Thoughts on Hurricane Katrina

I’m extremely proud of, and awed by, the heroic, selfless efforts and contributions of tens of thousands of caring, compassionate Americans who have committed themselves personally to the rescue and relief operations in support of the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

I’m equally dismayed at the extreme viciousness of the rhetoric and the politicization and criticism of the relief effort on the part of many on the political fringes. There seems to be an overabundance of fatuous outrage that the massive, overwhelming operations required to bring relief to millions of people across 90,000 square miles didn’t match the near-instantaneous timeline demands and expectations of a self-appointed, self-annointed crowd of second guessers. Furthermore, so many of the aforementioned seem to be reveling in sanctimonious anger that everyone else’s foresight wasn’t on a par with their oh-so-crystal-clear hindsight.

No doubt the after action reviews at the local, state, and federal level will find much that requires improvement, and some that will require significant improvement. But some things are bigger than all of us, and Katrina was (is) a natural disaster of a magnitude that even the elusive perfection at all levels would not have been sufficient to preclude substantial loss of life and property. Recriminations, posturing, politicizing, and rancor add nothing to what is and should be the sole current ongoing priority, which is saving lives, donating money and resources, repositioning people, and rebuilding the shattered cities and towns of the afflicted areas.

Iraq and Vietnam - You Mean, There Might Be Some Differences?

This . . . is a GREAT letter to the editor (WSJ).

No Vietnam Quagmire.
Art Fougner - Flushing, N.Y.

Iraq is just like Vietnam except: We occupy Hanoi. We’ve captured Ho Chi Minh. The North Vietnamese have just held a free and democratic election. The North Vietnamese are working on a new constitution. Yes, Iraq is just like Vietnam.

(I might have included: The North Vietnamese government is working with us to eradicate the Viet Cong.)

But it's short and sweet, and makes the point in a superb manner with a fresh angle.

I like it. Mr. Fougner nails it.

Hat tip to the Anchoress

On Judges and "Paper Trails"

Opponents of John Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court are vociferously calling for the release of papers from his time in the Solicitor General’s office, which have yet to be released by the White House. Unimpressed by the boxes and boxes of documents (41 at last count) and tens of thousands of pages of papers already available for review, they contend that his “thin” paper trail and relatively short time as a jurist make him a “stealth” candidate. Furthermore, it is clear that the relatively smooth sailing and uncontentious hearings that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer enjoyed after their nominations are not in the cards. The emerging justification for the apparent difference in standards is that the disparity in how Roberts is questioned, versus how Ginsburg and Breyer were questioned, will derive from, and will compensate for, the lack of a suitable paper trail with which to discern Roberts’ judicial philosophy.

This is a completely dishonest and disingenuous argument.

Face it - there is a substantial part of the body politic that has already made up its collective mind about Roberts (one, because the dreaded “c” word has been associated with him, and two, because President Bush appointed him). This element is looking less for clues as to his judicial philosophy – the surface argument - as much as it is looking for ways to smear him, sufficient to trigger the “exceptional circumstances” filibuster that is really the only credible hope for derailing his confirmation. Hints of this have already emerged; one instance is the portrayal of his long-ago, mainstream critique of the discredited concept of government- (or judge-) determined "comparable worth" pay scales. Some in the left wing press have subsequently used this to slam Roberts for this purported "hatred" of women, which is really strange when you consider that there are legions of women that also think that comparable worth is a pretty nutty idea. Another example is the "finding" that among the thousands of pages of documents and writings being reviewed, there is one instance where he crossed out “Civil War” and substituted “War Between the States”. This (of COURSE!) makes him a Confederate sympathizer and a redneck, which obviously means he’s a RACIST!!!

There are, incredibly enough, apparently some who actually do believe this, ludicrous though it will certainly appear to the rational majority.

This leads to the crux of the whole “paper trail” issue: Do anti-conservative judge activists relentlessly pursue every scrap of paper that can be found to demean, degrade, and undercut the character and reputation of the nominee in question because there’s a “miniscule” paper trail? Or do Republican presidents tend to nominate so-called “stealth” nominees because they can count on – no matter what - intense efforts to dig up and scrutinize something – anything! - negative that can be associated with and flung at the candidate, and therefore seek to minimize the availability of what their adversaries are looking for to bludgeon them with?

In Robert Bork’s case, people may recall, the “paper trail” extended to video rental records of movies he had rented, hardly part of a sober, rational process designed merely to discern the nominee’s judicial philosophy. (Those were no doubt dug up by activists/reporters concerned about maintaining the constitutional right to privacy). And let’s not even get into the whole Thomas debacle, where the allegations brought against him that nearly derailed his nomination had nothing to do – at least on the surface – with his judicial philosophy. As much as some on the left purport to be disgusted by Kenneth Starr’s pursuit of President Clinton, so are many others equally appalled at the “borking” of Justice Thomas, by flimsy and specious allegations that paled in comparison to the similar, but more numerous and far better documented, transgressions later committed by the aforementioned President Clinton.

It’s really a chicken-egg sort of thing at this juncture between the impetus to dig far deeper than warranted on one side, and the concurrent effort to minimize what the prospective justice can be smeared with on the other. It’s now a vicious circle in which each both causes, and is perpetuated by, the other.

It’s not deviousness and trying to “hide something” that drives efforts to appoint so-called stealth candidates as it is survival and pragmatism. If Bush were to nominate a conservative with the much-wished-for paper trail, he can count on a hugely contentious filibuster. If he nominates a “moderate”, he gets slimed from both ends of the political spectrum, and he risks another Souter (a “stealth” candidate that hasn’t worked out so well for conservatives/Republicans - there are risks, and stealth candidates can cut both ways). And he sure isn’t going to nominate a known liberal – he’s a Republican with a Republican-majority Senate, for crying out loud - no matter how much that would smooth the way with the opposition party. So, from the Republican perspective, nominating candidates that provide the best balance between being reasonably likely to apply a somewhat conservative approach to the bench, while concurrently trying to avoid nasty character-degrading shriek-fests and obstructionism from the opposition based on what they can dig up from the candidate's paper trail, is the least bad and most pragmatic option available.

The Anti-War Left and Terrorism

Cindy Sheehan is emerging as a symbol around which the “get out of Iraq NOW” crowd is coalescing. The premise seems to be that there is little or nothing worth continuing to fight for in Iraq, so American soldiers who are killed there are dying for nothing, or for "a lie". Moreover, some appear to be combining this with the notion - popular in the aftermath of the London bus and subway bombings - that if we’d only leave, then all motivation for terrorism would simply go away.

But there is much worth continuing to fight for in Iraq. The measured, deliberate transition to the Iraqi security forces to secure Iraq and establish a viable democracy with a real chance to take root will take time to do right – it’s not something that can be achieved through wishful thinking, or shortcuts, or precipitously disconnecting from what we've committed ourselves to. Furthermore, the postulation that getting out of Iraq will be some magical panacea for undercutting the root cause of Islamic terrorism is hopelessly naïve.

Many who oppose the war profess to be opponents of terrorism – that they recognize that the Islamofascist terrorists are brutal criminals and they do not support them. But in reality, they do support them, whether they are honest enough to admit it or not, because they insist that the blood-drenched objectives and demands for which the Islamofascist terrorists have no authority to make are meekly acquiesced to.

Western appeasers never have answered one of the underlying basic questions regarding the post-London premise that caving in to terrorist demands will reduce terrorism, which is: by what authority are bin Laden, Zawhiri, Zarqawi, and their cohorts justified in demanding that nations they don't like get out of Islamic countries? Their only "authority", in fact, is that they will murder innocent people by the thousands to achieve this object - and Western appeasers are playing right along with it by insisting that the demands are met. Would they grant similar "authority" to prospective terrorist organizations in the west if they were to demand that Muslims get out of Judeo-Christian rooted countries? No, of course not. That would be racist and xenophobic. Yet somehow Western leftists can be simpatico with the Islamofascists when THEY'RE being religiously-driven xenophobes. Not just agree with them, but support them by insisting that their blood-soaked, terrorism-backed demands are met.

More ominously, such posturing ignores much more far-reaching and ambitious rhetoric of Islamofascist leaders that have quite openly and straightforwardly stated that Islamic supremacy everywhere – not just in current Muslim nations – is the ultimate goal. And one of the biggest impediments to this goal (which Zarqawi, for one, has acknowledged) is free, open, and democratic societies in the Middle East, which is what the US is currently trying to effect in Iraq.

Contrary to the delusions of the virulent anti-war left, Islamofascist terrorists are not going to go away simply by appeasing them and by having the US leave Iraq. That's head-in-the-sand wishful thinking. Western leftists have been co-opted big time by the Islamofascist terrorists. They are, in fact, their biggest allies.

Peter Jennings, RIP

The first thing to greet me Monday morning when I glanced at the copy of the USA Today that had been slid under my hotel room door was the headline that Peter Jennings had passed away at the age of 67. It surprised me - I knew he had announced a few months ago that he had been diagnosed with lung cancer and would be undergoing treatment for it, but I didn't expect it to happen so quickly. And, it saddened me more than I thought it might, though I'd stopped watching him years ago.

Peter Jennings was part of the standard evening routine for me and my wife for many years, especially during the 1980s. Suave, articulate, urbane, smooth – he seemed at that time to exude a greater degree of balance and trustworthiness than his contemporaries at the other networks.

As time went on, like many Americans we drifted away from the evening news broadcasts – lives got busier, schedules didn’t sync with the evening news broadcast times, more media venues emerged, and so on. And – it seemed that the packaging and the “twist” on the network news didn’t seem as, well, objective. The final straw came after the 1994 elections, when Peter, in what struck me as a bit of a temper tantrum, portrayed the nationwide rejection of Democratic party congressional and Senatorial candidates and the transfer of control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans as a "temper tantrum” by voters acting like "an angy two-year old". That "analysis" (and others like it) did two things as far as I was concerned: 1) it told us clearly where his sympathies were, and 2), it severely undercut the regard we had had up to that point for his journalistic objectivity.

The network evening broadcasts now seem to be – to many of us, at least - an anachronism. Self-appointed media “gatekeepers” attempt to take the vast swath of newsworthy events each day and whittle them down to 22 minutes of news snippets and not-so-objective analysis that can’t even begin to get into the depth and the multitude of permutations and viewpoints that involve the serious issues of the day – and that’s before the obligatory “infotainment” pieces that get interspersed into many of the broadcasts as well. Add in to the mix the body-blow to major news network credibility triggered and exemplified by CBS and Dan Rather’s debacle regarding the TANG memos last September, along with the rise of 24-hour cable news channels, the internet, talk radio, and the blogosphere, and it’s clear that the iconic national news network evening broadcasters will never again be what they once were, or come close to the level of influence and importance they once had. Jennings’ passing coincides with the unmistakable decline in the institution he will forever be associated with.

His political leanings undoubtedly differed from mine. But in the end – in what truly matters - Mr. Jennings was a decent and compassionate human being, and a man of notable achievement who lived a good life and exemplified much in his personal conduct, demeanor, and dedication to his profession that is admirable and noteworthy. God rest his soul and bless his family and his memory.

Ted Kennedy versus the Constitution

Massachusetts’ resident looney left Senator (OK . . . one of Massachusetts’ resident looney left Senators) referred to President Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton to be the US ambassador to the UN as "a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent".

Interestingly, the Constitution itself says: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the end of their next Session" (II, 2, 3).

Other Presidents guilty of maneuvers that “evade the constitutional requirement of Senate consent” happen to include:

George Washington, who recess-appointed John Rutledge as Chief Justice in 1795.

President Clinton: 140 recess appointments over two terms.

President Dwight Eisenhower, who made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953) and Associate Justices William Brennan (1956) and Potter Stewart (1958). (Each later received Senate confirmation).

Also of note: President John F. Kennedy – Teddy’s own brother - recess-appointed Thurgood Marshall to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October 1961, getting around obstructionist opposition from Southern senators, including Sen Kennedy’s current Senate colleague, Robert Byrd.

Wonder if Teddy would characterize his own brother’s appointment of Thurgood Marshall as a “devious maneuver that evade(d) the constitutional requirement of Senate consent”?

More of the Same from the Left

Another week, another example of incomprehensibly silly remarks from a leading Democrat.

The latest is this incredibly inane and mind-boggling statement from Democratic Party head Howard Dean regarding President Bush, the Supreme Court, and the recent Kelo decision. The exact quote:

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is. We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only."

There's no other way to put this - either Dean is incredibly stupid and uninformed, or he believes the rest of us are. First, how did the court that made the Kelo decision become "his" (President Bush's) court? He didn't appoint any of the nine justices involved in the decision. Second, where in the world does Dean get the idea that the Kelo decision constituted a "right wing" okay to the government's taking of property? The five justices who voted in favor of the notion that it's "okay to have the government take your house" were Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Kennedy. There's not a right-winger among that group, and, in fact, it includes all of the liberal contingent of the court. The justices who believed it was NOT "okay for the government to take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is" were the "right-wingers"! - Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia - plus O'Connor.

Either Dean is an outright liar, deliberately sowing complete untruths as the truth - or he's so out of touch with reality as to be certifiably insane. And this is the official spokesperson for the Democratic Party?!!!

We CANNOT allow people like this to hold positions of power. In a dangerous and uncertain age, there is too much at stake.

Bush and Carter - A Study in Contrasts

While the world’s, and the nation’s, attention is focused for the moment on the exhilarating events occurring in the Middle East, a less encouraging trend is emerging in Latin America. The trendline in one region is pointing toward the promise of democracy among peoples long accustomed to autocratic dictatorships; the trendline in the other is away from democracy and toward a return to one-party rule, socialsim, and dictatorship.

We know which President has played the crucial role in the heady events transpiring in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt – the much-maligned George W. Bush. And we know which (ex) President has played a crucial role in the ominous but clear trend in the wrong direction – Michael Moore’s convention-watching buddy himself, failed President and increasingly disastrous ex-President, Jimmy Carter.

One is a force for the spread of democracy throughout the world; the other an apologist and enabler of dictators and anti-democrats like Fidel Castro, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il – and now, most recently, Hugo Chavez.

You’ll recall not so long ago, when the erstwhile Venezuelan republic underwent a recall election in response to the increasingly unpopular policies of Chavez. Exit polls showed an overwhelming rejection of Chavez – 58% to remove him, only 41% opting to retain him. Yet the final “count” showed the opposite – 58% retain, 41% remove! Despite overwhelming evidence indicating massive voting irregularities, the same man who disparaged voting processes in America proceeded to “validate” the Venezuelan results without indicating even a hint of concern about the widespread irregularities.

Now, the ripple effects of Carter’s legitimizing an illegitimate election are coming home to roost. His power consolidated, his until-recently influential opposition subdued, newly-energized autocrat Chavez has dropped any charade of appearing to back economic freedom in Venezuela, and has publicly proclaimed that his aim now is to make Venezuela a socialist state. So there we have it – a one-party, socialist state in the making. With a huge assist from our very own Mr. lets-give-North-Korea-“peaceful”-nuclear-capability Nobel Peace Prize winner himself, Jimmy Carter.

Assuming the worst and overlooking the best about America. Assuming the best and overlooking the worst about autocratic undemocratic despots. That’s Jimmy Carter, in a (pea)nut shell.