Before I was a hawk, I was a liberal.  Part of my transformation to “neocon” was due to the fact that the Democratic Party was hi-jacked by the MoveOn.org crowd.  Liberals, in their intense dislike of Bush, gave in to a faith in illogical hatred–motivated by an any-means-necessary hatred of Bush, which Charles Krauthammer termed Bush Derangement Syndrome–so much so, even, that they have all but written off the very real threat of Islamo-fascism and terrorism.

But it goes deeper than that.  During the Clinton era, Democrats and Liberals were not so quick to decry war in whatever form it took.  The Balkans did not raise such an intense fuss that the entire Party was usurped by peace-nicks.  The first Gulf War went off without much protest, and certainly without the virulence and vitriol we see today.

The funny thing to me is that I was against this second invasion of Iraq, along with many other liberals, but once we had invaded, once we had invested ourselves in this fight–and the Iraqi people–my dissent ended–not my criticism of tactics or the rushed invasion, but my dissent over the war itself.  I recalled the preemptive move out of Iraq in the early 90’s.  The Iraqi people that had risen up to help us were then beaten back down by Saddam Hussein, utterly abandoned by America.

(more…)

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD formally endorses Dr Condoleezza Rice as GOP VP candidate. 

Politically - it’s the killer move - totally marginalizing the Donkey Party with a self made grrl on the ticket. The powder puff pieces in the Lame Stream Media would be sweet. “OMG! Didn’t know she knew innocent victims of the Birmingham bombing way back in the day.” Or “Her fave color is peridot - she loves chocolate chip cookies!”

Her positive ratings are almost nigh unchanged since day one - 69% - way better than HRC, John Edwards - or any GOP contenders.

Any flak on Iraq will seem like sour grapes completely owned by the ‘defeat, retreat and repeat” posse.

Dr Rice would most likely point out that unhinged neoconphobic regimes, fanbois, ammoral realpolitikers and boring isolationists are way out of touch.

“The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but it
is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly
by a foreign power. This is true but beside the point. It is more likely that
tyranny has to be imposed.

The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy –
the right to choose those who will govern them and other basic freedoms. It is,
instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient
with them and holding them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life.

It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders,
support their countries’ democratic institutions, and ensure that their new
governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when
their nations have experienced crippling conflicts.”

Plus, Dr Rice could be essential in the wake of rowdy Russia. Projecting the sexyful appeal of democrazy and constant confrontation and selective intervention for nations that seek to draw closer to Great Satan in scary parts of the world.

 And finally turning loose America’s preimer Kremlinologist with an ubound agenda on Russia would most likely fit Senator McCain’s vision of future world - where intolerant bullies, creeps, jerks and retards are - their own choice mind you - marginalized, co opted,  democratised or annihilated.

~by Robin Simcox

[TO JOIN THE BLOGBURST CLICK HERE]

Events are currently unfolding in Britain which will almost certainly not penetrate any international newsreels (or any in the UK for that matter), but the importance of which transcends the geographical boundaries of the British Isles. It concerns an organisation known as the British Muslim Initiative (BMI).

The BMI have been accused of being a front group for terrorist organisation Hamas. BMI President Mohammad Sawalha was formerly the head of the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood (of whom Hamas are the Palestinian wing). He has been accused by the BBC in 2006 of being a key political and military strategist for Hamas, and one of BMI’s senior members, Azzam Tamimi, has declared his wish to become a suicide bomber in Palestine.

On 29th June, a rally celebrating Israel’s 60th birthday was held in London’s Trafalgar Square. In response, Sawalha gave an interview in Arabic to the al-Jazeera news channel. This interview was translated by the UK blog Harry’s Place, which describes itself as “an open forum for the democratic, secular, anti-fascist, liberal, anti-totalitarian left”. Their translation of al-Jazeera’s initial transcript showed Sawahla commenting that “We, the Arab and Islamic community, gather here today to express our resentment at the celebrations by the Jewish community and the evil/noxious Jew in Britain”.

Harry’s Place dutifully reported its findings, which is where the controversy begins.

Al-Jazeera physically changed its report, with the word “?????? ” (translated as a variant of “evil”) replaced with “?????? ” (“lobby”). Harry’s Place then received a letter from BMI saying they had “inexplicably grossly mistranslated [Sawalha’s] reference to the Jewish ‘Lobby’” and that unless an immediate apology was issued, they would pursue the matter legally. An al-Jazeera reporter explained that he had made a mistake in his initial report, and Sawalha had, indeed, referred to the “Jewish Lobby”. Al-Jazeera, then, had made the error; Harry’s Place were simply reporting the translation as it originally appeared.

(more…)

Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is a Catholic, although—as this column by Richard Cohen points out—his marital history isn’t precisely what the Catholic church would consider ideal.

Cohen compares Giuliani’s recent answer to a question about his Catholicism with that of a man widely known as “the first Catholic President,” JFK. Giuliani told reporters his religion was his own private affair; JFK said it would not influence his policy decisions as President.

I remember hearing a lot about JFK’s Catholicism during the 1960 campaign. It’s hard to believe now, but his religion really was an issue for many people, who entertained the notion that his election might mean the Pope would be running the country by proxy.

Those sorts of ideas are way behind us. Or are they?

Think about it: JFK was indeed the first Catholic President, but so far he has also been the only Catholic President. A great many years have elapsed since 1960 and till now it’s been all WASPS (and male ones, at that), all the way.

Last June a Bloomberg/LA Times poll indicated that only 9% of respondents would be reluctant to vote for a Catholic, but it also revealed that 35% wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, with 14% unwilling to vote for a Jew, 22% for an evangelical Christian, and a whopping 53% for a Muslim.

On the face of it, this seems to be about bigotry. And no doubt for some it is. But there’s another angle to it, one touched on tangentially (and not very cogently) by Cohen in his column, and that is this question: how do religious beliefs inform decisions of conscience for a public leader? Can they be separated, and should they be?

Cohen characterizes JFK’s speech on the subject this way:

Kennedy’s speech was an affirmation of rational thought—a promise to deal with the great issues of state in a secular manner. Nowhere in the speech did JFK renounce his Catholicism or say it didn’t matter to him. But he did make clear that as president he would make decisions in “accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest.”

As is often the case, what Kennedy actually said was a bit more complex than that. Much of his speech was devoted to a description of how he supported the traditional separation of church and state and freedom of religion, and how the Pope would not be ordering national policy if he were to be elected. He asked that voters judge him on his Congressional record. And indeed, he did say:

Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views—in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But JFK doesn’t seem to have been as naive as Cohen in thinking that those decisions can be totally separated from religion if a person is a believer. After all, religion does both proceed (at least partly) from moral beliefs and inform moral beliefs, and these things can influence what an individual thinks is in the national interest. As Giuliani points out, our religious beliefs are private, it’s true. But they are not utterly separate from our decision-making process, not walled-off in some ivory tower. There is feedback between the two.

In his speech, JFK added:

But if the time should ever come—and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible—when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise.

So he is not throwing away his religious beliefs—what he refers to here as his “conscience,” although he is imagining that there is almost no possibility of conflict between them and the public interest (after all, he’s running for office here). If the two happen to be in synch, very well and good; that’s what he imagines will always be the case. But if they were to happen to disagree, he would be willing to go with “conscience” and resign the office.

Cohen writes:

For a lawmaker, gay marriage is and ought to be a policy matter: good policy or bad policy, fair to gays or unfair to gays. Once this or any other issue becomes a matter of religious conviction, it’s removed from the arena of public debate.

Yes indeed, it ought to be. But when a person decides whether something is “good policy or bad policy,” the decision is based on a host of things, most of which are intangible. After all, social science research can be spun and used by either side in matters such as gay marriage and almost everything else of a policy nature. Whether something is “good policy or bad policy” often does come down, in subtle ways, to a matter of opinion: whether a given person—and that means any person, including those who are atheists—happens to think it so, based on an entire belief system which may or may not be supported by convincing and objective evidence.

It’s not just the religious who have irrational beliefs, or who make decisions based on what we might call faith. No, that’s an equal-opportunity (and a human) phenomenon.

[NOTE: A fascinating book on how liberals and the Left might be considered a sort of faith-based community is Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed.]

~from Neo-Neocon

There has always been something profoundly brave and good about the ideology of neoconservatism. America is so wealthy, so powerful, and historically so dedicated to the purpose of justice and democracy. Why shouldn’t we use our military to free those subjugated by tyrants and murdered en masse by oppressors? How dare we not intervene in genocides? Libertarians believe that the government should not intervene in our individual rights. This is how, domestically, we protect our freedom from our own government. But how do we protect the life and freedom of those less fortunate than us elsewhere?

In fact, where is our military now? Where is it in the Sudan, in Darfur? Where were we in Rwanda during that tragedy? This is the meat of the issue, I think. Neoconservative policy must reflect a genuine desire to spread freedom and protect human life in all parts of the world, not just those that are rich in resources. Iraq was a mistake because we hadn’t won the war of global opinion, yet. We were seen by allies and foes alike as aggressors, perhaps after oil profits, perhaps vengeful of past wrongs. Either way, we were seen as bullies and had very little help in the struggle to free the Iraqi people. The mistake in Iraq was not that we overthrew the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Rather, it is that we invaded with too little planning, too few allies, and not nearly enough of a defensive strategy against the hostile powers in Iran and Syria.

We stand idly by now, as tens of thousands in Darfur are slaughtered because we have become so stymied in our progress in Iraq and, sadly, Afghanistan. I must lament the failure in the former safe-haven of both Al Queda and the Taliban. Here is one area we need to redouble our military efforts.

Meanwhile, Russia and China, the two giant rogue states, work behind the scenes, encouraging Iran and Venezuela in their defiance of America and spreading terrorism, global unrest, and civil war throughout the 3rd world. China holds much of Africa in its deep pocket, and foments much of the violence there–or at least does little to intervene.

Here are two countries that, if they had the means, would quite quickly bring Iran or Venezuela to their knees in order to rob them of their resources, and yet in the streets of Tehran who do the young men shout against? Whose flag is burned? America’s. More on this later…

Certainly it is not the end goal to simply persuade the world that the United States is a purveyor of good, of freedom, of prosperity. However, this PR campaign certainly wouldn’t hurt the cause. Rather, it would do much to quell these protests. It would further cast Russia and China into the light they deserve. We should lead by example first, and then worry about long-term strategy. First we should enter areas of conflict that are not so controversial. We should establish our role as freedom fighters and defenders of liberty. If we had a decent track record on this point, we would have met with much less resistance in Iraq from our allies. Perhaps NATO or the United Nations would be operating heavily in that country, rather than US troops and a farcical coalition of the willing–though I am loath to recommend any reliance upon the UN to accomplish much of anything militarily. They are very nearly as ineffectual as the African Union. NATO is a far more reliable organization.

In summation, the following global military strategy is essential if we are to eventually come up against the threat of China and Russia as well as in our Long War against Terrorism. We must fight battles of mercy as well as strategy. We must save the weak–the hundreds of thousands of dispossessed in the Sudan, for instance–before we can justify assaults on Iran or North Korea. We must solidify the good will of civilized nations, not because they are right, but because we must find a strategy that affords us the longest momentum. We cannot lose the war of public or global opinion if we are to continue fighting, otherwise the average American will eventually grow disgusted and give up, as is the case now with many voters over Iraq.

Beyond this we must pay more heed to our experienced military leaders in the planning and execution of future conflicts. Iraq was badly mishandled in the first phases of rebuilding. The security situation was pathetic at best. This is unacceptable, and was the most critical defeat in the policy war against the neoconservative movement.

It is time to polish our idealism with practicality, and to sprinkle mercy and compassion into our global military reach. Hearts and minds are as vital as shock and awe, after all.