No Dignity

Saddam had requested that he face death by a firing squad, which would have been more fitting for a deposed head of state, in his view, than a hanging. However, that would have been too much of a reward for the dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, and committed horrendous atrocities against the people of Kuwait. He did not deserve to die with dignity.
On a lighter note, Freaking News a website for creative photoshop has this funny "endorsement" picture, submitted to the site by "Keb:"

Remembering My Commander-In-Chief

I remember President Gerald Ford as the first Commander-in-Chief under whom I served while active in the Air Force. He came into office by a series of circumstances which included scandels forcing the resignations of Vice President Spiro Agnew and President Richard Nixon, and which did not include election to the office of President. The administration he took over, and the Nation over which he came into leadership was in recovery from the long and hard war in Viet Nam, Watergate, and other political acandels. The tasks he faced as CIC were quite daunting--he had to restore America's faith in the military and the government, while trying to restore the world's faith in American foreign policy.
Although he wasn't elected as President, he was respected, having been elected to Congress sixteen times by his constituents in the state of Michigan. He treated the people with respect, and respect was returned to him, for the most part.
President Ford's administration did have some failures. He attempted to block the genocide of millions of Viet Namese and Cambodians by the hand of North Viet Nam and its agents, but his proposal to aid the miltia in South Viet Nam was refused funding by Congress, and 8 million Viet Namese and Cambodians died as North Viet Nam's military swept unopposed into the south and concluded the reunification of that country. He did, however, begin the long process of normalization with the new country, one that is still being continued today.
Another failure was his attempt to socialize the American economy with his "Whip Inflation Now" (WIN) policy, which included a voluntary wage/price freeze. Still, there was some long-term success for that policy in that we learned that socialism, even when voluntarily imposed, does not work in the American economy.
His pardoning of President Nixon for his Watergate related crimes was never popular, but he successfully defended his position that, without the pardon, America could not put behind the scandals of the Nixon Administration and move forward. His defense of his position was not enough to get him elected, and became the major reason many voters turned to Jimmy Carter.
President Ford's successes were far greater than his failures. The all-volunteer military came into being under his administration, and despite predictions that such a military would never work, he began building it into the force it is today--well trained, efficient, and intelligent. He brought respect back to the members of the military while improving military life with pay raises, benefits, and upgraded living conditions. Never again, would military personnel be greeted in America with the hatred they received upon return from Southeast Asia. They were, after all, only doing the job they were required to do--no war is the fault of those who have to fight it.
Finally, President Ford brought back respect for the government and the office of the President, showing kindness and concern for the American people. He was a man of integrity who would do his best whether he was elected to the job or not. He showed us that the President, no matter who he or she is, deserves the respect of the people. He had a tough job, but he did it the best he could, and his legacy continues to this day.

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. For my Christmas message, please click here

The Big Storm

I haven't been able to post anything the last few days, because, as you may have heard, Colorado was experiencing "The Storm of the Decade," and the library was closed. There were blizzard conditions to the North, West, South, and East, but somehow, it missed my little nook. This video is in four parts, please view each one for the full effect. Part 1 proves that even my ugly mug can't break the camera.

Getting in the Christmas Spirit

Old Colorado City, my neighborhood and the shopping district on the west side of Colorado Springs, is all dressed up for Christmas. Here are two of the better snapshots I've taken, just to get the feel:

Bill of Rights 215th Anniversary

This is three days late, because the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights was last Friday. Just for a refresher
Here is the Bill of Rights, and a chart including four major factions in American Politics, and which articles each faction recognize or acknowledge:
Click on the chart to view full size.


The Bill of Rights
1.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pres; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in the time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and personal effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6.In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district; whereas the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Who are you calling a Warmonger?

Should a person be considered a "warmonger," if he or she is only thinking of the future? Does not being "anti-war" mean being "pro-war?" I submit that, when it comes to Iraq and the Middle East, nobody who is not a Islamist militant or Baathist insurgant is "pro-war." Every proposal, every suggestion put forth by everyone, from the ISG, to the military leaders in Iraq, to the President himself, is a plan to put an end to the violence in the region.
Certainly, many of these proposals are flawed. We know that we need to use diplomacy along with military force in order to meet the goals set forth by the President and the ISG--diplomacy is needed to ensure stability in the region, and the military is needed to protect stability in the region.
But, how far should diplomacy go? How far can it go? The President has been talking one-on-one with Sunni and Shiite leaders in Iraq, and, for the last five weeks, the Marines in Ramadi, a hotbed for insurgancy, have been working with both the Sunni dominated police force, and the Shiite dominated Iraqi military to bring stability to that city. They have imbedded advisers in those two organizations to train and plan with the Iraqi forces. They have contracted with the local citizenry, to hire Iraqis to build and repair homes and facilities. Although Ramadi cannot be considered safe, the Marines are gaining the trust and support of the general populace, and solidifying the resolve of the Iraqi civilians in that city to oppose the insurgancy. Though these methods were among the ISG proposals, they were in effect prior to the release of the ISG report. The activities of both the President, and the Marines in Ramadi will, I feel, prove to be very productive in the long run.
James Baker, co-chair of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) has admitted that Iran is not likely to be of any help in bringing peace to the region, but suggests that the US enter unilateral talks with that nation, if only to show the world where Iran stands. The fact is that the US has already set the conditions under which negotiations with Iran could be held, and Iran has rejected those conditions. Unconditional unilateral talks with the leadership of Iran would be extremely unwise. By the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and members of Iran's Supreme Islamic Council, we know that such talks would be seen by Iran as surrender terms, and a victory for Iran. To officially recognize the government of Iran would be to sign a death sentence for the seventy-five percent of the Iranian population that is anti-government, because it would be a step toward abandonment of the cause for freedom, and would legitimize that governments methods against its own people. Iran does not want to see a stable, democratic and independent Iraq, a goal which has been stated by both the President and the ISG. Iran wants to control Iraq, and a stable, independent government in Iraq would be countrary to Iran's goals.
The United States has nothing to offer to or take away from Iran in unilateral talks. We cannot trade nuclear weapons for freedom in Iraq, because that freedom would not be a lasting freedom. Iran's only points would be that the US and its allies leave the region, that Israel be dissolved, and that Iran be allowed to control Iraq. We already know that the latter condition would result in a much more widespread war between several countries in the region. Saudi Arabia has already warned that if the US were to precipitously leave the region that it would have to back the Sunnis in Iraq to fight against the Iraqi Shiites and Iran. Unilateral talks with Iran over Iraq is definately a non-starter.
Fred Barnes, of The Weekly Standard has suggested that James Baker be appointed as a special envoy to Syria, so that he could attempt his plan to "flip Syria." Barnes, like any pragmatist, does not believe that Syria would suddenly stop supporting insurgants in Iraq, and stop trying to control Lebanon, all in exchange for Israel returning control of the Golan Heights to Syria. Common sense says that that would never happen, but if Baker could pull that off, he would be God.
It is up to the Iraqi government to establish diplomatic relations with its neighbors, not the United States. If there are to be talks between the US and Iran and Syria, they should be in the context of multilateral talks including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Russia, China, and the EU, as well as the United States. All these countries have a vested interest in the future of Iraq, and this is the only way negotiations concerning the region should be conducted.
Another way to peace in Iraq would be to encourage industry in that country. As President Bush has suggested, support should be given to establish a strong agricultural economy in Iraq, as well as an agreement to fairly distrubute oil wealth. Jobs need to be created, and would largely take power over people away from the insurgant organizations and militias and give it back to the population. Iraqis wanting jobs would leave the insurgancy to get jobs. This is a very important condition in bringing peace to that country.
A little more than half of Iraq exists under peaceful conditions. Free market industries and retailers should be encouraged to establish business in these regions, drawing more people away from the militias for the sake of productive jobs.
The US military presence is still needed in Iraq, until the Iraqi security force can stand on its own. The Ramadi model by the Marines should be successful, and it should be implemented throughout the country. This is all toward bringing peace, and to preventing a much larger war in the future. It will take time, but it will work. My opinion is not "pro-war," or "anti-war"--it is pro peace. So please stop calling me and those who agree with my point of view "Warmongers."