November 28, 2006 Posts
03:55 Wrong-Headed Thinking By Baker's Bureaucrats 20:42 Mutliculturalism Run Amok
Wrong-Headed Thinking By Baker's Bureaucrats
This year's prime example of bureaucratic wrong-headed thinking, aka the Baker Commission report, will be made public this December. This year, like in all other years, Democrats will fawn all over the report while pushing for acceptance of all its recommendations. The White House should reject these recommendations because they're defeatism disguised as 'realism'. David Sanger's article lists a number of interesting insights into the report.
A draft report on strategies for Iraq, which will be debated here by a bipartisan commission beginning Monday, urges an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria but sets no timetables for a military withdrawal, according to officials who have seen all or parts of the document.As I've written before, direct talks with Syria and Iran shouldn't be held because (a) they aren't interested in stabilizing the region and (b) because they won't keep their word. Diplomacy is only useful when dealing with honest people. Otherwise, it's an exercise that's designed to impress the 'world community', which is meaningless. It seems to me that holding direct talks with Iran and/or Syria only legitimates them. Instead of playing nice in public, we should be putting them on notice that their financing the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq won't be tolerated.
In interviews, several officials said announcing a major withdrawal was the only way to persuade the government of Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, to focus on creating an effective Iraqi military force. Several commission members, including some Democrats, are discussing proposals that call for a declaration that within a specified period of time, perhaps as short as a year, a significant number of American troops should be withdrawn, regardless of whether the Iraqi government's forces are declared ready to defend the country.Announcing a Coalition pullout will just undermine security in Iraq. It also undercuts the efforts of brave Iraqi patriots who've stuck their necks out against the terrorists and the insurgents in their quest for freedom. Tips to security forces will dry up. Violence will increase. Insurgents' and terrorists' actions will become more bold. In fact, the insurgents and terrorists have already become more bold.
Aside from the policy aspects of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's report, which are awful enough, it should be seen as utterly immoral to abandon a nation after telling them that you'd help them become a democracy. But 'realists' like Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden, Jim Baker and John Kerry don't care about behaving in a morally disgusting manner. Their only consideration is how to declare defeat against the terrorists without accepting the blame for declaring unilateral defeat in the one war we can't afford to lose.
While we're at it, let's just be blunt about this. Let's not let Hagel, Biden, Baker, Kerry and others appropriate the realist label when that isn't who they are. Who they are is a collection of failures and/or idiots. To the best of my knowledge, only Baker's been on the right side of any foreign policy. Even then, he counseled against taking out Saddam, which only left us having to defeat him later on. The rest of them are foreign policy idiots.
The commission's co-chairmen have urged members and staff not to discuss their deliberations. As a result, those who were willing to talk about the commission's work and the draft reports did so on the condition of anonymity.
TRANSLATION: Though the commission's co-chairmen have urged members and staff not to discuss their deliberations, some members and staff have acted dishonorably by ignoring their directives.
Posted Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:55 AM
No comments.
Mutliculturalism Run Amok
Dennis Prager has weighed in with his opinion on Keith Ellison placing his hand on the Qu'ran instead of the Bible when he gets sworn in. At first, I didn't think I'd be that interested in this column, even though I enjoy Mr. Prager's work. I'm thankful now that I took the time.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism, my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.The truth is that America has never been nor should it ever be multicultural. The goal of the Founding Fathers was to create American society, where we pulled towards the same goals. The plague we call multiculturalism strives to divide people by letting each pursue a culture that is distinctly not American.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
What America is is mult-ethnic. Being multi-ethnic isn't the same as being multicultural because being multi-ethnic means that we're pulling for the same goals. Assimilation is happening on a daily basis in a multi-ethnic country. France is typical of a multicultural Euronation. We all remember the riots in France last year. The reports coming from France said that French society didn't attempt to get Muslims moving into France to assimilate. That may be true but it's equally true that those Muslims migrating to France weren't interested in assimilation either.
Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible.The points Mr. Prager makes are all valid. That won't matter to the extremist, though, as CAIR and other PC liberals will be bashing Prager for his intolerance on the issue. Who cares? If those criticisms were directed at me, I'd wear their criticisms like a badge of honor.
Posted Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment 1 by mulp at 01-Dec-06 12:40 PM
You might try studying the history of the American colonies to understand how divided the people were on religious grounds.
And the discussion on the use of the Bible for a secular purpose is rather ironic, missing entirely one of the major issues of the time: following Bible teachings. People were hanged over disagreements on the interpretation of the Bible, eg., Mary Dyer and her companions.
But consider the Bible itself:
Jefferson's Life and Morals of Jesus, Chapter 2
36: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
37: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
38: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
39: Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
40: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Many in that time felt that to call for allegience to be sworn to a state was an offense against God. But others took offense to the demand for swearing an oath because that implied that such was required for a person to speak the truth.
You and Prager are using the Bible to make a secular argument, one that has nothing to do with religion, and not really anything to do with culture. After all, you are either ignorant of our culture, or reject it.
Comment 2 by Chris Joosse at 01-Dec-06 04:57 PM
Your assertion here Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
doesn't reconcile with the Constitution of the United States. To quote Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution:
The . . . Representatives before mentioned . . . shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
We're asking our elected representatives to make an oath and keep it. We're not requiring them to swear over someone else's book, for good reason. The framers of the constitution were all too familiar with the kinds of abuses that happen when the power of the state gets wrapped up in honoring one religion and/or its symbols and trappings over another.
In any case, the bottom line here is that if having someone swear on a Bible is so important, the electorate had it's chance to express that when they elected someone who doesn't read it.
