Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I have to completely agree with Rand on this one. Up until 9/11 I voted straight ticket Libertarian on every election. I still have a lifetime LP membership card, I ran for office under as a Libertarian once, and I was an elector for Harry Browne. I'm against the drug war, federal laws even mentioning marriage (why do we allow laws concerning marriage but we don't allow laws based on bar mitzvahs?), etc. Heck, I think I even own a pair of Birkenstocks. In other words, I am not a Republican. I've never been a Republican or a Democrat. I'm not part of the 'right'. And I'm not 'conservative'.

I am a single issue voter at this point. The War on Islamic Fascism and its enabling allies (North Korea) trumps pretty much any other policy decision. Period. And if that means I have to pick a president that will at least try to win but make mistakes over a president who won't try to win at all or who thinks you can negotiate your way out of this, then so be it. Because in the end, trying, making mistakes along the way, learning from them and then trying again will win. But not trying is cultural suicide. (I was going to link to this Belmont Club article but filters got in the way: http://fallbackbelmont.blog-spot.com/2006/08/forward-together.html)

As far as Dave's comment, until you have an alternative candidate that is going to try at least as hard as Bush, I don't really care. If my choice was Leiberman vs a negotiating, semi-pacifist Libertarian that promised to do every single thing my libertarian heart desires, I'd still vote for Leiberman.

Until I can find an alternative I'll still stick with Bush....

Posted by Michael Mealling at August 26, 2006 08:55 AM

Let's go "way back" to 1999:

Clinton's Grab for our Bank Accounts

. . .

The major excuse for Clinton's assault on our financial privacy is "money laundering," most of which comes from the illegal drug trade. But attempts to stop drug use by chasing money launderers have been a costly and spectacular failure; they catch only a few small dealers rather than drug kingpins, and they are a gross invasion of the privacy of law-abiding Americans. In fact, the government averages less than 100 money laundering convictions per year, few of which even involve drug kingpins.
The threat of terrorism is another Clinton excuse for anti-privacy regulations, but there is no evidence that any significant terrorist was ever deterred by the money-laundering cops. The billions of dollars wasted in pursuing money laundering has merely increased the power of the politicians to monitor our lives and increased the number of busybody bureaucrats with a vested interest in retaining useless jobs.

Indeed. The NY Times reveals the tracking of financial transations and it is treason. Clinton proposes to track financial transactions and it is tyranny.

and this:

Clinton predicted on January 22 that it is "highly likely" that a terrorist group will attack on American soil within the next few years. He is using this risk as the excuse to create a Domestic Terrorism Team headed by a military "commander in chief," with a $2.8 billion budget. We should not underestimate the deceit and deviousness of Clinton's plans to use aggressive presidential actions to wipe out public memory of his impeachment trial.

Heh!

When Clinton proposed to fight al Qaeda it was because of Monica. When Bush fights al Qaeda, he is a patriot.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2006 09:36 AM

I missed this gem of a quote:

Clinton's reckless meddling in Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Sudan, and Iraq exposes Americans to retaliation from terrorists regardless of whether he achieves any phony "peace" or actually sends in troops.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2006 09:39 AM

Sorry, one more:

Clinton and his chief foreign policy gurus, Strobe ("global nation") Talbott and Madeleine ("why have a military if we can't use it") Albright are determined to use American troops as global policemen and global social workers all over the world.

Remember that George W. Bush was against nation building before he was in faor of it.

Successful nation building in Iraq would be a terrific step forward in our struggle with the Islamist nut-jobs. Clinton wanted to increase our capability to be global policemen and global social workers but was attacked by the Right for exactly that.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2006 09:43 AM

February 12, 1997 - - White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. Yet it was the Republican controlled Congress that declined to act on this report.

See Chapter Three:

Improving Security for Travelers
"We know we can't make the world risk-free, but we can reduce the risks we face and we have to take the fight to the terrorists. If we have the will, we can find the means." President Clinton

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence sources have been warning that the threat of terrorism is changing in two important ways. First, it is no longer just an overseas threat from foreign terrorists. People and places in the United States have joined the list of targets, and Americans have joined the ranks of terrorists. The bombings of the World Trade Center in New York and the Federal Building in Oklahoma City are clear examples of the shift, as is the conviction of Ramzi Yousef for attempting to bomb twelve American airliners out of the sky over the Pacific Ocean. The second change is that in addition to well-known, established terrorist groups, it is becoming more common to find terrorists working alone or in ad-hoc groups, some of whom are not afraid to die in carrying out their designs.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2006 09:52 AM

I really don't think you want to go there, Bill. Clinton hardly distinguished himself in the fight against bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

And prior to 9/11, we were bi-partisanly unserious about the enemy and the war. Since 9/11, it's the Democrats who remain so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 26, 2006 09:56 AM

Removing Saddam was all good, in the abstract.

Removing Saddam without being serious about the level of commitment needed to successfully re-build Iraq? That actually helps Iran and the terrorists. Regime change without follow on nation building is a decidedly unserious strategy. It is like using a lawnmower to kill dandelions, it just spreads the seeds.

= = =

If you recall, I favored Israel "going Okinawa" on Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. Flamethrowers and satchel charges in a tunnel to tunnel operation.

But they sent F-16s to do a rifleman's job. An unserious strategy based on "sending messages" - - Iwo Jima wasn't about sending no message.

Perhaps no one is "serious" about defeating the Islamist nutjobs.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2006 10:08 AM

"Flamethrowers and satchel charges in a tunnel to tunnel operation."

About that. Do we still have any of those neato Davy Crockett launchers left over from the cold war?

Posted by Chris Mann at August 26, 2006 12:10 PM

Bill,
I'm not all that interested in trying to fault someone about how they prosecuted the war prior to 9/11. I didn't think we were at war prior to that so while I personally wished that Bill Clinton _AND_ Bush 41 had done a better job, I'm not interested in keeping score on that point. I was right there with other suggesting that Clinton shouldn't have gone into the Balkans. I was wrong. Just like most others I thought we were immune (although why I thought that I still can't figure out).
I agree with your point about Israel going all limp on Hezbollah. So here's the question, since I assume you're a Democrat (correct me if I'm wrong), and it sounds like you're not unreasonable when it comes to presecuting the War, who is left in your party that you can vote for? Is there anyone in the Democratic party that you think I could vote for?

Posted by Michael Mealling at August 26, 2006 02:16 PM

I like Jim Webb and Joe Sestak

Here is George Will, hardly a moonbat:

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."
Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point.

Winning the War on Terror will take patience and the ability to not make matters worse. The Hippocratic oath taken by doctors applies, in my opinion. "First, do no harm." I do not believe that the majority of Muslims desire to live in the 13th century and therefore time is on our side.

What we need is a bi-partisan plan (like the VSE which will continue during Administrations of both parties). The President is NOT the key piece to the puzzle for a war that may last generations.

Both Democrats and Republicans implemented the Cold War strategy, a strategy that had a consensus. Therefore, we need to reduce the importance of the President and increase the importance of our enduring institutions (Senate & Pentagon) and unified public opinion for a long range plan.

International law enforcement similar to that used to fight the Mafia and drug lords is what will defeat al Qaeda in the end. But that strategy does not require "heroic" leaders, it requires patience and tenacity without fanfare.

= = =

As a nation, we are currently divided over the wisdom of Iraq.

Saddam being gone is good. No one can dispute that. However, to remove Saddam without a plan to stabilize Iraq is like opening up a chest to do a heart transplant and then finidng out we do not have a new heart to implant.

Within days of Saddam regime change, Hezbollah agents entered southern Iraq with instructions to build infrastructure and avoid confrontation with America. Patience was their assignment.

Now, Iran's influence is rising.

Partition of Iraq and encourage an independent Kurdistan to tug at Iranian Kurds and to enourage a Shia Iraqi state to foment Iranian Arab discontent with Persian dominance would be one strategy, going forward.

= = =

Iranian nuclear weapons would be very, very bad.

However, to bomb Iran without assurance that we will successfully terminate the program and without a plan to remove the regime will cause more harm than good. Bombing Iran is a feel good solution, like Clinton tossing some Tomahawks at bin Laden's tents.

Recently, Israel blew up some bridges yet failed to eradicate Hezbollah. They would be more secure had they not done that, or had they done the needful and sent in the infantry.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2006 03:12 PM

An example of bi-partisanship thwarted by the powers that be. Apparently the bill would require a transparent "Google style" database allowing everyone easy access to what is in the federal budget.

I've heard it said that if Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., can agree on something, its probably a good bill.

We need more of what Coburn and Obama are attempting to accomplish, here.

Posted by Bill White at August 26, 2006 03:27 PM

I note that it's Bush's fault when folks don't cooperate with him and also his fault when he doesn't cooperate with them.

One important thing missing from all of White's blather is the fact that Bush's lame efforts exceed what one can reasonable expect from the actual alternatives. The alternative to Bush isn't more troops in Iraq, it's less.

Oh, and White hasn't figured out that creating a civil society in Iraq is, at best, a second-order priority. "Nothing but oil" from Iraq is an improvement.

Yes, Iraqis may benefit from more, but they're currently throwing away their chance at getting it. Some folks are like that - they'd rather piss in their cherrios than let someone else have piss-free cherrios. There's not much you can do about such folks other than limit their capabilities....

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 26, 2006 04:11 PM

It doesn't matter what Bill White posts, his party is being taken over by people far left than him. So long as those people are the most vocal of the Democratic Party, they will continue to lose elections, as they marginalize themselves by attacking all others.

In 2004, we were told the vote was a referendum on the war. Bush won, and we were immediately told that he won because of the backlash to gay marriage (not that I recall many people who cared but a few fringe conservatives and a bunch of lefties).

Now in 2006, we are being told the vote will be a referendum on the war. Lets not forget, 2002 was a referendum on the way 9/11 was handled and the Afghanistan war.

One trick donkey.

Posted by Leland at August 26, 2006 10:22 PM

Bush has never been the best-of-good-alternatives, he has always been a least-of-evils president. This was true when he was running against Al-freaking-Gore, and it's true now.

Posted by ArtD0dger at August 26, 2006 10:53 PM

Art,
better the Republican lesser of evils. They at least want to protect us. The Democrats just want to bring the troops home and pull a blanket over our heads and hope it all goes away.

We are fighting religious zealots who have vowed to kill us. That better be one hell of a good blanket!!

Posted by Steve at August 27, 2006 12:46 AM

Which is why I think people like Jim Webb are good for the Democratic party.

He may differ with President Bush on strategy but Jim Webb is not a "pull the blanket over our heads" kind of person.

Posted by Bill White at August 27, 2006 06:07 AM

he has always been a least-of-evils president.

I'll admit there have been times we have had elected officials who weren't seen as the least of evils at the time they were serving -- but one could count those occasions on the fingers of one hand. Even George Washington was the target of legitimate criticism during his presidency.

If the idea is that we sit back and wait until the political process gives us a clear "best" candidate for president (or anything else), we'll generally only have elections once in a lifetime.

Posted by at August 27, 2006 06:10 AM

Keeping people like Colin Powell on board would increase my support for this Administration.

An example of Colin Powell toughness:

_=e

http://www.b_lgraviadispatch.com/2006/08/post_40.html

1) Start with Mark Steyn:

One way to measure how the world has changed in these last five years is to consider the extraordinary address to his nation by General Musharraf on Sept. 19, 2001. Pakistan was one of just three countries in the world (along with "our friends the Saudis" and the United Arab Emirates) to recognize the Taliban -- and, given that the Pakistanis had helped create and maintain them, they were pretty easy to recognize. President Bush, you'll recall, had declared that you're either with us or you're with the terrorists -- which posed a particular problem for Musharraf: He was with us but everyone else in his country was with the terrorists, including his armed forces, his intelligence services, the media, and a gazillion and one crazy imams.
Nonetheless, with American action against Afghanistan on the horizon, he went on TV that night and told the Pakistani people that this was the gravest threat to the country's existence in over 30 years. He added that he was doing everything to ensure his brothers in the Taliban didn't "suffer," and that he'd asked Washington to provide some evidence that this bin Laden chap had anything to do with the attacks but that so far they'd declined to show him any. Then he cited the Charter of Medina (which the Prophet Muhammad signed after an earlier spot of bother) as an attempt to justify providing assistance to the infidel, and said he'd had no choice but to offer the Americans use of Pakistan's airspace, intelligence networks and other logistical support.

He paused for applause, and after the world's all-time record volume of crickets chirping, said thank you and goodnight.

That must have been quite the phone call he'd got from Washington a day or two earlier. And all within a week of Sept. 11. You may remember during the 2000 campaign an enterprising journalist sprung on Gov. Bush a sudden pop quiz of world leaders. Bush, invited to name the leader of Pakistan, was unable to. But so what? In the third week of September 2001, the correct answer to "Who's General Musharraf?" was "Whoever I want him to be." And, if Musharraf didn't want to play ball, he'd wind up as the answer to "Who was leader of Pakistan until last week?"

Do you get the feeling Washington's not making phone calls like that anymore?

(2) Who made that phone call to Musharraf?

Colin Powell:

Powell had told Bush that whatever action he took, it could not be done without Pakistan's support. But the Pakistanis had to be put on notice, and Powell had in mind a pitcher's brushback pitch to a particularly dangerous batter : high, fast and hard to the head. Squeezing Musharraf too hard was risky, given the potential for fundamentalist unrest inside his country, but Powell believed they had no other choice.

Powell was given a green light:

"Do what you have to do," the president said. Working with his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, Powell realized he had a blank check. Let's make it up, he said to Armitage. What do we want out of these guys? The two started making a list:
"Stop al Qaeda operatives at your border, intercept arms shipments through Pakistan and end ALL logistical support for bin Laden."

Second: "Blanket overflight and landing rights."

Third: Access to Pakistan, naval bases, air bases and borders.

Fourth: Immediate intelligence and immigration information.

Fifth: Condemn the Sept. 11 attacks and "curb all domestic expressions of support for terrorism against the [United States], its friends or allies." Powell and Armitage knew that was something they couldn't even do in the United States.

Sixth: Cut off all shipments of fuel to the Taliban and stop Pakistani volunteers from going into Afghanistan to join the Taliban.

The seventh demand was one Powell thought would trip up the Pakistanis or cause Musharraf to go into a fetal position: "Should the evidence strongly implicate Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan AND should Afghanistan and the Taliban continue to harbor him and this network, Pakistan will break diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, end support for the Taliban and assist us in the aforementioned ways to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network."

In so many words, Powell and Armitage would be asking Pakistan to help destroy what its intelligence service had helped create and maintain: the Taliban.

Armitage called the Pakistani intelligence chief, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, with whom he had met the previous day, to the State Department. This is not negotiable, he told the general, handing him a single sheet of paper with the seven demands. You must accept all seven parts.

At 1:30 p.m. Powell called Musharraf. "As one general to another," Powell said, "we need someone on our flank fighting with us. Speaking candidly, the American people would not understand if Pakistan was not in this fight with the United States."

THAT is how you do foriegn policy, correctly.

Posted by Bill White at August 27, 2006 06:42 AM

The Miers nomination was asked for by people on both sides of the aisle who wanted a justice in the tradition of O'Connor. Miers as an inscrutable moderate with a political background and blond hair was arguably the most O'Connor-like of all possible candidates. Call it a mistake to nominate Miers, but don't lay it solely at Bush's feet.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at August 27, 2006 07:07 AM

For the Anglo-spherian followers here:

Won't this guy constitute a positive influence on the Democratic Party?

Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America
From Publishers Weekly

Former navy secretary Webb (Fields of Fire; etc.) wants not only to offer a history of the Scots-Irish but to redeem them from their redneck, hillbilly stereotype and place them at the center of American history and culture. As Webb relates, the Scots-Irish first emigrated to the U.S., 200,000 to 400,000 strong, in four waves during the 18 century, settling primarily in Appalachia before spreading west and south. Webb's thesis is that the Scots-Irish, with their rugged individualism, warrior culture built on extended familial groups (the "kind of people who would die in place rather than retreat") and an instinctive mistrust of authority, created an American culture that mirrors these traits.

Does anyone here think Jim Webb will be a bad influence on the Democratic Party? Posted by Bill White at August 27, 2006 08:28 PM

> Speaking candidly, the American people would not understand if Pakistan was not in this fight with the United States.

What a maroon.

Pakistan may be an important ally, but one would be hard pressed to find more than 4% of Americans who gave a damn whether Pakistan was an ally.

Heck, there are probably more Americans who think that French cooperation is important.

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 27, 2006 11:26 PM

Bill, as much as I appreciate what you wrote of Colin Powell's actions in regards to Pakistan, I have to agree with Andy Freeman's assessment. Those might have been Powell's words in true diplomatic fashion. However, I'm sure Musharraf was considering being between two US CVBGs and a target. Immediately after 9/11, Americans wouldn't have cared if they had to forceably take Pakistan to get to Afghanistan.

However to the credit of both Bush and Powell, a diplomatic solution was reached and an ally was created.

Posted by Leland at August 28, 2006 05:38 AM

Gentlemen -

The point made by Mark Steyn (August 20, 2006) is that such phone calls are NOT being made, today.

Why not?

= = =

As for Pakistani cooperation, how else could we have reached Afghanistan? Even flying over Pakistan requires their permission under international law. Looking at a map, it seems obvious to me that the West cannot possibly fight a war in Afghanistan without Pakistan's cooperation. Unless we conquer Pakistan first, but remember that they alrady have nuclear weapons.

Clinton learned all about Pakistan when we sent cruise missiles at bin Laden's tents and we informed the Pakistanis, some of whom placed a phone call to bin Laden just in time for him to get out of Dodge before the missiles hit.

Posted by BIll White at August 28, 2006 07:56 AM

Bill, I invite you to reread Mark Steyn's comments again. I'm not sure you read them right, otherwise you wouldn't mention his article and then suggest the following:
Looking at a map, it seems obvious to me that the West cannot possibly fight a war in Afghanistan without Pakistan's cooperation.

Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is not an impending threat to the US. The weapons could be used to oppose a strike force, but only at a greater danger to their own population. On the other hand, the US posed a major threat to Pakistan if Pakistan refused to cooperate. That's a pretty good reason to go along with the US. It's strong arm diplomacy followed up with carrots.

In Iran, we are letting the donkey eat the hell out of all our carrots, and it hasn't moved.

Posted by Leland at August 28, 2006 09:21 AM

Post a comment