Remarking on John McCain I wrote this Jan. 23

Romney can destroy McCain in a conservatism duel with these 4 words:

McCain- Feingold, McCain-Kennedy. 

For elaboration refer to my featured post McCain, Maybe for Thee But Not For Me from last August where I wrote

If elected I will support him but I won't work to get him elected.
Why?
Two words:
McCain-Feingold.

Now we get this from Don Surber commenting on a Dick Morris analysis via instapundit.com

John McCain’s PROBLEM:

Two words:

McCain-Feingold.

The fundamental difference between McCain 2000 and McCain 2008 is that he put his name on a law that forbids people from speaking out against their congressman within 60 days of an election.

I seriously doubt Surber has visited my blog but I am flattered nonetheless.  He also adds…

McCain-Feingold.

That is a show-stopper. Ever step in fresh dog-doo? The smell sticks to the shoe all day. That is what McCain-Feingold is to the senator from Arizona.

He is no longer John McCain. He is McCain-Feingold. . . . Americans do not like to be told to shut up.

McCain-Feingold told Americans to shut up.

Even Feingold could not run with it. He should be Obama. Instead, he is stuck on the sidelines because of McCain-Feingold.

I think that's right.

Needless to say, me too (and don’t get me started on El Russell Bin Feingold)

This plus all the other reasons previously listed convince me McCain will be retiring from the Senate, not the White House.   For even more reasons check out the latest Reason magazine, print edition, where their cover story on McCain is anything but flattering.

Like I said back then,
“If you get into bed with uberlefty whores chances are you won't come out clean.  Those 2 pieces of legislation are the syphilis and gonnarhea of those Senatorial hook-ups”. 

 

This week’s new anti-war effort will be a Senate measure to reverse the October 2002 resolution authorizing the President to use military force.

 

In his novel 1984 George Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, worked at the Ministry of Truth, a massive government bureau whose sole purpose was to scrub all archival records of evidence contradicting the political dictates of the day.  They labored mightily to make sure current policies appeared consistent with the historical record.  The ruling class had no worries of contradicting themselves since all they needed to do was eliminate or rewrite history.

 

In one sense, rewriting history, the Democrat strategy can be reasonably labeled Orwellian.  On the other hand, it falls short because no such attempts to appear consistent are apparent.  Apparently they can’t be bothered with a trivial matter like consistency when the radicals in their party keep jerking the reins leftward.

 

In a column last week, the inestimable Victor David Hanson notes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s remarks from October 2002:

 

He reminded his Senate colleagues that Saddam’s refusal to honor past agreements “constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

 

There is virtual boatload of similar rhetoric from the Democrats (and why wouldn't’t there be, public support was approaching 90% at the time?)  A quick google search revealed this nugget, Snopes verified no less, from Sen. Jay Rockerfeller.

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Now that the Dems have altered their stand to conform with the windsock of public opinion, in warning of the potential trouble in facing glaring contradictions,Dr. Hanson advises:

 

So instead of self-serving attacks on the present administration, Democratic senators and candidates should simply confess that while most of the earlier reasons to remove Saddam remain valid, the largely unforeseen costs of stabilizing Iraq in their view have proved too high, and now outweigh the dangers of leaving.

 

I might agree that the rationale he offers sounds more plausible but surely the good Doctor must realize he is seeking logic where there is precious little to be found.   Even less likely is that Democrats might actually trump political expediency with doing the right thing.  Nonetheless, he closes with some sage counsel…

But they should remember one final consideration. The next time a Democratic administration makes a case for using America’s overwhelming military force to preempt a Milosevic or a mass murderer in Darfur — and history suggests that one will — the Democrats’ own present disingenuous antiwar rhetoric may come back to haunt them, ensuring that such future humanitarian calls will probably fall on ears as deaf as they are partisan.

 

Hanson is such a genius, and is so consistently on the mark I really have a hard time disagreeing with him.  Even in doing so, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that this admonishment is more wishful thinking than genuine advice for Democrats. 

 

The assumption that Democrats might fear being called to task in the future for politically expedient rhetoric today is flawed.  He may be privy to some evidence in that regard but I sure haven’t seen any.  Seems to me the two preceding quotes prove the point.  Who is going to call them on it, the same press that helps them craft these talking points in the first place? 

 

The beauty of being so firmly entrenched in the moral high ground, or at least their presumption thereof, is that they have no compunction about self-contradiction.  In the politics of today a conservative “flip-flops” but a liberal “evolves”. 

 

Moral relativism is like a waterbed, it provides comfort and support no matter what position you take. 

 

Another case in point is Sudan.  Many of the same people who feel so passionately about getting out of Iraq are just as passionate about intervening in Darfur.  That abandoning Iraq would severely diminish any moral authority we need to justify such an intervention either hasn’t occurred to them or simply doesn’t matter.  I have written off conservative claims that liberals only want military intervention when there aren’t actually American interests at stake but this inconsistency lends credence to that claim.

 

The always erudite George Will, a rare anti war conservative no less, offers this insight and an apt conclusion:

They lack the will to exercise their clearly constitutional power to defund the war. And they lack the power to achieve that end by usurping the commander in chief's powers to conduct a war.

They can spend this year fecklessly and cynically enacting restrictions that do not restrict. Or they can legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation -- withdrawal -- thereby acquiring conspicuous complicity in a defeat that might be inevitable anyway. A Hobson's choice? No, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's.

Such is the corner into which Dems have painted themselves; promote defeat through non-binding resolutions or ensure defeat by using their power to enforce their election mandate.  At least now they should be able to relate with President Bush who seems to face an endless stream of choices with no good options.

 

If their best-case scenario didn’t require a U.S. defeat I’d actually feel sorry for them.  As it stands I only hope that one day, say November 4^th 2008 for example, they get what they deserve.   Too bad our troops deserve so much better in the meantime.

 We sure do hear an awful lot of rhetorical hand wringing about the loss of blood and treasure.  Here are some numbers even a defeat-devoted Democrat would do well to acknowledge and absorb, for fear of appearing, accurately, of not knowing what they are talking about.  

First, the blood:

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting? (courtesy Alicia Colon, New York Sun)

Yes, of course, every loss is a tragedy, but not a waste, as described by Presidential candidate lightweight Barack Obama, a.k.a. Phebamana.  Mispoken, or "unfortunate choice of words" excuses notwithstanding, to describe these sacrifices, either during war or peace, as needless, while we are at war, is despicable and indefensible, albeit instructive on the true colors of todays left.

Words have meaning, and to that end, waste and sacrifice are not interchangeable - - not even close. 

Even poor students of history, and almost totally innumerate (i.e. numerically illiterate) recognize that, in strict terms of the populations liberated to lives lost ratio, this war is by far the best ever - - hands down.  Again, that is not to minimize the losses of true heroes, but only to offer some historical perspective.   

The real kick-in-the-head though, is how it beats the peacetime numbers by about 25%.  Who knew?  Not anyone who relies on the main stream media for news, needless to say.   Quite obviously the only time background info is fit to print is when it supports the anti-war narrative, but never, heaven forbid, when it might actually reflect positively on the effort or, even worse, the President.    

So, Mr. Murtha et. al. rather than stretching constitutional limits in conspiring to derail the effort, and in effect preventing what could be the best, least bloody, military victory in our history, why not do something constructive and find out why it is our troops are safer during a war than during peace?  Start out by investigating say, oh I dunno, how about armor, equipment, and training?  You seem to consider yourself an expert in those areas lately.   Go on.  Make yourself useful.  

Next, the treasure:
As a percent of GDP, defense expenditures were about 40% in 1944.
As a percent of GDP today they are approximately .04% - - and that's rounded UP.

Now THAT, is amazing. 

Put another way, compared to WWII, this war is 1000 X less expensive with 100X fewer deaths.   It may not be progressive, but it sure looks like progress - - by anyones math. 

So if you need numbers to support your hawkish ways, try these on for size.   

Here is the recent, and deservedly maligned, resolution:

Lest anyone believes I overstate when accusing, or noticing, Democrats dedication to our defeat.

This from movecongress.org:

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy.

nuf said.  only a dumba$$, or progressive, could mistake this for patriotism...

These tidbits from Today's WSJ Editorial:

House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history.

...a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm's way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy.

Hmmm, let me see, we the peopel as represented by the house will:
1) do nothing to help
2) demoralize the good guys and
3) embolden the bad guys. 

Can't think of 3 better reasons to vote against it.

Yet somehow that won't stop Democrats and some gutless Republicans.  I guess it's taboo to question their patriotism but what about their motivation?  Sadly, it appears it is mostly about the next election. 

We may get the government we deserve but the troops deserve better than this.

What can possibly be so alluring about political power that its pursuit justifies deliberately destroying a Presidency and deliberately losing a war?  Do people that depraved and shallow sleep at night? 

Why hasn't the left articulated, or even attempted, a reasonable argument on the benefits of losing?  Why in all this time have we not heard an eloquent and passionate discourse on the virtues and moral superiority of pacifism?  Isn't that the defacto position of anti war?  Hawks are certainly called to task to justify their position so why aren't doves?  Might it be that, on the wild assumption they take the jihadists at their word when they say they intend to kill as many of us as possible, the case for pacifism is indefensible?   

So Dems, libs, lefties, if you are not against the war for the sake of peace, what is it you are for?      

Sigh. I miss my country, the one that liked, and fought, to win, and would come together to achieve that end, even if it meant sucking it up and pretending to like someone you really really despise, just for appearance sake.   What seems to be discarded, ironically enough in the age of 24 hour news and a proliferation of information never seen, is that ''appearance sake" is more important than ever.  How is it that the people in front of the cameras fail to grasp this?   

What happened to the kind of patriotism that transcended partisanship?  Is that an outdated naive notion.  Did it ever really exist? 

What happened to the common sense, and strategic realization, that politics stopped at the waters edge, or that a unified voice was essential to the defeat of a common enemy?  Are these too simply quaint notions of yesterday? 

How on earth did short term political gain become the be all and end all of every single issue, even those of life and death.  

The lose-at-all-costs contingent must be banking on the idea that we can survive this defeat.  Fine, maybe so, but the follow up question is what kind of convoluted logic makes them believe we will trust their leadership after they just abused it to help ensure our defeat?   Do they actually believe that the success of their 2 part strategy; losing Iraq and destroying this presidency, never mind the sequence, will reap positive results politically?  In other words, can cynical scorched earth domestic politics and deliberately sabotaging foreign conflicts prove to be a winner?   

More questions than answers. Don't mean to be so depressing but these are questions no one seems to be asking.   

Sometimes the genius is in the simplicity...this is a spectacular idea:
 
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) has proposed HR 77 (HR 442
in the 109th Congress) to move the 15 April deadline for filing
federal income taxes to the first Monday in November, making Tax
Day the day before Election Day.
 
hat tip to Mark Alexander at the Patriot

What could possibly make more sense, or be more democratic, than connecting fiscal accountability to electoral accountability?  Needless to say it'll never fly.  Why?  The greatest flaw in our entire government system; the guys who have to follow the rules are the same ones who make them.
 
Versions of the above proposal have been floated for years and none have ever seen the light of day.  I guess it's just asking too much for politicians to do something so purely logical.  There's just no place for this kind of efficacy in government.  It's never been tried before.  No one would know what to do. Good gracious! Introducing common sense of this magnitude could corrupt the whole corrupt system. Next thing you know the dumb voters will start expectin transparency and stuff!  

The other obvious benefit of such a law is that is almost certain to boost voter turnout - - yet another threat to the staus quo.  Don't hold your breath waiting for the fair elections advocates to jump on this bandwagon anytime soon.

It appears as though the threat of cutting off funding to the RNC has been taken to heart.   I am heartened to see there will be no official Senatorial resolution condemning the troop surge.  The mainstream media, of course, has not put it those terms but so long as the job got done who cares? 

Although I didn't say so at the time but possibly the best result of the recent election was having Mitch McConnell end up as Senate Minority Leader.  His leadership in this episode portends good things.  One only wishes they could have been so effective as the majority.   I guess some teams are just better at defense.

Despite base-pandering protestations to the contrary, the biggest sighs of relief have to be coming from Democrat Senators who were rescued from having to vote against the troops during a war.  An amendment by Sen Greg putting it in those more stark but accurate terms finally beat them into submission but the truth is that's what the resolution was, in effect, if not intent, in the first place. 

The whole idea that you could at once decry their mission and castigate their Commander in Chief and still claim to support them, in the end, was just to much of an obvious contradiction for them to sell, or, more importantly, for the public to buy.   

That there has been no connection made between the pledge and the collapse of the resolution at all is interesting.  The only place I heard of the pledge was in the right-wing blogosphere, where it garnered over 30,000 signatures.  Obviously this can't be only reason the GOP Senate backed away from a resolution to take a crap on the surge but that the pledge took place, and stayed, under the radar is suspect.  What to make of this news blackout, incompetence, reluctance, neither, both?  

On the other hand, thinking out loud here, I can see why both sides may want to minimize publicity:  The left doesn't want to lend credibility to the tactic in fears it will be revisited, at least until they get their own blogospheric act together.  The right is perfectly happy to stay under the radar so long as it works.  This is modern age political nichemanship, or getting a critical mass on message, on time.  

This would not have been possible in a pre internet world, and we are sure to see more of it.  We are in an historic juncture where the mechanics of the marketplace of ideas are being operated by more and more as the elitists, though still manning the tiller,  are only left to watch as their control is disseminated among the masses.   As Martha would say , this is a good thing.  

Sorry, forgot to title that.  Carry on.

 

Larry posting fron Baghdad...

Frank,

Man I need to get to work soon, because sitting here being exposed all the news can be daunting.

Granted, the soldiers quoted in this news link from Drudge http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16616389.htm have the first hand experiences, so far beit from me to attempt to dismiss their beliefs. However, this report, I believe, still highlights the fact we are not fighting this war the way we should. I don't need to go into detail of what needs to be done. Plus, Mr. Byrne is extremely capable and thus better than I at expressing what "exactly" needs to happen here in this hapless part of the world.

One would have to totally ignore all news outlets or live in a cave not to notice how most of the media put Iraq under the "microscope". I mention this because I was chatting with one of our interpreters who told me there is much more killing taking place in his home country of Sudan, not too mention other parts of Africa.

If Iraq is such a failure due to all the sectarian slaughter; put aside interference from Iran and Syria, then places like Sudan and Darfur are ignored, abject failures. Should we heed the call of Clooney and other Hollywood elites and intervene in those parts of Africa as well Somalia; where in fact Mogadishu is no longer under fundamentalist Islamic rule?

Another item that I cannot keep from mentioning is the total hypocrisy of those individuals whom we capture over here. Not to go into too much detail, but they are found with "materials" that would make the biggest pervert in the States blush - nuf said.

SrA Semann

My two cents: That’s quite flattering but my expertise is not military but observational. Tactically speaking I have no idea on the best approach to win this thing, but, unlike the legions of arm chair quarterbacks in the Senate and elsewhere, and their cowardly over reliance on the advantage of hindsight, I am willing to let the generals make the call and wish them the best. I’ll go them one better, in not aiding the enemy by broadcasting our disunity - – the equivalent of endorsing terror.

Another thought occurred to me, everyone was so clever in their incessant sneering quote of Powell's "Pottery Barn" dictum: "if we break it we own it". But now that the pieces are all over the floor more and more of us thinks it is perfectly OK to slink out of the shop like some trailer trash weasely deadbeat.

And still, as contradictory as it so plainly is, the same people who want to shirk this responsibility insist it is necessary to save our reputation!?!?!?  Maybe I'm a little old fashioned, and admittedly perhaps not the brightest bulb on the prch, but I find it exceedingly difficult to come with anything that could be more damaging to our reputation than refusing to clean up after ourselves, while simultaneously abandoning our newborn democratic ally at birth? I am not sure on this but my guess is our popularity took a nosedive when we pulled that unseemly stunt on Viet Nam.

The other item in the Powell Doctrine, as I recall, is the use of overwhelming force. In that regard this was handled adequately at first, the war part. Problem is that we needed another kind of overwhelming force to handle the peace. The appropriate balance of politics, economics, and infrastructure reconstruction is a tall order, even for us. But the longer we d1ck around with the military part, the more we delay progress on the other fronts. Winning militarily is easy if we let loose our capabilities. Sustaining the victory, on the other hand, will require a multi-generational commitment that virtually no so-called leader has mustered the guts to bring up.

We have to evolve beyond the "when all you have is hammers every problem looks like a nail" mindset. What we need is an "everything else" task force that attacks these ancillary challenges with as much ferocity and efficiency as the military does war. (as described and suggested by Thomas P.M. Barnett in his excellent book The Pentagons New Map)

When you see a Senator trying to convince us that the solution in Iraq is exclusively political, as though that is even remotely possible without security first, you know full well he is more concerned about his own incumbency than politics in Iraq.

Regarding the hypocrisy of some of the blue "materials" found on prisoners I am not the least surprised. I have always suspected terrorists not only like goat but are, you know, nudge nudge, also really quite fond of them.   

Peace