PUTTING IT IN PERSPECTIVE
If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of
2112
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington D.C. (among others) is 80.6 per 100,000.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in
our
Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in
the
nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.
KEEPING IT SIMPLE
Explain how immediate withdrawal from Iraq is in the best interest of
our national security?
Explain how withdrawal at any time before Iraq is able to function as
an independent nation is in the best interest of our national security?
HERE IS HOW, BY RICHARD NIXON ON VIETNAM
" So by spring, if not earlier, Bush will announce that progress in
Iraq allows U.S. forces to start coming home. He will say that an
American drawdown is the best way to help the Iraqis stand on their
own. He will argue, much as he did with his tax cuts, that whatever
pace he sets is precisely the right pace, and that withdrawing any
faster or slower would be the height of irresponsibility. He may also
say that withdrawing is "not a formula for getting out of [the region],
but one that provided the only sound basis for America's staying in and
continuing to play a responsible role."
Those were the words of Richard Nixon, who, somewhere, is wanly
smiling."(Jonathan Rauch)
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS SLIGHT OF HAND?
" George W. Bush campaigned against the proposed McCain-Feingold
campaign finance "reform" in the 2000 election. At the time Bush
argued, rightly, that the legislation violated numerous constitutional
principles. When the bill wound up his desk, however, in a more
egregious form than the earlier versions, Bush signed it. If his
erstwhile "serious constitutional concerns" had been justified, the
president explained, then, heck, "the courts will resolve these
legitimate legal questions." But when the law went before the Supreme
Court, Bush's Justice Department defended it and the justices in turn
upheld it, out of deference to the "government." (Jonah Goldberg)
CORRUPTED HEROES
In 1994 the Republicans won the elections by promising to stop the wild
spending by Democrats. Today the Republicans are wild in spending and
the Democrats are trying to stop them. How did the get corrupted? Power
corrupts. Unfortunately we can do little without throwing out the baby
with the bath water.
SAFETY VS FREEDOM
The Founders well understood the difficult tradeoff between safety and
freedom. "Safety from external danger," Hamilton declared, "is the most
powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty
will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction
of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm
attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most
attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions
which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To
be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being
less free." The Federalist No. 8, p. 33.
At present, the President has opted to exercise only a few of his
emergency powers. Under the National Emergencies Act, at this time, he
is only utilizing provisions relating to the military.
Will the President choose to use additional powers? It depends on the
future. Because we don't know what shape this war on terrorism will
take, we can't know what powers this president - or any successor -
might need to cope with the problems of terrorism.
An American President, should he need them, possesses awesome powers.
Those powers potentially include what political scientists have
described as the powers of a "constitutional dictatorship." No
President has ever had to go that far - although they have come close.
Now, however, it is not difficult to conceive of scenarios where
terrorist groups, hell-bent on our destruction and refusing to abide by
any known rules of war, could employ weapons of mass destruction or
bio-terrorism in a manner that could threaten our existence as a
nation. What happens then? It depends who the president is. Surrender
vs. constitutional dictatorship.
