IRAQ: CRITICAL TO AMERICA'S FUTURE

If it comes down to guessing who'd prevail -- Hillary or the speeding train? -- I'd be inclined to bet on her.

Please help this site become one of the most influential on the Web. You can do that by sending a link to friends (and political sympathizers) and urging them to visit. It's: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. The number of visitors on my "Hillary" site quintupled today. If we could keep that up for 30 days or so, the number of visitors would equal the population of China. :-) They do have computers there, don't they?

As many of you know, I'm deeply involved in a growing national movement to reach out to people who support Sen. Clinton in the presidential primaries -- and get them to vote for John McCain in the general election. As many as 10 million Clinton supporters nationally say they will -- or might -- vote for McCain. If he gets most of those votes, he will win the election. My view of Sen. Clinton is this: yes, I disagree with her on many (even most) issues. No, I don't regard her as "the Witch of Endor." In Pennsylvania, she impressed many of us -- however reluctant we might have been -- with her personal grit and the ferocity of her campaign. In short, in a street-fight I want her on my side. As for Obama, in said street-fight I want him to hold my coat (and Hillary's). I have an important column up today on my new -- and, to my amazement, popular! -- site: http://HillarySupportersforMcCain.blogspot.com ("Hatchets Hacking Away at Hillary"). Please visit and, if you'd like, let me know your thoughts. You can leave comments on the blog or write me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. There's also a lot of discussion of Hillary voters on the important new McCain site: http://mccainnow.com. Please check out "McCainNow."








A site you might truly enjoy -- and part of an important national movement -- is: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/. Please visit (and return)

"I am in earnest; I will not equivocate; I will not excuse; I will not retreat a single inch; and I will be heard." -- William Lloyd Garrison


Dr. Paul Kengor, distinguished political scientist at Grove City College and expert on Ronald Reagan and many other subjects, asked me about my appearance last night on Eric Dondero BlogTalkRadio show LIBERTARIAN POLITICS LIVElibertarian, Republican, Libertarian Party, libertari

Paul, you can find an archived version by by going to Eric Dondero's site (click above). It's available for at least a week on "Podcast." It was one of the most amazing experiences I've had in many years.

Dr. Murray Sabrin, candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat in NJ, is a nice man with great views on the economy, but he disagrees with McCain on Iraq. He cited poll numbers that showed 70% of NJ voters "want out" of Iraq. I told him that "70% of NJ voters are dead wrong on that."

Eric Dondero, talk show host and a Navy vet, and I attacked Sabrin's views rather ferociously. I told him (essentially) that if we flee Iraq and al Qaeda takes over in the MidEast the price of oil will be $250 a barrel and our economy and civil society will be destroyed.

I also said that the primary goal of Mideast extremists is "to kill Jews . . . and to destroy Israel." Dr. Sabrin is Jewish and his father was an officer in the Polish Army in WW II. I read a statement by Marina Kats (also a Jew and born in Russia), who's a Republican candidate for Allyson Schwartz's seat, where Marina says she'd like to get out of Iraq as soon as possible but only when it's "safe" to do so -- and serves our "national security" needs.

Eric and I both "accused" (not in a mean way) Dr. Sabrin, Obama, and others of wanting a "Fortress America," an approach that would only encourage terrorists and eventually result in more 9/11 disasters.

I asked Dr. Sabrin, "Don't you think John McCain knows -- more than any other American -- about the horrors and tragedies of war?'

Dr. Sabrin pointed out that we hadn't yet captured Osama bin Laden. I said that was true -- and a black mark on U.S. intelligence, but that we had captured Khalid Sheik Muhammed (KSM), "the architect of 9/11." I said there was some concern about the treatment of KSM, but I didn't give a hoot about what happened with him. I said, "If they boil him in oil, it's better than he deserves." I added that the ACLU was probably in Guantanamo seeing if KSM needed an additional pillow and extra copies of the Koran.

I mentioned with great respect the campaign of retired Marine Colonel Tom Manion (against Patrick Murphy). Col. Manion's son, Travis, a Naval Academy graduate, was killed in Iraq.Eric emphasized that there's a disconnect between war opponents and the soldiers who are serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan).

Eric noted that the soldiers' job is, if necessary, "to die for their country." They don't want to die, but they are willing to pay that price. I cited some wonderful young Marines I know (Adam and Matt) who have served several tours in garden spots that include Fallujah and that absolutely fall into the category described by Eric.

I called attention to Barack Obama's statement that if things went to Hades in a handbasket if we withdrew precipitously from Iraq, then President Obama might "reinvade." I pointed out that his irresponsible statement showed Obama was totally detached from the realities in the MidEast and was pandering to the extreme Left.

Near the end of the program I talked about the candidacies of John McCain and (congressional candidates) Melissa Hart, Toni Gilhooley, Michael Livingston, Tom Manion, and Marina Kats. I said that some of them might lose -- and in fact all of them might lose. But if they did, they would not be going "gentle into that good night," but rather go down with guns blazing. My support for them it total because they are absolutely outstanding human beings.(I've added some phrases above for clarification.

I haven't done justice to Eric's wonderful assertion of his own love for America and its servicemen and servicewomen. He said the VA, operating under very difficult circumstances, is doing a "wonderful" job treating American soldiers.

On a past show, Eric Dondero, who has some unusual guests, had me on as a guest with a transvestite "libertarian" from Kansas. At one point on that show I promised that I would move to Kansas to vote for him (her?). Actually, I plan to stay in Ambridge.

All in all, I was very proud to be on the show last night and to have a partner like Eric. I think we are both sick of the "fantasy debate" that usually goes on about the war in Iraq. People who oppose the war have a right to their opinions, but they must make every effort not to frame the debate in a way that endangers the lives of men and women defending this country.

Conservative Blasts Anti-American Cliches

In the following exchange, Randy, a member of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo basically destroys the standard (anti-U.S., anti-military) points made by David. You might look at “David” as a version of Barack or Michelle Obama – and see Randy as a version of John McCain. I invite all bloggers to use this material on their own sites. Randy is truly a remarkable analyst. As I mentioned to several friends, one of the best "advertisements" for America is that it develops people like Randy.

[Randy} Is there any evidence that we really are an imperialist nation that wants to seize the territory of other countries?

[David} it's naive to think of global power and influence exclusively in terms of real estate or "territory."

[Randy] It is far more naive to think that territorial and political control is not the core and strongest method of imperialism. "Influence" is like weak tea by comparison, since it is nearly impossible to enforce. If "territorial imperialism" and "influence imperialism" are the same, then you would find it no more offensive if we took over every country that had natural resources that we wanted? I think not. Try to be a little bit serious. Influence is usually gained by consent, whereas REAL imperialism and political control are enforced by military power. This list [the Black Conservatives Group] is not the "Franz Fanon Anti-West Society,” so don't try to make leftist claims. This list is for conservatives.

[David] up until the Iraq adventure, the US military was well on its way towards defining power

[Randy] The U.S. military does not define power; it follows the orders of the civilian leadership.

[David] [The U.S. relies on] increasingly abstract phrases like "winning hearts and minds."

[Randy] So you think that the U.S. military is the inventor behind some grand conspiracy of "winning hearts and minds" by making American movies and fast foods popular in the Third World, while we overpay for oil instead of just taking it? Why don't you tell us how that works? If you had actually understood the phrase, you'd know that it wasn't some abstraction – and it wasn't even an American invention. Instead, it was formalized by the British during the Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) regarding a technique of counter-insurgency warfare, not regarding a method of influencing sovereign foreign governments at a distance.

[David} And "defending US interests" is a catch-all phrase that can include things as divergent as energy resources, geographical regions, and language.

[Randy] Are you historically illiterate? Every country throughout history has been "defending their interests" including "things as divergent as energy resources, geographical regions, and language." This is not some new invention that the "evil" U.S. military just recently created. Nothing abstract about it. [David] Here's some stuff that can't be reduced to a bumper sticker for either "side" of the lamest American cultural impasse since slavery:[Randy] So, in your opinion, there is no reason to oppose the IslamoNazi terrorists anywhere, at any time? You suggest surrender as a better option? BTW, do you know how long the Islamics have been attacking the West?

[David] Iraqi deaths: 48769 US deaths: 4024(source: http://icasualties.org/oif/)[

David] it's tempting to try to state that one American life is worth approximately 12 Iraqi lives to make some kind of hollow point... but realistically, what does the asymmetry here mean?

[Randy] The number of lives lost in a war by each side has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong; who is the aggressor and who the defender is. Do you think that the U.S. was the immoral aggressor in WWII because we killed more Germans and Japanese than they killed Americans? Only a manipulator would even try to make such a point. Is that what you are doing?

[David] we know that lots of it [the war and deaths] is Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence . . .

[Randy] The great majority is either Iraqi-on-Iraqi or foreign-terrorists-on-Iraqis. Just read the papers for a month and record how many of the deaths are caused by Iraqi or Al Qaeda "death squads" and IEDs. 80-90%

[David] .. . But lots of it [the war] is also civilian deaths at the business end of U.S. munitions

[Randy] Not lots, fairly rare in fact. U.S. bombs occasionally cause collateral civilian casualties, and sometimes Iraqi civilians get caught in the crossfire of a battle. But if we were less selective, the civilian death toll would be much higher--no other country tries as hard to avoid killing civilians. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to support your claims. Otherwise, rethink your premises.

[David] And nobody can deny that the secular violence is directly related to US actions.

[Randy] Oh, sure. We interrupted a Utopia on earth. There was never any sectarian violence in the Middle East until we invaded. And the earth is flat. And bad air causes malaria. The U.S. is the root of all evil. Bwahahahaha!

[David] Neither "side" (American left or right) can really tell anyone when enough is enough

[Randy] Have you ever read ANYTHING about military strategy or action? What caused you to decide that this was even a proper criterion for analyzing the proper time to end a war? The side that is losing can stop the war at any time by laying down their arms. And the U.S. does not summarily execute those who surrender, unlike the Nazis or Imperial Japanese or the Cambodian Khmer Rouge.

[David] ... obviously there is no upper limit on Iraqi deaths that would convince a generic "conservative" that it was time to end the war[Randy] As I noted above, that isn't even a valid criterion. Unless, of course, you can show some logical connection between number of casualties and the aims of any war.

[David] and there is probably no upper limit on the number of American casualties either -- 100 years in Iraq.

[Randy] If we stayed there [in Iraq] for 100 years at the present fatality rate, that would be 48,000 dead at 480 per year. Not desirable, but not exactly unsustainable, either. More soldiers are lost in training and traffic deaths each year. BTW, we have had a substantial number of troops in Germany for 63 years since the end of WWII, and I'm sure you will agree that the losses have not been very large, other than traffic deaths. Same effect with Japan and South Korea.

[David] On the other hand, generic liberals are stupid if they think that any of the Democrats’ plans for drawing down troops will actually get us to divest anything financially or UN-build all our military bases, not to mention the single biggest and most fortified embassy in the world.All liberal catch-phrases define US power in obsolete terms. but the "freedom isn't free" and "if you can read this in English, thank a soldier" bumper sticker crowd is no different.

[Randy] Everything about your e-mail sounds just like the Communists and Leftists I know, or their books I have read. Are you on the right [Yahoo] list, or are you just trolling?

____________________________________

My comments are interleaved and identified as [Randy].

Randy