Thinkin’bout Stuff

Two interesting articles by two separate AP writers today. The first wonders why Americans appear less tolerant of deaths in Iraq than in prior wars; the second, in my opinion, highlights why this is the case.

Some excerpts from the first article by Jeff Donn:

U.S. toll in Iraq lower than past wars: Americans may question this war for many reasons, but their doubts often find voice in the count of U.S. war deaths. An overwhelming majority — 84 percent — worry that the war is causing too many casualties, according to a September poll by the nonpartisan research group Public Agenda.

The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died — 20,000 just in the monthlong Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.

A death toll of 3,000 simply sounds higher to Americans in this war than it did in other prolonged conflicts of the past century, for a number of reasons…

In the weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, public backing was powerful. But opinion began to shift quickly once the Iraqi army was beaten, its leader was forced into hiding, and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not found.

Sad to say that most who backed the war in 2003, including our political leaders, have very short, very selective (even revisionist) memories and behave as if President Bush took this country to war all by himself.

The article is a good one with many theories on why support for this particular war waned so fast, I encourage you to read it in its entirety. One area that is briefly touched upon is the influence of the press in public opinion:

In what’s called “the CNN effect,” the unblinking eye of video news and unending chatter of the Internet quicken and maybe intensify the public’s reaction to the carnage of battle.

“The American people have never been known for their patience, and I suppose with these 24-7 news cycles and access to the Internet, everything seems to have accelerated,” says Richard Melanson, who teaches a class on public opinion and foreign policy at the U.S. military’s National War College, in Washington, D.C.

What this article does not point to is something that I believe is a key difference in levels of support for any war: does the press support the war or oppose the war. Which brings us to the second article by Steven R. Hurst:

U.S. toll in Iraq hits 3,000 as ‘06 ends: The U.S. military announced Sunday the deaths of two soldiers, raising the number of Americans who have died in the Iraq war to at least 3,000, a somber milestone in the 46-month-old conflict.

A somber milestone…

On the final day of an exceedingly bloody year…

Exceedingly bloody year…

There was a relative lull in the bombings and assassinations that have threatened to rip Iraq apart along sectarian seams. Police reported finding 12 bodies dumped in Baghdad Sunday as well as 12 other violent deaths nationwide, both relatively low numbers by recent standards.

… rip Iraq apart…

We are only up to the third paragraph folks. Reading the headline and lead, you would never guess that the majority of this article is actually about the execution of Saddam Hussein.

With editorialized reports such as this, why is it a surprise that the American public views this war negatively. How many articles like this were there during World War II, or even the early phases of the Vietnam War? This type of article is the norm, not the exception, and yet we wonder why we are witnessing a lack of support for this war.

To be sure, the politicians in Washington, especially our President, should have done a better job of selling this war to us, but the battle for public opinion is tough to win when the liberal press refuses to acknowledge anything positive, focuses on the negative with a high powered microscope, and spins in the guise of reporting to purposely sway public opinion against the president in all things… especially the war against terror.

If we lose this war because we make the wrong decisions at the wrong time because of overwhelming public opinion, we can thank the press to a large extent. Let’s hope and pray we do not need another 9/11 to realize that we can not afford to lose this war.

That’s right folks… it’s movie night!!!

Click “Read the rest of this entry” to see videos…  don’t want to sow down the page load for those of us not using a high speed connection…

(more…)

President Ford had problems with President Bush’s Iraq policy?

Yahoo News/AP 12/28: Former President Gerald R. Ford questioned the Bush administration’s rationale for the U.S. invasion and war in Iraq in interviews he granted on condition they not be released until after his death.

OK, I may be treading on risky turf here since President Ford just passed away recently, but apparently it wasn’t too soon for the MSM to bring up the subject, so here goes.

First, if President Ford’s position on this war was important, why would it need to wait until after his death? Isn’t this something that should have been shared months ago? Understanding that he served as president during a very difficult period of American history, those two years of unelected office would not appear to give him any kind of unique insight into how to conduct this particular brand of war.  However, he was entitled to his opinion; just not sure why it would need to wait until his death to be revealed.

Was he trying to avoid behaving like Presidents Clinton and Carter, who have shown a distinct lack of class by not honoring the tradition of former presidents not criticizing current presidents? If so, how does his death change anything? Just because he is no longer with us does not make this any more acceptable.  In fact, less so since he can not be questioned about his comments or provide any clarification on his position.

President Ford showed tremendous political courage when he pardoned President Nixon, likely costing him the opportunity to be elected president two years later (and ultimately allowing Carter to be elected president, which ironically has a great deal to do with the situation we are in today, as discussed here and here).

Because of his record of political courage, I find it hard to believe that he asked that his comments not be released until his death to avoid dealing with any fallout, especially since there is unlikely to be any real fallout. Just doesn’t seem like his style. Either he would have believed it needed to be said and say it, or not agree to have his comments released until well into the future, after the war was over, if at all. Not saying he didn’t agree to have his statements released upon his death, just seems out of character.

Too bad he’s not here to either explain why he agreed to have these comments released upon his death or to dispute the assertion that these were his wishes.

So, what exactly did he say? Here are the quotes:

“I don’t think I would have gone to war,”

“Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction,” Ford said. “And now, I’ve never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do.”

Saddam Hussein was an evil person and there was justification to get rid of him,” he observed to the Daily News. “But we shouldn’t have put the basis on weapons of destruction. That was a bad mistake. Where does (Bush) get his advice?”

The former president did not like Bush’s domestic surveillance program. “It may be a necessary evil,” Ford conceded. “I don’t think it’s a terrible transgression, but I would never do it. I was dumbfounded when I heard they were doing it.”

So… President Ford essentially said he probably wouldn’t have gone to war, felt Hussein was evil and we were justified in getting rid of him, and that his big issue was that WMDs were used as the justification for the war.  Somehow this has been portrayed by the MSM as Ford saying “the Iraq war was not justified” as reported in the Washington Post Wednesday night.

Amazing how the MSM just couldn’t wait to get this out there, while the nation is focused on the passing of a president, so that they could interpret his words in a way that would show how Ford believes Bush was not justified going to war; convenient he is not available for comment and clarification.

President Ford was a good man. May he rest in peace, despite the efforts of the MSM.

What exactly is the point of this headline?

Yahoo News/AP 12/26/2006: U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed 9-11 count

Is this a real milestone or an attempt to establish an emotional milestone based upon a comparative cost of the war and the attack of 9/11?  The article states:

Two more American soldiers were killed in Iraq, officials said Tuesday, pushing the U.S. military death toll to at least 2,974 — one more than the number killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The tragic milestone came with the deaths of the two soldiers Monday in a bomb explosion southwest of Baghdad, the military said.

The deaths — announced Tuesday — raised the number of troops killed to 2,974 since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes at least seven military civilians. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks claimed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

Note that, including the headline, the writer has already informed us of this milestone four different ways before even getting into beyond the fourth sentence of the article.

No where, however, is there any indication of why this milestone has any meaning. Are these particular deaths more important than all those that came before? Does the fact that there have been more deaths in a war than were killed when our nation was attacked on 9/11 have any meaning? Does this mean we lose? How does this compare to the number of enemy casualties? Or is that irrelevant.

While every single life lost in this war is tragic, and while all of us would much prefer peace to war, this comparison is pointless.  I can not imagine a comparison being made between the casualties of Pearl Harbor and World War II while we were in the midst of the fight; but if today’s “reporters” were writing the headlines back then, here are some of the numbers they would be looking at near the end of the war (from Wikipedia):

• The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million.
• United States Deaths: 418,500
• Deaths at Pearl Harbor: 2,403

So.. the attack on Pearl Harbor killed 2,403 Americans compared to 418,500 American deaths during WWII. Does that mean US involvement in WWII wasn’t worth it after the first 2,404 casualties?

And what about the 37 million civilian deaths as compared to “only” 25 million military deaths… that’s 37,000,000 civilian deaths vs. 25,000,000 million military deaths. I don’t know about you, but I can’t even imagine what it was like live in a time when 62,000,000 people died in a war, and yet somehow we managed to continue to support the war.

According to Wikipedia, the Allies lost 51 million people, the Axis lost 11 million people; can you imagine what today’s press would do with that? We would have been losing World War II every single day of the war right up until the day Japan surrendered to end the war.

The sooner this war is over, the better; but it will be a lot less difficult to win if we are not led to believe we can not win through intentional emotional manipulation by a media determined to prove that the war against Islamic Fascists is not worth the cost. How many attacks on US soil will it take before we join together as a nation and decide we need to just win this damn thing.

Update: I just heard the anchor on Eyewitness News 7 in NYC mention essentially the same thing, saying “To put this in perspective, this is two less than died on 9/11″ (must have been a repeat of an earlier broadcast since the number was lower).  How does that put this in perspective? You can take any two numbers and compare them, then declare that you have proved some point. How about: “To put it in perspective, in 2003 2,215 people age 15-44 were killed when they were hit by a vehicle in the US; 11,459 in car accidents”. (source) Does this comparison mean anything at all… nope, but neither does the comparison between war deaths and 9/11 deaths, unless you are trying to affect opinion as opposed to just reporting news.

More folks weighing in on this “milestone”: Wake Up America, The Nose On Your Face

*** Merry Christmas ***

Others in the Christmas Spirit: Gina Cobb Christmas Special,  Mark Levin Fan (click the little speaker on the page to hear “A Soldier’s Silent Night” or visit Black Five to read the poem)

Click “Read the rest of this entry” to see videos…

(more…)

The culture war that Bill O’Reilly discusses on Fox News and in his book “Culture Warrior”  (which I have yet to read… but will) has apparently claimed another victim:

Yahoo/AP: Man sets self aflame in Calif. protest — A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district’s decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.

In all likelihood, this poor man was already mentally ill and the “protest” was more about him than it was about the school district’s decision.

The headline & article would have us believe that he was so distraught over winter and spring breaks being renamed Christmas and Easter vacation that he was driven to light himself on fire to draw attention to this grave injustice, sacrificing himself for the good of mankind, saving us all from those who would violate freedoms afforded to us by the United States Constitution, blah, blah, blah…

Come on… do we really think this was a legitimate protest? The man is sick and needs help.  This isn’t like some poor soul using self-emulation to draw attention to genocide in Darfur… this is about naming winter and spring break after the holidays that, not coincidently, give us the reason for a winter and spring break.

Thankfully, this man appears to have been saved from himself, at least for the moment:

Flames were devouring a Christmas tree next to the Liberty Bell, where public events and demonstrations are common. Beside the tree the man stood with an American flag draped around his shoulders and a red gas can over his head.

Seeing the deputy, the man poured the liquid over his head. He quickly burst into flames when the fumes from the gas met the flames from the tree. The deputy ordered the man to drop to the ground as he and a parole agent sprayed him with fire extinguishers.

The man suffered first degree burns on his shoulders and arms, Milam said.

Hopefully he will get the help he needs, but the “war” goes on and the battle lines have become more defined as those of us who believe in freedom OF religion (as opposed to freedom FROM religion) have started to say “enough” and stand up for our rights.

Until now, this was a one-sided war of attrition; perhaps it would have continued along that path had it not been for some extreme radicals on the Left, with a great deal of arrogant condescension bolstered by a string of victories handed to them by a left-leaning activist judiciary cheered on by a left-leaning media, attacking the very root of beliefs held dear by the vast majority of Americans.

Just as 9/11 signaled the “start” of a war with Islamic Fascists that had actually been going on for years before we felt compelled to defend ourselves, so did these attacks on the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas, and the Boy Scouts finally shine a spotlight on how far the original intent of the Constitution had been distorted to suit the needs of a group of anti-religious bigots, wrapping themselves in the American flag while cutting through the very roots of this great nation.

This distortion has gone on for so long, many Americans have just assumed that what they hear in the media is true: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects us from even a hint any government acknowledgement of religion. Once something is assumed to be true, once a belief, however wrong, becomes ubiquitous, it is nearly impossible to correct; but it is crucial that we reverse this erosion of our foundation or suffer the consequences.

Here is the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That’s it… that’s the whole thing, reprinted here in its entirety. Take some time and read through it, understand it, apply it to the ongoing debate…

Now, tell me where it says anything about preventing any and all references to religion in public settings.

Oh… we certainly hear a lot about “Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion” with distorted interpretations telling us that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with that terribly inflammatory phrase “One Nation, Under God” is violating people’s rights under the 1st Amendment…. but it says no such thing, now does it.

What we rarely hear about these days is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, which means that, no matter where I am, whether it be in a school, in a court room, on public land, or standing in the middle of a field, the US Congress can not stop me from free exercise of my religion, period.

Somehow all of this has been interpreted to mean that “holiday” displays can have a “Christmas Tree” (which of course has virtually nothing to do with Christmas), a Menorah, or any number of other symbols as long as there is no recognition of Christ in the display.  In other words, as long as you are not a Christian, you’re freedoms are protected by the 1st Amendment. The argument the Left makes is that we can exercise our religion on private property and the privacy of our own homes… is that what the 1st Amendment intended?

Many point to President Jefferson as a guide to interpreting the 1st Amendment, with the belief that his words help to define the original intent. In Newt Gingrich’s speech to the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications, he reminds us of the following:

We then take you to the Jefferson Memorial, Jefferson often being cited as the president who was the most interested in secularism, remember he wrote the Danbury Baptists and said: We need a wall of separation between Church and state.  What no one will tell you is what he meant by that is this should not be an official state religion.  He clearly did not mean that you could not have God in public because two days after he wrote that letter he went out front of the Whitehouse, got in a carriage, road up the hill to the Capitol, and went to church in the US House which served as a church until the 1860’s. He also loaned the treasury building every Sunday as a church.

And if you go to the Jefferson Memorial he says around the very top of it: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the minds of man”.  Now you can ask your secular friends what do you think Jefferson meant by “I have sworn upon the altar of God’, but it’s fairly difficult for them to explain that he meant large purple banana or some other deeply symbolic meaning.  It’s quite clear if you read Jefferson’s writings in total, they meant God.

Sounds to me like Jefferson believed religion and government were not mutually exclusive. 

Folks, it is time for us to return to the values and principles that this nation was built upon. The Constitution is just as relevant today as it was 200 years ago, and we must resist those who distort its meaning to thrust their own agenda upon us with the ultimate goal of molding us into a purely secular society.

***  Apologies if you tried to visit between 3pm & 8:30pm EST… the server this blog is hosted on was down  ***

I believe the men and women of the United States Armed Forces are highly trained, skilled professionals who are the best at what they do; I bet you believe that too, as do the vast majority of Americans (at least they say so in public since that’s the PC thing to do these days).

So, if we are all in agreement that these are skilled positions in the military, why on Earth are we still discussing a return to the draft? Would we draft people into other skilled positions to make sure we have a “fair” cross section of citizens performing public service?

If a conscripted army is better than an all volunteer army, how about police forces, teachers, librarians, municipal waste removal, or any other publicly funded government jobs?

Think of how many problems would be solved. No more worrying about finding teachers for inner cities or arguing over the right to go to schools with better teachers. All teachers would come from a draft pool, randomly selected to ensure fairness, regardless of education, background, intelligence, race, sexual orientation, religion, knowledge of subject matter… a summer of basic training and you’re good to go for two to three year teaching assignments.

And who wouldn’t feel safer knowing that the police officer patrolling the streets of their community has a background in criminology gained from years of experience in the system as a juvenile offender?

What about the people who hold those jobs today? Hey, these are government jobs; we need to be fair and make sure everyone gets a turn, so they’ll just have to move on to something else.

Sound ridiculous? Absolutely! So why then are some folks so hot on the idea of going back to forced military service, as if military service is some sort of bottom feeding job that should be filled via lottery so everyone has an equal chance of losing? Perhaps these folks do not really believe our military is a highly trained, skilled, professional force made up of the best our country has to offer, doing a job they have chosen to do (as opposed to doing a job they have to do because they can’t do anything else).

So… why am I thinkin’ about this topic yet again? (previously here and here) Well, an apparent slip of the tongue by Veteran Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson is leading some to believe he thinks we need to return to the days of the draft:

December 22, 2006 The Sun: “I think if we bring back the draft. there should be no loopholes for anybody who happens to be drafted,” he said. “If it’s a random system, it ought to be an honestly random system. And if drafted, they should come in and do service or have, possibly, an alternative way of doing other public service for a period of time.”

He added: “And, I think our society would benefit from that, yes, sir.”

Yep.. sure does sound like he thinks it’s a good idea.  Later he said this:

“Today, some comments I made about my experiences in Vietnam during that war may have been misconstrued,” Mr. Nicholson said. “Let me be clear, I strongly support the all-volunteer military and do not support returning to a draft.”

Seems a bit confusing, but I guess the first statement is his opinion and the second is his position? Well then, I guess I support his position and disagree with his opinion.

When we say society would benefit from the draft, perhaps on some levels this is true. The training and discipline that is gained through military service has helped many individuals in their post-service careers and everyday life. It helps society as a whole from the perspective of increasing the number of young men and women of good character in the general population, but the assumption is that the same would hold true if people were forced to serve as opposed to volunteering; that the good character is a byproduct of the training and not necessarily something these brave men and women brought to the table and had refined through military training.  And even if the assumption were correct, would the benefit outweigh the compromises we would be making in our military. If random selection were to be applied in its purest form, would the raw material necessary to build a professional fighting force be available, or would we be settling for mediocrity in the name of “fairness”.

Don Surber, in his blog, has a great article exploring the impact of this “fair” approach on society.

So, my thinking on this is that the benefits of a draft, as it is being applied here, are somewhat similar to the benefits of busing and quotas. It is being promoted as a means of ensuring fairness in selecting who fights wars and who stays home, completely ignoring the fact that our all volunteer military is the best fighting force we have ever fielded. To substitute draft-driven social engineering for the effectiveness of our military would do more harm to our society than good.

If we reach a point in time where a draft is the only way we can ensure sufficient levels of military personnel to defend our country, then the draft would serve a useful purpose as a fall back position; but even then we need to ensure our “selective service” is selective and not entirely random. This ain’t some game we are playing here, nor is it an issue of fairness; we need to ensure the quality of the draftees is on a par with those we accept as volunteers.  If not, we risk placing the lives of our professionals in danger as they are forced to fight side-by-side with conscripted soldiers.