I have a new column on Dean's race for the nomination in today's Birmingham News. Access it here.

This is a very special series for Winds of Change.NET. Thanks to the cooperation of András Bacsi and the Hungarian Embassy in Washington, Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi's speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is being featured here on Winds of Change.NET as a Guest Blog.

Ambassador Simonyi's speech tells a very personal story of music and freedom, and the enduring relationship between the two. It's a story that remains relevant today, and touches on topics we've addresed in articles like "G-d Gave Rock N' Roll To You..." and "Keep On Rocking for the Free World." Initiatives like Radio Sawa are proving every day that Rock n' Roll isn't just cultural fluff. In a very deep way, it has been - and remains - the essence of America's story.

Jeff "Skunk" Baxter played for The Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan. He now works as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, and added some fine stories of his own in yesterday's introductory remarks. Today, we feature the Ambassador himself...

"Rocking for the Free World: How Rock Music Helped to Bring Down the Iron Curtain"

(Transcript of Hungarian Ambassador Andras Simonyi's speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland on November 8, 2003)

Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. Hey, hey, that's not good enough. Good evening! That's great. I used to play in a rock band when I was younger and we used to do this stuff so I can tell when it's quality. The second one was OK. Let me ask the first question. How many of you have not played air guitar, ever? Once more, please. That's better. I like people being honest. This whole thing we're talking about is about honesty.

Preparing for this lecture, the funniest question I got – this was yesterday – they've asked me five times, "What tie are you going to be wearing? Are you going to be wearing a rock and roll tie?" And I said no, I'm not going to be wearing a rock and roll tie because I'm not here to pretend that I'm a rock artist. I'm here to tell you that I'm an ambassador of a country that is closely tied together with the United States today. We work hard to maintain our relationship. And there is a pillar that has been so important to me all my life when I was a kid, when I grew older, and now, which I think is one of the real ties between us.

I want to make sure you understand that I'm not doing it because I want to pretend that I'm Skunk. I am not Skunk. I wish I was Skunk. And I think his next target is to be ambassador in Budapest. (Laughter.)

Read The Rest...

As with, I suspect, a lot of bloggers who support the current wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I find myself a bit uncomfortable at times constantly posting on the virtues of the war while we are losing soldiers to a cause that is not a sure thing by any stretch.

We have taken a bet that freedom is our best defense against terrorism and there's reason to believe this is true. Studies have been done that correlate terrorism with repression more so than other factors such as poverty and the like. We've sought to use our military as an instrument to end that oppression in one country that lies at the heart of terror and with, I believe, the support of the majority of the Iraqi people. Will success in Iraq lead to demands for freedom in other Arab countries? I don't know. At the least it positions us strategically around Iran -- from both Iraq and Afghanistan -- which is the world's leading state-supporter of terrorism, has a nuclear plant under development and also, on the plus side, has an active movement for democracy at the grassroots level.

Still, I find myself feeling awkward every time I hear of the death of one of our soldiers -- a daily occurrence these days -- and it gives me pause.

I know two soldiers that will be deployed for one year tours next year to either Iraq or Afghanistan, one casually through email and the other who has been a personal friend for more than twenty years.

The sacrifice soldiers make for this country's security can't be overstated and words are inadequate to describe the gratitude I feel towards them. Broken marriages, orphaned children and any other number of problems befall them as a result of their service to this country -- and the world, given our position in it. It seems worthless to say "thank you" and the thought of either of them dying or being harmed makes me feel ill.

Still, I can't help but feel that the gratitude is worth something, even if it's inadequate. My stepfather was a Marine in Vietnam and, this past Veterans Day, he received a card from his employees thanking him for his service in Vietnam. He suffered severe injuries -- mortars exploding in your vicinity tend to do that -- and spent a year in the hospital being rehabilitated. The card, as small as it is, meant something to him. I just saw it displayed prominently in my parents' house a couple of hours ago. He supports this war and he knows a thing or two about sacrifice.

There will be some soldiers, as with any population, that disagree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of them very strongly. I don't know how to respond to them, nor am I qualified to question their judgement. After all, it is their lives that are being put on the line. My gratitude to them would be of no use, but they have it anyway.

The following story was sent by my friend of twenty years who will soon be defending this country, and the world, against terrorism and the barbaric beliefs that spawn terrorism. God speed, my friend, and for God's sake keep your head down.

The link to the story can be found here.

Dear American soldier in Iraq
Dennis Prager (archive)
November 25, 2003

...I am keenly aware of the fragility of civilization, of the monumental evil you are fighting, and of the historic mission of America.

For these reasons, I am writing to you. Though you may already know everything I am about to say, I need to say it for those of you who, after seeing fellow soldiers blown up or severely injured, may sometimes wonder whether these sacrifices are worth it.

So, first, let me set the record straight. Not since World War II have the stakes been this great. This is a war for the future of civilization every bit as much as the war against German Nazism and Japanese Fascism was. If we had lost that war, the world would have devolved into barbarism.

If we lose this one, the same will happen.

It was a war for civilization then; the war against Islamic Fascism is such a war today.

Of course, there are hundreds of millions of fine people among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. But that is, unfortunately, as irrelevant to understanding today's war as the fact that there were millions of fine Germans living in Hitler's Germany was to understanding World War II.

It is not the fine Muslims who rule most Muslim countries, some of which are among the cruelest on earth. It is not the fine Muslims who dominate the Islamic schools around the world that teach that it is right to subjugate women and to slit Christians' and Jews' throats. It is not the fine Muslims who wish to impose a violent, hate-filled religion on others. It is not the fine Muslims who burned 13 churches in Nigeria just last week.

[....]

Iraq is the battleground for civilization. That is why our enemies are throwing everything they can at you. If you help create the first free and tolerant Arab country in the heart of Islam, they are doomed. If we fail in Iraq, we are doomed. Our enemies know this. We need to know this.

Second, don't be discouraged by America's relative aloneness in the world. The world is not, by and large, a good place. And the United Nations, which reflects the world, reflects that fact. That is why Libya, a police state that ordered the mass murder known as the 1988 bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, is not only on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, it is the head of the commission. And Syria, which is worse than Libya, judges us on the Security Council.

[....]

Third, we Americans are relatively alone because from our founding we have believed that we have a mission to better the world. And for this we are hated. We are not hated for our power; we are hated for our values and our sense of chosenness -- just as the never powerful Jews have long been hated for their values and their chosenness.

In sum, you are carrying the great burden of history on your shoulders every day you serve in Iraq. That some of your fellow citizens do not understand this only means that the war for civilization is taking place as much here at home as it is in Iraq.

We pray for you not only because you are our sons and daughters risking your lives, but because if God is good, and if we humans can discern between good and evil, you are doing God's work. It is as clear as that. No American war has ever been clearer.

The people that fret about the world being allied against us are ignoring the nature of much of the world, as noted in the article. Most of the people of the world may be good, but their governments are not. A glance at the UN roster should demonstrate that. Most are tyrannies of one sort or another and, for this reason, I've never really cared about their opinions.

The Jefferson quote from the link above seems even more appropriate given our current situation:

"I sincerely pray that all the members of the human family may, in the time prescribed by the Father of us all, find themselves securely established in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and happiness."
--Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Ellicot Thomas, et al., 1807. ME 16:290

Until that day America, its military, its ideas and its current allies are the best hope for the world.

Notwithstanding my own reservations about the power behind these words, they are worth reading: Europe and the Future of the Transatlantic Relations
Speech by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer at Princeton University on November 19, 2003

I'm always on the lookout for sharp new blogging talent, and Darren Kaplan's blog fits the bill. This guest article is timely in light of our recent discussions about Dialogue. It will become even more timely when you read Hungarian Ambassador Simonyi's excellent Guest Blog later this week!

The War of Ideas
by Darren Kaplan

Far too many well-informed and otherwise intelligent people have confused the "war of ideas" we are fighting in conjunction with the War on Terror with the question of whether or not the populations of Arab and Muslim countries have favorable opinions of the United States. Since survey after survey repeatedly shows that people in Arab and Muslim countries have exceedingly poor opinions of the United States, the corresponding but flawed assumption is that we must be losing the "war of ideas."

Case in point: this piece in Slate by Daniel Benjamin. Benjamin correctly identifies the problem:

bq. "Rumsfeld observes that we have no "metrics" for judging how well we are doing in the larger war on terror. Surely a key issue is whose ideas are gaining ground."

Read The Rest...

George Bush and Tony Blair at the Dun Cow pub in Sedgefield, County Durham. Photograph: Owen Humpreys/PA

More on Bush in Britain from Tacitus.

Cycling to 2004 (washingtonpost.com)
I generally agree with Robert Samuelson -- and mostly do here as well -- but I have one minor quibble: the first President Bush wasn't voted out because the economy was in the dumps, he was voted out because of peoples' perception that the economy was in the dumps.

The recession of 1990-1991 ended in March of 1991 and the election was in November of 1992. The problem was one of perception: the elder Bush seemed out of touch because he said repeatedly, and accurately, that the recession was over. The recession wasn't pronounced as officially over until December 1992, one month after the election.

The current President Bush has made every effort to not repeat his father's mistake and it will likely work. If he loses re-election I doubt it will be over the economy, given the current optimism among businesses. The most recent recession was driven by a lack of business investment -- consumer spending and productivity remained strong throughout -- and the best part of the recent report of 7.2% annual growth in the third quarter was that the growth was helped significantly by business investment.

The U.S. economy seems to have just voted for George Bush. Almost all recent indicators favor the president's reelection: economic growth, rising at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter; jobs, increasing 286,000 since August; productivity, advancing at roughly a 5 percent rate since late 2001. Nariman Behravesh, chief economist for the forecasting firm Global Insight, has one of those equations that predict election results based on the economy and various political factors (incumbency, party affiliation). By the latest reports, Bush wins 56.6 percent of the 2004 vote.

Behravesh admits that these equations aren't infallible and that even if the economy stays strong, other factors -- Iraq, terrorism -- could doom Bush. But the business cycle is moving in his direction. It's psychology as much as numbers. Behravesh talks regularly with corporate executives who, until recently, "had retreated into their shells. They stopped capital spending. They stopped hiring. They became extremely risk-averse. Now, they're coming out of their shells." Capital spending (aka business investment) and hiring have both revived. In the third quarter, business equipment and software spending rose at a 15 percent annual rate.

Government policy and the enormous resilience of the U.S. economy explain the turnaround. Critics can gripe about Bush's big budget deficits and tax cuts, but they've obviously juiced the economy. The tax cuts alone provided $61 billion in fiscal 2003 and will add another $149 billion in fiscal 2004, estimates the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Next year's tax refunds are expected to rise 27 percent, says USA Today. (Cynics may suspect Bush of trying to buy the election.) Similarly, the Federal Reserve's low interest rate policy encouraged massive mortgage refinancings -- boosting consumers' purchasing power -- and aided the economy in countless ways.

[....]

What we have is a cyclical recovery. The same thing is occurring in Europe and Japan. Of course, long-term problems remain: American consumers are heavily indebted; the big U.S. budget and current account deficits will someday have to be curbed; the mortgage refinancing boom is ebbing; worldwide surplus capacity is still widespread; and China represents a huge unknown. Any of these problems might undermine economic and -- Bush's greatest vulnerability -- job growth. Could the recovery falter in a few months or, possibly, just after next year's election? Well, yes.

But for now, economists are raising their forecasts for 2004, and assuming they're right, the politics are plain. Democrats' economic criticisms will resonate less, and Bush's bragging will resonate more. At the White House, they may not be dancing over the economic news, but they must be smiling. Unlike his father, Bush may have beaten the business cycle.

As President I would be a basket case from having my re-election determined by something that's largely out of my control: the economy.

Via Outside The Beltway.

President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East
I had only seen snippets of President Bush's speech from Thursday and read a few comments, most of them positive. Some recall the old left and how it once stood for the very same values that President Bush articulated. Some of those same people dismiss these words precisely because they come from President Bush. It's a mistake to do so.

After reading the whole transcript of the speech and seeing those snippets, I think Bush is sincere. It's his best speech since the one before the UN General Assembly on September 12th, 2002. For the people who have been waiting for President Bush to articulate a vision, this is it. He borrows heavily from Reagan and seems sincere in doing so. His constant references to Reagan and liberty seem designed to check the paleo-cons who would have us pursue a less ambitious foreign policy. These same words should act as a check on the left of today, but they are too busy venting. Their hatred for President Bush is blinding them to some basic truths that he spelled out: all humans are entitled to liberty and that liberty for the rest of the world is in our own national interest. Free people rarely attack one-another and when terrorist events happen, free countries cooperate to track down the perpetrators.

Bush used another Reagan phrase: "cultural condescension". There's a belief among many, and I fall prey to it as well, that freedom is unsustainable in certain cultures -- in this case Muslim cultures -- but President Bush points out that half of the Muslim world lives in a democracy of some sort. I realize that it's not always liberal (in the original meaning of the term) democracy, democracy that respects the rights of the individual, but it is a major step above the theocratic tyranny of much of the Middle East.

President Bush also takes a bold step away from the realpolitik of the past when he says we effectively gave the Arabian Peninsula a pass on human rights -- and allowed tyrannical states to pop up after the British and French colonial periods ended -- and that we will no longer do that. It's not a complete abandonment of realpolitik because working in the world as it exists now requires allies, some of whom are unsavory, and we aren't powerful enough to do everything ourselves. Even so, it represents a radical departure from the past and a welcome one at that. Kissinger would likely disapprove, but he practically invented modern realpolitik.

We do have limits. In fact I don't see us pursuing any other significant military ventures this decade unless we are attacked. Our military is stretched thin right now, even though we are meeting our recruitment goals and re-enlistment rates remain high in spite of the tempo and strain on the troops. That's a positive sign because the re-enlistments indicate the current strain on the military isn't demoralizing the troops. At least not enough for them to quit, anyway.

President Bush, in spite of the griping I've done about him -- think steel tariffs, Israel, etc. -- has come a giant step closer to securing my vote next November. If he keeps it up I might even put one of those "bloggers for Bush" buttons on my site. I only wish he had given this speech sooner.

This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.

The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind.

Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we're strong of heart. And we're not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.

Shades of Jefferson in that last sentence. I'm not Pat Robertson and can't read God's mind, but I'm pretty sure the Author Of Life approves of freedom and looks kindly on those who pursue it. Our Founding Fathers seemed to think so.

The "old left" link above via Stephen Green.

Barring any catastrophic screw-ups between now and election day I will vote for George W. Bush in 2004. My vote will likely mean little in Mississippi which will overwhelmingly support the President. However, for the people who read this page it might make a difference.

The primary reason for posting this is to remove any uncertainty, in spite of any complaints I might have against the President in the future. My list of grievances is pretty long, but would be much longer under Al Gore or any of the nine dwarves. I'll get to the grievances later. First, I'd rather discuss a little personal history.

Perception matters. In 1992 I was, much as I am today, a political junkie. I also fell victim to the relentless negativism in the press regarding the first President Bush. Bill Clinton's message worked on me though I couldn't bring myself to vote for him. Ross Perot never had any appeal to me. All I knew was that I wasn't happy with the first President Bush and wouldn't vote for him. Instead I did a write-in vote, via absentee ballot, for Paul Tsongas and Warren Rudman. It felt good for about ten minutes. It felt senseless every minute thereafter.

The night of the election, my ballot long since cast, I watched as Bill Clinton won the Presidency and I felt pretty ill. I grew up under Reagan and kept comparing Bush 41 with Reagan and he came up short. I was trying to vote for Reagan and he wasn't even running. Put another way, I made the perfect the enemy of the good.

Reagan wasn't perfect but he remains the best President of my lifetime. He took over this country at a time when America seemed impotent in foreign policy -- the Iranian hostage crisis and Vietnam -- and the economy featured high unemployment and high inflation. When Reagan left office the economy had morphed from one of high unemployment and high inflation to one of low unemployment -- by the standards of the time -- and low inflation. On foreign policy we had faced the Soviets head-on by forward deploying nuclear missiles in Germany and increasing the budget for the military to nearly six percent of GDP. Despite the words of the revisionists, including Gorbachev, Reagan's actions precipitated the downfall of communism as a global threat. After it had fallen there were a bunch of people saying communism was doomed to fail anyway, but that had been true for seventy years. Someone had to give it the push over the cliff and Reagan is the man responsible for that.

By 1992 communism had collapsed, we had experienced a brief recession but were well into the recovery. Bush 41 seemed out of touch because he thought, correctly, that the recession had ended and we were on the way to full recovery. He lost the perception game. We should have been overjoyed at the collapse of communism and feeling pretty good about the future because the economy was growing at a pretty good pace. Even though the economy was growing Clinton was able to exploit it because, well, it wasn't growing fast enough. People still felt like they were in a recession. The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research announced, in December of 1992, that the recession had ended in March of 1991. The announcement came one month after the election and nearly two years after the recession had ended. A bad piece of timing for Bush 41, to say the least.

Looking back I think I gave Bush 41 too little credit for his actions as President. He faced a hostile Democratic Congress and vetoed more bills in four years than Reagan did in eight years. He did break his "no new taxes" pledge and if he hadn't done that things might have been different for him. Even so, in hindsight, it seems like a poor reason for voting against him given his opponents. We lost a good man as President. His decency has only been borne out over time as he kept quiet during the scandals of the Clinton years and areas where he differed on policy. He only emerged to help Clinton get NAFTA through Congress and to parachute from a plane on his 75th birthday.

Today we live in a different world. A post-9/11 world. The economy is recovering from the over-investment of the late 1990's and should be humming come election day, or well before. Perception will matter over the next year as President Bush tries to fight off an assortment of over-heated charges regarding the economy and the war in Iraq. The Democrats will throw everything they have at him, whether they have answers or not, and this is no time for the right to splinter.

Consider what will be thrown his way: he lead us into a war using false or trumped-up intelligence; the economy has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs, the worst since Herbert Hoover; budget deficits have exploded under his watch, and so on.

The first of these accusations is being investigated by the Intelligence Committee and, as we know from the leaked memo, the Democrats plan to use it politically against the President. The "yellowcake scandal" was nothing of the sort -- the President relied on British intelligence rather than a poolside visit to Niger by a diplomat.

On manufacturing jobs, again, the Democrats are being misleading at best, lying at worst. The problem with their statement that it's the worst since Herbert Hoover -- clear allusions to the Great Depression -- is that it lacks context. First, the population of the country was considerably smaller when Hoover was President so the loss was much more significant to the economy as a whole than it is today. Second, the recession in which these jobs were lost started just over a month after Bush took office. No thinking person can really believe Bush caused a recession in so short a time. Even a non-thinking person should remember the stock market crash that occurred in March of 2000, while Clinton was President, that predicted the recession to come. The economy was falling apart when he took office and none of the Democratic candidates has the slightest clue as to how they would have gotten us out of a recession. Raising taxes won't increase business investment which has been the problem all along. The President's tax cuts might have helped at the margins, but in reality the economy will recover when it feels like it. The environment for growth was laid long before Bush took office, and Clinton for that matter. That environment was created by Ronald Reagan through deregulation and the 1982 recession -- engineered by Paul Volcker -- that killed inflation.

As for the deficits, they are transient. I'll be writing more on this in a later post, but for now, suffice it to say that taxes will be raised in some fashion in the future. Hopefully it will come in the context of reform -- reform of the tax code and reform of entitlements. I'm not that concerned about the deficits because we won't be inflating our way out of them and they could provide the needed push for reform of entitlements.

This is a small taste of what the Democrats will be throwing at the President. There will be numerous variations on these same issues. Nibbling the President to death over the next year will only lend credence to the charges.

Yes, he screwed up by imposing steel tariffs -- and has a golden opportunity to fix that before a trade war with Europe starts. Yes, he has flip-flopped on Israel and held them to a different standard than we hold ourselves to. Name one Democrat that would behave differently with regard to Israel, to the benefit of Israel. I doubt even Lieberman would stay off Israel's back long enough to let them destroy Hamas and the others. Yes, he has let spending get out of control and this will have to be remedied.

Regarding his accomplishments he has provided leadership in the war on terror. He removed the Presidential signature from the treaty creating that monstrosity in The Hague, the International Criminal Court. He has cut taxes and thereby provided leverage to force the issue of entitlements reform, something even Clinton was interested in but it kept getting swept under the rug. He signed a treaty with Russia that will reduce the number of nuclear missiles by two-thirds over a decade. He also has the moral clarity to know who the enemy is and to call them by name.

His opponents will all raise taxes, without any type of reform, and have already spent the money. Universal health care, more non-productive spending on education and so on. They will claim to raise taxes in the name of fiscal responsibility but they've already spent the money. Our foreign policy will be dictated by France.

I was told once that the only time I would ever get to vote for a politician I agreed with completely was when I got to vote for myself. Well, I'm not running (sighs of relief everywhere). President Bush is running and his opponent would have done none of the positive things he has done and would be worse on the negatives. There's some merit to the idea that voting for a candidate because he's the least bad choice is a strategic mistake. I just don't happen to agree with it and, given what's in front of us in terms of national security and entitlements, I don't want to have to look back on my vote ten years from now and realize I helped elect the worst possible candidate.

Perception will matter over the next year.

Donald Sensing and Steven Den Beste discuss al-Qaeda's strategy. Den Beste thinks they don't have one, beyond "waiting for God" to ensure their victory. Rev. Sensing, drawing on both his military and religious backgrounds, explains that this doesn't mean what Steven thinks it does.

A very good and illuminating exchange, which Ray extends rather nicely.

The suggestion that Iraq and Saddam Hussein has a working relationship with Al Qaeda, possibly extending to involvement with the 9/11 hijackers, is seeing something of a resurgence lately.

There is of course the much touted report in the Weekly Standard about a leaked CIA memo, containing 50 enumerated pieces of intelligence linking the former Iraqi regime with Al Qaeda - some data going back over a decade.

That report has since been attacked by the US Administration, for reasons unknown, occasioning the author of the original Weekly Standard piece to issue a followup, defending his analysis (or rather, defending the CIA's analysis).

Add to that a new piece in Slate, offering strong evidence for reconsidering the strength of the 'Prague connection' between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officers, and you start to get a pretty compelling picture.

ALSO: Don't miss Lt. Smash's semi-professional analysis of the original intelligence report, which comes off very convincing.

One of the cool things about running Command Post is the ability to direct the spotlight at blogs that might be very interesting, well-written, or compelling, but otherwise unnoticed. There's one I found which I'd like to put at center stage for a day or so, and given that it has somewhat conservative leanings, I felt the Op-Ed page was a good place to do so. It's published by an 11th-grade high school student from North Carolina named Meredith Newmark, she posts with some frequency about the war in Iraq (interesting to see the 11th grade perspective) and it's worth the visit regardless of your leanings. Visit her blog here.

There. Hope I made her day. (FYI, you may have seen the blog of her mother, Betsy Newmark, which you may visit here, and which is excellent.)

Let's see, we need a graphic that really sums up the feeling of the protestors who are letting their voices be heard in London right now.

It should manage to convey :

• The antipathy of European Culture to this Barbarian from Texas.
• The threat of US Warmongering to peaceful European and Iraqi National Socialism.
• The worrying level of control over the White House by sinister Jewish forces.
• Something that will reflect AmeriKKKa's institutionalised Racism, rate of Violent Crime and Cult-Of-The-Gun.
• Something that will protest the Coca-Colonisation of the world by American "Culture".
• Something that will reflect Europe's Cultural Superiority and History - something from Europe's Glorious Cultural Past.

I have just the thing.

Belgian Nazi Propaganda poster, 1944

Let's go back to basic principles. Why is a European Union - a "United States of Europe," if you will - a good thing?

I believe that any move toward - or even in the direction of - one world govenment, or even less governments in the world, is bad.

The thing people too often forget is that having MANY DIFFERENT governments (provided they are free and democratic) is a good thing. This is because it provides that thing we in free democracies love: COMPETITION.

If you have only a few governments to choose from, it is much easier for ALL of those governments to become less free. At some point you're going to be stuck with what's here unless you go invent your own country on Mars or Titan or something.

In short, fewer free democracies in the world will have the inevitable result of lessening everyone's freedom over time.

So, in my view, fewer free democratic nations is a bad thing - and is to be DISFAVORED - unless there is some affirmative good that outweighs this lessening of, shall we say, competition for people and wealth among competing free nations.

And, I would add, the combining of the European nation-states into a political union creates, for many (if not all) practical purposes, a new nation. So, whereas a Frenchman might have previously moved to Britain for more and/or better freedom (or vice versa, for that matter), NOW that same person just has a monolithic EU to live in. That person's number of choices of free nations in the world just got a lot smaller.

So, I gather that the EU-philes out there believe that there IS some affirmative good that makes a European political union a good thing - despite the lessening of competition among free nations. What is this affirmative good?

Of course, the above concept - that competition among free nations is a positive good - is hardly a new idea.

(From the Chicago Report)

If I were Dean I'd forget about Iowa. I would not fret about it, apologize for it, or hesitate for a second. I wouldn’t spend another dime trying to take on Gephardt. Cut my losses, it's as easy as that. This is not a mystical revelation, its a simple cost benefit analysis.

First of all, there is the significant cost in resources that campaigning in any state requires. A candidate must have offices and employees. He or she must run ads and commercials targeting local sentiments. He must make regular visits and shake millions of hands and that costs time. That's time that could be spent on the same activities in other states. All this is heightened when you’re in a close race in a particular state as Dean is in Iowa. Recently the DesMoines Register reported that a local poll has Gephardt inching ahead of Dean in Iowa which means that if Dean wants to win, he’ll have to expend even more resources.

“But what about all Dean's money?” you ask. True Dean has a cash advantage, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be frugal. If he wins the primaries he still has to take on Bush in the fall and at the moment, Bush isn't spending a dime. If Dean doesn't manage his resources well his fall campaign will likely sputter.

Moreover, there is a risk in taking on Gephardt in Iowa. Gephardt knows he has nothing to lose and you have to figure that his campaign is banking on Iowa. They're probably willing to spend any sum to win, because if they don't they've got to fold. Don't try to bluff a guy who’s willing to go all in, especially if you think he's actually got a hand.

Afterall, a win in Iowa doesn't mean all that much now that Clark isn't in the heat. Clark is considered Dean's major challenger, which means he has to quickly show that he can beat him. A win over Clark proves something; a win over Gephardt or Kerry doesn’t (at least not right now).

While Dean is playing the caucus game with the Dickie Gephardt, Clark is shrewdly positioning himself to stop Dean's surge after NH. Clark isn't wasting his time with Iowa, and probably isn't even planning to win NH (even though he does want to make a good showing). He started way too late in those states. What Clark can do is win South Carolina on February 2nd (as Bush did in 2000) and use that win to gain momentum for the Michigan Primary on the 7th and the Tennessee and Virginia primaries on the 10th (both important southern states in which Dean is likely to have troubles). Clark's successful execution of this strategy could quickly put an end to the Dean insurgency. This is especially the case if Dean has yet to get the party insiders behind him. In this scenario we would see a showdown on Super Tuesday, March 2nd.

All this becomes especially important when you consider that the Democrats have restructured their primaries to assign delegates proportionally. The number of delegates to be gained from a win in Iowa in New Hampshire is even less important than before. In contrast, a good showing in the bigger states of SC and Michigan has become more important.

Last, if Dean were to pull out of Iowa it would even further de-legitimate that caucus so that a win for Gephardt would really mean absolutely nothing to the rest of the country.

The Dean and his manager Joe Trippi have to be careful not to let all the media’s "frontrunner" talk go to their heads. He is still in a close race. He's better off taking all the resources that he is spending in Iowa and sending them to South Carolina. Clark is a southerner and has the endorsement of a former Governor. Dean is from Vermont and has made a couple of controversial statements about the south. If he doesn't get to work he's likely to get outflanked by the Clark campaign.

Be sure I have no personal interest in the matter, but the analyst in me can't help pointing out obvious mistakes.

What is it, a Constitution or a novel?

I didn't think a Constitution was supposed to have things like, um, character development and a plot.

What do they say in this tome anyway? Oh boy. I wish it WAS a novel. This is bad:

* * *

EU law “shall have primacy over the law of the member states” (article 10).

The EU would have a single legal personality, allowing it to sign international treaties.

In over 30 policy areas, decisions that currently require unanimity would be agreed by majority vote. This means no national veto over EU laws, for example on asylum, immigration and border control.

A new clause would allow the veto to be removed in future from other policy areas (such as tax and foreign policy) without the consent of national parliaments.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights would be incorporated, damaging the UK’s common law tradition and introducing a range of loosely-defined ‘social’ rights (such as the right to strike and the right to bargain collectively) throughout wide-ranging EU law, which the European Court of Justice would enforce.

European Governments would elect a President to lead the European Council and 'speak for Europe'.

The EU’s power will be extended into the field of criminal law for the first time.

As drafted, the EU Constitution would create a rival to NATO, with its own mutual defence pact and its own 'common defence'.

* * *

I don't think I'm going to like the way this book ends.

There is an online petition for a referendum on this ... book.

For comparison purposes, here are links to the United States Constitution and the proposed European Union Constitution.

The above version of the U.S. Constitution is 18 pages. The above version of the EU Constitution is well over 200 pages.

Here's another link to the text of the U.S. Constitution, with some explanatory notes.

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

I have always been appreciative of the military. Even back in my (near)liberal days, I never took the side of those who called members of our military killers or murderers. It always struck me as ironic that these people would gather by the hundreds to denounce a military action, completely oblivious to the fact that were in not for the men and women who have served this country since a military was first formed, they would not have that freedom to be standing there shouting their dissent.

No matter how much I have complained about this country, I always respected the fact that I have the right to complain.That's one of the things that makes the United States of America so great. You have the right to make an ass out of yourself in public. You have the right to hold up signs or shout slogans or sing songs at the front gate of the White House.

No matter how you feel about the War in Iraq, the war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the constitution, the pledge, our laws, our rules and regulations, you should take the time out to thank your lucky stars that our military has won for you the ability to say that you are against those things. You could be staring down the face of a dictatorship right now. You could be in a country ruled by fear, where torture is a daily occurence and people are stoned to death for speaking out.

You can sit in front of your thousand dollar computer on your comfortable chair, sipping your fresh brewed coffee and listening to your incredible collection of cds and bitch and moan all you want about how this country oppresses you.

The fact of the matter is, you are damn lucky to be living here. You are very fortunate to live in a place that affords you the freedom to be whatever you want to be, where you future is decided by your choices and actions alone.

I know where my freedom comes from. I know it comes from the blood of every soldier who ever battled in a war for this country. I know it comes from great loss and great tragedy. I know that from the Revolutionary war on up, many, many people have died or put themselves on the line so I can have the right to live my life in a free country.

I am forever thankful to those people. No matter how you feel about our president or his policies or any leader that came before him, you should be thankful, too. If not, you don't deserve the freedom that all those soldiers have afforded you.

Click this link. Show your thanks.

Thank you to all the veterans and current members of the armed forces. You are appreciated.

The following bloggers are veterans or are currently serving in the armed forces. Please stop by their sites today and say thank you.

Blaster
Sgt. Hook
Sgt. Stryker
Lt Smash
Chief Wiggles
Kevin
Black Five
Pontifex
Dan
CG Hill
David
Denny
Rev. Sensing
Val
Joe
Dodd

Also, don't forget Front Line Voices: Letters from Iraq and Afghanistan

I once wrote something about Veteran's Day over at Armed Liberal:

I Started To Write About Veteran's Day...and to thank the veterans alive and dead for protecting me and mine. I worried that what I wrote kept coming out sounding either too qualified, or would be interpreted as being too nationalistic.

And then I realized something about my own thinking, a basic principle I'll set out as a guiding point for the Democrats and the Left in general as they try and figure out the next act in this drama we are in.

First, you have to love America.

Read the rest...
 

Posted By Winds of Change.NET at 11:46 PM | Comments (28) | TrackBack

Think Bush will crush Dean in a McGovern-style electoral blood-bath? Think Dean will ride a wave of Bush hatred to the White House?

Well - you can put your money where your mouth is. Who knows - maybe you can turn your political acumen into cold, hard cash...

... at the Iowa Electronic Markets:

* * *

2004 US PRESIDENTIAL VOTE SHARE MARKET

The IEM 2004 US Presidential Vote Share Market is a real-money futures market where contract payoffs will be determined by the popular vote cast in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election.

* * *

Wear this colorful, 100% cotton t-shirt! Help us help you!

"... if you're an individual who is hellbent on martyrdom by attacking America or her deployed servicemen and women, we'd like to see you hooked up with 72 Virgins as soon as possible. 'Nuff Said. High quality 'virgin'-white all cotton tees."

Via The Ranger Quartermaster.

For those who claim that "Bush Lied!", here's something that might give you a new perspective on the problem. From the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) :

Chinese and Japanese experts have begun destroying a stockpile of World War II chemical weapons in north-eastern China.

The group has arrived in Qiqihar city, to destroy chemical weapons left behind by Japanese troops at the end of the war.

In August, one person died in the city and 42 others were injured after barrels of mustard gas were dug up at a construction site.

Since then, the chemical weapons have been collected and stored in a local warehouse.

United Nations officials will monitor the disposal of the material.

Chinese experts estimate that as many as two million Japanese chemical weapons remain unearthed in China.

60 years is a bit long to wait, and we still haven't found the bulk of them. But it's true that since August, 1945, the Imperial Japanese Army hasn't used chemical weapons on civilians, and for that I am content.

President Bush gave an eloquent speech today, at the National Endowment of Democracy, on the advance of freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Excerpts:

* * *

The roots of our democracy can be traced to England and to its Parliament and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed precisely because it did not respect its own people, their creativity, their genius and their rights.

President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum that would not be halted.

He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago. It is equally important today.

* * *

A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the president, according to one editorial at the time. It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan.

(LAUGHTER)

Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive and even dangerous.

In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct.

(APPLAUSE)

The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well under way.

In the early 1970s there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon, there were new democracies in Latin America and free institutions were spreading in Korea and Taiwan and in East Asia.

This very week, in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America had collapsed.

Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country, ascending like Walesa and Havel from prisoner of state to head of state.

As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world, and I can assure you more are on the way.

* * *

There are, however, essential principles common to every successful society in every culture.

Successful societies limit the power of the state and the power of the military so that governments respond to the will of the people and not the will of the elite.

Successful societies protect freedom, with a consistent impartial rule of law, instead of selectively applying the law to punish political opponents.

Successful societies allow room for healthy civic institutions, for political parties and labor unions and independent newspapers and broadcast media.

Successful societies guarantee religious liberty; the right to serve and honor God without fear of persecution.

Successful societies privatize their economies and secure the rights of property. They prohibit and punish official corruption and invest in the health and education of their people. They recognize the rights of women.

And instead of directing hatred and resentment against others, successful societies appeal to the hopes of their own people.

(APPLAUSE)

These vital principles are being applied in the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

* * *

With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty, and I thank you.

May God bless your work, and may God continue to bless America.

(APPLAUSE)

* * *

A great speech. The Age of Liberty indeed.

Senate Democrats care more about scoring political points than they do about national security - while we have soldiers dying in the field. Disgusting.

And this is according to their own memo. An excerpt:

* * *

For example, in addition to the President's State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.

The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority.

* * *

Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.

The best time to do so will probably be next year...

* * *

The emphasis in the above excerpts is mine. They admit that "[w]e don't know what we wil find," but they're going to push their fishing expedition as far as possible anyway for political points.

Then they'll launch their pre-ordained "independent investigation" - "probably next year" - since, politically, this will be the "best time."

Note the total lack of concern for the underlying substance of national security and intelligence-gathering issues. Where is the discussion of a need to beef up our nation's human intelligence resources? Nowhere. The Senate Democrats are all about politics - national security be damned.

Disgusting.

The story is also being reported by the Associated Press and Reuters.

And, of course, the blogosphere is on top of it in lots of places, like Instapundit, absinthe & cookies, and the Brazos de Dios Cantina.

Thirteen Killed After Helicopter Attacked in Iraq

War will always have its victims. When a large number of soldiers die at once, the reality of the the casualties of war stares us in the face. And then, just like everything else that happens in a war, it will polarize us.

There are those that will point to today's news and give it as a reason to pull out of Iraq. There are those who will mourn the deaths, but feel the need to stay in Iraq, to continue on.

Some will see the attack on the helictopter as proof that Iraqis don't want the coalition forces in their country. Some will see it as proof that Saddam's people - together with other Muslim militants - are still strong in number and that's why we need to stay.

If we stay, there will certainly be more casualities. This is a war, after all. Not just a battle against Saddam's forces, but a battle against terrorism. Eventually, the resistance will be defeated or they will retreat. Eventually, there will be a kind of peace in Iraq, certainly something better than what was in place before the war.

If we leave, there will be still be casualties. Iraqis who are not part of the resistance. The peace process. The dream of democracy. The militants and terrorists will win. Their ranks will grow as they become emboldened by the absence of coalition forces. And Iraq will be the new breeding ground, the gathering point for terrorists world-wide.

Chaos will return, old laws will be enforced, families will be torn apart and the people will once again suffer as they did under Saddam. The casualties of the inner wars of Iraq will be great. And all of the soldiers of the coalition forces who have died during this war will have died for nothing.

I am sorry for the families of the soldiers who died today. I am sorry for the families of the innocent civilians who died during the course of this war. But pulling out of Iraq now would be like spitting on their graves.

Wars are generally long and hard and filled with death and destruction. But they are fought for a reason. I still believe in the reasons I have been a supporter of this war to begin with; to root out terrorism and its supporters, to free the people of Iraq from a horrible dictatorship, to bring freedom to a place that has known nothing but despair and fear.

We started something we need to finish. People will die in the process. That is war. Every person who signs up for the armed forces knows that they run the risk of dying in combat. If we bring our troops home, all those dead soldiers will have died in vain. And all the people of Iraq who want freedom will be abandoned and left to the wolves.

So what is it you really want? Which side are you on? Do you want us to cut our losses and come home, leaving Iraq the way it right now? Or do you want us to stay and finish the job, knowing their will be casualties in the process?

Iraq can, in the future, have a country that has risen from the depths of terror and horror. Or Iraq can, in the future, revert back to that horrible state and become just another place that anti-American terrorists get together and make plans.

That's the choices I see here. What do you see?