11/22/05

The Word

The best place to get the news is a much debated topic by conservatives. I personally have three sources that I prefer. Let me get out of the way what does not count. I glance at the local news be it TV or the local paper just to see what is going on in my immediate surrounding. I also glance at the headlines of the New York Times. They usually know what is big in the news. My news starts with Fox News. They are fair and balance and Fox and Friends really is a great way to wake up. The Wall Street Journal is a strong intellectual paper with journalistic integrity. Finally I would encourage every one to watch two shows between 11:00 and 12:00pm. The Daily Show followed by The Colbert Report on Comedy Central.

Yes, I am still a conservative through and through. First, if I am going to watch news in the liberally controlled media, I might as well get a chuckle out of it. John Stuart and Steven Colbert are usually liberal, but they both will take pot shots at liberals as well as conservatives. I have even found Colbert to make some pretty conservative points with his guests. I don’t condone all that these comedian news anchors do and say, but I find it to be a nice release at the end of a frustrating day. It reminds us that no matter what has happened in the day, we can still laugh. Finally, I want to know what everyone is talking about at the water cooler. Most normal people (I do not consider myself normal because I actually try to find the news and care about it) get their news from these shows, at least the younger crowd. I think it is important to know what is going on and how people are going to view current events, and these two men seem to be able to connect with the American people. I want to know why people think the number one threat to Americans today are Bears. And that’s the Word.

11/21/05

Rolling Down the Hill

What is the problem on Capital Hill today? Why are we wasting taxpayer money (You know we pay those guys right?) on petty squabbling about a war that we are in and no one in their right mind things we should pull out of. There are 3 members of the House of Representatives that are empirically verifiably out of their right mind. I am referring to the three that voted to pull out of Iraq right now. First of all, context people. Congressman Murtha did not say that he wanted to pull out of Iraq right now, this minute, no exceptions. Yes, I am defending a democrat because the sensationalist media is running with this for good or ill. I for one agree with Murtha, we should pull out “as soon as practicable.” People, people practicable is a politician’s term. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. To me practicable means as soon as we have a thriving democracy and an Iraqi led defense force to protect the people. I have a feeling that may not be what Congressman Murtha meant. The point is we are wasting our time and money talking about things that are not going to change. When our President is on a Policy tour of Asia, he should be able to talk about policy in Asia and not some ridiculous vote in Congress. I don’t blame the Republicans for doing it. If you can’t get anything done then you might as well make the point obvious to the American people. I have to agree with George Melloan of the Wall Street Journal in his latest Global View opinion column “At Last, the Beltway Takes a Holiday“. Washington is loosing touch with the American people and even the American way of life. I think we can all come to a bipartisan agreement on that point. Now let me just say it. The Democrats are mucking up the Potomac so much with anti-Bush sentiment that I am afraid we will not get anything done. It is time to call the Beltway Boys home for an accounting of their actions.

11/18/05

Critiquing a Conservative on Iraq

This entry is in direct response to a discussion that I have been having with a friend of mine who is most honorably fighting for our nation in Iraq. Ok how to rebut a solid argument of a conservative and not come off sounding like a flaming liberal. Oh yea! As my professor, Joe Tucker, puts it best, “the only thing it takes to be a liberal is a total disregard for facts.” So here goes. Fist of all I agree that Bush did not put the best argument out there because people are stupid and the best argument does not always carry the day with irrational emotional people. The WMD argument was a good call at the time, but the fact that WMD’s have not been found makes it Monday morning quarterback time for the talking heads, liberals, water cooler conversationalist, political pundits, Democrats, moderate conservatives, and just about everyone else that is not either a war hawk or a neoconservative. Point well taken.

I believe that many conservatives have put on the table a rebuttable presumption that creating a Democracy in the Middle East is in and of itself a good thing. That assumption has one major flaw, and it is not the “Democracy in the Middle East” part. The part that needs attention (and I am not even saying it is wrong) is the “creating” part. If I remember my history right it is the United States that gave Osama Bin Laden his military start in Afghanistan thinking that giving him weapons and training his men, the Taliban, would help defeat communism and anything is better than Communism and the USSR. The United States also supported Saddam Hussein’s rise to power in Iraq. If I remember correctly it was that we supported Saddam in Iraq over Iran because we believed that we could control Saddam and bring stability to the region. If we look at the score board it’s USSR, Communism, and Iran = 0 and Afghanistan and Iraq = 4 (Gulf War, 9/11, the War in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom). The US just does not have the best record creating nations or leaders that end up being in the United States Best interests. The easy defense to your argument is yes, but this time it’s a Democracy not some other totalitarian form of Government.

11/16/05

A Better Case for War

With all the talk about the Iraq War and those that have supported are no longer supporting, it would be helpful to look at why we went to war in the first place. Iraq, I have a different take on then our President and most anyone I have talked to, but I believe my argument to be well founded. The US is a member of an international body that Iraq was also a member of. That body, the UN, passed numerous resolutions basically saying do “X, Y, and Z or else.” (This is in no way a reference to the infamous X, Y, Z Affair of the founding period.) Iraq time after time year after year ignored these UN resolutions. The crux of my argument is based on the authority and jurisdiction created by the UN specifically Security Council Resolutions. I believe that upon the agreement or resolution being passed it is wholly enforceable even if the whole does not seek to enforce it. The US and other nations had authority to enforce the resolutions absent a new resolution that changes it. The US was under an obligation along with the rest of the UN to enforce its resolutions. The Resolution was as much binding on the nations of the UN as it was on Iraq. I know it is far out there, but I think it is solid. Not that it could not use some tinkering, but the gist is the important part. Once again Democracy in the Middle East is like a desert on top of a good main course. The main course is the important thing.