San Francisco vs. The Military

The USS Iowa, which has been an action since World War II, and is one of America's oldest and most celebrated warships, was going to be retired in the San Fran area, so residents could pay homage to the soldiers who fought aboard that ship, and lear some history. The thing is though, San Fran says no. Apparently, because of the War in Iraq, and the military's position on gays, they've shunned the ship:

Courtesy of the Associated Press:

SAN FRANCISCO - The USS Iowa joined in battles from World War II to Korea to the Persian Gulf. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt home from the Teheran conference of allied leaders, and four decades later, suffered one of the nation's most deadly military accidents.

Veterans groups and history buffs had hoped that tourists in San Francisco could walk the same teak decks where sailors dodged Japanese machine-gun fire and fired 16-inch guns that helped win battles across the South Pacific.

Instead, it appears that the retired battleship is headed about 80 miles inland, to Stockton, a gritty agricultural port town on the San Joaquin River and home of California's annual asparagus festival.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former San Francisco mayor, helped secure $3 million to tow the Iowa from Rhode Island to the Bay Area in 2001 in hopes of making touristy Fisherman's Wharf its new home.

But city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Feinstein called it a "very petty decision."

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in," Feinstein said.

San Francisco's maritime museum already has one military vessel - the USS Pampanito, an attack submarine that sank six Japanese ships during World War II and has about 110,000 visitors a year.

Officials in Stockton couldn't be happier. They've offered a dock on the river, a 90,000-square-foot waterfront building and a parking area, and hope to attract at least 125,000 annual visitors.

After the Korean war, the Iowa was decommissioned and placed in reserve in a Philadelphia shipyard for three decades. In 1984, it was recalled to duty and, four years later, escorted oil supply ships in the Persian Gulf. In 1989, 47 sailors were killed in an explosion that tore through a gun turret during a training exercise.

The warship, decommissioned by the Navy in 1990, is currently anchored with a mothballed fleet in Suisun Bay, near the mouth of the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta.

San Francisco's rejection of such a storied battleship is a slap in the nation's face, said Douglass Wilhoit, head of Stockton's Chamber of Commerce.

"We're lucky our men and women have sacrificed their lives ... to protect our freedom," Wilhoit said. "Wherever you stand on the war in Iraq ... you shouldn't make a decision based on philosophy."

I really can't add any more to that. Sadly, it seems that San Francisco isn't just anti-war, they're anti-military. I hope Sen. Feinstein can fix this, but the fact that this even happened at all is telling.

A Simple Word for James Wolcott

I had planned on writing this snippy post in which I would tell James Wolcott how proud I am to be a Liberal Hawk. You see, he hates liberal hawks. We're traitors, as far as he's concerned. I was going to respond in kind, but I think I'll take the high road...

F__k that.

James Wolcott, you jackanape. You cretin. You're not worth the blog space.

A Few Thoughts on Cindy Sheehan

I just wanted to post a few thoughts that I've had regarding Ms. Sheehan. She lost her son in Iraq. We all must acknowledge that. I feel for her, and understand that she's suffering. I think she's looking for answers, and in her grief has turned to some unsavory characters for support. I don't mean the people who support on principle, I'm talking about the coalition of fringe anti-war groups that have aligned with her. We all know Michael Moore's an opportunist, but as with Lila Lipscomb, we must acknowledge the very real emotions involved.

Honestly, I don't see the harm in Bush meeting with her again. Having her arrested certainly doesn't help amyone involved. I have no ill will towards Cindy Sheehan, but I think her views on the war are wrong. Maybe all she's looking for is a little more than a "I sympathize with your loss" from President Bush. Maybe she's just trying to cope. I don't think allying herself with far-Left anti-war groups helps either, but maybe she reached for moral support, and these groups were the only ones that stepped up. Of course thsee groups have their own agendas, but I fear she may not know who she's hanging with. Or maybve the fact that these are fringe groups doesn't matter to her. They agree with her on Iraq. The rest is irrelevant to her.

I don't like assuming people's intentions, and I always like to give the benefit of the doubt. Cindy Sheehan lost her son. She's hurting. Many groups sympathize with her, and in their own antiwar sentiment blame Bush and his policies, as she does (I think she's dead wrong, but I understand the emotion). Of course some of thsee groups simply oppose America, and for them, Cindy Sheehan is a political tool.

I'll look past them, though. Despite the fact that I support our efforts in Iraq and she doesn't, my heart still goes out to her and her family. Some people may choose to slander this woman. I will have no part in that. Her son is a hero, and I'm sure all sensible people can agree on that.

Grandstanding

I've come to expect grandstanding and pandering from politicians, but this just pisses me off. Apparently, an 85-year old grandmother has decided to sue Rockstar Games over the "Hot Coffee" incident in GTA: San Andreas. She bought the game for her 14-year old grandson, and was outraged by the revelation that hidden sex scenes were input into the game. Two questions:

1. If your grandson is 14, perhaps he shouldn't playing in the first place, being that its rated M for Mature?

2. Did you actually see the adult footage? Remember the footage was hidden within the game, and had to be unlocked.

As expected, the politicians of both parties have been pandering all the day long:

"Earlier this week, the House voted 355-21 for a resolution asking the FTC to investigate the company. Last week, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., asked the FTC to investigate Rockstar, saying the company had 'gamed the ratings system' by concealing sex scenes in the game that can be unlocked by computer programs available on the Internet."

OK, Hillary. If you say so. Look, Rockstar screwed up, but the idea that this requires a government investigation, or a frivolous lawsuit is absurd. This is yet another state assault on the gaming industry, supported and oftentimes spearheaded by people who you'd think would know better.

A Blog Recomendation: Donklephant

Over at Mike Totten's blog, I found another great centrist blog called Donklephant. It is as it sounds, a great collection of ideas from the vibrant center, from the center-Left and the center-Right. I cannot praise these blogs enough. Also, we are treated to a masterful read by Callimachus, who gives us another "Road to Damascus" moment involving the evolution of the liberal mind post 9/11, and the burden of the liberal hawks. Just read it.

The Price of Freedom

To the families of the victims of the London terrorist bombings, my heart goes out, and my prayers are with you. To those injured, hurting, and struggling: ditto. Indeed, this attack reminds us that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that the cowardly murderers who engineered this savagery must be confronted, and not appeased. We must be alert, and keep our heads up, and out of the sand.

Again, to our friends in Britain, America and the free world is with you, as always.

On Bush's Speech

It's late, and I'll post a full analysis tomorrow (or later today, actually).

I will say this. He did at least make an attempt to avoid the sugarcoating, and tried to be honest about the real situation on the ground. I wish he'd been more specific, though. He doesn't seem to think we need more troops, despite our low recruitment goals. His strongest point was when I pointed out the danger of an artifical timetable (I agree completely).

I tried to link Iraq to 9/11, but as expected, that link was specious at best. All that does is remind people of the lack of a collaborative link between 9/11 and Iraq, and the lack of WMDs. However, he's right when he points out that we must win in Iraq. Iraq has become a central front in the war on terror, and to lose, or pull out early, or to give our enemies an artifical timetable for withdrawal is bad for the Iraqis, and bad for Americans.

He encouraged us to support the troops, and praised their service. That was good. I swear he teared up towards the end. Let's hope he gives them more than lip service.

The speech was about a half hour, with nothing really new. He'll get a small bounce. The speech was better than expected.

The good crew over at Democracy Arsenal have a great analysis of the sppech as well, much more thorough than mine.

Dick Durbin, Karl Rove, and the Politics of War

Well it seems that Karl Rove has gotten himself into some trouble over his recent remarks about the liberal response to 9/11. Well, actually he hasn't, because despite calls for his resignation, the White House, and Republicans are defending his remarks. First off, here's what he said:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Utterly ridiculous of course. He goes on:

"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Even more ridiculous. The fact is, Rove's remarks are yet another attempt to do what he declared to do in the months following 9/11: to manipulate the tragedy for political gain. Essentially, he pulled an Ann Coulter (or a Sean Hannity). His outrageous and divisive rhetoric is disgusting, but nothing new.

Never mind that all the Democrats in Congress save one, voted for the war in Afghanistan. Never mind the support for the strikes against the terrorists amongst the American people was around 90 percent. Basically, the only ones opposing America's efforts in the WOT, were the most hardened radicals (the far-Left fringe campus intellectuals, the likes of A.N.S.W.E.R, the pretentous Hollywood jackanapes, the worst of MoveOn.org), and the most deluded of peaceniks. In defending his remarks, Rove used quotes from said radicals, in order to paint mainstream liberals as deluded politicos at best, and self-interested traitors at worst. Sean Hannity does this every night. The difference is that Rove is Bush's top adviser.

Of course, Durbin's comments didn't help matters. While I am convinced that it was not his intent to slander the troops, his references to Nazis, Stalin, and Pol Pot were utterly stupid, and he was right to apologize. Durbin, by letting his passions get the better of him, made a ridiculous and dangerously silly remark. While some on the far Left will call his apology a capitulation, I believe Durbin rightly understood his comments were over the line.

But to be fair, Durbin's sin was that of hyperbole. He never meant to overtly compared the troops to Nazis. He did however, in his legit attempts to take a serious look at the conditions at Gitmo, go much to far in characterizing the facility. No matter how you look at it, comapring American policies to Nazi policies is utterly stupid. Anyway, here's excatly what he said:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Like I said, utterly stupid, and over the line, but he never actually called them Nazis.

Getting back to Rove's idiocy for a moment, I don't think the Dems should spend all their energy fighting this. In fact, I'm convinced Rove did this specifically to fire up the base, and to lure Dems into another political trap. Dems will go after Rove, and ignore the larger concerns about the country's perceptions of the Party. Many in the country feel that Dems ahve no real plan, or even a desire to fight the War on Terror. This is the battle that needs to be fought. The Republicans have decided to play the political game, and all Dems seem to be able to do is to complain about how Republicans play the game. If we're to survive, the Dems need to counter the name-calling and politicization with a real strategy, not complaining, and more name-calling (I'm calling your name, Howard Dean).

Update: A thought just came to me. Another difference between Rove and Durbin's comments is that we know that Rove's comments were deliberate and calculated. Many have defended Rove's comments by suggesting that his comments didn't endanger the troops as Durbin's did. Well, those comments sure are divisive. A nation divided over the issue of war sure as Hell isn't good for the nation's morale. When the troops hear political leaders like Rove basically say that half the country doesn't support you (which is what Rush Limbaugh told them to their faces), how does that help morale? With the exception of the far fringe, and a handful of misguided fools, the country was united behind the WOT. It wasn't until the right-wingers began attacking the patriotism and the character of Democrats, that the divisions over the WOT began to really form. To be fair, many on the far Left did say some stupid sh-t, but do you all remember what happened to Max Cleland?

ECW! ECW!!

Taking a break from politics for a moment, I just wanted to let you know, the ECW One Night Stand PPV was the best PPV I've seen in 10 years. It was fantastic.

Oh, and JBL, you're an asshole.

Now Who's Playing Politics, Again?

I don't know how many of you have heard about this, but there has been a bit of an uproar over the preliminary plans for the International Freedom Center, which is to be part of the Ground Zero memorial. A lot of people (mostly it seems from the Right), including the sister of the fallen pilot of Flight 77 Debra Burlingame, have argued that the memorial has been apparently hijacked by "blame America first" left-wing groups. As I said, the right-wingers are all over this. Here what the IFC site says the mission is:


MISSION AND VISION•

The International Freedom Center – a multi-dimensional cultural institution combining history, education and engagement – will be an integral part of humanity’s response to September 11. Rising from the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center site, it will serve as the complement, and its building as the gateway, to the World Trade Center Memorial, playing a leading role in the Memorial’s mission to “strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.” •

The Center will include three major cultural components:

Museum Exhibition Spaces: telling freedom's story, inspiring visitors to appreciate it on a personal level by looking at the countless individual women and men around the world who have made a difference. Spurred by hundreds of hours of consultations with nearly 100 scholars, museum experts and leading thinkers, the museum will include a “Freedom Walk” – offering visitors a multimedia collage of some of freedom’s most inspiring moments, interwoven with deeply moving aunequaledled views of the Memorial – as well as a set of galleries offering compelling and thought-provoking treatments of great freedom issues and stories from around the world, throughout the ages and up to the moment. Temporary exhibits will draw on other historic sifreedom museumsums around the world. Educational and Cultural Center: sponsoring an extensive array of lectures, symposia, debates, films and other events in its theaters and public halls that will nurture a global conversation on freedom in our world today. Much of the Center’s evening programming will draw on offerings from members of a university consortium being assembled by the Center and its partner the Aspen Institute.

Universities that have already agreed to participate include the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Cape Town; New York, Columbia and the New School Universities and the City University of New York; and Princeton and Yale Universities. Another key source of evening programming will be a partnership between the Center and the Tribeca Film Festival and its year-round counterpart the Tribeca Film Institute. The Center’s public spaces will also provide a venue for important community and civic events. Civic Engagement Network: connecting visitors with opportunities to act freedom's serviceice in their own communities and around the world. Opportunities for service will be provided on site, and through a virtual network, and will run the gamut of visitor interests, from symbolic gestures to life-changing commitments. Leading NGOs will be offered outposts at the Center to reach out to its visitors. A service advisory board now includes 35 of the leading bi-partisan and non-partisan experts on service and civic engagement from across the nation; the group will soon expand to be international in scope. "

It doesn't seem that harmless to me. I think what there trying to do, besides the most important aspect (remembering the sacrifice of 9/11), is focus on the larger idea of our freedom. The opponents of the memorial argue that a lot of left-of-center scholars are on the advisory panel. And? The IFC says there'll a broad range of voices from all sides of the political spectrum. I do have a few concerns. I do not want this to really turn out to be a "Guilt Museum," as it has been called. I don't want to lose the primary focus of the memorial, that is 9/11. We probably should keep it rather simple, and focus mainly on 9/11. However, this memorial is still in development, and I have no real reason to question the motives of the founders, despite some of their anti-war sentiments. It seems that the only ones playing politics here are the right-wing scandalmongers. Their problem it appears is not that the memorial is political, rather that it's not their politics. Big surprise.

P.S. It should be noted that this IFC memorial will not be larger than the larger 9/11 memorial. You'd think, in these times when America, the West, and democracy are under constant assault by our terrorist foes, that we can have a memorial that declares the history of America's victories over tyranny, and our history of liberating the whole world.

Leaping Over the Line

I'm sure everyone reading this has heard the story by now. In their report on the conditions of the treatment of detainees at Gitmo, Amnesty International has called it "the gulag of our time." To call this absurd is an understatement. Mike Totten does a great job of pointing this out. This is exaggeration at best, and moral stupidity at worst. I recognize that a dangerous pattern of incidents has occured with respect to the treatment of detainees and prisoners. I so not justify these acts. It' s important to point out that most of these incidents have been investigated, and many of those responsible have beeen prosecuted. However, there does seem to be a lapse in leadership in this area, and other incidents have yet to be dealt with.

I reject wholeheartedly the idea that we should base our commitment to human rights on the worse records of other countries. The simple fact is, we're not supposed to do stuff like this in America. When things like this happen, we investigate, and make sure it doesn't happen again. People like Sen. Inhofe who were "outraged by the outrage" over Abu Ghraib, or Bill O'Reilly seem to think that we shouldn't worry, because we're not as bad as Saddam was. Of course we're not that bad. The moral standard has never been to "not be as bad as the jihadists," rather America's moral strength is that we don't allow any of this.

And for the most part, we haven't. While we have some major problems in the treatment of detainees, there is no consistent established policy of torture. It's certainly no gulag.

To recklessly throw out words like that is not only ridiculous it's insulting. It seems that Irene Khan has never been to a gulag. I've never either, but I enough about the gulag to know that Gitmo doesn't compare. In fact, to even make such claims what get Ms. Khan thrown into a gulag. Those who survived the real gulags deserve an apology. Those who survive the Holocaust, and other real-live torture chambers deserve an apology. I respect Amnesty International's mission in defending human rights, but they've crossed the line. In fact, they've leaped over the line.

On a political note, this only hurts the cause. The only validates the idea of the "elaborate left-wing conspiracy against America's War on Terror," that the O'Reillys, and the Malkins, and the Inhofes of the world think exists. The danger of hyperbole like this is that when you cry wolf like this, people will be less likely to respond to real abuses. If, God forbid, a real gulag-level situation were to arise, many of us would just wonder whether Amnesty International was just being melodramatic. America is not running a gulag, and any serious voices in this debate ought not assert to the contrary.

Oh, and on a sort-of-lighter note, the right-wing of the Republican Party has come unglued.

Newsweek, George Galloway, and Other Idiots

OK. I'm sure you all know by now. Newsweek has screwed up big time. I really don't need to get into all the details again, but in case you didn't know, Newsweek ran a story proporting that Gitmo soldiers had flushed a Koran down the toilet, in order to goad detainees. The thing is, the story is bogus. Newsweek used a single anonymous source, and we find out later than the story is bogus. The bigger problem is that this story may have contributed to riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan that left 14 dead. Big, hefty, stinking faux pas.

Now, I'm pretty sure that these riots were caused by more than this Newsweek article, and that preexisting factors led to the violence. Gen Richard Myers essentiallybacked that up. However, it cannot be denied that at the very least, this article couldn't have helped matters much. The question I still cannot answr is why they felt they had to run this story right away, especially one so factually suspect? Was it for journalistic glory? To satisfy the fickle, sensationalist beast that controls a lot of media coverage today? Was it rank stupidity? The Bush crew have of course decided to blame the liberal, anti-Bush bias. I put no stock in the liberal media canard, but if Newsweek was trying to dispel that perception, then they really f'ed up.

Even if this story was true, I fail to see the journalistic importance. I don't think Newsweek maliciously put this out, but this is full-bore incompetence on their part. Eric Alterman points out that this is part of a pattern for one Mike Isikoff, who during the Clinton years was a well-known agent in making bogus stuff up during those Clinton "scandals," much to the delight of the anti-Clinton right. He admitted to being used by the likes of Linda Tripp and Lucy Goldberg.

So, this is yet another indictment of the fickle, non-fact-checking, short-sighted dark side of the media elite. Not liberal, but lazy. And loose. And you know.

Scott McClellan is in no moral position to lecture anyone on responsible reporting. Period.

George Galloway, while he may find some support from the naive, short sighted quarters, and the unreconstructed flank of the anti-war Left, if this guy really did buy oil from Saddam, then he deserves all he gets. The word on the street is that this guy is quite the pro-Saddam, neo-Stalinist lunatic.

If all those conservative myrmidons are really going to stand behind their Don, Tom DeLay, then they do so at their peril.

OK. I'm done.

The Burden of the Liberal Hawks

Author’s note: This essay was produced before the successful Iraqi elections. Let it be said that I’ve essentially always supported the war in Iraq, believing that Saddam’s removal from power was not only a good thing for the Iraqi people that lived under his tyranny for thirty years, but ultimately the world’s security. I had (and so a certain extent still have) concerns about the way the war was sold, a lot of the management decisions made by the political leadership, and Abu Ghraib. That being said, the recent success of the elections, as well as the subsequent democratic shift, have effectively dissauded my fears, and left me a bit embarassed. I’ve always been a liberal hawk, and have always recognized the neccessity of a strong, active, yet cautious military presence. Yet it seemed that many of us became too cautious, and almost lost sight of the big picture. Also, this moment has forced a lot of us to admit to the hard truth, the maybe Bush was right.

I’ve never been that anti-Bush, so I learned a long time ago to look beyond George Bush when considering the future of Iraq. Essentially, I have little trouble giving the President his due on this, but I must affix this question to my praise: Why in God’s name didn’t you just say it was about democracy in the beginning? The IWR does go well beyond WMDs, but a lot of the case is linked to WMDs and supposed al-qaeda links. Anyway, there’s till that question of Osama, and the funding of the war, and the handling of criticism. Nevertheless, Bush called it.

That being said, I’m using this essay as an attempt to be fair to those who opposed Iraq, but genuinely still want to fight terror. There are many in the anti-war crowd that I’ve given up trying to reach. It is a thankless job trying to convince people of the justice of Iraq, while defending them from attacks on their patriotism by the Right, yet being called a neo-con dupe by those I’m trying to defend. I know what John Kerry must have felt like. Anyway, here’s the essay:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been thinking about the debate about Iraq, and it seems that one of the things that bothers me about the debate over Iraq, as someone who generally supports just wars, but has serious concerns about this Iraq war( despite my continued cautious support of it), is that the Right, and those who unequivocally support this war assume this was an imperative war. This explains the World War II and Civil War analogies.

Considering the threat Hitler and Japan posed, I don't think it's at all absurd to suggest that World War II was an imperative war. We had a clear threat, and clear allied support. I believe the same could be said of Afghanistan. With Iraq however, while a moral case can be made from removing Saddam, with all the evidence of the lack of an imminent threat, or a link to the terrorists who posed the prime threat, this war could hardly be called imperative. That being said, even if one felt Saddam deserved removal, we certainly had wiggle room to solidify our allied coalition, formulate an exit strategy, and to make sure war was the only option.

The argument from the conservatives is always the same: We need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here. Then they look back to World War II and other wars, whenever questions of postwar planning or causalities arise. "If we had waited during World War II, the Germans would have won" they'll say. "It took years to rebuild Germany after the war." This argument misses the point, that Iraq is not Germany, and while Saddam was a murderous despot, and his being deposed is a good thing, Saddam was not a Hitler-level threat, or a bin-Laden-level threat.

You can simply argue that this is merely the strategy of the "warmongering neo-con forces," to justify their flawed foreign policy. Yet it seems that otherwise reasonable people fall into this trap, and if the "not against all wars, but against this war" argument is to stand, it must be fought on the grounds that Iraq is not like World War II, or the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, or the war in Afghanistan (all wars I'm sure we all support).

Now there are of course those who oppose all wars, on pacifist grounds. That is a whole different situation. My final point is this, if you happen to oppose this war, or are still on the fence, and you meet someone who supports the Iraq War unequivocally (keep in mind that still support the war, but I have serious concerns), regardless of what's happened, ask them to explain why this war was imperative. Ask them explain the case for diverting from the larger war on terror to Iraq, or how Iraq is part of the larger war on terror. I support the war on terror, and I still think Saddam being gone is a good thing, but I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why Iraq couldn't wait, after all that we know, and I hope to God I can get an answer that doesn't include anything about John Kerry's supposedly weak defense record, or George Bush's supposedly unwavering moral vision.

The Pope is dead. May he rest in peace.

The Holy Father has passed away. He's with the Lord. God rest his soul.

You too, Terri Schiavo. At last, your suffering has ended. The media treated you like a prop, and politicians fought over you, and I'm sure ALL your family loved you. Into to the Lord's glory you go.

Unexpected Wisdom of the Day: Machiavelli

I was doing a bit of reading the other day, and upon reading my copy of Machiavelli's Prince, I noticed a timely bit of advice. One caveat: The whole of Machiavelli's ideas are not to be completely embraced. He was after all, not the biggest fan of democracy. However, this tidbit from chapter 3 of The Prince, does serve as a sufficient counter-argument to that overused anti-war misconception that war is never the answer:

"Because the Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them. there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others."

my emphasis added.

A word of advice...

For those who supported the Iraq war in the beginning, but are now unsure. For those who support the war somewhat reluctantly. For those who didn't and still don't support it, but have an open mind:

You really ought to read the Iraq War Resolution again. I'm serious. Read the whole thing.

War Crimes? Really!?

You know, I realize the war in Iraq is controversial. I gather that. I realize that a lot of mistakes have been made. Despite my cautious support for the war (I've had my concerns), I'll readily admit that mistakes were made by the adminstration. I've made clear that I'm not the biggest fan of Bush, and I had no problem backing Kerry this past election. My point is this: I recognize that there are those with reasonable disagreements with this war. However, let me say this without equivocation: THIS WAS NOT A WAR CRIME.

You see, I can understand people thinking the war was unwise, or unsound, or poorly planned in several ways (I'll cede the last one). But the only war criminal involved in this affair is Saddam and his rogues, and the insurgents and terrorists killing Americans, our allies, and innocent Iraqis.

I know about Abu Ghraib. It was horrible, but it hardly represents the actions of the whole military. I know about the pre-emption thing. I know about there being no WMDs. The lack of WMDs bothers me to this day. But, I'll say again. This war is not illegal, and I have a real hard time calling the liberation of millions of people, from three decades of tyranny, unjust.

Bush is not a war criminal, and certainly the troops aren't. Bush my be a self-interested, simple-minded, stubborn fool, but he is no fascist. He is no murderer.

BTW, he's gone in four years, so let us look beyond this, huh?

A Question of Values

As all of us must surely know by now, things didn’t exactly turn out well for the Democrats this past election. We can debate the size and scope of Bush’s victory, and we can agree that Bush’s “mandate,” is an overblown exaggeration. Regardless of how we slice it however, us Democrats took a hit last November. In the days and weeks following, the self-appointed experts of the political sphere made it their duty to inform us of why we lost. The Democratic leadership went back to the beginning, after having a sort of political “dark night of the soul.” “Did we move too far left?” Did we move too far to the center?” Did we pick the wrong candidate in John Kerry?” These are the questions we asked of ourselves, and others in the media asked. The right-wingers, in-between their fits of gloating and complaining (they’ve won, and they’re STILL complaining!), made up their minds that Bush’s victory was a rebuke of “blue state values, Michael Moore, the Clintons, the ‘anti-Bush Hollywood Left,’ and the so-called liberal media. According to the prevailing political wisdom, the Democrats lost on values. A question must be asked: What on earth does that mean?

Apparently, a lot of people in middle America were really upset that people had the audacity to question the policies of the President. The “liberal media” canard is an old straw man—the more things change, the more they stay the same. Conservatives have been at this for years, but the intensity has increased exponentially in the last few years. In the few months after 9-11, the country was for the most part, unified. One would think this would have lasted, but it seems that both sides are split like never before. In the realms of the lunatic fringe, it has always been like this, but even on the street, it can be brutal. Friends are lost, families are divided, and partisan division stalls those elected to do the people’s business. The debate over who is most responsible for the division could roll on ad infinitum, but it seems to me, that with a few notable exceptions, most of the criticism of Bush was policy-based, while most of the criticism of the opposition was personal, or based on distortion. Max Cleland was compared to Osama for questioning the President, Tom Daschle was compared to Saddam Hussein for opposing drilling in ANWR, and Democrats were labeled obstructionists for opposing Bush even an inch. Legitimate concerns about protecting civil liberties were dismissed as paranoia, and a whole host of pundits, activists, and Republican leaders attacked liberals and Democrats at every turn. Republicans cried about Michael Moore. Maybe sitting him next to Jimmy Carter was a bad idea. I’ll be honest, I have serious issues with Moore, but why does the Left have to rein in its extremists, and the Right gets a pass? Did Howard Dean ever accuse Bush of accusing Vietnam vets of war crimes? Did Al Franken ever accuse Bush of conspiring with the Vietcong? Need I even mention the decade of pure vitriol against Bill Clinton? What makes this even more absurd is that conservatives accuse the Left of being the haters.

After the election, conservatives complained about “anti-Bush hate,” and assailed the Left’s patriotism in the next breath. They gloated, arguing the Left’s supposed hatred of Bush sealed our fate. Consider this: How is it, that a handful of radicals can engage in real-live personal attacks (Bush is Hitler, Bush is a war criminal, etc), or even bash America, and the WHOLE group of liberals, Democrats, progressives gets blamed, but when practically every activist, pundit, and think tank scholar on the far-right engages in attacks, and they get a pass? O’Reilly says that Richard Mellon Scaife isn’t as far right, as George Soros is far-left. That really depends on one’s perspective, no? If Bill O’Reilly really were an independent, he would never utter such foolishness. Soros is certainly far to the Left, but Scaife is as equally far to the Right, and the only reason he doesn’t se it that way, is because he himself leans right.

Now, I’m sure you knew all that. The hypocrisy is well established in this situation. Conservatives didn’t consider what they said hate, because in their minds, it is all true. In the minds of the hard right, the Left really does hate America, and any criticism of Bush is seen as a treasonous attack against America, and American values. Now, perhaps I’m being too harsh. After all, most mainstream Republicans and conservatives don’t think this way. My best friends are Republicans. It is those elites, the pundits, the think-tankers, the activists, the ideologues, for them liberalism isn’t just different—it’s evil. That being said, it’s no wonder that conservatives get upset when Hollywood makes movies. They say they hate it when Hollywood gets involved in politics. The truth is, Hollywood’s always been political. What they hate is that it’s not their politics. When conservatives speak out in Hollywood, it’s cool. When liberals do it, it’s treason. Since Bush represents America in their minds, an attack on Bush is an attack on America. That explains why all those Dixie Chicks fans turned on them after Natalie Maines said she didn’t like Bush. “Dixie sluts!” was the outcry. Hollywood Dems who backed Bush (i.e. Ron Silver, James Woods) are seen as heroes and noble outcasts. Dennis Miller says he backs Bush because he’s a patriot. Backing the President no matter what doesn’t make you a patriot, it makes you a sheep. Never mind that none of this seemed to apply during Clinton’s term.

So, let us return to the initial question of values. I’m an evangelical Christian, and a moderate on a lot of issues, so I don’t think we should ignore the values issue. It does no one any good to label all Christians and people of faith, as “stupid, right-wing, bigots.” That behavior is just as bad as labeling blue staters “godless, commie, liberal, elites.” I do however, think it is past time for someone to stand up and draw the line between those sincere people who want sanity and balance in the debate on morality, and those self-important, un-elected, self-righteous, moralistic elites, who think it their duty to define morality for the nation, assault every work of art under the sun because it doesn’t openly endorse conservatism, and use wedge issues to divide and conquer. Christianity is not conservatism, and vice versa. We need to rise up and declare that the sum total of moral values is not simple opposition to gay marriage and abortion. The Taliban opposes gay marriage and abortion. Are we to follow their example? Strong families. A sound economy. Healthcare. Education. Equal rights. A sound and effective foreign policy. Fighting poverty. Protecting the environment. Civil rights and liberties. Free speech. Truth in government. These are all moral values too.

The Democrats don’t need to move to the Left, or to the Center. The Democratic Party is a Center-Left party. We need to stop trying to out-Republican the Republicans. We need to define issues. We need to move beyond simple opposition and take a stand. We’ve misunderstood red-state voters, while the Republicans have used them for their own political gain. Bush’ll be gone in four years. We’ll survive Bush. At the end of the day, the ideologues will fight each other, while the rest of us will take the Party back, and win this thing for America.

This is my first real post. We're officially live!

OK. Here we go. I've finally decided to get my blog going. In the case the somewhat audacious title didn't clue you in, the blog is run by a pro-defense moderate Democrat, who supports a reasoned, but active policy of fighting terrorism, and spreading freedom and democracy abroad. I do not subscribe to the foolish notion that such a noble enterprise will be easy, but it is noble. This is no a pro-Bush site, and I hope this blog will serve as an alternative for those lonely liberals out there who don't feel Iraq was a total disaster, but find that a whole lot of pro-war blogs are run as if they were produced directly out of the Bush White House.

Anyway, now that introductions are made, let us cue the music...

Oh yeah, Happy Valentine's Day!