Ron Paul, Foreign Policy and the Military

Probably the most common objection to Dr. Ron Paul heard from conservative voters is the well-worn line: “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.” This isn’t because the typical Republican voter agrees with the current Bush-Clinton-Obama foreign policy: a November CBS News poll found nearly three-fourths of Republicans believe “the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies…” More likely, it is because they hear the same drivel incessantly repeated by people they have been accustomed to respect. A delusional Dick Morris, speaking on the O’Reilly Factor, recently claimed that Ron Paul is a “left-wing radical” who “wants to dismantle the military” and “blame[s] America for 9/11.” Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann called his foreign policy ideas “dangerous,” while Newt Gingrich pompously announced that “Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”

Really?

Perhaps we should clarify that “Ron Paul’s views” aren’t just random gleanings from the Huffington Post. Unlike Santorum, whose chief foreign policy adviser might as well be Toby Keith, Ron Paul is one of the most well-informed people in the beltway when it comes to the Middle East, its history and America’s involvement there. Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions, you can’t help noticing the depth of his knowledge when he warms up to this subject. His thorough historical studies and his own observations over the last 35 years form a solid basis for understanding world events. His advisers have included Michael Scheuer, a 22 year CIA veteran who spent over 17 years focused exclusively on Bin Laden- and Al Qaeda-related intelligence analysis, and who for some time headed the “Bin Laden desk” at the CIA, and Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and contributing editor for The American Conservative. His foreign policy views are more or less those of George Washington, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Sen. Robert Taft, Russell Kirk – even William F. Buckley’s views on foreign policy come closer to Ron Paul’s than those of any other current presidential candidate. With that said, let’s take a closer look at these “extreme” views.

Ron Paul’s budget calls for cutting defense spending back to 2006 levels. That’s right, the same spending levels we had four years into the so-called War on Terror and three years into the Iraq War. If that were done, our defense budget would only amount to 35-40% of the entire world’s military spending, approximately equal to the next ten countries combined (Russia, China, UK, France, etc.). It is beyond difficult to imagine that Dick Morris is unaware of this fact, so he must be either nuts or disingenuous.

On “blaming America for 9/11,” Paul has merely pointed out that our policies and actions in the Middle East have – predictably - caused an extreme backlash among Muslims, of which 9/11 was a result. To the neocon hawks who measure the strength of America’s defenses by the number of bombs we drop in a given week, this view may sound extreme and radical. It is shared, however, by the previously mentioned left-wing radicals – sorry, I meant intelligence experts - Scheuer and Giraldi. It is also the view expressed by the 9-11 Commission and by many of the counter-terrorism experts who testified during its investigation. Even more relevant to the absurd claims of Dick Morris is the prediction conservative icon Russell Kirk delivered back in 1991 in a speech to the Heritage Foundation. Speaking of the Gulf War and the policies pursued by the first President Bush, Kirk warned that “We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …”

Those of us who have admired Ron Paul for years were entirely unsurprised to hear him say that 9/11 reflected a backlash to American policies. After all, he had called for President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 after the Sudan and Iraq bombings, noting that “our national security is jeopardized by allowing this to happen… We’re liable to have more attacks … by terrorists. ” Many Republicans agreed with him at the time. Prior to September 2001, Dr. Paul had repeatedly predicted that the arrogant course we pursued since the 1950s in the Middle East would lead to increasingly deadly terrorist attacks. His warnings were largely ignored, but given the accuracy of his predictions, those who ignored them should not be astonished that he still maintains the same views.

Speaking to Sean Hannity back in October, Rick Santorum credited Ron Paul with extensive experience and a “deep” understanding of foreign policy issues; and, while noting that he and Paul had “different viewpoints,” added that “when the phone rings at three in the morning” Paul would likely know the history and the characters and have a plan to handle the situation. But last week he called Paul “dangerous,” falsely accusing him of saying that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to Israel. Actually, Paul has said that a nuclear Iran does not pose a credible threat to America, and that Israel has both the right and the capability to respond should they determine that Iran poses a risk to them.

A little known fact bears mentioning here: when Israel bombed two Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981, the United States Congress passed an almost unanimous resolution condemning Israel’s actions as reckless and unjustified. I said almost unanimous – Ron Paul was the only vote against the resolution. He opposed it on the grounds that Israel had a right to defend itself and that America should stay out of their affairs unless our involvement was requested.

Santorum also recently attacked Paul’s assertion that military aid to Pakistan is not in America’s best interest, arguing that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, America has no choice but to buy Pakistan’s allegiance, whatever it takes. There is a lesson here if one can get past the embarrassment of a presidential candidate making such a cowardly argument in public. Maybe Rick doesn’t realize this, but if he is smart enough to make the connection between Pakistan’s nukes and the billions of dollars their political and military leaders siphon away from American workers, you can bet the Iranians are too. As Dr. Paul has pointed out before, we talked Gaddafi out of his nuclear ambitions and then turned on him. Bomb = aid; no bomb = lots of bombs dumped on you; what possible motivation have we left Iran for abandoning a nuclear weapons program, if indeed they have one?

But Newt Gingrich stands out in the lineup of Paul bashers. His sweeping, all-inclusive, and arrogant attacks are earning him the disrespect of many, if not most, Americans. Imagine that you are a soldier in Afghanistan, or a sailor in the Persian Gulf, and a Ron Paul supporter. You’ve gone beyond merely supporting him; you’ve given a chunk of your shamefully low combat pay to his campaign. You’ve made this sacrifice, along with thousands of your fellow fighting men and women, precisely because of Paul’s views on foreign policy. You know why active duty military personnel are far and away the largest group (by employer) among his supporters. You know why he has received more in donations from military men and women than all the other GOP candidates combined. You are living the war on terror; your life is on the line every day; you’ve seen firsthand how the effort to win hearts and minds in the Middle East really works; and you believe Ron Paul is right when he says we are less safe because of our military adventurism. Now a narcissistic career politician and lobbyist who studiously avoided military service in Viet Nam declares those views - your views – to be “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.” How exactly does that feel?

Which brings to mind one thing I really don’t like about Ron Paul: he is way too kind to Gingrich and his ilk. He tends to stick to his own argument even when seemingly irresistible opportunities present themselves for showing up windbags like Newt. He did finally call Newt out as a chickenhawk last Saturday night, which brought an angry reaction from the former Speaker: he denied using college deferments to avoid the draft, claiming that he was married with a child and thus wouldn’t have been eligible anyway. To which Paul responded icily, “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.”

And one more thing for the record, Newt: he’s still married.

_______________________________________________

Here's a great article by John Nichols on why Ron Paul isn’t just a conservative, he’s the only conservative running for President this election cycle:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122913/the-nation-why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

This Was A Battle?

This recently leaked video provides the context for an excellent piece of advice from one of America's finest: Don't bring your kids to a battle. It also explains just what qualifies for "a battle" to video-game addicts turned loose on the real world, with formidable weapons and technology and the arrogance of the world's only superpower behind them. Don't let kids watch the video, either.

I don't for a minute believe that the actions of this crew are representative of most American soldiers. Nor do I believe, on the other hand, that this was a unique, isolated incident. Here are two examples from my own personal experience:

A friend of mine currently serving as an infantryman in Iraq told me personally that one of his superiors, during a routine patrol in southern Baghdad, fired a missile at random into a civilian dwelling to demonstrate the weapon to a new member of the unit, then justified his actions to his furious fellow-soldiers by reminding them that the US would compensate the homeowner (assuming he survived to file a claim) for the damage.

A former Blackwater medic who was teaching a tactical EMS class I took last year told us: "Blackwater isn't running around over there killing innocent Iraqis, mainly because there are no innocent Iraqis." I know, this wasn't an American soldier, but the attitude is common to many in uniform as well as out.

What I do believe is that some American soldiers are simply violent individuals who enjoy the opportunity to kill and destroy (case #1 above); that some are decent Americans who lose their moral compass in the violence and confusion of alternately fighting and supporting various elements of an insurgency created by their own leaders (case #2 above); and that the large majority are just too cowardly to expose the actions of the first two groups.

By the way, my apologies to the anonymous posters who occasionally post relevant comments here: I've been so inundated with spam comments that I've had to limit comments to registered users.

Thanks, Xman!

I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to "xpressive1515" for a beautiful illustration of the problems I've been addressing in my last two posts. When I said that many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, are incapable of critical thinking, and that most conservatives are "inexcusably myopic" in their views on the sanctity of life, I didn't expect to have my statements underscored by such a pointed object lesson.

This individual disliked my assessment of the moral questions raised by the killing of non-combatants in war. They began charitably enough, noting that I am a product of the "extremely liberal" northeast. Unfortunately, I can claim no such excuse for the unconventional opinions expressed here. I am actually the product, by the grace of God, of a west coast navy pilot with excellent critical thinking skills and a southern preacher's daughter with a passion for history. They conspired to instill in us a love of learning, and encouraged us to study God's word and grapple with the difficult questions raised by our studies rather than simply trying to clone themselves. My grandfather was the only member of his gun crew to survive Okinawa. I have ancestors who fought in WWI, both sides of the War Between the States, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War. I am married to the granddaughter of, not one, but two navy captains. I live in an extremely conservative area, one of the heaviest Republican concentrations in the country. I am actually a Republican myself. In short, the explanation offered for my inability to reconcile the concept of justice with the killing of civilians is insufficient. I must accept full responsibility for my opinions.

The aforementioned charity, besides being misplaced, was remarkably short-lived. This individual began by taking issue with the concept of "innocent civilians," stating a biblical principle dealing with man's relationship to God and arrogating that principle to the question of man to man relationships. They further developed this fallacy by stating that "justice sometimes requires the killing of one's enemies to right wrongs" and invoking the bombing of Hiroshima, Hanoi and Iraqi and Afghan villages as examples. No attempt was made to demonstrate the assertion, so naturally, I asked what connection, if any, existed. Specifically, I inquired as to "the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?"

At this point, our xpressive friend had four options: (1) - attempt to demonstrate the justice of the actions in question; (2) - revise the history of the actions themselves (a common technique known as lying); (3) - try to redefine the concept of justice to reconcile the two; or (4) - ignore the question altogether. Quite honestly, I expected the first - or at the very least I hoped for it.

Instead, our friend offered an eight point rebuttal that consisted of transparent fallacies and other minor irrelevancies, none of which brought any new or old information to bear on the question. As an explanation or defense of the author's opinion it is unworthy of attention, but taken as an example of a decrepit state of mind that is all too common, it may be worth a cursory examination.

Passing over the first item for lack of words with which to answer it, we come to a sarcastic expression of regret that our military was not informed of the injustice of wiping out two entire Japanese cities to avoid the necessity of an invasion. Actually there were Americans who spoke out against our adoption of the Nazi method of air warfare at the time. The military leaders who made that decision justified it on strategic grounds, for the obvious reason that it could be justified on no other. I personally reject the notion that the only options were a wholesale slaughter of civilians or a long and bloody invasion. The bomb could have been used against the Japanese fleet or against land based military assets. Negotiations could have been opened with the Japanese with a real likelihood of success, considering the fact that their backs were to the wall. Since neither of these alternative steps were taken, we will never know whether our choices were really as limited as indicated. Regardless, bombing non-combatants to bring one's enemies to the table is morally indistinguishable from killing a murderer's family members to help bring him to justice.

The third item misquotes my assertion that Vietnam posed no credible threat to Americans, presumably because our friend was unable to dispute the actual statement. It is much easier to make one's opponent say what one wishes he had said and then attack the straw man than to go to the trouble of inventing historical details out of thin air. Items four and six allege similarities between my position and those of Carter and Obama, more evidence that the author didn't bother to read my previous posts to understand the perspective that so grated on his nerves.

Item five bothered me, I confess. The invocation of "the spirit of '76" brings the methodical revision of our history into sharp focus. The spirit of '76 was a passion for freedom and a grim determination to protect one's liberties, family, neighbors and homeland at all costs. Professional soldiers invading a foreign nation unprovoked have nothing in common with those farmers and tradesmen who stood together on their own soil to defend their homes and repel an invader.

And then, the coup de grace! I am a suspected North Korean who may have received assistance with voting from ACORN. How will I ever hold up my head again in cyberspace after that brilliant rebuttal?

Actually, the mere fact that xpressive1515 hit "submit" on that comment should be enough to shame him or her into hiding for a while. While I don't expect that to occur, I hope this display of foolishness will serve to prompt more thoughtful consideration of the fundamental question here by those who possess the requisite cognitive skills. I have many good friends who disagree with me, and all of them could have done a better job of defending their position. But none of them are able to address the real reason that conservatism is dying. Until Americans begin to associate conservatives with intellectual honesty and consistency again, they will not recognize true conservative thought as superior to liberal emotionalism, because what passes for conservative thought today is mostly parrotted, euphemistic party-speak.

Politics or Principles?

As a serious history student, I frequently find myself drawing comparisons between current and historical events, people and societal trends. The conclusions warranted by this method are often offensive to those who suffer from the delusion that “things are different today.” But as our national politics slip beyond their previously explored frontiers of degeneracy, I find myself thinking again on the vast difference between a statesman and a politician.

Contrary to the opinions of much of the religious right, the distinction does not lie in the volume of one’s profession of faith. As a matter of fact, true statesmen have been found among the ranks of nearly every denomination of the Christian Church, among numerous false religions, and even professing atheists. Nor does the distinction lie in political creed – throughout history, true (though often mistaken) statesmen have defended forms of government ranging from absolute monarchy to utopian communism.

The difference is simple: a statesman is one who loves his country more than himself or his political affiliations. His goal is the good of his country, and his political positions and actions, however mistaken or uninformed they may be, are taken for that purpose. In a nutshell, his loyalty is to his country.

A politician, on the other hand, to the extent that he possesses that virtue at all, is loyal either to his party or to himself (generally some combination of the two). His positions and actions are taken with an eye to the advancement of his party and/or his own ambitions. He may now and then pause to consider their effects on the nation as a whole, but his first priority is to consolidate his own position against the efforts of the opposition.

The current antics of our elected officials on Capitol Hill and in the White House are a supremely disgusting illustration of the latter. Our representatives in congress are wasting their time debating and voting on a bill to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research even though they know it will be vetoed. They justify this exercise in futility by citing a need to put the President on record as opposing “the will of the people,” even though his position on this issue is already clear. Their real purpose, however, is to bolster the Democratic Party’s position in the next election. And taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being used to fund this charade.

The federal district attorney firings and the accompanying furor provide another example of shameless political gaming by all sides. It is obvious that the Justice Department made appointments based on political loyalties, though this practice is not new. It is also plain that they used the pretext of the war on terror to avoid the oversight, and presumably the criticism, of congress when making replacements. On the other hand, the self-righteous clamor of the opposing party seems carefully oriented toward the approaching elections, and their ethically laced demands for the Attorney General’s resignation are hollow at best. They know that replacing Gonzales would require confirmation hearings, and that those hearings would be an ideal venue for lowering this administration still further in the public esteem. Which is precisely why they want Gonzales to resign, and more to the point, is precisely why he won’t resign.

If there are any national issues that ought to be addressed without regard to party politics, the war in Iraq deserves to be at the top of the list. Yet no other issue is so politically charged at present, and American soldiers are currently being treated as pawns by the ass and the elephant alike. The invasion and occupation received bipartisan support until the dreaded threat of low approval ratings began to rear its head. The White House, being controlled by politicians (not statesmen) who are painfully aware that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, has no choice but to “stay the course” until either conditions improve or a Democratic president arrives to take the blame for the consequences. Meanwhile, the Democratic hopefuls, knowing what awaits them if they step into the Oval office before the inevitable pullout, present a comical picture as they try everything short of funding cuts to convince the President that the troops should come home now.

The most ironic aspect of this circus is that the obvious constitutional option to end the war is to cut the funding, and that is precisely the option Congress is afraid of. To force the return of American troops over the President’s veto would place the blame for the ensuing disintegration of Iraq firmly on the heads of the Democratic leadership. But a pullout ordered by a Democratic president would yield similar results. Their only hope is to convince the current administration to accept responsibility for the failure of both parties, something the administration isn’t about to do. So the troops will stay where they should never have gone, while our leaders peer over their spectacles at the latest polling data and casualty reports as they desperately search for a way to leave Iraq without leaving D.C.

Contrast their behavior with that of Congressman Ron Paul, and one immediately recognizes the vast difference. Unlike the party faithful, Congressman Paul strenuously opposed the unconstitutional nature of the invasion. He spoke and wrote extensively on the dangers of empire building and the falsity of the various justifications for war. In doing so, he brought on himself the disdain of his colleagues and was icily ignored by the mainstream media. Now that he is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, he continues to speak the truth on those issues that are most likely to prevent him from reaching the Oval office. Political pundits question whether he is “presidential material,” but the real problem is their inability to comprehend genuine statesmanship.

Conservawhat?

Recently I’ve been pondering the meaning of the term “conservative” – or perhaps I should say the lack of meaning. I’ve always called myself a conservative, at least before the neo-conservative heresy made it necessary to christen that view paleo-conservatism. But I’ve begun to wonder what criteria define a political position as conservative? In today’s cultural context the dictionary definition is almost irrelevant, but conservative politics are popularly thought to include such ideas as a strong national defense, Christian moral values, less government, lower spending, and respect for the constitution. That sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But is it really true?

Consider the belief in a strong national defense. Originally a commitment to preserving national sovereignty and the liberty that set America apart from the rest of the world, it has mutated into unlimited support for the American warfare state and the intoxicating status of “superpower.” Those who challenge the morality of slaughtering civilian populations to break the will of an enemy are automatically labeled “pacifist.” Those who question the bully mentality that national defense requires “full spectrum dominance” over the entire world are dismissed as “lefties.”

Last week my uncle and I were discussing the Iraq occupation with a military cousin who was home on leave, about to be re-deployed. He explained that the Iraq war was “80% about oil.” I was surprised to hear him say so, in light of his whole-hearted support for the war. He defended his support by pointing out that America relies on oil for our “national security,” and that we had to invade Iraq to ensure that Iraqi oil remained available to us. (Between individuals such behavior would be referred to as an armed robbery with multiple homicides, but when nations steal from one another all sorts of euphemisms are employed.) Asked where the spread of democracy figured in the equation, he laughed and stated in no uncertain terms that it was a myth. The other 20%, he informed us, consists of the “bonuses” of toppling Saddam and obtaining a staging area for the invasion of Iran (also for oil.)

What standard of right and wrong is being applied here? Why is it that support for national defense is now expected to imply support for our assumed role of global umpire? When did defending America become a chess game for control of the world, played with live pieces? How is the cause of freedom served by killing civilians for the crime of living under a tyrant? These are only a few of the questions that conservatives have failed to ask, and our failure has left a massive gap in the political debate over the current war.

How about morality? Conservatives like to think of themselves as the champions of moral rectitude. Sure, we’ve compromised a little - we talk about “family values” instead of God’s Law - but, all things considered, we feel like we’ve given our utmost to the preservation of the family. If only the Dems and liberals weren’t so powerful …

What on earth is wrong with us? We are the problem, not the liberals. American Christians adore their President for signing a ban on one rare type of infanticide while ignoring the fact that abortion numbers have soared during his tenure. They rejoice over his meaningless support for a “marriage amendment” while he appoints an open sodomite to the rank of “AIDS ambassador.” In more than 5,900 years of world history no civilized society ever conferred legal recognition on sodomite relationships. Yet so-called conservatives in this country have twice elected a President who wants to do just that. Are we merely opposed to calling duct-tape relations “marriage,” or are we opposed to government-subsidized sin? If family values are nothing more than semantics they aren’t worth fighting for.

Less government? Lower spending? Respect for the Constitution? Six years of complete Republican control was enough to bring about the largest consolidation of power in the history of the nation, invent a new Cabinet-level department and countless subordinate bureaucracies, expand the tax code by over one hundred thousand pages, pump up the Department of Education with expanded powers and the largest budget increase in history, begin the registration and identification of every livestock animal in the country, pass thousands of new laws, create thousands of new criminals, add billions upon billions to the national budget and spend even more billions without adding them to the national budget; and to balance all this we have nothing to show except the sunset of the assault weapons ban. Bravo.

It’s time to be honest with ourselves. For the last fifty years, generally speaking, presidential elections have offered conservatives little more than a choice between various crooks. Our efforts have focused on supporting the crook who owes the most to conservative interests (otherwise known as the lesser of two evils). This reprehensible waste of our vote has supposedly been justified by the threat of “liberal” ascendancy, but in practice it has resulted in an ever-worsening spectrum of crooks to choose from.

No election illustrates this trend more clearly than the one before us. The GOP has so completely discounted genuine conservatism that they expect their voters to choose between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. The most painful aspect of this line-up is that few Christians or conservatives see the bitter irony in it. Republicans are expected to choose between three candidates who all support abortion in some form, legal recognition of sodomite relationships, more gun control and bigger government. All three major candidates have long and well-known political records, and their scramble to alter their image to better appeal to the “religious right” only makes their overtures more insulting to genuine conservatives.

In terms of actual policy the GOP has long been nearly indistinguishable from its rival, but the truth is that if McCain, Giuliani or Romney wins the Republican primary next year, their nomination will be the final nail in the coffin of the conservative Republican Party.

Everything But Integrity

I’ve just finished reading “Babylon By Bus” by Ray Lemoine and Jeff Neumann. I’d do a book report on it for you all but it made me too angry. Let’s just say that it is downright shameful that a couple of Valium-popping Red Sox junkies can see through the neo-con smokescreen almost without trying, while most Christians willfully choose to remain blissfully ignorant.

I also just learned that Colombian FARC rebels have held three American citizens hostage for four years. Four years! Forgive me for being shocked – I thought we were in a war on terror? Apparently terrorists with oil take priority over terrorists with hostages.

Then again, the ongoing imprisonment of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean for defending themselves against a Mexican drug dealer could indicate that our leaders have a slightly different agenda on the table than what most Americans would like to believe. I’d go so far as to suggest that as an explanation … but I proposed a conspiracy theory last time. Don’t want to overdo it.

Congressional hearings are the new thing on Capitol Hill. The FBI lied. (Several times, I believe.) Cheyney used Valerie Plame to avenge his wounded pride on Joseph Wilson. The administration fired federal prosecutors for political reasons, and to top it all off they aren’t being “fiscally responsible.” Imagine!

Certainly none of this comes as a surprise to us, but the “new” rotation of good old boys is seeking explanations for these “unacceptable actions.” An observer who is not fluent in political sign language might be tempted to think that they were serious about reigning in the massive trend toward consolidation of power in the executive branch. But alas, a brief scan of the post-Reagan political landscape indicates that President Hillary would be inclined rather to continue the trend than to be outdone by her predecessor. Not to mention that the commencement of hostilities in the 2008 campaign provides the obvious explanation for the donkey’s recently acquired interest in “Congressional oversight.” Every skeleton dragged out of the neo-con closet decreases the need to rely on electronic voting when Hillary makes her final run in November ’08.

Even though Al Gore’s own personal “inconvenient truth” has been coming to light, he still manages to draw a crowd to listen to his hypocritical propaganda. I can’t think of another politician who has made a fool of himself so many times and still has the following that man has. It reflects poorly on our national IQ.

HR 1022 is the new and improved Assault Weapons ban. I’ll be posting specifics when I get them organized. It’s bad.

Stand by!

State Of The Union

Since I have far too many issues on my mind than I could possibly devote individual posts to, I thought perhaps a State of the Union post would serve the purpose. I will no doubt be accused of taking a cynical approach; be that as it may, here are a few thoughts, in no particular order, on the currently prevailing political, social, economic and mental conditions in this great nation of ours.

Apparently the weather-related Jet Blue meltdown struck a nerve with our kind-hearted lawmakers. National Public Radio interviewed one passenger who, after waiving his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a ride in the sky, expressed a firm conviction that it was “unconstitutional” for airlines to keep passengers on grounded planes. Capitol Hill responded to his and others’ plea for redress of grievances with a Passenger’s Bill of Rights. But don’t expect too much: Barbara Boxer has no intention of restricting the use of x-ray machines or legalizing the currently prohibited possession of shampoo or scissors. She’s concerned primarily with the toilets flushing properly and related issues.

The neo-conservative democracy-spreading crew is facing non-binding criticism by members of Congress who reject the thought of actually making a decision, but are confronted with the terrifying prospect of having to explain their refusal to accept responsibility for declaring war in 2003. Their “suggestions” include limiting the mission in Iraq to hunting Al Qaeda and securing the borders. Only there is a slight problem: Al Qaeda prefers to hang out with our good friends in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan when they’re off duty. Congressman Ron Paul says it well here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm

Speaking of borders, we’ve made significant progress toward opening our own. New protections for the civil rights of illegal immigrants include the prospect of jail time for U.S. Border Patrol agents who resort to deadly force when their lives are threatened. And for those who wish to take the generous offers of Lady Liberty to the next level, Morris Dees and the SPLC stand ready to assist them with any lawsuits they might be contemplating against law enforcement or incensed citizens. Five million bucks anyone? Sure, it’s a little risky, but it could be worse. Don’t worry about the fence; it was just a paper treat for the discontented party faithful. Our first Latino President has already cut the funding. And if you run into the National Guard, just flash the guns. They’re not allowed to return fire. Be careful, though; don’t push it so far that they issue a statement condemning your behavior.

Now that we’ve taken on border patrol responsibilities for the Middle East, the size of our military is again proving inadequate. Capitol Hill isn’t ready to vote itself out of office by reinstituting the draft, but our Dear Leader has called for the first step towards implementing Charlie Rangel’s proposal through the establishment of a Civilian Reserve Corps. Of course, it would be strictly voluntary, because folks need to get used to the idea before they are “given the opportunity to serve” at gunpoint. See the future here: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft01112007.html

Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that a larger military is essential in this world of proliferating weapons and sophisticated terrorism. If only they would pay even closer attention and recognize that such weapons and technology aren’t exactly free, and that much of the funds needed to obtain them are provided by … take a guess, anyone? The Congressman from Texas is again on target when he charges American foreign aid with creating multiple threats to our national security. But who listens to him?

On the energy front, our leaders have successfully deflected the well-deserved criticism of our policy of foreign dependence by proposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thereby appearing inclined to move forward while giving the green lobby a golden opportunity to tear their hair and file their lawsuits. Simply tapping into the huge deposits under the Alaskan North Slope would presumably have been too easy.

But the greatest environmental issue facing the world today is Global Warming. I know, I’ve always been skeptical of this one, but I’m convinced. Not by the fact that certain parts of the world are recording the warmest temperatures in a century. That would indicate to me that similar conditions prevailed - oh, say - a century ago? Nor am I convinced by the alleged scientific consensus: half a century ago they were certain that we were entering another Ice Age, and they also agree that the incredible order and intricate design we see in every aspect of creation is the result of a cosmic burp four billion years ago. Seriously, an evolutionist of all people ought not to be concerned with a little warming. They want us to believe that this universe, this earth, the innumerable forms of life on this earth, and ultimately we ourselves, all managed to arrive relatively unscathed at approximately the 4,000,000,000th anniversary of our original emergence from nothingness, against odds which are incomprehensible to the greatest mathematicians who ever lived; and then they expect us to further believe that our continued existence is threatened by a five degree increase in average world temperature on the Fahrenheit scale?

So how have I become convinced that Global Warming is the defining environmental crisis of our time? Simply because I recognize the power of money to define crises. The UN desperately needs another way to raise money to fund its increasingly corrupt existence, and a carbon tax seems to be just the thing. A carbon tax, however, can only be proposed with a show of credibility if Global Warming is indeed a problem: hence, it must be a problem. Right?

Education is one of the great success stories of our time. Two generations have now swallowed the previously mentioned fairy tale and pronounced it good. Now that they know God doesn’t exist, their children can be trained to place their blind faith in a more tangible benefactor. While political parties vie with one another to ensure that No Child is Left Behind, their young subjects receive mandatory STD vaccinations before joining their peers to learn about the different kinds of families, why pregnancy is a disease, and all the problems that Big Brother can solve if we only give him the opportunity (read: funding).

We remain convinced that we can only combat the problems of addiction, violence and crime through education, more specifically by increased spending for education. The inverse relationship between national funding of education and national crime rates hasn’t yet occurred to us as having significance. If we could only give these kids free health insurance too, there’s no telling where their lives might lead, though a good guess would be in the direction of whatever else might be had for as little effort.

When political supporters of the ongoing wholesale slaughter of unborn children turn in for the evening, the satisfaction of a few kind deeds could presumably go a long way towards a good night’s sleep. That may explain why the New Delhi Sands Fly, Pacific salmon and spotted owls have so many supporters in the District. But the latest philanthropic effort of Pennsylvania lawmakers would ban live pigeon shooting. In a few years the last great question of the Second Amendment will have been solved: it’s not about duck hunting. Our founders would never have condoned such cruelty to innocent animals.

And, of course, the carefully developed policy of “divide and conquer” continues to prove effective against concerted grassroots efforts to fight corruption, take back individual freedoms and preserve American sovereignty. The constant focus on multi-culturalism keeps Americans myopically obsessed with the interests of our “groups,” while the rugged, “I can” individualism of previous generations is replaced with a whining, “I want” mentality. Our sense of community is lost as we cram our parents into nursing homes, our children into after-school programs, our infants into day-care and ourselves into the rat-race. Under the pretext of “improving quality of life” we supported zoning ordinances that segregate and compartmentalize our neighborhoods and our lives. Now that we miss the small-town feel our parents enjoyed, we want the same land-use planners who destroyed our neighborhoods to plan them into existence again.

On the bright side, our esteemed fellow citizens in New York City have begun an effort to recover their lost sense of community. They just held a citywide pillow-fight in Union Square. No kidding.

It’s good to see other folks finally doing something.

And I almost forgot: the final word on the state of the Union is that it is about to grow. By about 500,000,000 people. The name is changing too: we’ll call it the North American Union. Tim Findley has a must-read article on it here: http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/07-sp-north-american-union.pdf

Conspiracy theory, you say? Talk to me in five years.

Echoooooooooooooes

Bigger Brother

Well, Saddam is dead, along with three thousand plus American soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis. Twenty thousand more brave boys and girls may soon get their chance to die for a few months of Shiite security, or whatever passes for security in the Middle East these days. A gentleman recently suggested that George III lead them into battle like his more honorable predecessor. I like the idea.

On the other hand, many folks seem disturbed that the CinC rejected the advice of the Iraq Study Group. Since when were academics qualified to tell the President how to fight a war? OK, so it's obvious he doesn't know how to. Neither do they. The unfortunate fact is that we have individuals in very powerful, very critical positions who are incapable of learning from past mistakes. Solution? See above.

Since infringments on the right to keep and bear arms, national databases of personal information, uniform ID requirements, innumerable invasions of privacy, requiring SSNs for everything we do, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, expanded application of martial law, replacement of trial by jury with trial by military commision at the discretion of the President, blank check power grants to the executive by the legislature, warrantless wiretapping, invasions in force of belligerent (or other) nations, worshipping the same god as the Muslims do, fencing bits of the Mexican Border, and deploying National Guard troops everywhere at once, apparently isn't sufficient to guarantee our security, be assured that our leaders haven't dropped the ball. They have now put the terrorists on notice that even their (your) mail isn't secure. Render unto Caesar your privacy, because as every child knows, be sure your Big Brother will find you out.

Speaking of the National Guard, seems they aren't allowed to defend themselves. Apparently the object of sending troops to the southwest was to scare the illegals away. As is typical of this administration, plan B wasn't. So when the druggies decided to test the mettle of the formidable U.S. military, they couldn't find any. Never mind that Mexican troops have been firing on Border Patrol officers on our own soil, we dare not fire on their drug-running pards for fear El Presidente might call us names again.

By the way, American soldiers have plenty of mettle, they just work for cowards.

Here's the NIV pledge of allegiance for all the "new" patriots out there.

I pledge allegiance to the President of the United States of America, and to the vision of the future for which he stands; One world, under surveillance, with safety and jobs for all.

But you do need an SSN.

Echoooooooooooes

Military Commisions Act of 2006

Warning: material contained in this post may be detrimental to your state of denial.

I’ve just finished reading the final compromise version of Senate Bill 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which establishes military commissions for trial of “unlawful enemy combatants” under Chapter 47A of title 10 U.S.C. A close study of the bill reveals a power grab of astonishing proportions. To detail even the most important points would be an extensive task, but a few key concerns are presented here. Please take the time to read the legislation for yourself to verify these statements. A link is provided here.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:2:./temp/~c109fZSPZH:e0:

(If it doesn’t work go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and type “Military Commissions Act of 2006” into the text search box. Select the version enrolled as agreed to or passed by both House and Senate.)

The most prominent concern on a first reading of this legislation is the sheer magnitude of the powers given to the President and Secretary of Defense. They include:

Unlimited authority to arbitrarily determine whether any person is an unlawful enemy combatant … - Sec. 948a(1)(ii) and Sec. 948d( c)
Sole authority to convene military commissions … - Sec. 948h
Sole authority to limit the unprecedented blanket power of Chapter 47A military commissions to “adjudge any punishment not forbidden by this chapter…” - Sec. 948d(d)
Sole authority to prescribe all “procedures and rules of evidence … including elements and modes of proof, for cases triable by military commission…” as long as they are consistent with Chapter 47A U.S.C. - Sec. 949a
These are only a few of the powers reserved exclusively to the Executive branch under this legislation. Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the unlimited nature of the authority granted, SEC. 3 (950j) prohibits any court from hearing any challenge to the lawfulness of Chapter 47A military commissions generally, or to any of their proceedings, no exceptions. SEC.7 prohibits any court from hearing any action “relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement” of any alien who has been or may be determined to be an enemy combatant. The only exceptions to the Sec. 7 prohibition are the provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the appeals process under this Act. In addition, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the only court which may hear appeals from Chapter 47A commissions,) may only consider whether the military commission followed its own rules and procedures, not questions of fact or evidence. - Sec. 950g

While the final version of this Act does prohibit torture and bans statements or confessions obtained by torture, it permits hearsay evidence and “coerced evidence” to be admitted at the discretion of the military judge. - Sec. 948r Combined with the limitations on the scope of review by the appellate court, this provision all but guarantees the conviction of any person the prosecution wants convicted.

But the most frightening aspect of this legislation is the apparently intentional failure to define the phrase “any person subject to this chapter …” as it occurs in Subchapter VII, Punitive Matters. While the stated purpose of the Act is to provide for the trial of “alien unlawful enemy combatants,” there are three clauses that call that purpose into question.

Sec. 948a - Definitions: Combatant Status Review Tribunals are not restricted by this Act to consideration of aliens.
Sec. 950q – Principals: In specifying persons punishable under this chapter, no mention is made of alien, national or citizenship status.
"Sec. 950v(b)(26) – WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY- Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.” (emphasis added)

It is difficult to understand how an alien could be guilty of “breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States,” which clearly indicates that American Citizens may indeed be subjected to trial by military commission. If that is the case, an examination of Sec. 950v suggests that any common criminal could potentially be charged with terrorism, thereby losing his constitutional rights. Which, of course, means that the bill is unconstitutional. Don't let it shock you.

All in all, the bill is dangerously vague even if applied only to alien combatants, and could easily be interpreted to include foreigners engaged in the defense of their own country against the U.S. or its allies. While the injustice of such an interpretation is evident, it is worth noting that when this administration prematurely declared victory in Iraq, they endeavored to cover up their mistake by labeling as terrorists the indigenous Iraqi insurgency rather than admit that the demise of the Hussein regime was not equivalent to the restoration of peace. I make no objection to the label as applied to the Islamic jihadists who have selected Iraq as a battleground against the west, but a native Iraqi engaging in guerilla warfare against the invaders of his homeland hardly deserves to be accused of terrorism, regardless of the good intentions of the invading forces. I mention this only to highlight the fact that this law, through its extreme lack of clarity, lends a color of legality to such unjust sophistry.

The bottom line: get ready for the Brave New World, coming soon to a city near you. But remember:

“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.”

No Kidding?

Two days ago I was riding with a friend and, for lack of anything better to do, picked up his copy of Monday's USA Today. As I glanced through the stale assortment of canned political "analysis," irrelevant stories, bad reporting and worse entertainment, a list of "facts" about a monster black hole known as Saggitarius A* caught my eye. Apparently this weighty object has been the focus of recent "studies" by astronomers. Impressed by the specific nature of the information given (which included Saggitarius A*'s mass, distance from earth, age, etc., all expressed in numbers far beyond the comprehension of the writer), and curious how a few paltry tax dollars in the hands of professional students could have yielded such astounding results, I turned to the beginning of the article to learn more about this discovery.

The author began with a brief treatment of black holes in general, as well as the various theories regarding their formation and the part they play in the universe. He admitted that scientists know relatively little about black holes, and he drew heavily on science fiction to hold the attention of the reader. It would seem this information regarding Saggitarius A* must have been quite a breakthrough! I read on, anxious to hear how this impressive detail was achieved.

Halfway through the article, the author informed me that "Saggitarius A* is thought to exist near the center of a galaxy by the same name." ... Wait just a minute ... "thought to exist" ... ? You just finished telling me that its mass is equivalent to 350 million suns, that it is 10 billion years old and 25 million light years away. Now you tell me you don't quite know if it exists or not?

Your tax dollars at work, folks.

While we're on the subject of humorous news reporting: a few days ago NPR reported that "some lawmakers worry that the escalating violence in Iraq could plunge the country into civil war." Oh my, what an awful idea! I never thought of that before!

All I can say is that homeschooling looks better every day.

I read a great essay by George Orwell on Politics and the English Language. I highly recommend it to all of you who prefer to know when you are being brainwashed. Copy this link into your browser's address bar: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/

Satire: Operation Chicago Freedom

Breaking news – Chicago: America’s second tallest skyline was blacked out early this morning after a multilateral coalition of police from Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore and Boston launched an all-out offensive operation to topple Chicago’s corrupt regime and capture or kill key organized crime bosses in the city. Philadelphia and NYPD SWAT teams moved into position around midnight in preparation for this morning’s assault. O’Hare International is in complete lockdown and traffic bound for O’Hare and other city airports is being diverted to other nearby cities. Firefights are currently raging around the airport’s main terminal building, as well as City Hall and several other public installations.


Mayor John Street of Philadelphia held a joint press conference this morning with the police chiefs of all coalition departments to discuss the war, dubbed Operation Chicago Freedom.


“The people of Chicago have suffered long enough at the hands of the corrupt and brutal city government,” he said. “It is high time for the freedom loving people of the nation to bring the leaders of Chicago and their Mafia partners to justice. We will not falter, we will not waver. We will succeed in our endeavor, and we will liberate the people of this great city.”


Several reporters displayed skepticism of Mayor Street’s explanation. “We all know Chicago has a problem with organized crime,” stated William Casper of the Washington Post. “But is it the prerogative of Philadelphia to unilaterally engage in city-building around the nation?”


Street brushed aside what he called “such a short-sighted view” of the problem. “Our intelligence sources indicate that the organized crime families in Chicago are directly tied to the city government. We have faced increasingly compelling evidence in the past few months that Chicago may be in possession of materials which could conceivably be used to construct chemical and/or biological weapons. Such a capability in the hands of a rogue city cannot be permitted. Chicago’s recent stockpiling of flu vaccines is only the latest in a long chain of evidence which leads us to believe that they may be preparing for a WMD attack on neighboring cities, perhaps even as far away as Cincinnati.”


The Mayor also dismissed criticism of Philadelphia’s actions as “unilateral.” “Our good friends in New York, Boston and Baltimore are entirely on board with us here. Chicago’s attempt to acquire WMDs, not to mention its practice of harboring and sheltering organized crime, is nothing short of an attack on freedom loving people everywhere.“


In a later press conference held outside Philadelphia’s City Hall, Street’s spokesperson, Ms. Barbara Thomas-Mezvinski, was equally confident. “The city of Chicago has repeatedly violated federal gun laws,” she said, emphasizing that a key reason for the operation was to force compliance with federal requirements. “At least 379 separate gun laws were broken in Chicago last year for a total of 13, 782 violations. So far, only 164 of these criminals have been brought to justice, and all 164 were minorities. Not a single Mafia leader has been jailed in Chicago since the last Mayoral election. Mayor Street was elected with a clear mandate to fight crime, whenever and wherever it appears. This is his job, and he will not shrink from the challenge.”


The Philadelphia City Council was divided over the operation. Several members expressed concern that such action, rather than strengthening Philadelphia’s position in Washington, DC, would actually result in further erosion of the sometimes rocky relationship between the city and the Fed. “We have no business overthrowing another city government without a clear mandate from the national community,” intoned Councilman Sam Katz. “This business is nothing more than a drain on the city’s resources and will be a source of keen regret later.”


But Councilwoman Pamela Brown disagreed. “Chicago has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the federal government, and is not well liked even within the State of Illinois. Philadelphia has a responsibility by virtue of our position as a respected leader in the national community to deal with threats to our citizens. We owe it to ourselves and to the rest of the country to protect our people from crime. In the past month, there have been 19 shootings in this city that are directly linked to Chicago crime families. We cannot afford to stand idly by at such a time as this.”


City Solicitor Anthony Capellini agreed. “If we let the Mafia take over this city and kill us all, then the Mafia has already won.”


Firefights between coalition forces and Chicago police are in progress in several parts of the stricken city, as helicopters circle over the central areas of town. Rumors are in circulation that Louis Capone, grandson of the infamous Al Capone, may already be in custody of the Philadelphia police. We will be bringing you periodic updates at this location, so stay tuned!


Echoes of Aberdeen is fully responsible for the contents of this post.

Politics by Murder

It seems the Republicrats in Washington D.C. have proven capable of outdoing themselves. They are unquestionably the epitome of dishonesty in a proverbiably dishonest capitol city. Rather than allow a vote on Rep. Murtha's proposal for a somewhat controlled withdrawal from Iraq, they chose to play the dirtiest of political games, defame an honorable and patriotic veteran, and offer an entirely unacceptable solution so that they could claim "victory." Their idea of victory in this instance may perhaps shed some light on their hopes for a victory in Iraq.

It is time to ask the real questions, people. Is withdrawal from Iraq necessarily "cutting and running?" What exactly is "staying the course" supposed to imply?

Vice President Cheney says, "The terrorists . . . have contempt for our values, they doubt our strength and they believe that America will lose its nerve and let down our guard. But this nation's made a decision: We will not retreat in the face of brutality, and we will never live at the mercy of tyrants or terrorists."

Did you hear that? The terrorists have contempt for our values? Imagine that! Perhaps if we had some values left they would respect them a little more. Not only that, but ... horror of horrors ... they doubt our strength! Why? Because our soldiers aren't allowed to win, that's why. Even worse, they believe we will lose our nerve and let down our guard! Impossible! Look at our borders, please? We have no guard left to let down. We are a nation of ostriches with our heads in the sand. But we will not retreat, no siree! We will never live at the mercy of tyrants. That is for the folks at Guatanamo, not us. We couldn't afford to have a tyrant over us, the economy might go south! (Or east ... waay east ... all-the-way-to-China east!)

Can we cut the politics for a moment? Mr. Veep, just what do you call the current situation in Iraq? Can anyone say Viet Nam? If we are really committed to defeating the threat of Islamic terrorism, for God's sake do it! Let's have a declaration of war on a tangible threat, let's commit our entire national resources to the elimination of that threat, let's get the job done and move on!

There is no way to occupy or even stabilize a nation the size of Iraq with the forces we have committed. We are not on unfamiliar ground here, people. We've been through this more times in the last 50 years than I care to think about. We've seen what happens when our military is throttled by international red tape, when our soldiers are sent into a foreign country without the resources or the permission to win, when their lives are wasted for the reprehensible purpose of "imposing the will of the international community" on some third world country. Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Somalia, does anyone see a pattern? We have no business sending Americans to die for the United Nations and their twisted plans for the world.

The men who landed in the Ia Drang valley in Viet Nam on Nov. 14, 1965 were fighting for the freedom of the South Vietnamese people. Or so they thought. Only in hindsight, thousands of dead buddies later, would it become apparent that no sacrifice on their part would be sufficient, that they were never supposed to win, that they were there solely to die on the altar of the "brave new world" that was to emerge from their ashes. Our soldiers are being sacrificed just as cruelly today. I believe we have no business in Iraq. They have never posed a legitimate threat to this country, and their personal problems have only been exacerbated by our invasion and continued presence. Be that as it may, the continued refusal of our leaders to end the conflict, either by committing a sufficient force to do so on our terms, or by acknowledging our error and withdrawing, leaves only one conclusion: they have something to gain by the continued bloodshed of our boys.

To the leaders of our nation and representatives of the American people: the course we are on is clear. You say a withdrawal would destabilize the region. Hello? The region is currently destabilized. You say the threat of terrorism is one we must stop. Hello again? It is unquestionably thriving as a direct result of the Shiite Islamic State your laughable imposition of "democracy" has instituted. You say we must not retreat. That leaves us two choices. We can "stay the course" or we can win. The course we are on does not involve any perceptible success. To vow your intention to stay that course is proof of your utter disregard for the lives of the men you so lightly jeapordize.

If the American people do not begin seriously asking themselves what the international power brokers have to gain by a state of perpetual war, they will find themselves in a totalitarian society without ever knowing how they got there. Time is running out.

Learning From History (Not!)

Well, Scooter Libby is outa here. I don't know much about him, but considering his relationship to the VP I can only say bon voyage and who's next? (I have a dream!) Oh well, back to reality.

Five third parties here in PA have just gone to Harrisburg with their support for changes to the current election law that would place third parties on an equal footing with the bipartisan establishment when it comes to placing candidates on the ballot. Most voters would be suprised to learn that as the law now stands, third parties must collect as many as 33 times the number of signatures required of the Republicrat and Democan parties in order to be included on the ballot. It is high time to change that one.

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. Democans and Republicrats are both unhappy with the lack of information they have on her ideology and political positions. I for one am tired of hearing conservatives dwell on the abortion issue to the exclusion of others. No judge who holds that infanticide is a woman's right before the infant is born is qualified to make sound determinations of right and wrong, but I think there are other things we should be concerned with as well.

When John Roberts was confirmed, to my knowledge none of the questioning dealt with the real reason why he was nominated. Roberts had been involved in rulings which left no doubt of his position on the Habaeus Corpus rights of American citizens. Remember, the last time the issue of indefinite detention of American citizens came before the high court, the Bush administration lost their bid for dictatorial powers by a 5-4 vote, with Justice O'Conner voting with the majority. Roberts was selected to replace her for that reason and no other. The death of Chief Justice Rehnquist derailed that plan, and the administration is facing the same problem again.

I believe Ms. Miers was selected solely for her willingness to follow orders. Now that she has withdrawn her name, we can look for another willing servant to take her place. As long as the President can keep conservatives focused on a nominee's position on social issues, he will remain free to trample on the Constitution. It is time for true conservatives to refuse a compromise and demand a Justice who will enforce the Constitution rather than reinterpret it.

The death toll in Iraq has passed the 2000 mark. Two thousand brave American soldiers have died so that the Iraqi people can be free to establish the Islamic dictatorship of their choice. In accordance with my stated intention to bring the light of history to bear on today's events, perhaps a brief overview of a few previous efforts to free nations from themselves would be in order.

Cuba. The US supported Fidel Castro in his bid for power. In return, Castro established a close partnership with our worst enemies, including a tight relationship with Communist China which continues to threaten our national security today.

Zimbabwe. The US, along with the UK and other countries, enforced severe economic sanctions against Rhodesia and the Ian Smith government in the name of African independence. The Rhodesian government , under pressure, capitulated to the Marxist movement and Zimbabwe still has never had a fair election. Robert Mugabe has been in power for over 30 years and still retains all of the bloodlust and thirst for violence that characterized his rise to power. While Rhodesia was a major African exporter of food and agricultural products, Mugabe's Zimbabwe is still suffering from severe food shortages that are decades old.

Afghanistan. The US funded, trained and supplied Osama Bin Laden and other Mujahadeen "freedom fighters" to effectively stop the expansion of another former US ally, the USSR, in that area. These same "freedom fighters" established a brutal Islamic state, became a safe haven for anti-western terrorism, and eventually carried out the worst terrorist attack this country has ever endured.

Bosnia. The US essentially led the UN effort to overthrow the Milosevic regime and halt Serbian violence against ethnic Albanians. The Albanian Muslims, in turn, retaliated against the Serbs with little or no UN interference, and today are a friendly resort for Islamic terrorists and a significant threat to US interests.

Iraq. Last but not least, the US funded, supplied and abbetted Saddam Hussein in his brutal war against Iran. Saddam accepted US assistance until he felt that he was no longer in need of it, and has been a thorn in our sides ever since, until his overthrow last year.

I guess we haven't learned.