You’re welcome

July 13, 2009

An Iraqi columnist thanks America for what we’ve done for Iraq and tells his brethren in the Arab world to go to Hell:

America chose to save us from the most evil party, and the most despicable President in the universe [Saddam]. Meanwhile, the Arab powers stood firmly against the American project. They used all means to thwart them, but Allah’s will had another say in this matter. America turned the Ba’athists into the world’s laughing stock by showing them fleeing in their underwear on live television. Meanwhile, the Arab powers turned those cowards into national heroes on their satellite channels.

America gave the lives of 4,000 of its people to Iraq’s land to instill security and democracy, while the Arabs sent us their filthy mercenaries who mercilessly murdered, bombed, and slaughtered the Iraqi people.

America came bearing democracy for Iraq, while the Arabs brought us the new religion of the Wahhabis and Salafists. This religion aims to destroy Iraq and return it to the days of minority rule.

America canceled all of our debts and urged the rest of the world to do so, while the Arabs refused to do so and they even demanded payment for every Iraqi citizen living in their countries.

Do read the whole thing: after eight years of war, it’s nice to get a "thank you" – and to watch those hypocrites in other Arab countries get a verbal lashing.

popcorn

 

Technorati tags: , ,
Advertisements

A disarming president

July 13, 2009

Chamberlain peace

Liz Cheney takes President Obama to task for his misstatement of the end of the Cold War during his Moscow visit, effectively accepting Russia's version over the truth, and for his passive appeasement of our enemies in general: Obama Rewrites the Cold War

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

Cheney speaks the truth. The Cold War ended because, after trying to match the American rearmament under Reagan, the Soviet leadership realized they were being bled to death financially. Hence a new leadership under Gorbachev tried to save the USSR by retreating from the outer glacis of their empire and reforming the Soviet Union itself. But resentment against Moscow's tyranny and the historic hatred of the subject peoples for their Great Russian conquerors proved too much, and the USSR itself collapsed in 1991, too weak to prevent the secession of Ukraine, the Baltic states, and other territories.

Along with his ignorance of history, Ms. Cheney also excoriates Obama's apparent devotion to a "peace through appearing harmless" strategy, which, as she shows by quoting a National Security Council report issued during the Democratic Truman Administration, goes against bipartisan American security policy since the end of World War II:

"No people in history,"…"have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."

President Obama's foreign policy is essentially one of appeasement, fed by an evident ignorance or plain disregard of history that leads him to draw false equivalences between us and our enemies; if "we" are no better than "they," then it becomes quite tempting to buy peace by conceding the point and not vigorously defending your own interests. Trouble is, it doesn't work. The crocodile eventually gets around to eating you, too.  Appeasement didn't work for Chamberlain, it didn't work for Carter, and it won't work for Obama – perhaps much to our peril.


Held to a standard

July 13, 2009

Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearing has begun today, worthy of being elevated to the Supreme Court? One way to answer that question is to ask if she has kept her oath of office as a judge on the Court of Appeal. Here’s the oath she took:

“I, [Sonia Sotomayor], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

And here is what she wrote in the Spring 2002 issue (v.13, no.1) of the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. … I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Emphases added. Judge Sotomayor’s quoted wish was not just a one-time, off-the-cuff thought. Far from it, as Verum Serum has looked at her record and found this to be almost a stump speech for her. Her belief in the superiority of the "wise Latina woman" appears to be dearly held.

Thus one has to ask: holding as she does to a belief in jurisprudence based on ethnicity and gender, that a judge deciding a case can reach different and better decisions by taking into account factors unrelated to the case in hand and unique to the judge, should Judge Sonia Sotomayor be elevated to the Supreme  Court?

Equality for all before the law is a bedrock principle of our republic. Every person coming before the bench has the right to expect their case to be decided based on the facts presented in court and an impartial application of the law, without regard to ethnicity, "race," religion, social class, or gender – theirs or the judge’s. Based on Judge Sotomayor’s statement above, therefore, my answer would be a loud "no."

Not talking

(via The Heritage Foundation)

 


A corrupted system

July 13, 2009

Tigerhawk wonders why we keep voting for people who almost laugh at the idea that they should read bills before voting on them, or that the bills need to have been written at all by the time of the vote.

Good question. Confused