Bi-Partisan Panel on Iraq

Any reasonable individual can see the congressionally-christened bi-partisan panel to examine the situation in Iraq for what it is: a gratuitous publicity stunt and a disingenuous and cynical ploy veiled as a serious attempt at assessing the situation in Iraq.

What can this panel possibly reveal about the circumstances in Iraq that would be of any value? Perhaps if it were created in the interest of developing an honest and objective assessment, tasked to do so by a body interested and serious about receiving one, it’s mission would be of some value. But this is not the case. This is a panel crafted by a hyper-partisan body in a hyper-partisan atmosphere whose findings, as worthless as they undoubtedly will be, will be distorted to fit partisan interests.

If congress is serious in ascertaining the state of circumstances in Iraq, instead of simply trying to politically profiteer off of the issue, it can ask the military leaders who are currently leading and executing American operations there. They are the ones capable of providing a competent, valuable assessment, not retired secretaries of state and former congressman.

Hat Tip: Paul Mirengoff

For the Line-Item Veto

Progressing (or regressing) in the direction of the Dodo bird are congressional legislators who responsibly administer the nation’s finances and exercise fiscal prioritization with the federal government’s abundant, but not unlimited resources. In the unending effort to garner public support and political advantage for the next election, legislators spend excessively for short-term political gain, to the detriment of the nation’s long-term financial health.

Of this both parties are guilty, and there is little will within the prevailing political culture in congress to desist the profligate spending so many of it’s members indulge in, largely for their own political and parochial self-interest. The most recent illustration of this is a $1 billion subsidy for home-heating bills, energetically but ultimately ineffectively opposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, who in his opposition acutely stated "there is very limited authorization in the constitution for us to be paying the heating bills of people in this country." That may be so Sen. Coburn, but it sure is politically advantageous with the folks back home in an election year.

With no apparent legislative recourse to curbing excessive spending, and the prospect of presidentially vetoing entire bills because of exorbitant pork located on it’s fringes unappealing, the only viable tool left is the creation of the line-item veto.

The president briefly possessed this tool in the mid-nineties, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional shortly thereafter. That nullified version allowed the president to veto certain portions of spending bills and not others. Congress could override these vetoes, individually, with a two-thirds vote in each house (as has always been the case under the constitution with every presidential veto). This version essentially extended the president’s power from the ability to veto a congressionally-enacted bill in it’s entirety to the ability to veto particular aspects of a spending bill without having to reject the whole.

The new version proposed by President Bush gives the president the ability to designate certain provisions of a spending bill for congressional reconsideration. Both houses, within a timely manner, must then uphold or rescind said provisions by a majority vote without the ability to amend. It is not a "line-item veto" so much as a presidential directive to congress to reconsider.

Though I don’t agree with the Supreme Court that the previous version was unconstitutional (see Section III of Justice Scalia’s opinion in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 {998}), and I would prefer that version over President Bush’s, I see the president’s proposal as one of the only viable means possible in checking the irresponsible culture of profligacy in Washington.

I am by no means suggesting the line-item veto will be a magical silver bullet. For it to be effective there must be 1) a president willing to single out needless and wasteful spending provisions and 2) a congress willing to follow the president’s lead and rescind spending it had recently approved. Satisfying one of these requirements, let alone both, will be tough, for the same perpetrators and creators of any fiscal waste will be the ones charged with rescinding it.

But with all that said, the unitary power of the presidency is probably the only efficacious tool in slashing the various pet projects individual legislators smuggle into legislation (neither house itself has any means at it’s disposal to discard earmarks for legislation without rejecting the entire piece of legislation). In this light, presidential singling-out of certain spending provisions for congressional reconsideration will bring to the public forefront gratuitous earmarks which would have previously gone through literally unnoticed. The line-item veto will, as The Washington Post stated, "spotlight earmarks and the corruption that can come with them." Hopefully anonymous and virtually invisible earmarks will disintegrate under the sheer embarrassment of public exposure.

If we are to drastically overhaul the budget however, an action long overdue, congress is going to have to alter the very culture it operates in. The line-item veto is only a treatment to all that ills congress and Washington, not a cure. Either the current stewards of congress must put the nation’s long-term interests above all else or Americans must elect ones who will. There is only so much minor procedural remedies can accomplish.

Hat Tip: John Hinderaker

RE: "Iraq is Lost"

In a startling act of pure Hagelism, conservative icon William F. Buckley elementarily labeled the American project in Iraq a failure. "Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven’t proved strong enough."

Problematic for Mr. Buckley’s assertion is the shallow foundation he lays in supporting it. He cites a man-on-the-street interview of a Sunni merchant published in The New York Times, warranting the obvious response: would you expect the average Sunni to say anything else, given the perch of power America knocked them from in deposing Saddam Hussein? Army Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley, currently stationed in Iraq, opined that the "same interviewing technique would have produced the same result from Berlin in 1945."

Mr. Buckley’s evidentiary support grows only more questionable. Supposedly the anti-American denunciations of Iran’s fanatical and deeply belligerent president further elucidate America’s failure to pacify sectarian hostilities in Iraq. In fact, they elucidate nothing. Democracy in Iraq threatens the theocracy in Iran, and it is no secret that Iran has been actively engaged in subverting Iraqi democracy. That the president of Iran would be condemning America’s mission there should be of little surprise. Further, the statements of a man who has denied the Holocaust ever occurred and who expresses a desire to wipe Israel off the map should not be relied upon as a factor in determining America’s performance in Iraq. I’m surprised an esteemed intellect such as Mr. Buckley has.

Beyond his shaky support Mr. Buckley’s thesis and conclusion are questionable. His claim that Iraqi animosities are "uncontrollable" is dubious. The Samarra bombing was not the first time a Shiite shrine has been targeted by terrorists, and it won’t be the last. It has been the strategy of al Qaeda in Iraq all along to incite civil war and, though sectarian motivated attacks have produced spells of intermittent sectarian violence, civil war has not transpired, at least not yet. Iraq’s political and religious leaders have proven themselves to be remarkably restrained and patient, and the various popular demonstrations for peace in Iraqi cities and towns are indicative of a broad desire within the country to overcome violence and murder and continue on towards a viable democracy and peaceful nation.

Mr. Buckley’s mistaken assessment is not collaborated by circumstances on the ground, but instead reflects the perception of Iraq the mainstream media has decided to cultivate. The media coverage of Iraq has employed a, in the words of Victor Davis Hanson, "if it bleeds, it leads brand of journalism", which highlights "the severed head in the street over the completion of yet another Iraqi school." America sees only an Iraq full of terrorism and sectarian strife, and the public’s mood on Iraq, as well as Mr. Buckley’s, is thus explained.

American soldiers on the ground remain optimistic as the training of Iraqi soldiers continues. As Mr. Hanson described circumstances on the ground, soon "ten divisions of Iraqi soldiers, and over 100,000 police, should be able to crush the insurgency, with the help of a public tired of violence and assured that the future of Iraq is their own".

America has not lost, and our mission in Iraq has not failed. Progress continues to be made in the country, and each day brings the Iraqis closer to the point when a viable and authentic government will emerge and Iraqi forces will be able to fully and effectively engage the enemy. Now is not the time to succumb to a defeatist mentality predicated on an incomplete perspective provided by shameless media coverage. I am surprised and saddened Mr. Buckley, a man whom I respect and admire, has done so.

RE: "The Judging Process and the Judge's Personality" Frank, Jerome

Frank, J. (1930). Law and the Modern Mind. Coward McCann, Inc.

I accept the assertion that stimuli, prejudices, and biases, both conscious and unconscious, are unavoidable in the legal process and, more specifically, in judicial adjudication. An intellectually honest judge, one committed to the ideal of simply applying the law as written, will overcome this however.

Allow me to elaborate. When I first hear of a case and the circumstances and questions it presents I usually develop an opinion, or conclusion, on the spot, without contemplation or due research. This conclusion may be moral or political—outside of the law and without regard for it—and/or based on prior knowledge or conception of the law. If after further examination however, provided I am interested or motivated into going deeper than initial prejudice, I discover legal facts which contradict my opinion, or insufficient legal justification to bear the weight of it, I will reverse my opinion and/or reach or concede to a conclusion opposite of my personal inclinations. I will do this if I am at all intellectually honest that is. Not so much with others but with myself.

As evidence of this I offer the example of the federal ban on partial-birth abortion and it’s questioned constitutionality before the courts. On personal grounds I support the bill and it’s purpose. I oppose abortion in general but the practice of partial-birth abortion strikes me as especially abhorrent. It is a brutal and gruesome practice antithetical to the ethical and moral standards I believe we as a nation should hold. This is a personal moral or values judgment—a personal inclination if you will.

On deeper inspection and contemplation however I realized I had to set aside my personal prejudice and accept a justification which contradicted it. The federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers, with all powers not given to it in the constitution, or not denied to the states, belonging to the states. Nowhere in the constitution is a power granted to the federal government allowing it to venture into the issue of abortion. It is a state issue, sovereign of all federal interference.

Though I think the federal partial-birth abortion ban to be a good idea and a good law, it is not the federal government’s law to make. As a result the only honest avenue left for me to take is to espouse the opinion that yes, the law is unconstitutional.

My personal opinions and inclinations, nor the personal opinions and inclinations of any man, are not supercedent to the law. Assuming our judges are not only cognizant of this, but abide by it, than conscious and unconscious stimuli, prejudices, and biases are not a problem. Guided by this principle the rule of law will continue on.

RE: "The Democrats' Real Problem"

Mr. Dionne is off base in his editorial of this past Tuesday. His general thesis, that "Democrats' real problem is that they have failed to show that their critique of the Republican status quo is the essential first step toward an alternative program" is slightly askew, for it is based off of a false premise. The public does not see a "Republican status quo" so much as they see a larger and heavily political status quo in Washington, cultivated by both parties and deeply odious to the prevailing public sense. A recent Battleground poll demonstrates that the public places a pox on both houses, not Republicans or Democrats alone. 92% of Americans feel lawmakers in Washington place partisan politics above all else and 64% believe both parties are equally responsible for the current problems facing congress in regards to lobbyist reform. Democrats will be hard-pressed to run against the status quo on a national basis when the American people find them equally complicit in creating and propagating that status quo. "The bottom line", says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, "is that the mood of the electorate is not an anti-incumbent mood, an anti-Democratic or anti-Republican mood, but an anti-Washington mood." He is exactly right.

Prior to the statement of his thesis, Mr. Dionne mis-characterizes and misinterprets the substance of the '94 mid-terms, discounting the necessity of "offering a clear program" to achieving broad victories in a national election. He correctly states that in '94 "it was disaffection with Bill Clinton.....which created the Republicans' opportunity", but he does not follow this valid argument to it's valid and logical conclusion. Public dissatisfaction with President Clinton created an atmosphere where the public was open and receptive to "a clear program" from Republicans, which Republicans provided. Republicans could not have seized control of congress on public dissatisfaction with President Clinton alone however. They had to complete the sale of a clear plan to the American public who, through their dissatisfaction with the president, gave Republicans the opportunity to pitch. In other words, there was a two-step process towards widespread Republican victories that year. Insinuating Democrats can succeed based on President Bush's unpopularity alone without "offering a clear program" of their own is wishful thinking. They may enjoy modest, scattered gains in one or both houses---such is historically typical for the party out of the White House in mid-terms---but not the massive, nationwide gains Republicans achieved in '94.

Mr. Dionne moves on to dropping a few disingenuous assertions typical of liberal critics of the president. He laments the "budget policies saddling our kids with debt tomorrow to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy today." It is not tax cuts which are saddling future generations with debt, but monstrous and rising entitlement costs and profligate federal spending. As one very wise man once said, "we don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."

Moreover, if we got rid of the Bush tax-cuts federal revenues would increase in the short-term but begin to lag as time progressed. It was the tax-cuts which stimulated the economy in the midst of the last recession and made it much shorter and shallower than it would have been without them. Mr. Dionne seems ignorant of the fact that the millions of jobs created in the last two years and the subsequent growing federal revenues have been predicated on the economic stimulus the tax-cuts provided.

Refusing to stop there, Mr. Dionne asserted that neither Democrats nor President Bush have any "good answer to Iraq." Whether an answer is good or not is subjective, but Mr. Dionne may rest assured that both Democrats and the president have one. Democrats want to get out now while the president continues to execute a policy of supporting and allowing Iraqis to set up their government and nation while training Iraqi security forces to secure their own country. On this front progress is being made. Victor Davis Hanson, a renowned historical scholar and someone far more knowledgeable on the subject of Iraq than Mr. Dionne, says of the situation, "[a]fter visiting the country, I think we can and will win, but just as importantly, unlike in 2003-4, there does not seem to be much of anything we should be doing there that in fact we are not." Iraqis are well on their way down the rocky path to self-sufficiency, terrorism and violence aside. Mr. Dionne is just going to have to deal with the intellectual insult he claims to feel by the president's refusal to vacate a working policy.

Mr. Dionne's general thesis, along with these substantive errors, is intrinsically flawed. Democrat's central problem is not that they have not formed a cogent critique of the Republican status quo, but that the public views them as part of the general status quo in Washington it has grown tired of. If Democrats want to achieve a general, nationwide victory in November they have to change their own course and prove they can change their own churlish behavior and thus alter the culture in Washington. If they do not negligible change in the composition of congress will occur in '07.

Hat Tip: Tom Bevan

On Precedent & Stare Decisis

Reliance on precedent—or adherence to the legal principle of stare decisis—is an integral aspect of the adjudication of the law, and for good reason. Uniformity and consistency, as has often been stated, is the most practical method in insuring consistency, fairness, and the equal protection of the law to all citizens.

Further, seeking guidance from past experience is a completely natural human phenomena. Each individual will, in the course of their day-to-day lives, refer to their own past experiences and/or the past experiences of others when confronted with the necessity of successfully completing an endeavor. As Karl N. Llewellyn has pointed out, "[i]t takes time to solve problems. Once you have solved one it seems foolish to reopen it."

Neither I, nor any other reasonable person denies this. Past experience is not only helpful in solving contemporary problems and challenges, it is a necessity.

What this does not mean however is that precedent or past experience should be blindly followed simply because it is precedent, for such an approach must base itself completely on the assumption that precedent or past experience is always correct, which it surely is not. I would never refer to a past example if I knew, or even suspected that it was incorrect. Neither should a jurist, or tribunal of jurists, follow and replicate a precedent if they know or believe it to be wrong. As important as learning from past successes so that they may be replicated is, so is learning from past wrongs so that they may be rectified. Adherence to bad precedent insures not only that prior wrongs are replicated, but propagated and multiplied into the present and future as well. The re-application of incorrect precedent is, in practical terms, nothing short of adding fuel to the fire.

Those against the reversal of Roe v. Wade on the basis of stare decisis alone would do well to keep this in mind.

RE: "Islamistphobia-Phobia"

Tony Blankley takes umbrage at perceived charges from "free market and other conservative commentators" of nativism and Islamophoiba leveled at critics of the controversial port deal. "With 70 percent of the public in opposition to the port deal, this is as searing a criticism of American tolerance as ever has been hurled from America’s cultural or political opponents over the years. No Soviet propagandist or third-world revolutionary has more stingingly libeled the American people."

Mr. Blankley, a columnist and man of intellect I highly respect, is exaggerating the substance and effect of conservative criticism. Conservatives such as myself, in my view at least, have criticized the rank hypocrisy on the part of liberals, not conservatives, who have opposed this deal yet, as I said in a previous post, "cry injustice" when young Arab males are the subject of greater scrutiny in airport security screening. Conservatives don’t squirm at a limited level of profiling and support a form of it in this prospective port deal and, ergo, are entirely consistent. We believe as a matter of practicality that security threats of a specific terrorist nature are more likely to emanate from Arab males (I believe there is a more likely general threat posed by all young males, of all colors and ethnicities—Jose Padilla and John Walker Lindh bear this out) and, in extension, from Arab countries.

Personally, my main criticism of the port deal’s critics is not that they are motivated by any prejudices or unfounded fears, but they are motivated by un-substantive political concerns (outflanking President Bush on national security or establishing their independence from him). No one seriously accuses the American people and legitimate critics, such as Mr. Blankley, of nativism or Islamophobia. The American people are a tolerant, broad-minded people, and their concerns with this deal are much more substantive and legitimate than the concerns of their leaders in congress.

Hamas & Democracy in the Middle East

One of the issues central to the debate over the war on terror is whether the Middle East is ready for and/or capable of democratic governance. Elements who believe, for whatever reason, the region is culturally inhospitable to democracy, on both the right and left, point to Hamas’ success in recent parliamentary elections within the Palestinian territories as evidence of the tenet that democracy is not the ultimate solution there; it is unpredictable and dangerous in a region permeated with discontent and radicalism and, ergo, may produce leaders openly hostile towards the United States and western democracies.

I reject this conclusion. It is true the Middle East is ripe with discontent and radicalism. But this is why democracy promotion should be America’s policy in the Middle East, not why we should avoid it. Hamas’ success in the Palestinian elections demonstrates only that elections alone do not a democracy make. A democracy is a nation-state with an educated citizenry, one properly disposed to defend their rights and freedoms and to secure the well-being of themselves, their children, their neighbors, and their posterity. It also has certain hallmarks and institutions, which I will enumerate later. Elections are simply a function of a legitimate democracy; a sign, but not proof, that one exists.

Immediately following Yasser Arafat’s death in December ‘04 I and many others believed the years of indoctrination he instigated and sponsored within the Palestinian territories would prevent the Palestinians from forming a legitimate democracy in the foreseeable future. Under Arafat textbooks taught anti-Semitic/anti-Israel propaganda to Palestinian children, dissent was stifled, legitimate news and information was prevented from being disseminated. The Palestinians had been so conditioned to point the blame for their poverty and misery on Israel—not on Arafat’s authoritarian rule, where it belonged—and to support terror as a viable political tool that reversing this mind-set would and will take years.

Hamas’ popularly-endowed majority is no surprise, for it reflects the undemocratic society that Arafat so carefully contrived. With an atmosphere such as this popular elections will always produce men and leaders antithetical to American and other western democracies’ interests.

Democracy, legitimate democracy, is the only solution to this. Fostering the rise of democratic societies in the Middle East will curtail the atmosphere that prompts the democratic ascension of individuals and factions such as Hamas to power. It will also re-cultivate the soil which terrorism finds so fertile. Tyranny fosters poverty and discontent, which in turn fosters radicalism and terrorism. To eradicate radical Islamic terrorism it’s root cause, the fires of tyranny, will have to be extinguished, replaced by a new fire capable of consuming an entire country and region once lit. The birth of democracy within Iraq and it’s effects on it’s neighbors in the Middle East affirm this.

If elections in the greater Middle East are ever to be more than the popular expression of undemocratic societies a democratic culture and a free and open society have to be developed. An open and free flow of information must be allowed. Democratic dissidents must be empowered. Meaningful political discourse must transpire. Tyrants and despots must be de-legitimized and weakened. A free press, an independent judiciary, religious freedom, etc., will have to be established. Then, and only then, will popular elections bear desirable fruit.

Democracy can work in the Middle East, and it must work if the region is ever to cease breeding radical Islamic terrorism. Given the chance and the support it will work, and is working. However, as the Palestinian elections exhibit, popular elections will only reflect a legitimate democracy if the institutions and traits defining one already exist.