Bush was Right

As argued over a year ago, military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay are necessary for the security of America.  The Obama Administration, which had previously wanted to try terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in federal court, now has switched to endorsement of the Bush era policies.  This is relatively unsurprising, given the soundness and necessity of military tribunals.  As the Left is slowly and painfully learning, it is often easier to argue against policies and attempt to smear the name of those running them when one is out of power.

But this need not be simply a cause for celebration by the Right.  The Left was clearly wrong - and lost.  Instead it should be a lesson for all, that even when in opposition, it is far better to judge problems on their merit, rather than through the lens of political expediency.  Military tribunals were an easy target from the perspective of a simplistic morality that is readily understood by the masses.  Much harder was selling the more developed policy of the Bush administration.  But if both sides had analyzed the necessity of such a policy and had worked towards mutual refinement, the last ten years or so would have been considerably less rancorous.

The Democrats' Campaign Strategy (Or Their Biggest Fears)

The Democrats are growing apprehensive about the upcoming midterm elections. In a fundraising effort, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) recently mailed an impassioned plea for campaign contributions. The letter, which was signed by Vice President Joe Biden, was filled with emotion and scare tactics.

The letter continued to play on two main themes of recent Democrat campaigns. The first was the tired theme of “Blame Bush”. The current administration cannot seem to avoid the siren call of Bush-bashing that is increasingly falling on deaf ears. This rhetoric certainly helped Obama get into the White House, but it is questionable nearly two years later if it will really convince any but the most diehard Obamaniacs to open their checkbooks.

Besides continuing to harp on the Bush era, the letter also attempted to paint the Republicans as obstructionist and disinterested in helping America. For instance it stated, “I [Joe Biden] have served in the Senate for 36 years and in all of that time, I have never seen more Republicans committed to permanent, unyielding obstruction.”

However, what was most interesting was a bookmark insert, included in the mailing, that outlined the “3 REPUBLICANS WE MUST DEFEAT IN 2010.” Surprisingly, the three are not exactly household names. The handout named Richard Burr (NC), the current Senator from North Carolina, Roy Blunt (MO), currently a Congressman from Missouri, and Rob Portman (OH), formerly a Congressman from Ohio, Director of the OMB, and US Trade Rep. All three are currently running for Senate.

The pitfalls of all three candidates, according to the insert, were their connections to Bush. Burr “prove[ed] his allegiance to the Bush-Cheney-Rove ideology, [by] call[ing] in Karl Rove himself to help his reelection campaign.” Blunt, the “former House Majority Whip helped turn President Bush’s disastrous agenda into law while accepting thousands of dollars in contributions from Big Oil.” Portman is “‘A Bush Guy,’… and is trying to hide his past as ‘the face of the Bush Administration on two issues – trade and the economy’ and a key architect of our nation’s economic crisis.”

It is interesting to see who the Democrats have decided to aggressively target. According to The Cook Political Report, Burr’s seat is designated “Likely Republican”. On the other hand, the seats that Blunt (currently held by Kit Bond R-MO) and Portman (currently held by George Voinovich R-OH) are running for are marked as clear toss-ups. Cook also mentions Bunning (R-KY) and Gregg (R-NH) as the other two toss-up Republican seats. Why the Democrats feel Burr is a bigger threat (or easier target) than Bunning or Gregg is unclear.

Such campaign tactics are common – on both sides of the aisle – and despite the vitriol are unsurprising. However, it is clear that the Democrats have offered little variation in their strategies over the past few years. The overused blame-Bush and obstructionist-Republican talking points continue to remain the staples. Yet, as Obama continues to length his time in office the former becomes less convincing. Likewise, the latter, while probably more effective, fails as the Republicans begin to offer more concrete ideas (for instance at the Health Care Summit). It will nevertheless be interesting to see if or how this strategy changes as November approaches.

For some of the most interesting highlights from Biden’s letter, see below:

• “After eight years of misguided leadership, our economy was in shambles….”
• “We were fighting two wars – one without reason, the other without focus….”
• “After nearly eight years of drift, the President has put in place a strategy for success in Afghanistan.”
• “And as we saw in Massachusetts, Republicans want to exact a political price for our efforts.”
• “There are only two possible motivations for their actions… Either they want to return to the destructive policies of the Bush-Cheney administration, or they think the only way they can succeed is by causing us to fail. What this cynical strategy fails to recognize is that if we fail, America fails and the American people pay the price.”
• “We simply cannot return to George W. Bush’s America."

Carter: Wrong on Race, Loved by Bin Laden

The worst post-war President is at it again. Jimmy Carter cannot avoid looking like a fool. Rather than gracefully retiring to private life (George Bush) or serving as a relatively quiet, respectful behind-the-scenes political force (Bill Clinton), Carter is drawn to political controversies like a moth to a flame. He has recently been back in the news in two most unpleasant ways.

Having caused uproars with his biased anti-Israel book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” a few years ago and with his visit with the terrorist group Hamas this past June, Jimmy Carter is well known for his warped worldviews. Fortunately for Carter, his book now has the honor of making a top-three recommended reading list. This past Monday, Osama Bin Laden included “Peace Not Apartheid” alongside Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” as recommended reading. Bin Laden claimed that “After you read the suggested books, you will know the truth, and you will be greatly shocked by the scale of concealment that has been exercised on you.” President Carter should feel proud of the striking support from one of America’s greatest friends.

If Bin Laden’s endorsement was not enough, Carter stirred-up a hornet’s nest of controversy by claiming that the majority of opposition to President Obama is based on racism. In an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Carter stated, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American.” Obama’s administration has naturally distanced itself from his comments, patently denying a racial link.

As discussed in a prior post, “You Lie” Is Joe Wilson a Racist?, Carter’s infusion of racism into political debates is reprehensible. It is unclear what Carter is attempting to accomplish, as such divisive talk cannot be helpful to the President. Such remarks are patently absurd and have only enraged most Americans. After all, President-elect Obama held an approval rating of 70% in November 2008. The roughly 20% that have since changed their minds and currently disapprove of his policies could not have become rampant racists over the past year. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that the 30% that did not approve of Obama to begin with are all racists. Contrary to Carter’s and his asinine cronies’ beliefs, most disagreement with Obama is politically, not racially, motivated.

The fact of the matter is that Carter is entirely disconnected with reality. Time after time he proves that he has no understanding of what goes on outside of his narrow world-view. Carter is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party that he professes to support. He was a miserable failure as a President. What makes him believe that he can do any better now as the senile “elder statesman”? Maybe he should just stick to peanut farming.

What's Wrong with Waterboarding?

The potential prosecution of Bush-era officials for waterboarding and other alleged uses of torture during interrogations of terrorists is an outrageous plan of action for the Obama administration. First of all, it will prove to be extremely divisive. For a President who ran a supposedly bi-partisan campaign by promising to reach across the aisle, such a public investigation of and prosecution regarding these interrogations would certainly polarize the nation. This reeks, not of bi-partisanship, but the anti-Bushism that defined Obama’s campaign and the extreme liberal-left.

Secondly, it is disastrous policy to prosecute officials that were not only acting as instructed, but were doing a phenomenal and successful job of protecting America. Whether you consider waterboarding to be torture or harsh interrogation techniques is irrelevant. Frankly, I care little if it is termed torture. The fact of the matter is that if torture or interrogation yields truthful, useful, and otherwise unattainable intelligence that leads to the saving of innocent lives then it is one-hundred percent morally and politically acceptable. It is a simple utilitarian argument that justifies this. If injuring or scaring one man can save one or more men then the total harm done in society is minimized. Not torturing is morally equivalent to murdering those who could have been saved had the terrorist been tortured.

Far too often critics try to draw a moral distinction between active and passive actions. The argument implicitly distinguishes between harm caused by an active action, such as torture, and harm caused by a passive action, such as failure to stop a terrorist attack. Under this simplistic morality, actively caused harm is always worse than passively caused harm. For some reason, proponents of this belief seemingly feel a discomfort at being directly involved in harm. However, they feel a little better by being able to stick their head in the sand and, at least mentally, avoid harm that is distant. This may explain why they believe it is less moral to commit harm with an active action.

However, this is a deeply flawed philosophy. The fact that harm is more or less remote is irrelevant. Instead we must to look to the magnitude of harm- or more appropriately the expected value of harm. For instance, if there is even a 10% chance that 1000 people will be injured there is a greater harm in not torturing one man. Committing harm has to be judged in light of the harm it prevents. Harming another is completely justified if it reduces the overall global harm. Just because some types of injury may be caused by passive actions does not negate the fact that we have a moral responsibility to stop them.

The only caveat is that torture has to lead to true intelligence. Torturing for cruel or sadistic purposes is never acceptable. Torture has to be done in a way to extract useful information. Interrogators need to be trained to avoid creating situations where the captive says what the interrogator wants to hear in order to stop the torture. Likewise, less severe methods should be used first, in order to minimize the harm. Escalation should occur as necessary and appropriate. Ultimately, however, it must be recognized that the aim of such tactics is to minimize the amount of global harm. If enemies of our free society decide to create a situation in which there will inevitably be harm, we must do everything we can to minimize that harm. Sometimes this means not being passive, but actively inflicting a small amount of harm to avoid a greater amount.

If Obama decides to pander to an ill-informed and morally twisted ideology and punish those that have so far protected us, we will only be put at greater risk. If our enemies believe that they can harm us without harm coming to them there will be little to protect us. If we hamstring ourselves in the name of a false-morality we will only step down the path to America’s decline and ruination.