An important word from Mike Walker, Col., USMC (retired)

All,

By now you have heard of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that is to begin in New York. Some may think this is simply a trial of a terrorist tied to 9/11.

No thought could be more wrongheaded. This fight is as important as the decision to invade Afghanistan in 2001 or Iraq in 2003 or the Iraq War surge of 2007 or the current strategic review of the campaign in Afghanistan in 2009.

In fact, one could argue that the decision already made to enter this battle was more important than the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. This is a strategic battle in which the lives of thousands, tens of thousands, of innocent civilians hangs in the balance.

It is not simply a court case dealing with terrorists. It is a nation, my Country, which has crossed the Rubicon. There is now no looking back.

What is at stake is the viability of the rule of law as it has been understood for centuries in western civilization. What is at stake is a contest between two radically divergent visions of the future for humanity.

On our side are the proponents who argue that a legal system can be founded on the principal that free and reasonable citizens can create a just and progressive society. On the other side are the nihilists who believe that the seeds of destruction of that free and reasonable society lie in exploiting and perverting its judicial system.

Again, on the one side you have a society that strives to remain within the parameters of civilized behavior, all the while failing imperfectly as any human endeavor will. On the other side you have an organization that systematically attacks every tenet of the free and rational society concept. It is an enemy the embraces and revels in the violation of every concept of civil liberties as we in America know them and stridently seeks to use those selfsame values to destroy us.

As our side enters the slippery slope of demanding perfection in the most imperfect of all undertakings, war, we have an enemy who is equally determined to make gains by violating every rule and law of civilized behavior in making war.

The goal of the enemy is clear, if they so totally destroy the rules of warfare then they hope to escape entirely the consequences of their perfidious deeds. The path is clear, if the enemy violates each and every law then the enemy creates a state of chaos where the disciplined mind will, for sake of sanity, ignore their countless sins.

In its stead and in frustration born of chaos, the bewildered rationalists will seize on and lash out at the more manageable sins of those who share, rather than reject, their free and reasonable society worldview. They would rather retreat to the safety of their comfort zone by trying one of the their own then stand in the violent chaos created by the enemy and confront the enemy's wrongs.

The lesson is clear, if you try to embrace a civilized behavior in making war then you will eventually err as all humans do. At that point, having failed to be perfect, you will be criminalized and suffer the consequences.

If, on the other hand, you behave as the enemy and liberate yourself of the norms of civilized behavior in making war by deliberately killing innocents such as strapping bomb vests on the mentally disabled and sending them into a crowed market to explode (al Qaeda really did this) and are willing to lie about all your evil deeds and kill and intimidate any witnesses then, if captured, your freedom may well be assured. That is an abomination.

What must be powerfully empowering to the enemy is to witness the energies of our more civilized souls to divert their failure in reining in the enemy's terror by targeting, out of ineptitude, those who strive yet fail to obey the civilized laws of warfare.

The ramifications of the outcome of this trial are simple. In no small part, this trial will decide whose strategy is more powerful. It will partially decide if the future of civilization rests in the hands of those who adhere to a principle of removing all restraints in fighting a war or with those who imperfectly try to limit the pain and suffering to the combatants, to those who actively engage in the battle like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

For those who prefer the former, then set Khalid Sheikh Mohammed free. For those who believe in the later then give this man the punishment he deserves.

In no small degree, the fate of progressive civilization for at least a billion of human beings, fortunately overwhelmingly not Americans, hangs in the balance.

Semper Fi,

Mike

OBAMA'S DECLINE

November 1, 2009 Posted by John Hinderaker, Powerline

Rasmussen Reports charts the decline in President Obama's approval index--the difference between those likely voters who strongly approve and who strongly disapprove of his performance--from his inauguration to the present, on a monthly basis. What is striking is how stable the electorate's views of Obama have been. There isn't a lot of volatility or noise; the approval index has declined in steps as basic facts about the Obama administration have become evident:

Michael Barone, responding to a liberal's question, tries to explain where all the Obamamaniacs have gone. In a summer and early fall that were dominated by popular expressions of opposition to the Democrats' legislative agenda, why couldn't Obama mobilize the supporters who were so visible last year?

As the above chart suggests, some of them may find their enthusiasm waning. Michael adds:

Where have all those Obamenthusiasts who were so visible in 2008 been hiding this year? ...

Many Obamenthusiasts were thrilled by the idea of putting Obama in and getting George W. Bush out. They achieved their goal a year ago. What more is left? Did these people really expend all this energy to reduce the percentage of people without health insurance? "We are the change we are seeking," Obama said during the campaign. Well, the Obamenthusiasts got that change. Now they can go back to gardening or Sudoku.

I suspect that most gardeners are Republicans, but otherwise I think Michael is right. That's one of the problems with the politics of self-validation: when the election and ensuing self-congratulation are over, there isn't necessarily a lot of energy left for the nuts and bolts of public policy.

Gee, maybe you can get the Obama seal of approval too.... just by being his buddy and turning a blind eye on cue!

Image from HotAir

How Chicago culture affects and offends...

A WORD FROM KRISTOFER HARRISON

Posted by Scott Johnson, Powerline

Kristofer Harrison served as the Chief of Staff to the Counselor of the Secretary of State during the Bush administration. Mr. Harrison writes to comment on Paul Mirengoff's post "No class, bad character" on Dick Cheney's speech this past week, Stephen Hayes's Weekly Standard article "Obama's minions are ingrates," and my post on both of them, "No class, bad character: The inside story." Mr. Harrison writes:

You, Paul and Stephen have the story dead to rights. I was involved in the the Bush administration's 2008 Afghanistan review and it was every bit as in depth and serious as the one several years earlier for Iraq. It involved many of the same people who helped conduct Gen. McChrystal's recent review and included Democrats, Republicans, our British allies, Afghans, etc. The strategy put forward was sound and competent, and carbon-copy similar to the one that President Obama announced in March.

It is also true that team Obama was briefed on this review before assuming office. In fact, we began briefing both campaigns even before the election. I don't remember the dates, but well before the election we began bringing together the national security teams from both campaigns for in-depth briefing sessions under the auspices of the Aspen Institute. These were long events where Bush administration cabinet-level officials spent days -- yes, days -- briefing the two candidates' advisers. After the election we began spending hours with the transition team on the details of the plan and the situation on the ground.

It is also true that Obama's transition team asked us to hold the Afghanistan review findings, a request to which President Bush acquiesced because (as it was relayed to me) he did not want to box the new president into a narrow set of options. In March, when Obama announced his new Afghanistan strategy, I did not notice a single change from the new plan that we had given him...only Obama did not resource it with enough troops.

The Chicago mob's behavior is unbelievably unseemly. Here they were given an immense amount of material, a complete strategic review and plan with the author's heading left blank. President Bush felt it was his duty to do so. And all Obama can do is smear president Bush, even after he filled his own name into the author's column.

Obama seems not to understand that it is not President Bush who is suffering here. Rather, it is our under-resourced soldiers in Afghanistan who are suffering. Obama has had his hands on this plan for a full year now, and he's done virtually nothing except play politics. He needs to give our soldiers the resources to succeed, and then help create the political atmosphere so that they have time to succeed. It seems he has the intestinal fortitude to do neither. Weak, weak, weak.

Thoughts on Health Care Reform from Mike Walker

It is sad that some politicians are cutting special deals and some rich lobbying groups are drooling at the prospect of how much money they are going to make out of health care reform, but I have never lived in a perfect world and never expect perfection out of Washington D.C.

Just don't tell me that the politicians and lobbyists for the health insurance companies or the trial lawyers are putting our Country ahead of their own selfish interests. Be assured, probably sooner rather than later, the rest of are going to be taking money out of wallets and handing it to the lobbyist's minions with the blessing of our elected officials.

But I also refuse to make a demand for perfection the enemy of doing a good. And we are on the verge of doing a wonderful good.

It is such a fine thing to know that in the very near future, millions of American who need but cannot afford health care will be protected. It also renews my faith in our great Country that good and decent people will no longer be denied health care coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

The comfort in that outweighs my anger over the fat cats getting richer and there is always the chance that they may someday get their just deserts.

After that, I lose my enthusiasm for the political nabob’s agendas. This is especially true in the case of a proposed government-run health insurance company, some "Halloween-esque" morph of Fannie Med or Freddie Doc. It will be a disaster.

From a fiscal perspective, a government-run health care company will behave like the old schoolyard bully who is hungry and wants the other kid’s lunch money.

He will come up on the unsuspecting and defenseless kids at the playground and offer two options: Give me your lunch money now or I will beat it out of you (through punitive legislation) and then take your lunch money anyway. Fork it over, kid.

The bully cares not if it is a boy or girl, happy or sad, good or bad, because when he is hungry it is all a matter of “mind over matter.” The bully does not mind stealing the lunch money and the poor kid does not matter.

So at the end of day, the government bully will be getting fatter and fatter and the other kids will be going home hungry.

A government-run health care business is not good for Americans. It is not good for America.

We can and must do better

Warm regards,

Mike

Obama Hits Opponents With Chicago Brass Knuckles

by Michael Barone, Townhall.com

"His father was a great friend of my father." The reference to William Ayers' father was how Mayor Richard M. Daley began his defense of Barack Obama for his association with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Daley's father, of course, was Richard M. Daley, mayor of Chicago from 1955 until his death in 1976. Ayers' father was head of Commonwealth Edison, the Chicago-based utility, from 1964 to 1980.

You bet they were great friends. That's governance, Chicago style. The head of government is friends with the heads of every big business, lobby and union, and together they make decisions on how everyone else will live. Those on the inside get what they want. Those on the outside -- well, they get what the big guys want them to have. That's life in the big city.

It's not the worst way to run a city. I know -- I'm from Detroit, which might be better off if it had mayors named Daley for 41 of the last 54 years. But it's not the optimal way to run a national administration, at least if you've promised to bring in a new era of bipartisanship and mutual respect. Even so, it appears to be the way that Barack Obama, who once aspired to be mayor of Chicago, has decided to run his administration.

We can see that nowhere better than on the health care issue. Over the spring and summer, the White House door has been wide open to lobbyists from health care businesses. The doctors' lobby has gotten promises that physician payments won't be knocked down too much. In return, they are expected to lobby for whatever bill the congressional Democrats come up with.

The pharmaceutical firms' lobbyist, former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, has gotten assurances that his clients' business model won't be wrecked any more than it already has been by stringent regulation. In return PhRMA is running TV ads for health care reform.

The health insurance companies were on board, too. Until, that is, Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus presented his bill requiring them to cover anyone who applies but exacting only small fines from healthy individuals who decide not to buy insurance until they get sick. Since this looked like a quick road to bankruptcy, the health insurers' lobby commissioned a study that pointed out, correctly I think, that the Baucus bill would increase the cost of insurance to those who already have it.

The response of the Chicago-style Obama White House was reminiscent of the response of the late Mayor Daley when asked an inconvenient question by a reporter whose father and brother were Democratic precinct committeemen. "Sometimes in the best of families, there's a bad apple," replied Daley, to the bewilderment of reporters from out of town. A bad apple is, in Chicago, a former great friend who is not playing team ball.

So the health insurers have been denounced by White House spokesmen and Democratic congressional leaders as foul fiends and gougers of working families. Prominent Democrats have been talking about revoking insurance companies' exemption from the antitrust laws (granted so that small firms would have access to data needed to compete with the giants). Translated into Chicagoese: Nice little insurance company you got there. Too bad if something happened to it.

The same treatment is being given to Fox News, which according to White House spokesmen, "is not a news organization." "Other news organizations, like yours," Obama consigliere David Axelrod told ABC News, "ought not to treat them that way."

In other words, when Fox breaks the news that the White House green czar is a self-proclaimed "Communist" or that operatives of pro-Obama ACORN have been aiding and abetting child prostitution, other news outlets should spike the story. Or risk being demoted from great friend to bad apple.

Last February, Obama told Fox News (to which I am a contributor), "I don't always get my most favorable coverage on Fox, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we're not supposed to all be in lockstep here."

Now we are. Maybe Obama thought everyone in Washington would be his great friend. Having encountered un-Chicago-like dissent and disagreement, he has responded with classic Chicago brass knuckles. We'll see how far this kind of thuggery gets him.