Can't Get Enough Lieberman

While researching for yesterday's post, we came across an Op-Ed piece on Iraq written by Senator Joe Lieberman almost a year ago. Reviewing its contents, its amazing how prescient Senator Lieberman was in identifying some of the key issues. It should be clear from some of these quotes why we feel such a strong kinship with Senator Lieberman, despite our political differences.

On the importance of winning in Iraq:

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

A year later, and these primary issues have not changed. We continue to be on the side of 27 million Iraqis. Loss in Iraq will embolden terrorists and turn Iraq into the equivalent of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Whatever opinion polls you may read about the mindset of the Iraqi people, when the vote matters, they vote overwhelmingly for democracy.

Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them.

Iraqi leaders are fearful that the latest election signaled a change in American commitment to success in the Middle East. Their worst fears are founded in the aftermath of Desert Storm when President Bush Sr. encouraged the Shiite majority attempted to overthrow Saddam and then ordered Schwarzkopf to stand down. The result: Saddam slaughtered the leaders of the uprising and then tortured and killed their families. We must not once again abandon Iraq to a similar fate.

American polls are notoriously difficult to interpret. Does the decline in President Bush's approval rating mean Americans want to get out of Iraq or that they simply believe that the current strategy needs to be changed? We've argued ad nauseum that most Americans support the war, but are frustrated with the current state of affairs. This last election--notably Senator Lieberman's re-election--seem to support this conclusion. There's not much question where Iraqi's stand, again, from Senator Lieberman:

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

We know these poll numbers are almost a year old, but the recent numbers, while showing some decline, still indicate Iraqis feel better off now and are optimistic about the future.

As when Senator Lieberman visited Iraq, the Kurdish North remains free from violence as does the Shiite South. The attacks we read about are in the Sunni triangle--a relatively limited, but important, piece of land stretching from Baghdad to Tikrit to Ramadi. It may well be that the current strategies have failed there and new ideas are needed.

Or, it may be as we suspect, that terrorists and insurgents hope to exploit a weakening in American will and are stepping up violence as they did in the month leading up to the election. Either way, withdrawal before the Iraqi military and police are able to maintain security will not improve the situation. Even if you believe that Iraq was not the right fight, pulling out now will not make right your perceived wrong.

Senator Lieberman predicted that the situation in Iraq could be negatively affected by pressures of the now-passed election.

I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Most Republicans were "brought down" by corruption while Democrats ran on a platform that was light on constructive recommendation and heavy on "we're not Republicans." These attitudes wont be enough.

Democrats must now heed Senator Lieberman's recommendation and avoid making the next two years one large bully pulpit of criticism. We know they hate Bush and blame him and his cadre for all the worlds problems. Of course, we also remember that they too voted for the war. It's time now for them to face up to the responsibility that vote should have entailed and partner with Republicans to find a solution--one that leaves Iraq secure and America safe.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Lieberman: Making Us Proud

An article today from the Associated Press (hat tip: James Taranto) addressed the idea of Senator Lieberman switching parties.

Lieberman on Sunday repeated his pledge to caucus with Senate Democrats when the 110th Congress convenes in January, but refused to slam the door on possibly moving to the Republican side of the aisle.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if he might follow the example of Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who left the Republicans in 2001 and became an independent, ending Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Lieberman refused to discount the possibility.

"I'm not ruling it out but I hope I don't get to that point," he said. "And I must say--and with all respect to the Republicans who supported me in Connecticut--nobody ever said, 'We're doing this because we want you to switch over. We want you to do what you think is right and good for our state and country,' and I appreciate that." (emphasis added)

Senator Lieberman recognizes, as this blog has pointed out numerous times (here, here, here, and here), that he was elected over Lamont because of his ongoing support for the war in Iraq. People in Connecticut were given a choice between two candidates who are about equally liberal with the only discerning disagreement between the two being the war. Connecticut is a liberal state that was won by John Kerry. And they voted for a Senator who supports the war. We repeat again because some of you aren't listening: last week's election was not a call to bring the troops home. It was a justified reaction to corruption and perhaps mismanagement in Iraq. But it was not a call for immediate withdrawal.

If, as voters left their local polling places in Connecticut, they told interviewers that the most important issue driving their vote was Iraq and they voted for Lamont, we would be discouraged. This would have signaled that voters were electing people they thought would bring our troops home immediately.

But that wasn't what happened. They left their polling places, and told exit poll workers that the most important issue was corruption. Iraq was a close second. So, Republicans lose because of corruption and mismanagement. Liberal, pro-war Democrats like Lieberman beat liberal anti-war Democrats like Lamont and signal to us and everyone else that Americans want a change in Congress, but they recognize the importance of winning in Iraq.

And we hope that now Democrats will engage the war in a constructive way rather than the critical posture they adopted once things started looking bad. With any luck, dems follow the example of Joe Lieberman, rather than opportunists like John Murtha.

It's unfortunate that good men like Senators Santorum (a particularly outspoken leader in the War on Terror) and Talent and Senate hopeful Michael Steele lost, but we are relieved that it wasn't because Americans want to leave Iraq ASAP.

Even then, the numbers weren't that much of a landslide, as Time magazine blogger Mike Allen pointed out on the 10th of November (hat tip: Taranto, again):

The Republican National Committee has been pointing out that a small shift in votes would have made a big difference. A shift of 77,611 votes would have given Republicans control of the House, according to Bush's political team. And a shift of 2,847 votes in Montana, or 7,217 votes in Virginia, or 41,537 votes in Missouri would have given a Republicans control of the Senate.

But you wont find us shrieking for a recount a la Angry Left circa 2000, 2004, et al.

It's enough to know that the election wasn't the tsunamitidalwavemassiveshift of a vote as sold by the spinmeisters in the MSM.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

After Action Report--don't pronounce the t

It's a busy day today but we didn't want to miss the chance to post a few links.

Leading off is a new website devoted to exploring the special relationship between Britain and America. BritainandAmerica.com seeks to explain each country's politics to the other. Because of the recent elections, the focus of the website has been on American politics. We occasionally attend a seminar on the history of Anglo-American relations. Watch for us to revisit this topic.

Yesterday while pouring over our website information at statcounter.com we came across the blog of an American clinical psychologist who opines and theorizes on American politics. From the conclusion of one of his recent posts:

One of the geniuses of the American system is that it accounts for both our civilized and our primitive natures. In holding national elections every two years, it provides an outlet for primitive anxieties that historically toppled regimes. In other words, it institutionalizes the logic of human sacrifice, which is stage four of the group fantasy cycle. Thus it is no coincidence that President Bush performed a human sacrifice and held up the head of Donald Rumsfeld to the baying MSM fantasists on the morning after the election. If you keep up with the ranting of the infantile left at dailykos or huffingtonpost, nothing less than some form of human sacrifice would have answered their homicidal rage. But one thing we can know with certainty: it won’t work, for magic is a symtom of that which it purports to cure.

We found several of his posts rather insightful but we understand that his writing wont appeal to everyone--for those of you who fancy yourselves intellectuals, enjoy!

Over at townhall.com Michael Medved (one of Raisin's favs) believes that popular assumptions about Red and Blue states are just flat wrong. He writes:

The media emphasis on regional differences always distorted reality but this election should force the permanent abandonment of the meaningless red/blue distinction. Montana, supposedly the reddest-of-red states, may well end up with a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators. California, theoretically the bluest-of-blue states, not only re-elected its Republican governor in a landslide, but also appears poised to elevate GOP candidates (including some outspoken and cantankerous conservatives) to three or four other statewide offices. In Kansas, which gave Bush 64% in 2004, Democrats enjoyed sweeping victories, and so on. The definitive designation of an entire state as either “red” or “blue,” Republican or Democrat, ignores the impact of circumstances, personalities, and issues.

We're not ready to completely write off Red and Blue state designations, but as Mr. Medved points out, this last election does provide strong evidence supporting the erosion of these traditional political markers.

Lastly, a little humor from a man calling himself Jim Treacher. Those of you who read James Taranto's Best of the Web on a regular basis will have read this in yesterday's edition. Apologies to fans of Nancy Pelosi who take themselves too seriously; you probably wont find this funny.

Questions from a political dilettante

* Does this mean Bush is still Hitler? I'm pretty sure Hitler never let his opponents win an election, did he? Unless... this is all part of Rove's plan.

* A major concern of the last few elections has been that Republicans need to cheat to win, and the problem was going to be even worse with the new Diebold machines. What happened? Did Cheney forget his password again? That darn Cheney, always forgetting his password.

* What happened to Ned? I thought Lieberman was Public Enemy #1. Now Kos must feel like the kid on Christmas morning who's surrounded by toys... except for the one he really wanted.

* Does Nancy Pelosi ever wear a fake flower on her lapel that shoots acid? Because that would really be a surprise for Batman when he's hauling her to Commissioner Gordon's office.

* So the world likes us again, right? No more terrorism? YAY!!!

Hey wait a minute, this last question looks familiar. Didn't we end a recent post in much the same way...?

Let the Freak Show Begin!

As we begin to take stock of the recent election, our native optimism and cheery disposition is beginning to return.

And we can't help but point out the difference in response between the losing conservatives of this election and the losing Angy Left of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Where the leftists filled blogs with expletives and run on screams about election stealing, conservatives and conservative candidates recognize close elections notwithstanding, the election was lost fair and square. After all, that's democracy, right?

Conservatives must just be more optimistic than liberals.

We're especially pleased to note that, well, Bush is still President. Some headlines seem to think that Democratic control of the House and Senate meant the President would roll over and play dead, allowing liberals to completely reverse course on everything from Iraq, to lower taxes and conservative Supreme Court nominees.

As we pointed out yesterday, this election was not a rejection of the war in Iraq. More voters listed corruption and scandal as affecting their vote than Iraq. And that's fair. In many cases we supported Republican candidates despite the corruption and scandal but because of their support for the war in Iraq. That preference doesn't mean we weren't frustrated and disgusted with the Abramoff and Foley scandals.

The Lieberman win over Lamont is proof positive that the Angry Left's opposition to the war in Iraq is not a majority position. If they couldn't win with a liberal anti-war candidate in one of the most liberal states in the Union, it wont win anywhere. The win of moderate Democrats like Heath Shuler (hat tip: Morgan) further evinces this position. Hopefully Democratic control of the House and the Senate will invest Democrats in the war in a way that has not yet happened; hopefully they will take some ownership of it.

In fact, this election gives us hope that perhaps the Democratic party isn't trending as far left as Lamont's primary win over Lieberman seemed to indicate. We hope that the influx of good, moderate Democrats like Mr. Shuler helps to keep Democrats more centrist.

Again, the key will be how the large number of moderate Democratic freshmen interact with their stridently liberal committee chairmen. Speaker Pelosi may have been elected by the angryleftwingnuts in her San Francisco district, but she's Speaker because of independent voters in places like Iowa and North Carolina.

And finally, a high priority for liberals--maybe now the world will like us better!--that's what we're all shooting for, right?


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

I'll trade you my Rumsfeld for your Gates--straight up

Yesterday's resignation by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a necessary evil. Mr. Rumsfeld faced the difficult task of reforming a military built to fight set piece battles on the fields of Europe against the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. He was opposed by a military leadership that was resistent to change--a leadership that had just spent 8 years in a standoff with a President who drastically reduced their budgets, drawing down enlistment and forcing base closures. They were trained by this experience to dig in their heels and fight.

Mr. Rumsfeld was a figure powerful enough to take on an establishment that loved big armies and big ships--all things necessary for traditional warfare. He recognized that the military must evolve to combat the new threat of terrorism.

In the course of his six years of service he made a lot of enemies and became the focal point for complaints about the war. We respect President Bush's loyalty to Mr. Rumsfeld, but this was a change that needed to happen. Like President Bush, we think history will vindicate Mr. Rumsfeld.

From the Wall Street Journal's survey (subscription required. This excerpt was, in turn, taken from an excellent interview with PBS)of Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates comes this interesting insight into his view of the military:

One of my experiences over the years, in Washington, as I have watched different Presidents deal with the military and I worked in the White House for four Presidents and attended decision meetings under five, is that contrary to mythology, the biggest doves in Washington wear uniforms. And I think that particularly after Vietnam they are very leery of feather-merchants of civilians, greying notions of using military force to accomplish a range of objectives however sensible or justified they may be. And I think that they try, perhaps even un-consciously, not only to exaggerate the level of forces that will be required to accomplish a specific objective but the casualties as well, in the hope of forcing a sanity check on the politicians or on the civilian experts who have no concept of what it is like to sit there and watch a young soldier bleed and die. And I think that these guys also think that war in the situation room is too clinical. And that we don't have an appreciation for what it is really like, and that they would prefer to avoid the use of military force at all cost.

Some of the biggest debates that I have ever witnessed in the situation room on this problem and on dozens of others was the debate between the Military representatives and the State Department representatives. With the State Department representatives arguing for the use of military force and the military officers arguing for the use of diplomacy. So I think it is a cultural thing and I don't second guess the military on that, I think that their concerns are justified, because I have seen a lot of civilians make a lot of proposals for a lot of silly military actions that eventually did not take place. So I understand their caution.

The CIA and State Department have complained for years about Mr. Rumsfeld overstepping his bounds. In Mr. Gates they should have someone who, if not an ally, at least understands the challenges they face.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Giving the Terrorists What They Want

Question: What does increased violence and ultimately more American soldiers killed get you?

Answer: Control of the House and (maybe) the Senate.

Al-Qaeda and Co. learned their lesson from their experience in Spain. They tried to scare Americans with another attack last August which was successfully foiled (fortunately).

Failing in their attempt to strike Americans directly, they simply hit the ones closest at hand--our brave soldiers in Iraq. And the American electorate obliged their efforts, effectively attempting to appease the terrorists in the mold of Chamberlain's Britain and France.

Fortunately we still have our Winston Churchill--President Bush, who also has elements of President Truman. When Harry Truman left office his approval rating was hovering around 20% (Bush has still got him beat by more than double). He was fighting an unpopular war and had an adversarial Congress.

Truman stood up to the threat of spreading communism and now, 50+ years later, historians and the public generally regard him as being among the top 10 Presidents in American history.

We can't see into the future and predict how history will judge President Bush. But we are going to go out on a limb and predict that it wont be as harshly as some of today's ignorant critics. They call President Bush the worst President in American history, but they can't see past Watergate (Richard Nixon) and Vietnam. If they could, they might see Harding or Buchanan.

Now, having said that, this election is not the complete repudiation of President Bush and the War on Terror that mainstream media pundits would lead you to believe. Most of the Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans were moderates. Many of them, like Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, are actually pro-life.

And this is where this election gets interesting.

Americans elected moderate Democrats over Republicans. In so doing they put in power those Democrats who had been in Congress the longest. Who has been in Congress the longest? Democrats serving in districts that are overwhelmingly liberal. Thus, though America votes moderate, they get a leftwingnut liberal in control of chairmanships. See Exhibit A: Nancy Pelosi. She's from an extremely liberal district in San Francisco. Think she's in touch with most Americans?

But there is a bright spot.

In Rhode Island, Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee lost to his Democratic challenger. Senator Chafee was notoriously anti-war. Meanwhile in Connecticut, our man, erstwhile Democrat turned Independent, Joe Lieberman (note: pro war supporter of Bush) was re-elected over Ned Lamont. Remember Lamont? He was put forward as the new generation of Democratic candidate, the kind that would win the House and the Senate for the Democrats.

Fortunately for us and the country, that kind of Democrat didn't win on Tuesday. It was the moderate, pro-war Democrat Joseph Lieberman who beat back the anti-war crowd.

On a bad day for conservatives and Republicans, we can at least be grateful for that.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

An American Student in Londonistan

We are positively thrilled with the job the Mainstream Media has done to downplay Kerry's characterization of the military as dumb. If anything, their attempt at damage control for their party of choice lays bare their liberal bias.

And it looks like the MSM has something in common with terrorists--they both want the Democrats to win. From WorldNetDaily (Hat Tip: James Taranto):

Senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND . . . say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired." . . .

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

We'll give terrorists this much, at least they're honest about their liberal bias.

Londonistan is both a term and a book. Last week we got a haircut at a Muslim barbershop around the corner from our flat. While sitting in the chair, al-Jazeera playing on the tv in the corner, we watched as 4-5 young Muslim men left a small room in the back. We've watched several seasons of The Unit and as a result, various terror plotting scenarios ran through our head--like the successfully foiled plot last August.

The haircut was fine, but we declined the shave with a straight edge razor. Though open to greater cultural understanding, we didn't want to push our luck.

The attacks of 7/7 in London and the response that followed did nothing to diminish our admittedly irrational fear. London is a city with a large muslim population. As with any terror act, only a few people were involved. But polls after the bombing showed a relatively large percentage of the Muslims in London were sympathetic to the actions of the 7/7 terrorists and thought they were justified. That attitude and the live and let live response of the London multiculturalists who appease them are explained fully in the aforementioned book.

Then there's this article (subscription required) describing the fertile recruiting ground that are British institutions of higher education.

Just when we were getting discouraged about the resolve of our British allies, we attended a debate hosted by the UCL Debating Union. The proposition up for debate was whether or not the the War on Terror should continue. They followed British debating style inviting first one speaker in favor and one opposed which were in turn followed by floor speeches. The floor speeches were given by members of the audience (as opposed to the more formal speeches given by pre-selected members of the debating unition) and consisted of one in favor, one opposed, and one in abstention--usually critical of both positions. They followed this format for four rounds. At the conclusion they took a vote.

When we first saw the advert for this event we assumed that it would simply be an opportunity for the Brits to badmouth Bush, Iraq, and American foreign policy. We were pleasantly surprised to hear passionate, well reasoned arguments in support of the War on Terror, America, and President Bush.

Though the proposition lost, the margin was not what one might have expected: 44 opposed, 38 in favor, and 17 in abstention. All things considered--anti-American sentiment, liberal student body--the outcome was encouraging.


And finally, a quote from a recent speech by Tony Blair.

the global struggle against terrorism... will last a generation and more. But this I believe passionately: We will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy--that somehow we are the ones responsible. This terrorism isn't our fault. We didn't cause it. It's not the consequence of foreign policy. It's an attack on our way of life. It's global. It has an ideology. It killed nearly 3,000 people, including over 60 British, on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of... If we retreat now, hand Iraq over to al-Qaeda and sectarian death squads and Afghanistan back to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, we won't be safer; we will be committing a craven act of surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril. (emphasis added)

American war history demonstrates clearly that no conflict is easy. No war is without its setbacks and sidetracks. Mistakes have and will continue to be made in Iraq--though we hope we are learning from past ones. This much is not new.

Unfortunately, this election does not give us a choice between two different strategies on how to win the War on Terror. There is the strategy outlined by President Bush, that seeks to stabilize Iraq with the intention of withdrawal only after Iraq can protect and maintain itself. Then there is the non-strategy of the Democrats which includes withdrawal by whatever name they happen to concoct on a given day, and nothing else.

We don't know the best way to hasten the stabilization of Iraq. But we do know that retreating in an attempt to apease the islamofascists is the surest way to embolden the terrorists and hang a defenseless Iraqi citizenry out to dry.

Our recommendation: Vote to stay in Iraq.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Another View: The Threats We've Conquered and the Threats We Face

By Mark Patterson, Guest Contributor

Staff Sgt. James Cawley’s death taught me a lot about sacrifice. Before we lost Staff Sgt. Cawley, Fox Company felt invincible. However, after the evening of his death we all quickly realized how quickly one of us could be taken away. Men like James Cawley aren’t supposed to die. Staff Sgt. Cawley was a powerful man, the type of warrior who knew everything about his profession. He was the type of man who could make his men feel invincible through his leadership. Staff Sgt. Cawley was a father, a husband, brother and son. He was a friend to many and spent his entire life serving. Cawley served a religious prosletyzing mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Japan. After giving up two years of his young life in the service of his faith James joined the Marines. Since that time until his death, Jim always wore a uniform and performed duties that placed his body and life in the way of those he defended.

I remember vividly the funeral we held for him in the mud and heat of Iraq. It all seemed so surreal. We made a temporary monument to Jim, his boots, helmet and rifle. Behind it we erected a temporary flag pole and atop it we placed the American Flag. There we were a hundred sad but determined men stuck in the middle of a hellish fight in a country that wasn’t our own. I remember staring at that flag seeking purpose and meaning.

Our flag is a symbol. In fleeting moments while we bask in blessings and realities of American life we may reflect upon that meaning, but as a twenty one year old kid I wondered what does this flag REALLY stand for. Then all of the sudden I was overcome with a powerful feeling, a surety of knowledge. Yes, the flag stood for America the land we inhabit and it stood for the family that I loved and had left, but what I realized that day in that brief calm moment of reflection in the mud of Iraq was that the flag stood for a set of beautifully simple ideals: ideals enumerated specifically in the defining document of our country, our Constitution. The Constitution contained one basic idea in it. Governments are created by the people for the people. We, “the people,” are entitled to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. These are not expectations, they are inalienable rights, rights that no government should be able to take away because they are more than government, more than mankind itself.

In a sweaty cramped room in Philadelphia, a room of full of revolutionaries, ambitious politicians, wealthy merchants and stubborn idealists drafted a document that was designed in every aspect to protect these freedoms. However, despite the ratification of the Constitution, the history of America is a history of our Constitution being threatened both from enemies abroad and irresponsibility within.

Shortly after the Constitution was ratified, it came under its first threat. In an effort to control strong pro-British sentiment in the Colonies, President John Adams drafted a series of laws in 1798 known then as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws curtailed many constitutional freedoms including freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. It might seem outrageous that one of the founding fathers himself could pass such a law. John Adams believed in the Constitution but he was facing a potentially dangerous political situation at home that would manifest itself later with the scores of American Citizens who would aid the Brittish in the war of 1812. Fortunately for the First Amendment, The Alien and Sedition Acts died with the end of Adam’s presidency. However, this only occurred because of staunch opposition and dissention from the American people.

Perhaps the largest affront to the principle of equal and inalienable rights was the institution of Slavery itself. This deplorable and despicable institution was protected by the Constitution itself that so hypocritically ignored the contradiction of Slavery and Freedom’s coexistence. In 1857, with the Dredd Scott decision, the Supreme Court upheld the notion that people could be property. It took 600,000 American lives lost in the Civil War to prove the contrary.

The 20th century would also be fraught with peril and attacks directed towards our American ideals. In 1917, President Wilson passed the Espionage Act and then in 1918 extended it with the Sedition Act which attacked our freedom of speech. Wilson’s logic at the time was that dissent in a time of war “interfered” with the ability of our Armed Forces to successfully execute a war. It was literally a crime to question the First World War or the government. Although aspects of these laws have been changed or reformed, much of it remains law to this day.

The Depression itself brought threats to our American ideals as we began to sacrifice state sovereignty, gold backed currency, and the lack of individual taxation for the fleeting benefits of government welfare. However, the Constitution also came under attack in the form a coupe attempt against our government staged by major C.E.O’s of America’s most profitable companies. These business moguls disapproved of President Roosevelt and were willing to sacrifice our fledgling democracy for sustained profits. Unfortunately for them, they did not count on the integrity of the man they chose to lead the military effort of the coupes, the then retired Marine General Smedley Butler. Butler went along with the plot long enough to finger and expose many of the conspirators before the Congress in 1934. Subsequent Congressional investigations corroborated his accusations, yet surprisingly no one was prosecuted.

A Second World War and the following Cold War also prompted us as a nation to trade freedom for security. We herded our own citizens into concentration camps simply because of their race and jailed and prosecuted American citizens simply because of their political party. Later we would endure a president who would resign in disgrace for being proven a liar and a criminal. Unfortunately, this list goes on.

The point is not that our nation has at times failed to live up to its ideals. It is that in each of these cases we, the American people, whether individually or collectively have stood up to our government to protect our freedoms. Now is no different. The threat of terrorism is a very real one. Yet, when compared to the threats and violence we have endured in the past it should not appear unbeatable. Nor should it merit the destruction of our civil rights and our American ideals. However, we are beginning to let it.

On Oct 17, with little media attention and even less scrutiny from our Congress, President George W. Bush played his part in our history of allowing our freedoms to be threatened by signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This law was designed to set clear guidelines for the interrogation of Terrorist suspects held by the United States Government. In the mind of Bush and others, we needed new laws that allowed for harsher interrogation and less restriction on civil and humanitarian rights than the Geneva Conventions and Uniform Code of Military Justice had previously allowed for. However, what most of us failed to recognize was that this law specifically allowed for the President of the United States to declare a citizen of the United States an “Unlawful Enemy Combatant.” This classification deprives a person of their constitutional rights and the most basic right of Habeus Corpus, which allows for an individual to only be incarcerated under a system of Due Process that affords them the ability to defend themselves. One might say that such a law is necessary to protect us from terrorism, but it would be very difficult for anyone to argue that such a law does not at least weaken our civil rights if not outright eliminate some of them.

The law states in Sec. 948 a

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

We stand now in perilous times. Although terrorism threatens us, so do our own laws as they try to protect us. No terrorist, no matter how successful, could ever destroy America because America is more than our wealth, our land or even our own lives. America is an idea, it is a belief that all men are created equal with inalienable rights, that government is subordinate to the people’s wishes and that nothing, no enemy force, no government and no threat should ever take these rights away. We cannot trade freedom for security and we cannot bow to our fear. By sacrificing our Constitutional freedoms we give terrorists a victory they could never hope for in their wildest dreams…we destroy America for them.

Our country is embroiled in a difficult war. A war we now know was undertaken for shaky if not deceptive reasons. Yet, knowing this, I would gladly put a uniform back on, return to Iraq, and if necessary, die. I would do this because I know that my sacrifice is not for the Bush Administration and its policies, nor is it for the American people, or the land we call home. I would die because I believe that my death would be in the name of the ideals this country was based on. I know also that Staff Sgt. Cawley’s death was not in vain. I know what he died for. We owe it to him and all the other men and women who died defending our freedom to respect them by respecting the freedom they gave us instead of trading it away for the illusion of temporary security.

As we go to the polls for this watershed election, I would humbly encourage my fellow Americans not to vote Republican or Democrat, pro-war or anti-war. I would beg you all to vote for any candidate who you know respects our American ideals and believes that nothing is more important than protecting this experiment we call democracy and the American ideals we call freedom.

Go Doc and Mike!

We just spoke with our brother Matt who is in Washington State this weekend campaigning for Congressman Doc Hasting and Senate hopeful Mike McGavick. Thus far the response from targeted voters has been positive and their turn-out-the-vote efforts successful.

We thank BYU and other College Republicans across the country for their efforts in battleground states from Washington to Michigan to Georgia and Missouri. Your work will help Republicans maintain control of the House and the Senate.


The latest poll numbers as reported by the Washington Post show Republicans gaining on Democrats in every category. Of course, the article is headlined by typical liberal spin that has nothing to do with the actual numbers.

You'd expect the story to be in the news that Republicans have picked up 8 points on Democrats nationwide or that President Bush's approval rating rose 3 points or that voters now equally trust Republicans as Democrats in Iraq. It's interesting to note that this same poll--the Washington Post-ABC News Poll--in 1994 (the year of the Republican takeover) showed dems up 47%-42%. We all know how that one turned out.

As any election maven will tell you, the important thing to look at is the trend, and right now the numbers are trending in favor of Republicans. We're still hoping Republicans hold the House and Senate, but we know that historically the President's party loses seats in off year elections. If this trend can simply stem what the liberal media has been trumpeting as a Democratic runaway, we'll be happy.

**Update: The latest poll numbers from the Pew Research Center show Democrats with a 47%-43% lead among likely voters. This supports the Republican gains reported earlier in the Washington Post-ABC News Poll and reinforces our assertion that the polls are trending Republican.


Sitting in London, thousands of miles away from the action, we've been jealous of the fun our brother and his friends have been having campaigning for Mike McGavick and Doc Hastings. After a little search of the RNC website we found this option that allows you to sign up and then call voters reminding them to vote, and vote Republican on Tuesday. Thanks to Skype we've called a couple dozen and will continue tomorrow.

Looking for a way to help the Republicans maintain control of Congress? Click here.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription-only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

The First Hint of Justice

After a long wait, Saddam was sentenced to hang for his crimes against humanity. The case was primarily built around the torture and execution of 148 men and boys in the town of Dujail in 1982.

This was by no means the only crime he committed nor was it his worst, it was simply the easiest case to build. When he hangs, the literally hundreds of thousands of people he caused to be killed, raped, and tortured will get some justice.

That justice began today when a court in the country he used to rule handed down a judgement based on legal court proceedings that never would have happened under his regime. This is one example of how far Iraq has come. There may be reprisals from Batthists and Sunni supporters, but justice for his crimes will send a clear message that the rule of law has begun to take hold in Iraq.

Beyond Iraq and Saddam, this will send a clear message to tyrants around the globe that they too will someday suffer the consequences of their actions. They should consider themselves warned.

We congratulate Iraqis on what is a major accomplishment. It would have been far easier to have simply taken Saddam out back, lined him up against a wall and have him shot--as he might have done. But in these trial proceedings and the inevitable appeals process we find the key difference between tyranny and democracy: the rule of law.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription-only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

A Little Vindication

We thought Friday's New York Times front page story about Saddam's nuclear program would stop liberals from spewing "Bush lied" rhetoric. A quick check of the Seattle PI message board proved us wrong. Nonetheless, the recent revelation showed that Saddam had a nuclear program and was as close as a year away from getting the bomb.

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

Last night, the government shut down the Web site after The New York Times asked about complaints from weapons experts and arms-control officials. . . .

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

Of course, now in hindsight, this wont be good enough. Unlike at the start of the war when some 80% supported invading Iraq this would have met the threshold of threat to America. Bush critics, who have watched too much 24 wouldn't be satisfied now unless we found some sort of WMD with a timer ticking close to zero.

For those who cared only about WMD--some vindication. But as we said, for us, this was only a little vindication. Our rationale for going to war included more than just WMD.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription-only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Priceless

Giving our readers what they want.

This article describes the condescending liberal hubris we've referred to before.

Regarding the claim that the war in Iraq creates more terrorists and puts us in danger--Charles Krauthammer (hat tip: SJL) and this post from a year ago.

This one's for you Raisin.


If you have questions, comments, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.

Another reason to vote Republican

Thanks

As we sit down to write this post, we can't help but be grateful for the liberals who read this blog. Their responses effectively highlight the difference between Republicans and Democrats--particularly regarding the War on Terror. They are either bored, think terrorism poses no threat, or speak condescendingly of our military--"why else would they fight if they weren't ignorant, dumb, or poor?"

We wholeheartedly reject this liberal mindset. Those who join the military are like everyone else. They evaluate their priorities and make a rational decision. If anything, what differentiates them from those who don't serve is a higher dose of patriotism. But that doesn't make them irrational. They elect to defend the country for the same reason some liberals live in trees--they truly believe in what they are doing.

We thank the men and women of the Armed Forces for their service to our country.


How about a Halloween scare?

Last week the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered their legislature to write legislation defining whether homsexual unions would be called marriages, unions, or whatever. At least they allowed the democratically elected representatives of the people of the state of New Jersey that much. They reserved for themselves the judicially activist position of mandating that the state officially recognize some sort of homosexual union.

We oppose judicial activism--legislating from the bench--in all its forms, and are opposed to homosexual marriage (we've written about it here, here, and here.) Congress exists to write legislation, the courts are to interpret (not broaden) the law--high school civics taught us that much. Unfortunately it has become the main venue for liberal activism largely because a majority of Americans don't agree with their positions and wont allow such liberal ideas to pass democratically. Rather than persuade, liberals file a lawsuit--the environment, abortion and same-sex marriage are all examples.

And we agree with the inevitable liberal chorus who will scream that this isn't the most important issue of this election, we won't, however, agree that it is not an issue at all. Thanks to the liberals on the New Jersey Supreme Court, this has become a current issue for those elements of the Republican party who care about marriage. Seriously, Republicans couldn't have asked for a better rallying cry than the one offered up by the activist New Jersey judges. William F. Buckley Jr. and Stanley Kurtz have both written good articles about this topic.

Off year elections always depend on turnout. Though most prognosticators predict a Democrat takeover of the House and maybe the Senate, all of the races are very close. So close, in fact, that an issue like same-sex marriage might be just enough to mobilize otherwise apathetic Evangelical Christians and tip the balance of the election in Republicans' favor.

We hoped conservatives would vote Republican because they were afraid that if elected, Democrats would appease terrorists from Baghdad to Pyonyang. If that's not enough of a motivator, perhaps the threat of homosexual marriage by judicial fiat is.

Why you should vote Republican

Whether anyone likes it or not, this election comes down to one question. Sure, a variety of issues are at play, but the one overriding theme is Iraq.

Make no mistake. If elected, Democrats will pull out of Iraq. They may try and play word games, calling for "redeployment" or "changes in strategy," but the net effect will be to leave Iraq.

Admittedly, things have not gone well in Iraq. We are sobered by the deaths of American soldiers. But do not kid yourselves, if we leave now, things will get worse.

Context. It's a wonderful word, but few people understand what it means. In the case of Iraq, historical context helps give us perspective and greater understanding of the struggle we face. Our experience in Japan and Germany after WWII teach us that establishing successfull, self-sustaining democracies is neither a short nor easy process. Those were never countries considered "ripe" for democracy. Conversely, we know what happens when the US pulls out before the job is finished. One need look no further than Vietnam, Somalia, and Lebanon for a cautionary tale.

These were fights the US did not have to lose. We had the military might, but the American public and its leaders lacked the will. As a direct result of that weakness of will, millions of people died and innocent people in Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam and neighboring Cambodia continue to pay the price.

We mourn the civilian casualties in Iraq, but if we lose, if we give up now or anytime before Iraq can defend and maintain itself, numbers that can now be figured with five digits will jump to six and then seven. We wont be lamenting 30,000 deaths, we'll be outraged at the hundreds of thousands and then millions.

If we leave, various terrorist states and rogue nations will be emboldened. Rather than the voluntary disarmament we saw in Libya after Iraq, we will see more Irans and North Koreas.

We support the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq for the same reasons we outlined just over a year ago: Iraq is the central battle in the war on terror. This is not a war in the traditional sense, in which nation-states engage in set piece battles governed by the Geneva Convention. This is a war with a trans-national ideology--a war that does not recognize borders and boundaries. Worse still, it is a war in which our opponent places no value on human life. They will kill man, woman, and child and they will not negotiate. If we leave Iraq, it wont end our fight with the jihadists, it will simply force us to wage battle on a ground not of our choosing. We fear that ground will be US soil.

In our hierarchy of political priorities, we place the most value on a candidate's position on Iraq. When we fill out our absentee ballot thousands of miles from our home district in Washington, we will ask ourselves one question: does this candidate want to fight the jihadists in the homeland or in Iraq?

College Roundup

In the last year we've called out students at several institutions of higher learning. BYUSA, --the student government association at BYU with soviet-style elections--felt our wrath in this piece and later in this follow up. We also rang up our friends at the University of Washington for their misguided anti-war protest. Rounding out our history of college critique was a vague mention of the Berkeley's role in giving "academic" credence to attacks on Wal-Mart and a hilarious poem by a Berkeley grad student dedicated to Hezbollah.

Call this, credit where credit is due.

In a recent article about the growth of conservative groups at universities nationwide, The Wall Street Journal covered (subscription required) some of the unique ways College Republicans are striking back at demonstration-happy leftist student groups. Among their more successful stunts, an anti-anti war rally (well attended), an affirmative action bake sale (one price for whites, cheaper for african Americans, even cheaper for latin Americans), and finally a hot dog giveaway, protesting PETA. It seems the College Repulicans now boast more members than the College Democrats. This is due, in part, to a splintering of leftist groups into various anti-globalization, anti-war, pro-choice and on and on, ad nauseum, and well, you get the idea. We're glad to see they are mirroring the grown-up members of their party.

In not-so-recent news, two thumbs down to Columbia students. This other bastion of really really left leaning students recently protested a Minuteman delegation who had been invited on campus to discuss immigration issues. Maybe "protested" isn't a adequate adjective. Calling the Minutemen's views "hate speech," the Columbia student mob used violence and the threat of violence to force the Minutemen from the stage. Bravo, ignorant Columbia students.

It seems "hate speech" consists of anything with which Columbia students don't agree.

Finally, kudos to BYU students. In the next couple of weeks, hundreds of BYU students will travel to battleground states across the country to campaign for congressional candidates. We wish them a safe and productive trip. And may they campaign especially hard for Mike McGavick in our home state of Washington.

Historical Ramifications

Writing about Wal-Mart in Wednesday's post we addressed, almost as an afterthought, the impact of negative views of business in popular history. It wasn't the first time we'd written about Wal-Mart, but it was the first time we'd made the connection between antagonistic business history and its impact on the national agenda.

High school students and college students take few, if any, American history courses. The ones they do take are necessarily limited to surveying huge amounts of history. Compounding this is the beaten-to-death issue of students' general disinterest in history. If they are awake, they usually only capture the bold headlines--of which robber barons is one of the boldest and most oft-repeated. Students can't help but believe that if their history teachers says it so often, it must be true.

We recommend, therefore, Forrest McDonald's Recovering the Past. This superb memoir cum historiographical critique challenges accepted notions of history that have been put forth by a mostly liberal history professoriate.

The one advantage historians have on a liberal press that peddles the same anti-business slant, is that they are somewhat more self-conscious. The onset of post-modern theory has brought a certain awareness to the presence of bias--conscious and subconscious--in everything. Most historians, even the liberal ones, make some attempt at impartiality while realizing that true objectivity is impossible. Mainstream media is almost completely unaware of even the possibility of a bias. They live in an insular world where 70% of their ranks voted for John Kerry in the last Presidential election. To them, that's not bias, that's just the way the world is.

It isn't the conscious bias that harms the telling of "just the facts please, ma'am" news, but the unconscious bias. This unconscious bias is fed in this case by the anti-business entente of leftist- marxist-influenced historians who set the stage, Democrats angling for union support in upcoming elections (especially Presidential), and a press eager to follow in the footsteps of their forbears the muckrakers. Only with Wal-Mart, there isn't any muck to rake.

Isolationists and protectionists, ignorant of even the most basic economic principles (they slept through econ as well as American history) love to hate businesses that aren't mom and pop. They ignore abundant economic data showing the positive effects of capitalism, free trade and Wal-Mart's low prices. They see Tom's Hardware shut down on mainstreet with his three employees and overlook the hundreds employed by Wal-Mart with hundreds more clamoring for those jobs (see recent Wal-Mart in Chicago). But wait a minute, did Tom's go out of business because employee healthcare costs made it so they couldn't compete with Wal-Mart? Oh that's right, they pay their employees minimum wage too. Truth is, the average Wal-Mart employee makes $10 per hour.

As for healthcare, Wal-Mart has no responsibility to provide it. We understand where universal health care advocates are coming from--and it's not Great Britain. Over here there is constant debate and discussion regarding how in the world to reduce queues (Brit-speak for lines) for health services from ridiculous numbers like 40,000 down to more manageable numbers in the next 10 years. Just because they're called entitlements doesn't mean one ought to be entitled to them. Socialized medicine is inefficient and ineffective. In America we have Medicare for seniors, Medicaid for the poor, and Health Savings Accounts for everyone else. As we wrote in this article a few months ago, company managed health care contributes to, not helps, the problem of rising health care costs.

Apologies. This ended up being much longer than we intended.

Summary: anti-business history has tainted Americans' view of business and capitalism as a whole. Democrats pander to unions whose very existence is threatened by innovative, competitive businesses like Wal-Mart. A mostly liberal press parrots the company line. And otherwise intelligent Americans ignore the relevant economic data and irrationally lash out at Wal-Mart.

Got it?

Wal-Mart-O

It's a testament to our (speaking for the collective American people, rather than the collective here at OL&L) love of bandwagons that Wal-Mart bashing has spilled over even into such popular web networking sites as Facebook. Facebook's new option allowing for members to virtually support candidates and issues has taken this darling of a Democratic (big D) issue to the screens of student's computers. We love the angst filled "notes" (for entertainment purposes) populated with anti-Bush diatribes literally (click if you have a facebook account) parroted from Keith Olbermann, as much as the next guy. We do wish, however, he would have stuck with sports. Politics, it goes without saying, is not his forte.

This mixing of sports and politics is getting as bad as Hollywood and politics. It used to be that we could sit down and read our favorite sports blog without getting an earful about how much things suck in Iraq. Seriously. You'd think the Tuesday Morning Quarterback would stick to Tuesday's, mornings and for the love of football--quarterbacks. But he's not alone, everyone from Dr. Z to our favorite columnists at the Seattle PI and Times feel duty bound to weigh in on the evils of the Bush regime (right up there with Hitler and Stalin, or didn't you know?). If it doesn't say "Sports - Politics - Pop Culture - History - Literature" across the top of their blog or article, then they should stay away from anything that isn't exclusively sports. We read the sports page to escape politics. Heaven help us when we start doing it the other way around.

And of course they are all critical of Wal-Mart. Even Gregg Easterbrook, the aforementioned Tuesday Morning Quarterback got in a little jibe at Wal-Mart in one of his recent articles. This coming from a guy who prides himself on challenging the accepted wisdom, who writes off-the-wall articles that make sense because he backs them up with statistics and evidence. What evidence did he cite in abusing Wal-Mart? None.

Today, The Wall Street Journal outed the group responsible for most of the anti-Wal-Mart slander--unions. It really shouldn't come as a surprise. Wal-Mart is threatening the domain of a group that has become an ancient fixture in American politics. But like some other things ancient, unions deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs. As The Wall Street Journal explains, the two major and supposedly grass root, citizen led groups are actually born of an unholy affair between two major unions and are almost wholly funded by them. And their major source of "academic" material to support outlandish claims of economic damage by Wal-Mart? Why, a couple of unbiased bastions of academic ethics itself--the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) and the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center. For their efforts they received at least $100,000 and $43,550 respectively from the involved unions.

We're sure there was no cooking of the books in these studies.

The truth, ma'am, is that as a study from Global Insight shows, Wal-Mart "saves American households an average of $2,300 a year through lower prices, or a $263 billion reduction in the cost of living. That compares with $33 billion savings for low-income families from the federal food stamp program."

So much for taking advantage of America's poor.

Bashing Wal-Mart is becoming as American as apple pie. But it shouldn't be. In addition to Democrats, unions, and Berkeley, we have some historians to blame. Their treatment of business throughout history has been less than favorable. For years, marxist influenced historians have been peddling stories about the "robber barons" of the early 20th Century who took advantage of Americans. These stories have filtered down to nearly every history textbook in every high school across America and are as accepted as the widely accepted notion that people thought the earth was flat when Columbus sailed (they didn't).

The implication is that historians, in taking an anti-business position on history, have contributed to anti-business sentiment in America. Popular memory tells us that business has always taken advantage of Americans and Wal-Mart is just the latest iteration of those 20th C robber barons. Of course, popular memory also tells us that America won the War of 1812. My British professors are quick to squash that misconception.

If they are leftists, who don't like capitalism, and write history, is it possible they might have an anti-business bent to their writing?

We are unapologetically pro-business and generally pro-Wal-Mart. When we visit Mexico with our family, and crave good old American foods like Peanut M&M's, we have no problem asking the locals for directions to "Wal-Mart-O," where we know we'll get good quality at a good price.

We'll Be Back

On the 4th of October 2005, we posted our first bit of writing here at On Life and Lybberty. We regret not celebrating our 1st Anniversary, but even more than that, we regret the dearth of posts over the last month and a half.

Fear not, faithful readers (we know some of you still check the blog, statcounter.com tells us so). Now that we've settled into our grad program here in London, we'll soon return.

Stay tuned.

A Friendly Reminder

While we appreciate debate that takes place in the comments section of this blog, we repeat our request that you please keep your comments clean. Though we will never censor comments based on their ideology or belief, we maintain the right to delete those that are offensive.

Please guys, don't make this a game of seeing who can get to the gutter first. Keep it clean.

Saving Lieberman

We awoke this morning, like the rest of you, to news of a terrorist plot that had been stopped by the British with help from US and Pakistani intelligence services. Considering that we return to the states (from Cambridge via London) in just over two weeks, we are somewhat relieved. The Patriot Act, greater collaboration with foreign intelligence services (in this case, Pakistan)--especially the British, and increased attention to our own, averted what could have been a replay of 9/11.

Responses have been typical--if not predictable--from some Democrats and Angry Left bloggers. Democrats have long been the party of minorities, environmentalists, pro-choice advocates, the working class. Since when did it become the party of conspiracy theorists (Michael Moore, etc.)? They march out the tired trope that the threat of terror will help Republicans in the coming election. Ignoring the obvious whacked out conspiracy theory that this threat was somehow "contrived" by Karl Rove and his merry band of spinmeisters, don't they think that maybe, just maybe, the reason they are afraid this will help Republicans is because their party remains "weak" on fighting terror?

Democrat supporters will respond that the idea that they are "weak" on terror is simply a perception and not reality. If it were simply a perception the Angry Left wouldn't have voted for the fool, Ned Lamont, rather than Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has proven himself to be a vocal supporter of the War on Terror, Israel, and the U.S. position in Iraq. Liberal readers of this blog will repeat (time and again, they will repeat) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. Saddam had no direct involvement with 9/11. Few people would have ever made that argument to begin with. Bush certainly didn't. This is simply liberals favorite straw man to burn when complaining about the war. The consensus is--even among most liberal dems--that if we don't finish the job in Iraq, it will turn into post-Soviet Afghanistan. And that's the real worry. That, our friends is the true concern. Not that Iraq will turn into Vietnam.

Despite the wish of a press that came of age following Vietnam and Watergate, Iraq is not Vietnam and Bush is not Nixon. In the Cold War we were fighting a nation-state--the Soviet Union. Our war today is not with any specific country, but with a transnational ideology--what President Bush today referred to today as Islamic fascists. Borders, treaties, diplomacy, the Geneva Convention, the UN--none of these things mean anything to these Muslim radicals. They hate the West (America included) and will ally themselves with whoever or whatever will provide them the means to attack their target. This much is evidenced by Afghan history over the last 20+ years. Sunnis will unite with Shiites will unite with secular terrorists will unite even with the US in order to defeat a common enemy.

Whether you agree with the reasons we (collectively speaking) are in Iraq or not (and we know many of you did--at least, you did when an overwhelming percentage of Congress voted for war, and some 80% of Americans were in favor of the same, according to opinion polls), you must realize that to pull out now would be disastrous. It would result in a few things of which we can be absolutely sure. First, civil war will engulf Iraq. Besides the obvious negatives for the people of Iraq, such an event would create in Iraq a sort of safe-haven for terrorists, a la Afghanistan pre- and during the reign of the Taliban. Call that reason self interest and a philanthropic long view for our emerging allies, the Iraqis. Secondly, and equally as important, it would send the message that we will back down each and every time the going gets tough. It will tell the islamofascists that all they have to do is outwait us (think Lebanon with President Reagan and Somalia with President Clinton). Whatever else Iraq did, it gave teeth to our War on Terror and sent a message to terrorists and terror sponsoring states. Pulling out anytime before the job is done would tell Iran, Syria, and North Korea (are we forgetting anyone?), that we don't really mean what we say. For the carrot and (big) stick diplomacy to work, they must believe that you will actually use the stick.

All of this makes Lieberman's loss to Lamont all the more incomprehensible. The Angry Left and Democrats generally, send the message that not only are they not tough on terror, they are ignorant of the possible ramifications of an early pull-out. So Lieberman supports Israel, so what? So do most Americans. Most Americans recognize the difference between Israel attacking Hezbollah and civilians dying because Hezbollah uses them as shields, and the out and out disregard for human life--civilian or otherwise--Hezbollah shows by shooting rockets into Israeli cities.

Senator Lieberman understands what's at stake in Iraq and the War on Terror. Like most Americans, he may not now like that we are even in Iraq, but he understands what will happen if we cut and run. But we don't mistake his loss for a popular grassroots groundswell of support for immediate withdrawal. And neither should you. As we learned way back in our high school politics class, the only people who vote in primary elections are the extreme fringes of both parties. That a liberal state like Connecticut was able to produce enough people from the Angry Left to vote in Ned "the fool" Lamont shouldn't surpise anybody. It is telling, however, that a state as liberal as Connecticut, could barely scrape up enough left-wingnuts, completely ignorant of reality, to elect someone whose only semi-coherent position seems to be immediate troop retreat from Iraq.

This fringe position attracted a scant majority of people in a primary election in one of the most liberal states in the Union. At best, this news is no news. No news because come November, when closer to 50% of the electorate turns out rather than a mere 10%, Senator Lieberman, running as an Independent, will win going away. And if he doesn't, Democrats will deserve to be labeled "weak on terror," because they will have turned out one of their toughest, Senator Joe Lieberman.

Robbie Tobeck-Matt Hasselbeck: Funniest 1-2 Punch in the NFL

Of course, that doesn't count Bill Simmons Unintentional Comedy Rating (subscription required).

On a side note, we're looking for a good, catchy name for these Tobeck-Hasselbeck features. With the onset of the NFL season, we've no doubt we'll see more humor from these two. Any suggestions?

We've written in the past about the verbal jousting that goes on primarily between Seattle Seahawks Pro-Bowl Center, Robbie Tobeck and Seattle Seahawks Pro-Bowl Quarterback, Matt Hasselbeck. This one and this one were written in the run-up to last years Super Bowl. Upon review, we still laugh at our own jokes--David Letterman style--six months after writing them.

In the credit where credit is due department, we take our collective hat off to Tacoma News-Tribune blogger/reporter extraordinaire, Mike Sando. We read everything we can about the Seahawks and this guy (Sando), is the authority.

The latest comedic chapter--a piece about mistaken identities--includes these great quotes from Robbie Tobeck and Matt Hasselbeck.

Asked about fan confusion, Robbie Tobeck noted:

“Just the other day some guy says, ‘You’re Grant Wistrom, right?’ ” center Robbie Tobeck said. “And some other guy goes, ‘No, that’s not Wistrom. That’s Steve Hutchinson.’

“It’s funny because the women always seem to know exactly who I am.”

Click here and judge for yourselves if Tobeck is the lady-killer he claims.

Of course, asked which Seahawks personnel he thinks would be easily confused, Matt Hasselbeck takes a jab at Tobeck.

“Gilby and Tobeck,” quarterback Matt Hasselbeck quipped, comparing his center to 58-year-old assistant coach Keith Gilbertson.

The discerning fan knows Gilbertson is the one who has already undergone hip-replacement surgery. Less-educated fans couldn’t tell Mike Holmgren from Blitz, the team mascot.

Considering that Tobeck is one of the oldest players on the team, Hasselbeck's gibe is spot on. Though an injury (hip or otherwise) to Tobeck could prove disastrous for the Seahawks season. Tobeck's response to Hasselbeck is easy. The Seahawks center may be the grandpa of the team, but he still has more hair than Hasselbeck.

Israel vs. Hezbollah

After a long delay, something.

This post is an extension of our debate with several students here at Cambridge. We've been surprised by how many express anti-Israel sentiment. Considering that many attend school at Cal (Berkeley), it really shouldn't come as a surprise. Especially when we read of things like this (Hat tip: James Taranto & BOTW):
__________
One Cecilia Lucas, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, has penned a "love poem for Hizbullah." We kid you not. Here's a sample:

You were born out of death to a life in a cage
Where bombs are not the only reason people die
Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness
Raised by colonialism
Your heart and your will still grew strong

You scare me
Not just because they tell me to be scared
Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat
The story of 1983
Begging me to understand
Americans are worth more than Lebanese

We suppose a certain romanticization of nihilistic political violence is a common enough form of adolescent rebellion, though one suspects young Miss Lucas is getting egged on by her professors, many of whom no doubt are liberal baby boomers who never outgrew their own adolescence.

Ah well, the best way to respond to this sort of thing is with mockery, as blogger "Iowahawk," writing under the nom de plume "Omar Walid Muhammed, Chairman, Hezbollah Poetry Club," devastatingly does, in a poem called "I Love You Too, Cecilia Lucas":

You were born in the Valley to a life in a suburban cage
Encino, where mean girls and cheerleaders
Drop bombs of hate on the unpopular girls
Shy poetry club chicks like you
With 1480 SATs and early admission to Berkeley
Fed by the violence and lookism of the dance squad
Raised in a four bedroom colonial
They wouldn't let you wear your Che T-shirt to prom
But your heart and your armpit hair still grew proud and strong

You scare me too
Not just because you have that Code Pink Manson girl freak-vibe
Not just because you repeat, repeat, repeat
All those quotes from your dog-eared volumes of
Chomsky
and Zinn
and Edward Said
Begging me to understand
Can't we just hold each other
Instead of talking, talking, talking
About your Masters thesis?

__________
If that doesn't have you rolling on the ground laughing, well, you might be a leftist student at Berkeley.

While reading Friday's Best of the Web (subscription required) we came across one piece that does a great job highlighting the difference between Israel and Hezbollah.

This was written by Naomi Ragan, a novelist whose son is an Israeli soldier. Click to read the full transcript.

My son spoke to his friend yesterday, and this is how he described it: "The village looked empty, and then we heard noises coming from one of the houses, so we opened fire. But when we went inside, we found two women and a child huddled in the corner of the room. We were so relieved we hadn't hurt them. We took up base in one of the empty houses. And then all of a sudden, we came under intense fire. Three rockets were fired at the house we were in. Only one managed to destroy a wall, which fell on one of us, covering him in white dust, but otherwise not hurting him.

"I spent the whole time feeding bullets to my friend who was shooting nonstop. We managed to kill 26 terrorists. Not one of us was hurt. Our commanding officer kept walking around, touching everybody on the shoulder, smiling and encouraging us: 'We're are better than they are. Don't worry.' It calmed us all down. And really, we were much better than them. They are a lousy army. They only win when they hide behind baby carriages."

Further illustrating (literally) the difference between the two are political cartoons found here and here.

While liberal elites and the Democratic party leadership (oxymoron?) continue to give credence to Hezbollah and Hamas, we will continue to wonder, wonder, wonder, why they get so much support from Jewish Americans.

This Week on the Web

Though still unsure as to the exact form this feature will take, we offer here some of our favorite articles and features from the last week or so on the web. Eventually we hope it will break into different topics/posts addressing each one of the subtitular interests identified.

Travel Guide - Don't Leave Home Without It
(Hat tip: Matt Lybbert)
Ever wonder what goes into writing those travel guides you use as you backpack across Europe? Our trip to Costa Rica made us wonder if the guides were truly researched or simply glorified ads with space given to the hotels, restaurants and excursions that paid the most to the guide writers. This article in the NYT answers those questions and provides a very interesting read. Note also the link to the blog authored by a prominent travel guide writer/editor called "Killing Batteries."

Malcolm Gladwell and Ron Popeil
Author of "Blink" and "The Tipping Point" writes about a man Dennis Miller calls the "king BSer emeritus."

"I'll Take Alta And Give You The Bird"
This article discusses upcoming plans to expand Snowbird in Utah's Little Cottonwood Canyon. Also, Alta recently released their season pass prices (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) for the upcoming season.

Man vs. Rainier
Great article about a guy who recently trained for and climbed Mt. Rainier. Mt. Rainier is a great mountain not just because it is in Washington State, but also because its many routes make it a good climb for climbers of different skill levels. Our favorite view of Rainier is from Safeco Field, home of the Mariners, on a clear day.

Personality Profiling
We're told that Boston Celtics GM/President Danny Ainge uses this process to evaluate personnel decisions. Specifically, because Antoine Walker's personlity profile didn't match up, he was traded. We wonder what changed to cause Ainge to bring him back.

Pando
Frustrated by the attachment limits of your email service? Pando (hat tip: Matt Lybbert) allows you to send and receive files of any size, though as it is still in Beta stages, there is a limit of 1 gig. For a review of Pando, read from our favorite, the Wall Street Journal's own, Walt Mossberg (subscription required).

Skype
Right up there with low-rise jeans for girls, this internet invention should be an internet revolution. Features allow you to do more than just place computer to computer calls--and all for around $0.02 per minute. Now you can call cell and land-lines and receive calls from the same. Voicemail means that international travelers don't need to worry about the hassle of cell phones overseas--especially if you are unfortunate enough to be a Verizon customer.

Madden 07
It's our favorite game and the latest iteration will be released in the next month. Featured on the cover of the game is Seattle Seahawk's record breaking RB, Shaun Alexander. Don't worry about the Madden Curse, this guy doesn't believe in superstition. Which is why the New York Times has called him: Shaun Alexander - 'Cerebral Gamer/Player'.

Best Roster Ever!
(includes lots of Seahawks of course)
We were first tipped off to this by Mike Sando, Seahawks blogger for the Tacoma News-Tribune. We forgot about it and then our friend and sometime contributor to this blog, Morgan Habedank, sent us another link. It's especially appealing to die-hard fans who are convinced that the GM of their beloved team is a complete idiot--like the Seattle Sonics' Wally Walker (admittedly not an NFL GM).

The Real 007

This morning we attended a lecture given by Sir Richard Dearlove, current Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge and former head of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). His lecture was free flowing and anecdotal, but several interesting points stood out.

On the intelligence community in general, he said that "it [intelligence services] change to fit the enemy." He applied this specifically to the British and American experience with KGB infiltration during the Cold War. They feared that double agents would gain access to high level information and convey it to their operators in Moscow. He further explained that this fear caused the SIS and the CIA to compartmentalize themselves. That is to say, they established "need to know" protocol that kept secrets separate. In this way, the body (our metaphor, not his) did not consist of legs, arms, hands, and feet with a single head, but that they often operated independently and without access to information held by the other departments.

He believes that it was this "compartmentalization" that stopped the SIS and CIA from discovering 9/11 before it happened. We wonder if he would also blame the same cause for their (the CIA and SIS) collective failure to predict the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of radical islamic terrorism, or the post-war insurgency.

Regarding the war in Iraq, he failed to understand why the public and media were so intent on casting the blame on the governments and intelligence services of Britain and the US. He argued, quite persuasively, that the Iraqi regime had every opportunity to avoid conflict and yet did nothing. Thus, in his view, the bulk of the blame for the Iraqi war lay with Saddam and Co.

When asked about intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq and the failure to find WMD (at least until a couple of weeks ago, subscription required) he referred to the findings of the Iraqi Survey Group, commonly known as the Duelfer Report. Though they failed to find WMD, the report contains evidence of an expansive WMD program. Furthermore, Mr. Dearlove pointed out that Iraq is a large country and he also noted its proximity to Syria and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. Sattelite photos showed abnormal amounts of traffic out of Iraq and into these regions in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Dearlove believes this increased traffic was WMD in transport.

He insists that debate about pre-war intelligence is still open, despite the desire of politicians to end it. Mr. Dearlove seems to agree with the opinion of Senators Hoekstra and Santorum (cited above) that one of the reasons we don't know about the true findings of the ISG and other reports which show evidence of WMD is because it does not fit what he calls the "orthodoxy of the press." In other words, it doesn't fit the 'approved theme' of mainstream media that "bush lied, people died."

On one point, Mr. Dearlove affirmed, "there can be no equivocation." The intelligence was not a lie. "In fact," he said, "every member of the Iraqi regime believed that they had WMD." His statements would seem to agree with our series on pre-war intelligence (Part I, II, III, IV, V, Conclusion) and like us, disagree with Joe Wilson's assertion that the Bush administration pressured the CIA to produce intel that fit their agenda. In what seemed like a desire to exculpate the CIA and SIS, he suggested that there was "no failing in the intelligence, just a failure in how it was used." Of course, that's a policy decision best left to elected officials.

Cambridge and the DB13 Review

Apologies to you, dear reader and especially Morgan Habedank, once again, for the long delay between posts. Picking up and moving to Cambridge for a summer of study kept us from from making our regular posts--to say nothing of the jet-lag.

For your reading pleasure, another review by our well-reviewed guest contributor, Mr. Habedank.

District B-13 Review

The public has spoken regarding Cars. After a solid opening weekend at the box office, attendance fell by 44% even though release was expanded to three additional theaters. A drop of over 40% has historically indicated that a film does not have “legs.” It appears that Cars will ultimately gross roughly the same as the much less heralded and hyped Over the Hedge which was released by DreamWorks Animation a few weeks prior to Cars. This is especially troubling for Pixar due to the huge marketing spend in comparison to that of DreamWorks. Hopefully it will exceed expectations on DVD to make up for not meeting box office expectations.

Last weekend I ventured to the Arc Light in Hollywood to watch District B-13. As a side note, while walking to the theater after purchasing my Cherry Coke I bumped into Bill Maher who was quite affable. We exchanged pleasantries and continued to our respective shows. Now back to the topic at hand.

District B-13 was recommended to me by two of my friends. Their recommendation can best be summed up with the following quote: “Dude, it is the best action movie I have seen in years!” Usually when I hear things like this I dismiss them with out much thought and carry on with my life. Especially when such statements are related to French indie films (District B-13 is distributed by Magnolia). However, both friends were so animated I decided to give it a chance. And let me tell you, I was not disappointed. District B-13 was hands down the best action movie I have seen in years. It may even be the best movie I have seen this year. The action sequences were phenomenal. The stunts were actually performed by the actors themselves who were cast largely for their proficiency in the underground sport of “parkour.” The action sequences coupled with a pounding original techno score and masterful editing combined to keep me literally on the edge of my seat from start to finish.

What truly made this film excellent in my opinion though was the writing. The script was simple and straight forward. There were no holes and no ridiculous “metaphors” were used to bludgeon the viewer with the writer/director’s political opinions. District B-13 is the anti- V for Vendetta. The most refreshing part of the script was the treatment of the two “heroes.” Breaking from the traditional Hollywood anti-hero who is tragically flawed in some way, the heroes were actual heroes who did what they did for the sole reason of wanting to better the world for those around them. Leito fights the drug dealers because he wishes to help his neighbors. Nothing more and nothing less. Damien is a police officer for the sole reason of believing in the law and the ideal that the law espouses. Leito and Damien truly are heroes worthy of the title.

District B-13 is only in limited release. Catch it at your local Cineplex or art-house theatre if you can. Catch it on Netflix in a few months if you must. Either way, you will not be disappointed. District B-13 will capture you both visually and emotionally and leave you breathless and ready to save the world.

PS. Stay for the credits even though they are in French. The song they play is awesome