourth branch of government, accountable to neither Congress nor the President, and that must end. The CIA is accountable to the CINC, period. Perhaps if the boys in Langley spent more time on research than on politics, we'd all be better for it.
Second, liberal reaction to this NIE is just more of their pacifist foreign policy. To the left, war is never justifiable under any circumstances and everything would be better if we were only nicer to other countries. It's a very romantic and childish view of the world, and it persists in liberal dogma despite all evidence to the contrary. The history of our great nation shows again and again that an America disengaged and prostrate against tyrants and other bad guys invites attack. Further, it's like the rest of liberal philosophy: based on emotion instead of logic. They see the world the way they wish it was and proceed from there. Maybe the reality is just too scary for them.
Chris trotted out tired old Delaware Senator and Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden, dean of the defeatist liberal foreign policy wonks. To make the situation even further over the top, Biden stood by his earlier statement actually threatening to impeach President Bush if he were to attack Iran without Congressional authorization. That's it, Joe, completely ignore the Constitution you are sworn to uphold. You know, that part about the President being Commander In Chief, and Congress having absolutely NO say except for funding. Biden is the stereotypical Senator who dreams of being King, gets tired of waiting, and attempts to usurp the power of the CINC. Then there's the sheer insanity of inserting that sort of divisive rhetoric into the body politic at a time when the credible threat of American military power is our trump card against a terrorist regime. Biden is stunningly naive and stupid for a man of his age and experience. I guess you never outgrow a bleeding heart.
Matthews never was a fair or insightful journalist. His usual guests from the media are largely Democrat mouthpieces posing as reporters or columnists. His show is now barely watchable. Not much more can be expected from a network (MSNBC) without a conservative voice. Joe Scarborough sold out to the whiny East Coast media long ago, Tucker Carlson is a nice guy but definitely not a jingocon, and Keith Olberman should be broadcasting in Arabic.
SPOONS MAKE YOU FAT: Another annoying tendency in our society amongst all types of folks is to blame an inanimate, concrete object for bad intentions or human actions. All the lefties think guns are in of themselves inately evil and that guns cause crime. To them, merely possessing a weapon can cause one to commit crimes, and therefore the answer to crime is to restrict gun ownership. The internet is evil and causes people to take all sorts of dangerous and irresponsible actions. Alcohol is evil and causes people to get killed in traffic accidents. Cellphones are evil and cause traffic accidents. Televison is evil and leads children to violence. Video games are evil and lead children to violence. Movies are evil and lead children to violence. Society is responsible for school shootings. The list is endless. In each case, it is the human responsibility that is being missed. No concrete objects should be seen as accountable for human actions. PEOPLE that use firearms in an illegal way or PEOPLE that are careless enough to get behind the wheel after drinking are the responsible parties, not the physical objects they employ. Children become violent only after years of parental neglect, not as a result of media. Again, the technology or the content is blamed instead of poor parenting and lack of discipline. It's just like saying spoons make you fat. PEOPLE are to blame for bad intentions and bad actions regardless of the technology or objects used. Guns don't kill people. No gun has ever killed anyone. Humans at the trigger have killed lots, but no gun ever did anything other that function the very way it was designed and intended.
JINGOCON
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
