Blinded By Love Of Bipartisanship

Earlier this month, I authored a nice little post on how Bill Richardson was smoking something strong when he said that Barack Obama's foreign policy would be a return to the bipartisan, universal-love-fest, audaciously hopeful, unifying foreign policy of a bygone era; and now it seems its time to write a quick follow up to that since, as of this past weekend, that bullshit line is now being parroted by the candidate himself. Yes folks, Mr. AudacityOfHopeMan has claimed that his foreign policy platform is:

"...actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, [and] of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan." [emphasis added]

Yea, right.

I think the Gipper will forgive me for paraphrasing one of his old lines when I say: Senator Obama, you're telling people that you've got a foreign policy that's like Ronald Reagan's. Well let me tell you something, Senator. I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a friend of mine. And Senator, you're no Ronald Reagan!

Seriously, as I've said before, Reagan's foreign policy was not the kind of bipartisan yuck-fest that Senator Obama is trying to make it out to be.

As I noted while raking Governor Richardson over the coals, President Reagan's foreign policy was laughed at by most Democrats - that is, until it worked, and the Soviet Union fell, and Communism was reduced to the "ash heap of history," just like Reagan said it would be. Causing the Democrats to do a little 'revisionist' history and pretend like they were on board all along.

Thankfully, most of us know better.

Furthermore, in this little speech, Senator Obama praises H.W. Bush's handling of the First Gulf War; but, as no less an authority than Margaret Thatcher has noted, it was H.W's failure to remove Saddam the first time, when he had the chance, that created the set of circumstances which led to the Second Gulf War. If Pops had finished the job - and not stopped halfway - then W never has to invade Iraq in 2003. But hey, Obama-rama's got an agenda to push, so why bother to think things through, right?

The next point to be made about these remarks is to, again, reiterate that there was nothing warm, fuzzy, and bipartisan about a great deal of Cold War policy. It, too, was a product of politics (hence the word: policy); and thus, while the personalities may not have been as memorable, it was still every bit as partisan as the foreign policy we have today.

Finally, I want to note one last thing about Obama's statements and point out why, aside from the matter of partisanship, his 'return to a traditional foreign policy' is an incredibly stupid idea. And that is simply this: The Cold War is over, as is the lovefest of 90's idealism. The world is a different place now than it was then, and while 9/11 certainly has made this especially so, this fact would be true even if 9/11 had never happened. Interacting with Nations, IGOs and NGOs on an International level means being flexible and, while learning from your past, living, thinking, and, most importantly, acting in the present (with the future in mind). Using the 1960's foreign policy to respond to the 2000's problems would be the height of both ignorance and arrogance; primarily because, and you would think this would be obvious; the 2000's are not the 1960's. The times change, and thus American Foreign Policy should too.

It's too bad Senator Obama is to naive to understand something as basic as that.

I Love My State

Where else in the country would an add like this:



...even get airtime, much less actually be a smart politcal move?

South Carolina: where George W. Bush still isn't political poison, and an anti-war protest against the unpopular Iraq War, on that war's 5-year anniversary, considers 70 people a "larger than expected crowd."

The funny thing is, according to the article, most of those 70 who bothered showing up for the protest were calling "for a quick - but not immediate" [emphasis added] troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yes, folks, that's right, even our anti-war protesters have conservative streaks.

We have our problems down here in Redneck paradise, but it's still a pretty nice place to call home.

The Success of Partisanship

Not to long ago, before the Democratic Presidential contest had become the Hilldabeast-Obamarama dogfight that it is now, I used to tune in and watch some of those old Democratic Debates, with all umpteen of the candidates, to give myself a good laugh. When I did that, no one was able to provide bigger laughs than New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, whose wildly (and in some cases, disturbingly) idealistic view of the world made him a ready source. The Governor was back on TV today, giving his endorsement to Barack Obama, and while watching him speak, I was given a nice chuckle or two and again reminded of his general, all-around stupidity.

At one point during this speech the Governor was talking about foreign policy, and he went into the standard Barack Obama talking point about how, after 8 years of W, the country needs someone who is a "uniter" and who can "repair America's image" in the rest of the world. Then, in order to prove his point, he harkened back to the Cold War, and talked about how, back then, we had this policy of Containment which, in his words, was not "Democrat or Republican, but American." In other words, in Gov. Richardson's mind, the Cold War was a time when the country never, ever, but never had partisan disagreements about foreign policy.

Right.

First of all, lets just get one simple thing straight - Containment was a Partisan policy, as it was created and first used by President Harry S Truman, a Democrat. Sure, it was later adopted by Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, but it was, originally, Truman's policy - something which shows you how stupid Richardson really is; as it would have been better, if he was going to praise Containment, to point out its roots in his own party.

Secondly, I find it incredibly ironic that Gov. Richardson, he of the 'I'll have us entirely out of Iraq in 30 days' (or whatever it was), would praise Containment. Afterall, it was fear of Communism spreading to the rest of Southeast Asia and LBJ's desire to contain it within North Vietnam that got us involved in the Vietnam War. And as we all know from the last 3+ years of Democratic talking points, Iraq is bad because it's Vietnam, and nothing in history was worse and more misguided, evil, stupid (etc., etc.) than American involvement in Vietnam. But hey, when you're Bill Richardson, why not come out and praise the policy that got us involved in a war which you feel is exactly like the 'misguided' one we're in now; it's not like the media is going to call you on it. Afterall, you're a minority and a Democrat - hell, you could probably join Eliot Spitzer in the prostitution scandal business and they would still try and avoid asking you questions that might be a bit too hard. But I digress...

The final point I'll make about the good Governor's dim-witted reference to Containment is the most important; and that is that, ultimately, for all the bi-partisan goodness that it may (or may not) have been, the policy of Containment failed. It was a failure because, in the end, the guy who won the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, won it not by sitting back and simply trying to 'contain' the Soviet Union but by calling it the "Evil Empire" and doing everything possible to defeat and destroy it. During the 1960's and 70's, something like 13 countries had become new Communist nations; but Reagan, with the Grenada invasion in 1983, began toppling Communist regimes. For decades we'd been told the Soviet Union was here to stay, Reagan told us it could be gone in our lifetimes.

Now, I could go on about how Reagan's foreign policy was different from Containment, but in doing so I (again) digress from my original point. You see, when Reagan was in office, implementing his new strategy for dealing with the U.S.S.R, the Democrats were kicking and screaming at every turn, and saying all sorts of nasty things about his intelligence along the way. Most importantly, however, they didn't believe what he was doing would work; meaning that they made Reagan's Cold War policy a partisan issue. And this brings us to the hillarity of Bill Richardson, who wants us to get excited about Containment, which didn't work, simply because it was 'non-partisan' and fully approved by the French - despite the fact that the evil, divisive partisan strategy was the one that ultimately won the War.

Makes for an ironic analogy to the present day - don't you think?

Boycotting Beijing?

As the current violence in Tibet worsens, and the Chinese authorities there become more oppressive in their attempts to stifle the residents there, it is becoming clearer to many in the West that awarding China the 2008 Olympics was, indeed, a terrible idea. Moreover, it seems that this realization has also begun inspiring quiet rumors about some European countries potentially boycotting the Olympics.

The Olympic boycott was a tactic that was employed by the U.S and the U.S.S.R in the 1980 and 1984 Summer Games, respectively; and, while it certainly has the effect of casting a certain degree of public humiliation on the boycotted host Nation, the tactic is, by and large, rather ineffective. Obviously, this is true for a number of reasons (chief among them the fact that an Olympic boycott doesn't have any real effect on the internal politics of the boycotted country); however, there is one significant reason that I find worth mentioning. That would be the simple fact that a team or athlete has the opportunity to make a much bigger statement through their actual presence and participation.

For example: while Jimmy Carter may have been awfully proud of his boycott of the 1980 Moscow Summer Games; I think its safe to say that the U.S Men's Hockey team, which played in the Winter Games that same year in Lake Placid, had a much more significant political and cultural impact on the U.S-Soviet Cold War rivalry. I mean, afterall, who doesn't believe in Miracles?



Heck, for an even better example, who do you think ultimately made a bigger political statement at the 1936 Berlin Games: Adolf Hitler, with his 'Aryan Supremacy' propaganda; or Jesse Owens, a black man, and his 4 Gold Medals?

The point is that skipping out on the Olympics is a stupid idea; because, among other things, it pre-empts any opportunities one might have to attain the greatest of feats in amateur athletics - that being those victories which transcend sports, entirely.

In The Footsteps Of Fidel

With the recent retirement of Fidel Castro from his long held position of Dictator in Cuba, there was, in some respects, an important and symbolic change in the International political system of the Western Hemisphere. This is not to say that there will be any genuine regime change in Cuba anytime soon - there won't be, Raul will ensure the continuation of Communism - but rather, that Fidel Castro's long-standing grip on power has made him more than just another Communist tyrant; he has become an institution, and, more specifically, an institution of Anti-Americanism in Latin America.

For over 45 years now, Fidel has been the leader of any and all anti-American sentiments in this region. Any Latin American political or rebel leader looking for inspiration for, or affirmation of, an anti-American platform could look confidently to Fidel Castro, who stood defiantly against the United States, year after year, despite his location a mere 90 miles off its coast. Now, with his departure, that clout, that image, is gone. Sure, Raul will likely continue to inundate Cubans with anti-American propaganda, and, sure, he'll likely continue at least the basics of Fidel's anti-American foreign policy; but at the end of the day, Raul simply does not command the attention of his older brother - nor, more importantly, does he have anywhere close to the same aura about him. Thus, with the departure of Fidel, a new page really is being turned over in the politics of the Americas.

Enter, Hugo Chavez.

With the slow, drawn-out exit of Castro from the world stage, Chavez has recently been trying hurriedly to step up and fill Fidel's old shoes. He's doing this because he knows that, in much of Latin America, there are few better ways to build a quick consensus than to loudly and violently beat the anti-American drum. Indeed, thanks to decades of CIA/Cold War meddling and some of the strangest love-hate relationships in the International system, anti-Americanism has a built-in, Latin American support block that anyone of modest political talents might easily summon.

However, tapping into anti-Americanism to win a particular election or policy referendum is an entirely different beast from building a dictatorship off such sentiment - and the latter is the field in which Fidel Castro has written the book. Between demagoguing U.S-supported neighbors and constantly raising the specter of a possible American invasion, Fidel was able to maintain power in the face of a collapsing economy (and society) thanks, in part, to his tactic of overwhelming Cubans with a fear of the monstrosity and evil of American power. That the world might not have been as Fidel portrayed it was, of course, utterly irrelevant.

Thus, with a keen eye towards history, and a thorough understanding of this fact, Chavez, earlier today, must have done Fidel proud when he ordered Venezuelan troops to his nation's Colombian border; for, by doing so, he gets a nice two-for-one on the anti-American front. First, since he can portray Colombia, a U.S ally, as an American puppet regime, he can easily assert that Colombian opposition to FARC - a rebel group which Chavez, naturally, supports - is something the government is doing, not because it's in Colombia's best interests, but because of requests form its American masters. The second thing he does by generating a military standoff on the Colombian-Venezuelan border is to create a nice little win-win situation for himself. If Colombia heeds Venezuelan troop's presence, the FARC can quickly retreat into Venezuela, where Chavez can help support them in their efforts to destabilize Colombia's democratic government. On the other hand, if Colombian forces decide to pursue FARC rebels into Venezuelan territory - even if it's just 1 mile in (as it was in Ecuadur) - Chavez would be able to counter-attack; an action which would likely provoke American involvement, since we have a security agreement with Colombia.

Translation: In the event of a Venezuelan attack, the U.S Navy would likely end up lobbing Cruise Missiles at Caracas to get Chavez to back down; an act which would hand Hugo the biggest propaganda coup in Latin America since the Bay of Pigs Invasion - a disaster which, oddly enough, was a propaganda coup for none other than Hugo's predecessor in the role of Chief Latin American, anti-U.S agitator: Fidel.

All this means that the American Government will have to tread carefully when dealing with these Colombia-Venezuela tensions; because, after Fidel, the last thing we need in Latin America is become a political tool of his potential protege.

To Stand "Athwart History, Yelling Stop"

A Titan has passed. William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review, and the leading Conservative intellectual of the 20th Century, died today at the age of 82.

Determined, as he wrote in 1955 in the first edition of National Review, to stand "athwart history" and yell "stop" at the, seemingly inevitable, left-wing onslaught, Mr. Buckley re-cast Conservatism as an intellectual movement; thus providing the ideological basis for the political movement that culminated with the Reagan Revolution.

To quote George Will:

"Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley, with a spark in his mind."

Indeed. Rest in Peace, good sir - and thank you.

Change You Can Be Scared Of

Finally, something from a Barack Obama stump speech that I can believe! Apparently, yesterday at an event in Austin, Texas, Obama was trying to fend of the label of 'liberal' that he has been pegged with. In doing so, he put forth this whopper of a line:

"There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure everyone has healthcare."

And you know what, folks? He's right; there is nothing liberal about 'Universal Health Care' - only something Socialist.

But hey, we shouldn't say things like that, because, they wouldn't be nice, and they would tear down the facade that has been Mr. Obama's entire campaign. I mean, Obama is nothing more than a master masquerader, who has donned the cap of 'uniter' just long enough, and well enough, to gain a serious following of folks who actually believe his empty-yet-grandiose rhetoric.

The emptiness of this rhetoric was perhaps epitomized by his wife, Michelle, a few days back, when she claimed that Barack Obama was the only man who could "save our souls;" a statement which makes her sound like one of those idiots from the Bible helping to proclaim one of the many false prophets that God warns of.

(As an aside, if I'm looking to have my soul saved, I'd sooner ask the homeless drunkard on the street corner than a freakin' politician.)

Sadly, the analogy is more accurate than laughable, because a false prophet is exactly what Obama has become (or perhaps always was). He walks around telling us how he will bring back hope, bring people together, work across the aisle, and, most importantly, bring about "change;" but, in reality, he has the most left-wing and the most partisan voting record of anyone in the Senate. If Obama gets to the White House, he'll be as much of a uniter as George "I'm a uniter not a divider" W. Bush has been. He will be, as some on the right have described him, the next Jimmy Carter - just with more nice and a little more socialism.

In a sense, it's a good thing Obama's campaign has "hope" as its main selling point; because after 4 years of an Obama Presidency, Americans would be needing a lot of it - it's not like they'd have much else worth bragging about.

For those of you who do give a rat's behind about where your country might be in 4 years, here's some actual facts on some of Obama's, uhh, more interesting positions, that you should be aware of:

-He supports 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) with all the fervor of a good socialist.
- He wants to sit down and have direct talks with people like Iranian President Ahmadenijad. ('Peace through conversation,' maybe....???)
- He was a very strong advocate of gun-control while a State Senator in Illinois, and has not changed his position on that issue one bit since then.
- He didn't have to flip-flop on Drivers Licenses for Illegals (like Sen. Clinton did) because he had already come out in full support of such measures.
- He has always gotten the full 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, and while still a State Senator, he voted against a law requiring life support for fetuses that survived abortion procedures.
- He was "extremely concerned" by the Supreme Court's decision to ban partial-birth abortion, and has consistently voted against banning it.
- He has voted against lowering taxes every single time the issue has come up during his short stay in the United States Senate. This includes votes against repealing the Death and Alternative Minimum taxes; as well as votes against extending tax cuts on Estate, Capital Gains, and Dividend taxes.

...and I could go on; but I won't. Instead I'll just say that, ultimately, the conclusion you'd have to reach after looking at this man's actual positions, beliefs, and principles would be this: Barack Obama is not a great unifying force who can lift up America. Rather, he is a genuine Democratic Socialist (in the European sense of the term) who would be better suited to bring about the political unification of France than of the United States.

Oh no, wait a minute, I forgot, even the French were smart enough to reject this kind of smooth-talking, empty-suited, hard-left bullshit.

Dear God, stick that in you pipes and smoke on it for a minute: a year from now, we (The United States!) could have a President who is more liberal than the President of France!

Conservatives who continue to hold a grudge against John McCain for various reasons ought to think about that before November rolls around. In the meantime, I think I'm gonna be depressed.

The Case Against Kosovo

For those of you who haven't been following the news recently, earlier this week a tiny little region of Serbia (which you may remember from a little bombing a few years back) named Kosovo declared its independence. The announcement, coming after 9 years of UN/NATO administration (which hasn't stopped, by the way), was welcomed by all of the usual suspects in the "West," including the U.S, and openly disdained by the various Slavic Nations in the "East," most notably, of course, Russia. Indeed, with separatist rebels of their own to worry about in Chechnya, Putin's men have been out and about condemning the independence declaration and promising to veto any sort of international recognition for Kosovo that might come up for a vote at the U.N.

In other words, Russia is doing what Russia does best, obstructing Western interests - and the scary thing is that, for once, I agree with them.

Kosovo should not be an independent state and the most important reason for this is precisely the one that the Russians have been giving in all of the Pressers they've been holding the last 3 days; namely, the potential snowball effect that Kosovo's independence can have on all of the various ethnic minority regions in Europe and Central Asia. Indeed, given all the various ethnic minorities that live in countries throughout the Balkans and Central Asia, from the Checheyens, right on across the board, the declaration of Kosovoian (?) Independence has far greater ramifications than just the writing of an additional chapter to the tumultuous story of Albanian-Serb relations.

But come now, you insist, who are we to step in and try to prevent these folks from having their Democratic rights? Indeed, you might have an argument, if it weren't for the fact that this declaration is motivated largely by a desire for some kind of ethnically pure (a.k.a non-Serbian) country. Oh sure, they'll probably talk about things like the principle of self-determination; but at the end of the day, Kosovo wants independence because it's full of Albanians and they don't want to be under a government that's largely made up of, and run by, Serbs. I mean, let's face it, like most other ethnic groups in the Balkans, the Serbs and Albanians hate each other, and have killed enough of each other over the last decade or so make that obvious even to the most ardent of peace-loving Hippies. But them hating each others' guts to the point of killing each other is not, in this case, a very good justification for independence. Here's why: you see, the dirty little secret of territorial-ethnic conflicts like this is that, no matter how hard the do-gooders at the EU, UN, and NATO try, the problem of ethnic minorities can never be fully resolved. There's always some ethnic group who gets left behind after the partition, and ends up becoming the new dissatisfied minority.

And, alas, such is the case in an independent Kosovo; where not all of the population is, in fact, Albanian. Oh, sure, 90% of it is - but, uh, that other 10% is still Serbs; which means that all the creation of this new country does is turn the tables around by making the Serbs the ethnic minority.

In other words, the Albanian Kosovars aren't really solving the problem; they're just making sure that they have a better hand to play when the game re-starts. Indeed, unless these people want to keep dividing up their part of the world until it's in small, Medieval-style fiefdoms, they will continue to have this same problem - if on a somewhat smaller scale.

Here, of course, is where we encounter a second problem with the new nation of Kosovo: its size. Because, as these various 'rebel' regions in Europe and Central Asia try to (or do) break away from their mother countries, they become smaller and smaller; and thus, by extension, weaker and weaker. Now, certainly there are countries like Luxembourg, Monaco, and Switzerland who fare quite well despite their size; but those guys have something that neither Kosovo nor any of these other new-nation wannabes do - money. This means that these are small, essentially defenseless countries who, in addition to coming from countries that weren't particularly wealthy to being with, have the added bonus of being dirt poor.

In other words, we're allowing the creation of new, additional countries that we're going to have to help finance the security and basic economy of. To put it another way, we're basically taxpayers sitting around watching welfare recipients breed, and actively encouraging the process.

Thus, at the end of the day, Kosovo's declaration of independence will just make the Balkan situation that much more complex, and, perhaps not surprisingly, create a good deal more problems than it solves.

It's kind of depressing when you think about it.

Rah, Rah, Wake Forest, Rah.....

86-73 - Read it and weep Dookies.



Yea, that makes for a pretty darn good day, if I do say so myself.

Oh, and just for the heck of it:



Go. Deacs.

A "Political Stimulus Package"

Once again, Jim DeMint gets it right:



Indeed. It's just too bad that no one else in our government seems to have the guts to stand up and say this kind of stuff. But, I suppose that's just the wacky world of the welfare state - once you start giving people money from the public treasury, you just can't stop; everybody loves 'free' handouts. Besides, most of these people begging for 'stimulus packages' are too stupid to realize they're bankrupting the Country anyways.

1984 2008

As we've noted before in this forum, one of the key issues surrounding the Democratic Presidential primaries this year is the question of which candidate has the most awesomest Orwellian plan for "Universal Health Care." Indeed, the issue has become front-and-center in the Democratic debates with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton duking it out for the right to be the "I-care-for-you-the-mostest" candidate. The only real substantive difference between the two's policies is that Mr. Obama's apparently allows a few blessed souls to avoid the impending 'U.H.C' catastrophe while Mrs. Clinton's takes the more communistic approach and vows to leave no one behind. The only problem, of course, is that Mrs. Clinton has failed to specify exactly how she plans on enforcing the Health Care mandates that her system promises.

(Gosh, who'da thunk, a politician with a plan and no explanation as to how it might actually work.....)

Thankfully though, Mrs. Clinton was on ABC yesterday to assure all of us in the proletariat that she most certainly "[has] an enforcement mechanism" in mind for this (surely genius...) health care plan of hers - and she was even willing to expound upon this rhetorical talking point (unusually rare for the current meaningless platitude war that is the '08 Dem Presidential primaries). On tap for Mrs. Clinton's potential enforcement plans were "[garnishing people's wages], some other mechanism through the tax system, or automatic enrollments."

Because clearly the best way for us to try and stave of a possible recession is to jack up taxes on the middle-class workers who refuse to voluntarily accept her health care mandates. Alas, with these pro-"Universal Health Care" folks, raising taxes is always fair game - never mind the fact that some of these people probably can't afford health insurance on their current salary because their taxes are too high as it is.

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton's answer was, to be blunt, not particularly heavy on specifics (a fact which Mr. Obama was quick to point out), but let's be fair; she was indeed justified in claiming that "there are a number of mechanisms" which could be used to bring her plan to fruition. Indeed, this, sadly, is the reality of social democracy - the government is big and powerful enough to coerce a good deal out of you, including money for misguided "universal health care" programs.

But hey, it's for your own, personal Health Care for godssakes - so don't mind the dark beady eyes and toothbrush mustache staring down at you from the telescreen; afterall, he's there for your own personal good!

Here, naturally, we hit upon the reason that Mrs. Clinton refuses to directly articulate her means for enforcing these Health Care mandates - because the only agency that can enforce these mandates is the Government; and this would deny her the facade of claiming, as she has in the past, that the program is "not government run." Indeed, it would, in effect, be an admission that the program is not "universal health care;" but full-blooded Socialized Medicine. Moreover, as she learned in 1994, most Americans aren't willing to accept Socialized Medicine; they're smart enough to know that socialism is a bad idea. This is why, in the aftermath of the massive failure of HillaryCare I, the socialized medicine movement here in the United States cleverly changed its rhetoric. No more would Americans be asked to suffer European-style, Socialized Medicine. No, instead, they would be asked about "universal health care" and told of the "millions of uninsured" (especially children!!!) who desperately needed help - it would be presented to them as a sob story.

No longer would it be, as it was in Europe, a top down movement forced upon the majority of citizens "for their own good;" but rather, it would be portrayed as a great, grassroots effort by the lower class to get what they rightfully deserved - indeed, were owed - in this, the wealthiest Nation in history.

And this was the story that Americans would slowly buy into.

Never mind that, even if under different pretenses, they were actually being sold the same damn bill of goods (by the same saleswoman, no less!); the marketing was different, more likeable, so they bought it. Thus proving, with all due respect to Shakespeare, that, in American politics, what's in a name does matter - at least to the many gullible voters we have.

Ignorance is strength, if you will....

Never, Never, Never, Ever Give Up

In the aftermath of the 2006 mid-term debacle and saddled with a very unpopular Republican President, many of those in the Republican Party are getting the feeling that, no matter what happens in the Republican primaries, this is going to be the Democrats year to take back the White House.

But now, in this dark hour, a potential savior looms on the horizon. Witness, ladies and gents, the next coming of......Ralph Nader!! Yes folks, that Ralph Nader - the very one who handed us the 2000 election on a silver, f-ing platter - has decided, after Dennis Kucinich's and John Edwards' departures, to form a Presidential Exploratory Committee.

Now folks, in order for him to move from the 'exploratory' stage to the 'actually running (and siphoning off Democratic votes)' stage he has to be convinced that he can raise enough money to get on the ballot in all 50 States. So you know, if you happen to have $20 lyin' around.....

Hey, I'm just sayin'....

Spartanburg's Hero

As is typical, President Bush invited several folks to be his guests at last nights State of the Union speech; thus affording them the opportunity to sit with the First Lady in the House Gallery while the speech was being delivered. This year, one of those guests was Marine Lt. Andrew Kinard of Spartanburg. Lt. Kinard was in Iraq on October 29, 2006 when an artillery shell exploded underneath him and cost him both of his legs; thus, causing him to endure several months of surgery, rehab, and recovery. Finally, he was able to go home to Spartanburg last October where he was greeted with a true hero's welcome - the story is linked here, and it's definitely worth the read.

Despite all the pain and hardship Lt. Kinard has had to overcome, he has remained upbeat, strong, thankful, and, in the process, come to utterly embody 'heroism.' To quote Lt. Kinard's sister, Katherine:

"[He] resonates with us as a hero because he puts himself last - not first. He chose to put himself in harm's way when he didn't have to; and when he faced the reality of certain dreams shattered, with the loss of his legs, he stood up and said; 'This does not define me'."

Indeed. America is privileged to be represented by such extraordinary individuals.

From The Department Of Duh...

Here's a real shocking story out of Great Britain, it seems that a full two-thirds of Brits who are about to be approaching their later, retiree years have no plans to save up any money to help pay for any of the medical care they might need in their old age. The even bigger shocka, the reason they're not saving is because most expect the government to just give them money when they need it.

What a surprise, raising a bunch of people on government handouts causes them to stop being responsible for themselves. Indeed, conditioning people to expect government welfare does, in fact, create a disincentive for saving (or making) one's own money. It's really not that hard to figure out, assuming you have a basic understanding of human nature and a little bit of common sense. I mean, would you save your money for retirement if you knew the government was going to give you whatever you might need anyways?

Alas, this is why, many years ago, Benjamin Franklin disliked the idea of public welfare - because he knew that people would just take advantage of the system and use it to avoid responsibility for their actions and futures. Plus, allowing people to live freely without having to seriously plan for their futures, and, instead, expecting the government to bail them out, creates nothing more than a nation of government-owned slaves.

Afghanistan, NATO, And The Problem Of Pervez

Earlier today, in an interview with CNN, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was able to talk about what is, currently, the most sobering aspect of the "War on Terror" - namely that, while we have significantly turned things around in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has, simultaneously, begun to slowly worsen. There appear to be two main reasons why this is the case, one of which President Karzai hit on in his CNN interview and the other of which was noted recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The first problem in Afghanistan, which Secretary Gates talked about in the LA Times not too long ago, is that non-American NATO troops are, to be blunt, ineffective. They, like many of the US troops who first went into Iraq, have little or no experience in counter-terrorism warfare; and thus, struggle with combat operations. However, the problem with NATO troops extends beyond the soldiers simply being 'green' (indeed, if that were the case, it would hardly be either unexpected or insurmountable); the problem is that other NATO troops, especially the European ones, are overburdened with very restrictive Rules of Engagement.

One of the biggest problems with counterinsurgency is the inability, while engaged in operations, to distinguish between enemy combatants, neutral civilians and friendly locals. Consequently, when archaic European definitions of combatants and civilians (from all of those conferences they've held in response to the atrocities of WWII) are applied to the modern battlefield, those troops are severely restricted in their ability to effectively fight the enemy and curb his malicious activities. And this is the problem our NATO Allies suffer from both in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Consider for example, the British Navy hostages taken by Iran last year, who were prevented from defending themselves by the Royal Navy's restrictive ROEs. Further consider the case of the German pilots, whose ROEs prohibit them from fighting after dark. While the United States is not perfect in this regard, it certainly has the most liberal ROEs of the NATO countries; a fact which presents us with a huge advantage over our Allies when it comes to actual combat operations.

The second major problem in Afghanistan, referenced earlier today by President Karzai, is, in a word, Pakistan. Indeed, the hard, and perhaps unspeakable truth about the war in Afghanistan is that unless NATO, or someone else, is unable to go in to the mountainous, northern regions of Pakistan and really clean them up, it will be damn near impossible to ensure long-term stability for the nascent Afghani democracy. The nether regions of Pakistan are the tribal areas where the Taliban and al-Qaeda have long maintained a high level of popularity. This is the area where Osama bin Laden, and all other top al-Qaeda and Taliban officials, are most certainly hiding out. More importantly, they are also the areas where al-Qaeda is able to continue to operate their infamous terrorist training camps.

As long as those training camps are allowed to flourish in the Pakistani mountains, Afghani democracy's viability is in serious doubt. President Karzai knows this. All the American troops who have fought there likely know this fact all too well. Heck, both President Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff also likely know this fact.

Of course, the problem is that here we have hit a kind of Catch-22: Musharaff seems to be unwilling to really go after the al-Qaeda terrorists hiding in his country, mainly for fear of loosing further popularity and his grip on power; however, the United States cannot push for Musharaff's resignation or overthrow, as he is our best bet to prevent Pakistan's nuclear weapons from falling into terrorists' hands.

In other words, we can't live with him; but couldn't do without him.

Yet, something must be done to reconcile Musharaff to the aggressive anti-jihadist policies he practiced immediately after 9/11 and which he (falsely) claims to pursue today. I don't claim to have the answer to what that is - but surely one must be found. Otherwise, Afghanistan will wind up on the fast track to becoming a failed state.