Comments From Speaker Pelosi: To my fellow Democrats, do not be concerned if you are suffering from acrophobia. I will stay in the basement. I promise not to climb to any great heights. Don’t worry, I would never dream of going near a skylight. I don’t do sun spots.

November 8, 2006

Fox News reported an interview by Brit Hume with Ms. Pelosi.  Brit asked her if she wanted to win the war or simply end it?

Ms. Pelosi: What’s the point? The point is this – it isn’t a war to win. It’s a situation to be solved and you define winning any way you want, but you must solve the problem.

Comment:  Boy, this really helps my self-esteem.  I will never have to lose again.  Imagine I can tell Mrs. Foghorn, dear I didn’t really lose at poker with the guys, it was a situation to solve and I just left all my money there so I could rush home to you!

_____________________________________________________________________

*Oliver Wendell Holmes said:

“There are one-story intellects, two story intellects, and three story intellects with skylights. All fact collectors with no aim beyond their facts are one-story men. Two-story men compare, reason and generalize, using labors of the fact collectors as well as their own. Three-story men idealize, imagine and predict. Their best illuminations come from above through the skylight.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, writer, physician) (Quote is believed to be from a short story called: The Three Story House.) 

During these perilous times it is imperative that with a divided government our elected representatives find a way to govern.  And make no mistake; potential peril is all around us. France is burning and the battles are continuing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Further, in the first week of November 2006 news reports announced that six Arab countries, including Algeria, were contemplating going nuclear similar to Iran.  Additionally, there is increasing risk of atomic weapons in the hands of terrorists.  Moreover, if the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan and extremists eliminated President Musharraf in Pakistan, we would indeed face dangerous times. Other significant issues include: North Korea, Iran, and a range of domestic issues about how to “re-set” the rules for combating radical Islam. One conclusion seems inescapable - the times require a governing coalition.

Can our current political class subordinate past grievances and form a coalition capable of governing effectively? Can the Chief Executive find common purpose with enough members of both parties to form a coalition comparable to the one that President Reagan had with Southern Democrats, known as Yellow Dog Democrats, during the 1980s? Today, as a result of gerrymandered districts Yellow Dog Democrats are virtually eliminated. As a result, since 1992, we have seen a greater polarization between the left and the right. In 1994, however, a group of thirty-three conservative Democrats formed a coalition and became known as Blue Dog Democrats.  In this recent election, did the Democratic Party recognize the need to run a new breed of Democrat?

In a number of states the Republican actually faced a difficult challenge getting to the right of the Democratic opponent on the issues.  Perhaps these Democrats will emerge as a new breed of Democrat that could be called: Red Dog Democrats.  A Red Dog Democrat may be more conservative than his liberal counterpart, more likely to be pro-military, pro-marriage, pro-limits on abortion, and more traditional in his view of the issues.

Thomas Sowell in a provocative piece, New Voter Fraud, is a “Doubting Thomas.”  He argues that a number of Democratic candidates who ran as moderates will put extremists in charge, i.e., they will give the left wing of their party carte blanche.  Is he correct or are we going to see a new brand of Democrats that assert their political will?

Only time will tell if these newly elected Democrats, who represented themselves as closer to the political center, are really a new breed of Democrat or merely ambitious politicians willing to mislead voters.  Hopefully they were not misrepresenting their positions and will help form a coalition to govern.  Time will tell, but perilous times require leaders and responsibility requires vision.  Will we see it?  Stay tuned.

In 1994 Republicans swept 54 seats to gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. While some may dispute the cause of that landslide, many Republican House members believe it was their Contract With America. The contract provided a plan for governing the Republican agenda. After the election, the Speaker, Newt Gingrich, methodically reviewed the contract ensuring he covered the provisions. During our war against Radical Islamic Jihadists, we need a new Contract with America.

Accordingly, is there an over-arching theme that could guide us in drafting a contract and proposing an agenda? Yes, during wartime any contract has to be driven by the need to promote a warrior class. Michael Barone writes about two Americas, Hard America and Soft America. ‘Hard America’ is characterized by competition and accountability, while ‘Soft America’ attempts to protect its citizens through government regulation and other social safety nets.

Mr. Barone explains:

One of the peculiar features of our country is that we produce incompetent 18-year-olds and remarkably competent 30-year-olds.

….

Why? Because from the age of 6 to 18, our kids live mostly in what I call Soft America--the part of our society where there is little competition and accountability. In contrast, most Americans in the 12 years between ages 18 and 30 live mostly in Hard America--the part of American life subject to competition and accountability; the military trains under live fire. Soft America seeks to instill self-esteem. Hard America plays for keeps.

….

But a sensible society also understands--and the military has been driving home the lesson--that Soft America lives off the productivity, creativity, and competence of Hard America. And that we have the luxury of keeping part of our society Soft only if we keep most of it Hard.

During a long war, can we afford the luxury of an under 18-year-old Soft America? How can we instill hardiness in those under 18? During my years living in Japan, I observed that pre-school Japanese children had significant freedom with very little if any discipline in the home. When school began, however, their lives changed – the school imposed discipline, competition, and accountability. These young children benefited from a clear plan to develop hardiness. During the winter you could see it with the young boys as they walked past your house on their way to school. The boys were wearing their school uniforms with short pants cut above the knee. I often marveled at how they adapted to the cold. My experience was that during the severe winters kerosene heat only helped you reach a sort of truce with the weather, but real relief only came when the temperatures climbed.

If Japan could instill that sort of hardiness in their young, especially the boys, why shouldn’t the United States adopt a similar bias during this long war with radical Islam? Why wait, as Michael Barone notes, until the age of 18? Isn’t it a disservice to military volunteers raised in Soft America, that they have to adapt quickly in military service or possibly lose life or limb? Shouldn’t we lower the age when our young leave Soft American behind? Shouldn’t we create a larger group of pro-military warriors during times of peril?

Yes, we should, and make no mistake potential peril is all around us. In the first week of November 2006 news reports announced that six Arab countries, including Algeria, were contemplating going nuclear similar to Iran. Additionally, there is increasing risk of atomic weapons in the hands of terrorists. Further, if the Taliban seized control over Afghanistan and Pakistan we would indeed face perilous times. Therefore, a culture that values military service and promotes, nurtures, and supports a warrior class is essential.

Why do we want a warrior class? Mark Steyn provides a possible answer in an anecdote about an event in Europe where a gang of “young men” (Muslim youths) on board a bus attacked a helpless passenger. The other passengers all averted their eyes and looked towards the floor. Only one passenger stepped forward to challenge the "youths.” The gang turned on this intruder and began severely beating him. At the next bus stop, thirty passengers quickly exited while the “youths” continued beating the Good Samaritan to death. A society unwilling to fight for its existence is a society already dead. For protection, our society needs an agenda that nurtures a Hard America with a warrior class.

This proposed contract is a first step in recognizing that priority.

1. All high schools receiving federal funding will have mandatory ROTC classes at their campuses. High school ROTC graduates enlisting in a college ROTC program will receive priority for federal funds for educational grants and loans.

2. All colleges receiving federal funding shall have ROTC programs on campus and allow military recruiters on campus.

3. Any high school receiving federal funding must require two years of United States History for graduation.

4. Armed Forces television and radio broadcasting for domestic consumption via satellite transmission and Internet with a high priority for reporting the “good news” for events in Iraq or other combat areas.

5. Special bonuses for graduates of Navy SEAL and Special Forces training programs. Additionally, provide a 50 percent increase in G.I. Bill benefits for members of those military communities who successfully complete their enlistment.

6. Pass legislation authorizing boy’s only education. Give legislative priority for vouchers to students attending military academies at the junior high and high school level.

7. All high schools receiving federal funds must re-institute mandatory physical education.

8. Legislative priority for programs that encourage individual responsibility, competition, and initiative.

9. Legislators will partner with civilian leaders to create national tournaments similar to the Little League World Series in sports such as football and hockey for junior high school students.

10. Athletic programs, such as Division 1 men’s football and basketball that contribute significant financial support to University athletic departments will not count for scholarship purposes under any Title IX restrictions. Schools that had previously been forced to close men’s programs, e.g., in water polo, wrestling, fencing, or judo, will consequently have additional scholarships available.

On November 3, 2006, days before the mid-term election, “old media” [occasionally referred to as MSM or mainstream media] trumpeted two stories: a report of misconduct by Ted Haggard, a former president of the National Evangelical Association, with 30 million evangelical Christians, and a report about the Bush administration posting Internet documents seized from Saddam Hussein in Iraq. In both stories, however, old media more likely failed to achieve their desired result.

Throughout the day, the media focused on the hypocrisy of Ted Haggard, a Colorado evangelical pastor, for buying methamphetamine and possibly engaging in homosexual conduct with a male escort. (Subsequently, on November 5, 2006, Ted Haggard confessed to sexual misconduct, and he was removed from his duties as pastor of the New Life Church.) The excessive coverage about the pastor of a small church in Colorado suggested old media intended more than to attack just Ted Haggard. Reporting by old media about evangelicals is consistently negative and reflects their hostile attitude toward religion and the Christian message. In trumpeting the Ted Haggard story, could there be an anti-religious intent to demoralize Church members and persuade them to abandon their faith?

Ted Haggard’s fall from prominence and disgrace is a story of human imperfection. For believers, man’s fall is not news; rather, it confirms the need for faith and grace. In the absence of grace, Christians believe anyone can fall short, and Haggard’s unfortunate story won’t persuade believers their faith is a mistake. Therefore, rather than discouraging evangelicals, the story more likely convinced them to renew their faith and pray for the grace needed to resist temptation.

The second story concerned the recent discovery that some archived Iraqi documents captured during the war and posted on the Internet might serve as a nuclear primer and help states like Iran build a nuclear weapon. Apparently, the Times’ intended to criticize the Bush administration for incompetence. The New York Times switch to an incompetence theme for disclosing information to the public after several years of criticizing the administration for its secrecy, however, confirmed the value of the archived documents. The documents clearly show Iraq was a dangerous place during Saddam’s rule. By emphasizing the danger of posting some of the documents, the Times actually confirmed the reliability of the other Internet archived documents that show Saddam's contacts with terrorist, his future plans including what he intended to do after sanctions were lifted, and the seriousness of the situation when U.S. forces entered Iraq to remove Saddam.

Consequently, in both stories, old media rather than demoralizing Pastor Haggard’s followers more likely reaffirmed their belief that faith and grace are a necessary part of daily religious life, and old media rather than discouraging President Bush’s supporters more likely persuaded them the President is charting a more realistic course than the one portrayed by the New York Times and others in the old media.

Broken windows left unrepaired in a neighborhood can be a signal of crime and disorder; they are evidence that standards have deteriorated and are not being enforced. Mayor Rudy Giuliani acted on this insight, the “broken-window theory” by Professor James Wilson, in cleaning up Times Square and New York City. Gradually Times Square and New York City turned around as the consistent enforcement of standards made it difficult for panhandlers, prostitutes, drug pushers, and various other underclass elements to thrive in the City. Enforcing standards made a difference.

Community standards or norms aren’t always enforced, however, as evidenced by the current popularity of out of wedlock births in Hollywood, total body tattoos, and body piercing tantamount to mutilation. In fact, it is hard to identify any criticism of the old social taboos today that would have been unacceptable a generation ago.

The good news is this past week a pro-military community once again found its voice and stood up for the brave military men and women fighting for their country during wartime. They said insults, personal attacks, or lack of gratitude for our military troops is unacceptable. This marks the second time in a short period that a senior Democratic Senator has been forced to recant a critical statement about our troops.

First, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the number two ranking member of the Democratic Party in the Senate, in June 2005, compared the U.S. military’s treatment of prisoners assigned to the Guantanamo Detention facility to the Nazis, Soviets in the gulags, “or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings.” Second, this week Senator John F. Kerry, the party’s 2004 Presidential nominee, was not permitted to get away with a comment that on its face was a clear insult to the intelligence of our military forces serving in Iraq.

In the past, such negative comments about our troops by leading political figures went unchallenged or failed to cause a community response. For example, during Vietnam, the personal attacks toward our troops built up and eventually like a black plague spreading over the body politic, our military members were criticized, spit upon, and attacked for their service to our country. Their response to a call for duty at great risk to personal safety was treated shabbily. If the myriad experts predicting a long war against radical Islam are right, it is important that a community speak out; we must maintain the morale of our forces and nurture our warrior class.

The fact that a significant community was able to mount an effective message of outrage is very good news. These two cases demonstrate that with the advent of talk radio and the Internet our military members will be defended. For example, in Senator Kerry’s case multiple sources reported his initial statement. In fact reports were on the Internet long before the White House weighed in. Senator Kerry lashed out at his supposed antagonists, perhaps unaware of the on line “network’ that brought his comment to millions of readers before Rush Limbaugh even took to the airwaves. Internet news sites like Drudge, PowerLine, Free Republic, Pajamas Media, and Hugh Hewitt, quickly had the report of the Senator’s Pasadena comment posted and circulating throughout the net. Even more impressive is the fact that Senator Kerry was forced to apologize despite any criticism from “old media” which generally tried to carry water for him while he made repeated efforts to explain away his insult.

An early reply such as the response to Senator Kerry’s attack on the military is a good thing contrary to an argument that criticizing the military should not be a third rail. While individual misconduct is open to criticism and punishment, the act of service and the patriotism of our forces should only be recognized with gratitude. Fortunately, the abuses heaped on returning Vietnam veterans will no longer be tolerated. There is an active community today that can communicate quickly and effectively and just like Mayor Giuliani they can force the “broken windows” to be repaired before disorder (loss of faith in our military forces) is allowed to gain a foothold.

John Kerry’s statement about the troops in Iraq at Pasadena Community College on October 30, 2006, created quite a stir. The words themselves were very clear: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Hours later, after his warning to a junior college audience about the “value of an education or you can end up in Iraq” comment had traveled across the Internet, the negative reaction built to a point where Senator Kerry was forced to hold a press conference. Over the ensuing days, the Senator continued to keep the story in the news. First, at his press conference, the Senator said he refused to apologize to anyone. Second, he subsequently said he left out a word. Third, he said it was actually a little more than a dozen words. And finally, he posted a statement on his web site, I am sorry if you misinterpreted what I said [implication: because you were too stupid to read my mind].

While many were just calling for the Senator to apologize for his comment, some supporters indulged in convoluted efforts to keep up with the Senator’s frequent iterations of his defense. Even the NY Times got trapped between version 2.0 and the upgrade to version 3.0 when they tried to defend Kerry for the failure to include a single word in his purported joke -- “us.“ What to do if you were a fence sitter and not sure how to divine Senator Kerry’s intent as to whether it was an intentional insult or a flubbed joke? Perhaps a way to approach a decision would be to apply my Grandpa’s beef stew test.

Years ago I went with my family to visit my grandfather in New England. One evening my Dad offered to take Grandpa out for dinner and Grandpa suggested we try a new restaurant that had just opened out near two-mile corner on the outskirts of town.

Of course, when we were seated and saw the menu, we all knew what Grandpa would order. He was an inveterate lover of beef stew and it was prominently displayed on the menu as a specialty of the house. Sure enough when the time came for Grandpa to order, he said, “I think I’ll have some of your beef stew.”

Something unexpected happened, however, when Grandpa later began to eat the beef stew-- his face turned from pure delight to extreme displeasure. After he took one bite of the beef, he called the waitress and told her to take it all back. My Dad asked what was wrong and Grandpa said the beef was rancid. I remember that Grandpa didn’t pick through the stew trying to find some good pieces of beef; he sent it all back.

Similarly, if Senator Kerry is found to have made any misstatements during this controversy, there is little reason to pick through his various iterations to try to find a defense somewhere. For example, at his press conference Senator Kerry said that as a veteran he would never criticize the military heroes serving in Iraq. So, what are we to make then of his prior criticism of the troops when he testified before Congress in the early 1970s and his critical comments about US troops in Iraq terrorizing families in the dead of night on Face The Nation just last year?

Since the Senator in his press conference denied ever criticizing the military and he is on record as having done so in the past, do we really need to pick through his defense or should we -- like Grandpa -- just reject it all? Why should we be concerned with whether he left out one word or twelve? Who cares if he intended to tell a bad joke or not, the words were very clear and the posting of a lame apology that fails to acknowledge the insult or take responsibility for it is as rancid as the stew Grandpa rejected.

Wolf Blitzer is a CNN veteran. Did Wolf Blitzer demonstrate CNN’s values and priorities during his Lynne Cheney interview on October 27, 2006, when he placed agenda above: customary courtesies traditionally due a guest; promises made about the interview subject matter; and, industry standards for professionalism by asking about unrelated issues irrespective of their relevance? It would be remarkable if Wolf Blitzer’s interview did not reflect the culture and values of CNN -- agenda is everything.

About the Children’s Book

Mrs. Cheney was invited on Wolf Blitzer’s show to do an interview about her new book, Our 50 States: A Family Adventure Across America (interview transcript here). In an interview where the transcript runs over 2,000 words, Wolf Blitzer’s comments about the book consist of about 115 words. He essentially said - the title of the book, the pictures are pretty, and I recommend everyone read it. These generalities are hardly the material for a 15-minute interview per prior agreement. He did not ask his guest a single question about her book. His banal recommendation that everyone read the book lacked conviction; he did not provide any evidence to support his assertion. He demonstrated no curiosity about the reasons, goals, or story behind the ideas for the book. He displayed zero curiosity about the content of the book and no evidence he had read it. He even failed to raise one factual point in the book that might generate a conversation, e.g., an item in the book about his home state that surprised him. Rather than discuss the book, the subject of the arranged interview, Wolf Blitzer went off topic to raise other issues.

Questions About Other Items

Mr. Blitzer raised an issue about a response by Vice President Cheney to a question about a dunk in the water being okay if it would save lives. He wanted Mrs. Cheney to comment on whether her husband was endorsing water boarding. She indicated there was no evidence of that. She mentioned that this type of distortion and other examples of bias by CNN about the Administration were very disconcerting. As an example, she mentioned a number of points from the CNN “Broken Government" series that were distorted and biased.

Mr. Blitzer suggested: “that was probably the purpose of the show, to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues, because there are a lot of conservatives…”

Note to Mr. Blitzer: This is an amazing inversion of the journalistic principle that you present both sides so your audience can evaluate all the evidence and reach their own conclusion. Also, it is unlikely that any “thinking conservatives” still watch CNN so conceding the charge of bias suggests the purpose of the program isn’t so much to encourage thinking as it is to provide anti-administration propaganda to regular viewers.

The next issue was a recent airing by CNN of a terrorist video showing a sniper killing Americans in Iraq. Mrs. Cheney asked Mr. Blitzer: Do you want us to win? Mr. Blitzer replied: “The answer, of course, is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There’s no doubt about that. You think we want the terrorists to win”

However, a few moments later when asked why they were running terrorists propaganda, Mr. Blitzer in a series of comments asserted: it was news; denied CNN was running terrorists video; and “we are not partisan.” And then there was this exchange:

LC: But Wolf, there’s a difference between news and terrorist propaganda. Why did you give the terrorists a forum?

WB: And if you put it in context, if you put it in context, that’s what news is. We said it was propaganda.

Next Mr. Blitzer claimed that CNN made it clear it was terrorist propaganda when they released it. Also, that it was a carefully considered decision.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: There is a major lack of clarity here about the role of journalists and the view of the war. In one comment the terrorist video is news and in another comment not only is the video propaganda, but all news is propaganda. In another sequence, “we” want to win the war and then later, “we are not partisan.” Also, the assertion that: “it was a carefully considered decision” is less than persuasive. You might recall, Osama Bin Laden and the New York Times both carefully considered their respective decisions before sending a terrorist team to kill three thousand people and releasing the details of a classified banking program that saved American lives.

Mr. Blitzer next turned to comments that day by the DNC (Democratic National Committee) and James Webb, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, about allegations of sexually explicit material in Mrs. Cheney’s book, Sisters. These allegations were offered as a defense to James Webb’s sexually graphic descriptions in his own novels. Mr. Blitzer read from the DNC talking points. He gave no indication he had read Mrs. Cheney’s out of print book from 25 years ago or that he had considered the accuracy of the allegation, before trying to involve Mrs. Cheney in a Virginia election controversy.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: There is a long tradition dating back to the early Greeks about how to treat a guest. Mrs. Cheney was a guest on your show. She was a former employee of your network and arguable a member of the CNN team. Questions about sexually charged issues made that very day when the guest is invited to talk about a children’s book is classless, boorish and in poor taste. Finally, I wanted to send my impressions of the interview:

Final Comments - Quality of Interview

Putting agenda above: courteousness to a guest, keeping a promise about the subject of the interview, and professionalism, actually damages CNN’s brand and your own integrity. In the process, the program presents a small-minded agenda.

Note to Mr. Blitzer: The interview smacked of an ambush. It was apparent that you failed to extend a simple courtesy to your guest like a heads-up that news events compelled you to ask if you could go off topic for a few minutes to get her comments.

The failure to offer this simple courtesy resulted in repeated requests from Lynne Cheney for time to talk about her book, thus wasting airtime. Such a waste of time failed to consider not only your guest, but also your audience, which was subjected to repeated questions by the surprised guest about when you would talk about her book. Your failure to engage at all on her book was inconsiderate. It also demonstrated that your guest was nothing more than a prop for you to raise issues such as the Vice President’s position on water boarding and the sexually explicit material in Mrs. Cheney’s out of print book as a rejoinder to charges about James Webb’s books. The performance gave the over-whelming impression of extreme partisanship.

You lost control of the interview. You allowed your guest to get the better of you repeatedly in off-topic exchanges. The most memorable points were your answers to questions from the guest. The fact that you are the story should suggest that your methods and performance were less than the professional standard.

Your answers reflected a lack of clarity about the war and CNN’s role as a news service. Consequently providing no reason why any listener should want to invite your program into their living. All in all it was a pretty remarkable performance for one afternoon.

At the beginning of this year’s election season, it was a promising development to see James Webb, Vietnam veteran, author, and former Secretary of the Navy, running as a pro-military, Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate in Virginia. As we enter the final stretch, however, one wonders if the recent back and forth over charges of sexually inappropriate scenes in Mr. Webb’s books marks a knockout blow to his candidacy. Rather than a rising star, is the James Webb campaign a crashing meteor?

Mr. Webb has been accused during the campaign of being demeaning towards women as evidenced by earlier comments about women in military academies and combat. It is therefore surprising to see him assert a charge against Lynne Cheney and her out-of-print book, “Sisters” written about 25 years ago, as a shield or barrier of defense against attacks on his writing.

Mrs. Cheney is not his opponent. She is not a candidate for any public office today. Further, it is not relevant to the charge that Mr. Webb’s books contain inappropriate sexual material to say – Mrs. Cheney is worse than I am! Or, You think I am bad, you should see what Lynne Cheney said in her out of print book about 25 years ago.

Mr. Webb’s other defenses were that the sections of his literary historical novels were taken out of context and were appropriate remembrances to advance the scenes in his plot. In introducing Mrs. Cheney’s writings as a defense: Did Secretary Webb read her book or did he merely reach for a DNC prepared talking point? If he did not personally read the out-of-print book, what does it say about someone who would plead “context” as his own defense and then make allegations about someone else’s writing without following his own prescription? There is little to be served by bringing Lynne Cheney into his campaign. Rather, it smacks of desperation and lacking in class to raise her as a shield when her conduct isn’t relevant to whether or not his writing is inappropriate.

Mr. Webb’s defense of his written work would have been better if he had merely ended his reply without raising the subject of Mrs. Cheney at all. Couldn’t he have merely asked: Have you read my books in context to understand how each setting is “illuminating surroundings or defining a character or moving a plot?" Do you realize I am explaining cultural differences and unusual values that I have seen personally—rather than trying to insert sexual material for a prurient purpose?

Mr. Webb acted in an un-Senatorial manner, without characteristic grace or class, when he attacked Mrs. Cheney for sexual content in her book Sisters as a defense to questions about sexually explicit material in his books. Just like the young boy who was crushed when Shoeless Joe Jackson was thrown out of baseball for fixing Chicago White Sox games in the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, one can only paraphrase and ask Mr. Webb: Please say it ain’t so, Jim.

The foil may curve in the lunge; but there is nothing beautiful about beginning the battle with a crooked foil. So the strict aim, the strong doctrine, may give a little in the actual fight with facts but that is no reason for beginning with a weak doctrine or a twisted aim. Do not be an opportunist; try to be theoretic at all the opportunities; fate can be trusted to do all the opportunist part of it. Do not try to bend; any more than the trees try to bend. Try to grow straight; and life will bend you. (Daily News) (Quoted in Chesterton Day by Day.)

If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. (Quoted in Chesterton Day by Day)

Truth must necessarily be stranger than fiction; for fiction is the creation of the human mind and therefore congenial to it.  (Quoted in Chesterton Day by Day)

Interestingly, three columns have recently changed the focus on Iraq by asking context free questions.  Thereby, shifting the debate towards finding solutions rather than asking how soon we should leave. Robert Kaplan answers the question, what if we pullout? Jed Babbin suggests we should expand the problem. Amir Taheri talks about how the Iraqi’s have basically answered the question, what’s missing?

In, “We Can’t Just Withdraw,” Robert Kaplan looks at the possible consequences of a pullout from Iraq and what it could mean for Iraq, the region, and our reputation in the Middle East. Here are some key paragraphs:

Because it turned out we had no postwar plan, our invasion (which I supported) amounted to a bet. Our withdrawal, when it comes to that, must be different. If we decide to reduce forces in the country under the current anarchic conditions, then we are both morally and strategically obligated to talk with Iran and Syria, as well as call for a regional conference. Iraq may be closer to an explosion of genocide than we know. An odd event, or the announcement of pulling 20,000 American troops out, might trigger it. We simply cannot contemplate withdrawal under these conditions without putting Iraq's neighbors on the spot, forcing them to share public responsibility for the outcome, that is if they choose to stand aside and not help us.

What we should all fear is a political situation in Washington where a new Congress forces President George W. Bush to redeploy, and Bush, doing so under duress, makes only the most half-hearted of gestures to engage Iraq's neighbors in the process. That could lead to hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, rather than the tens of thousands we have seen. An Iran that continues to enrich uranium is less of a threat to us than genocide in Iraq. A belligerent, nuclear Iran is something we will, as a last resort, be able to defend against militarily. And it probably won't come to that. But if we disengage from Iraq without publicly involving its neighbors, Sunni Arabs—who will bear the brunt of the mass murder—will hate us for years to come from Morocco to Pakistan. Our single greatest priority at the moment is preventing Iraq from sliding off the abyss.

A tottering Iraq, informally divided into Iranian and Syrian zones of influence, even as Iran continues to enrich uranium, is an awful prospect. But it is not without possibilities: states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to balance against the new Shiite hegemony, will implicitly move closer to us and to Israel, perhaps providing useful assistance in a settlement of the Palestinian issue. Meanwhile, Teheran and Damascus will become further enmeshed in Iraq's problems. Future violence in Mesopotamia will become their fault; not ours. The weak border between Syria and the fundamentalist Sunni region of Iraq could well undermine the Alawite regime. We will manage. What we will not be able to manage is a genocide, mainly of the Sunnis, that we alone will be seen as responsible for. Any withdrawal—with all of its military, diplomatic, economic aid, and emergency relief aid aspects—has to be as meticulously planned-out as our occupation wasn't. Staying the course may be a dead end. But don't think for a moment that "redeploying" is any less risky than invading.

In, “Rethinking Iraq,” Jed Babbin, argues we are asking the wrong question and should expand the problem to find a solution. He suggests that until we include Syria and Iran as part of the Iraq problem we won’t address the issue properly.

What's going on in Iraq isn't what we planned or wanted. The militias of various religious groups are achieving anti-democratic armed power. The Maliki government isn't either powerful enough or committed enough to disarm the militias because some of their leaders, such as Iranian-funded and directed Moqtada al-Sadr, are key Maliki supporters. Rethinking Iraq, within the boundaries of current wisdom, poses bad choices aimed to solve an almost-irrelevant question.

The choices we're offered are all based on what we need to do within Iraq to win the war there. But the war in Iraq has always been only a part of the global war terrorist nations are waging against us, and that war cannot be won in Iraq, but it can be lost. We've been enthralled by the illusion that Iraq is only about Iraq. As I've noted before and will again and again, the war for democracy in Iraq is mis-aimed. It matters little to us who governs Iraq as long as they are no threat to America. And to win the war against Islamic fascism requires the defeat and removal of the national regimes that sponsor it. Without national sponsorship, Islamic fascism and the terrorism it uses against us would not be the existential threat it is. Unless and until we win the war against those nations -- Iran and Syria chief among them -- that threat will continue to grow. Because none of the choices our leaders offer are aimed to defeat the terrorist nations, every one of the alternatives they pose can lead only to defeat.

In, “IRAQ: UNITING AGAINST THE JIHADIS,” Amir Taheri reports that Iraqis understanding the need for action have essentially asked: what is missing? The answer is a more comprehensive coming together to: fight the jihadis, create a unified information office, include religious leaders, and get wider dissemination of information to the Iraqi people.

* Iraq's National Assembly gave near-unanimous approval to a new plan for peace and reconciliation. Backed by all ethnic and religious communities through their political parties, the plan furthers the marginalization of the jihadists and Saddamites.

Under the plan, the different ethnic and religious groups would come to one another's help whenever needed in the battle against the insurgents. This would end a de facto situation in which Arab Sunni areas have been no-go areas for Shi'ite and Kurdish forces and vice-versa.

More, the plan envisages the creation of a unified information office to harmonize the sermons delivered at mosques, regardless of their affiliations. The idea is to use the mosque as a forum for a unified and democratic Iraq, rather than a hub of sectarian agitation.

* A third event is set to take place in Mecca next week at the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. This will bring together prominent Sunni and Shiite clerics from Iraq and eight other Muslim countries to discuss and approve a declaration demanding an end to sectarian feuds in Iraq. An initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the gathering reflects growing impatience with the jihadists throughout the Muslim world.

The proposed draft categorically states that bloodshed motivated by sectarian considerations is haram (forbidden) - and that its perpetrators are waging war on Islam as a whole. (Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Husseini Sistani wants the gathering to go further by labeling as haram any incitement to sectarian hatred.)

The Mecca gathering represents the first major effort by Sunnis and Shiites toward mutual recognition as acceptable versions of the same faith since 1947. It is strongly supported by the Al-Azhar seminary in Cairo, the Council of Ulema in Mecca and Medina, the Shi'ite seminaries of Najaf (Iraq) and Qom (Iran) and all five associations of Iraq's Sunni clerics.

Silence is the unbearable repartee. (Chesterton, Charles Dickens)
(Quoted in Chesterton Day by Day)

[Your energy independence plan does not address the relationship between energy prices and terrorism. Radical Islam is funded with high oil prices, while we permit massive wealth transfers to unstable regimes .]

Dear Senator Cantwell,

As we await election results to see if Hugo Chavez will be a member of the Security Council and if you will be re-elected, I wish to express my concern about your position on energy independence. The failure to broaden your energy independence goals essentially creates a serious national security issue as evidenced by the current environment with Iran, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.

Your stated goals do not address the connection between energy prices and our war against terrorism. You assert that energy independence is a high priority. You emphasize your efforts: to improve fuel economy, ban gas price gouging, increase transparency in oil and gas markets, invest in alternative fuel infrastructure, and deliver a comprehensive energy independence plan.

While these are all worthwhile goals for the future, they avoid dealing with current energy production as a national security issue. Your priorities exclude any option to expand current sources of energy by: drilling in Alaska or offshore, nuclear power, building additional refineries, clean coal, or oil sand exploration in our Western states.

You energy program provides little hope that we can deprive terrorist supporting governments of large cash revenues while oil is the coin of the realm. The recent announcement of a large discovery in the Gulf, in a new area just opened to exploration, highlights that we could be doing more. When oil is in the $60 to $75 dollar per barrel price range, options that were not viable at $15 per barrel become available. For example, technology increases reserves from Canadian oil sands, but little is said about further exploration in Western States with similar opportunities. Off shore drilling and nuclear production are blocked by governmental hurdles. There is no proposal for a “Manhattan Project” to roll out immediately energy alternatives in soy, ethanol, wind, and sun in various locations around the country.

Energy Policy Is Part Of Our National Security

The current war by Radical Islam is funded by high oil prices. Our greatest foreign policy challenges arise from our unwillingness to compete in energy markets and drive the price of oil into the $18 to $22 per barrel price range. Furthermore, our failure to act has resulted in massive wealth transfers to unstable and anti-American regimes. The recent UN appearances of President Hugo Chavez and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in September could serve as “Exhibit A.” Their huge oil revenues are behind many of our international problems.

Iranian Expansion And Terrorism

During the Israeli war analyst reported that Hizballah military and equipment represented about $100 million a year from Iran. Iranian expansion continues. There are reports that terrorists in the Palestine region want to adopt Hizballah tactics and Iran is involved. Also, that Iran is busy trying to create bases in Venezuela, Cuba, and also in E. Africa, favoring Sudan and Somalia.

Adventurism And Anti-Americanism By Hugo Chavez And Saudi Arabia

President Chavez of Venezuela is reportedly providing the Castro regime large quantities of fuel to prop up the Cuban regime. Recent news reports indicate that he is also using Venezuela as a staging base for Muslim Arabs seeking to get clean documents and enter the United States. Another report indicated that we have apprehended over 600 Muslim Arabs from Syria and other Middle Eastern countries illegally entering our Southern border. Furthermore, this doesn’t begin to address the problems created by the Saudi government exporting Wahabi clerics to the United States and around the world to convert people to the new hardline Islamism.

The Critical Need For An Energy Plan Focused On National Security

The lesson seems clear: high-energy prices are funding foreign efforts to expand influence that is harmful to America and the West. Terrorist activity is often directly related to the revenues available to train, fund, and equip fighters.

I recall that you were quite pleased with the failure of the President’s effort to open an area the size of a small airport for drilling in Alaska. The facts presented were: the people of Alaska supported drilling; the union recognized the project would provide more jobs for union members; the area could be developed by new technology with a minimal footprint and without roads being constructed; and for 10 months of the year the region is inaccessible and a virtual tundra.

As an avowed environmentalist, do you really believe the environment is better protected when we allow Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia to occupy the oil production space? I wasn’t aware that their Environmental Protection Agencies and drilling regulations did a better job of protecting the environment than we do with our current regulations?

Since we can provide for our national security and better protect the environment by expanding current existing energy sources in the United States, I trust that you will reconsider your opposition and help make America safer.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Progress should mean that we are always walking towards the New Jerusalem. It does mean that the New Jerusalem is always walking away from us. We are not altering the real to suit the ideal. We are altering the ideal: it is easier. (Chesterton, Orthodoxy) (Quoted in Chesterton Day by Day)