Politics: February 2004 Archives

If only Haiti had oil, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide would have enjoyed the support of the international Left. After all, there is no practical reason America should care about that country, except the prospect of Haitian refugees flooding into Florida.

By contrast, the Left's reaction to the Iraq war was nothing short of hysterical: to them, it was, is, and ever shall be about oil, and oil alone. The U.S. imports oil, some of that oil is from the Middle East, and therefore there can be no honorable reason for military action anywhere in the region. The idea that there were legitimate security and humanitarian reasons is irrelevant. But invading the poorest country in the hemisphere to stabilize the government? That's perfectly fine.

For the Left, America is only virtuous if it acts when it has absolutely nothing at stake. For too many people on the Right, the U.S. should never act militarily unless vital national interests are at stake.

I disagree with both groups. Generally, we should be reluctant to take action unless some entity threatens our security, but we have a duty -- a God-given duty, in my view -- to intervene in certain dire circumstances. Anarchy, genocide, and mass starvation are three of those circumstances, and Haiti was headed for the first of them. We aren't, and shouldn't be, the world's policeman, but we are the strongest country on Earth and that strength should benefit humanity at large.

UPDATE: It's official! The Democrats say that not only do we not need a U.N. mandate to deploy combat troops, it's George Bush's fault for not acting pre-emptively to stop Haitians from hurting each other! Nevermind that the "international community" has been pressuring Aristide for the last four years, including depriving that country of aid money.

For the future, here's what you need to remember:

1. Bush goes against the consensus of the "international community" and France: BAD BAD BAD.

2. Bush pursues a policy reflecting the consensus of the "international community" and France: BAD BAD BAD. Even when it's a policy carried over from your predecessor.

The Left is not a serious moral force in the world any more. What's more, increasingly you can't even argue with them because they aren't operating rationally.

Public officials should work for the public good, the Church says. It is the primary duty of the state to safeguard a well-ordered peace, and to repel threats against that tranquility, whether those threats arise from within or without. That duty, not confiscating and redistributing wealth, is the first function a state must provide.

In my judgment, Senator John Kerry does not have the qualities necessary to hold the office of the president. If he were elected, he would be entrusted with the solemn duty of defending the nation against foreign threats (the states are the main bulwark against domestic offenders.) His record in the Senate shows that he lacks prudence, and would be unwilling to risk his own political career to assure the safety of America.

Hyperbole, you say? I thought so, too, until I saw this. It's a list of defense projects that Kerry wanted to cancel 20 years ago. If he had his way, he would have ripped most of the vertebrae out of the military's backbone. Tomahawks, F-14s, F-15s, Apache gunships, Patriot anti-missile defense batteries -- in short, major components of the American forces that are feared by our enemies -- would have been cancelled by the senator.

(Speaking of backbone, I note that he did not propose reducing the number of ships the Navy wanted to build, which are much more expensive than dinky little airplane projects. Could the reason be that the Navy spent billions in Massachusetts shipyards during the 1980s? Principle often takes a backseat to protecting local industries, as when Joe Lieberman campaigns for stricter gun control while standing up for Colt Firearms.)

"We are continuing a defense buildup," Kerry wrote, "that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't use." While our regiment was fighting in Nasiriyah, and we heard the "needless" Harriers flying close air support missions to destroy the people trying to kill us, it sure sounded necessary to us. But then, none of us had been in Vietnam, which according to the senator makes you an expert on the necessity of weapons systems. Even questioning whether we should have shelved advanced air-to-air weapons systems -- which ensured our pilots' success over Iraq in two wars -- is apparently "questioning his patriotism."

Voting against a military program does not mean you're against the military, nor does it mean you're imprudent when it comes to national defense. One item on Kerry’s list, the rehabilitation of WWII-era battleships, was expensive and unnecessary, just as he said. The Pentagon budget is often used for pork barrel spending. Some weapons systems, such as the ludicrously heavy and unwieldy Crusader howitzer, result from a military service's ideology instead of a keen appreciation for real-world defense needs.

However, when you explicitly criticize the Reagan military buildup as "wasteful," "useless," and "dangerous," and imply that the world is more dangerous because America was better able to confront the most murderous regime in human history -- a government that manufactured over 20,000 nuclear warheads to obliterate Western democracies -- you deserve to have your judgment questioned.

Kerry doesn't deserve special criticism: all of the leading Democrats said the same things. In 1984, he was campaigning in the state that sent the corpulent (but amusing) Tip O'Neill to the House and lady-killer (pun intended) Ted Kennedy to the Senate. Events showed that they were all fools, at least in these matters. The former heads of the Soviet Union confirmed that it was the Reagan buildup that bankrupted their evil empire, giving that doomed system one of its deathblows. (The other proximate cause was the Holy Father.)

If John Kerry and his cohorts had his way, there would still be a Soviet Union disturbing the peace and repressing peoples around the world. To use one of Bill Clinton's smarmy phrases, nuclear missiles would still be "pointed at America's children." The American military would still be using the technologies of the 1960s.

On policy as well as procurement, Kerry was a reliable voice against any robust measures against American enemies. From Grenada to Nicaragua to Iraq, and whenever America tried to help communism's victims, Kerry boldly excused the actions of the oppressors.

Senator Kerry served his country with honor in Vietnam. I will leave it to Vietnam veterans to deal with his later treachery against them. John Kerry's entire career in the Senate demonstrates that he cannot choose the proper tools for the military, and that he is incapable of identifying real threats against the United States and acting against them. His presidency would not likely produce a just and lasting peace; indeed his presence in the White House would invite murderous mayhem, as he has promised a tepid, "internationalist" response to any future threats. For those reasons, Kerry ought to be rejected on military terms alone.

COMING SOON — Why nobody should vote for Kerry: the Catholic explanation

Today is the first day of the rest of your life.

I'm posting this link to a story on National Review Online for all you nut-jobs clogging up the comments box in a previous post. I was going to summarize the article, but you should read it if you question whether President Bush served the nation honorably in the Air National Guard. Suffice it to say that people do recall him serving during the time in question, and that he was a very good pilot.

Meanwhile, on to topics that have more relevance to matters of faith.

'Tis the season indeed, John. No doubt Kerry the patriot-turned-gold-digger will hammer GW on Iraq. I have believed the US and its allies were in the right to invade Iraq. VDH has a great piece on NRO that puts it in a proper moral and historical context. Here's a snippet. Click the link above to read the entire article in all its majesty.

If the United States went to war with Iraq only because of the threat of WMDs; if the mass murdering of Saddam Hussein was found on examination to be highly exaggerated; if we had some secret plan for stealing the oil of Iraq, if Saddam Hussein posed no future threat to the United States or its allies; if the war resulted in a worse future for Iraq, the United States, and the surrounding Middle East; and if the administration deliberately constructed false intelligence evidence to advance such an unnecessary war that resulted in misery rather than hope, then an apology is needed now. But so far, that has simply not been the case.

The real outrage is instead that at a time of one of most important developments of the last half-century, when this country is waging a war to the death against radical Islamic fascism and attempting to bring democracy to an autocratic wasteland, we hear instead daily about some mythical rogue CIA agent who supposedly faked evidence, Martha Stewart's courtroom shoes, Michael Jackson's purported perversion, and Scott Peterson's most recent alibi. Amazing.

John, Eric, Alex, Bryan, maybe even Steve -- since I presume you're all Virginia voters, and since there is no registration of party preference in the Commonwealth, a story on WTOP radio tells me you're all eligible and welcome to vote for your favorite Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency on February 10. Have you decided for whom you plan to vote?

Bill Logan, a sensible fellow, basically says that judges are supposed to make up laws when they see fit. I'll quote him at length and then refute him -- twice!

1. Eric wrote when a judge ceases to rule on points of law and begins to be a law-giver, he has overstepped his authority. I suspect that this is a fairly-widely held sentiment; my problem with it is that it is just so wrong. Judges have always made law. The common law is nothing more than judge-made law. How exactly would you differentiate "ruling on points of law" and "being a law-giver"? Is there any substantive difference other than that the former are actions you approve of and the latter are actions you don't?

I think you're confusing a "law," as in statute, with "law," as in jurisprudence. Surely you aren't saying that a law enacted by a legislature is equivalent to a legal precedent? Or that legislatures cannot pass laws that contradict and supersede legal precedents?

Is your tongue in your cheek here? I hope it is, because I would think that the distinction between interpretation and legislation is so clear that it scarcely requires explanation. Christ commanded us to "love our neighbor." If we interpret that to mean we must shelter our neighbor when his house burns down, are we writing a new commandment? No, it's an interpretation that naturally flows from the rule.

2. As for the talk of tyranny, give me a break. If this is tyranny, what does that make Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il? Are tyrants just people you disagree with, or is there any real meaning to the term?

Pace Voltaire, let's start with defining our term. Merriam-Webster defines "tyrant" as

1a. an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution

b. a usurper of sovereignty.

Both senses apply to the judges of Massachusetts. There was no requirement of the state or federal constitution to mandate gay marriage, none whatsoever. The decision was made with vague references to "equal protection" when the clear intent was to mandate a social "reform" the justices felt the state deserved. Thus "unrestrained by law or constitution."

The people, as you know, are the sovereign under American law: the government is authorized to do certain things on our behalf, but nothing else. The people of Massachusetts did not petition their representatives to redefine marriage, nor did they authorize the formation of courts so the judges might dictate their mores. If they had been consulted, even in their debased condition the Massachusetts citizenry would have soundly rejected gay marriage.

"What does that make Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il?" Really bad tyrants, that's what. Both of those monsters deserve the noose. Our judicial masters are petty tyrants, and deserve to be punished according to their abuses: they ought to be forcibly thrown from their chambers, departing to second-rate law faculties so they can write their wound-licking, self-pitying memoirs and whine about their mistreatment to bored law students.

The argument from silence is the weakest form of argument, philosophers agree. Not for the Washington Post! Because President Bush's military records are incomplete, he must have been shirking his military duties. Their commitment to accuracy is manifest in this passage:

"In 2000, the Boston Globe examined a period from May 1972 to May 1973 and found no record that Bush performed any Guard duties, either in Alabama or Houston, although he was still enlisted." Enlisted servicemen enlist. Bush, as a first lieutenant, was an officer, and thus he was commissioned, not enlisted. That's a huge difference, but to the Post, potayto, potahto.

An even better quotation: "In recent days, a one-year gap in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service during the height of the Vietnam War has been raised by Democrats." And it is our duty, as an establishment media organ, to amplify this charge. With all their resources, the best they can do is find a man with the wonderful name of Turnipseed who doesn't think he saw Bush around the drill center, but then again he (Turnipseed) doesn't recall being there much at that time.

Also, the "height of the Vietnam War," in terms of American involvement, was 1968-69. By 1973, our combat troops were almost completely withdrawn. Did the factcheckers fall asleep?

All you left-wing muckraking journalists out there, here's how to make a name for yourself: just figure out what Bush was doing during the time in question, and show that he could not have possibly spent one weekend a month fulfilling his duties. Then you'll have proven your case. (Of course, if the unit commander excused him, then you don't have a case at all.)

If you want to be intellectually honest, you might consider the possibility that his paperwork was messed up. But that's only if you want to be intellectually honest.