Monthly ArchiveMay 2007
National / World Politics 28 May 2007 09:09 pm
Blog entry from Omar (Iraq the Model)
Monday, May 28, 2007
From IRAQ the MODEL blog
And so they met today!
Iran’s and America’s ambassadors to Baghdad met here today. Iran’s attitude didn’t only make the meeting unproductive, it made it insulting.Ignore the meaningless diplomatic pleasantries of “the meeting was positive” or “we’d like to meet you again in the future” and stuff like that that we hear after almost every meeting between diplomats.
Iran mocked Iraq and America today, their ambassador was here just to laugh at us and buy time for his regim by trying to fool us with his “we want to work this out through negotiations”.
Take a look at this part:
He [Qomi] said Iran had offered to help train and arm Iraq’s security forces, presently the job of the U.S. military…
He [Crocker] said he had told the Iranians they must end their support for the militias, stop supplying them with explosives and ammunition and rein in the activities of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Qods Force in Iraq.
The Iranians had rejected the allegations but did not respond in detail. In turn, they had criticized the “occupying” U.S. military’s training and equipping of the new Iraqi army, saying it was “inadequate to the challenges faced.”
How nice and how convenient! The Iranians want to train and arm our new army and they think they can do this better than America.
Thanks but no thanks Mr. Qomi! We know what kind of training and arming you’re good at and we’re frankly not interested.
All in All, I see that the regime in Iran doesn’t want to limit its interference in Iraq, it’s simply hoping to give this interference a cover of legitimacy, and that’s what I believe isn’t going to happen.
You may want to check out yesterday’s post to read my earlier thought prior to the meeting.
Posted by Omar
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Pre-Dialogue Dialogue
Iranian and American officials (their ambassadors to Baghdad as far as I know) will meet to talk tomorrow in Baghdad. The dialogue, however, started about a week ago. Let’s see what we have…-America sends two carrier groups the gulf, flexing muscles near Iran’s coast in broad daylight.
Iran sends us Sadr back three days before the planned meeting. What a wonderful gift!-Abdul Aziz al-Hakeem the leader of the largest bloc in the parliament is diagnosed with cancer but prefers a Tehran hospital over Houston medical center; perhaps the nurses are cuter in Tehran!
British and American forces conduct a series of concentrated offensives against top Mehdi army lieutenants in Basra and Sadr city comes under air-strikes for two days in a row.And perhaps there were smaller signs that I overlooked but this is the kind of pre-dialogue dialogue that’s been going on between Iran and America in these interesting times.
Each side wants to improve its position on the ground so that it enters the meeting with better cards at the negotiations table.I’m honestly not expecting much good from such meetings, not in the foreseeable future because the tone of their dialogue on the ground suggests that each side believes (or wants to show) that it has the upper hand in Iraq and the region.
I can’t see the slightest hint to concessions from either side so I strongly think that tomorrow’s meeting will be only about America and Iran telling each other what they want. The face to face part is the only difference.
It’s common wisdom that negotiations are always the hardest at the beginning, but they often become easier and productive with time. The problem is that common wisdom means very little when you are dealing with a revolutionary regime.
I’ll keep an eye on it though, maybe we’ll have something interesting to discuss tomorrow.
Posted by Omar
Media Bias &National / World Politics 28 May 2007 09:02 pm
NY Times Manages the News
Managing the News
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017774.php
The New York Times recognizes Memorial Day in its own unique way, by mourning the fact that the Army won’t let them publish pictures and videos of wounded soldiers without their permission.
On this Memorial Day, thousands of United States men and women are engaged in untold acts of bravery and drudgery on behalf of what our leaders have defined as vital American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Readers of the Times know better, of course.
But even as the flags wave to honor soldiers past, much of the current campaigns go on without notice, because while troop numbers are surging, the media that cover them are leaking away, worn out by the danger and expense of covering a war that refuses to end.
Yes, wars owe it to journalists to end before the journalists get worn out.
Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.
Now we get to the Times’ grievance. They can publish photos of a wounded soldier, but only with the soldier’s permission. And they can publish photos of dead soldiers, but they can’t show close-ups of their faces. This is what the Times considers a “Catch-22.”
Ashley Gilbertson, a veteran freelance photographer who has been to Iraq seven times and has worked for The New York Times, (along with Time and Newsweek among others), said the policy, as enforced, is coercive and unworkable.“They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.”
I’m not sure “bad luck charm” quite captures what the soldiers would make of the reporter. But isn’t it telling that reporters want to publish photographs when they know the soldier in question, if asked to consent, would refuse? Ashley Gilberston continues:
“They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. “I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.”
This, of course, is the Times’ position. The Army doesn’t care about the press invading the privacy of soldiers and their families; it’s really all about politics: the Army is trying to get positive coverage of its efforts in Iraq.
Maybe the Times has a point. Maybe it’s because of the ban on close-ups of the faces of dead soldiers that the news from Iraq is so relentlessly upbeat–that all we ever hear about is terrorists killed, battles won, Iraqis protected from harm, schools not only being built but with girls attending them. No, wait…
The Times admits that there is, after all, some basis for concern about the press failing to respect soldiers and their families:
In February, a story and accompanying video by The New York Times reporter Damien Cave — and a photo taken by Robert Nickelsberg — that depicted the grievous wounding and eventual death of a soldier on Haifa Street, drew both praise and condemnation on Web logs and in the military about what constitutes appropriate imagery for the breakfast table. What some readers see as a gratuitous display of carnage, others view as important homage to the boots on the ground.
This self-interested description of the controversy is curiously sanitized. The Times reporter, David Carr, fails to mention that the Times not only violated the Army’s policy in the case in question–apparently deliberately–it also published the photos and video footage of the dying soldier, Army Staff Sgt. Hector Leija, before his family had been notified of his death. You can read about it here. And the family didn’t exactly view the Times’ action as a “homage to the boots on the ground:”
“Oh God, they shouldn’t have published a picture like that,” Leija’s cousin Tina Guerrero, who had not seen the images but was aghast about them anyway, told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday in Raymondville. She said the images would be especially hurtful to the soldier’s parents, Domingo and Manuela Leija, who have remained in the family’s home on the edge of town. ”It’s going to devastate them,” Guerrero said. “They’re having enough pain dealing with the death of their son.”
Such concerns are, I suppose, beneath the notice of the mighty New York Times. The Times sees itself as locked in a struggle with the military–a struggle in which the newspaper’s job is to make sure that Americans don’t get their news about the war in a way that the Army would like them to:
James Glanz, a Baghdad correspondent who will become bureau chief for The New York Times next month, said that although he and others had many great experiences working with the rank-and-file soldiers, some military leaders seem determined to protect something besides the privacy of their troops.“As the number of reporters there dwindles further and further because of the difficult conditions we work under, the kind of work they are able to publish becomes very important,” Mr. Glanz said. “This tiny remaining corps of reporters becomes a greater and greater problem for the military brass because we are the only people preventing them from telling the story the way they want it told.”
On this Memorial Day, the Times’ biggest concern is that the Army’s prohibition on showing the faces of dead soldiers, or wounded soldiers without their consent, means that their coverage of Iraq isn’t negative enough.
I don’t think they need to worry.
National / World Politics 25 May 2007 03:49 pm
Jimmy Carter Can Only Blame Himself
Jimmy Carter Can Only Blame Himself
By Paul Miller
Jimmy Carter calling anyone else the worst president is like John Wayne Gacy calling a shoplifter a danger to society. The 39th President of the United States told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s last Saturday,
“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”
Jimmy Carter conveniently hides the fact that he is directly responsible for much of the turmoil we see in the world today. Carter began directly meddling in Iranian Affairs after he took office in 1977. On New Years Eve of that year, President Carter toasted the , Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him “an island of stability” in the troubled Middle East. What the president also knew, but chose to ignore, was that the Shah was in serious trouble and his trip to Iran created anger toward the United States amongst the Iranian people.
When Carter became President he created a special Office of Human Rights which sent a letter to the Shah of Iran as a “polite reminder” of the importance of political rights and freedom. In response the Shah released over 350 Islamic fundamentalist prisoners who would later play roles in the Islamic Revolution and Iran Hostage crisis. Carter also ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop paying religious Mullahs over 4 million dollars in bribes. This monetary support was agreed upon, so the Mullahs would tone down their anti-Shah and anti-Western rhetoric.
The Shah ran a secular government and established excellent relations with the West, which included the recognition of the state of Israel. He also believed in the equality of woman which he expressed publicly in a Barbara Walters interview. These reasons were the heart and soul of the disdain the Mullahs had for him. The Shah was by no means perfect. His secret police force, SAVAK, was infamous for their torture methods. Ironically the fact the Shah ran his government as a dictatorship played a very limited role in his demise.
Facing an Islamic revolution, the Shah appealed to Carter for help. On November 4, 1978 U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called the Shah and said the United States would “back him to the hilt.” This would never be the case. Brzezinski insisted to Carter that the U.S. must encourage the Shah to “brutally suppress the revolution”. State Department officials believed Carter should reach out to the Revolutionaries in order to smooth the transition to a new government. This was a deciding moment in world history. Carter decided not to take either recommendation and to this very day, the world is suffering the consequences of his indecisiveness.
Weeks before Grand Ayatollah Khomeni came to power. The Shah fled the country for Egypt. However, when it became known the severity of the cancer he was suffering, Carter chose the humanitarian route and permitted him entrance into the U.S. for medical treatment. “He went around the room, and most of us said, ‘Let him in.’” recalls Vice President Walter Mondale. “‘If the Iranians take our employees in our embassy hostage, then what would be your advice?’ And the room just fell dead. No one had an answer to that. Turns out, we never did.”
When the Grand Ayatollah took power in February of 1979, the Shah held over 3,000 political prisoners, most of them spies or informants for the neighboring Soviet Union. The Ayatollah did not release them as the world expected. He deemed them “godless Communists” and placed them up against walls alongside more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians and murdered them all by firing squads. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested for owning satellite dishes and viewing Western programs. And, of course, American diplomats were taken hostage.
Carter’s indecisiveness and incompetence became obvious to the rest of the World. The Soviet Union took great advantage of having Carter in the Oval Office. The Communist country invaded eastern neighbor Afghanistan, beginning an attempted power grab aimed at eventual Soviet takeovers in Iran and Pakistan. Carter’s response to the invasion of Afghanistan was the U.S. boycott of the 1980 Olympic games held in Moscow. Need I say anymore?
History tells us that the Afghanistan fighters (Mujahideen) held their own against the Soviet invasion. Muslim extremists, including Osama Bin Laden, became warriors with great experience in strategic planning and sabotage. More importantly they now had confidence after defeating a Superpower. Sound familiar?
Also resulting from Carter’s abandonment of the Shah was the Iran-Iraq war, which would have never occurred if the Shah remained in power. Over a half million people died during that war, including thousands of Iranians from Sadam Hussein chemical weapons. Hussein continued building his military to avoid future land attacks, which would become the cornerstone for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. This of course became Desert Storm.
The aftermath of Jimmy Carter’s Iran policy debacle is still present today. The lives lost, as a result of his incompetence in dealing with Iran before, during and after the Islamic Revolution is far greater than the current turmoil in Iraq. Considering the support insurgents groups in Iraq as well as terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah get from Iran, Carter’s mistakes as President are still costing lives all over the Middle East.
Maybe it’s an Iranian supplied artillery shell used by Hezbollah to attack Israel. Or an Iraqi insurgent trained by Iran to make bombs. We must not forget the seemingly endless supply of suicide bombers in Osama Bin Laden’s, Al Qeada network. The fact is that these murderers and countless others like them exist today, not because George Bush made mistakes in Iraq, but because Jimmy Carter failed in Iran as well as turning U.S. foreign policy into a doormat for anyone to step on.
President Carter, if you want to place blame, just look in the mirror.
for more on Carter’s Presidency go here:
Investor’s Business Daily’s 10 part Editorial on Jimmy Carter
Media Bias &National / World Politics 25 May 2007 03:31 pm
WSJ Best of the Web 5-25
Best of the Web Today – May 25, 2007
- By JAMES TARANTO
Real Torture
“In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods,” TheSmokingGun.com reports. The site reproduces a dozen pages of the illustrations, which depict such methods as “blowtorch to the skin” and “eye removal,” and adds:
Along with the images, which you’ll find on the following pages, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters. Photos of those items can be seen here. The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an “al-Qaeda torture chamber.” It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors. In a raid earlier this week, Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses. Photos showing injuries sustained by those captives can be found here.
Blogger Don Surber of the Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail examines big-media coverage of the documents:
Where did USA Today play the torture book story?
Not on Page One.
Where did the New York Times play it?
Not on Page One.
Where did the Washington Post play it?
Not on Page One. And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television.
We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about.
Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into.
We also checked the blogs of Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald, among the most hysterical accusers of America in the “torture” debate, and here is what they have had to say about the al Qaeda documents: .
“Silence is complicity, you know,” notes Glenn Reynolds.
Indeed.
Joe Klein Is Very Silly
Time magazine’s Joe Klein has been coming under attack from the pro-defeat left for reporting on U.S. military successes in Iraq’s Anbar province. But he deserves a dart from the pro-American side, too, for this statement:
It’s not impossible that the Iraqis will eventually remove the al-Qaeda cancer from the Sunni insurgency–which would put a serious crimp in President George W. Bush’s current rationale for the war, that we’re there to fight al-Qaeda.
We beat the Nazis in World War II. Did that “put a serious crimp” in FDR’s claim that we were in Europe to fight the Nazis?
The ‘Crime’ of Being Christian
“Saudi officials have arrested a man in Mecca for being a Christian, saying that the city, which Muslims consider to be holy, is off-limits to non-Muslims,” the Jerusalem Post reports:
Nirosh Kamanda, a Sri Lankan Christian, was detained by the Saudi Expatriates Monitoring Committee last week after he started to sell goods outside Mecca’s Great Mosque.
After running his fingerprints through a new security system, Saudi police discovered that he was a Christian who had arrived in the country six months earlier to take a job as a truck driver in the city of Dammam. Kamanda had subsequently left his place of work and moved to Mecca.
“The Grand Mosque and the holy city are forbidden to non-Muslims,” Col. Suhail Matrafi, head of the department of Expatriates Affairs in Mecca, told the Saudi daily Arab News. “The new fingerprints system is very helpful and will help us a lot to discover the identity of a lot of criminals,” he said.
Last week we noted that the Organization of the Islamic Conference was complaining about “Islamophobia.” But we don’t know of any city in the West that is off-limits to Muslims. When Christians, Jews and atheists are free to visit Mecca and Medina, we’ll take “Islamophobia” seriously.
Media Bias &National / World Politics 24 May 2007 07:52 pm
John Edwards WoT stance
Below, find my letter to the editor related to this online (follow the link) discussion:
http://www.muscatinejournal.com/articles/2007/05/24/opinion/letters/doc4655acece1e44092605295.txt
I was going to reply via the ONLINE Journal to Mr. Hatfield’s treatise in support of Mr. Edwards ONE more time, but thought this deserved a separate letter. I apologize to Mr. Hatfield for “piling on” as I would have been dutifully penalized if this were football.
In the online discussion thread – Paco said that Mr. Hatfield “didn’t bother to post any accomplishments of Edwards while in Congress. If you look at history for results, you won’t find much in Edwards’ history.”
I wanted to tell Paco that he was incorrect. Mr. Edwards did something very important when he was senator. In the fall of 2002, he voted to give the President the power to send our military into Iraq.
When that vote was taken, US Legislative bodies were briefed with the same information the President had. But then again the polls were in favor of toppling Saddam, and the polls surged higher still when Saddam was captured in December 2003.
In the fall of 2004 – In one of his last interviews before the election (CNN OCT 21) Mr. Edwards said that stopping terrorists before they harm us is: “by far the most effective way to win this war on terrorism.” A few days earlier he complained the Iraq invasion had turned “the focus away from the war on terror.”
In 2006 as he started to think about another presidential run, he did something that no one in office has done yet that I recall; Mr. Edwards apologized for that 2002 vote. Hindsight is usually 20/20. In Edwards’ case it was an easy separation since he was no longer a sitting senator. I say shame on him for bowing to the latest opinion poll. Wars are never popular when they are being fought.
Today, when the drum beat against the President and the Military waging this war stifles discussion, John Edwards says there IS no War on Terror, “the President is using it as a Bumper Sticker”. (And no you cannot support the troops without supporting the mission – ask them.)
Mr. Hatfield, if you want to vote for a President who will read opinion polls and change their minds on that whim, go with God. Polls can be biased by question phrasing, telephone polls are less reliable every year with fewer people relying on land lines because “cell phone only” users are excluded from polls and other factors.
If I were a democrat looking for a candidate, I might look at Bob Kerrey who said this week on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:
“The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.”
Vote for Bob, Mr. Hatfield, Vote for Bob. I am still voting for Rudy.
Media Bias 23 May 2007 06:21 pm
Another Letter from IRAQ
DM Register posted from “John Carlson’s Iowa” column 5/23/07
A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq. A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.
He described his Boone-based unit’s successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.
Morale?
“We’re treading water,” the Ames man told the people closest to him. “We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.
Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don’t support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our ‘illegal occupation’ of Iraq.”
His greatest frustration? The performance of the people who deliver the news to the American people.
I’ll let him say it, in his own words, in the letter, which found its way to me:
“Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy’s objective every day. You are the enemy’s greatest weapon.
The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government.
“We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn’t see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you’re not exempt, you suck also).
“Let’s give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs.
“The next morning I woke up and turned on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and watched the nightly news (NBC). Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time.
“So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy’s agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public.
“We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy.
“How hard would it be to contact the PAO (public affairs officer) of the 1st CAV, 36th CAB, 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today – good and bad? How about some insurgent blooper videos? Now that would be something to show on the evening news.
“Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers.”
Media Bias 22 May 2007 07:33 pm
this is just goofy.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25583&only&rss
AP Spins in Both Directions
The Associated Press seems to be having a little trouble deciding how to spin the new Pew Research survey.
One hour and 52 minutes ago, the headline was:
Most U.S. Muslims reject suicide bombings.
Thirty-five minutes ago, the same story was re-released:
Some US Muslims justify suicide attacks.
Will it change again? The second headline is actually less politically correct than the first, so stay tuned…
UPDATE at 5/22/07 11:32:57 am:
The latest version:
Some young US Muslims OK suicide attacks.
National / World Politics 22 May 2007 06:14 pm
Bob Kerrey gives the DEMS a plan
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
The Left’s Iraq Muddle
Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.
BY BOB KERREY
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
At this year’s graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.
But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: “Democracy cannot be imposed with military force.”
What troubled me about this statement–a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq–is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.
Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were “over there.” It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the “head of the snake.” But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores. As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.
Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.
The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart.
Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn’t you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq’s middle class has fled the country in fear.
With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically “yes.”
This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified–though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.
Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn’t have lasted a week.Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn’t exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.
The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them.
Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010107
National / World Politics 22 May 2007 05:23 pm
WSJ Best of the Web
Best of the Web Today – May 22, 2007
- By JAMES TARANTO
Unholy Alliance
Pro-surrender Democrats are giving–for now, the Associated Press reports:
In grudging concessions to President Bush, Democrats intend to draft an Iraq war-funding bill without a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and shorn of billions of dollars in spending on domestic programs, officials said Monday.
The legislation would include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January, the officials added.
While details remain subject to change, the measure is designed to close the books by Friday on a bruising veto fight between Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress over the war. It would provide funds for military operations in Iraq through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.
London’s left-wing Guardian, meanwhile, reports on what may be in store between now and Sept. 30:
Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.
“Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it’s a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces,” a senior US official in Baghdad warned. “They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government].”
The official said US commanders were bracing for a nationwide, Iranian-orchestrated summer offensive, linking al-Qaida and Sunni insurgents to Tehran’s Shia militia allies, that Iran hoped would trigger a political mutiny in Washington and a US retreat. “We expect that al-Qaida and Iran will both attempt to increase the propaganda and increase the violence prior to Petraeus’s report in September [when the US commander General David Petraeus will report to Congress on President George Bush's controversial, six-month security "surge" of 30,000 troop reinforcements],” the official said.
We suppose it would be rude to point out that the donkeys and the mullahs–even if not, strictly speaking, allies–are working in concert to bring about an American defeat.
National / World Politics 21 May 2007 10:10 pm
Perilous Times
Ignore the Ugly World of Politics at Your Peril…
My Major Professor in college told me this and I never forgot it. I’m sure I’ve repeated it to some of you over the years:
“The man who promises the most for the least will continue to drive good and just men from politics.”
Below find a rather counterpoint to that statement –
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:
- from bondage to spiritual faith;
- from spiritual faith to great courage;
- from courage to liberty;
- from liberty to abundance;
- from abundance to selfishness;
- from selfishness to complacency;
– from complacency to apathy;
- from apathy to dependency;
- from dependency back again to bondage.”
Unknown
Global Warming &Media Bias 19 May 2007 10:11 pm
Al Gore’s New Book Assault on Reason
An Aptly Titled Tome, by Christopher J. Alleva
Al Gore has most assuredly secured his place in the pantheon of modern media deities, right along side Paris Hilton and Sean Penn. His legacy as a senator and later vice president may be lackluster, but he has transcended those shortcomings by pulling off one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of all time. Public relations professionals will study his global warming campaign for decades on.
In between knocking down big paydays from investment bankers and six figure speaking fees, Gore has been the front man of this truly amazing campaign. Until he stumbled into this global warming gig, he was the Frank Burns of American Politics. The butt of all the jokes with the classic whiny demeanor. Bill Clinton was always Hawkeye Pierce to Gore’s Frank Burns. Who can forget his greatest line ever? After pulling back his concession to then Governor Bush, he chortled: “you don’t have to get snippy about it” But all that’s behind him.
As he was making his finale on Capital Hill back in March, wowing the media once again, Penguin Books announced plans for an encore performance.
Yet, another book tour featuring a new book written under his name aptly titled Assault on Reason. When I first heard about it I said to myself, now there’s a topic this man knows all about. Arguably, his expertise is so great he scarcely needs a ghostwriter. His last book, An Inconvenient Truth, is perhaps the biggest assault on reason since the Pope went after Galileo in the 17th Century.
The mendacity of this work was stunning. Numerous errors, misstatements and outright lies have been detailed in many rebuttals, especially by Chris Horner and Marlo Lewis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mendacious as it may be, that has not stopped a gullible media from swallowing it hook line and sinker as the metaphor goes, and foisting it on the American public. Their implacable lack of skepticism has been truly remarkable.
Audacious must be Al Gore’s middle name. How else can you describe someone that would publish a book that calls for a complete reordering of the world and then follows it up with a book with the premise that if you don’t buy it you’re assaulting basic reason.
The self-important catalog description of the book reveals Gore’s inherent conceit.
“A visionary analysis of how the politics of fear, secrecy, cronyism, and blind faith has combined with the degradation of the public sphere to create an environment dangerously hostile to reason.”
My father used to say if you point your finger at someone there are four pointed back at you. Other than Bill and Hillary Clinton, I can hardly think of anyone that has shown a greater mastery of the politics of fear. Secrecy and cronyism are literally a way of life for him.
The timing of Gore’s book release is obviously designed to undercut those that disagree with his cabal. Its safe to predict that the media will all roll over again. What else would you expect, Al is a media god. Time Magazine is dutifully first out of the gate publishing a short excerpt teaser in their latest issue. To no avail, I did some research to discover who Al’s ghostwriter is. So far its still a secret (at least to me). Al is kind of like the Milli Vanilli of the literary and political world, lip synching his way all the way to the top. Unlike Rob and Fab, I don’t think Al will be served with any class action lawsuits for deceptive sales practices on “his” book. I may be wrong, but don’t think we’ll be unearthing anything like Reagan’s “In his Own Hand” collection of personal writings from Al after he retires. Uncashed royalty checks perhaps, thoughtful prose, probably not.
Since this essay is nominally about Al Gore’s new book, I guess I’ll comment on the actual excerpt if I have to. The prose is downright turgid and the writing style is akin to congressional testimony. In other words, bring the No Doze. Unintended irony oozes from every paragraph. The writer vainly attempts to be profound but comes off looking trite instead. The editors at Penguin must have been pulling out their hair out; consoled only in the knowledge that no one will actually read the book. The television interviews will be carefully scripted no ad libing. Just follow the teleprompter baby.
The media may think Al Gore is a god but I think history will judge him more harshly. The sheer audacity of his global warming campaign is stunning to behold. The blind faith of the media is far more disturbing. Hopefully, this will be his last book.
National / World Politics 18 May 2007 07:25 pm
Bush’s Exit Strategy in Iraq is Victory
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 5/18/2007
The Presidency: George W. Bush, obeying a U.N. mandate, set out to dethrone a mass murderer and an aggressive tyrant, expand democracy and take the war on terror to the enemy. He’s done all that and more.
The Bush Years In Perspective: Third In A Series
Click here to read the rest of the series
Much has been made of the “Mission Accomplished” banner that sailors hung on the USS Abraham Lincoln to welcome President Bush’s arrival on the carrier’s deck on May 1, 2003. They were enthusiastic and victorious, fresh from supporting the most rapid military advance in history, a stunning victory that liberated 25 million people and deposed a brutal mass murderer who made war against his neighbors and his own people.
Gen. George Patton’s Third Army, in what has been widely regarded as the most impressive armored attack in history, took four months to battle from the Falaise Gap in France to the Rhine. The U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Division traveled the same distance in two weeks.
Few remember that President Bush never actually used those two famous words, “Mission Accomplished.” But he would have been justified in doing so, just as Lincoln would have been in saying those words at Gettysburg.
Both knew that more difficult days lay ahead, but both knew they were on their way to victory.
Bush did not proclaim peace in our time, but rather: “We have difficult work to do in Iraq.” He said: “We’re helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.”
Yes, there have been mistakes and surprises, just as Gen. Dwight Eisenhower didn’t anticipate the Battle of the Bulge or Adm. Nimitz the kamikazes. President Lincoln was forced to switch commanders from the incompetent Gen. George McClellan to the brutally effective Gens. U.S. Grant and William T. Sherman. But he never abandoned the goal of victory. Bush has switched to Gen. David Petraeus and has a new “surge” strategy.
It is said that no strategy survives contact with the enemy. But Bush’s strategy is clearly a copy of Reagan’s effective strategy during the Cold War: “We win. They lose.”
Petraeus says we will know by fall if the surge is working, but there are telling signs it is.
Muqtada al-Sadr, head of the vaunted Mahdi army, has fled to Iran. His forces have splintered into small groups of street thugs. And Sunni tribal leaders in the former jihadist stronghold of Anbar province are now backing coalition and Iraqi forces against the jihadists.
“Anbar was the worst place in Iraq through most of 2006,” retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane told IBD recently. Al-Qaida terrorists under the leadership of Abu Ayyub al-Masri ruled with an iron fist. Now violence is down in Ramadi and the rest of the province and al-Qaida is not welcome.
Much of the credit goes to patriots such as Army Col. Sean McFarland, who helped unite Anbar’s sheiks into an alliance of more than 200 opposed to al-Qaida’s murderous reign. The tribes began attacking al-Qaida leaders on U.S. target lists.
Critics have been impatient, saying the mission hasn’t been accomplished and asking when the Iraqis will step up and fight for their country. The fact is they are, in both increasing numbers and effectiveness. Iraqi units now fight alongside American troops and on their own. Whole provinces have been turned over to their control. They’ve got our back, and we’ve got theirs.
Can they defend themselves without our help? Europe couldn’t. That’s why we formed NATO. As Benjamin Franklin once put it, either we hang together or we hang separately. Iraqis have shown courage and a willingness to risk their lives for their country. Few Americans would risk their lives to vote as Iraqis have on multiple occasions, first for an interim government, then to draft a constitution, then to vote for a permanent government
The jihadists in Iraq, like the Viet Cong, know they cannot win on the battlefield. But they hope, as in Vietnam, that nightly scenes of carnage on our plasma TVs will help them win in the media and in the halls of Congress. As al-Qaida’s No. 2 thug, Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote in a 6,000-word letter dated July 8, 2005: “(W)e are in a battle, and more than half this battle is in the media.”
The jihadists also count on congressional Democrats to do in 2007 to Iraq what the Watergate babies of 1974 did to South Vietnam. One of their first actions was to vote to deny South Vietnam $800 million in military aid, including ammunition and spare parts. Five weeks after that vote, North Vietnam began planning an armored invasion of the South, knowing we had grown war-weary and would not help.
Since the magnificent success of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraqis have regained their sovereignty, held three free elections, formed a constitutional government and tried, convicted and executed their former dictator for crimes against humanity. All in less time and with fewer casualties than in Germany, Japan and Korea, where we still have 70,000, 40,000 and 33,000 troops respectively.
Bush’s achievement in Iraq will be best viewed through the prism of history, just as President Truman, who made the decision to use the atomic bomb and end World War II, is now viewed as a great president for unilaterally deciding to begin the resistance to communism in Greece, Turkey and Korea.
Like Lincoln, Bush is determined that freedom and democracy will not perish from the Earth and that the deaths of our soldiers will not be in vain. Honor the dead, don’t just count them.
The best way to do that is to complete their mission. If the anti-war left wants to count anything, let it be the millions liberated from oppression and tyranny, and the untold numbers of Americans not killed in another 9/11.
Our death toll in Iraq isn’t close to the carnage of a single battle in World War II, Iwo Jima, or one in our own Civil War, Antietam. Ironically, the place where John Murtha would have us “redeploy” — Okinawa — was the site of one of the bloodiest battles in human history, due in part to the Imperial Japanese version of the truck bomb: the kamikaze.
Did Bush “lie us into war”? He didn’t say anything that every intelligence agency on this planet, along with most Democrats, wasn’t saying. Saddam Hussein was always working on WMD, and if Israel hadn’t bombed Osirak in 1981, Saddam would have had nukes when he invaded Kuwait.
This war is in fact a resumption of hostilities suspended after Desert Storm when we agreed to a cease-fire. Saddam violated that cease-fire as well as some 17 U.N. resolutions. This is not a new war, but the completion of the original U.N. mandate that began with the liberation of Kuwait.
Iraq is Islamofascism’s Rhineland, the place where they’ve decided to test our will. This time Bush is calling their bluff, fighting a lesser war now to avoid a bigger one later, on our soil. He’s learned the lessons of history and is determined not to repeat the mistakes of those who refused to.
This is a long war against a tenacious enemy — like the Cold War, which wasn’t all that cold and which we won because Reagan, like Bush, also decided to take the battle to the enemy and resisted in places from Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan.
On Sept. 20, 2001, Bush told Congress and the nation: “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen.” He continued: “Our war with terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”
Not if the Democrats have their way.
National / World Politics 13 May 2007 07:56 pm
Reading Corner #1
I am bumping this back to the top from a DECEMBER 2006 post because it’s important to know what we’re fighting and for whom we’re fighting. PF
“All that is required for evil to triumph
is for a few good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
We Can Fight Now or Be Consumed Later
Rep. Steve King (5th District IOWA)
Posted Dec 22, 2006
Sixty-two years ago this week, during some of the most difficult days of World War II, the Battle of the Bulge raged in Europe. Hitler had ordered one last attempt to split the Allied front, trap four allied armies, and reach the sea. His objective was to impel a negotiated peace on the western front. American and German casualties were gruesome and horrible. In a month’s fighting, the Battle of the Bulge claimed more than 100,000 German casualties and 19,000 American lives. Read more here
Why Europe Slept A grim look at the destiny of Europe – by Bruce Bawer. Find a Washington Post review of that book here.
Arabs for Israel website Interviews, speeches and Articles featuring Nonie Darwish
- National Review Online on the Brown University Controversy Nov 20 2006
- August 19 2006 interview on MSNBC: ‘Americans Do Not Grasp The Extent of Radical Islam’s Threat’
- August 4 2006 interview on MSNBC: ‘Roots of Anti-Semitism’
- July 29 2006 interview on MSNBC: ‘Root Causes of Israeli-Arab Conflict’
An interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan is linked below. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV – listen to it here Wafa Sultan Interview on memritv (2/21/06)
American Congress for Truth website (Bridgette Gabriel)
American Congress for Truth founder Gabriel rebukes the American public for being “weak, asleep or careless” in the face of Muslim terrorism. Bridgette is a Christian survivor of the vicious civil war between Lebanese Christians and Muslims in the 1970s.
National / World Politics &Personal Favorites 12 May 2007 08:51 pm
Rudy 2008
I sent this letter to the editor today.
We more moderate Republicans have felt out of step with our party over the last 20 years.
Rudy Giuliani is trying to take the politics out of a heated argument and return it to the rule of law yet was derided in the press for his answer in the first Republican debate last week when he said:
“It would be OK to repeal. It would be also OK if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent. I think a judge has to make that decision. I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. States can make their own decisions.”
Democrats generally are pro-choice and have an abortion “litmus test”. Democrat submitted judges must pass their litmus test.
Conservative Republicans are pro-life and have an anti-abortion litmus test. Their candidates must pass their litmus test.
“Issue” litmus tests are deceptive and politicize what should be a non political issue. In my opinion Roe V Wade was bad law, but repealing it would be difficult in today’s political climate. Rudy talks a lot about Federalism and bringing decision making that divides us back to the states.
More critically, I see the media trying to create conflict because they see Rudy as the one Republican candidate that could win in 2008. If you do not believe there is a bias in favor of democrat candidates in the media consider this 2005 UCLA led study:
“As a result of 20 of the major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center.”
If anything, the bias has been stronger in the last two years. Media bias is filtering the news you hear, watch and read every minute of every day.
Republican fiscal principles are smaller government with fewer regulations, lower taxes, making government more accountable “to the people” and allowing us to choose how we live our lives. Republicans have been associated with “big business” or “big oil”, but those who complain about high gas prices need to look in the mirror. There are inherent problems in every institution and business, but they can’t “all” be regulated away.
Our Economy is based on supply and demand. It is business that runs for profit that makes America strong. Big government by its very nature cannot solve problems. Having a president appropriate “big oil” profits (as one Democrat candidate suggests) turns us into a socialist society. Even a democrat legislature in Illinois realized that last week when they unanimously voted down their Governor’s wild idea of taxing the gross receipts of the state’s biggest businesses. That proposal would have driven good jobs out of Illinois.
Rudy understands all this. One example of his actions in NYC was lowering hotel taxes 6%. The result almost doubled tax revenue just like the President’s tax cuts have increased tax revenue – although the press will not report that fact.
The 2008 election is important for many reasons, and Rudy is my choice for the job for many reasons other than those I’ve noted here.
We can pick and poke at weaknesses of all the candidates. What you hear from Rudy is the truth – what he believes, not driven by today or tomorrow’s poll numbers. He loves America and will do what he can to protect it from those who want to destroy it.
I encourage all Republican, Independents and Democrats to tune in to look at Rudy during the Debates on Tuesday night.
I’m looking for fellow Rudy supporters in Muscatine – email me at cjhawkeye01@yahoo.com
National / World Politics 12 May 2007 08:59 am
Again with the TRUTH?
BUMP BACK TO THE TOP OF THIS BLOG FOR EMPHASIS ON WHAT’S RIGHT AND WRONG IN THIS WORLD. POLITICS BE DAMNED, WE CANNOT LEAVE IRAQ!
http://www.iraqthemodel.com keep an eye on this reporting from IRAQ
Best of the Web Today – January 18, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
Meanwhile, the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby makes an excellent point about his senior senator:
Edward Kennedy likes to label Iraq “George Bush’s Vietnam,” as he did last week when he introduced legislation to give Congress the final say on troop levels in Iraq.
Bush played no role in the fall of South Vietnam and Cambodia to the Communists in 1975, of course. But Kennedy did. He helped lead the congressional drive to cut off financial aid to the pro-American governments in Saigon and Phnom Penh, brushing aside President Gerald Ford’s warning that “the horror and the tragedy that we see on television” would only grow worse if America deserted its allies.
But Kennedy and the Democrats spurned Ford, and the result was unspeakable agony–Cambodia’s killing fields, Vietnam’s re-education camps, waves of “boat people” hurling themselves into the sea. Having seen the results of US abandonment in Indochina, how can Kennedy advocate the same policy in Iraq?
“If we cease to help our friends in Indochina,” Ford said, “we will . . . have been false to ourselves, to our word, and to our friends. No one should think for a moment that we can walk away from that without a deep sense of shame.” Ford, a decent man, couldn’t imagine deliberately abandoning a friend in dire straits. Kennedy, it seems, isn’t so inhibited.
As much as he likes to preen about his humanitarianism, when the going gets tough, Kennedy’s message to those in need is “sink or swim.”
[now, that's gotta HURT]
National / World Politics 12 May 2007 07:56 am
Obama’s Auto History
Fuel efficiency is not the savior of the planet — the problem in Detroit is digging US automakers out out of the “quality first” (not) management and union mess they’re in now.
I agree with this article, Obama is pandering to voters using a drip drip drip of environmental concerns that not only don’t SOLVE the problem but could make it worse! We need someone who will solve REAL problems, not bail out failed business models. PF
Obama’s Auto History
CAFE is not the cure for what ails American car makers.
Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Barack Obama blew into Detroit on Monday, where he offered a tart indictment of “the tyranny of oil” and, by extension, the U.S. automotive industry.
“For years, while foreign competitors were investing in more fuel-efficient technology for their vehicles, American auto makers were spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars,” he declared. “And whenever an attempt was made to raise our fuel-efficiency standards, the auto companies would lobby furiously against it, spending millions to prevent the very reform that could’ve saved their industry.” Where to begin?
The Democratic Presidential candidate was extolling Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require auto makers to produce cars that get a certain mileage across their entire fleet. These mandates currently stand at 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles and 22.5 miles to the gallon for “light trucks” like minivans and SUVs. They were enacted in 1975 on the heels of the Arab oil embargo, and raising them has now become an all-purpose political gesture toward reducing carbon emissions and dependence on foreign oil.
Mr. Obama would ratchet up CAFE standards by 4% a year beginning in 2009, or about one mile per gallon per year. Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that would raise them to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and the Bush Administration is hawking its own, more modest plan as well. This is all the triumph of politics over experience.
Since 1974, domestic fuel economy has risen by about 60%. The gains initially came through sharp reductions in the size and weight of cars; think of the Pinto or Chevette. Since the 1990s, improvements have been driven by technological advances. But over the same period, oil imports have increased; Americans use more gasoline than ever and hence emit more as well.
That’s because the indirect tax of mileage standards is an exceptionally inefficient way to influence consumption. CAFE doesn’t affect how many vehicles are on the road (a figure that keeps going up). And by making cars and trucks more fuel-efficient, it may encourage people to drive more. If you get more miles to the gallon, then driving becomes cheaper, so driving demand goes up and offsets any overall efficiency gains.
Designing high mileage vehicles is relatively easy–they’re all over Europe–and such cars have been introduced to the American market in the past. Consumers have plenty of such options to choose from now. But aside from fads like the Prius, Americans have proved unwilling to buy them. The miles-per-gallon advances over the last 30 years have translated into bigger, more powerful cars with more features. These are the vehicles Americans actually want.
Not without reason, either: There is a tradeoff between safety and efficiency. The National Academy of Sciences concluded that CAFE standards contributed to as many as 3,200 additional fatalities each year, because downsized cars are less safe in accidents. Other studies from the Brookings Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute put that number significantly higher.
So much for Senator Obama’s claim that fuel efficiency is the savior of GM, Chrysler and Ford. Their problems, rather, are due to public perceptions of quality and to legacy labor costs. Pensions and health care cost Detroit an estimated $1,500 or more per vehicle than foreign competitors, and raising CAFE standards won’t do anything about that. Mr. Obama generously offered to let the government pick up 10% of the Big Three’s health-care tab in exchange for assurances on fuel economy–which means putting taxpayers on the hook for union and management mistakes going back 50 years.
CAFE would only add to that burden on Detroit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that raising CAFE standards by 3.8 miles per gallon would cost $3.6 billion per year, which would reduce consumption by 10% over 15 years. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates this would add $3,000 to $5,000 to the price of an American vehicle. The United Auto Workers says it could cost the jobs of 17,000 auto workers and 50,000 auto-parts workers.
What exactly would that get us, in terms of reducing emissions or oil use? Almost nothing. Passenger vehicles account for about 20% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions; a 10% cut of 20% is just 2%. This would not make a huge difference in domestic oil consumption either, because passenger vehicles account for 40% of U.S. oil demand; so a 10% cut reduces total oil consumption by 4%. These reductions are negligible compared to global emissions and energy demand.
Senator Obama’s Detroit speech was cast in the press as bold truth-telling. Yet the quickest and most efficient way to deter gasoline consumption, if that is his real objective, is not CAFE standards, but higher gasoline prices–i.e., through a carbon tax. Consumers clearly don’t want to pay more for gas, however, so Senator Obama wasn’t so bold or truth-telling as to suggest that. It seems he has his eye on the voter market more than the car market.
National / World Politics 08 May 2007 09:47 pm
Obama Nation….
two articles on the same subject
#1 – how politicians use events to raise emotions. (Governor blames slow response on war when she never asked other border states to help).
#2 – how politicians use events to raise emotions. (Barack – 10,000 died and the Governor said the clean up had been slowed)
• NEW: White House press secretary: Guard response was governor’s fault
• NEW: Snow says governor should have found need then requested guard
• NEW: Kansas Sen. Brownback says Guard told him they have what’s needed
• Kansas Gov. Sebelius had said deployments to Iraq slowed storm response
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House fought back Tuesday against criticism from Kansas’ governor that National Guard deployments to Iraq are slowing the response to last week’s devastating tornado.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the fault was Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’.
In a spat reminiscent of White House finger-pointing at Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco after the federal government’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina, Snow rapped Sebelius for not following procedure to find gaps and then asking the federal government to fill them.
“If you don’t request it, you’re not going to get it,” he said.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.
The death toll was 12.
“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.
Obama mentioned the disaster in Greensburg, Kan., in saying he had been told by the office of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that the state’s National Guard had been depleted by its commitment to the Iraq War.
“Turns out that the National Guard in Kansas only had 40 percent of its equipment and they are having to slow down the recovery process in Kansas,” Obama said, his shirt sleeves rolled up and his head glistening with sweat.
As he concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.
“There are going to be times when I get tired,” he said. “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later that the senator meant to say “at least 10,” instead of 10,000.
During his speech, Obama stirred the crowd as he often does by skewering President Bush over the unpopular war and noting that he opposed it from the outset.
“How could we have been involved in a war that never should have been authorized, that has already cost us half a trillion dollars,” Obama said.
It was Obama’s third visit to Virginia’s capital in eight months. It came as national polls show him trailing rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., by double digits.
Football 02 May 2007 08:08 pm
Iowa HAWKEYE 2007 campaign
A little Mood Music? http://www.scothawk.com/intro.html
Iowa is looking to regain some respect in the Big Ten and the nation this season after the 2 point loss in the Alamo Bowl to the 2005 National Champion Texas Longhorns put a sad end to the Hawk’s first losing season since 2000.
On to 2007!
The Northern Illinois game is in Soldier Field in Chicago with a 2pm start.
All other games are TBA
Sep. 1 at Northern Illinois Sep. 8 Syracuse
Sep. 15 at Iowa State Sep. 22 at Wisconsin
Sep. 2 Indiana Oct. 6 at Penn State
Oct. 13 Illinois Oct. 20 at Purdue
Oct. 27 Michigan State Nov. 3 at Northwestern
Nov. 10 Minnesota Nov. 17 Western Michigan
You caught that too? Neither Michigan or Ohio State are on the Schedule for the Hawkeyes this year. (don’t like that much)
New coaches at Iowa State, and Michigan State. We’ll certainly know how good this Iowa team is after the game at Wisky. Iowa returns eight starters on defense and six on offense.
Jake Christensen, the left-hander who completed 23 of 35 passes last season, should take over as the starting QB. It will be his third year in the program. Christensen grew up in a football family; father Jeff had seven years as a backup NFL quarterback after playing at Eastern Illinois. But there are a couple of new guys that will be pressing him.
Who’s gone? The key losses are Drew Tate, tight end Scott Chandler, three starting offensive linemen (Mike Jones, Marshal Yanda, Mike Elgin), linebacker Edmond Miles, safety Marcus Paschal and kicker Kyle Schlicher.
Who’s back? Top-flight running backs Albert Young and Damian Sims, dangerous receiver Dominique Douglas, a standout defensive line (Ken Iwebama, Mitch King, Matt Kroul, Bryan Mattison) and linebackers Mike Klinkenborg and Mike Humpal.
Look for the defensive line to dominate. If they stay healthy, this could be a very good defensive team with strong contributions from some first year freshman safeties.
The Keys to the season IMO will be the development of special teams, the O-line and emergence of new young talent in the defensive backfield.
It’ll be easy for Ferentz to motivate a crew that isn’t used to getting kicked around. The Hawks will need Albert Young at his best to take pressure off the new quarterback. There are rumors floating around that Shonn Greene could be red-shirted.
Iowa’s new defensive line coach is Rick Kaczenski, a former Hawkeyes graduate assistant who played center at Notre Dame under Lou Holtz.
Quarterback: Sophomore-to-be Christensen may be hard to knock off the top of the two-deep, but the spring game offered the first glimpse at freshmen challengers Arvell Nelson and Rick Stanzi, and they both preformed very well. In the 2006 Christensen completed 23-of-35 passes for 285 yards and two touchdowns, including a start against Northern Illinois. “Jake still enjoys a real advantage,” he said. “I think the intriguing thing is that both freshmen are doing a nice job.
Wide receiver: Last season’s entire cast – minus Herb Grigsby (won’t be missed) – returns for the Hawkeyes in 2007. Projected starters Dominique Douglas and Andy Brodell came up strong at the end of last year, and they should help the Hawkeyes break in Christensen. Behind Douglas and Brodell, the depth chart is full of unproven but promising athletes, including sophomore Trey Stross and a handful of receivers from last year’s recruiting class, including James Cleveland, Anthony Bowman, Paul Chaney, and Derrell Johnson-Koulianos.
Consistency in catching the football – a significant problem last September – could be the difference. “Better. I’m happy to report better,” Ferentz said. “It couldn’t get much worse.”
Offensive line: Dace Richardson, Seth Olsen, and Rafael Eubanks are virtual locks for starting spots, but their exact position and rest of the starting lineup won’t be determined until August. Juniors Rob Bruggeman and Wesley Aeschliman, and sophomore Andy Kuempel are the front-runners. Competition for the second-team isn’t much different.
“I couldn’t tell you who our five starters are at this point,” Ferentz said. “I wouldn’t want to try to predict it. That for sure will go at least midway through camp.”Safety: How open could strong and free safety be next fall? Marcus Wilson – the only returning Hawkeye with starting experience at safety – didn’t start in the Spring scrimmage. The wild card could be Iowa’s recruiting class, which includes three of the country’s best safeties.”I think the competition is real even with the four guys,” Ferentz said. “That one will probably go into August.
Are you ready for the BOOM?
If you’re new to this site, don’t miss my tribute to John Hayden Fry by clicking here.
