May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« April 2006 |
Main
| June 2006 »
(The Euston group formally launched on May 26 in London. Several members have also written op-eds -- see here -- as part of the roll out. Norman Geras, a government professor at the University of Manchester, has been particularly insightful, including this piece in the Guardian:
Within the large "middle" sector of left-liberal opinion opposed to the war there has been, from the start, a differentiating subdivision - between those who opposed the war without being in denial about the considerations on the other side of the argument, and those who precisely have been in denial about them. This latter group extends well beyond the far left.
The signs of denial are abundant in the recent public life of the western democracies: in the banners and slogans for that Saturday on February 15 2003, from which one would never have known that Saddam's Iraq was a foul tyranny; in the numbers of those on the left unwilling to allow, many indeed unable to comprehend, why others of us supported a regime-change war; in a constant stream of comment in liberal daily papers and weeklies of the left; in the excommunications issued and more recent calls for apology or recantation; and, most seriously, in the perceptible lack of interest in initiatives of solidarity with the forces in Iraq battling for a democratic transformation of their country, part of a wider lack of enthusiasm for the success of this enterprise given its origins in a war led by George Bush.)
Posted on April 17, 2006:
Though it hasn't garnered much media attention, there has been an interesting fight brewing within the political Left. Britain's Oliver Kamm got the ball rolling by writing a provocative piece in Progess, a journal published by British Labour Party members, arguing that the Left has abandoned its anti-totalitarian roots. Now, a "new democratic progressive alliance" has come together in the blogoshere to challenge others on the Left who are consumed with anti-Americanism and have a soft spot for tyrants. Kamm and many others have signed The Euston Manifesto.
Drawing on the "lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats)," the Manifesto's preamble states:
We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.
The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere — in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.
The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment.
Stay tuned...
A staunch U.S. ally, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe cruised to re-election winning by an astounding 40-point margin. A recent cover piece in The Economist reported on "The Battle for Latin America's Soul." Will the region go the way of Venezuela's Chavez and Bolivia's Morales or choose the path of friendlier relations with the U.S. and openness to foreign investment? Well, Colombians have made their decision. Under Uribe's leadership, Colombia has experienced strong economic growth -- 5.1 percent in 2005 -- and the FARC, which had used previous government "peace initiatives" to strengthen its position, has been severely weakened. This is quite a turn-a-round considering that only a few years back the FARC welcomed the newly elected Uribe by training mortars on his inaugural ceremony.
So let's see, voters in Canada and Colombia endorse pro-U.S. candidates. And Mexican voters are likely to elect a president who has sprinted ahead in the polls by portraying his opponent as a Hugo Chavez wannabe. Uncle Sam is on a roll.
I doubt it's a coincidence that on the day before the UN Security Council meets to discuss Iran's nuclear enrichment activities Tehran announces plans to build two more nuclear reactors -- and that the Russians will likely be the lead contractor. And at least one powerful Republican, Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, appears resigned to the eventuality of an Iranian nuclear weapon. American diplomats, who are set to join the EU in direct talks with Iran, will not have an easy time of it given Tehran's skillful diplomatic maneuvering.
Jay Lefkowitz, Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, argues in a speech to the Asia Society that promoting human rights is very much in the American national security interest.
Government conduct at home naturally influences conduct toward other nations. The 20th century shows us numerous examples of this correlation. With Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others, the march of tyranny at home was an antecedent to international aggression. For this reason, making human rights part of our national security agenda is not only an appropriate policy, but also a necessary one.
There are some who question this approach. Some argue that our concern about human freedom amounts to interference in internal affairs of another state -- a sort of new imperialism. In other words, what happens in North Korea stays in North Korea. Others do not protest raising the human rights issue, but believe this is a matter solely to be worked out between North and South Korea. Finally, some recognize that human rights is a legitimate area of concern, but argue that raising it will prevent us from making progress on more immediate security concerns like North Korea’s nuclear arsenal....
Fundamentally, the United States will pursue a policy that has freedom and respect for the individual as its cornerstone. The promotion of human rights is certainly an important end in and of itself, and therefore a clear objective of our policy. But it is also a critical means to an even broader end -- America’s effort to extend freedom and security across the globe.
Let's hope they become good world citizens.
Splitting the Sunnis from Zarqawi has been a high priority for the U.S. in Iraq. But as in Tal Afar and other towns, it's difficult to have enduring success if Sunnis watch those who help us get assassinated and believe that Zarqawi's henchmen control the ground. Today's Washington Post story on Ramadi is not encouraging, especially given the progress we had made with tribal leaders. But it looks like the Marines, who've requested additional troops for many months, will get some more.
The U.S. military said Monday it was deploying the main reserve fighting force for Iraq, a full 3,500-member armored brigade, as emergency reinforcements for the embattled western province of Anbar, where a surge of violence linked to the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq has severely damaged efforts to turn Sunni Arab tribal leaders against the insurgency.
The insurgents have assassinated 11 tribal leaders in the Ramadi area since the end of last year, when Sunni sheiks in the city began open cooperation with the U.S. military. That alliance was heralded by U.S. commanders as a sign of a major split between Sunni insurgents and the larger Sunni community of western Iraq.
The insurgent attacks since then have all but frozen the cooperation between Sunni tribal leaders and U.S. forces in Ramadi, local leaders say....
"We hope to get rid of al-Qaeda, which is a huge burden on the city. Unfortunately, Zarqawi's fist is stronger than the Americans'," said one Sunni sheik, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of insurgent retaliation. He was referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, an umbrella group for many of the foreign and local resistance fighters in Iraq. Local Sunni leaders often insist that the most violent insurgent attacks are by foreign fighters, not Iraqi Sunnis.
In Ramadi, "Zarqawi is the one who is in control," the sheik said, speaking to a Washington Post special correspondent in Ramadi. "He kills anyone who goes in and out of the U.S. base. We have stopped meetings with the Americans, because, frankly speaking, we have lost confidence in the U.S. side, as they can't protect us."
...Marine officers on the ground have been open for more than a year now about needing more troops in Anbar, whose Sunni population, remoteness and comparative lawlessness have made it a stronghold for the insurgency. Anbar borders Syria, a conduit for some of the weapons, money and fighters.
Iraq veteran Owen West has an excellent piece in today's New York Times. West is vice chairman of Vets for Freedom, "a group of Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans who believe in the mission of freedom in the Global War on Terror, but who have become frustrated with the way the operation has been politicized and reported to the home front." I highly recommend visiting Vets for Freedom often.
On June 6, 1984, President Reagan delivered a remarkable speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings. This Memorial Day we remember "the boys of Pointe du Hoc" and all the other American heroes who gave their lives for our freedom.
Remarks at the U.S. Ranger Monument
Pointe du Hoc, France
June 6, 1984
"We're here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved, and the world prayed for its rescue. Here in Normandy the rescue began. Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.
We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.
The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers--the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing. Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.
Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.
Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor.''
I think I know what you may be thinking right now--thinking, "We were just part of a bigger effort; everyone was brave that day.'' Well, everyone was. Do you remember the story of Bill Millin of the 51st Highlanders? Forty years ago today, British troops were pinned down near a bridge, waiting desperately for help. Suddenly, they heard the sound of bagpipes, and some thought they were dreaming. Well, they weren't. They looked up and saw Bill Millin with his bagpipes, leading the reinforcements and ignoring the smack of the bullets into the ground around him.
Lord Lovat was with him--Lord Lovat of Scotland, who calmly announced when he got to the bridge, "Sorry I'm a few minutes late,'' as if he'd been delayed by a traffic jam, when in truth he'd just come from the bloody fighting on Sword Beach, which he and his men had just taken.
There was the impossible valor of the Poles who threw themselves between the enemy and the rest of Europe as the invasion took hold, and the unsurpassed courage of the Canadians who had already seen the horrors of war on this coast. They knew what awaited them there, but they would not be deterred. And once they hit Juno Beach, they never looked back.
All of these men were part of a rollcall of honor with names that spoke of a pride as bright as the colors they bore: the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Poland's 24th Lancers, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, the Screaming Eagles, the Yeomen of England's armored divisions, the forces of Free France, the Coast Guard's "Matchbox Fleet'' and you, the American Rangers.
Forty summers have passed since the battle that you fought here. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge--and pray God we have not lost it--that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.
The Americans who fought here that morning knew word of the invasion was spreading through the darkness back home. They thought--or felt in their hearts, though they couldn't know in fact, that in Georgia they were filling the churches at 4 a.m., in Kansas they were kneeling on their porches and praying, and in Philadelphia they were ringing the Liberty Bell.
Something else helped the men of D-Day: their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, when Colonel Wolverton asked his parachute troops to kneel with him in prayer he told them: Do not bow your heads, but look up so you can see God and ask His blessing in what we're about to do. Also that night, General Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''
These are the things that impelled them; these are the things that shaped the unity of the Allies.
When the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together.
There was first a great reconciliation among those who had been enemies, all of whom had suffered so greatly. The United States did its part, creating the Marshall Plan to help rebuild our allies and our former enemies. The Marshall Plan led to the Atlantic alliance--a great alliance that serves to this day as our shield for freedom, for prosperity, and for peace.
In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost 40 years after the war. Because of this, Allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as 40 years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose--to protect and defend democracy. The only territories we hold are memorials like this one and graveyards where our heroes rest.
We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.
But we try always to be prepared for peace; prepared to deter aggression; prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms; and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation. In truth, there is no reconciliation we would welcome more than a reconciliation with the Soviet Union, so, together, we can lessen the risks of war, now and forever.
It's fitting to remember here the great losses also suffered by the Russian people during World War II: 20 million perished, a terrible price that testifies to all the world the necessity of ending war. I tell you from my heart that we in the United States do not want war. We want to wipe from the face of the Earth the terrible weapons that man now has in his hands. And I tell you, we are ready to seize that beachhead. We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest. There must be a changing there that will allow us to turn our hope into action.
We will pray forever that some day that changing will come. But for now, particularly today, it is good and fitting to renew our commitment to each other, to our freedom, and to the alliance that protects it.
We are bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we are with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.
Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.''
Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their value [valor], and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.
Thank you very much, and God bless you all."
Today's Hotline reports on an internal RNC poll showing strong support for comprehensive immigration reform:
RNC senior adviser...Matthew Dowd urges Republican Nat'l Committee members to favor a "comprehensive" solution to immigration, which the public believes is "unifying -- not polarizing."
Dowd: "Furthermore, majorities of Hispanics back it. Therefore, it is imperative for the Republican Party to talk about immigration effectively and comprehensively and demonstrate leadership on this vital issue as we move toward the mid-term elections."
Dowd's memo says that an internal RNC poll conducted by Jan Van Louhuzen finds that "overwhelming support exists for a temporary worker program. 80% of all voters, 83% of Republicans, and 79% of self-identified conservatives support a temporary worker program as long as immigrants pay taxes and obey the law."
More, from the RNC internal poll: "When voters are given the choice of other immigration proposals, strengthening enforcement with a tamper-proof identity card (89% among all voters, 93% among GOP), various wordings of a temporary worker program (the highest at 85% among all voters, 86% among GOP), and sending National Guard troops to the border (63% among all voters, 84% among GOP) score the highest among both all voters and Republican voters."
Also: "Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty."
Dowd concludes: "Finally, when discussing immigration reform, tone and language are extremely important. To continue to grow the party, we must conduct this debate with civility and respect for our nation's heritage -- as the President has said, we are both a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. That is why the American people favor a balanced plan that secures the border, improves enforcement, enhances immigration avenues AND deals compassionately and equitably with those who are already here."
In addition,
Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty. Seventy percent (70%) of voters say illegal immigrants who have put down roots in the U.S. should be granted legal status after they go to the back of the line, pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and have a clean criminal record; just 25% say that would be amnesty and we should instead impose criminal penalties on illegal immigrants in the U.S. Republican and conservative opinion is only slightly lower. 68% of conservatives and 64% of Republicans support granting legal status over criminal penalties.)
John Kerry's running mate has never stopped running for president. He tried to get Kerry to fight on in Ohio even after it was clear there weren't enough uncounted ballots to put Kerry over the top. Kerry was smart enough to realize that delaying the inevitable may have excited the party's base but would have done terrible damage to a potential comeback in 2008. But Edwards' plea wasn't about getting Kerry into the Oval office; it was about Edwards pandering to the Left and his '08 ambitions. Since then, Edwards has jettisoned much of the Southern "centrism" that got him elected Senator from the state of North Carolina and on the 2004 ticket. On Iraq, he was a hawk. He voted for the war and made forceful speeches on why Saddam Hussein must go. Now, like Kerry, he has repudiated his old position and sounds more like Howard Dean, the man who sent the Democratic establishment into a panic pre-Iowa and New Hampshire. Yesterday, Edwards was in Iowa sounding very much like the Dean of 2004. According to the Des Moines Register,
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards said Thursday, at the outset of an Iowa swing, that Democrats ought to express their outrage over the Bush administration's reported use of millions of telephone records to track terrorists, despite caution from others in his party on a similar issue.
The 2004 vice presidential nominee, considered a likely candidate for president in 2008, said the National Security Agency's use of telephone records to track suspected terrorists should be a political issue.
"Most Americans want us to monitor al-Qaida, but they hate the idea of the president not following the law," Edwards told the Register by phone.
Some Democrats eyeing the 2008 presidential nomination, including Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, have said party leaders should be wary about making a political issue out of a similar Bush policy. In December, it was reported that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails traveling to or from the United States.
Without evidence that the policy has wronged anyone specifically, Democrats could be falling into a Republican campaign trap, Vilsack has argued.
This month, reports were published that the NSA had collected domestic telephone records of millions of Americans, as part of its tracking of potential terrorist activity.
Edwards echoed Democrats who have called for congressional hearings on the record-keeping, which leaders in the Republican-controlled Congress have declined to convene.
"The reason it has political impact is because it goes to a lot of other things that show this president doesn't respect the law and the Constitution," Edwards said.
I can't help but think that Howard Dean must be amused by it all.
Last time I checked Sens. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) aren't moderate squishes.
Craig:
Is this bill perfect? No. But it realistically addresses the immigration challenges facing America today by delivering in each of the three critical areas of reform: better border security, increased internal enforcement, and visa reform. Without all three, reform is meaningless, because it will be incomplete and ineffective.
I'm very pleased that Idaho's growers are one step closer to being able to hire workers more efficiently, with confidence those workers are here legally. Without that ability, and without those workers, crops will rot in the field and American agriculture will look to outsourcing to foreign countries. I doubt Americans want to be dependent on foreign nations for food in the same way we are for oil. If it becomes law, this legislation will prevent that from happening.
As we move forward, I will encourage my fellow House and Senate negotiators to work together with American farmers and consumers in mind, and reach a compromise soon.
McConnell:
Today, the Senate passed a bill to strengthen our borders, reform guest-worker programs that benefit employers and our economy, and deter illegal activity. I believe more work needs to be done to improve the bill as Congress considers it further. However, this is a necessary first step to balancing our tradition as a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws.
I also suspect that Sen. McConnell (with California Gov. Pete Wilson in mind) isn't interested in watching the GOP become a minority party in the years ahead. That said, House Republicans are in a position to get tough border enforcement in the final conference bill and shouldn't let this opportunity pass them by.
With an eye toward North Korea, the US Navy has accelerated its missile defense capability in the Pacific region. From the Associated Press:
For the first time, a Navy ship at sea successfully shot down a long-range missile in its final seconds of flight, the military said Wednesday.
The test was seen as an important step toward giving ships the ability to shoot down weapons as they are about to hit their targets. Until now, the Standard Missile 2 was only launched from ships to intercept a long-range missile in the early or middle stage of flight.
For the test, a missile fired from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai was destroyed in its final stage by an SM-2 launched from USS Lake Erie.
The Navy already can shoot down a missile in its final stage with a Patriot Advanced Capability 3, or PAC-3, missile launched from land.
The experiment with the SM-2 could broaden a warship's capability, said Rear Adm. Barry McCullough, director of surface warfare on the staff of the chief of naval operations.
The Pearl Harbor-based Lake Erie is equipped with technology that allows it to detect and track intercontinental ballistic missiles. Since 2004, U.S. warships with ICBM tracking technology have been patrolling the Sea of Japan, on the lookout for missiles from North Korea.
The U.S. military is installing missile tracking radar and interceptor missiles on 18 U.S. Pacific Fleet ships. It is also equipping underground silos in Alaska and California with interceptor missiles.
And in Europe,
NATO countries face a growing threat of attack by long-range missiles, a senior alliance official said on Wednesday as he presented a study on options for a missile shield system to protect Europe.
"There is a growing threat of long-range missile attack on NATO territory. It is timely to examine ways and means of addressing that threat." [said] Marshall Billingslea, NATO assistant Secretary General for Defence Investment.
But many on the continent aren't buying it.
"There is a difference in perception," said Andrew Brookes of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. "America is looking at protection from strategic missile attacks from places like China, North Korea and Iran. Europe doesn't believe that's a threat."
"Europeans, inherently, don't buy into this fantasy," Brookes said.
Though, it appears some in NATO believe Mr. Brookes has bought into his own fantasy.
Here's an interesting nugget from the latest Economist:
For many, perhaps most Americans, the question is not "Should we welcome immigrants?" but "How many?" A moderate influx may be economically helpful and culturally invigorating; a huge one would be disruptive. It is not easy, however, to look at a proposed law and predict how many newcomers it might let in.
Some estimates are extremely high. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, put it at 100m over 20 years if the Senate bill were enacted. His study, released on the same day as Mr Bush's speech, also included a "maximum" estimate of 193m. That figure—equivalent to 60% of the current population—was seized upon by alarmists such as Rush Limbaugh, a talk-radio host, and Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic senator from California.
But cooler heads queried Mr Rector's methodology. Michael Fix of the Migration Policy Institute, a pro-immigration think-tank, said he doubted that the guest-worker programme would expand as fast as Mr Rector assumes, that immigrants would naturalise as quickly, that so few would die or return home, and that so many would bring their parents. Compounded over decades, small changes in assumptions lead to big changes in results. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that immigration reform would add a more modest 7.8m people to America's population over ten years.
That population is growing more rapidly than any other rich country's, but this owes more to a healthy birth rate than to immigration. Granted, some of the higher birth rate stems from immigrant fertility. But the melting pot is still bubbling: adult immigrants work, and their children virtually all speak English. A flexible labour market and stingy welfare state ensure that there is no resentful immigrant underclass with time on its hands, as in France.
Avoiding just such a simmering immigrant underclass is one reason conservative George Will supports a path to citizenship:
As the debate about immigration policy boils, augmented border control must not be the entire agenda, lest other thorny problems be ignored....
Conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society's crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France.
One last thing: those in the White House and on Capitol Hill should read this and then this (on the "political disaster" facing Republicans) before the GOP Jumps the Shark on immigration.
Wired News has the story of a 25-year-old's contribution to world civilization.
Today's Wall Street Journal editorial weighs in:
The most urgent need is for leaders in both Iraq and Washington to do more to improve security in Baghdad. The White House has been right to point out that the media have missed many good news stories in Iraq, but current coverage probably understates the trauma of daily life in the capital. Iraq can survive the car bombs we hear about on the news. The real problem is more generalized lawlessness and a lack of basic services like electricity that have made normal life nasty, brutish and too often short.
Educated Iraqis are fleeing Baghdad in increasing numbers, a terrible sign for the country's democratic future if the exodus is not stopped. The new government and coalition commanders may have to think in terms of a major redeployment of U.S. and Iraqi forces, with the aim of securing Baghdad at all costs. A 30-day plan for a more visible street presence and with frequent security checkpoints would be one place to start.
As the Journal notes, evidence continues to mount that the current "footprint" isn't getting the job done in Baghdad. This reality more than anything else is the biggest threat to the political progress Iraq has made. It's also why talk of decoupling the security situation in Iraq from the issue of US troop reductions is worrisome.
Yesterday, during his press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, the president gave an interesting answer to this question:
Q The U.S. has the most powerful military in the world, and they have been unable to bring down the violence in any substantial way in several of the provinces. So how can you expect the Iraqis to do that?
PRESIDENT BUSH: If one were to measure progress on the number of suiciders, if that's your definition of success, I think it gives -- I think it will -- I think it obscures the steady, incremental march toward democracy we're seeing. In other words, it's very difficult -- you can have the most powerful army of the world -- ask the Israelis what it's like to try to stop suiciders -- it is a difficult task to stop suicide bombers. That's the -- but that's one of the main -- that's the main weapon of the enemy, the capacity to destroy innocent life with a suicider.
And so I view progress as, is there a political process going forward that's convincing disaffected Sunnis, for example, to participate? Is there a unity government that says it's best for all of us to work together to achieve a common objective which is democracy? Are we able to meet the needs of the 12 million people that defied the car bombers? To me, that's success. Trying to stop suiciders -- which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion -- is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow. And those who are being inspired by al Qaeda, we're just going to have to stay on the hunt and bring al Qaeda to justice. And our Army can do that, and is doing that right now.
President Bush is absolutely right. Substantial political progress has been made despite the violence. Though, drawing an analogy between the level and scope of violence in Tel Aviv and Baghdad, for example, is a stretch and I'm assuming not an effort to decouple the security situation in Iraq from the issue of US troop reductions. On this issue, Max Boot writes on "Securing Baghdad" (free reg. req'd) in today's Los Angeles Times and former West Point military historian Frederick Kagan offers "A Plan for Victory in Iraq" in the current Weekly Standard.
Signs of life are stirring in the White House. Here's what the vice president had to say in a speech yesterday at a Bilbray for Congress event in San Diego:
Issues of national security will clearly be at the top of the agenda in this election year. The President and I welcome the discussion, because every voter in America needs to know how the leaders of the Democratic Party view the war on terror. Their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, has boasted publicly of his efforts to kill the Patriot Act. Their nominee for President in the last election viewed terrorism mainly as a law enforcement issue, and recently said that American troops are "terrorizing" Iraqis. The Chairman of the Democratic Party is Howard Dean, who said the capture of Saddam Hussein didn't make America safer. And those prominent Democrats who advocate a sudden withdrawal from Iraq are counseling the very kind of retreat that Osama bin Laden has been predicting and counting on. Yet these Democrats will not -- and cannot -- make the case that somehow surrender in Iraq would make our nation safer.
This is also the crowd that objects to the terrorist surveillance program -- even though that program has helped prevent attacks and has protected American lives. We've heard it said many times that our government failed to connect the dots before 9/11. We now know that some of the hijackers were in the United States, here in the San Diego area, and they placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas before that attack. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. To help prevent another such attack, and based on authority given him by the Constitution and by statute, the President authorized a surveillance program to intercept a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications. Let me emphasize that because on occasion you will hear the press or our opponents talk about domestic surveillance. This is not domestic surveillance. One end has to be outside the United States, and therefore international, one end has to be affiliated in some fashion with al Qaeda. It's hard to think of any category of information that could be more important to the safety of the United States. The program is a wartime measure, it's limited in scope to surveillance associated with terrorists, and it is conducted in a way that safeguards the civil liberties of the American people. Leaders of Congress have been briefed on this program more than a dozen times on the program. I have personally presided over most of those briefings. In addition, the entire program is reconsidered and reauthorized by the President every 45 days. He has reauthorized it more than 30 times since September 11th, because it has helped prevent attacks. It has protected American lives. And that program remains essential to the security of the United States. If there are individuals inside our country talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again. (Applause.)
This enemy is weakened and fractured, yet still lethal and still determined to kill Americans. We have a duty to act against them as swiftly and as effectively as we possibly can. Either we are serious about fighting this war or we are not. And with George W. Bush leading the nation, we are serious, and we will not let down our guard.
(Just a thought but Republicans may want to remind voters of British intelligence failures leading up to the July 7 bombings and note the return in force of the ACLU Democrats -- see here and here.)
Posted on May 22, 2006:
The British government has released two reports -- here and here -- on the July 7, 2005 terrorist bombings in London, which killed 52 and injured over 800. In the current Weekly Standard, Gary Schmitt reviews what the British learned and notes the following:
If there is any smoking gun when it comes to the failure of British intelligence and the July 2005 bombings, it's the fact that there appears to have been knowledge of Khan's role as a possible al Qaeda fellow traveler among the post-9/11 detainees in both Pakistan and Guantanamo. What is known for sure is that Khan had traveled to Pakistan in 2003 and late 2004. And while he was only one of several hundred thousand U.K. residents who visited Pakistan for a month or longer in 2004, at least one detainee, and perhaps a second, subsequently recognized Khan and knew about his efforts to reach out to Muslim extremists while there.
In addition, the government's report takes note of the fact that in the run-up to the bombings themselves, the terrorists appeared to be in relatively constant phone contact with an individual or individuals in Pakistan. Although "it is not known who this was or the content of the contacts," according to the report, "the methods used, designed to make it difficult to identify the individual, make the contacts look suspicious."
Of course, it is impossible to know whether, if these "leads" had been followed up, the bombings would have been prevented. Nevertheless, the irony here is what would have been required to crack the case--information gained from detainee interrogations and from listening in on calls made to terrorist suspects abroad. Both are practices pushed by the Bush White House and roundly reviled by London's elite.
Those who support the NSA's al Qaeda spying program may want to cite the British experience in explaining the program to their constituents. Most in the media surely won't and I doubt Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi will either.
The Pentagon has released its latest report on the status of the Chinese military, the Washington Post reports today. Its findings:
China's military buildup is increasingly aimed at projecting power far beyond its shores into the western Pacific to be able to interdict U.S. aircraft carriers and other nations' military forces, according to a Pentagon report released yesterday that outlines continued concerns over China's rising strategic influence in Asia....
The People's Liberation Army "is engaged in a sustained effort to interdict, at long ranges, aircraft carrier and expeditionary strike groups that might deploy to the western Pacific," the report said. Long-term trends in China's development of nuclear and conventional weapons "have the potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating in the region," it said....
The report details how the Chinese military is investing in cruise missiles, precision weapons and guidance systems that could target ships, submarines, aircraft and airbases as far away as the "second island chain" including the Mariana Islands and Guam. As part of this strategy, China is buying Russian aircraft, such as the IL-76 transport and IL-78 tanker aircraft, and has shown interest in the Su-33 maritime strike aircraft. China is in the early stages of "developing power projection for other contingencies other than Taiwan," said Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.
On Taiwan, the report said China had deployed about 100 more short-range ballistic missiles to garrisons opposite the island, increasing the total from 650 to 730 last year to between 710 and 790 now. "The balance between Beijing and Taiwan is heading in the wrong direction," Rodman said, adding that "maybe our job is to be the equalizer if a contingency arises."
Beijing's military build-up is also driving closer relations between the U.S. and India -- a burgeoning relationship designed, in part, to thwart what Heritage Foundation scholars John J. Tkacik Jr. and Dana Dillon discuss in a recent issue of Policy Review.
Sen. Harry Reid and Company have sent a letter to the president asking for a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. "In order to avoid repeating mistakes made in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq," they write, "we must have objective intelligence untainted by political considerations and policy preferences." The latter is, of course, pure garbage but I'd expect nothing less from senators who hope to be in the majority some day. That said, there's no doubt that the 2002 NIE was deeply flawed in its assessment of Iraq's wmd programs. But while the 2002 NIE vastly overestimated Iraq's programs, the one issued prior to the 1991 Gulf War vastly underestimated Saddam's nuclear program at the very least.
On August 11, 1991, the Washington Post reported:
International inspectors...unearthed one of the most important—and disturbing—finds of the post-Cold War era: a huge assembly line for the covert manufacture of equipment to make an Iraqi bomb.
The location of the sophisticated, secret factory for manufacturing hundreds of uranium gas centrifuges was unknown to any foreign intelligence agency despite intense scrutiny and untouched by five weeks of severe aerial bombardment during the Gulf War that supposedly eviscerated the Iraqi nuclear project. As such, it is a monument to the world’s ignorance about what a determined bomb-builder such as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein can do.
The factory was a key component in Iraq’s elaborate highly redundant and largely secret network of physics, chemistry and metallurgical laboratories, industrial mines, metalworking factories, electrical power generators, nuclear research reactors and radioactive waste processing sites—all aimed at swiftly putting a nuclear weapon in the hands of one of the world’s most ruthless leaders.
The Post also reported:
Despite repeated warnings and Saddam’s own public statements, Western experts consistently underestimated Iraq’s scientific and technical capabilities. Inspection officials now believe Iraq was only 12 to 18 months from producing its first bomb, not five to 10 years as previously thought.
So if we are seeking an informed debate about Iran and the limits of our intelligence capabilities, shouldn't the public also know the extent to which US intelligence has underestimated a target nation's programs as well as overestimated them?
I don't agree with everything in this piece but Richard Cohen is right about a few things: A trial that was supposed to "highlight the many crimes of Saddam Hussein" has instead obscured them and those anti-Iraq War folks calling for action in Darfur face a moral contradiction of their own.
On most days, [the trial] has been a sputtering charade, which somehow has managed not to highlight the many crimes of Saddam Hussein but to obscure them. This is an important point, for behind the stated reason for the war itself -- ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction -- was the repellent nature of Hussein's regime. It was no mere run-of-the-mill Middle Eastern dictatorship, like that of next-door Syria or, in its own way, Iran, but a place where the state could murder casually and with impunity -- and often did.
It was a place of torture. It was a place of massacre. It was a place of unspeakable terror. It was a place where children were killed. It was a place where women were raped. It was a place -- just to cite what happened to the Fayli Kurds, a small ethnic group from near the Iran border -- where families were rousted from their homes, the men separated from the women (and never seen again), the women raped and abused and sometimes forced at gunpoint across the frontier into Iran. Some died of exposure in the mountains and some died of fatigue and some were killed in the crossfire of Iraqi and Iranian troops then fighting their war in the 1980s. So far, none of this has been mentioned at the trial.
For many who supported going to war in Iraq, the nature of the regime was important, even paramount. It is disappointing that this no longer gets mentioned. I suppose the handwriting was on the wall when Michael Moore failed to mention Hussein's crimes at all in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11." Years from now, someone coming across the film could conclude that the United States picked on the Middle Eastern version of Switzerland. Now, all the weight is on one side of the moral scale.
But what would have happened if the war had actually ended back when George Bush stood under that "Mission Accomplished" banner? The U.S. combat death toll then was 139. (It's now approaching 2,500.) Would it have been worth 139 American lives to put an end to a regime that had murdered many thousands of its own people and had been responsible for two major wars? After all, aren't some of the people who want Washington to do something in Darfur the same people who so rigorously opposed the Iraq war on moral grounds? What if we could pacify Darfur -- immense, arid and without population centers -- at the cost of 139 American lives? What is the morality of that? Two hundred thousand have already died there. Should we intervene?
Pardon me for raising the question without answering it. I do so only to discomfort, if I can, some of the people who are so certain of their moral righteousness when it comes to the Iraq war. I want to know why the crimes of Saddam Hussein never figure into their thinking and why it was morally wrong -- not merely unwise -- to topple him....
A few months back I cited an article in the January issue of National Geographic. Lewis M. Simons traveled to Iraq to report on Camp Slayer, where scientists continue to examine the "new forensic evidence of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime." He noted a Clark University Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies estimate that Saddam's regime had murdered up to 240,000 men, women, children and infants. Here are some of the victims and how they died:
Patterns of neat bullet holes peppered skulls and garments, many of them the baggy trousers peculiar to Kurdish men. Staring at cardboard boxes filled with skulls in plastic bags and skeletons precisely arrayed on steel gurneys, inhaling the oddly metallic death smells....
"As you work with the victims, especially the children -- their clothing, the baby bottle, the little shoes, just like the ones we bought for our daughters years ago, the little hands, so expressive in death -- you have to try not to get into the heads of the monsters who did this, or it becomes overwhelming. You look at a perfectly knitted baby bonnet with two bullet holes in it, and you think, these could be your own kids," [said an American forensic scientist]. "The women often had children with them and received, perhaps, the blessing of being shot once at close range. All of this is based on clear evidence, not speculation."
[He] pointed out an entry hole at the top of the skull ... an exit hole near the left socket, and a radiating crack in the left cheek ... female, mid-30s, five foot four to five foot six....
Simon also noted:
Initially, X [an Iraqi forensic scientist] gladly agreed to be identified in this story. But shortly before it went to press he got word to me of death threats against him and his family.... The threats most likely where made by Sunni supporters of Saddam Hussein, who are striving to diminish evidence against the former dictator.
So far, Saddam's trial has been a missed opportunity to remind the world of the horrors of his dictatorship. In Cohen's words, what a "damn shame."
Montenegrins have voted for full independence from Serbia. The last time an independent Montenegro existed delegates were gearing up for Versailles following The Great War. Serbia, which annexed Montenegro in 1919, will also likely watch Kosovo become an independent state in the not-to-distant future. But as the old order further dissolves, the work of the U.S. and the EU isn't done -- far from it. Small failed states clustered together in the Balkans can be just as bad as one large failed state. Overwhelmingly Muslim Kosovo, in particular, is very much pro-U.S. and having a vibrant, democratic pro-US Kosovo is obviously in our national security interest. But its economy is poor and civil society weak. The Bush administration and its successor should avoid putting Kosovo and the region as a whole on the back burner of American policy or five years or so from now we may be asking, "Who lost the Balkans?"
Given the UN Security Council's dithering ways, it's good to see the Bush administration steadily building a parallel structure to deal with threats that doesn't go through the slog of Turtle Bay. Next week, the US will conduct military exercises with Turkey as part of the Proliferation Security Initiative -- a program created in 2003 to track and intercept illicit wmd trafficking by rogue nations. Who knows, in time there may even be a Genocide Prevention Initiative composed of nations that will act when the next Rwanda or Darfur rolls around.
The British government has released two reports on the July 7, 2005 terrorist bombings in London, which killed 52 and injured over 800. In the current Weekly Standard, Gary Schmitt reviews what the British learned and notes the following:
If there is any smoking gun when it comes to the failure of British intelligence and the July 2005 bombings, it's the fact that there appears to have been knowledge of Khan's role as a possible al Qaeda fellow traveler among the post-9/11 detainees in both Pakistan and Guantanamo. What is known for sure is that Khan had traveled to Pakistan in 2003 and late 2004. And while he was only one of several hundred thousand U.K. residents who visited Pakistan for a month or longer in 2004, at least one detainee, and perhaps a second, subsequently recognized Khan and knew about his efforts to reach out to Muslim extremists while there.
In addition, the government's report takes note of the fact that in the run-up to the bombings themselves, the terrorists appeared to be in relatively constant phone contact with an individual or individuals in Pakistan. Although "it is not known who this was or the content of the contacts," according to the report, "the methods used, designed to make it difficult to identify the individual, make the contacts look suspicious."
Of course, it is impossible to know whether, if these "leads" had been followed up, the bombings would have been prevented. Nevertheless, the irony here is what would have been required to crack the case--information gained from detainee interrogations and from listening in on calls made to terrorist suspects abroad. Both are practices pushed by the Bush White House and roundly reviled by London's elite.
Those who support the NSA's al Qaeda spying program may want to cite the British experience in explaining the program to their constituents. Most in the media surely won't and I doubt Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi will either.
From 2003 on, there were many officials pushing for a heavier "footprint" in Iraq. Powell, for example, pressed early on for more combat troops and advisors to, as he put it, crush the insurgency before it could get off the ground. And according to this New York Times piece, Powell and others also pushed for a larger contingent to train the Iraqi police force AFTER it became apparent that the force was in very bad shape. The Times also has this nugget concerning the CIA's pre-war assessment of the police force:
Before the war, the Bush administration dismissed as unnecessary a plan backed by the Justice Department to rebuild the police force by deploying thousands of American civilian trainers. Current and former administration officials said they were relying on a Central Intelligence Agency assessment that said the Iraqi police were well trained. The C.I.A. said its assessment conveyed nothing of the sort.... [T]he assessment by the C.I.A. led administration officials to believe that Iraq's police were capable of maintaining order. Douglas J. Feith, then the Defense Department's under secretary for policy, said in an interview that the C.I.A.'s prewar assessment deemed Iraq's police professional, an appraisal that events proved "fundamentally wrong."
But Paul Gimigliano, a spokesman for the C.I.A., said the agency's assessment warned otherwise. "We had no reliable information on individual officers or police units," he said. The "C.I.A.'s written assessment did not judge that the Iraqi police could keep order after the war. In fact, the assessment talked in terms of creating a new force."
A copy of the document, which is classified, could not be obtained.
Given the CIA's track record of selectively leaking material to bolster its image and tarnish that of the White House, I wonder why someone over there hasn't leaked this police document if the agency's assessment was so spot on.
(And these are the clowns the Democratic Party is taking its marching order from.)
I know it will come as a shock that a number of "open-minded progressives" at The New School acted like fools today during Sen. McCain's commencement address. They don't like his views on just about everything -- Iraq, Iran, the War on Terror, abortion, gay marriage, etc. -- and the fact that he spoke at Liberty University the week before. When Sen. McCain spoke at Liberty there were also some in the audience who disagreed with him on some issues. But they listened respectfully to an elected official who had also spent nearly 6 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Such courtesy was evidently in short supply in Greenwich Village.
The National Review's Rich Lowry was at McCain's speech and blogged the following on NRO's Corner:
...shameful performance by The New School student body, but I suppose it could have been worse. Kerrey must be a little embarrassed. He gets up: “For those of you who listened to two speeches...one from McCain...the other from [the student], you saw two acts of bravery.” (Actually, it is very bad form to directly attack another speaker in such a forum—but I guess Kerrey feels he can only go so far in defending civility.) Kerrey says, in contrast, that in heckling from the audience, there is “no bravery required.” He gets pretty good applause. Asks if when students get older and someone is heckling, laughing or booing them, will they stand up for their beliefs? “Will you stand and say unpopular things?” A loud shout from the back: “You are a war criminal!”
Another: “Let's graduate!”
Posted at 4:36 PM
McCain delivers... [Rich Lowry]
...a beautiful prose poem to America, national service, and civil debate (congrats Mark Salter, as ever), and gets derided for it, of course.
“I supported the war in Iraq.” Boos. Explains the war was not for cheap oil. A little heckling: “You're full of it!” Says he thought the “country's interest and values demanded” the war. Someone shouts: “Wrongly!” Someone else: “More poetry!” (A reference to lines from Yeats McCain had quoted earlier.)
He says “whether [the war] was necessary or not...we all should shed a tear” for those who have sacrificed in it. Some hissing.
Shouting.
He eventually enters into a Bushian rift: “All people share the desire to be free”; “human rights are above the state and beyond history”; we are “insisting that all people have the right to be free.” Someone shouts: “We're graduating, not voting!” Lots of derisive shouts and laughter and applause.
As McCain continues with a personal story, a student shouts: “It's about my life, not yours.” McCain:
“When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest value...” Groans from the students. “It's not about you!” “Sit down!”
McCain circles back around to the theme of civility: “We are not enemies, we are compatriots...” Boos, shouts. McCain: It “should remain an argument among friends”; we should be “respectful of the goodness in each other.” Literally one person applauds.
McCain goes on to tell his story about his reconciliation with an opponent of the Vietnam War: “I had a friend once...” Groans, boos.
He talks about forgiving his friend who dissented from the war. Hostile rumblings from the students.
He says after the reconciliation, he and his friend “worked together for shared ideals.” A shout: “We don't share your ideals!” As McCain closes there is a mix of boos and applause, and a few people even stand to clap.
Posted at 4:28 PM
McCain opens... [Rich Lowry]
...with a long riff about the arrogance of youth and how he learned humility as he grew older. He says we have “a noisy contentious society,” and that we love “self-expression,” but “that passion sometimes overwhelms our civility.” (That's you standing with your backs to him in front!) He says he was young he was “quite infatuated with self-expression” and thought he was “so much more eloquent and wiser than anyone I knew.” Hard to imagine an opening better suited to, through the subtle art of self-deprecation, make the protestors look like asses.
Posted at 4:08 PM
(As I mentioned last month, the Iranian economy is highly vulnerable to international sanctions -- particularly those that would hinder its crude production and ability to sell oil on the world market. Today's Washington Post notes: "Experts on Iran point to a number of reasons it might be reluctant to cut oil exports. Oil accounts for 85 percent of Iran's exports, according to an International Monetary Fund report issued last month. Revenue from those exports makes up 65 percent of government income. And Iran uses a good chunk of that money to raise public-sector wages and to subsidize its own gasoline prices, one way to keep domestic discontent in check when unemployment is running at more than 12 percent and inflation at 13 percent." Unfortunately, the odds the international community will come together to put the screws on Iran's oil industry are pretty slim.)
Posted on April 12, 2006:
The regime may be more vulnerable to comprehensive sanctions than many realize. Despite high oil prices, the mullahs are running an economy with little job growth and high unemployment. Radio Free Europe reports that Iran's president has been traveling around the country reassuring people on the economy.
President Ahmadinejad has discussed the issue of unemployment -- estimated to be at least 11 percent and closer to 20 percent -- in several recent speeches, hinting at his recognition that he must satisfy voters' most immediate concerns. He announced in the northeastern town of Quchan on April 11 that 180 trillion rials (approximately $200 million) will be distributed in the provinces for job creation, IRNA reported. In a speech in Mashhad on April 10, he said, "Employment is one of the most important issues to be tackled by the nation and the government," state television reported. "There are so many young people who have a specialization. They have learned and studied but there is no employment opportunity for them."
A sanctions-induced economic tailspin may convince many Iranians that their government's nuclear weapons quest isn't such a good idea. Of course, the most comprehensive sanctions would be those imposed by the UN Security Council. But that would require Russia and China to act responsibly so don't hold your breath. And even if the UN acted with speed and resolve in applying real sanctions it may not be enough to stop Iran's weapons program. But it's worth a try.
Charles Krauthammer, who can't be accused of being an "amnesty" squish, writes in today's Washington Post that a final bill that includes rigorous border enforcement and a path to citizenship for those already here "would make sense."
I am not against legalization. Admittedly, legalization is desperately unfair to the further millions who have been waiting in line at U.S. consulates around the world. By itself, it would only encourage future illegal immigration. But if coupled with a program that closes down the border, it would make sense. It would resolve the problem once and for all.
And yesterday on Fox, he argued:
Essentially all of that millions with the few exceptions are going to end up citizens, and I'm not against that if you enforce security, if you've got a fence that stops the new illegals.
Similarly, George Will argued in a Post column that we should vigorously enforce border controls. But he also warned that the U.S. should avoid the mistakes many European nations have made in permanently marginalizing an immigrant underclass. He wrote:
As the debate about immigration policy boils, augmented border control must not be the entire agenda, lest other thorny problems be ignored....
Conservatives should favor reducing illegality by putting illegal immigrants on a path out of society's crevices and into citizenship by paying fines and back taxes and learning English. Faux conservatives absurdly call this price tag on legal status "amnesty." Actually, it would prevent the emergence of a sullen, simmering subculture of the permanently marginalized, akin to the Arab ghettos in France.
One thing's for sure, the president has a lot riding on getting an immigration bill on his desk and, in the famous words of Gene Kranz, "failure is not an option."
In his speech a few days ago, the president said that no matter what your position is on immigration we should strive to conduct the debate in a "reason and respective tone." Yesterday, the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid (NV), did his best to keep the dialogue civil. During debate on an amendment by Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) making English the national language, Reid had this to say: "I really believe this amendment is racist."
Below is the list of Republican and Democratic senators who are apparently "racist" for voting for a "racist" amendment.
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Ned Lamont is running against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary. He's got a new ad out featuring the creator of the lefty blog Daily Kos, Markos Mo | | | |
