What About the Women?

Next time liberals try to tell you that they are for women's rights
and conservatives are not, can you please show them these two
video:

Video 1



Video 2

Proportionate Response

Here's a great blog posting from Michael Totten about those calling for a
"proportionate response" from Israel. A snippet:

The “disproportionate response” crowd doesn’t seem to mind
that Israel struck back at Hamas per se. They aren’t saying
Israel should only be allowed to negotiate with its enemies or
that any use of force whatsoever is wrong. They’re clearly saying
Israel should use less force, inflict less damage, or both.

One problem here is that it’s not at all clear how they think
Israelis should go about doing it. The weapons used by each
side can’t be the same. No one has ever said Israel ought to
put its superior weapons systems in cold storage until Hamas
can develop or purchase something similar. Presumably Israel
is allowed to use its superior technology as long as the casualty
count on each side is proportionate.

Has there ever been a time in Western civilization (or of all civilization, for that
matter) when a country has been asked only to defend itself proportionately?
To me that is an absolute recipe for endless war and no one coming out a winner.
If you are only killing the enemy in order get a "proportionate" body count than
he will just come back a few months later and attack again.

In the left side of the political aisle so much surrounds fairness in economics and
now it has seeped into moral assessments in war. I think one of the reasons why the
left may see Israel's action as immoral because they are richer and have a better
military than the Gazans. Thus, they view it as a rich country taking advantage
of a poor territory. Also with the left the rich country obviously has financial motives
in my mind when they attack, not the poor country. And I think the same logic goes
with the war in Iraq. However, when judging if an military action is immoral or moral
you must asses both sides intentions, goals, reasons, etc. Because with this type
of logic no military action Israel takes (or America for that matter) will ever be
"proportionate" enough or moral.

Must Read

Sometimes I discover articles I find interesting but don't post them because
I don't have any commentary on them. What I'm going to start doing is labeling
and my posts "Must Read" and just link the article. So here ya go.

Moral Standing

I sense a hint of moral equivalence in Sen. Obama's comments today:

We’ve got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies,”
Obama told a crowd of supporters in Virginia. “They can’t charge
into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by
example on that point.”

I've also seen late night comics like Jon Stewart basically make the same
arguments in their jokes. Let me just say this as clear as I can: What Russia
is doing in Georgia is not the same as Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a brutal
dictator and no one denies that. He used WMD's on the Kurds. He invaded
neighbors. He paid money to families of suicide bombers. Is there any
evidence of anything like this going on in Georgia to say make a moral
equivalence argument? No. The United States also went into Iraq with allies,
I know that is a surprise to some. Guess what: We even had Georgian troops
in Iraq and they had to be sent back home when Russia invaded.

I read this op-ed piece explaining why the "moral standing" and equivalence
argument is absurd. And it's coming from someone who says opposed the
Iraq War:

First, the moral issue. No matter what mistakes Bush made in Iraq,
they don't excuse Russia's brutal behavior in Georgia or toward its
other neighbors, behavior that began long before Bush took office.
America's "moral standing" is irrelevant in judging Russia's actions.

I opposed Bush's broad doctrine of preemption - the right to invade
another nation on the assumption that it might threaten us sometime
in the future, even if it poses no threat in the short term. I also criticized
Bush policy on Iraq. But there is no parallel between the cases of Iraq
and Georgia.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant under U.N. sanction for invading
Kuwait and using weapons of mass destruction against his own people
(not to mention against neighboring Iran). He was a continuing threat
to his neighbors. Saakashvili may have acted rashly, and he may have
flaws as a leader, but he's the elected president of a tiny nation next
to a giant nuclear power.

As for Kosovo, I believe it was a mistake, in principle, for the United
States and Europe to recognize the independence of this breakaway
region of Serbia. Given the number of ethnic ink spots within European
and other states, I thought this endorsement was an invitation to
more civil wars. This move infuriated Vladimir Putin, an ally of the
Serbs, who made clear he would retaliate.

Now, however, Russia presents itself as a champion of Ossetian
self-determination. That's absurd. Russia has brutally repressed
separatist movements inside its territory, particularly in Chechnya,
where Russian artillery and bombs have killed untold thousands of
civilians.

Equally off-base are Russian charges that Georgia indulged in
"ethnic cleansing" of South Ossetia. (No evidence has emerged to
back up Moscow's claim that Georgian troops killed 2,000 Ossetians;
a Human Rights Watch report indicated the number is probably
under 100.)

Yes, Saakashvili sent troops into South Ossetia, but this followed a decade
of Russian provocations and military occupation of the enclave. Moscow
used the enclave as a weapon against Georgia.

Putin has been clear about wanting to restore the Kremlin's
former empire, calling the Soviet breakup the "greatest
geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century."

Given what has happened to Georgia, other former Soviet Republics
now have good reason to worry. Putin has threatened to target Russia's
nuclear weapons against Ukraine if that country continues efforts to
join NATO (and a Russian general just warned that Poland could face
attack over a missile-defense deal with Washington)

The moral equivalence argument has always struck me of lacking critical thinking
skills because it doesn't take account all the facts. It just paints things in black and
white, which is funny because George W. Bush is often been accused of doing that.
The United States has no moral standing because we aren't perfect. Here's some
news from you: The United States wasn't perfect during WWII but we still had the
moral gumption to face evil and defeat fascism.

Hypocritical?

Too bad some people like Jack Cafferty don't know the difference between deposing
one of the most brutal dictators in modern history and then rebuilding a country to
what Russia is doing to Georgia. But in a world of "moral equivalence" it's all the same,
no difference.

My heart aches.

Obama Might 'Refine' Iraq Timeline

And there you go the differences between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain regarding
Iraq are starting to disappear:

FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the
United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence
in Iraq, but added that he would be open to “refine my policies”
about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with
American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this
month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was
built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted
16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops,
dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the
wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election
fight with Senator John McCain.

This was basically one of the issues that did Hillary Clinton in. Now the only
difference I see between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain when it comes to the
issue of Iraq is that Obama opposed the war since the beginning. However, he
was not in the Senate back in 2002 to actually vote against the authorization
nor did he have the intelligence other members of Congress had. So what does
it really matter?

He later tried to walk back his comments:

“I intend to end this war... That position has not changed. I have not
equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering
room with respect to that position.”

Well John McCain has said if elected we will exit Iraq by 2013. So he too
wants to end the war. Big deal!

Also, a Democratic Congress continues to provide war funding. All these wasted
years of heated political debate and name calling, is for what now? There's literary
little difference between the two parties when it comes to Iraq.

So much for the rhetoric of the "failed policies" of the evil and warmongering
George W. Bush , as the netroots like to caste him. Obama is basically advocating
the same thing President Bush has been saying for a long time, which is to listen
to the commanders on the ground. I'm glad Sen. Obama is now flexible about
his exit strategy. He should be.

So if you're going to vote in November thinking that the two candidates had
diametrically opposing views on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you might
want to vote on another issue. I hear Obama can slow the rise of the oceans.

Americans Want To Believe Scott McClellan

I've come to conclusion after witnessing the media firestorm surrounding Scott
McClellan's new book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and
Washington’s Culture of Deception, ” the American people mostly likely want to
believe the former Press Secretary. In his book McClellan accuses the Bush
administration of "shading the truth" and confusing "the propaganda campaign
with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and
then sustain public support during a time of war..." Basically, he's saying the
American people were lied to without using those exact harsh terms. I think this
a claim a bulk of the American people want to believe.

Believing that we were feed propaganda and lies helps certain facts go down
much smoother. What are the facts? One fact is that in the beginning of the war
in Iraq a majority of the American people supported it and now say they were
wrong. Another fact is that President Bush was re-elected and now has low
approval rating. Saying we were lied to or duped explains why so many have
changed their mind about the war in Iraq and President Bush so drastically.
In a way McClellan represents that change our country has undergone through
these past few years. He was a supporter of President Bush and his policies who
no longer is a believer.

I, for one, have no such regrets. I don't regret supporting the war in Iraq. Simply
put: I think Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical leader and we did a good thing getting
rid of him. I don't believe Bush and his administration lied. However, as we all know
by now the intelligence was wrong.

Another Mr. McClellan claim makes is the news media didn't do its job. Here's what
he wrote:

The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which
became apparent months after our invasion, should never have
come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t
live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been
better served.

This is another explanation that liberals like to make that the news media helped
sell this war. They should have been more skeptical. Again, this allegation makes the
medicine go down smoother. The news media sold us on something we shouldn't
have bought into. However, this notion negates the fact that our news media
hasn't served the public for decades. It's about profits. One only has too look at
the previous decade to see the type of stories they enjoy covering. Endless coverage
of the O.J. Simpson trial and the Monica Lewinsky trial permeated the air waves
in the '90s . So this is the news media that should have asked "tough" question on
Iraq? They were suppose to all of sudden awake from their long stupor and become
heroic and fervently fight against American foreign policy. The news media still can't
get the story right on Iraq. How many stories have been written about what's going
on Iraq lately? Sadly, it's much less than I would like.

So believing that we bought into lies and propaganda helps. Blaming a lack luster
media helps. We want to believe what Scott McClellan is telling us now and not what
he continually told us back then. It helps us makes feel better about ourselves but
it's also leaving a whole lot.

New DNC Ad

You know the party that's against the "politcs of fear," suprisingly has new
ad that, well, is very much fearful. Here's the DNC ad:



Apparently, there's a clip in the DNC ad that is used in Michael Moore's movie
Fahrenheit 9/11. So the Democratic National Committee is now taking their
footage from one of the most anti-war propagandist in our country:

War

Excellent:

Black & White on the Grey Matters 2 (War)

News Blackout

Is anyone surprised that Matt Drudge reported the story of Prince Harry
serving in Afghanistan when so many other news outlets agreed not to?
From the Associated Press article:

The planned deployment had been disclosed to reporters, with no specific
date, and was not reported previously under a pool agreement between
the Ministry of Defense and all major news organizations operating in
Britain, including The Associated Press. The news blackout was intended to
reduce the risk to the prince and his regiment.

The news embargo was broken, however, after reports of the prince's
deployment were leaked by an Australian magazine and a German newspaper,
and then reported on a U.S. Web site, the Drudge Report.

Dannatt, the military commander, said he was "very disappointed" that the
story had leaked.

Here's a sentence from the Society of Professional Journalists "Code of Ethics" that
Drudge might want to read:

— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or
discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

Yes, we can debate whether Drudge is actually a "journalist." Anyone reporting and
disseminating news, whether they work for a traditional outlet or not, should be held
to the same ethical standards.

Fantasy

I just finished reading an excellent piece by Mark Steyn (h/t Hotair).
In much of the article Steyn argues film makers love to make movie
with U.S. government conspiracy plot lines. Here is the killer line in the
article:

"There’s a kind of decadence about all this: If 9/11 was really an
inside job, you wouldn’t be driving around with a bumper sticker
bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security."

And just look at recent movie releases such as, "Rendition," and
"The Kingdom" where, according to this article, the United States
government is ultimately the bad guys. I think that Steyn has a point
here. If our government was the oppressive entity that Hollywood
wants you to believe then wouldn't they try to censor these movies
since they hit a little too close to the truth. So why isn't our government
doing that? Because it is total nonsense!

I also found this poll done last year that showed that young adults and
people who regularly use the internet are more likely to believe in 9/11
conspiracy theories. This is not a coincidence. Young adults are saturated
with media (films, television, and internet), thus, more likely to believe
the whole "our government conspires against us" messages sent from
these films. Also, since young people are so media saturated and since

most Americans viewed 9/11 from our television sets, they were not able

to separate the real life and tragic events from that day from other media
events. I recently listened to this interview with a 9/11 truther and when
the interviewer asked him what made him change his mind about 9/11 he
didn't give any secretive, yet, tangible evidence only he had like in in the
movies. What was his whole for reason for believing 9/11 was an inside job?
A movie he saw, Loose Change. Yes, a movie! But movies are just movies,
right? They have no influence on people whatsoever.

Instead, of trying to unite Americans in undertaking such a massive
endeavor that is fighting terrorism what are movie studios giving us?
Paranoid and negative images of our government. This from the guys that
often tell us that things are not black and white or good or evil. There's
shades of gray. Well, not when it comes to America. The United States
government is always bad and is always trying to cover up something.
Enough of the anti-establishment rhetoric, Hollywood, we ain't buying it.

What a question!

(Via Hotair)
Chris Wallace asked Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi, "Do you pray for our soldiers to win in Iraq?"
I don't think that was a fair question. It is assuming
that she doesn't want us to win in Iraq. She answered
the question pretty well though.

Reason and Emotion

This WWII cartoon talks about how we need
a balance of reason and emotion during war
time. (Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

Flawed Argument

Ok, I thought I would never address this argument because
it so flawed that it's not worth it. However, I keep hearing
it repeated by atheists so I thought I should take a go at it.
I even hear this claim from intellectuals such as Christopher
Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. You know that "religion is
the reason why we have wars" spiel. Well, I again I was
presented with this argument when I read a Letter to the
Editor in today's Caller Times. Here is what Mr. Stone
said:

"Until the religious teachings of each faith is forever discarded
to the ash bins of history, there can never be viable peace in
the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter. The solution,
obvious to a pagan infidel such as me, is to create two states side
by side."

He then goes on to write:

"The whole world is now hostage to a quarrel that could eventually
end in nuclear war. But then, violence, irrationality and intolerance
have been the theme of organized religion since the beginning of man."

Oh, where should I begin. First, one can easily make the claim
that most wars are much more about land and gaining political
power than they are about doing the will of God. I would say
greed is the mitigating factor not religious zealousness.

Second, if we stripped people from religious beliefs there would
still be war. I do believe Joseph Stalin outlawed religious sects.
Oh, and Fidel Castro has oppressed the Cuban people for decades
and he has no religion. So no religion does not guarantee no war.
Try again.

I would also make the argument that religious people are often part
of peace movements too. I'll give you two names: Reverend Martin
Luther King and Ghandi. But people who want to attack religious people
don't want to point that out.

I believe atheists have many good points about religion but the
argument if we got rid religion we would have no problems is not true.
Really, it's almost like saying if there was no religion we would no longer
have poverty. I feel like I'm stating the absolute obvious but I guess we
all need to be reminded of things from time to time.

Nah...ah!!! I'm the mostest anti- Iraq war candidate!!!

I just read this AP article which states:

A public feud with the Pentagon generally and Cheney in
particular may help Clinton among Democratic primary voters
still uneasy over her 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq.

Her two main rivals, Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John
Edwards, have sought to position themselves as more consistently
and more stridently anti-war than Clinton.

Since the Democratic candidates are trying to outdo each other on who
is more anti-Iraq war and Bush administration, I thought I would do
a poll asking 'Who do you think is the most anti-Iraq war?' And plus
Dems seem to like polls. Web poll located here.

1. Barack Obama
2. Hillary Clinton
3. John Edwards

They almost sound like children fighting....
Nah..ah! I get the front seat because I was against the war
first, nose picker!!!

Dancing for Peace?

Is the dance show, 'So You Think You Can Dance?'
turning into anti-war propaganda programming?
I must say it was beautifully done.

A Day in Iraq

This ABC News report is the most graphic video I've seen
of what U.S. soldiers and Iraqi's are experiencing on a
daily basis.

Should networks get more graphic in war coverage?

In an article in Broadcasting and Cable, J. Max Robbins
argues that the three major networks should get more
graphic in their Iraq coverage. He writes:

My suggestion to all in the nightly-news game, even leader
World News, is that they get a lot more aggressive in their
coverage of the Iraq War and related stories. I’d advise them
to provide even more graphic coverage of what’s actually going
on in Iraq and to never shy away from the gruesome toll the war
is taking.

I'm all for broadcast news organizations giving a truthful and honest
depiction of war. Visuals (especially video) do tend to have an affect
that words can not produce. My question and problem is: What would
be the usefulness of showing more graphic images? For example, what
would be the benefit of watching some of the several beheadings that
have occurred in the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq?

I'm also curious why Robbins focuses on just the three major broadcast
networks. Is it solely because the networks have falling ratings? So is
he suggesting that in order to increase ratings that ABC, NBC, and CBS
should show more 'gruesome' images. That notion is extremely troubling.
That's like saying 'My blog isn't getting enough viewers so I'll become outrageous
and a flamethrower.' If people aren't watching the product then you should
improve and upgrade the content, not put on what ever will garner the most
reaction.

Bush talks about Iraq in press conference

The Morality of War

Many believe that the war in Iraq is not a just or moral war.
I am wondering when is war morally justifiable?
During times war notice how much moral terms are used
such as good, bad, and evil. I see war as justifiable
when it is used for national defense. If there are any pacifists
reading I would like to hear from you.

Another issue concerning war is civil liberties. Throughout
history during times of war there is a deterioration of civil
liberties. People put up with injustices, for example detaining
people without a trial, because it is war time.