Free Frank Warner

Bush on Iraq war: Don’t encourage the enemy

At the Naval Academy today, President Bush said no to “artificial timetables” for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. He said GIs would return home as soon as U.S. military commanders determine the Iraqis are able to secure their new democracy.

The president said:

My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change. We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide, to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists. We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.

As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists. These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they’re sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they’ve achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would “discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people.”

Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists’ tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief.

And as we train Iraqis to take more responsibility in the battle with the terrorists, we’re also helping them build a democracy that is worthy of their sacrifice. And in just over two-and-a-half years, the Iraqi people have made incredible progress on the road to lasting freedom. Iraqis have gone from living under the boot of a brutal tyrant, to liberation, free elections, and a democratic constitution -- and in 15 days they will go to the polls to elect a fully constitutional government that will lead them for the next four years.

With each ballot cast, the Iraqi people have sent a clear message to the terrorists: Iraqis will not be intimidated. The Iraqi people will determine the destiny of their country. The future of Iraq belongs to freedom. Despite the costs, the pain, and the danger, Iraqis are showing courage and are moving forward to build a free society and a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East -- and the United States of America will help them succeed.

Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, “stay the course.” If by “stay the course,” they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they are right. If by “stay the course,” they mean we will not permit al Qaeda to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America -- they are right, as well. If by “stay the course” they mean that we’re not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they’re flat wrong. As our top commander in Iraq, General Casey, has said, “Our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to out-think the enemy and get ahead of him.” Our strategy in Iraq is clear, our tactics are flexible and dynamic; we have changed them as conditions required and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy....

In the short run, we’re going to bring justice to our enemies. In the long run, the best way to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We’ve seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed -- and today Germany and Japan are democracies and they are allies in securing the peace. In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Eastern and Central Europe from Soviet domination -- and today these nations are allies in the war on terror.

THE FREEDOM COUNT on today’s speech: This is the number of times Bush referred to freedom, liberty or democracy:

Freedom: 22.
Liberty: 1.
Democracy: 11.

Total Freedom Count: 34.

(In any public speech, any Freedom Count of 10 or higher is relatively high. It demonstrates an unusually high interest in liberty.)

Bush’s Iraq plan, as described today, doesn’t sound new. For details, check out his 35-page document, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. It’s the same old freedom is better than repression theme, the argument that freedom should win. Anyone have a problem with that?

Frank Warner

Iraq army gets new tanks

Murdoc Online has a report on the new Hungarian T-72 tanks on their way to Iraq’s new army. The Iraqis also seem to want the U.S. to leave them some of our M1 tanks, but so far, that isn’t in the cards.

I’m seriously wondering if the Iraqi troops and Iraqi police have enough body armor. I have heard reports of shortages. And are they getting any armored Humvees?

But by the way, isn’t it something to have an independent Hungary on the side of democracy? The world gets freer.

Frank Warner

Sen. Joe Lieberman: ‘Our troops must stay’

Sen. Joe Lieberman is a true liberal. This Democrat knows why it is necessary to secure the freedom that the U.S.-led liberators have won for Iraq. He reports today in The Wall Street Journal:

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn….

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern….

In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right….

Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country….

I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America’s bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

Yes, victory for freedom and human rights. It will be a victory for liberalism -- the open minds and generous hearts represented by people like Sen. Lieberman.

Frank Warner

Gas prices and the Iraq war

Don’t forget one big factor that distorts public opinion on Iraq: Gasoline prices.

As those gasoline prices spiked high in the last few months, support for winning the Iraq war sagged.

Nothing changed much in Iraq. Democratic forces lost no battles. We learned nothing new about the shortage of WMDs or the abundance of mass graves. Wilson, Libby, Edwards and Murtha added up to nothing.

But those gas prices. When they rise fast, they reduce Americans’ patience and generosity. Remember Vietnam? What did gasoline prices do in 1973 and 1974? (Congress abandoned South Vietnam in 1975.)

No, Iraq is not Vietnam. In spite of the bumpy economy of the last few months, the American public has remained relatively optimistic about winning for democracy in Iraq, and fewer than 20 percent want an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal.

Gas prices also dipped quickly enough this fall to begin reassuring Americans they can afford to be unselfish a little longer. But beware. No foreign policy runs without domestic static.

High hopes. If gas prices continue to stabilize, and if Iraq’s army improves enough to let us bring tens of thousands of GIs home next year, it will be a whole lot easier to see why it was our duty to liberate Iraq in the first place.

This just in: As I was saying, things change. Consumer confidence is back. The totalitarians don’t have a chance.

Frank Warner

SEE ALSO: Remember when Bob Woodward said the Saudis would reduce oil prices for the 2004 election?

My economics gamble: A chance for gasoline glory

In the post-Katrina darkness around Sept. 15, regular gasoline was selling for $2.79 a gallon, and that was about 50 cents cheaper than the peak. Right then, I bet a gloomy friend $10 that gas prices would drop below $2 a gallon within three years.

Well, it’s getting close.

"It will never be below $2 again," my friend said two and a half months ago. "They know they can charge $3. Why should they ever drop prices?"

Waves and tides. I, of course, made my argument about business cycles. What goes up always comes down, at least a little. There are waves, and there are tides, but there always are cycles. And $2 didn’t seem so low that we couldn’t easily dip below it at least a few more times.

Then came the bet. Since then, the pricing trend has been downward. But because this guy lives in Philadelphia and works in Allentown, he won’t pay up unless or until the price drops below $2 in one of those two areas.

Near Allentown yesterday, the price was $2.04 a gallon. And now that the Thanksgiving Day weekend is over, and demand slightly slackened, there’s a chance eastern Pennsylvania will go boldly where western New Jersey has gone before. The price is $1.94 in Camden.

Smelling victory. I’ve got a small window of opportunity here. If the next cold wave hits too soon, the heating oil factor will ruin my chances this year.

But if I were you, on this bet, I’d bet on me.

Frank Warner

New tune: 'Bush was right'

Here's a new song by the Right Brothers. It's called "Bush Was Right," and it was written by Frank Highland. It's sung to a punk rockish beat reminiscent of Billy Joey's "We Didn't Start the Fire."

Bush Was Right

Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban
Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama's staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out
America won't turn and run once the fighting has begun
Libya turns over nukes, Lebanese want freedom, too
Syria is forced to leave, don't you know that all this means

Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Democracy is on the way, hitting like a tidal wave
All over the middle east, dictators walk with shaky knees
Don't know what they're gonna do, their worst nightmare is coming true
They fear the domino effect, they're all wondering who's next

Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Ted Kennedy - wrong!
Cindy Sheehan - wrong!
France - WRONG!
Zell Miller - right!

Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive
Angry liberals can't believe it's cause of W's policies
Unemployment's staying down, Democrats are wondering how
Revenue is going up, can you say "Tax Cuts"

Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Cheney was right, Condi was right,
Rummy was right, Blair was right
You were right, We were right, "The Right" was right
and Bush was right. Bush was right! Bush was right!

Left was right. Obviously, I don't agree with everything in this song. It says "The Right" was right. Well, guess what? The real Left was right on Iraq. And the real Left would have approved tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but those tax cuts would have been directed at lower income Americans.

True Left was right!

Frank Warner

Footnote:

You know, it kinda reminds you of a "Team America" classic:

America, F*** Yeah!

America...
America...
America, F*** Yeah!
Coming again, to save the mother f***ing day yeah,
America, F*** Yeah!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, F*** Yeah!
So lick my b***, and suck on my b***s,
America, F*** Yeah!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
It’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

F*** Yeah!

McDonalds, F*** Yeah!
Wal-Mart, F*** Yeah!
The Gap, F*** Yeah!
Baseball, F*** Yeah!
NFL, F***, Yeah!
Rock and roll, F*** Yeah!
The Internet, F*** Yeach!
Slavery, F*** Yeah!

F*** Yeah!

Starbucks, F*** Yeah!
Disney world, F*** Yeah!
Porno, F*** Yeah!
Valium, F*** Yeah!
Reeboks, F*** Yeah!
Fake Tits, F*** Yeah!
Sushi, F*** Yeah!
Taco Bell, F*** Yeah!
Rodeos, F*** Yeah!
Bed bath and beyond (F*** yeah, F*** yeah)

Liberty, F*** Yeah!
White Slips, F*** Yeah!
The Alamo, F*** Yeah!
Band-aids, F*** Yeah!
Las Vegas, F*** Yeah!
Christmas, F*** Yeah!
Immigrants, F*** Yeah!
Popeye, F*** Yeah!
Demarcates, F*** Yeah!
Republicans (republicans)
(f*** yeah, f*** yeah)

Lyrics by Trey Parker

Poll: 70% of Americans believe Democratic senators hurt troop morale

The Washington Post reports:

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

It’s pretty obvious our troops would question their support at home when they hear so many anti-liberation Democrats calling for withdrawal deadlines and or carping over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (as if WMDs were the only charge against Saddam Hussein).

Want to win? Troops don’t want pity or pandering. They want to know their nation fully backs their mission of preparing Iraq to run a reasonably secure democracy. So don’t tell them “I support the troops, but.…”

Soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen know they can win the Iraq war. What they don’t know is if Congress will let them win.

Frank Warner

Abolish Delaware II: Why don’t big states split up?

Continuing our debate on the undemocratic lack of proportional representation in the U.S. Senate, let’s consider commenter JJ Mollo’s question:

If this is such an injustice, why do the large states not voluntarily split up into smaller states? Doesn't that say that they see their self-interest in remaining large rather than grabbing a couple extra senators?

The way I see it, there are at least three big reasons the big states don’t break up.

First, sentimentality. Americans are accustomed to looking at a map of the United States with certain state lines. The shapes are so primal, it’s as if the almighty drew the borders. People become alarmed when maps change.

Second, no state legislature wants to give up power. I’m not talking about people power, which would increase significantly with another two or four senators. I’m referring to personal power for those legislators. Break up a state, and each new state would have to write a new constitution, which might accidentally reduce the number of legislators or cut their pay. On top of that, the legislators of, let’s say Pittsburgh, would suddenly lose all their influential friends in Philadelphia, which would go to another state.

Third, states can’t just break up on their own. The U.S. Congress has to approve any splits, and except when it snapped West Virginia off of Virginia during the Civil War, the Congress has never divided a state. That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court has to do it. Baker v. Carr just didn’t go far enough.

I know a few of our commenters are worried that the wide open spaces would lose influence if senators were allocated according to population. I think your concern is irrational and undemocratic, but you don’t have to worry anyway.

Empty wildernesses have enough representation in Congress. Look at ANWR, which the populated states are more eager to protect than Alaska is. Give the people the representation they deserve in the Senate, and rocks and ice will still have their advocates.

Frank Warner

The Guardian tells Soviet nuclear-attack story well, but isn’t it time The Guardian explained what it means by ‘rightwing’?

The Guardian of London has a treasure of information today on the former Soviet Union’s plans for a nuclear counter-attack on Western Europe.

Poland’s new government has just opened its archives on the dark era during which it was part of the Soviet Union’s “evil empire.” Among the papers are formerly secret documents detailing the 1968 Soviet invasion that crushed Czechoslovakia’s democratic movement, and papers on the 1970 Communist massacre of 44 striking Polish workers in Gdansk, Gdynia, Szczecin and Elblag.

But attracting the most attention are maps from 1979 detailing how the Soviet Warsaw Pact would respond if attacked by forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.

France and England to be spared. The Guardian tells us what is on those maps:

A series of red mushroom clouds over western Europe show that Soviet nuclear weapons strikes would have been launched at Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium if Nato had struck first. Red clouds are drawn over the then German capital, Bonn, and other key German cities such as the financial centre of Frankfurt, Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich and the strategically important northern port of Hamburg. Brussels, the political headquarters of Nato, is also targeted….

France would have escaped attack, possibly because it is not a member of Nato’s integrated structure. Britain, which has always been at the heart of Nato, would also have been spared, suggesting Moscow wanted to stop at the Rhine to avoid overstretching its forces. The exercise, entitled Seven Days to the River Rhine, indicated Warsaw Pact forces aimed to reach the Franco-German border within a week of a Nato attack.

Sikorski rightwing? But then The Guardian goes out of its way to say that Radoslaw Sikorski, the Polish defense minister who released the old Soviet papers, is on the “rightwing,” presumably because he once worked for the American Enterprise Institute and opposed the Soviet Union’s subjugation of Eastern Europe.

Those affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute do tend to be economic conservatives. But “rightwinger” also implies someone who trusts government authority enough to compromise political liberties. Obviously, when you’re talking about the Soviet Union, the rightwing-leftwing balance is altered.

What could be more rightwing than the Soviet Union’s totalitarian absence of political freedom? In spite of its high-sounding socialist ideals, the secrecy and unaccountability of the Soviet system gave its oppressed peoples little more than breadlines, gulags, hopeless ideology and death.

Soviet ultra-right. Today, as The Guardian notes, Russian President Vladimir Putin pines for the power Russia once wielded at the core of the Soviet Union. But Putin’s nostalgia is not rooted in the leftist yearning for freedom, social justice and peace. As Poland’s archives show, the Soviet dream is an ultra-rightwing vision of expanded repression through aggression, and coerced prestige through heavily armed terror.

On this subject, Sikorski is far to the left.

Frank Warner

Offending Islam bad, inciting Islamists good?

There’s an interesting piece today in The New York Sun, noting stories that President Bush once seriously considering bombing the TV news studios of Al-Jazeera, which last year had become the Arab mouthpiece for fascism and terror:

It was reported yesterday that a successful production of Christopher Marlowe’s “Tamburlaine the Great” at the Barbican Theater in London deliberately censored the play in order not to offend Muslims. Passages in which Shakespeare’s rival depicts his hero burning the Koran and insulting the Prophet Mohammed were cut because “it would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world's great religions.”

So it is okay to bowdlerise our literature to protect putative Islamic sensibilities but scandalous to suggest, even frivolously, that broadcasts inciting Muslims in our midst to become suicide bombers should be silenced. Marlowe made his Tamburlaine declare that Nature “doth teach us all to have aspiring minds.” It seems his countrymen of today prefer appeasing minds.

Rolling over. In other words, if others intentionally broadcast villains calling for our deaths, fine. If our theater plays portray a few others as villains, not fine. The murderers get to conspire and incite openly. Their targets must never complain.

Sounds like surrender.

Frank Warner