Downsize DC Impeachment Links

If a President commits murder and he isn't impeached, then for what CAN he be impeached? DownsizeDC.org is calling for impeachment of Barack Obama, explained in these posts:

NEW HERESY: Should Congress Impeach the President?

Press Release: Impeach the President

Is it Partisan to Call for Impeachment?

9/11 Ten Years Later

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: Excerpt:

It is tempting to say that it is impossible to imagine the federal government being more mismanaged - in foreign policy, domestic policy, and civil liberties - than it has in the past ten years.

But some perspective is in order. The 1964-74 LBJ-Nixon years sent 50,000 Americans to die in Vietnam, their anti-poverty programs led to an explosion of crime and family breakdown, and Medicare helped put America on a fiscally unsustainable path. Before that, the big-spending, pro-regulation methods of Hoover and FDR kept a generation mired in poverty.

Terror and Endless War

Check out my latest pieces from DownsizeDC.org and the Downsize DC Foundation:

• Your Pressure is Creating More Congressional War Skeptics
• Terrorism is a Crime
  

9-11 Nine Years Later

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Imagine a British citizen and Catholic monk of Irish ancestry wanted to build a monastery in London. Should this be denied, considering the Catholic associations of the Irish Republican Army which was responsible for numerous terrorist attacks in London over the decades?

Does anyone believe that it was agreement with Catholic theology that motivated the IRA to commit terrorism?

9-11 Changed Nothing

This is not my latest at the Partial Observer. It's from 2007. But rather than comment on the "Ground Zero Mosque" or the will-it-or-won't-it-happen Koran-burning, I think this is my best statement about September 11, 2001. Excerpt:

9-11 didn't "change everything," but our reaction to it did. President Bush said "They hate us because of our freedom," but it is Bush, not Al Qaeda, who took our freedoms away. President Clinton had the opportunity to lead us down this path, but he didn't. George W. Bush did. The jihadists are winning - not by what they're doing to us, but by what we're doing to ourselves.

Cordoba House Resources

Best Op-Eds I've seen so far:

Mike Luckovich Cartoon

Beyond the Mosque by Jack Hunter

Two Cheers for American Tolerance by Shikha Dalmia

"Mosque" Debate is a Red Herring by Gene Healy

Cordoba House: The Acid Test by Justin Raimondo

Defending Anonymous Leaks

An excellent defense of WikiLeaks by Michael Metzler.

The Luckiest Man In The World

My latest at the Partial Observer. This week, I'll let the title also be the teaser.

Questions for McCain and His Supporters

People like John McCain should read Steve Coll's article on Gen. Patreaus and the Surge in the New Yorker and ask themselves a few questions:

1. The Surge was a strategic risk, and even many in the Pentagon disagreed with it. Moreover, critics of the war never doubted that Iraq could be pacified sooner if there were a lot more troops, but adding 20,000-30,000 looked like too little, too late. Question: Of the two, whose judgment should we trust more,
a) One who supported the war in the first place, which remains a strategic blunder for the ages that has weakened America militarily and financially, or
b) One who opposed the war from the beginning and disagreed with the Surge mainly because he thought ending the war sooner would be better than perpetuating the mistake?

2. Part of the Surge's tentative success came from buying off some Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents, and because the insurgents turned against the the extremist ("Al Qaeda") terrorists.
Question: do you know the difference between an insurgent defending home and clan from invaders by targeting the invading troops, and terrorists who blow up marketplaces and kill women and children?

3. Of the two, which posed a greater threat to American lives (military or civilian) before the invasion, the (then-non-existent) insurgents and militias, or Al Qaeda?

4. Was Al Qaeda even in Iraq before the invasion?

5. How big is the terrorist threat anyway? For seven years 1,000 terrorists could have sneaked across the U.S. border and could have set off countless car bombs or much worse. They have not. Why not?

6. Could it be for the same reason that advocates of violence are often laughed off or kicked out of radical groups? After all, in the post-9/11 world, the crimes of the government against the people have been so vast that one would think more anti-government militia-type groups would have formed, but since the Oklahoma City bombing no one wants to be associated with them. Could it be that the number of people willing to commit mass murder, or even be associated with groups that might consider it, are so few that it is almost impossible to find and organize them?

7. But for those who do lump Al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, and the Iranian government together as terrorists who "hate us" and "mean to do us harm," does it sit well with you that we have negotiated with and even paid the Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias not to fight? After all, you think they're all terrorists. If it's okay to negotiate with these "terrorists," then why is it then impermissible for Obama to seek negotiations with Iran?

Causes and Cures

Two economists, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, agreed that many of the steps Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt took to end the Great Depression only made it worse. Also, that their expanded Presidential powers, new bureaucracies, and curbs on economic freedom had long-term disastrous consequences both morally and economically. Both Friedman and Rothbard promoted the downsize DC message for several decades, and remain admired by many for their work.

But the funny thing is, they disagreed about what actually caused the Great Depression in the first place. Friedman thought the Federal Reserve was too deflationary; Rothbard thought it was too inflationary and that the Fed itself should be abolished.

They disagreed about the causes, but agreed that FDR's
"cure" was worse than the disease.

Likewise, we don't have to agree on everything in order to agree that DC must be downsized. We often get mail from supporters of the 9/11 Truth Movement disputing some of our assumptions, such as that we were attacked by Islamic terrorists on 9/11.

We do believe a new investigation of 9/11 should take place, because the federal government already had the tools it needed to prevent the attacks and that those who failed should be held accountable. And if an investigation reveals criminal conduct rather than mere incompetence, the guilty persons should be prosecuted.

But here's a question for 9/11 Truthers: what if there was nothing fishy about the attacks? What if it was indeed true that Islamic terrorists planned and executed the whole thing?

Would the War on Terror then be justified? Would it be justified if we had a smarter, more trustworthy President?

We at DownsizeDC.org say no, and that is the basis of our "I am not afraid" campaign. Regardless of the causes behind 9/11, the government's cure - destroying a thousand-year Western tradition of individual liberty - is worse than the terror threat itself.

We saw something similar with the War on Iraq: after-the-fact finger-pointing. The Administration claimed that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction and had links to Al Qaeda. When both claims were demonstrated to be false, the question turned to who in the Administration lied about what. But the following points were missed:

- The Administration did make "claims" before the war, but never did provide much in the way of evidence;
- Congress had an obligation to insist upon evidence;
- Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why such evidence provided a justification for war;
- Congress and the President had an obligation to explain why an invasion, and not less extreme measures or diplomacy, was necessary;
- Congress had a Constitutional responsibility to declare war, and violated the Constitution by "delegating" that power to the President to start a war when and if he deemed it necessary.

What if U.S. troops invaded, discovered nuclear warheads, and found Saddam playing tennis with Osama bin Laden? Unfortunately, many war critics would have been silenced, and the war would have been seen as a "triumph" for Bush.

But this would have been a "post-hoc" justification for the war, where the end result excuses an illegal act. And it would have been unnecessary to invade illegally, had Bush actually provided evidence and Congress actually declared war.

We may disagree on what the "real motives" of the Administration were in invading Iraq. But whether or not their intentions were good, good intentions do not justify by-passing the Constitution.

Likewise, even if the "official account of 9/11 is true and there was no government conspiracy, and even if the Administration has only "good intentions" in keeping Americans safe, these do not justify shredding the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of what you believe about conspiracies and criminality within the government, we hope that you will join us in refusing to be afraid. Regardless of how it started, the War on Terror as it is presently waged must come to an end. We may disagree about causes, but we can agree to oppose government "cures."

Why Democrats Are Hated

Over the years, the reputation has been that Democrats are in favor of civil liberties, a regulated economy, and Big Government, whereas the Republicans are in favor strong policing and morality over individual freedom, but favor a deregulated economy, and small government.

The perceptions don't meet the reality very often. Democrats often vote for "tough on crime" and "tough on national security" legislation to make people think Democrats can keep them "safe," while Republicans will expand regulations and the welfare state to make people think they stand for fairness and compassion. The result is that most "bi-partisan" bills create more laws and more spending.

And the funny thing is, such compromises never work. Even if some or most Republicans join Democrats in a major spending bill, the fact is that all the budget hawks and smaller-government advocates are on the Republican side, which "taints" the party as a whole for lacking compassion and fairness. Likewise, even if some or most Democrats join Republicans in some "War on Terror" program, the fact that almost all the pro-peace and pro-civil liberty advocates are on the Democratic side , which "taints" that party for being soft. That's why the parties are portrayed as if it's still 1964.

An example of this is the House Democratic Leadership folding on warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The issue is back in the Senate where there have been heroic efforts on the part of Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd. The Republican attack machine will claim that the Feingold-Dodd position is what Democrats really believe.

Now, I support Feingold and Dodd in their efforts to protect Americans from warrantless spying by their own government. But they are vulnerable to the charge that they are the worst possible hypocrites on this issue. For instance, Feingold is most famous for the McCain-Feingold bill, which sought to silence the speech of non-partisan groups during elections campaigns. What will Republicans say? That Feingold values the rights of terrorists over the free speech rights of Americans. Meanwhile, Dodd is working on a bill that would "would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government" and "a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers."

Mortgage brokers!

The Republicans would say that Dodd favors the rights of terrorists over people who want to make an honest buck.

Now, let me emphasize that Feingold and Dodd are right about warrantless spying and telecom immunity. The government is being given permission to spy not just on suspected terrorists, but on average Americans and, especially, high-profile critics of the government who then become vulnerable to frame-ups and blackmail.

But Feingold and Dodd have dug a whole for themselves. It is precisely because they are right on this issue that their hypocrisy stinks all the more. It is true that Feingold and Dodd are rightly fighting for the rights of suspected terrorists, because by preserving their rights we preserve our own. But it is also true that Feingold has no regard for free speech, and Dodd has contempt for the rights of anyone who wants to make a purchase or a decent living. In that sense, they do favor the rights of terrorists over law-abiding Americans.

This feeds the perception that Democrats, essentially, favor the rights of criminals over the law-abiding. That they are soft on criminals, hard on businessmen. That they protect the lives of murderers, but not the unborn. That they care more about the rights of undocumented immigrants than native-born Americans. That when it comes to national security, Democrats favor rights over security, but when it comes to economics, freedom be damned.

If Dodd wins the telecom fight but then, next week, wins on spying on America's mortgage brokers and financial transactions, that would be a pyrrhic victory indeed.

The Colombian "Terror Threat"

I was disgusted when I heard that Chiquita was fined $25 million for the "crime" of protecting its employees in Colombia. Apparently, the right-wing paramilitary group they were paying protection money to is labeled a "terrorist" organization by the U.S. government.

It'd be one thing if Chiquita was paying off Al Qaeda. But how are these Colombian thugs a terror threat to the United States? Why should they be considered an enemy of the U.S.?

Don't such groups exist largely because of the political instability in Colombia caused by the U.S.'s War on Drugs? Weren't the dangers Chiquita's operations faced in Colombia a result, then, of U.S. policy?

Would it have been better if Chiquita let its employees get killed? Or if it ran crying to the U.S. government to protect its interests on the taxpayer's dime? Or if it hired its own mercenaries to fight back and create further instability in the region?

How is something that happens in Colombia a crime in America?

We should tell American citizens and businesses that if they want to travel or do business beyond U.S. boundaries, they do so at their own risk, and must be responsible for their own security. Just like Chiquita.

Maybe Chiquita is a big, bad, exploitive multinational corporation. Maybe it should be criticized for a number of things. But I don't see how they did anything wrong here.

I Am Not Afraid

The terror threat is miniscule compared to our over-reaction to it. Find out more about DownsizeDC.org's new campaign here.

Also, check out my the recent Dispatch I wrote: 36 Bills in One Day.

Winning in Iraq

William S. Lind continues to get things right; anyone Presidential candidate who hires him will rise in my estimation. It looks like he's found the best chance for the U.S. to achieve some semblance of victory in Iraq. Lind's 3-point plan;

- comes to terms with Iran, as Nixon did with China in the Vietnam War.
- "allowing [with Iran's probable assistance] any elements that may hold the potential of restoring an Iraqi state to rise within Iraq." This will probably be a Shiite leader, probably Muqtada al-Sadr, who can also unite at least some Sunni insurgents as well. The "objective is solely the restoration of a real state, and that al-Sadr may be able to accomplish. If he can, we will have little to complain about in terms of his toleration of al-Qaeda or other Fourth Generation [non-state, terrorist] elements."
- withdraw American troops.

Lind implicitly suggests that if we repair relations with Iran and then leave, any ensuing civil war will be shorter and less bloody before a leader restores a functioning Iraqi state. Withdrawing won't be as bad as some predict, and I tend to agree with Lind. And in any case, if the killing does continue, at least Americans won't be involved anymore.

America's Idiot Plot Syndrome

My latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Six years after 9-11, America is on the verge of bankruptcy, has lost her freedom, and has become the most hated country in the world. Meanwhile, bin Laden's Al Qaeda movement, once the extremist fringe of the extremist fringe of radical Sunni Islam, has exploded in numbers.

If we saw a fictional account of a Presidential Administration this incompetent, we would dismiss it as too unbelievable. Ever since we invaded Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, the American government has done exactly the wrong thing every step of the way, but one blunder sticks out. Only an idiot would have invaded Iraq, but an even bigger idiot would have neglected post-war occupation planning, and an even bigger idiot than that would have dismissed all the experienced Iraqi officials who would have had the knowledge and experience to rebuild the country. If we are living in a movie, it is suffering from Idiot Plot Syndrome.

Stop Poking the Hornet's Nest

This is what Homeland Security advisor Frances Fragos Townsend says:

"The fact is, we were harassing them in Afghanistan, we're harassing them in Iraq, we're harassing them in other ways, non-militarily, around the world. And the answer is, every time you poke the hornet's nest, they are bound to come back and push back on you. That doesn't suggest to me that we shouldn't be doing it." [emphasis mine]

Well, it definitely suggests to me that we shouldn't be doing it.

Terror networks such as Al Qaeda are depicted as wanting to take over the world and impose Shari'a law. But that goal is obviously impossible through terrorism. It is far more likely that Al Qaeda gets recruits not because they are Islamic fundamentalists, but because they are motivated by solidarity with fellow Arabs and/or Muslims, and desire to expel Western troops from their lands.

If their tactics are unjust, their cause is not.

What have we ever gained by taking sides and sending aid and troops to Middle Eastern countries? If we wanted cheap oil, all we had to do is maintain neutrality in their squabbles and engage in peaceful commerce. There was no point in poking the hornet's nest. And there is no point now.

For Those Interested in Facts: They Hate Our Foreign Policy

A must-read by Scott Horton.

Worse than McCain?

Rudy Giuliani may well have the most irresponsible and dumbest foreign policy views of anyone since, well, President Bush.

Doug Newman: NO, THE TERRORISTS WON'T "FOLLOW US OVER HERE"

NO, THE TERRORISTS WON'T "FOLLOW US OVER HERE"

By Doug Newman

April 12, 2007

One of the justifications I keep hearing for continuing the war in Iraq is: “If we don’t fight them over there, we will have to fight them over here.” However, there is no historical basis for this. Consider the following examples:

• In 1983, after 240 Marines were killed in Lebanon, Ronald Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon. Lebanese terrorists did not “follow them here.”
• In 1962, France granted independence to Algeria. FLN insurgents did not follow the French back to France.
• In 1960, Britain granted independence to Kenya. Mau Mau insurgents did not follow the Brits back to Britain.
• In 1946, the Irgun, a Zionist terror organization, dynamited the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. In 1948, the Brits went home. The Irgun did not follow them.

There is simply no basis for all of this incessant neocon sound and fury about the terrorists “following us over here.”

America has, far and away, the world’s mightiest military. Indeed, the US is responsible for about half of the world’s military spending. If we simply minded our own business and guarded our borders and shores we would be pleasantly surprised. Nobody would dare mess with us.

Militarily, we outspend Iran 20:1; we outspend Iraq 100:1. In fact, if you add together all the military budgets of the Arab World, they equal barely one-quarter of ours. Any attempt to invade us would constitute national suicide for the perpetrator. Cyberpundit extraordinaire Fred Reed recently pointed out that it has been centuries since a Muslim country invaded and conquered a non-Muslim country.

If Muslim countries are impotent relative to the United States, terrorists are even weaker. They control no countries and have no armies. Terrorism is not an ideology of government, but rather a means of venting political grievances.

In Pat Buchanan’s words, “terror (is) a weapon of the weak and stateless against Western powers they (can) not defeat with arms.” Although they are horrible people who hate us, they have neither the means nor the desire to invade or conquer us. They just want us to leave their countries. While terrorists cannot defeat you with arms, they can sure make your life miserable.

9/11 was an attack, not an invasion. (1) The differences here are not just semantic. There was no follow-up. There was no invading army. There were no terrorist carrier groups headed into New York Harbor and Chesapeake Bay. After the attacks there were no aerial bombing raids from the terrorist Luftwaffe.

And there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since. This is not because of the surveillance state that the Bush Administration has imposed and which millions of Americans have all too gladly accepted. There are thousands of things terrorists could do that they could plan without catching the attention of the authorities. They could carry out their diabolical plans at airports, on highways, at power plants, at stadiums, at schools, on subways and in numerous other settings. And they haven’t done it!

But the possibility of an attack exists! Those three words -- the possibility exists -- are an age-old excuse for massive intrusions on your liberty. If you will give up your liberty in the name of there never being a terrorist attack, consider this: Cuba has no terrorism problem. Would you want to live there? (Cuba also has no immigration problem.)

Speaking of immigration problems, why are we being forced to surrender our liberty and fight all these wars in the name of fighting terrorism, while all the while the border with Mexico is well-nigh non-existent?

If all these Holy Joes who glorify this war on terror would just open their Bibles, they would learn some amazing things. Specifically, you reap what you sow and if you live by the sword you die by the sword. Translated: If you insist on throwing your weight around militarily to the extent that America does, do not at all be surprised if you have a lot of people hating on you. If you hit a hornet's nest with a baseball bat, do not be surprised if you get stung. If you hit it repeatedly, do not be surprised if you get stung repeatedly.

Again, there is no historical basis for thinking terrorists will “follow us here” if we pull out of the Middle East. Rather, they just want our military gone. Let us oblige them. Whatever problems persist over there are not ours to solve anyway.

The Left wants us to surrender our freedom in the name of the junk science of global warming. The Right -- the flip side of the same coin -- wants us to surrender our freedom lest people who do not even control Afghanistan come here, take over, force us all to speak Arabic, force all our women to wear burqas and force us all to pray to Mecca five times a day. These two doomsday scenarios are equally ludicrous.

If a totalitarian state comes to America, it will not be the doing of some Islamopsychopath in a cave in Afghanistan or some band or bands of Islamogangsters. Rather, it will be because the American people give away their freedom based on unfounded fear. Let us not walk in fear, especially such baseless fear.

(1) For the record, I believe that the official story on 9/11 is a lie. This is not the result of some “brain snap.” It was the result of somewhat extensive research over a few years' time. While I do not know exactly what happened on that horrible day, I do know what didn’t happen. The best source for 9/11 truth is the documentary “Loose Change”, which is 90 minutes long and can be found here on Google Video. While its approach might appear somewhat leftist, it is extremely thorough and impeccably well-documented.

Freely Speaking: Essays by Doug Newman