Category: Politics

When people say that critics of our Iraqi policy are “aiding the enemy,” it usually doesn’t sit well with me. Disagreeing with a political action isn’t treason. If you see a policy you think is unjust or unwise, you not only have the right to disagree, you have an obligation to speak against it and work against it.
But there is a right and wrong way to disagree, and today elected Democrats choose the latter route. Usually, they’re histrionic, but sometimes they really do cross the line and aid the enemy, e.g.:

On Capitol Hill, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota called on the CIA to brief Congress on “just what, if anything, can be done to change the deteriorating set of circumstances.”

When I say they are aiding the enemy, I don’t mean that they are giving Iraqi insurgents bullets. I think they get a little thrill of satisfaction when a soldier dies in Iraq, because they think it will hurt President Bush politically. They don’t want these thugs and murderers to win so much as they want the commander-in-chief to lose.
Daschle, and most of his Democrat colleagues, don’t give a damn about American soldiers or innocent Iraqis. Iraqis can’t vote for Democrats, and soldiers generally don’t. Therefore, neither group has anything to do with the acquisition and use of political power, so to hell with them.
“Come on, Eric,” you might be thinking. “You’re saying that because you’re a Republican and in the military.” Maybe that’s why I’m saying it, but it’s still completely true. Here’s what a loyal opposition, in the British sense, would look like: Democrats would criticize the president. They would also present their own plan of action in Iraq, one that is something a little more substantive than “U.N. in, U.S. out.” They would issue press statements supporting Operation Iron Hammer, the current campaign against the insurgents. They would speak out against our French and German “allies” when they make obvious efforts to curtail U.S. power in the world. They would make it clear that when they speak against the president’s policies, they do not think he is a malevolent moron, thus emboldening our enemies.
In short, men like Tom Daschle would remember that they were elected by Americans and are supposed to work on behalf of the American people.

Some men become rich and try to improve the lives of those who aren’t; others become drunk on their wealth and think themselves petty gods. One of these vile creatures is George Soros, who wants to depose the president.
Now, if you don’t think President Bush has been doing a good job, and if you disagree with his policies, then by all means try to remove him. Politicians should be removed often — for incompetence, foolishness, their hair color, whatever. No man is indispensible in a democracy, and a higher turnover rate would encourage politicians to look to the common good instead of self-promotion. Let them strive for peace and prosperity, and let that be their legacy instead of wielding power.
That being said, doesn’t it seem a little anti-democratic for a plutocrat to use his billions of dollars to remove a democratically elected president? And what makes people like Soros, Ross Perot, and the Rockefellers think they are modern-day Gracchi, defending us little people against the predations of other powerful, influential people? At least the patrons of the Roman senatorial class doled out money and favors directly to the poor; they had contact with the demos that extended beyond having its members serve their food and wash their clothes.
Soros became rich through currency speculation: by betting that one species of money would advance or decline relative to other species. Say what you want about the robber barons of the 19th century, they at least built their vast wealth by creating industries that brought material improvements in people’s lives. Men like Soros provide no useful service commensurate with their vast wealth.
In the Third World, he supports what could be called “hard” family-planning (how I hate that euphemism!), including sterilization and abortion. He has (supposedly) spent billions on democracy overseas, particularly in Russia, and has done such a good job that there are no more independent major news media left in that country, and the economy is based on the admirable model of the mob families portrayed in “The Sopranos.”
All of this success has left Soros with a keen sense of what’s best for the world. He complains that Bush is “leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence.” Leave aside the sheer banality of his insights for a moment — weren’t we already in a “circle” (he means “cycle”) of violence before January 2001? The terrorists kept hitting us, beginning in Beruit in 1983, and we kept ineffectually responding. The difference now is that we have a president who is dismantling the terrorists’ infrastructures and killing the terrorists themselves. You can’t have a “circle” if one side of the circle disappears, and Bush seems committed to making that happen.
Capitalism is the greatest system for ensuring material prosperity. If only we could get rid of most capitalists, it would be darn near perfect.

According to this article, there are many Democrats who are unhappy with the leadership of Terry McAuliffe as the head of the Democratic National Committee. He was installed by Bill Clinton and his lovely wife Bruno to ensure their continued dominance of the party. McAuliffe is a strident partisan and obnoxiously devoted to the party’s least savory aspects, like homosexual activism, abortion (natch! This is the Abortion Party!), high taxes, etc., etc.
As the top political strategist for the Democrats, McAuliffe has lost the U.S. Senate, the California governorships, and as of this week, the state houses of Kentucky and Mississippi. Let me say that as a Republican, I am perfectly happy with the leadership of Terry McAuliffe, and I hope he keeps his job for the remainder of the decade.

Attention, everyone who thinks the United Nations can be a force for peace, at least as it’s presently constituted: your heroes are running away after a few bomb attacks.
I do not bring this up to taunt anyone. (Well, at least that’s not the primary reason.) How can an organization that pretends to be the ultimate arbiter of international law, and which has higher pretensions to be a world government and police force, possibly be taken seriously if they’re such cowards in the face of relatively minor resistance?
The French, their sidekicks the Germans, and the rest of the hollow men in the Western world generally agree that the U.N. is the proper instrument for rebuilding and governing Iraq. They say they are altruistic, but really it’s a cynical ploy because they know a U.N.-administered Iraq will be much more pliant than a U.S.-sponsored rebuilding effort. It would help their case greatly if the U.N. would show some backbone in standing up to thugs and terrorists.
I do think a reconstituted U.N. could be a force for good in the world, but they need to begin by kicking out the rogue countries like Cuba, North Korea, and Zimbabwe. Full membership ought to be reserved for countries which meet minimal standards of human rights and non-aggression towards its neighbors. You say that Cuba won’t get kicked out, because it enjoys the support of so many left-leaning governments around the world? You are right, and that is the problem.
Number of people willing to die for their country or religion: millions.
Number of people willing to die for the U.N.: several hundred, but few of them work for the actual organization.
Cost of one U.N. retreat: 2-3 car bombs, sporadic gunfire, scary politico-religious talk.
Cost of one U.S. retreat, as long as G.W. Bush is presiding: not determined.

From Reuters:

“Yes, I’ll sign the ban on partial birth abortion,” Bush said at a White House news conference. “And no, I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions.”

Note that he’s not saying they shouldn’t be banned, just that it isn’t the right time — not that our supreme judicial masters would permit that.
And I love this passage:

Under the bill that has gone to Bush, a doctor could face up to two years in prison as well as civil lawsuits for performing a “partial birth” abortion, defined as intentionally killing a fetus as it is being delivered. The bill’s sponsors say it entails sticking a sharp object into the base of the fetal skull.

No, Reuters newswire, the abortionists say that’s what they do. Inserting “the bill’s sponsors say” before the statement is a clever way to cast doubt on a fact without explicitly denying it. Nevertheless, the truth is that pro-lifers didn’t invent partial-birth abortion.