George W. Bush rewrites the Declaration of Independence:
“We need your message to reject this dictatorship of relativism and embrace a culture of justice and truth,” Bush said in brief remarks welcoming Benedict to the White House. “In a world where some see freedom as simply the right to do as they wish, we need […]
A Democratic State Senator in Maryland has come up with an idea that actually makes sense:
Advocates for same-sex marriage plan to introduce legislation in the Maryland General Assembly today that would abolish civil marriage ceremonies now confined to heterosexual unions in the state and replace them with domestic partnerships for all couples.
The bills represent an […]
Would such heterosexual couples still be allowed to file joint federal tax returns while gays cannot?
If yes, then this proposal is meaningless.
If no, then this proposal is DOA.
Comment by KipEsquire — February 5, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Kip,
I can’t speak for the Maryland Senator, but in my mind if the state is going to recognize civil unions regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, then all such unions must receive the same benefit
Comment by Doug Mataconis — February 5, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Doug- good catch. This is something I also have been advocating for many years since it separates civil “marriage” from the religious institution.
A better bill would be to take the state out of all matters relating to marriage. Let people get power of attorney agreements and start writing wills and pre-cohabitation agreements. If the state was totally silent on the entire issue then it would become a non-issue. Of course, that has as much likelihood of happening as the passage of this bill.
Comment by Justin Bowen — February 5, 2008 @ 11:14 am
This sounds excellent, thanks for catching this, this sounds promising if it get’s passed.
Although, living in MD right now, I would really appreciate it if they also lowered the sales tax back to 5%, if not something lower (it was recently raised to 6%) :\ .
Comment by Nitroadict — February 5, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Justin Bowen -
I agree with your long-term solution, but this seems like a valuable first step towards that goal. It’s one of those times that we have to appreciate small steps in the right direction.
Oh, no doubt. Most “good” advancements of the past and present (in terms of civil rights) have happened incrementally. Now, if we could only get the men’s rights, women’s rights, minorities rights, and gay rights groups on the same page we’d all be much happier.
Comment by Justin Bowen — February 6, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Justin -
That’s not likely to happen as long as there are “men’s rights, women’s rights, minorities rights, and gay rights groups”. Each of these will fight for their own interests at the expense of the others.
What we need to do, as libertarians, is focus on fighting for a system that will benefit all people through maximum freedom and minimal government interference. That’s what I like about this bill.
On Wednesday Jason noted that Mike Huckabee had stated his desire to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with “God’s law.”
Later that day, he appeared on Hannity & Colmes and attempted to clarify what he had said earlier in the day:
On last night’s Hannity & Colmes, Colmes cited Huckabee’s quote about changing the […]
I want to make that very clear… Except for you, Alan. I think maybe you should, maybe you should obey those things.”
IMO, This comment negated his entire defense.
I’m not diggin’ this guys sense of humor!
Comment by Amyz — January 17, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Clubforgrowth.org
For the life of me, I don’t understand why so many “conservatives” support Mike Huckabee*. He raises taxes, increases spending, his anti-capitalist/populist rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of John Edwards (minus the “Two Americas” b.s.), he wants a national smoking ban in all workplaces, and he once thought that AIDS patients should […]
Stephen,
It’s because (as another commenter pointed out) a lot of people vote for the “team” and don’t bother to study the individual records of the politicians closely enough to understand what they’re actually voting for. They’re just willing to accept Huckabee’s word for it when he says he’s a “conservative Republican” (whatever the hell that is these days).
Guess when it comes to politicians stating their political affiliations a lot of people follow the logic of Sean Connery’s character in “The Untouchables”…Huckabee says he’s a conservative, we’re being led by a massively unpopular “conservative” president, so they figure who would really claim to be that who was not?
A perennial question that comes up this time of the year is the question of how Christmas should be celebrated in public places, with a significant amount of anger and heated accusations being traded between proponents and opponents of the idea.
The Argument For
Christmas is a major part of American culture, especially since it was heavily […]
Tarran, you have framed and argued this issue perfectly! This is the post that the Bill O’Riellys of the world need to read before they get on their “war on Christmas” tirades.
Comment by Stephen Littau — December 10, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
tarran,
I’ve got quite an ego, so take it as a compliment when I say this…
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 10, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
[…] Over at The Liberty Papers, one of my co-contributors has come up with a pretty good solution to the whole problem. […]
Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » An End To The War Over Christmas — December 11, 2007 @ 3:45 am
A better explanation as to why the State should stay out of sectarian holiday observances is hard to imagine. This has the advantage of being supported by the U.S. Constitution too. This (or something like it) should be required reading for all of our elected officials and in our schools. I don’t think that will happen, though, because it is too profitable to use religion as a tool of divisiveness, to stir up the masses. Happy private holiday of your choice!
Comment by Mark In Irvine — December 11, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Shouldn’t ask a question in a headline…might not like the answer(s). The feds promote religious holidays? The other one I “like” (not) is that Jewish people make a “big deal out of Hannukah.” How so? Its a religious holiday (but a minor one at that).
Comment by Stormwarning — December 11, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Tarran,
Check out this poem by Possummomma callled “Counter Poem.” It’s along the same lines of your post.
http://possummomma.blogspot.com/2007/12/counter-poem.html
Comment by Stephen Littau — December 11, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Stormwarning
- you are right; it’s only a small subset of Jews who make a big deal about Hannukah, and I probably should have used clearer language about that.
- As to the Feds promoting Christmas, here you go. Although, note the Hannukah reception they had on Monday. :)
To everyone else, thanks for your praise.
Mitt Romney was deluged today with questions about yesterday’s speech on faith, specifically about the statement that: “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom.” “It was a speech on faith in America, first of all,” Romney said, during a testy exchange with reporters after a town hall forum here. He said he was paraphrasing […]
I thought the original Dubya and Adams believed that the Constitution was written to protect the inalienable freedoms of all men from the government. Was I wrong?
Comment by somebody — December 7, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Yeah, they did — but they only believed that such a system would work if the people governed by our constitution were constrained by a law even higher than the law of man. They justifiably recognized that as respect for and belief in the Creator who granted us inalienable rights fell, respect for those inalienable rights would also diminish.
Consider the last century in America — especially the period of socialism that set in with the election of FDR. Have not our rights been diminished by those politicians and theoreticians who argue that Man’s rules should supplant God’s Natural Law?
Comment by Rhymes With Right — December 8, 2007 @ 6:10 am
Doug has posted over the last day or so about Mitt Romney’s speech on religion and politics… Romney, as a Mormon, is facing some interesting attacks from the evangelical wing of the Republican party, who don’t regard Mormons as “true Christians”. Doug’s opinion is that such a worry is pointless, and that voters […]
I believe that his speech is not a matter of religious test, but is however, a complete waste of time. I believe that the constitution apples to government tests for religion, but also protects against those who are elected to office based upon religious reasons (they cannot pass laws respecting particular religions nor prohibit the free practice thereof). People are going to be silly and pious no matter what, and if they want to vote for someone on religious qualifications, so be it, that is their right. They are, however, simply wrong.
Comment by David Wilson — December 6, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
But should voters consider religion when they decide who to vote for?
Ideally, no. But as I said on another thread, we are a long way off from reaching that ideal.
Thus, I do not fear electing theists to office, but I certainly fear those who I believe would decide policy based on faith, and not on reason, like Mike Huckabee (and George W. Bush).
How about electing a theist whose faith defines their conscience and morality? After all those two factors have to come into play whenever making a decision on a law or well anything.
NEW YORK – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced sharp criticism Monday about his opinions on women, gays, Israel, nuclear weapons and the Holocaust in an appearance at Columbia University, where protesters lined the streets bearing signs reading, “Hitler Lives.”
Inside a crowded lecture hall, the university president issued blistering introductory remarks. Ahmadinejad exhibits “all the signs […]
While I find myself heartily agreeing with most of this piece, I do take a different view of the final item on barring Mr. Ahmadinejad from the WTC site. What bothers me about this is the knee-jerk association of Mr. Ahmadinejad with the 9/11 hijackers. There is no connection between Mr. Ahmadinejad and the 9/11 hijackers. The belief seems to be that, since Mr. Ahmadinejad supports groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, he is somehow connected with 9/11. But neither Hezbollah nor Hamas had anything to do with 9/11 either!
We have every right to deny Mr. Ahmadinejad access to the WTC site — but we were wrong to do so.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 25, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Chepe’s right, Stephen. You appear to be falling prey to the common misconception that Iran was in some way tied to 9/11. It wasn’t…at all. And your rant about how Ahmadinejad is afforded free speech in America is contradicted by your inclusion of the political cartoon celebrating Ahmadinejad being barred from Ground Zero. Free societies (and their politicians) don’t bar people from public areas just because they don’t like them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2173388,00.html
Also Ahmadinejad took the opportunity to bring up a few valid points during his visit, such as the fact that the Palestinians didn’t perpetrate the Holocaust (thus begging the question of why the Palestinians deserved to have their land treated as reparations) and that people who complain about Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial often choose to ignore the fact that Holocaust denial (or, more often, whatever the authorities say is Holocaust denial) an actual crime in several countries in the “free world”.
Now I’m no Holocaust denier, nor am I an anti-Semite. I think Ahmadinejad’s views are patently ridiculous and I think the man’s a fool. But frankly, his visit to the United States made us look a lot more foolish, hypocritical and uninformed than it made him look. Especially since the press has spent several days obsessing over a loudmouthed idiot who doesn’t actually have any real power in his own government…power resides with the clerics. Ahmadinejad’s the Iranian equivalent of Dana Perino or Tony Snow…the only difference being that he’s (nominally) elected.
And no Chepe…there is no “right” for government to deny Ahmadinejad access to the WTC (a piece of public property) unless it’s closed off to everybody.
Hmm, I wouldn’t argue with you about a moral right of the government to deny access to the WTC — that was my point in saying that it was wrong to do so. But legally the government did have a right to restrict his movements. Certainly the public safety concerns — the cost of providing security for Mr. Ahmadinejad at the WTC — provides a valid excuse. But again, I agree that morally, we should have let him go.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 25, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
UC:
You’re right; Ahmadinejad did make a few valid points (the ones you cited). Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I considered bringing that up in the post but to tell you the truth, I’m not real familiar with the European anti-Holocaust laws. I’ll have to save that for a post for another day (of course I would be opposed to such laws).
I also think he has a valid point about Israel. I have never understood why the displaced Jews were given Palestine to create their new country (I do have some theories though). It would have made more sense for the Jews to take over a part of Germany since it was Germany that tried to wipe them of the face of the Earth. The problem is they have been there now for about 60 years and they are one of the few friendly nations to the U.S. in the region. The best we could ever hope for is some sort of peaceful co-existence (which doesn’t seem likely).
To your other point: I realize that Iran was probably not part of 9/11. Ahmadinejad has, however; on numerous occasions opened official speeches with “Death to America” and has said several times he hopes to see a world without America. Iran also is probably the largest state sponsor of terrorism (namely Hezbollah), and is widely believed to be arming the insurgency in Iraq. Whether or not Iran had anything to do with 9/11 is irrelevant. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 25, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Chepe,
I’ll buy that argument so long as they apply it to every other foreign dignitary who asks to visit the WTC site to lay a wreath. Somehow I’m betting that funding won’t be an issue if a world leader the NYC and US government likes comes to visit. I’m not against a decision based on legitimate cost analysis…I’m against the blatant government hypocrisy that led to this decision.
Stephen,
Wikipedia is a good starting point for understanding the roots of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan ). From what I’ve seen there and other places one of the key reasons it was deemed acceptable to gift Palestine was that we didn’t recognize their system of land ownership so we felt it was okay to ignore it to make a politically popular decision of theft. Not to sound like a shill, but typical egocentric Western behavior (see: Native Americans, British colonialism).
It’s not an issue of Iran [i]probably[/i] not being involved in 9/11. Iran [i]wasn’t[/i] involved in 9/11. [i]At all[/i]. It was al-Qaeda-conceived, al-Qaeda-planned, al-Qaeda-executed, and there is zero evidence to say or even insinuate otherwise. As for wishing to see a world without America, if I lived in a country that had it’s government overthrown by the CIA in 1957 and replaced by a bloodthirsty dictator (Shah Reza Pahlavi), and if the President of the U.S. kept referring to my country as part of an “Axis of Evil” and lumped us in with our mortal enemy (Iraq) in an I’d probably be just a scootch anti-American too. And Hezbollah’s got nothing to do with us.
As for a “terrorist being a terrorist” tell it to the Kurdish groups we liberated and put in charge who are now attacking civilian targets in Turkey. We aren’t exactly demanding that Iraq’s president (a Kurd) crack down on them. Or how about the MEK ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen-e_Khalq ), an anti-Iranian terrorist group that we’ve apparently treated with kid gloves because of their choice of enemy? Rumsfeld actually extended Geneva protections to them. Interesting how the definition of a terrorist conveniently changes based on who that person chooses to blow up or kill.
Comment by UCrawford — September 25, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
And I think that the South Koreans would beg to differ with you about the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. North Korea has sent infiltrators into the south for the last 50 years, conducted unprovoked attacks against U.S. and ROK forces, abducted civilians from Japan, sold weapons and weapons technology around the world, and launched missiles into other countries’ airspace. The Iranians are pikers by comparison…they at least restrict their actions to their own neighborhood.
Comment by UCrawford — September 25, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Plus, as Ron Paul pointed out, the Saudis are sending a hell of a lot more weapons to Iraq than the Iranians are. And yet nobody’s talking about going to war with them.
Well, except for Tancredo, and he was just desperate for somebody to pay attention to his joke of a presidential campaign.
Comment by UCrawford — September 25, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Mr. Littau, I reject your assertion that “a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist”. Were the mujahadeen who resisted the Soviets in Afghanistan terrorists or freedom fighters? We shipped weapons to them — what does that make us?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 25, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
How Did Jew-Friendly Persia Become Anti-Semitic Iran?
Muslim, but not Arab, Iran protected its Jews from the Holocaust, but now questions that it ever happened. Once one of Israel’s closest Muslim allies, it now seeks to wipe the “Zionist entity” off the map. Tens of thousands of its Jews have left, yet it still boasts the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. In an in-depth cover story (Dec. 2006), Moment magazine asks:
How Did Jew-Friendly Persia Become Anti-Semitic Iran?
http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2006/2006-12
Comment by Editor - Moment Magazine — September 26, 2007 @ 7:41 am
Chepe, I don’t know what your definition of “terrorist” is but I define it as a person who intentionally targets men, women, and children who are minding their own business.
For the record, I think the U.S. foreign policy has been fatally flawed in many instances.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 8:59 am
I agree with Stephen. Iran wasn’t involved with 9/11, true enough, but I doubt the reason that he wanted to visit ground zero was to pay his respects to the Americans who died. Even though it was solely AQ that initiated the attack, Ahmadinejad would most definitely be against us if he had to choose between the hijackers and America (as if he hasn’t chosen already). He wants to kill us, and I see no reason to let him anywhere near a place where so many were killed by people with the same insane mindset as him.
Comment by Hazel — September 26, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Stephen,
Then you’d probably better add the Afghan mujaheddin to the list. They committed multiple atrocities against civilian targets…including Ismail Khan’s slaughter of the families of Soviet advisors in Herat. That was noted in “Ghost Wars”, and Khan was one of the insurgent leaders we supported during that war ( http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/jul/johnsonJul04.asp ). As were Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, both of whom also targeted civilians (especially Hekmatyar, who was responsible for the destruction of Kabul and the executions of every moderate Afghani politician, academic or intellectual he could get his hands on after the Soviets pulled out).
I could also mention the Contras, the IRA (who get a substantial portion of their funding from the Irish-American population), and more recently the Sunni insurgent groups we’ve armed to fight al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. All of these have targeted non-combatants repeatedly and frequently. Terrorism is simply a general collection of tactics, not an enemy, and we’ve demonstrated in our past that we’re more than willing to justify terrorist activities whenever it suits our needs. I understand your opposition but you’re taking a black-and-white mindset on an issue that is anything but. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
As for Ahmadinejad’s motivations for visiting the WTC, who cares? He’s not planning on doing anything illegal and we supposedly have free speech in this country. Or does that only apply to people we don’t dislike? His political speech is no more offensive than President Bush continually surrounding himself with soldiers in uniform in his press conferences (implying military backing of his partisan political positions, which is a violation of his duties as Commander-in-Chief) and spouting “pro-troop” propaganda, while behind the scenes he slashed the V.A. budget in the middle of a war, micromanaged and overruled his military commanders on the ground when it was politically popular (as when he ordered the assault on Fallujah), ignored intel reports that show Iraq is getting worse, and extended war-zone tours by 3 months so he wouldn’t have to admit that his war is logistically impossible to win. That’s a hell of a lot more offensive to me than anything a third-world pseudo-dictator is going to say or do while standing in a hole in the ground in New York. Hell, he could spit on Ground Zero as far as that goes…I’d find it offensive and stupid, but no more so than pretty much anything that comes out of our own President’s mouth these days.
Hazel,
And considering that al-Qaeda has specifically listed Shia on their list of enemies and has encouraged its followers to kill all the Shia (and Ahmadinejad is devoutly Shia) I find it a little hard to believe that he’d take bin Laden’s side over ours if our president didn’t keep calling Iran “evil”, didn’t keep hinting at a possible invasion, and didn’t have armies parked on Iran’s east and west borders. Actually, considering that Iran continually targeted and arrested al-Qaeda operatives in its country, I find the “they’re all in it together” argument both woefully uninformed and intellectually dishonest.
Despite what the ignorant skydecker in the White House would have you believe, not all people in the Middle East are alike, nor do they all share a common “anti-freedom” ideology, nor is their dislike (or, more accurately, fear) of the West irrational, unsubstantiated, or unjustified.
The Washington Post noted Iran’s anti-al-Qaeda activity just this February:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902294.html
UC:
Don’t think because I’m against retreat in Iraq that I support every military intervention of the past 100 years or so. Far from it (for the record I am opposed to war with Iran). I would agree that some of those instances were examples of American foreign policy supporting terrorism or turning a blind eye toward terrorism.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Stephen,
“Retreat” implies decisive defeat of our military forces resulting in a lack of other options. That’s not the case because we still have the option of remaining in Iraq, but the question would be “Why”? To support a genocidal government allied with Iran? To support a flawed ideal of western democracy the Middle East has never shown any indication it wants or is capable of? To save face? It sure as hell doesn’t have anything to do with national defense…our actions create more animosity towards us than leaving would. What is there for us to gain out of staying in Iraq that’s worth another 3,000-5,000 American lives?
The accurate term is “withdrawal”. That’s what smart leaders do when they realize that it’s possible to continue a war, but pointless to do so because there’s no upside to staying. Eisenhower applied this principle to Korea, Nixon applied it to Vietnam, Reagan applied it to Lebanon. History has shown all of those choices to have been the correct ones.
I would also like to point out that Iran did hold American hostages for 444 days. It’s also commonly believed that Hezbollah attacked the Marine barracks in Lebanon (Yeah I know, there probably shouldn’t have been American troops I Lebanon to begin with). While it’s true that these things happened in the 1980’s, these events are still fresh to many Americans.
I guess we need to ask the question as to whether there should be a statute of limitations on these wrongs. When should we move on? It doesn’t seem that anyone America has transgressed against is willing to forgive and move on. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” and I think the world is very much blind now. How do we stop this vicious cycle?
Even if we adopted Ron Paul’s foreign policy, al Qaeda its ilk would still wish us harm. I do not think we could call for a truce and sit down with these people and negotiate.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
And I know that you’ve said that you’re against unprovoked military intervention and I believe that you mean it. But your Iraq position is undeniably at odds with that assertion.
That’s not meant as a personal attack, I just think it’s something that needs to be pointed out to you. You still seem to tie Iraq, either consciously or subconsciously, to 9/11 in your anti-withdrawal arguments and it’s almost as unsubstantiated a position as any of the crap the “truthers” throw out. Once that argument is removed, every other justification to remain in Iraq pretty much collapses.
To be fair, though, you’re not the only libertarian who has made this lapse of judgment. You’re not even the only one on this site who’s done it. There’s a very good reason why Bush keeps alluding to 9/11 in his Iraq speeches, even though he’s explicitly said that Iraq had nothing to do with it…the fear of another possible attack will get people to continue to buy off on undeniably bad policy so he won’t have to admit that his entire war has been a dismal failure.
Yes, I well remember the hostages…they were taken when the revolutionaries overthrew the U.S.-installed and -backed Shah. Incidentally, none of those hostages were executed by their captors and all were eventually released. As for Beirut, as you pointed out, we had no reason to be in Lebanon in the middle of their civil war. Do you think if it were the Chinese army intervening militarily in our internal affairs we wouldn’t target them for insurgent action? I’d definitely consider it.
And the Vietnamese fought a war with us 40 years ago, but there was hardly a peep when our president (a draft-dodger, ironically) normalized relations with them. So far that’s worked out well for both countries.
What’s in the past is in the past and at some point people have to stop living there, stop seeing themselves as perpetual victims, and stop acting like they’re entitled to do whatever they damn well please with no regard for the consequences. That applies to Americans as much as anyone else. That doesn’t mean we’ll get along with everyone, but that also doesn’t mean that today’s antagonist can’t also become tomorrow’s friend, or at least trading partner (that’s obviously not going to happen with al-Qaeda, but it could with Iran, Iraq, or Syria).
As for how you stop it, I think the first key is not to overreact and overreach when faced with a problem. Like I’ve said before, al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Only al-Qaeda. When that happened, most of the world sympathized. Had we just restricted our actions to going after al-Qaeda, most of the world would still be on our side. But Bush’s overreaction, his unfocused belligerence, and his designs on Iraq and the Middle East pretty much scuttled that. So I guess the first suggestion would be not to put too much faith in leaders whose first proposed solution is knee-jerk use of the gun.
Yes, I well remember the hostages…they were taken when the revolutionaries overthrew the U.S.-installed and -backed Shah. Incidentally, none of those hostages were executed by their captors and all were eventually released. As for Beirut, as you pointed out, we had no reason to be in Lebanon in the middle of their civil war. Do you think if it were the Chinese army intervening militarily in our internal affairs we wouldn’t target them for insurgent action? I’d definitely consider it.
And the Vietnamese fought a war with us 40 years ago, but there was hardly a peep when our president (a draft-dodger, ironically) normalized relations with them. So far that’s worked out well for both countries.
What’s in the past is in the past and at some point people have to stop living there, stop seeing themselves as perpetual victims, and stop acting like they’re entitled to do whatever they damn well please with no regard for the consequences. That applies to Americans as much as anyone else. That doesn’t mean we’ll get along with everyone, but that also doesn’t mean that today’s antagonist can’t also become tomorrow’s friend, or at least trading partner (that’s obviously not going to happen with al-Qaeda, but it could with Iran, Iraq, or Syria).
As for how you stop it, I think the first key is not to overreact and overreach when faced with a problem. Like I’ve said before, al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Only al-Qaeda. When that happened, most of the world sympathized. Had we just restricted our actions to going after al-Qaeda, most of the world would still be on our side. But Bush’s overreaction, his unfocused belligerence, and his designs on Iraq and the Middle East pretty much scuttled that. So I guess the first suggestion would be not to put too much faith in leaders whose first proposed solutions are knee-jerk use of the gun and demands for unquestioned power.
UC:
If I knew then what I know now, I would not have supported the war in Iraq. It’s clear to me now that when America “goes to war” (hell, the congress doesn’t even have the gonads to properly declare war) that America doesn’t fight to win but will sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for politically correct reasons (i.e. rules of engagement that prohibit attacking “holy sites” even when such sites are used as bases of attack). I also see that the idea that helping to establish democracies elsewhere to make the world safer for us is a well intentioned but flawed idea (that I bought into). I don’t think Bush lied or mislead us; I think he too was mislead and he miscalculated. The world was mislead by the international intelligence that suggested that Iraq had WMD and that Saddam would likley pass such weapons on to terrorist organizations. In a post 9/11 world, this did not seem so far fetched.
Having said that, I still think that leaving Iraq vulnearble at this point will come back to haunt us. But who knows, you might be right. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again. In fact, I hope I am wrong because I think that you will get your wish soon after Hillary is elected president.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Stephen,
I don’t think that Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction (because it was common assumption by everyone that Saddam had them), but I also don’t think he was misled. I think he decided that Saddam was evil and had to go, I think he looked at the anecodatal evidence that indicated Saddam might someday be a threat (although there was nothing indicating he had an actual capability to launch a nuke at us), I think he picked out the pieces that he wanted to see, and I think he ignored or minimized all the warnings that indicated his case was largely unsubstantiated (and there were a lot that the intel community did raise to Bush repeatedly…he chose not to listen). Then I think he intentionally overstated the case to the American public (which would be close to a lie). He cherry-picked facts and factoids to fit his opinion, same as any conspiracy theorist, and he didn’t fit his opinion to the facts as a responsible leader does. So did he lie? Not really. Did he behave unforgiveably irresponsibly and as a result cost over 3,000 Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis their lives? Absolutely, and he should be held accountable for that.
As for the rules of engagement, that’s a slightly different argument (and a very long one). Part of that is also Bush’s fault because he never clearly stated a strategy or even the intent of the mission in Iraq. The rules of engagement derive from commander’s intent because they’re tailored in each conflict to fit the objectives we’re trying to achieve. For the record, I wouldn’t be for blowing up mosques carelessly…we see it as an ungentlemanly violation of the rules of war (based on a set of laws to which Iraq, to my knowledge, was not even a signatory), but to the insurgents it’s a viable way to combat a militarily superior opponent while turning the local populace against that opponent (which is the goal of the insurgency). Frankly, they’d be stupid not to do it.
The post-9/11 justification you refer to is basically just panic. It’s a leader’s responsibility to not give into panic or allow the people he’s leading to give into panic. Instead, Bush exploited the panic to push us into a war that we rationally never would have engaged in otherwise (because it was unjustified). So again, I fault Bush entirely.
We’ll eventually be forced to leave Iraq anyway. Logistically our forces won’t be able to hold up. Retention’s been dropping, equipment readiness has been dropping, the workforce is burned out. Something’s going to give eventually, at which point Iraq will become a retreat and not a withdrawal. If we leave now, at least we’ll be able to do so at a time of our choosing and not circumstance. Whoever follows Bush is likely to realize this. The only reason Bush hasn’t (and this is not an irrational prejudice) is because George W. Bush is fucking stupid.
And I think once we leave Iraq (which we will) the Iraqis will be a bit too busy slaughtering each other to spend a whole lot of time on us. But they’ll eventually sort it out, the Iraq we know will likely cease to exist (this isn’t necessarily a bad thing), and it will eventually come to an end and people will move on with their lives. And if we’re smart we’ll stay out of it and let them figure things out on their own. It’s their neighborhood, after all, and they’re far more qualified to determine what works best for them than we are.
I think Bush thoroughly believed that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction. He did manufacture the evidence and expected to vindicated by after the war. I think he consciously picked out evidence for justifying the war in order to make the case for invasion. The 9/11 produced a lower threshold for actionable evidence.
The rest is history. The cost to America is much higher than just the 3000 dead. We have to deal with the 20000+ seriously wounded and maimed. On top of that, it’s wasting million of man years on activities that would be better allocated elsewhere. There is a tangible benefit to staying in Iraq. But I would argue whether it’s worth the cost, and whether there are better things for Americans to be doing.
I recall how I felt about the war. I was ambivalent. I really didn’t know how to feel about it. Some people were passionately against it. More were passionately for it. I guess I should have been against it since being ambivalent would be a reason to be against starting war.
Comment by TanGeng — September 26, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
As for Iran, as long as we’ve got our massive nuclear arsenal I’ve got no problem with them having a few. They’re not the Soviet Union and they haven’t got the capability to annihilate or occupy us and overthrow our way of life (nor are they ever likely to). It’s rational to assume that if they do develop their nuclear program a large portion of it will actually go towards civilian usage (for power, most likely). And if we normalize relations and open trade there are a lot of benefits that we can derive (more oil, more natural gas, more consumers of our exports). People tend not to demonize or attack those with whom they have mutually beneficial relationships. And frankly, what the hell do we care what they do within their own borders as long as they’re not forcing us to get involved?
TanGeng,
I was ambivalently against it when it happened, but I was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Had I known just how fucked up Bush was and what a mess he’d turn it into I would have been vehemently against the war, personally, not that this would have changed much about how I approached it while I was in service (since I did agree to abide by certain standards of behavior while in my job and believe in living up to my obligations).
After the defeat of Saddam, I was of the opinion that we should leave as soon as possible. When Bush flew the Mission Accomplished banner, I thought it was going to be all over. But here we are more than four years later debating what the hell we got ourselves into and the best way to get out.
Digging in for reconstruction seemed like exactly the wrong way to use the American government. Then there is still the question of legitimacy of the Iraqi government. We’ve been propping it up for years. Can it really stand on its own legs?
Comment by TanGeng — September 26, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Sorry, I was thinking government. That should read the American Military.
Comment by TanGeng — September 26, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Actually, either word works considering the tenor of this site :) But you’re right, the U.S. military is not suited to accomplish nation building for any extended period of time. They can provide security, they can take down our enemies, but when it comes to rebuilding a country, that has to come from the people themselves and it’s pretty clear the Iraqis don’t want the same things we do.
I’d like to comment on two notions offered here:
It’s clear to me now that when America “goes to war”…that America doesn’t fight to win but will sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for politically correct reasons
I urge you to read von Clausewitz’ classic work On War. I believe it’s still required reading at West Point. The most oft-quoted statement from that book is:
War is the extension of policy to other means.
All wars are political. Americans have this foolish idea that a war is a big football game with cheerleaders and referees and point-scoring and winners and losers. Nobody ever wins a war; at best they don’t lose much. This notion that you fight until you win creates all sorts of perverse results — as we discovered in VietNam and Iraq. The right way to win a war is the same method you use with any enterprise:
1. Define your objective. What political goal do you wish to achieve? Articulate that goal clearly so that you will have a clear basis for determining when to terminate military action.
2. Ascertain whether your military resources are adequate to the task.
3. If they are, estimate the total cost of the military action (in blood and treasure) against the desired political goal. Is the objective worth the price?
4. If you conclude that it is worth the price, then proceed with the military operation.
5. As military operations proceed, continually re-evaluate the situation, looking especially at the remaining balance of costs and benefits. If at any point, the estimated cost of future operations exceeds the political value of the objective, then immediately terminate the military operations. The old line about “Don’t let the sacrifice of our dead be in vain!” is utter crap. They’re called ’sunk costs’ and taking them into consideration is an act of pride, not reason. Your duty is to the FUTURE dead, not the PAST dead.
As you can well see, none of these steps were undertaken by the Bush Administration.
Next, I’d like to contradict the claim that Mr. Bush doesn’t deserve criticism because it was commonly believed that Mr. Hussein possessed WMD. This is not true. The single best source of evidence was the guy who was actually in Iraq, actually investigating that question: Mr. Blix. He knew better than anybody else, and he reported that there was no evidence of WMD.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 26, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Chepe,
Well put…I’m a fan of Clausewitz myself.
Comment by UCrawford — September 26, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?
Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?
They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.
It is too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!
Comment by Steve — October 7, 2007 @ 4:10 am
Steve, I think you have read an incomplete report of the lecture. The audience laughed out loud when Mr. Ahmadenijad claimed that there were no gays in Iran.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 7, 2007 @ 10:09 am
It’s hard to win with a campaign based on liberty, when so many Americans don’t seem to really believe in it:
WASHINGTON — Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State […]
I agree that almost all of these data are depressing, but there is one point that I’d like to discuss here: the political rights of corporations. A corporation is not a person. It is treated as a person in civil cases, but not in criminal law — you can’t throw a corporation in jail. Why should a corporation have any political rights? It’s not a citizen. It can’t run for political office. So why should it be able to contribute money to political campaigns? We restrict the ability of non-citizens to contribute to political campaigns — why permit corporations? What’s the difference between a corporation owned by non-citizens and a non-citizen?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 13, 2007 @ 9:26 am
A corporation is a voluntary association of individuals, so I guess I really don’t see the distinction.
There are, as I am sure you are aware, several economic arguments in favor of the limited liability protections that corporations offer. Without it, I doubt that the modern economy could function the way that it does.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — September 13, 2007 @ 9:33 am
60% of Americans disagree with the statement that the press tries to report the news without bias
I can buy that. Just look at Fox News and MSNBC.
How did we get into this mess and how do we correct it? Is it that we lost control of the education system? We can’t blame government for limiting our freedom when that’s what the people want.
Comment by Bob — September 13, 2007 @ 9:44 am
I can’t believe Ron Paul’s even having to talk about “legalizing the Constitution.”
Comment by js290 — September 13, 2007 @ 9:48 am
Mr. Mataconis, I’m not objecting to the role of corporations in business. My concern is exclusively with their role in politics.
“A corporation is a voluntary association of individuals, so I guess I really don’t see the distinction.”
There are a number of secondary points here but the main one, in my thinking, is that a corporation isn’t a citizen. If we want to permit anything or anybody make political contributions, why not allow the governments of Iran or China — or their agents — to contribute to their favorite candidates?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 13, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Unions aren’t citizens either, like corporations they “are a association of individuals” would you also ban unions from making contributions?
Comment by Bob — September 13, 2007 @ 10:24 am
“60% of Americans disagree with the statement that the press tries to report the news without bias, and 62% believe the making up of stories is a widespread problem in the news media — down only slightly from 2006.
25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.”
Whats wrong with any of the above numbers? Those are, if not good numbers, at least good trends.
Also I agree that contributions should be limited to individuals and not corporations… I also think candidates should be limited to how much they can contribute to their OWN campaign.
Comment by Thomas — September 13, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Not that depressing. The majority is still on the side of freedom on a lot of issues, and Christians should have no problem supporting Ron Paul.
The real reason Ron Paul faces an uphill battle is because so many people are apathetic and pessimistic. They hear he is at 2 or 3 percent in the polls and figure he can’t win, not stopping to think that the people the poll questioned barely know who the candidates are, let alone what they stand for.
When people hear Ron Paul’s message, and realize that he has the consistency and integrity to back it up, they become avid supporters. Even the people who think he goes a bit too far in the libertarian direction have been waiting their entire lives for an honest, principled, and intelligent candidate, one who won’t sell them out to the highest donor.
We just need to keep spreading the word, showing our support online and off, donating money, and getting as many people as we can registered and voting in the primaries (including ourselves.) Low primary turnout and voter apathy are our secret weapon — the other candidates don’t generate much enthusiasm, but Ron Paul sure does.
Comment by Craig — September 13, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Good point, Bob; but I think that union members could still make the same contributions that the union can. The difference here is that the union can make contributions that reflect the wishes of only the majority of the members, while individual contributions reflect the precise will of each of the individuals. Hence, I would ban union contributions along with corporate contributions.
Thomas, I don’t think it would work to limit individuals’ contributions to their own campaigns. That’s basically saying “You can’t express your opinion publicly as much as you’d like.” I agree that this biases elections towards rich candidates, but I fear that there is no clean alternative.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 13, 2007 @ 11:21 am
Doug, I think that it’s trending upwards. People are recognizing the need to protect unpopular speech without and instead refute them with good counterpoints rather than forcibly silencing opponents.
The disrepute of the media is a good thing. Those centralized news media organizations aren’t a good thing for the cause of freedom. It’s better to have vicious arguments than to have sheep-like consensus.
I think people are also coming to terms with the fact that their government has been co-opted by special interests and large powerful lobbies. Libertarians have said that this would happen all along. It’s just a matter of pushing the people towards the true solution that strikes at the source of the problem and to convince the people not to enact policy that merely manages the symptoms.
Personally, I think we are making progress, and that we cannot give in and become despondent. Anyways, keep it up Doug.
Comment by TanGeng — September 13, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Yes, it’s depressing news for Libertarians.
But - in related good news for liberty - Ron Paul isn’t running as a Libertarian. Ron Paul is running as a Republican. Dr. Paul has also written articles that put him solidly on the side of the majority on the “Christian nation” issue. (much to the delight of Democrats, and the chagrin of Libertarians.)
His view of a “Christian Nation” should be distinguished from the idea of a “Christian Government” but few in the drive-by press will bother to make the distinction so he will be mis-characterized as agreeing with the majority. Hurrah - an unintended consequnce of the short-attention span of the average voter.
The founders appear to have wanted a nation that was Christian (i.e. religious) enough to restrain itself, so that they would not need government force to do it for them. Clearly the founders did not wish to endorse any particular religion over any other, nor did they wish to exclude it all together (not even from government itself.)
Both unions and corporations are legal entities, and should be treated the same for terms of campaign activities.
Doug, the main distinction I see between corporations (or unions) and the individuals who comprise them is two-fold:
1) Tax differences. I don’t think it’s fair to allow a corpor
RSS 2.0 Feed
Are we really surprised that Bush says these things anymore??
And for the Holy Father, he is indeed a “Classical Liberal”, in ever sense of the words.
Comment by RegularRon — April 16, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Doug: Did you steal this from my site? Because I talked about this exact same quote, highlighting the exact same words. (Not actually accusing you of stealing, just pointing out that this quote struck me every bit as much as it did you).
Comment by Mark — April 16, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
I don’t know why you’re shocked…he’s been saying this shit for years. It’s just that many of his critics are so elitist and condescending that they assume everything that comes out of his mouth is gibberish and that he doesn’t really believe the things he says because they believe he’s incapable of expressing himself. I long ago abandoned the idea that Bush doesn’t mean exactly what he says when he makes comments like this. It’s one of many reasons that I hate the fucking guy.
It’s also the reason that I believe that the problems with the Bush administration really haven’t had that much to do with Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Gonzales…everything that’s been going on has been happening at Bush’s direction.
Comment by UCrawford — April 16, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Mark,
I did owe you a hat-tip for that one. My mistake.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 17, 2008 @ 6:11 am
No worries whatsoever. I wouldn’t have been surprised if you hadn’t even read what I wrote in the first place. The quote is just that bad.
Comment by Mark — April 17, 2008 @ 10:14 am