Libertarian Leanings

Democrats and the company they keep

Another critic weighs in on the John Bolton nomination to the UN.  It's Fidel Castro.

Havana, Apr 21 (Prensa Latina) Cuban President Fidel Castro said the George W. Bush administration may create a war at the United Nations with the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to this world institution.

The Cuban leader called Bolton ´a super bandit, selfish, liar, slanderer and promoter of the Iraq war.´

Fidel Castro said Bush´s nominee had even accused Cuba of manufacturing biological weapons before the invasion of Iraq.

Fidel joins Senators Biden, Kerry, Boxer, Dodd, and the rest of the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in opposing the Bolton nomination.  You have to wonder how this strategy is going to work when voters go to the polls.  Not that Fidel has to worry about it.   

But the UN is under increasing fire for repeated inaction in the face of genocide, sexual abuse of refugees (mostly children refugees) by UN personnel, and rampant corruption in the oil for food program.  On top of all that it's clearly anti-American in its aims.  Kerry, Biden, Boxer, and the rest who fight Bolton's nomination say we need someone more diplomatic, someone who can get along at the UN.  Do they think the UN is just fine the way it is?  Or is this business as usual, putting their personal political interests ahead of national interests?  Kerry and Boxer are in safe seats, but this might be a tad troublesome for Red State Democrats. 

Newt

Newt Gingrich put in an appearance at C.R. Sparks in Bedford, New Hampshire last night.  His visit had two purposes, first to promote his new book, Winning the Future, and second to raise money for the New Hampshire Republicans.  The reception that went from 5:30 to 8:00 included a talk by Newt and a brief question and answer session. 

He was the Newt Gingrich of Contract With America last night, a reformer.  Today's Republicans, he said, must decide if they want to preside over our leftward drifting government, or to run it and take it in the direction we want it to go.  He mentioned five challenges that face our country in the immediate future.

Measures taken since the Sept. 11, 2001 do not do enough to protect our borders.  We have to know who the people are who are entering our country.

The rise of China and India in the world’s economy is a challenge we will have to face.  They're not going away, he said. We can either roll up our sleeves and get to work, or adopt the European stance of "elegant decay".

We have a failure in math and science education.  From protecting ourselves against terrorism to protecting the environment, we can't do any of the things we need to do, unless we do better with math and science education

Another challenge is the aging of the baby boom population.  Social Security and Medicare need to be transformed, he said, to be able to sustain us when there will only be two workers supporting every retiree.  He said so far the best plan for adressing Social Security is the one co-sponsored by New Hampshire Senator John Sununu.

Gingrich said immigration poses a challenge to the nature of American civilization.  While he favors immigration, he fears the loss of the American identity that may come because too few of us will keep the faith and the conviction that we are endowed with unalienable rights.  He said anyone applying for U.S. citizenship should be required to pass a test in American History in English.  And for that matter, our children ought to be required to pass it, too.

It's been a source of amusement and wonder to me over the years how Newt Gingrich could be so hated and vilified.  He speaks common sense, and I suppose that's the problem if you can call it a problem.  I never got the impression that he minded very much when the left demonized him.  Their rage was a sure sign he was going in the right direction.  Last night he invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan when he urged us to maintain a good natured smile and keep pointing out the common sense.  It worked for Reagan.  Hell, the Berlin Wall came down.

Judicial legislation

Clayton Cramer has discovered Eric Muller, Professor of Law at UNC, who contemplates the viability of a law suit against a private company, charging that it violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause.  The transgression?  As part of a reading curriculum the company sold a book about a Japanese girl's conversion from Buddhism to Christianity to a public school system.  He implies that it's an academic exercise.  However, he did say in an earlier post that in his opinion the school system violated the Establishment Clause and he asked that they remove the book from the school library shelves, which they did.

As a non-lawyer and non-law student, I find it's a marvelous stretch to speculate how a private company might be guilty of making law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".  Undoubtedly there is precedent, in which brilliant jurists interpreted (or misinterpreted) the intentions of the founding fathers for the purpose of prohibiting the exercise of religion in public. 

I left comments on the professor's blog.  He reponded to one and deleted the other.  I wanted to know if he would feel there was a violation if the story had been about an American girl converting to Buddhism.  I would also like to know how a private company can be guilty of making law.  I suspect we'll never find out, but we do get a view of judicial legislation in the making.

Civil Unions in Connecticut

Let me suggest a visit to Just One Minute for Tom Maguire's take Connecticut's Civil Union legislation.

It looks like democracy, and we hope the spirit is catching - the legislators in Connecticut are poised to pass a bill creating gay civil unions, with an amendment specifically stating that this is *not* marriage...

My goodness, I know Connecticut is a strange shade of Blue - we are home to Joe Lieberman, the Democrat beloved by Reps, and Chris Shays, the Republican beloved by Dems.

But surely, there is some other Blue State where Dems could try this radical-for-their-party approach of writing a bill and then passing it, rather than relying on the courts to advance their party's agenda.

In a comment somewhere around the net (why, maybe here!) I speculated that it would be quite unsurprising for states to support a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage then enact Civil Union legislation.  I excerpt my brilliant analysis:

Note Bush's words "while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage". There is growing support for civil unions. I would go so far as to predict a number of states will support the amendment then turn right around and legislatively create civil unions. Massachusetts comes to mind.

Massachusetts came to mind but Connecticut came through, and they covered both bases in the same bill.  My word, radical hardly describes it!  In Connecticut of all places!  And to think I once lived there!  Well, a tree grows in Brooklyn, hope springs eternal, and the seeds of democracy are taking root.  But in Connecticut?  Baghdad sure, but Hartford?

The return of Robert Musil

After a break of roughly three months Robert Musil has resumed publication of Man Without Qualities.  He's been at it for a few days in a row, now.  Most recently he's revisited the Enron scandal to wonder what became of it.  Previously reported as a vast criminal conspiracy, it is now merely gross negligence.  Imagine that.

The last time I mentioned Man Without Qualities here, it was to express my disapointment that he'd stopped posting, and I pointed to the article that originally attracted me to his writings.  It was entitled Indelicate Questions of an Aged Aunt.  The indelicate questions were for Robert Rubin of Citibank.  It seems the role of Citibank is still on the mind of Mr. Musil.

But Citibank and Chase Morgan - the banks that created and marketed those "shady" products for Enron - entered into settlement agreements with the federal authorities in which those financial institutions admitted no wrong...

But what of Mr. Fastow, the Great Satan himself? We are now apparently to believe he did it all with the help of a few "accomplices." He has pled guilty to intentional fraud and received a jail sentence for it. If his plea is true, that pretty much implies that Enron's finanical statements were also fraudulent. But how much confidence does one have in Mr. Fastow's plea? It was obtained under (legally permitted) duress: the threat of imprisoning his wife and depriving their young children of any parental contact for many years. Why was that duress necessary if Mr. Fastow was the epicenter and virtual sole perpetrator of so many gigantic public evils?

Mr. Fastow apparently committed crimes other than fraud - such as bribing bankers. But when it comes to Enron's financial statements and public disclosure, doesn't Mr. Fastow look a lot like a garden variety scapegoat?

Mr. Musil asks such good questions, doesn't he.

Disasterously wrong

This paragraph from the lead editorial yesterday on OpionionJournal.com reveals an unusual kindliness by the Wall Street Journal towards Bush Aministration critics.

We don't single out Mr. Galbraith to underscore how wrong Administration critics turned out to be. Rather, like others who supported the President's decision to go to war in March 2003, he is emblematic of how the U.S. effort nearly came undone: not because of this or that tactical misstep, but because too many among America's elite lost their nerve when the going got tough.

So that's it?  They lost their nerve?  If they did, it wasn't the nerve to go to war in Iraq that they lost.  It was the nerve to win the war in Iraq under a Republican Administration. Political opportunity arose and critics jumped at it.  Iraq would be a quagmire, they said.  The war would make us less safe, they said.  Al Qaeda would become stronger as Arab rage fueled recruitment, they said. 

And when Saddam's regime was toppled, they carped that there was no plan to win the peace.  There were not enough troops, they said.  We have to have an exit strategy, they said.  The troops should come home, they said.  The "insurgents" were Iraqi patriots, and the Americans war criminals.  Democracy won't take in Iraq, they said.  The Bush Administration was criminally incompetent, they said.  They have been monumentally wrong right down the line.

During the election campaign last year, Bush was asked at a press conference if he thought he made any errors in the War on Terror.  None came to mind, and the critics made a big deal out of that.  What hubris.  The man won't admit a mistake.  That's where the Democratic leadership in Washington sits right now.  They can't admit they were wrong.  Look how they're lining up against the Bolton nomination for UN ambassador.

John Bolton is the Bush foreign policy strategy personified.  He says unkind things about the UN.  He's blunt and direct.  He is a defender of American interests, and he is not opposed to the effective use of American military power to secure them when it is necessary.  He supports the President's policies in Iraq, in the Middle East, and in the world, because those policies further American interests.  So the Democrats to a man say he must be defeated. 

No, for Administration critics nerve is not the problem.  And it would be a kindness to say that those critics misjudged the situation in Iraq, but the error in judgment was of a political nature.  This was the "loyal" opposition pulling out the Vietnam playbook, painting a bleak picture in an effort to capture the White House.  This was a campaign to destroy home front support for American military action in Iraq.  And how hypocritical of them, to mouth support for "our troops" while trying mightily to undermine the cause for which those troops fight. 

What kind of judgement can those critics be said to have, when they have been willing to risk national security for the sake of their political prospects.  The fact is they've misjudged so badly that you have to wonder, how can they presume to instruct, why do they seek to govern.  They haven't even been close, in either their assessment of the War on Terror, or the consequences of their own political strategies.  No.  Nerve is not the problem.

Language of the left

Joel Engel's essay Take Back the Word in today's Weekly Standard contrasts the word "liberal" and what it used to mean against the actions of those who would call themselves liberals.

For example, rooting against the United States and for "insurgents" who delight in slaughtering innocents is many things (stupid, for one, also sad, evil, and short-sighted), but it is assuredly not liberal.

Decrying the American "religious right" for advocating a "culture of life" while simultaneously praising the neck-slicing Islamofascists is many things (start with pathetic), but it is not liberal.

Calling 3,000 workers who died when the buildings fell "little Eichmanns" is many things (vile, as well as repulsive and morally repugnant), but it is not liberal...

Depicting Condoleezza Rice in editorial cartoons as a big-lipped mammy who speaks Ebonics to her massa is many things (offensive, sickening), but it is not liberal...

Believing that ethnicity determines identity--and accusing anyone of being "a disgrace to his race" because his views fall outside what's considered orthodoxy--is many things (primarily racist), but it is definitely not liberal.

Invoking Nazis and/or the Taliban to describe duly-elected officeholders of another party is many things (tiresome, ridiculous), but it is not liberal.

I've mentioned this sort of thing before, and I've gotten to where I tend to avoid the use of the word "liberal".  There's not much that can be called liberal about today's crop of Democrats.  They are more accurately termed "leftist".  They seek only power.  They oppose things now that they proposed in the past and all for the sake of power.

The Democratic game plan is to obstruct.  The objective is to create the appearance that Bush is not all that effective, that our successes are temporary, and Democrats would be better able to govern.  So they oppose every single thing that the President proposes.  The problem with this plan is its lack of direction.  By simply supporting whatever is opposite George Bush, they have no place they're proposing to take the country, unless it's to the pretense that things are as they were before September 11, 2001.  No thank you.

Washington Post opposes Bolton

At least they wish they could.  Today's Washington Post editorializes on the merits of a John R. Bolton ambassadorship at the U.N., or perhaps more accurately, the lack.  You can sense they oppose the Bolton nomination, but find little to support their own position.  Here's a sample.

But the United Nations is more than a debating club or a bureaucratic agency. At least since the end of the Cold War, it also has been a potential instrument of global security, one the United States has used effectively at times. At those moments Washington is best represented by a skilled diplomat, one more effective at working with allies and cutting the deals needed to pass resolutions than in battling political adversaries. It is in this respect that the nomination of Mr. Bolton, who is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, raises questions.

You see there, his nomination raises questions.  After 60 years of its existence, the UN's achievements are such that it can now be called a "potential instrument" by the Washington Post.  And the type of person we need as our ambassador, is "a skilled diplomat, one more effective at working with allies and cutting the deals..."  Did John Kerry write this?  Note to Post: We did not elect John Kerry.

Switching over to today's lead editorial, entitled Doing Better by Darfur, we find the Post has provided a concrete example why it considers the UN only a "potential instrument".

After Mr. Powell's visit last year, the United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions threatening sanctions but then never followed through; this gave Sudan's rulers a green light to kill more people.

Of course, this is no reason to give up on the UN.  As we go down the page we find, it's not the fault of the UN that killing continued in Darfur.  Can you guess?

The reason for the lack of follow-through was that the Bush administration made a conscious decision not to elevate Darfur's genocide to the top of its agenda. Mr. Bush did not place phone calls to the leaders of China and Russia to insist that they back tougher action...

There it is.  The fault lies with George W. Bush.  If only Bush were able to bring himself to make a couple of simple phone calls, all that genocidal nastiness would have been avoided.  They begin their concluding paragraph,

You face genocide in Sudan with the international partners you have, not the ones you might wish to have. If the United States does not lead on Darfur, nobody else is going to...

The United States must lead, but at the Post they prefer the point man, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, be not "one of 'the strongest voices' in defense of American interests", but someone able to "cut deals".  Seems to me there's something of a disconnect here.  Their conclusion?

So far, there is no compelling case for denying Mr. Bush his choice.

They hold out hope, I think.  Something may yet turn up, something that will allow the Post to voice the sentiment for which they have no evidence. So far it hasn't, but maybe it will today at the hearings.

Peace, one neighborhood at a time

From Strategy Page:

April 8, 2005: More foreign terrorists are entering Iraq, as al Qaeda desperately tries to maintain its level of operations. This effort is faltering. Al Qaeda is having an increasingly difficult time getting Iraqis to participate in attacks that might kill Iraqis. This is apparently behind two recent large scale attacks on American troops. One was an ambush, involving over 40 attackers. Most of the attackers were killed when the American MP escort got into action. One of the MP NCOs who led this counterattack is likely to get a medal for her bravery, and the way she drilled her troops beforehand to prepare them for such an attack. The second major attack, on the Abu Ghraib prison, also failed, and left several dozen attackers dead or wounded. In both cases, the American troops went into action quickly and effectively, even though there had been few attacks like this previously. There aren’t likely to be many more. The Iraqi government has been quick to get news, and pictures, of such failed attacks onto television. This works much faster than the rumor network in discouraging others from launching such suicidal attacks on American troops.

The most lethal terrorist weapon against Americans is still the IED (roadside bomb). But IEDs have become very frustrating to use. Some 90 percent of them are found and destroyed. Even if an IED get detonated in the presence of U.S. troops, there’s always the risk that nearby Iraqi civilians will get hit as well. Since the Americans are wearing body armor, and usually riding in armored vehicles, the civilians are more likely to get hurt or killed. Uninjured Americans and dead Iraqi civilians are a double negative for the terrorists, and they are having a hard time getting around this problem.

Al Qaeda’s alliance with Sunni Arab nationalists appears to be coming apart. Some of the Sunni Arab gangs that once worked with al Qaeda cells, are now gunning for terrorists. Apparently, some of the Sunni Arabs had kin killed by al Qaeda attacks, and family obligation forced them to get some revenge, or become outcasts. In other cases, tribal elders declared the al Qaeda people unsuitable allies, which led to an armed dispute.

American intelligence sources have greatly expanded as cell phone and Internet service became more widespread, and more police are operating in Sunni Arab areas. The many bits of information collected are often not much use by themselves. But taken together, they show patterns which are pretty clear. These include more Baath Party big shots either trying to make deals with the government, or getting out of the country. There is no really safe place to seek exile. Syria was a favorite, but the Iraqi refugees know that the Syrians will give them up if the outside pressure is too great. The Iraqi government is making the most of this to get the least guilty Baath Party activists to turn in those with more blood on their hands. This is proving difficult, because there are several Baath Party groups out there and they tend to operate autonomously. Making a deal with one Baath Party faction doesn’t get you a deal with any of the others. Negotiating with the opposition means talking with a lot of people, and having to kill some of them.

While the level of violence has declined a lot in the last three months, there are still thousands of hostile Sunni Arabs out there, armed and especially dangerous to foreigners and government employees. A trade show was recently held for foreign companies offering goods and services for rebuilding Iraq. The “Rebuilding Iraq Expo 2005” had to be held in Jordan because of the high crime rate in Baghdad. A lot of that crime is terrorism by political and religious fanatics. Although assassinations of officials is still a problem, the number of attempts and the number of killings seems to have been falling, while the visibility of the victims has been declining as well. In recent weeks it’s been unusual for even middle-level government, police, or military officials to be killed by the anti-government thugs. Victims have mostly been at lower levels, village mayors, local judges, local police officers, and so forth. This may reflect increasing security for higher level officials, a decreasing pool of skilled assassins, a shift in priorities, or some combination of all three.

Not all of the religious fanatics are Sunnis, there are still some Shia fanatics running around. These unpleasant men recently attacked some students holding a picnic, beating people for “un-Islamic” activities. This attacks caused a big backlash from Shia Arab political and religious leaders. This made it clear that most Shia Arab Iraqis do not want the kind of religious Puritanism found in Iran. Part of this “anti-Iran” attitude comes from Iraqis fearing that Iran wants to dominate Iraq via religion. Iran has been dominating and bullying Iraq for thousands of years, and that long history has not been forgotten. Recently some Shia leaders have even been critical of Iran. This seems to have several roots. One is the lack of enthusiasm by Iranian leadership for the new government in Iraq. Another is seems to be resentment by the Iraqi Shia over the Iranian clergy’s view of itself as the final authority in religious matters, and, by implication, an assertion of Iran’s authority over Iraq. 

While Baghdad is not safe, especially for foreigners. Most of Iraq is. And in many Sunni Arab areas, each week more streets, and neighborhoods, become safe for Iraqis, and foreigners. This is how peace comes to Iraq. One street or neighborhood at a time.

Schiavo memo update

It was a Republican source after all.  According to the Washington Times, the memo was authored by an aide to Senator Mel Martinez of Florida.  The aide has resigned.

Sen. Mel Martinez said last night that his office was the source of the anonymous political talking-points memo on the Terri Schiavo situation and that he unwittingly passed the memo to Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat...

He said the staff member, whom he did not name, has resigned. A Senate aide identified the staffer as Brian Darling, legal counsel for Mr. Martinez's office.

Mr. Martinez said Mr. Harkin told him about the memo yesterday. The Republican said he had meant to give Mr. Harkin a document describing Mr. Martinez's bill to prolong Mrs. Schiavo's life while federal courts reviewed her situation.

"Until this afternoon, I had never seen it and had no idea a copy of it had ever been in my possession. I have vehemently denied the memo and its sentiments, as has my staff," he said in a statement. "

As I have stated numerous times, I vehemently condemn this memo's sentiments. This memo in no way reflected my motivations for being involved in this legislation whatsoever," Mr. Martinez said.

He said an internal office investigation determined that "a senior member of my staff was unilaterally responsible for this document."

Sounds like sabotage.  But, I hate it when they turn out to be right.