Friday
July 15, 2005
IF IRAQ ISN'T ALREADY LINKED THEN LINK IT: I must confess
some confusion over the debate about whether the attacks in London
are linked to Iraq. Let me try to lay out the various arguments
as I see them:
Not
Linked
Liberal argument: Iraq is a
folly, a diversion, and fundamentally irrelevant to protecting
ourselves against terrorism.
Conservative argument: terrorist attacks were
taking place long before the invasion of Iraq and the bombings
in London would
have happened irrespective of the occupation of Iraq.
Linked
Liberal argument: the London attacks are a
direct
result of Britain's participation in Iraq and demonstrate
that the war in Iraq is a disastrous policy that is creating
more terrorists and making the world less safe.
Conservative argument: the London attacks are
retaliation for Britain's participation in Iraq and underscore
the argument that Iraq is indeed a central front in - and a
vital part of the eventual success or failure of - the War on
Terror.
While admitting
the categories I've established are oversimplified, set them aside
for a moment and consider this question: why isn't Iraq
linked to terrorism as a matter of standing policy?
What if (as
Ed Koch wrote along
a similar line the other day) coalition members in Iraq adopted
a policy that read like this:
"Any
act of terrorism committed against civilians of coalition member
countries (which includes attacks on the homeland as well as
kidnappings of diplomats and contractors in Iraq) will be considered
an attack upon all members of the coalition and will be responded
to with an increased commitment of resources to the coalition
in Iraq."
Imagine if
Tony Blair responded to the attacks in London by upping their
commitment in Iraq by 10,000 troops, or if Egypt responded to
the recent assassination of its representative in Iraq by committing
1,000 troops. What if the coalition members had responded to every
instance of terrorism against its civilians over the last two
years this way?
Again, whether
you think Iraq was a mistake to begin with or that it's currently
being botched, one thing on which most everyone can agree is that
the outcome in Iraq is important. We know it's important to the
terrorists because bin Laden and Zarqawi have both said as much
publicly.
And so by
proactively linking acts of terror against civilians to consequences
in Iraq, coalition member countries are immediately adding a deterrent
of some strategic value to the calculus of the global war on terror
that hadn't existed previously.
Here's the
problem: the investigation in London, the myriad laws that will
be passed, and the millions of pounds that will be spent by the
British in response to the bombings are important and necessary.
They will make it harder for terrorists to attack Britain and
harder for them to operate within the country - at least for a
while. But none of these things threaten the cause of
bin Laden and the network of radical clerics who sit back churning
out expendable foot soldiers for their global war.
What's most
threatening to the terrorists' cause is a free, stable Iraq and
the spread of democracy in the Middle East. They know it. We know
it. Linking acts of terror to consequences in Iraq constructs
a dynamic by which any short-term success Islamic terrorists find
in attacking coalition countries only increases the likelihood
their cause is doomed to fail. - T. Bevan 11:35 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Wednesday
July 13, 2005
THE SCOTUS NAME GAME: So Reid and Leahy got
their chance to "consult" with the President yesterday
about his impending Court pick - though they came away from the
meeting disappointed Bush wouldn't name names.
That didn't
prevent the Dems from floating a bunch of names on their own.
The AP
reported that Leahy went the Hispanic route, pushing U.S.
Appellate Judges Sonia Sotomayor (2nd Circuit) and Ed Prado (5th
Circuit) in the meeting yesterday. Somewhere along the line Texas
District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa's name got added to the
list.
Harry Reid
reinforced the Dem-media line that what the Court really needs
is a politician rather than a judge by suggesting
Senator Judd Gregg as a possible "consensus" nominee.
And Barbara
Boxer chimed in - rather comically if you ask me - by recommending
two Republican-appointed California Supreme Court Justices who
are 65 and 69 years old, respectively.
The name
of the game for Democrats (if you'll forgive the pun) in this
pre-nomination period is twofold: first, to position themselves
for all out war in the event Bush nominates a true conservative:
"We gave President Bush a long list of consensus nominees
who we could support but he chose to ignore a bipartisan approach
and appease the religious right by appointing a radical."
The second
goal of Democrats is to try and corral Bush into appointing Alberto
Gonzales. Let's face it: given the current choices on Bush's
shortlist, Dems would be thrilled
to get Gonzales. They've been holding back cries of glee over
the last two weeks watching conservatives do their work for them
by getting in Bush's face and publicly threatening him over a
Gonzales nomination, thereby increasing its likelihood.
Finally,
don't discount what Laura
Bush said yesterday about wanting the President to appoint
a woman to fill O'Connor's seat. Edith Jones, Edith Brown Clement,
or Priscilla Owen would put Democrats in a tight spot, and a Janice
Rogers Brown nomination would be their worst nightmare come true.
EXECUTIVE
QUESTIONS: What do you do if you're a governor who can't
get a controversial bill through the state legislature controlled
by your own party? If you're Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
there's no problem: just issue
an executive order:
Gov.
Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday authorized millions of state dollars
for embryonic stem cell research, one of America's most divisive
scientific issues...
Blagojevich's
executive order authorizes $10 million in state grants for research
on stem cells, including those harvested from human embryos....
Though
Illinois' government is controlled by Democrats and its political
climate is moderate to liberal, the stem cell issue hasn't been
without rancor. Blagojevich's executive order comes after failed
attempts to get legislation passed earlier this year that would
have set up a specific revenue source for stem cell research."
What if you're
a pro-choice governor who doesn't like decade-old anti-abortion
restrictions attached to state health funds? If you're Pennsylvania
Governor Ed Rendell there's a three word answer: line
item veto.
Yesterday
Rendell "blue lined" the following language from the
budget that has been attached to state health money since 1996:
"These funds shall not be used to promote, perform or refer
for abortions or engage in abortion counseling."
The Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette reports that Rendell justified the move by saying
that "putting such limits on the use of Medicaid funds
likely violates the state Constitution and federal law and besides,
he considered it "just plain bad policy."Rendell
is entitled to his opinion as to the merits of the policy, but
I've always thought it was up to the courts to decide what is
and is not Constitutional.
MAKE
LOVE, NOT WAR: We all had a good chuckle at Dennis Kucinich's
expense back in December 2003 when his quixotic presidential campaign
launched the silly "Win
a Date With Dennis" contest. It turns out Dennis
finally found true love. - T. Bevan 10:05 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Monday
July 11, 2005
REPARATIONS THE BEST WAY?: Mary
Mitchell began her column in the Chicago Sun-Times
last Thursday with this:
"I
don't know what it will take for the folks in control of this
country to understand that reparations for slavery is going
to happen. I can't say when it is going to happen, but it will.
Despite legal setbacks, black conservatives and David Horowitz,
reparations is the best way to build a bridge across
our great divide. Otherwise, African Americans and
Caucasians will just keep sniping away at each other."
(emphasis added)
Whether Mitchell
is a naive idealist or simply detached from reality, the truth
is that it's hard to think of anything that would tear open America's
tender racial scars faster than to have the government start cutting
taxpayer-funded checks to African-Americans based on claims of
being fifth and sixth generation descendants of slavery. Even
America's
first black president understood how hopelessly problematic
reparations would be and what sort of damage they would do to
the country.
Mitchell
continues with the shallow, cynical suggestion that an apology
for slavery is only "sincere" if accompanied by a stack
of crisp, green bills:
"Yet,
a sincere apology is a hard thing for most of us. When we've
wronged someone, I mean really shamefully wronged them in a
way that you wouldn't want anyone to know about, saying "I'm
sorry" can get stuck in your throat.
That's
why reparations has been a hairball in America's throat for
a century."
For the record,
in 1998 Bill Clinton told the world that America was "wrong"
to have taken part in the slave trade. In 2003 President
Bush called slavery "one of the greatest crimes of history"
and said that Christians (a less than subtle reference to America)
had "added hypocrisy to injustice" by tolerating slavery.
Just last month the
United States Senate unanimously adopted a
resolution "in the spirit of true repentance" apologizing
for the injustice of lynchings committed in America. Who can argue
these expressions of regret aren't sincere?
The problem,
which Mitchell clearly fails to grasp, is that neither more words
nor more money will do much of anything to solve whatever racial
problems still exist in America. The President and the Senate
could apologize for slavery every day for the rest of the year
to little effect.
Likewise,
a check for $10,000 or even $100,000 deposited tomorrow in the
bank account of every African-American in the country with even
the most distant ties to slavery won't do anything to solve the
underlying problems that continue to plague black culture like
fatherlessness, drugs, crime and violence.
One thing
such payments unquestionably will do, however, is to engender
a sense of bitterness among a vast majority of Americans from
all walks of life who, while they may sincerely be sorry about
slavery, don't feel culpable for a moral abomination that ended
more than 140 years ago. - T. Bevan 12:05 pm Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
