I recieved an email today, one of many, that bashed those lefty libs. Like most (all?) of them it was false, but this one didn't seem false at first glace, so I decided to check it out for myself. Lo and behold, Google comes through in flying colors, for the very first site I went to had a detailed debunking already posted.
Here is the email, and then the debunking. Think about this next time you hear anything about either candidate:
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:
Q: Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and theDemocratic-controlled House andSenate.
Q: Which party put a tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic party.
Q: Which party increased the tax on Social Security?
A: The Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the deciding vote.
Q: Which party decided to give money to immigrants?
A: That's right, immigrants moved into this country and at 65 got SSI Social Security. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid a dime into it. Then, after doing all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security.
And the worst part about it is, people believe it! Pass it on please! 2004 Election Issue This must be an issue in "04." Please! Keep it going.
TRUTH OF THE MATTER FROM FACTCHECK.ORG:
Who Taxed Benefits?
The most glaring falsehood in this one is a claim that it was "the Democratic party" that "put a tax on Social Security."
Oh yeah?
Here's a link to a picture of that tax being signed into law: http://www.ssa.gov/history/reagansm.html The year was 1983, and the President who signed it was Ronald Reagan.
Note Republican senators Bob Dole and Howard Baker -- both of whom had a hand in passing the law through the Republican -controlled Senate -- are looking on approvingly, along with a number of Democrats.
The tax, in fact, was part of a bipartisan measure to address Social Security's shaky finances. And it was recommended by a bipartisan commission headed by another Republican -- Alan Greenspan -- who had been appointed by Reagan. You can read about the Greenspan Commission (and see a picture of a much younger Greenspan) at http://www.ssa.gov/history/greenspn.html, at a site the Social Security Administration maintains to document the history of the program. There is a full history of how benefits came to be taxed at http://www.ssa.gov/history/taxationofbenefits.html.
And by the way, the tax only applied to a relatively small percentage of retirees -- those whose income totaled over $32,000 for a married couple. And the tax fell on only 50% of their Social Security benefits.
Who Gave SSI To Immigrants?
The next biggest whopper in this e-mail is a claim that it was "the Democratic party" that "decided to give money to immigrants" through the SSI program, "although they never paid a dime into it."
Actually it was Republican President Richard Nixon who both proposed and signed the legislation creating SSI -- the Supplemental Security Income program.
When he signed it on Oct. 30, 1972, Nixon called it "landmark legislation." It was also bipartisan, approved by a Congress that was controlled by Democrats at the time. Under Nixon's SSI law, immigrants were eligible for benefits from the start, as were all citizens, provided they were blind, disabled or elderly and destitute.
SSI is a federal welfare program funded out of general tax revenues, and is separate from the Social Security old-age pensions and disability insurance programs funded out of dedicated payroll taxes. While Social Security benefits are paid to those who have paid payroll taxes for a certain minimum period of time, SSI benefits were available to all -- citizens and resident aliens alike -- regardless of whether they had "paid a dime into it" or not.
The Social Security Administration published a history to mark the 20th anniversary of the SSI program, which you can read at http://www.ssa.gov/history/oasis/january1994.pdf.
It's true that Republicans did try to cut off SSI benefits for immigrants in 1996, but they quickly eased their stance amid a public outcry. The 1996 welfare-reform law cut off benefits for most immigrants. (Democratic President Bill Clinton protested, but signed the law anyway) An outcry arose when the Social Security Administration notified more than 660,000 aged, blind and disabled immigrants that their benefits would be cut off at the end of 1997, and newspapers carried reports of some who had committed suicide after being notified. Congress then restored benefits to those immigrants who were getting them before the welfare-reform law was signed. The measure that permanently restored benefits to pre-1996 immigrants (Public Law 105-306) passed the Republican House by voice vote and the Republican Senate by unanimous consent.
Tough restrictions remain for newer immigrants, which you can read at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11051.html. But you can credit a Republican President for ceating SSI and a Republican Congress for giving SSI benefits back to hundreds of thousands of aged, blind and disabled immigrants.
Who Spent Trust Fund Money?
The e-mail gets history wrong again when it blames Democrats alone for spending Social Security tax revenues for other purposes. It is true that Democratic President Lyndon Johnson was the first to lump the accounting for Social Security (and many other federal trust funds) into the "unified" federal budget. He announced this in 1968 in his State of the Union address (http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/680117.asp):
LBJ: This budget, therefore, for the first time accurately covers all Federal expenditures and all Federal receipts, including for the first time in one budget $47 billion from the social security, Medicare, highway, and other trust funds.
But the same accounting practice has been followed by every President and Congress since, Democrat or Republican. It's as bipartisan as can be.
And anyway, it's not the unified-budget accounting that's at fault for allowing Congress to divert Social Security taxes to other purposes. Indeed, not long after Johnson first put them into the budget the trust funds were soon running large deficits. For seven years, from 1975 through 1981, the money was flowing out, not in, and there was no extra Social Security tax money for Congress to spend. You can see how the trust funds ebbed and flowed at http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html.
It's true that large Social Security surplusses have in more recent years been used for other purposes -- by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, with Democrats in control of Congress, or with Republicans. What created those tempting surplusses was the 1983 law (mentioned above) signed by Reagan, which raised Social Security taxes in an attempt to repair the system's finances. There's plenty of bipartisan blame to go around on this one, too.
One Thing Right
The one item this e-mail gets right is that Democrats were behind an increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. That happened in 1993, as part of Bill Clinton's huge package of spending cuts and tax increases. No Republican voted for that and Vice President Al Gore did cast a tie-breaking vote in the U.S. Senate. That increased tax goes to help pay for Medicare, and is paid only by those making $44,000 a year or more for a married couple. But as we've said before (at http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=163) neither party has made a serious move to repeal that tax since it was enacted. President Bush didn't propose repeal in either of his tax-cut bills for individuals in 2001 or 2003. (From buggieboy: he did increase prescription drug coverage but with no plan to pay for it).
The author of urges others to "pass it on" and "keep it going," and this collection of bogus claims does seem to be making the rounds.
That's too bad.
Anyone who believes this sort of trash won't be casting a very well-informed vote this Fall.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Bedtime Wars
Kids are so cute. Sometimes.
Mine is 3 1/2 by the way, and we are in the middle of bedtime wars lately.
So typical - eyes half closed, grouchy, and "I'm not tired." Yes you are. "No I'm not." It's bedtime honey. "Waaahhhh"
30 minutes later, after he was already supposed to be in bed:
"I'm thirsty."
glass of water.
5 minutes later:
"I'm scared -there are monsters in here"
monster check performed (I kick "monster-butt" and no more monsters).
"Elmo is a good monster, but bad monsters are bad."
Go to sleep.
"We don't like bad monsters. Cuz they're bad."
Go to sleep!
5 minutes later
"I'm hungry."
You should have eaten your dinner.
"but I'm really hungry."
You ate 2 hot-dogs for lunch, had chips and candy at Grandma's, had a fudgesicle in the bath, and ate half your dinner and said you were full and refused to eat anymore.
"Yeah, and I'm hungry NOW."
Go to sleep.
"But I'm starving."
You can eat in the morning.
"But I'm so hungry, my tummy is rumbling."
Go to sleep. Now.
"but I'm really hungry."
Fine, do you want the rest of your dinner?
"I want.... ice cream!"
Leftovers or nothing.
Pause...
"I'm not hungry."
Fine. Go to sleep.
"Can I still have ice cream?"
Don't make me come in there.
5 minutes later
"Daddy?"
What?
"I love you."
I love you too, now go to sleep.
5 minutes later he runs into the living room.
Why are you out of bed?
"I forgot to brush my teeth!"
No you didn't - we used your Thomas the Tank Engine brush instead of Paddington Bear, remember?
"oh. Can I stay up?"
One... Two...
He is back in bed.
5 minutes later a flashlight shines mysteriously from the hallway into my eyes.
Why are you up?
"I wanted to check the batteries on my flashlight."
I'm coming in there.
Patter of little feet running to bed.
5 minutes later he's up.
what are you doing!?
"I have to go potty."
Hurry up then.
And on and on and on and on.
Any advice?
Mine is 3 1/2 by the way, and we are in the middle of bedtime wars lately.
So typical - eyes half closed, grouchy, and "I'm not tired." Yes you are. "No I'm not." It's bedtime honey. "Waaahhhh"
30 minutes later, after he was already supposed to be in bed:
"I'm thirsty."
glass of water.
5 minutes later:
"I'm scared -there are monsters in here"
monster check performed (I kick "monster-butt" and no more monsters).
"Elmo is a good monster, but bad monsters are bad."
Go to sleep.
"We don't like bad monsters. Cuz they're bad."
Go to sleep!
5 minutes later
"I'm hungry."
You should have eaten your dinner.
"but I'm really hungry."
You ate 2 hot-dogs for lunch, had chips and candy at Grandma's, had a fudgesicle in the bath, and ate half your dinner and said you were full and refused to eat anymore.
"Yeah, and I'm hungry NOW."
Go to sleep.
"But I'm starving."
You can eat in the morning.
"But I'm so hungry, my tummy is rumbling."
Go to sleep. Now.
"but I'm really hungry."
Fine, do you want the rest of your dinner?
"I want.... ice cream!"
Leftovers or nothing.
Pause...
"I'm not hungry."
Fine. Go to sleep.
"Can I still have ice cream?"
Don't make me come in there.
5 minutes later
"Daddy?"
What?
"I love you."
I love you too, now go to sleep.
5 minutes later he runs into the living room.
Why are you out of bed?
"I forgot to brush my teeth!"
No you didn't - we used your Thomas the Tank Engine brush instead of Paddington Bear, remember?
"oh. Can I stay up?"
One... Two...
He is back in bed.
5 minutes later a flashlight shines mysteriously from the hallway into my eyes.
Why are you up?
"I wanted to check the batteries on my flashlight."
I'm coming in there.
Patter of little feet running to bed.
5 minutes later he's up.
what are you doing!?
"I have to go potty."
Hurry up then.
And on and on and on and on.
Any advice?
Saturday, August 14, 2004
What it is all about
I took an oath to an idea, not to a man (or a party). This poster expresses what it is all about to me - loyalty to our Revolution and the Constitution, not to a party or a candidate. Or any single religion. Or region. Our Constitution is for all of us - and that is what Ashcroft and his cronies don't understand. It is for Moslems, Christians, Jews, and athiests. For the rich and the poor. For the UNITED states, together we stand, one nation. I love this poster.
This is what we should be fighting for, and nothing else.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
uniter, not a divider
Today the President rolls out an ad campaign that pledges to bring our enemies to justice before they hurt us again. About time.
THE TWO CAMPAIGNS:
I took a quick look at the homepages of the two campaigns. Bush's has Kerry prominently displayed -
1) noting that he turned his back on America's seniors by opposing the first-ever prescription drug benefit (not noting that he opposed the republican bill because it was a boon for big pharm companies and did not allow the govt (the largest purchaser of medication) to negotiate group discounts with suppliers, which would have led to much more help to our seniors he "turned his back on.").
2) It has a Kerry "gas tax calculator" but doesn't mention that this was an idea he suggested over a decade ago, and when it was fully explored he decided it wasn't a good idea (I guess brainstorming is bad - changing your mind when all the facts are in is bad - and claiming your opponent holds positions that he does not is good).
3) It has a "Kerry travel-tracker" that purports to explain why Kerry is bad for anyone anywhere.
4) It has a link to the "Kerry Media Center" which is an entire page full of attacks on Kerry, with numerous essays such as "Deliver Us From Evil" by Sean Hannity. There is a "Kerry flip-flops" link. It is very anti-Kerry. Of course, if you think Kerry is "evil" then how could you be for him?
Bush isn't running FOR something, he isn't running on his record (who would?) but he is running AGAINST something. John Kerry.
Kerry, the "anybody but Bush" candidate, has
1) one reference to Bush on his homepage. One. A "rapid response center" titled "Bush-Cheney wrong for America" that, instead of attacking the President, is a response to Bush's attack ads and misleading campaign statements. Kerry's homepage is full of plans, proposals, and is all about Kerry, not about Bush. The Rapid Response Center doesn't attack the President's character but his policies and his inconsistencies. It does not call the President names. Kerry's website is not anti-Bush, but pro-Kerry. It is full of slogans like "A stronger America" and "A Remarkable Promise."
I think that this shows the main difference between the two campaigns.
One defines itself by what it is against - gay marriage, Kerry, etc., and stereotypes Kerry and all democrats as "the wild-eyed left" who are socialists, soft on terrorism, less than "real" Americans. In short, Kerry isn't like "us," he is "out of the mainstream." He is scary Kerry. Be afraid.
The other defines itself by what it is for - equal rights, social justice, a national defense based on reality and not ideology. In short - let's see what we can do together. Quit being afraid and take action!
Bush seems to be running on "I'm not Kerry." Kerry is running on "here are my plans, let's get the nation back on track."
Just my opinion. Vote for whomever you want. We will get the government we deserve - of course, when I was a kid getting what I "deserved" was sometimes a whipping because I made bad choices.
I think Kerry should quote Reagan: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Well, are you? Oh, I know - it is all the terrorists' fault. Fine. Just one more question: Where's Osama?
THE TWO CAMPAIGNS:
I took a quick look at the homepages of the two campaigns. Bush's has Kerry prominently displayed -
1) noting that he turned his back on America's seniors by opposing the first-ever prescription drug benefit (not noting that he opposed the republican bill because it was a boon for big pharm companies and did not allow the govt (the largest purchaser of medication) to negotiate group discounts with suppliers, which would have led to much more help to our seniors he "turned his back on.").
2) It has a Kerry "gas tax calculator" but doesn't mention that this was an idea he suggested over a decade ago, and when it was fully explored he decided it wasn't a good idea (I guess brainstorming is bad - changing your mind when all the facts are in is bad - and claiming your opponent holds positions that he does not is good).
3) It has a "Kerry travel-tracker" that purports to explain why Kerry is bad for anyone anywhere.
4) It has a link to the "Kerry Media Center" which is an entire page full of attacks on Kerry, with numerous essays such as "Deliver Us From Evil" by Sean Hannity. There is a "Kerry flip-flops" link. It is very anti-Kerry. Of course, if you think Kerry is "evil" then how could you be for him?
Bush isn't running FOR something, he isn't running on his record (who would?) but he is running AGAINST something. John Kerry.
Kerry, the "anybody but Bush" candidate, has
1) one reference to Bush on his homepage. One. A "rapid response center" titled "Bush-Cheney wrong for America" that, instead of attacking the President, is a response to Bush's attack ads and misleading campaign statements. Kerry's homepage is full of plans, proposals, and is all about Kerry, not about Bush. The Rapid Response Center doesn't attack the President's character but his policies and his inconsistencies. It does not call the President names. Kerry's website is not anti-Bush, but pro-Kerry. It is full of slogans like "A stronger America" and "A Remarkable Promise."
I think that this shows the main difference between the two campaigns.
One defines itself by what it is against - gay marriage, Kerry, etc., and stereotypes Kerry and all democrats as "the wild-eyed left" who are socialists, soft on terrorism, less than "real" Americans. In short, Kerry isn't like "us," he is "out of the mainstream." He is scary Kerry. Be afraid.
The other defines itself by what it is for - equal rights, social justice, a national defense based on reality and not ideology. In short - let's see what we can do together. Quit being afraid and take action!
Bush seems to be running on "I'm not Kerry." Kerry is running on "here are my plans, let's get the nation back on track."
Just my opinion. Vote for whomever you want. We will get the government we deserve - of course, when I was a kid getting what I "deserved" was sometimes a whipping because I made bad choices.
I think Kerry should quote Reagan: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Well, are you? Oh, I know - it is all the terrorists' fault. Fine. Just one more question: Where's Osama?
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Sometimes the apple falls a long, long way from the tree
George Bush Sr. wrote in his memoirs why he didn't continue on to Baghdad at the end of the first Gulf War:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Note that at the time Saddam HAD WMDs.
When he wrote "still be an occupying power" he was writing five years after the war.
I wish the senior Bush had passed on some of his skills to his errant son.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Note that at the time Saddam HAD WMDs.
When he wrote "still be an occupying power" he was writing five years after the war.
I wish the senior Bush had passed on some of his skills to his errant son.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
It's tough to be a Republican
I found this funny. Let the fireworks begin (I know you have me in your sights, ALa71 and Artbyruth - give me cover fire Lefty!):
It Is Tough Being a Republican in 2004, because somehow, you have to believe concurrently that:
1. Jesus loves you, but shares your deep hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq.
3."Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.
5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.
10. HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.
11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
13. It is okay that the Bush family's "Carlisle Group" has done millions of business with the Bin Laden family.
14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy. A bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him. But, then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the "war president"
15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying about WMD existence, to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die, is, somehow, solid "defense" policy in a "War against Terrorism".
16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which should include "banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet".
17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.
18. What Bill Clinton or John Kerry did in the 1960s was of vital national interest but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
19. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".
20. You are a conservative, but it is OK to spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same refunding as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.
This illogical behavior can take a toll on a healthy mind. So if a friend of yours has been acting a bit dazed and confused lately, be nice: he or she may be a Republican!
It Is Tough Being a Republican in 2004, because somehow, you have to believe concurrently that:
1. Jesus loves you, but shares your deep hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq.
3."Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.
5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins, unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.
10. HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.
11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
13. It is okay that the Bush family's "Carlisle Group" has done millions of business with the Bin Laden family.
14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy. A bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him. But, then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his re-election campaign as the "war president"
15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying about WMD existence, to enlist support for an unprovoked, undeclared war and occupation, in which thousands of soldiers and civilians die, is, somehow, solid "defense" policy in a "War against Terrorism".
16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which should include "banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet".
17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.
18. What Bill Clinton or John Kerry did in the 1960s was of vital national interest but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
19. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".
20. You are a conservative, but it is OK to spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same refunding as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.
This illogical behavior can take a toll on a healthy mind. So if a friend of yours has been acting a bit dazed and confused lately, be nice: he or she may be a Republican!
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Hawks v. Doves
If I could have one companion in a time of war, would it be a dove or a hawk? I don't know any hawks willing to deploy with me - there was always room on the C130 next to me, and I would have helped them chute up. They always seemed to have "other priorities." Or they were busy defending Texas from the Viet Cong.
The Iraq war sought to effect staggering social change in Iraq through the application of military violence. If the neoconservatives were simply seeking to head up a liberal Lincoln Brigade to fight tyranny across the globe, they have my moral support and well wishes. But the U.S. military is not a Lincoln Brigade. It exists to defend the country from threats. The problem is that invading and occupying Iraq was never in America's interest. Unfortunately, the cautionary notes sounded by many before the war went unheeded.
Realists asked, "Will invading Iraq hurt us or help us in the war on terrorism?" As Saddam Hussein sits in a jail cell, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts are unknown. Meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah warn that anti-Americanism has never been so high - in the very region we seek to transform.
Realists asked, "Is Iraq so severe a threat to national security that it warrants the expenditure of U.S. lives, treasure, and allies?" After the deaths of 1,000 coalition soldiers, hundreds of billions spent, no meaningful links to al Qaeda determined, and no stockpiles of WMD uncovered, the answer seems clear.
Realists asked, "What will be the consequences of deposing Saddam?" Iran, its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its worst enemy, now accelerates its nuclear program with relative impunity. North Korea, flying under the radar while the United States was preoccupied with Iraq, now negotiates from a position of strength. As widely disparate forces in Iraq jockey for power and influence, Iraq has become inherently unstable and threatens to become a haven for terrorists.
I think I prefer the dove - and that dove is ready, willing, and able to fight al Quaeda. He just doesn't want to take on the rest of the world if he doesn't have to.
(I cut and pasted most of this from the CATO institute. Check it out at http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-26-04.html).
The Iraq war sought to effect staggering social change in Iraq through the application of military violence. If the neoconservatives were simply seeking to head up a liberal Lincoln Brigade to fight tyranny across the globe, they have my moral support and well wishes. But the U.S. military is not a Lincoln Brigade. It exists to defend the country from threats. The problem is that invading and occupying Iraq was never in America's interest. Unfortunately, the cautionary notes sounded by many before the war went unheeded.
Realists asked, "Will invading Iraq hurt us or help us in the war on terrorism?" As Saddam Hussein sits in a jail cell, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts are unknown. Meanwhile, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah warn that anti-Americanism has never been so high - in the very region we seek to transform.
Realists asked, "Is Iraq so severe a threat to national security that it warrants the expenditure of U.S. lives, treasure, and allies?" After the deaths of 1,000 coalition soldiers, hundreds of billions spent, no meaningful links to al Qaeda determined, and no stockpiles of WMD uncovered, the answer seems clear.
Realists asked, "What will be the consequences of deposing Saddam?" Iran, its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its worst enemy, now accelerates its nuclear program with relative impunity. North Korea, flying under the radar while the United States was preoccupied with Iraq, now negotiates from a position of strength. As widely disparate forces in Iraq jockey for power and influence, Iraq has become inherently unstable and threatens to become a haven for terrorists.
I think I prefer the dove - and that dove is ready, willing, and able to fight al Quaeda. He just doesn't want to take on the rest of the world if he doesn't have to.
(I cut and pasted most of this from the CATO institute. Check it out at http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-26-04.html).
Monday, August 02, 2004
Which party is God registered with? Do we still go with majority rule if He votes the other way? RETRACTED - TURNS OUT IT WAS A LINKING ERROR
I was reading a conservative blog that I usually enjoy very much (http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/) and today's post was quite moving. It described the feelings of many of us when we read My War. I loved it. I disagree quite often with the author, ALa71, but she writes well and is open-minded and well-informed. I enjoy the debates.
Then I clicked a link that said "Pray for the Troops." Seemed like a good thing to do since I am a devout Christian and a veteran. Incredibly, it took me to "Blogs for Bush," a political website dedicated to re-electing the President and listing hundreds of the pro-Bush blogs as well as a running pro-Bush commentary.
That was one of the most disgusting things that I've seen for some time. "Pray for the Troops" = vote Bush? So Christians can't vote Kerry? So God is for Bush? God!?!
The German military had a belt-buckle that read "Got Mit Uns" - God is with us. The Confederacy claimed God was on their side too. I could list lots of unworthy causes that enlisted the help of God, including oh, I don't know, al queda. And lots of legitimate ones too. Anybody that thinks a vote for Bush is a vote to defend Jesus (I think He does ok on His own, and the last government He dealt with nailed Him to the cross) is a very, very scary person. Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto the Lord what is the Lord's." Thus the government is one thing, and God is another. Bush apparently believes Jesus would vote for him despite this. Is the election now about who is a better Christian? Are we electing the chief religion officer or the President? I know very worthy and moral Christians who serve as deacons at my church. Are they now qualified to be President?
And of course, you can't be "for the troops" and against Bush, because, you see, they are one and the same. To dare criticize the President is to spit on the troops. Even though they take an oath to the Constitution and not to a man, and they serve all of the people and no party. Is the Army now a political organization?
Imagine it! Me: "Mr. President, I think your tax cuts will harm us in the long run because of the huge deficit that resulted." Bush: "You must not love God or your Country, and you are disloyal to the troops." Me: "I see your point. I'll not question you again. You are right about everything."
George Washington, US Grant, our first Republican President Abraham Lincoln - they must be spinning in their graves. What was our Revolution about? Yes you should pray for the troops - and don't dare confuse that with voting. They are kind of different you see. One is a religious act and the other is political. Jefferson must be wondering if our Revolution will soon fail.
I like Kerry's line: "I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."
I thought it despicable when Bush wrapped himself in the flag - as Samual Johnson put it, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
It is even more offensive for Bush's campaign to claim that God supports a particular candidate. From my religious studies I'm convinced that God speaks quite clearly when He chooses to and from my history studies it seems that each time a government claims to be doing God's will we get questionable results at best.
I think more important than ever that we remove Bush from office and return to the path we started out on in 1776. Our religious freedom is threated as well.
Then I clicked a link that said "Pray for the Troops." Seemed like a good thing to do since I am a devout Christian and a veteran. Incredibly, it took me to "Blogs for Bush," a political website dedicated to re-electing the President and listing hundreds of the pro-Bush blogs as well as a running pro-Bush commentary.
That was one of the most disgusting things that I've seen for some time. "Pray for the Troops" = vote Bush? So Christians can't vote Kerry? So God is for Bush? God!?!
The German military had a belt-buckle that read "Got Mit Uns" - God is with us. The Confederacy claimed God was on their side too. I could list lots of unworthy causes that enlisted the help of God, including oh, I don't know, al queda. And lots of legitimate ones too. Anybody that thinks a vote for Bush is a vote to defend Jesus (I think He does ok on His own, and the last government He dealt with nailed Him to the cross) is a very, very scary person. Jesus said "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto the Lord what is the Lord's." Thus the government is one thing, and God is another. Bush apparently believes Jesus would vote for him despite this. Is the election now about who is a better Christian? Are we electing the chief religion officer or the President? I know very worthy and moral Christians who serve as deacons at my church. Are they now qualified to be President?
And of course, you can't be "for the troops" and against Bush, because, you see, they are one and the same. To dare criticize the President is to spit on the troops. Even though they take an oath to the Constitution and not to a man, and they serve all of the people and no party. Is the Army now a political organization?
Imagine it! Me: "Mr. President, I think your tax cuts will harm us in the long run because of the huge deficit that resulted." Bush: "You must not love God or your Country, and you are disloyal to the troops." Me: "I see your point. I'll not question you again. You are right about everything."
George Washington, US Grant, our first Republican President Abraham Lincoln - they must be spinning in their graves. What was our Revolution about? Yes you should pray for the troops - and don't dare confuse that with voting. They are kind of different you see. One is a religious act and the other is political. Jefferson must be wondering if our Revolution will soon fail.
I like Kerry's line: "I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side."
I thought it despicable when Bush wrapped himself in the flag - as Samual Johnson put it, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
It is even more offensive for Bush's campaign to claim that God supports a particular candidate. From my religious studies I'm convinced that God speaks quite clearly when He chooses to and from my history studies it seems that each time a government claims to be doing God's will we get questionable results at best.
I think more important than ever that we remove Bush from office and return to the path we started out on in 1776. Our religious freedom is threated as well.
Sunday, August 01, 2004
National Security - is W helping or hurting?
Many people have noted that the military has done a great job in Iraq, against terrible odds. I agree. We can win in Iraq. And we must.
The question I have is why did we end up invading Iraq?
For some it is simple - 9/11. There is no proof of that. If there were it would not be an issue today.
Others note how brutal a dictator Saddam was and say it is great that he is gone. I agree, but that doesn't justify an invasion - are we going into North Korea next, a much more brutal and repressive regime which has sworn to destroy us? And assuming that the argument "Saddam is bad" is a good one, it seems a good argument for an Iraqi, not an American. We were spending US blood and treasure to defeat Saddam, and pointing out how that benefits Iraqis isn't enough for me.
Others say "WMD." Fine, but that is just an acronym. The issue is did Iraq present a threat to our national security that justified an invasion and occupation? That question has not been answered.
Iran apparently has closer ties to Al Queda and both Iran and North Korea work on nuclear bomb-building. Our military is overextended. Was there a better alternative for our national security than invading Iraq? And is the Iraq war really part of the war on terror or something different that has hurt our campaign against Al Queda?
Many military experts predicted that an invasion would be a long and costly effort with little reward for us at the end - the risk wasn't worth the reward. Many (most) of the senior military leadership felt that invading and occupying Iraq would harm our national security. So it has, at least in the short run. The Iraqis win because Saddam is overthrown. Iran wins because an enemy is destroyed. Terrorists win because the Islamic world is enraged. What do we win?
These were questions that the administration dodged or that they believed would all go away when the Iraqi people greeted us as liberators (to quote Mr. Cheney AND Mr. Wolfowitz).
Mr. Bush endlessly repeats that an evil dictator is gone. True. I don't care. I want to know if we are safer and if it was worth the cost. I'm not Iraqi, I'm American. I put American interests first.
Rather than blasting each other with the same lines we have been using, how about we go to some non-partisan experts. I welcome your views on these three studies.
From The Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute: Bounding the Global War on Terrorism by noted national security expert Dr. Jeffrey Record. His take is that "The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security. The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."
He calls the war in Iraq "an unnecessary preventative war" that has "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al Qaeda." The Iraq war was a "detour" from the war on terrorism, he said.
Daniel Benjamin, a member of the National Security Council staff in the late 1990s, said, "The criticism does not seem out of line with many of the conversations I have had with officers in every branch of the military."
The essay carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government. But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said. Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al Qaeda." But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.
In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism. Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars . . . because their strategic ends outran their available means."
He also scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "The potential policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one, almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."
Bounding the Global War on Terrorism found at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=207.
IRAQ AND VIETNAM: DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES, AND INSIGHTS at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=377. It notes that most comparisons overplay the similarities and understate the differences.
Strategic Consequences of the Iraq War: U.S. Security Interests in Central Asia Reassessed at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=383.
Happy reading!
The question I have is why did we end up invading Iraq?
For some it is simple - 9/11. There is no proof of that. If there were it would not be an issue today.
Others note how brutal a dictator Saddam was and say it is great that he is gone. I agree, but that doesn't justify an invasion - are we going into North Korea next, a much more brutal and repressive regime which has sworn to destroy us? And assuming that the argument "Saddam is bad" is a good one, it seems a good argument for an Iraqi, not an American. We were spending US blood and treasure to defeat Saddam, and pointing out how that benefits Iraqis isn't enough for me.
Others say "WMD." Fine, but that is just an acronym. The issue is did Iraq present a threat to our national security that justified an invasion and occupation? That question has not been answered.
Iran apparently has closer ties to Al Queda and both Iran and North Korea work on nuclear bomb-building. Our military is overextended. Was there a better alternative for our national security than invading Iraq? And is the Iraq war really part of the war on terror or something different that has hurt our campaign against Al Queda?
Many military experts predicted that an invasion would be a long and costly effort with little reward for us at the end - the risk wasn't worth the reward. Many (most) of the senior military leadership felt that invading and occupying Iraq would harm our national security. So it has, at least in the short run. The Iraqis win because Saddam is overthrown. Iran wins because an enemy is destroyed. Terrorists win because the Islamic world is enraged. What do we win?
These were questions that the administration dodged or that they believed would all go away when the Iraqi people greeted us as liberators (to quote Mr. Cheney AND Mr. Wolfowitz).
Mr. Bush endlessly repeats that an evil dictator is gone. True. I don't care. I want to know if we are safer and if it was worth the cost. I'm not Iraqi, I'm American. I put American interests first.
Rather than blasting each other with the same lines we have been using, how about we go to some non-partisan experts. I welcome your views on these three studies.
From The Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute: Bounding the Global War on Terrorism by noted national security expert Dr. Jeffrey Record. His take is that "The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security. The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."
He calls the war in Iraq "an unnecessary preventative war" that has "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al Qaeda." The Iraq war was a "detour" from the war on terrorism, he said.
Daniel Benjamin, a member of the National Security Council staff in the late 1990s, said, "The criticism does not seem out of line with many of the conversations I have had with officers in every branch of the military."
The essay carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government. But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said. Many of Record's arguments, such as the contention that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was deterred and did not present a threat, have been made by critics of the administration. Iraq, he concludes, "was a war-of-choice distraction from the war of necessity against al Qaeda." But it is unusual to have such views published by the War College, the Army's premier academic institution.
In addition, the essay goes further than many critics in examining the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism. Record's core criticism is that the administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likens the scale of U.S. ambitions in the war on terrorism to Adolf Hitler's overreach in World War II. "A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number," he writes. "The Germans were defeated in two world wars . . . because their strategic ends outran their available means."
He also scoffs at the administration's policy, laid out by Bush in a November speech, of seeking to transform and democratize the Middle East. "The potential policy payoff of a democratic and prosperous Middle East, if there is one, almost certainly lies in the very distant future," he writes. "The basis on which this democratic domino theory rests has never been explicated."
Bounding the Global War on Terrorism found at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=207.
IRAQ AND VIETNAM: DIFFERENCES, SIMILARITIES, AND INSIGHTS at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=377. It notes that most comparisons overplay the similarities and understate the differences.
Strategic Consequences of the Iraq War: U.S. Security Interests in Central Asia Reassessed at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/pubresult.cfm?pubid=383.
Happy reading!
newspeak
I'm watching Zell Miller on Meet the Press. You know, the "democrat" from GA that will speak at the RNC?
He just said (correction - implied) Kerry is unpatriotic, and angrily said "how can you talk about Old Glory and at the same time vote several times against an amendment to keep people from burning it?" Indeed. I guess the only way would be to understand that the flag symbolizes the Constitution, and not the other way around. Can you imagine burning a flag NOT being political speech? Why else would anybody burn a flag other than to send a message? That message is disgusting to me, as a veteran who served under that flag, but I would fight to defend anybody's right to send their message, however offensive. See, Zell doesn't understand the difference between serving a flag and serving the Constitution. Kerry seems to. How unpatriotic of him.
He repeated the RNC party line criticizing Kerry for voting for war and then not supporting the troops by voting to give them body armor, etc. (the $87 billion). This is fast becoming conventional wisdom - that this is what Kerry did - but it is hogwash and he knows it. Congress voted to give the President authorization to invade Iraq only after Bush indicated he needed it to have credibility at the UN and would go to war only as a last resort. Kerry even gave a speech before the vote in which he called on the President to seek UN authorization and seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to force. He also voted that way based on the evidence presented by the administration. It was not a vote for war but a vote authorizing military force in the hope it would not be needed. Conventional wisdom now holds that Kerry and everybody else who voted for this resolution supported the idea of invading Iraq. That isn't true, but like our president most people don't do "nuance." Then, after the president invaded despite the pleas from military professionals that it was a mistake, the president wanted a bill providing $87 billion for the efforts there. Kerry and everybody else knew that it was needed, but the president insisted on keeping the tax cuts and borrowing the money to pay for it. Kerry sponsored a bill to provide $67 billion immediately in non-discretionary funds, and the remaining $20 billion that was discretionary be voted in a separate bill with more safeguards to ensure the money would be properly spent. His bill also required a repeal of the tax break on the richest 1% of Americans in order to pay for all of this. The Republicans voted against it and it didn't pass. Their bill then went forward and Kerry, after seeing it would pass anyway, had the courage to vote against it. So he did vote for it before he voted against it - an incredibly poor choice of words. Instead he should have asked why the republicans who speak so much about supporting the troops voted against funding the troops. They would answer they voted against it before they voted for it. See the deal? Everybody wanted to provide for the troops, but Kerry wanted to do it in a responsible manner that didn't require borrowing from our children so that rich people could buy another Lexus. BTW, the $20 billion that republicans swore was needed immediately for construction in Iraq? Less than half a billion has been spent.
Those who are intellectually honest with themselves should wonder why the Republicans need to lie to make their case (like WMDs), why after 3 1/2 years of a Bush administration the republicans don't run on their record but against Kerry - they don't talk about what they have done, but what he has done or hasn't done. And they twist the truth in doing it!
This president has made us weaker, has not gone after the terrorists, and is a miserable failure at a time our nation needs strength. Today in the paper ties b/w Iran and Al Queda are discussed. Let's say they are proven true. Let's assume that Iran says "We conrol Osama and we ordered 9/11." What would we do? Our army is tied down in Iraq unnecessarily, we have destroyed the international credibility and trust our nation built up over decades, we have alienated our allies, and we have a record deficit. What would we be able to do?
What pisses me off the most is that I have not forgotten or forgiven 9/11, and that is why I'm voting Kerry, yet the Bush camp claims successes in the war on terror that don't exist and constantly uses 9/11 as a refrain for why people should vote for Bush. They call Kerry weak on defense. And people lap it up.
I would rather have a guy by my side that knows how to shoot straight but is reluctant to pull the trigger than a guy by my side that is emptying a magazine in the wrong direction and causing friendly fire. Bush is dangerous and must be sent back to Texas.
Vote Kerry.
He just said (correction - implied) Kerry is unpatriotic, and angrily said "how can you talk about Old Glory and at the same time vote several times against an amendment to keep people from burning it?" Indeed. I guess the only way would be to understand that the flag symbolizes the Constitution, and not the other way around. Can you imagine burning a flag NOT being political speech? Why else would anybody burn a flag other than to send a message? That message is disgusting to me, as a veteran who served under that flag, but I would fight to defend anybody's right to send their message, however offensive. See, Zell doesn't understand the difference between serving a flag and serving the Constitution. Kerry seems to. How unpatriotic of him.
He repeated the RNC party line criticizing Kerry for voting for war and then not supporting the troops by voting to give them body armor, etc. (the $87 billion). This is fast becoming conventional wisdom - that this is what Kerry did - but it is hogwash and he knows it. Congress voted to give the President authorization to invade Iraq only after Bush indicated he needed it to have credibility at the UN and would go to war only as a last resort. Kerry even gave a speech before the vote in which he called on the President to seek UN authorization and seek diplomatic solutions before resorting to force. He also voted that way based on the evidence presented by the administration. It was not a vote for war but a vote authorizing military force in the hope it would not be needed. Conventional wisdom now holds that Kerry and everybody else who voted for this resolution supported the idea of invading Iraq. That isn't true, but like our president most people don't do "nuance." Then, after the president invaded despite the pleas from military professionals that it was a mistake, the president wanted a bill providing $87 billion for the efforts there. Kerry and everybody else knew that it was needed, but the president insisted on keeping the tax cuts and borrowing the money to pay for it. Kerry sponsored a bill to provide $67 billion immediately in non-discretionary funds, and the remaining $20 billion that was discretionary be voted in a separate bill with more safeguards to ensure the money would be properly spent. His bill also required a repeal of the tax break on the richest 1% of Americans in order to pay for all of this. The Republicans voted against it and it didn't pass. Their bill then went forward and Kerry, after seeing it would pass anyway, had the courage to vote against it. So he did vote for it before he voted against it - an incredibly poor choice of words. Instead he should have asked why the republicans who speak so much about supporting the troops voted against funding the troops. They would answer they voted against it before they voted for it. See the deal? Everybody wanted to provide for the troops, but Kerry wanted to do it in a responsible manner that didn't require borrowing from our children so that rich people could buy another Lexus. BTW, the $20 billion that republicans swore was needed immediately for construction in Iraq? Less than half a billion has been spent.
Those who are intellectually honest with themselves should wonder why the Republicans need to lie to make their case (like WMDs), why after 3 1/2 years of a Bush administration the republicans don't run on their record but against Kerry - they don't talk about what they have done, but what he has done or hasn't done. And they twist the truth in doing it!
This president has made us weaker, has not gone after the terrorists, and is a miserable failure at a time our nation needs strength. Today in the paper ties b/w Iran and Al Queda are discussed. Let's say they are proven true. Let's assume that Iran says "We conrol Osama and we ordered 9/11." What would we do? Our army is tied down in Iraq unnecessarily, we have destroyed the international credibility and trust our nation built up over decades, we have alienated our allies, and we have a record deficit. What would we be able to do?
What pisses me off the most is that I have not forgotten or forgiven 9/11, and that is why I'm voting Kerry, yet the Bush camp claims successes in the war on terror that don't exist and constantly uses 9/11 as a refrain for why people should vote for Bush. They call Kerry weak on defense. And people lap it up.
I would rather have a guy by my side that knows how to shoot straight but is reluctant to pull the trigger than a guy by my side that is emptying a magazine in the wrong direction and causing friendly fire. Bush is dangerous and must be sent back to Texas.
Vote Kerry.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
moot battle
I don't close with and destroy the enemy physically anymore. Now it is mental combat. Here is a description I wrote for my school paper of a moot court competition I was in a few months ago. Moot court is an appearance before a panel of judges where you discuss a fake case. The case presents a really intricate question of law that can be decided either way depending on how you present it - there is no right or wrong answer. The judges throw questions at you and try to rattle you. They usually succeed. Your reasoning ability and presentation is graded, and winners are announced. It is pretty prestigious at law school, especially if you want to be a trial lawyer like me. My school name and the names of my team-members are changed to protect the innocent.
This year, for the first time in 18 years, "X" School of Law (a top-20 law school in Southern California) fielded a team in the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition, widely recognized as the largest and most prestigious moot court competition in the world. I was on this year’s team, along with my fellow team-members A, B, and C. This year’s problem was a dispute between two fictitious countries before the International Court of Justice in the Hague involving war crimes and the new International Criminal Court. We had to research the problem and prepare a brief for each side. We started work in earnest in October, and submitted two 36-page briefs in January. We then began preparing for the oral rounds.
We flew to Lubbock TX and the campus of Texas Tech University to represent X Law school before the best and brightest other schools had to offer. Let the Brain Olympics begin!
When we got off the small airplane we were overwhelmed with the smell of cow… manure is a good word, I’ll use that. Lubbock is a small town with a very different culture from LA. Flat. I mean somebody ironed it flat. Anti-smoking ads informed us that 70% of Texas Tech students use tobacco products. 70%?!? The law school lounge proudly displayed posters advocating for both political parties – Republicans and the Federalist Society. On the TV in the airport Sen. Kerry was talking, and a man said loudly “Scary Kerry.” The crowd nodded approvingly at the brilliant political commentary. That pretty much summed it up – it was George W. country all the way. But, even though we were heathens from liberal Los Angeles everybody was very nice. I hope that anybody from Lubbock who visits LA gets half as nice a welcome as they gave to us.
Texas Tech ran the competition as smoothly as any competition could be run. The assistant dean, a man named Richard Rosen, picked us up and personally drove us to our hotel. It turns out he had just retired from the JAG corps of the US Army, where he was the Commandant of the Army’s JAG school. Those who know me understand how I quickly made a friend for life. We knew many of the same people and talked Army while A, B, and C rolled their eyes in boredom. It also turns out the Dean of Texas Tech retired after serving as the Judge Advocate General of the US Army. Together they procured judges well versed in international law for the competition – 2 former deans of the JAG school, a former staff judge advocate for special operations command and from the 4th Infantry Division, and many other noted international law practitioners and scholars.
The competition itself was intense. Teams were from Stanford, UCLA, UNLV, Arizona State University, Kansas University, Oklahoma City University, Southern Methodist University, Southwestern, University of Arizona, University of New Mexico, University of Oklahoma, and the University of San Diego. San Diego casually mentioned that they had been practicing four times a week for three hours at a time. Oh man. Most schools had their faculty coaches travel with them. Ours didn’t travel with us… uhh, we didn’t have one. Some of the students were in a class called Jessup. It’s a class? Wow. All of the competitors were well-prepared and well-supported. We were on our own, and did the best we could, but were disheartened to learn that one of our briefs was docked 5 points on a technicality (no “questions presented” section). Ouch. A faculty coach really would have helped. Well, it is our first time and we did the best we could.
The other teams spent the night before the first round feverishly reviewing their notes. We, of course, went to the hotel bar – called the “Recovery Room” because it was down the street from a hospital. Very tacky place – just right for us. C bought the first round – four 22-oz “Shinerbock” beers. Shinerbock is actually pretty decent, by the way. If you are ever in TX, don’t tell them you are a liberal, and order a Shinerbock. You’ll be alright. Anyway, C ordered the beer and then turned to us in amazement and said “Seven dollars.” Now, I admit that LA is pretty expensive, but $7 for a beer is too much even here. To be charged $7 a draft beer in Lubbock? No damn way. I’ll take my money and – “No” said C. “It’s $7 for all four beers.” Wow again. Lubbock suddenly was a lot more interesting. We studied late into the night, and A created the “ICC” rap. Don’t ask. And especially don’t ask her – she’ll recite it for you. Again and again and again. The only other “Jessup” people there were from the University of Kansas. They seemed as relaxed as us. We were pretty relaxed because we knew we would be the best team X Law School had entered in 18 years, even with the 5-point penalty. See the first line of this article if you think I sound arrogant.
The next day we had one round – and it was tough. 45 minutes a side, with 3 well-prepared judges. C went first. He didn’t receive a single question! I sat and watched him continue on, and on, and began to sweat. For those of you who have done moot court, you know that questions are where you shine – you know what the judge thinks is important, and can score points, as well as you avoid the problem most people face in talking that long without questions. It’s tough. C was smooth, professional, and calm. I was freaking out because I knew I could not do that – go before a panel and just talk for 20 minutes without interruption. He did, and he did it well. He sat down and I stood up. About 2 minutes into my section a judge asked a question, and whew, we were in the game. Question-response followed by question. It was great. I am so glad I didn’t go first.
Done for the day, we continued our study at the Recovery Room. $7! And watching a white Texan who called himself “Compton” perform a rap for the crowd was pretty amusing. A repeated her “ICC Rap.” Ugghh. Please please please stop. She, of course, continued. One "cowboy" asked us where we were from. When he heard we were from LA he said "You ain't one of them liberals are you?" I told him I was, always had been, always would be. He glared at me and started mouthing off about wuss this and commie that and I started to get up. I was going to convince him that liberal didn't mean weak, as well as teach him some neat stuff I learned in a Combatives class I took 3 times a week the year I was stationed in the infantry on the South Korean DMZ (I love to teach - I'm so selfless). His friends pulled him out and apologized for him. One said "that isn't how we greet visitors around here." Wow. Lubbock is conservative W country, but I was favorably impressed. Shinerbock made it all ok.
The next day we had three rounds, and again it was hellish – all the judges were smart, well-prepared, understood the problem, knew the facts, and asked really F-ing hard questions. A and B were asked about 50 questions in their second round. At one point B was just starting to answer one question when he was interrupted with another question from a 2nd judge, and while that judge was asking that question the 3rd judge interrupted the 2nd judge with another question, and both of them asked different questions at the same time. All three judges then went silent and waited for him to answer. Damn. He did great though, and answered all three. It’s all about controlling your presentation, and he did – he would answer and in his answer lead the discussion right back to where he wanted to go. He even stopped shaking nervously after the first few minutes. (Don’t laugh unless you’ve done moot court – it IS scary).
That night the four finalists were announced – and we weren’t one of them. Well, we didn’t expect to be. We had no faculty coach, no history of competing, and the other teams were freakishly well-prepared. We consoled ourselves with the fact that we didn’t think we had embarrassed X Law School, and that we did better than last year’s team (see the first line again).
We debated whether to go to the movies or to the awards presentation that night, and finally decided it would seem rude not to attend, especially given the incredible hospitality shown by our Texas Tech hosts. So we went. Are we glad we did. Our team won 2nd and 3rd place Best Oral Advocate trophies (I was ALMOST first), and B missed a 5th place trophy by only a few points - he was 6th but no trophy for that . We had 3 in the top six! We missed being one of the final four by – you guessed it – five points. 5 no ‘questions presented’ section” penalty points. If we didn’t have the penalty we would have been in the semi-finals, and given that we were the only team with two people to win awards in the oral competition (and 3 of the top six places) we could have made it to the international round. Well, I don’t care. We made our school look good, and we set the standard for next year’s team – all they have to do is win the whole thing or drop out of school in shame. No pressure. Just victory or death. My new friend Dean Rosen of Texas Tech, US Army retired, would appreciate that language.
That night we – well, you know what we did. $7 for four beers, how could we not. A mentioned that one reason C did so well was rehearsal – she heard him rehearsing his argument while he was in the shower in the hotel. C was embarrassed, and we laughed our butts off. And we met the team from San Diego – they were awesome, and not just because they bought us drinks and told us how great X Law School is and how they wanted to go there but didn't get in, but because they were really nice people too. It rained, and we got mud all over us. I know why they say “don’t mess with Texas.” It is because you don’t want to get Texas on you – it is hard to wash out. The next day we spent 8 hours doing absolutely nothing and flew home. We were glad to see Kansas win the regional and move on to the international round – Shinerbock helps you think. I hope they win the whole thing.
This year, for the first time in 18 years, "X" School of Law (a top-20 law school in Southern California) fielded a team in the Philip C. Jessup International Moot Court Competition, widely recognized as the largest and most prestigious moot court competition in the world. I was on this year’s team, along with my fellow team-members A, B, and C. This year’s problem was a dispute between two fictitious countries before the International Court of Justice in the Hague involving war crimes and the new International Criminal Court. We had to research the problem and prepare a brief for each side. We started work in earnest in October, and submitted two 36-page briefs in January. We then began preparing for the oral rounds.
We flew to Lubbock TX and the campus of Texas Tech University to represent X Law school before the best and brightest other schools had to offer. Let the Brain Olympics begin!
When we got off the small airplane we were overwhelmed with the smell of cow… manure is a good word, I’ll use that. Lubbock is a small town with a very different culture from LA. Flat. I mean somebody ironed it flat. Anti-smoking ads informed us that 70% of Texas Tech students use tobacco products. 70%?!? The law school lounge proudly displayed posters advocating for both political parties – Republicans and the Federalist Society. On the TV in the airport Sen. Kerry was talking, and a man said loudly “Scary Kerry.” The crowd nodded approvingly at the brilliant political commentary. That pretty much summed it up – it was George W. country all the way. But, even though we were heathens from liberal Los Angeles everybody was very nice. I hope that anybody from Lubbock who visits LA gets half as nice a welcome as they gave to us.
Texas Tech ran the competition as smoothly as any competition could be run. The assistant dean, a man named Richard Rosen, picked us up and personally drove us to our hotel. It turns out he had just retired from the JAG corps of the US Army, where he was the Commandant of the Army’s JAG school. Those who know me understand how I quickly made a friend for life. We knew many of the same people and talked Army while A, B, and C rolled their eyes in boredom. It also turns out the Dean of Texas Tech retired after serving as the Judge Advocate General of the US Army. Together they procured judges well versed in international law for the competition – 2 former deans of the JAG school, a former staff judge advocate for special operations command and from the 4th Infantry Division, and many other noted international law practitioners and scholars.
The competition itself was intense. Teams were from Stanford, UCLA, UNLV, Arizona State University, Kansas University, Oklahoma City University, Southern Methodist University, Southwestern, University of Arizona, University of New Mexico, University of Oklahoma, and the University of San Diego. San Diego casually mentioned that they had been practicing four times a week for three hours at a time. Oh man. Most schools had their faculty coaches travel with them. Ours didn’t travel with us… uhh, we didn’t have one. Some of the students were in a class called Jessup. It’s a class? Wow. All of the competitors were well-prepared and well-supported. We were on our own, and did the best we could, but were disheartened to learn that one of our briefs was docked 5 points on a technicality (no “questions presented” section). Ouch. A faculty coach really would have helped. Well, it is our first time and we did the best we could.
The other teams spent the night before the first round feverishly reviewing their notes. We, of course, went to the hotel bar – called the “Recovery Room” because it was down the street from a hospital. Very tacky place – just right for us. C bought the first round – four 22-oz “Shinerbock” beers. Shinerbock is actually pretty decent, by the way. If you are ever in TX, don’t tell them you are a liberal, and order a Shinerbock. You’ll be alright. Anyway, C ordered the beer and then turned to us in amazement and said “Seven dollars.” Now, I admit that LA is pretty expensive, but $7 for a beer is too much even here. To be charged $7 a draft beer in Lubbock? No damn way. I’ll take my money and – “No” said C. “It’s $7 for all four beers.” Wow again. Lubbock suddenly was a lot more interesting. We studied late into the night, and A created the “ICC” rap. Don’t ask. And especially don’t ask her – she’ll recite it for you. Again and again and again. The only other “Jessup” people there were from the University of Kansas. They seemed as relaxed as us. We were pretty relaxed because we knew we would be the best team X Law School had entered in 18 years, even with the 5-point penalty. See the first line of this article if you think I sound arrogant.
The next day we had one round – and it was tough. 45 minutes a side, with 3 well-prepared judges. C went first. He didn’t receive a single question! I sat and watched him continue on, and on, and began to sweat. For those of you who have done moot court, you know that questions are where you shine – you know what the judge thinks is important, and can score points, as well as you avoid the problem most people face in talking that long without questions. It’s tough. C was smooth, professional, and calm. I was freaking out because I knew I could not do that – go before a panel and just talk for 20 minutes without interruption. He did, and he did it well. He sat down and I stood up. About 2 minutes into my section a judge asked a question, and whew, we were in the game. Question-response followed by question. It was great. I am so glad I didn’t go first.
Done for the day, we continued our study at the Recovery Room. $7! And watching a white Texan who called himself “Compton” perform a rap for the crowd was pretty amusing. A repeated her “ICC Rap.” Ugghh. Please please please stop. She, of course, continued. One "cowboy" asked us where we were from. When he heard we were from LA he said "You ain't one of them liberals are you?" I told him I was, always had been, always would be. He glared at me and started mouthing off about wuss this and commie that and I started to get up. I was going to convince him that liberal didn't mean weak, as well as teach him some neat stuff I learned in a Combatives class I took 3 times a week the year I was stationed in the infantry on the South Korean DMZ (I love to teach - I'm so selfless). His friends pulled him out and apologized for him. One said "that isn't how we greet visitors around here." Wow. Lubbock is conservative W country, but I was favorably impressed. Shinerbock made it all ok.
The next day we had three rounds, and again it was hellish – all the judges were smart, well-prepared, understood the problem, knew the facts, and asked really F-ing hard questions. A and B were asked about 50 questions in their second round. At one point B was just starting to answer one question when he was interrupted with another question from a 2nd judge, and while that judge was asking that question the 3rd judge interrupted the 2nd judge with another question, and both of them asked different questions at the same time. All three judges then went silent and waited for him to answer. Damn. He did great though, and answered all three. It’s all about controlling your presentation, and he did – he would answer and in his answer lead the discussion right back to where he wanted to go. He even stopped shaking nervously after the first few minutes. (Don’t laugh unless you’ve done moot court – it IS scary).
That night the four finalists were announced – and we weren’t one of them. Well, we didn’t expect to be. We had no faculty coach, no history of competing, and the other teams were freakishly well-prepared. We consoled ourselves with the fact that we didn’t think we had embarrassed X Law School, and that we did better than last year’s team (see the first line again).
We debated whether to go to the movies or to the awards presentation that night, and finally decided it would seem rude not to attend, especially given the incredible hospitality shown by our Texas Tech hosts. So we went. Are we glad we did. Our team won 2nd and 3rd place Best Oral Advocate trophies (I was ALMOST first), and B missed a 5th place trophy by only a few points - he was 6th but no trophy for that . We had 3 in the top six! We missed being one of the final four by – you guessed it – five points. 5 no ‘questions presented’ section” penalty points. If we didn’t have the penalty we would have been in the semi-finals, and given that we were the only team with two people to win awards in the oral competition (and 3 of the top six places) we could have made it to the international round. Well, I don’t care. We made our school look good, and we set the standard for next year’s team – all they have to do is win the whole thing or drop out of school in shame. No pressure. Just victory or death. My new friend Dean Rosen of Texas Tech, US Army retired, would appreciate that language.
That night we – well, you know what we did. $7 for four beers, how could we not. A mentioned that one reason C did so well was rehearsal – she heard him rehearsing his argument while he was in the shower in the hotel. C was embarrassed, and we laughed our butts off. And we met the team from San Diego – they were awesome, and not just because they bought us drinks and told us how great X Law School is and how they wanted to go there but didn't get in, but because they were really nice people too. It rained, and we got mud all over us. I know why they say “don’t mess with Texas.” It is because you don’t want to get Texas on you – it is hard to wash out. The next day we spent 8 hours doing absolutely nothing and flew home. We were glad to see Kansas win the regional and move on to the international round – Shinerbock helps you think. I hope they win the whole thing.
hapless soldier's sigh
my first posting. Hmmm....
If you haven't read MY WAR yet do it now (it is at http://cbftw.blogspot.com/). It is an immediate account of an infantryman in Mosul, Iraq, and the guy really knows how to write.
To get started, here is an editorial I wrote in November 2002, months before we invaded Iraq. See who got it right, me or George W. Bush:
The President has not shown that war with Iraq is morally just. Under the classic “just war doctrine,” a state is morally justified in its use of force if it meets all of the following four factors:
(1) The damage inflicted (or threatened) by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
(2) War should be waged only as a last resort.
(3) There must be serious prospects of success.
(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
As discussed below, war with Iraq has not met the just war standard.
(1) The damage inflicted (or threatened) by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain. If the facts show that Saddam is close to completion of a nuclear weapon then we should eliminate him. We don’t need to wait and be hit first before responding. His history of chemical weapons use against Iran and his own Kurdish minority demonstrate that he should not be allowed to acquire even more dangerous nuclear weapons. Is there proof that an atomic threat from Iraq is imminent? We simply don’t know. We are told that evidence can’t be shared because of “national security.” Such concerns did not stop President Kennedy from laying out his case during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the United States is to go to war, it had better not do so under false pretenses. The administration needs to lay out its case clearly and unambiguously, just as President Kennedy did. If there really is evidence, then a way can surely be found to show it while protecting the identity of sensitive intelligence sources. This has not been done. Even after secret information was recently shared with Congress many senators and representatives remained unconvinced. No credible information has been shared with the public. Meanwhile, North Korea, which provided Iraq its Scud missiles, has openly admitted to continuing its development of nuclear weapons despite agreeing to stop doing so in 1993. Is there talk of war against North Korea? Strangely, no. Why Iraq and not North Korea?
I am not willing to take it on faith, without evidence, that we must invade or suffer nuclear attack. Retired General Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander, feels the same. He recently testified before the Senate that, "It's a question of what's the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally? So far as any of the information has been presented, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate, next hours, next days, that there's going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region."
On 9/11 we watched in horror as two towers full of living human beings crashed to the ground. Our reaction was normal – we wanted to fight back, to punish the “evildoers.” I felt, and feel, the same. I want Osama dead. So why are we invading Iraq, a secular regime often denounced by Islamic fundamentalists such as Al Qaeda? Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. If Iraq had been behind the attacks, this debate, and Saddam, would already be over. The President’s weak attempts to use 9/11 to justify war with Iraq only point out the weakness of the case. When a president uses half-truths or untruths to justify a war, it is probably a good idea to slow down the march towards conflict. The attacks of 9/11 are unrelated to Iraq, and thus can provide no justification for an invasion.
Saddam and his cronies are evil, and the world would no doubt be better off without them. He has brutally oppressed his own people. That is not a reason to invade Iraq. If that were the test, then we should also invade North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Iran, and arguably Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, and on and on. Something more is required to provide a just cause for war or the sovereignty of all nations is threatened.
(2) War should be waged only as a last resort. One reason given for war is that Saddam is not complying with UN resolutions. However, Saddam hasn’t complied with UN resolutions for at least a decade. Why the rush to war now? Three retired four-star American generals said recently that attacking Iraq without a United Nations resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests. "We must continue to persuade the other members of the Security Council of the correctness of our position, and we must not be too quick to take no for an answer," Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Similar testimony was given by Gen. Clark and Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of United States Central Command. The three generals, some of whom warned that a war with Iraq could detract from the campaign against terrorism, said the Bush administration must work harder to exhaust diplomatic options before resorting to military action to oust Saddam and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction Iraq may have. The three generals said a United Nations resolution was important because it would isolate Saddam internationally, give skittish allies some political cover to join any military action and bolster America's long-term global aims. "We are a global nation with global interests, and undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world, where we have to operate for economic reasons and political reasons," said Shalikashvili.
Now that the President has been forced to obtain a UN resolution calling on Iraq to comply with weapons inspections, he must allow time for the resolution to work. If Iraq complies, then no war is needed. If Iraq does not comply, the threat will be clear and we will have worldwide support for our actions. Why rush to war without such support? The short answer is that there is no need to rush. Make the case, build support, and then if other measures don’t work we will have the moral legitimacy we need before we issue our military a license to kill and put our soldiers in harm’s way. When (if) diplomacy fails we will at least know that we tried. Our soldiers and the innocent noncombatants who will be caught in the middle deserve our best efforts with diplomacy first.
(3) There must be serious prospects of success. Our military is the best the world has ever seen. Success against the Iraqi military is a certainty, and thus the President’s call for “regime change” is bound to happen if we invade. We need to be certain, however, that such a change would result in a safer world. That is the test for success, not removing Saddam. Ralph Waldo Emerson noted that men don’t ride events, events ride the man. The war could (and probably would) have consequences beyond what most of us can predict now. The eminent military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz cautioned that when preparing for war political leaders should never take the first step until they know their last. If war with Iraq is worth U.S. blood and treasure it is worth establishing and articulating a desired political end and a plan for the political consolidation of our military success. We must not take the first step until we have thought our strategy through to the last step, until we understand all the risks and rewards. This has not been done.
The first Gulf War convinced many Americans that war is cheap and easy, with few American casualties. There is an expectation that we can win easily and mostly from the air. If Saddam and his cronies hold out in the cities we will face urban combat, which is much more dangerous both to our military and to noncombatant civilians caught in the middle. It will not be a cheap victory. There is the threat that Saddam, backed into a corner and with nothing to lose, will lash out with weapons of mass destruction such as the chemical weapons he already has. He has already threatened to strike Israel and Israel has already promised to respond, throwing the entire region into even more disarray with unforeseen consequences. General Clark warned that attacking Iraq could divert military resources and political commitment to the global effort against Al Qaeda and possibly "supercharge" recruiting for the terrorist network. It would also cost a lot more national treasure than the first Gulf War. In the first effort in Congress to estimate the fiscal cost of an Iraqi war, Democrats on the House Budget Committee issued a report putting the likely price tag at $30 billion to $60 billion, less than that for the Persian Gulf War in 1991. That war cost about $60 billion, but our allies picked up four-fifths of the costs. The Democrats' estimates do not include the possible costs of a long-term peacekeeping mission or of providing aid. No doubt those costs would be enormous. Would an invasion of Iraq be in our long-term best interests, making the world safer? In short, we don’t know. The case has not been made. Rushing to war without properly considering the risks and rewards is a recipe for disaster, not success.
(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. If Iraq actually is close to possession of a nuclear weapon then an invasion to eliminate that threat would be the lesser evil, but as I discussed above the President has not, or can not, show that this is the case. I am also concerned about how the President used the threat of war in a partisan manner, just as Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested last year. This threatens the long-term survival of our republic. The response of Mr. Bush to valid questions and criticism by some senators was to question their patriotism. In the recent election Republicans in Georgia ran ads showing the twin towers falling and stating that Senator Max Cleland, who voted against giving Mr. Bush unchecked war powers, did not have the “courage to lead.” Cleland is a combat veteran who lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam. His opponent, who never served in the military, won. Mr. Bush, a National Guard veteran who courageously defended Texas from the Viet Cong while Cleland was fighting in Vietnam, has falsely tried to link Iraq to 9/11, has refused to provide evidence of an imminent threat, has dissipated the worldwide sympathy and support the U.S. enjoyed after 9/11 by not building a case with our allies, and then wrapped himself in the flag when questioned.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It is ok to question authority – our founding fathers taught us this when they created our republic. I therefore question Mr. Bush’s understanding of our Revolution and our Constitution. If war in Iraq is the right thing for us to do then our President should provide evidence to the American people. He has refused to do this, citing “national security,” and until he does so (if he can) war in Iraq is unjustified. If a “wag the dog” strategy is allowed to succeed it will weaken our system of government, which is a greater threat to our national security than any possible threat from Iraq.
One last note: if we do go to war in Iraq then we are all responsible, even those of us against the war. Do not blame the military for political decisions. When America wages war it is never the generals who decide to do so, but the politicians. Criticism of the war should not be directed at the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that go into harm’s way in the name of the United States. As citizens of a republic we are all responsible for the actions of our military, whether we wear a uniform or not. I hope we don’t go to war. If we do, I will support our soldiers however I can – but not the President.
If you haven't read MY WAR yet do it now (it is at http://cbftw.blogspot.com/). It is an immediate account of an infantryman in Mosul, Iraq, and the guy really knows how to write.
To get started, here is an editorial I wrote in November 2002, months before we invaded Iraq. See who got it right, me or George W. Bush:
The President has not shown that war with Iraq is morally just. Under the classic “just war doctrine,” a state is morally justified in its use of force if it meets all of the following four factors:
(1) The damage inflicted (or threatened) by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
(2) War should be waged only as a last resort.
(3) There must be serious prospects of success.
(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
As discussed below, war with Iraq has not met the just war standard.
(1) The damage inflicted (or threatened) by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain. If the facts show that Saddam is close to completion of a nuclear weapon then we should eliminate him. We don’t need to wait and be hit first before responding. His history of chemical weapons use against Iran and his own Kurdish minority demonstrate that he should not be allowed to acquire even more dangerous nuclear weapons. Is there proof that an atomic threat from Iraq is imminent? We simply don’t know. We are told that evidence can’t be shared because of “national security.” Such concerns did not stop President Kennedy from laying out his case during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the United States is to go to war, it had better not do so under false pretenses. The administration needs to lay out its case clearly and unambiguously, just as President Kennedy did. If there really is evidence, then a way can surely be found to show it while protecting the identity of sensitive intelligence sources. This has not been done. Even after secret information was recently shared with Congress many senators and representatives remained unconvinced. No credible information has been shared with the public. Meanwhile, North Korea, which provided Iraq its Scud missiles, has openly admitted to continuing its development of nuclear weapons despite agreeing to stop doing so in 1993. Is there talk of war against North Korea? Strangely, no. Why Iraq and not North Korea?
I am not willing to take it on faith, without evidence, that we must invade or suffer nuclear attack. Retired General Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander, feels the same. He recently testified before the Senate that, "It's a question of what's the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally? So far as any of the information has been presented, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate, next hours, next days, that there's going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region."
On 9/11 we watched in horror as two towers full of living human beings crashed to the ground. Our reaction was normal – we wanted to fight back, to punish the “evildoers.” I felt, and feel, the same. I want Osama dead. So why are we invading Iraq, a secular regime often denounced by Islamic fundamentalists such as Al Qaeda? Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. If Iraq had been behind the attacks, this debate, and Saddam, would already be over. The President’s weak attempts to use 9/11 to justify war with Iraq only point out the weakness of the case. When a president uses half-truths or untruths to justify a war, it is probably a good idea to slow down the march towards conflict. The attacks of 9/11 are unrelated to Iraq, and thus can provide no justification for an invasion.
Saddam and his cronies are evil, and the world would no doubt be better off without them. He has brutally oppressed his own people. That is not a reason to invade Iraq. If that were the test, then we should also invade North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Iran, and arguably Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, and on and on. Something more is required to provide a just cause for war or the sovereignty of all nations is threatened.
(2) War should be waged only as a last resort. One reason given for war is that Saddam is not complying with UN resolutions. However, Saddam hasn’t complied with UN resolutions for at least a decade. Why the rush to war now? Three retired four-star American generals said recently that attacking Iraq without a United Nations resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests. "We must continue to persuade the other members of the Security Council of the correctness of our position, and we must not be too quick to take no for an answer," Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Similar testimony was given by Gen. Clark and Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, a former chief of United States Central Command. The three generals, some of whom warned that a war with Iraq could detract from the campaign against terrorism, said the Bush administration must work harder to exhaust diplomatic options before resorting to military action to oust Saddam and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction Iraq may have. The three generals said a United Nations resolution was important because it would isolate Saddam internationally, give skittish allies some political cover to join any military action and bolster America's long-term global aims. "We are a global nation with global interests, and undermining the credibility of the United Nations does very little to help provide stability and security and safety to the rest of the world, where we have to operate for economic reasons and political reasons," said Shalikashvili.
Now that the President has been forced to obtain a UN resolution calling on Iraq to comply with weapons inspections, he must allow time for the resolution to work. If Iraq complies, then no war is needed. If Iraq does not comply, the threat will be clear and we will have worldwide support for our actions. Why rush to war without such support? The short answer is that there is no need to rush. Make the case, build support, and then if other measures don’t work we will have the moral legitimacy we need before we issue our military a license to kill and put our soldiers in harm’s way. When (if) diplomacy fails we will at least know that we tried. Our soldiers and the innocent noncombatants who will be caught in the middle deserve our best efforts with diplomacy first.
(3) There must be serious prospects of success. Our military is the best the world has ever seen. Success against the Iraqi military is a certainty, and thus the President’s call for “regime change” is bound to happen if we invade. We need to be certain, however, that such a change would result in a safer world. That is the test for success, not removing Saddam. Ralph Waldo Emerson noted that men don’t ride events, events ride the man. The war could (and probably would) have consequences beyond what most of us can predict now. The eminent military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz cautioned that when preparing for war political leaders should never take the first step until they know their last. If war with Iraq is worth U.S. blood and treasure it is worth establishing and articulating a desired political end and a plan for the political consolidation of our military success. We must not take the first step until we have thought our strategy through to the last step, until we understand all the risks and rewards. This has not been done.
The first Gulf War convinced many Americans that war is cheap and easy, with few American casualties. There is an expectation that we can win easily and mostly from the air. If Saddam and his cronies hold out in the cities we will face urban combat, which is much more dangerous both to our military and to noncombatant civilians caught in the middle. It will not be a cheap victory. There is the threat that Saddam, backed into a corner and with nothing to lose, will lash out with weapons of mass destruction such as the chemical weapons he already has. He has already threatened to strike Israel and Israel has already promised to respond, throwing the entire region into even more disarray with unforeseen consequences. General Clark warned that attacking Iraq could divert military resources and political commitment to the global effort against Al Qaeda and possibly "supercharge" recruiting for the terrorist network. It would also cost a lot more national treasure than the first Gulf War. In the first effort in Congress to estimate the fiscal cost of an Iraqi war, Democrats on the House Budget Committee issued a report putting the likely price tag at $30 billion to $60 billion, less than that for the Persian Gulf War in 1991. That war cost about $60 billion, but our allies picked up four-fifths of the costs. The Democrats' estimates do not include the possible costs of a long-term peacekeeping mission or of providing aid. No doubt those costs would be enormous. Would an invasion of Iraq be in our long-term best interests, making the world safer? In short, we don’t know. The case has not been made. Rushing to war without properly considering the risks and rewards is a recipe for disaster, not success.
(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. If Iraq actually is close to possession of a nuclear weapon then an invasion to eliminate that threat would be the lesser evil, but as I discussed above the President has not, or can not, show that this is the case. I am also concerned about how the President used the threat of war in a partisan manner, just as Republican strategist Karl Rove suggested last year. This threatens the long-term survival of our republic. The response of Mr. Bush to valid questions and criticism by some senators was to question their patriotism. In the recent election Republicans in Georgia ran ads showing the twin towers falling and stating that Senator Max Cleland, who voted against giving Mr. Bush unchecked war powers, did not have the “courage to lead.” Cleland is a combat veteran who lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam. His opponent, who never served in the military, won. Mr. Bush, a National Guard veteran who courageously defended Texas from the Viet Cong while Cleland was fighting in Vietnam, has falsely tried to link Iraq to 9/11, has refused to provide evidence of an imminent threat, has dissipated the worldwide sympathy and support the U.S. enjoyed after 9/11 by not building a case with our allies, and then wrapped himself in the flag when questioned.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. It is ok to question authority – our founding fathers taught us this when they created our republic. I therefore question Mr. Bush’s understanding of our Revolution and our Constitution. If war in Iraq is the right thing for us to do then our President should provide evidence to the American people. He has refused to do this, citing “national security,” and until he does so (if he can) war in Iraq is unjustified. If a “wag the dog” strategy is allowed to succeed it will weaken our system of government, which is a greater threat to our national security than any possible threat from Iraq.
One last note: if we do go to war in Iraq then we are all responsible, even those of us against the war. Do not blame the military for political decisions. When America wages war it is never the generals who decide to do so, but the politicians. Criticism of the war should not be directed at the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that go into harm’s way in the name of the United States. As citizens of a republic we are all responsible for the actions of our military, whether we wear a uniform or not. I hope we don’t go to war. If we do, I will support our soldiers however I can – but not the President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)