Think About It

Casualties of War - The Real Story

There has been a lot of incorrect information put out by anti-war groups.  Probably the most onerous is their mantra that poor minorities take the brunt of war.  Primarily African Americans.  I thought it would be interesting to look at our racial statistics as compared to our casualties:

The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:

European descent (White) ... 69.12%
Hispanic ..............................12.5%
Black...................................12.3%
Asian.................................... 3.7%
Native American ............... . 1.0%
Other .................................. 2.6%

Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:

European descent (white) ... 74.31%
Hispanic ...........................  10.74%
Black ...................................9.67%
Asian ..........................  .... . 1.81%
Native American ...... ...........1.09%
Other ............................... .33.00%

I'm not sure if this brings up any questions, but the information needs to be more widely publicized.

Bill Clinton and the Strange Article in Vanity Fair

I never thought I would be defending Bill Clinton, but I question the journalistic integrity of Vanity Fair’s upcoming article, titled The Comeback Kid.  According to the author of the article, Bill Clinton has been doing some late night one on one campaigning.  Supposedly, old friends and aides are anxious over Clinton’s recent escapades that include dubious and secretive business dealings, jetting around with a skirt-chasing posse and all-round bad behavior.  The tenor of the article would suggest that Bill Clinton is out playing while Hillary is occupied with her campaign for president.  Oh, a word about the author of the article.  It was written by the husband of Dee Dee Myers, who was Clinton’s White House press secretary.

When I first heard about the Vanity Fair article, I looked forward to reading it.  I was disappointed; instead of a well-documented look into Bill Clinton’s nocturnal forays, it was long on gossipy rumor and short on verifiable facts.  A sample: “Bill Clinton.   He had come to the City of Light (Paris) with the motley crew that constitutes some of the post-presidential rat pack to celebrate the marriage of Douglas Band, the man who for the last decade has been his personal aide, gatekeeper, enforcer, and—more recently—counselor in the multifarious business, philanthropic, and political dealings that keep Clinton restlessly circling the globe.”

According to the article, Bill Clinton is a close “bachelor buddy” of Ron Burkle, the California supermarket billionaire.  Burkle reportedly jets around the world in his converted Boeing 757 that Clinton calls “Ron Air” and Burkle’s circle of young aides privately refer to as “Air Fuck One.”   If one didn’t read carefully, the reader would think Bill Clinton flew to Paris with Burkle, but Clinton flew in with Steve Bing, a real estate heir and Democratic donor.  The article rambles on for several more pages of innuendo.  A strange article.

The timing of this article is interesting to say the least.  The story is breaking just as Hillary Clinton is the last throws of her campaign for President or as some think, Vice-President.  Lots of questions on this one.

Questions:

Was the article a deliberate hatchet piece or just another expose?

Was the timing of the article coincidental?

Are Obama’s people behind it?

Why did Vanity Fair run a piece that didn’t include verifiable sources?

How does Dee Dee Myers figure into this scenario?

Why Won't Barack Obama go to Iraq?

John McCain has invited Barack Obama to come with him to Iraq, but Obama isn’t biting. `Senator Obama has been to Iraq once, a little over two years ago…and he has never seized the opportunity, except in a hearing, to meet with General Petraeus. This is about leadership and learning,” said McCain.

Obama countered by charging McCain is stubbornly clinging to “the failed Bush policy” on Iraq.  There has been a slight shift in Obama’s position on withdrawing troops from Iraq.  A few months ago, Obama called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  He has since modified this to “a deliberate, careful strategy to remove our troops…”

Obama let it be known last night that he would consider a visit to Iraq sometime this summer.  This would be his first since becoming a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile McCain said, "To say that we're failing in Iraq and not succeeding does not comport with the facts on the ground, so we've got to show him the facts on the ground."

Questions:

Why is Obama reluctant to go to Iraq?

How will he be greeted by the troops?

If he goes, will he have to admit the surge is working?

Will the contrast between him and McCain be too glaring?

Will he have preconditions to his trip?

If Obama does go, how will he spin it?

Former White House Press Secretary Drops Bomb on President Bush

Politico.com is reporting that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has turned on his old boss in his new book, What Happened.  McClellan served as White House press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006.  McClellan says Bush "veered terribly off course" and was not "open and forthright on Iraq.

McClellan’s book is due out next week.   He alleges President Bush relied on "propaganda" to sell the war and he also charges the Washington press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

McClellan also apparently echoes many of the Democratic criticisms, including the administration’s handling of the Katrina crisis.  McClellan claims the White House spent most of the first week in a state of denial.

According to Politico’s website, McClellan also claims Scooter Libey misled him about the White House’s role in the CIA leak case.

This story, as they say, has “legs,” and will be discussed from now until the election.

Questions:

Did McClellan sell out for the quick buck?

Doesn’t anyone have confidentiality agreements anymore?

What motivated him to write the book?

Are Democratic operatives involved with McClellan?

Is any of this true?

The War in Iraq - Is it Worth It?

 This might be a good time to discuss our military losses over the years.
The wars are ranked by total deaths:

Rank  Å´     War  Å´     Years  Å´     Deaths  Å´     Deaths per Day  Å´    
1     Amer Civil War     1861–1865     625,000     599     1.988%
2     World War II         1941–1945     405,399     416     0.307%
3     World War I          1917–1918     116,516     279     0.110%
4     Vietnam War        1964–1973     58,151     26     0.003%
5     Korean War          1950–1953     36,516     45     0.002%
6     Ameri. Rev. War   1775–1783     25,000       11     0.899%
7     War of 1812          1812–1815     20,000     31     0.345%
8     Mexi-Amer War     1846–1848     13,283     29     0.057%
9     Philippine War       1899–1902     4,196     5     0.006%
10     Iraq War              2003–present     4,079     2.34     0.001%

First, let me say that one casualty is one too many to the parents, sisters, brothers, relatives and friends of the soldier who died.  It is for this reason that we must choose carefully those wars that we decide to prosecute.

I’m among those who believe President Bush did the right thing by pursuing the terrorists into their lair.  It seems that many Americans are unable to connect the dots between the numerous attacks on American embassies, barracks, and ships before 9/11, and the 3,000+ lives lost on 9/11.  Many Americans have failed to educate themselves sufficiently about the Middle-East and radical Islam.  We may well pay a terrible price for our ignorance.  The whole country is divided over the Iraq war, and it is quite possible that Barack Obama, the antiwar candidate, will pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  I suspect Obama may know better,  but he knows his anti-Bush, antiwar rants play well to a large number of voters, so  he is willing to play it to the end.

We have lost 4,079 of our troops since 2003.  We have lost over 210,000 Americans in automobile accidents during this same time.

These questions are probably moot, because those who want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan believe we will have peace if we leave the radical Islamists alone.

Questions: 
Have the 4,079 soldiers died in vain?

Should we leave Iraq?

When should we leave Iraq?

Should we stay in Afghanistan?

When should we leave Afghanistan?

If we pull out of these countries, will we be attacked in the U.S.?

Obama's Journey Towards Appeasement

Wow, President Bush hit a nerve when he spoke to Israel’s Knesset.   Barack Obama and the usual suspects in the Democratic Party went ballistic.  So, what did Bush say that upset our liberal friends?  Bush spoke to Israel’s parliament on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state, and as would have been expected, he pledged U.S. support for Israel and placed Iran on notice.  I am quoting much of President Bush’s speech, because it was a good speech, a speech that Churchill would have been proud to make.   "America is with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists' sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

Bush’s speech could have been given by a European leader before one of the crusades.  “The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle… This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves.

President Bush goes on to make it quite clear that the U.S. and Israel are now together in the struggle against radical Islam.  “And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties," said Bush.

“Then Bush turned his attention to the naïve among us.  “There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously.  Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

“President Bush then goes on to utter those lines that caused a hysterical breakdown within the Democratic leadership.  “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

“Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you,” said Bush.

“It is questionable whether Obama really took that much offense to President Bush’s comments or he simply saw this as a good opportunity to stir a national debate about the merits of face-to-face discussions with our adversaries in the Middle-East.  If that was Obama’s intent, then he has succeeded.  There are pros and cons to face-to-face discussions – and we will hear them all in the next few months.”

Questions: 

Is it wise to enter into sit-downs with the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah?

Should our President meet with the President of Iran?

Obama has cited previous cases where U.S. Presidents have met successfully with our enemies.  He cites Reagan and Gorbachev, and Nixon and Mao as examples.  Did it work then and will it work now?

Obama's Lie to Support Jews in Israel

Sometime when I hear politicians speak, I want to throw up.  On Thursday, Barack Obama pledged his support of Israel at an event sponsored by the Israeli Embassy.  At a celebration marking the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state in Washington, Obama said, `I pledge to you that I will do whatever I can in whatever capacity to not only ensure Israel's security but also to ensure that the people of Israel may thrive and prosper and build on the enormous promise that was made 60 years ago... So it is critical that we send a message around the world, we will stand with Israel, we want them around not just for 60 years but for 600 years and when I am president of the United States they will have an unwavering ally in me."

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain also pledged their support of Israel, but in light of Obama’s incessant daily promises to cut and run from Iraq, his pledge to support and defend Israel has to go down in history as the biggest political lie since Hitler shook Stalin’s hand in 1940 and pledged his support to the Soviet Union.

This brings up many questions about Obama and his future policies, should he be elected President:

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, will it jeopardize Israel?

Does Obama see the inconsistencies between his campaign promises and his promises to the Jewish community?

Is there a connection between Israel and us being in the Middle-East?

Does the Jewish community understand the implications of Obama’s campaign promise to immediately leave Iraq?

Why haven’t those in the Jewish community condemed Obama’s promises to leave Iraq?

Should We Close our Military Prison at Guantanamo?

A friend and I got into a discussion the other night about our military prison in Guantanamo Bay.  He was outraged at the idea that the detainees were on American soil without having the rights and benefits of a detained suspect in our criminal courts.  Ah, where does one start.  Perhaps with this week’s news from the BBC in Iraq:  “Guantanamo Man' in Iraq bombing.”  It seems one Mr. Abdullah al-Ajmi, a former guest at our facilities in Guantanamo Bay took part in a suicide bomb attack in Mosul that killed several members of the Iraqi security forces on April 29.  Abdullah al-Ajmi had been in U.S. custody in Gitmo and because he was a Kuwaiti, the U.S. transferred him to Kuwait in 2005 where he was acquitted of terrorist charges.  More than 80 prisoners have been transferred to other countries, and over 200 have been released.

According to reports, Abdullah al-Ajmi and two alleged accomplices obtained new passports before going to Mosul through Syria.  Once in Iraq, the trio detonated two car bombs that killed the several members of the Iraqi security forces.

The ACLU  and an battalion of defense lawyers tried to make the case that these military combatants should be tried as criminals in the U.S. courts.  Apparently the Supreme Court cringed at the idea of seeing 400 O.J. style trials, so in a 6-3 decision they gave the U.S. Military Tribunals sole jurisdiction at this time.   

What exactly would the three presidential candidates do about our military prison in Guantanamo is unclear, but if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton get into office, they are pledging to bring the troops home, so presumedly the prison at Gitmo would no longer be necessary.

Questions:

If the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continues, what should be done with the 400+ prisoners in Guantanamo?

If we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, will the prisoners simply be released?

Do Military Tribunals provide adequate justice for detainees?
Should we close the prison at Gitmo and move it to Iraq or the Middle-East?

What will John McCain do with Gitmo if he is elected President?

What would Hillary or Obama do if elected?

My Son in Iraq

This is a little different for a blog entry, but a couple of friends of mine who live in Washington have a problem that I suspect is shared by many parents of service men and women who are serving in Iraq.  They are an older couple who live in a small suburban community, and they attend church regularly.

The problem is this:  Different well meaning people will often come up to them after church and inquire about how their son is doing in Iraq.  The well meaning but oafish people will then make the statement, “We need to get out of this awful war in Iraq, so your son can come home.”  Or, words to that effect.  While well meaning, it’s hurtful.

The couple doesn’t want to offend these well meaning people, but they would like to have a non-offensive reply ready when these statements are made.  Any suggestions?

A Solution to Global Warming

  There is a school of thought that advances the theory that we will, in effect, save ourselves from the from the doomsday scenario of Global Warming -- because many scientists say we will run out of oil and gas long before the ice caps melt and searing temperatures envelop our planet.

  Geologists from the University of Uppsala in Sweden are saying we have overestimated the amount of oil reserves left in the world.  The Swedish scientists report their studies show there is up to 80 percent less than previously predicted.  Oil production levels will peak in 10-15 years.

  By 2010-2015, production levels will reach maximum levels and natural gas production will peak shortly afterwards.  Many earlier studies by other noted geologists predicted production levels would peak by 2050.  When peak production occurs, fuel prices will reach disastrous levels, which will result in much less fossil fuel being burned.

  With far less fossil fuels being burned, there will not be enough carbon dioxide (CO2) to affect climate change, so the doomsday scenario predicted by the proponents of the Global Warming theory are unlikely.

  The Swedish geologists aren’t the first to advance the “Peak Oil” theory.
The Peak Oil theory was first announced by Shell geologist Dr. Marion King Hubbert in 1956.

  Whether we start to run out of oil in 2010 or 2050, it will have a big impact on all facets of our life.  The real question is will this or has this affected our foreign policy with respect to the Middle-East?    Will alternative fuel sources be developed in time to effectively replace fossil fuels?  Is the “Peak Oil” theory viable?