Always Right

It is highly unlikely that there will be any significant amount of posting here for the next several weeks. I leave for the beach tomorrow, and Europe the next week. Until I get things situated in Ireland I will not be blogging at all.

Hopefully Andrew will pick up the slack, but he's quite busy right now as well....

Abu Ghraib's historical parallel

I've been reading Edmund Morris's fascinating book about Teddy Roosevelt, Theodore Rex. In it, Morris relates how Pres. Roosevelt dealt with a situation very much similar to the situation Pres. Bush faces in Iraq with the current Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

America at that time had recently defeated the Spanish in Cuba and the Philippine Islands. Much like in Iraq today, the US Army was called to rebuild these nations into independent, democratic countries. Again, much like in today's Iraq, US soldiers faced a native people that had never tasted freedom, were mostly Muhammadans, and brutalized and mutilated captured American soldiers. Reports made their way back to Washington of "atrocities perpetrated by American forces against the insurrectos in the Philippines." The Commanding General of the Army, Nelson A. Miles, sought to use these secret reports as political ammunition against Pres. Roosevelt and Secretary of War Elihu Root (who basically held the same position as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld holds today), while at the same time making a political hero out of himself. Sound familiar? Look at today's Dems trying to make political heroes of themselves out of the tragedy at Abu Ghraib - Kerry, Kennedy, Levin, Pelosi, etc.

Similar to today's problems, the US military "acknowledged 44 cases of documented cruelty, of which 39... resulted in convictions under the military justice system. Aside from these lapses, 'the war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army, with self-restraint, and with humanity, never surpassed, if ever equaled, in any conflict.'" Roosevelt dealt quickly and decisively with those in command who participated in the atrocities in the Philippines. Bush could do the same by rooting out any commanders that are to blame for the lack of control at Abu Ghraib and dealing with the as he sees fit. The Gardener Report (which fomented the scandal in 1902) did not hurt Roosevelt politically because of his quick action. There may still be time for Pres. Bush to do the same as regards Abu Ghraib.

P.J. O'Rourke at his finest

For all those that question our actions in Iraq and elsewhere in the world, P.J. O'Rourke address your concerns in today's WSJ. You can read his op/ed here...

It is like music to my ears...

So any armed insurgency opposed to a peaceful transition in Iraq must be destroyed. Fallujah must be conquered and terrorists denied safe haven in Fallujah and other centers of insurrection. Moqtada Sadr's militia must be rendered powerless. This will have to be accomplished primarily by American and British military power--however useful various political efforts can be, however useful Iraqi and coalition forces can be. Then a sovereign Iraq, with continued U.S. military and other assistance, will be able to move ahead with the task of political and economic reconstruction.

So sayeth Bill Kristol and Lewis E. Lehrman in the next issue of The Weekly Standard. The only way to win in Iraq, and therefore implement real change in the Middle East, is to crush the terrorists and all those that support them. I, for one, say Bravo!! to Kristol and Lehrman...

Jeff Jacoby on Ted Kennedy

You must read Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby's piece on Ted Kennedy (you can access it here). Jacoby recognizes Kennedy's remarks comparing the Saddam's regime of torture, rape, and murder to our time in Iraq for what they are - anti-American slander. Kennedy has long since passed the point of relevancy in the Senate. His much documented alcoholism and philandering seem to have finally caught up with him. It is now merely a hollow shell of what may have been at one time a promising, dedicated liberal statesman that represents the people of Massachusetts as their senior Senator...

McCain, a true Republican?

Alan Murray of the WSJ argues that McCain is most certainly a true Republican, whether Denny Hastert believes it or not. Hastert made waves last week when he said, in essence, that McCain wasn't a Republican and that, "John McCain ought to visit our young men and women at Walter Reed and Bethesda [military hospitals]. There's the sacrifice in this country." Hastert was referring to a man in McCain that spent five years as a POW in Vietnam. I think the man knows about sacrifice Hastert.

I don't agree with everything McCain says or does, but I admit that I was very intrigued by his candidacy for president in 2000. Like it or not, McCan is someone that generally tells it like it is. His campaign bus was the "Straight Talk Express" for Pete's sake! To become Speaker of the House Hastert had to have shown great political acumen, but in bashing McCain, one wonders if he has lost those same skills that made him so powerful. Murray notes, "[McCain] supported the Bush tax cuts, and has been one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the war in Iraq." Also, "The American Conservative Union says that over his career, he has been on the "right" side of their issues 84% of the time." These are not facts that would ordinarily point to a traitor in the party. Nor do they do so in this instance. McCain is pro-life, pro-fiscal responsibility - both issues that were once important to all conservatives. McCain called congressional Republicans out for spending tax-payer dollars like "drunken sailors."

Hastert, and the Bush Administration as a whole, would do well to remember that McCain has stood up for conservative values far more often than many leading Republicans. You can read Murray's column in toto here.

Islamofascists extend their terror network

India's new prime minister, Manmohan Singh, faced his first diplomatic test yesterday when 33 people, including 19 Indian soldiers, were killed by a landmine in the disputed territory of Kashmir.

Islamic militants, a source of tension between India and Pakistan for more than 15 years, said they were responsible for the bombing on the Srinagar-Jammu highway 50 miles outside Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir state.

It's not only America that the terrorists want to destroy. Now they want to exploit the already fragile "Indo-Pakistani detente" in re Kashmir...

Fred Barnes vs. Michael Moore(on)

As Michael Moore wallows in the "success" of his new film "Farenheit 9/11" others are beginning to speak up and reveal to all the fraud he really is. Fred Barnes, from Weekly Standard and Fox News, takes Moore(on) to task in the Weekly Standard for completely making up an interview with Barnes and printing it in his book, Stupid White Men. Check it out here...

"South's most infamous legacy born in the North"

UGA history professor James Cobb, for whom I wrote my senior thesis, writes in today's AJC that segregation wasn't always a southern thing, nor even a rural one. No, Cobb points out, it was initially a northern issue. One which they imported to the South after the Civil War. You can read Cobb's excellent op/ed piece here...

"Convention as Farce"

Indeed, the Democratic Convention in Boston at the end of July now smacks of irrelevance as John "F." Kerry has decided not to accept the nomination at that point. Why? Has he seen the error of his ways? Is he going to pass the torch to Dennis Kucinich to face Bush in the general election?

No, no, no. By accepting his party's nomination 5 weeks before President Bush accepts the Republican nomination Kerry locks himself into the $75 million from the government to fund his campaign. Kerry wants to "level the playing field." Understandable from a fundraising point of view. But can you imagine how this will look to Joe American: "Well, thanks for the nomination and all, but I think I'm gonna hold off on accepting for a few weeks. Thanks."

That ought to play real well in the heartland...