A year and a half ago, when we graded the president on fulfilling Reagan’s legacy, I wondered if we spent so much defending him because:

his critics, particularly those on the gay left, make such outlandish (and very often inaccurate) accusations against him. Had they made more responsible critiques, they might find us less critical of them.

As our report card showed, we found that the president deserved criticism in a number of areas, most notably federal spending and federalism.

Too often it seems that the president’s critics come from the fringes. They fault him not only for his policies, but at the same time also accuse him of being a horrible, no good, very bad person, seeing his position only as a means of power for himself and of financial gain for his cronies.

Yet, conservatives bloggers (and pundits) have, like us, taken issue with the president in a civil manner. We have even on occasion found such civil criticism on liberal web-sites and editorial pages.

These past few weeks, I have been reading about two books, each of which (at least according to the reviews I have read) offers some pretty judicious criticism of the president without, at the same time, faulting him for being simultaneously dark, dangerous and dastardly. Last night, I bought Alan Greenspan’s The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World and immediately started reading it. (To be sure, the book is a memoir of the immediate past Federal Reserve chair, more than just a critique of the current administration.)

While Matthew Benjamin calls the tome gift to Democrats and grenade for Republicans, I see it instead as a tonic for my party. In the book, the former Federal Reserve chairman reportedly skewers “President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans for what he said was reckless spending and a politically driven economic agenda and said they deserved to lose control of Congress in 2006.” We Republicans need this reminder that if we attempt to retain power by sacrificing our principles, we will be left bereft, standing for nothing and out of power.

In the second book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, Jack Goldsmith considers his time as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department where he advised the president on the laws governing the War on Terror.

While many of the reviews have focused on Goldsmith’s criticism of the president’s methods, he also notes, in Michael Barone’s words, how “the administration has been strangled by law, and since September 11, 2001, this war has been lawyered to death.” From what I’ve read about the book, it seems Goldsmith gets at one of the key flaws of the president, that he did not work as well with Congress as he could (and should) have. Barone writes:

argues that the administration would have ended up with more latitude in fighting terrorism if it had worked with Congress to get legislation, even if those laws would not have been as expansive as the administration wanted. It’s a serious argument, and he also presents fairly

It’s too bad that more critics of the president don’t make the effort as Goldsmith and Greenspan apparently have to make such serious arguments in a similarly fair manner.

As my schedule permits, I look forward to reading both books. Let us hope as well that other Republicans take the time to consider these two conservatives’ criticism lest they repeat the mistakes of the incumbent and his party in recent years.

Today, I received yet another e-mail from Log Cabin, imploring me to write to my Member of Congress, telling “them to vote YES ” on on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). While I certainly agree with the spirit behind the legislation to protect workers from discrimination based on their (as Log Cabin’s release puts it) “sexual orientation or gender identity,” I oppose this legislation because it prevents private businesses from setting their own employment policies.

While Log Cabin and other gay groups have been pushing Congress to pass this intrusive law, limiting the freedom of private organizations, many private companies have already shown a willingness to ban discrimination in their own companies. According to a recent piece in the Advocate, 432 (or 92%) of Fortune 500 companies “include sexual orientation in their employment nondiscrimination policies.” That’s up from 323 (or 65%) just 4 years ago. And to think this happened during a time when there was a Republican in the White House and for most of that time, with Republican majorities in both House of Congress.

So, despite a government cool to state action on behalf of gays, the private sector continued to recognize the importance of attracting top-notch employees who happened to be gay or lesbian.

WIth more and more companies offering such protections, ENDA and similar legislation has become increasingly gratuitous. And conservatives, at least those who hold true to the principles articulated by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, should be skeptical about any unnecessary legislation, especially when such laws increase the power of the state and limit the freedom of private organizations.

Instead of focusing on being liked by other gay organizations, it’s time that Log Cabin stand true to the principles of our party. They should instead focus on developing a legislative agenda based on those conservative and libertarian principles to confront problems we gay people face which the private sector cannot solve.

At the top of the agenda would be some kind of recognition of same-sex unions, with the priority being given to opening up immigration to partners from other lands and to allowing individuals to determine who can visit them in the hospital. And to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell and allow gay people to serve openly in the military.

Being conservatives, we understand that we may not be able to accomplish even that modest agenda in the near future, so would need to develop strategies to pass it incrementally, perhaps by starting with legislation that allows gay people to serve openly in non-combat roles in the military — while commissioning a study to determine the effect of open service on morale.*

Whatever the specifics of this agenda, it must have at its core not a commitment to the term of the gay left, “equality,” but focus on that idea which has inspired the founders of this great nation as well as the founders and great leaders of our own party, “freedom.”

So, I offer this challenge to Log Cabin–provide your conservative bona fides. Develop a freedom agenda for gay people. And thus you can both support the principles of our party — and promote a better society for gay Americans.

*****
*Yes, I know there have been several studies. And that’s one reason I favor this study. We know what the results will be, but perhaps if it’s promoted with greater fanfare, it might get more public attention than have previous studies.

UPDATE: On a similar note, Eric Scheie writes today about freedom:

What I have never been able to understand is how opposition to laws against something is seen as support for whatever conduct the law would prohibit. I try to be polite to people, but I oppose criminalizing rudeness. For example, I would oppose the criminalization of words I would never use. How does that mean I advocate using them? There’s a movement to criminalize the “n” word which I oppose. Does that mean I believe in what they call “license” to use the word? Not at all.

(Emphasis added.)

He adds:

My complaint is with a society that has become so paralyzed that individuals and businesses are increasingly unable take any individual initiative. It leads to grotesque big brotherism, and I think the rise of the nanny state is directly related to the mentality that only the government can prohibit anything.

It’s a good essay and I would love to excerpt more, but that might prevent you from reading the whole thing–something I highly recommend. Via Instapundit.

UP-UPDATE: Shortly after posting this piece, I e-mailed Log Cabin’s Patrick Sammon alerting him to this. He wrote back and with his permission I am posting his response which appears below the jump. I may (at a later date) respond to his comments in a separate e-mail.

(more…)

German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung is under fire for declaring that he would order a hijacked passenger jet to be shot down if it were being used in a terror attack, despite last year’s Constitutional Court ruling that it would be illegal. (Spiegel)

I’m stunned at the gross level of sheer stupidity in this. I’m not speaking about Minister Jung, though he should have answered with the vague that “all options would be considered”. The highest court in Germany has intervened in matters of national defense and severely weakened their country. I echo Hot Air‘s question of “If the court was meeting as the hijacked plane was zooming toward it, would the court change its no shoot down ruling?” If the people of Berlin, Hamburg, Muncih, or Frankfurt ever have to face a day like this…

…one wonders what their opinions of this decision will be afterwards. God help us from such useful idiots who mistakenly believe they are doing good. Of course, the fact that Germany has a “union representing the interests of military personnel” is breath-taking in itself, but that’s another matter.

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Roger Simon had a post yesterday which reminded me of one I had written just about two years ago. Commenting on the Rinky Dink Antiwar Demonstrations this past weekend, Roger finds their turnout “pretty pathetic.”

Two years ago, I had asked, If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller? And the rallies are still shrinking, smaller this year than they were in 2005. Back then, they were only a fraction on what they had been at the outset of the war. By contrast, in the Vietnam era, the rallies kept getting bigger as the war progressed.

Roger ponders the meaning of the increasingly sparsely-attended demonstrations:

What’s interesting is why this low turnout when, according to many polls, the public is supposedly massively against the war. If they are so antiwar, they certainly are pretty apathetic about it. This is another example of why Iraq is not Vietnam when filling the streets with demonstrators was a simple matter.

This also may mean that the public opinion polls themselves are not a decent measure of how people really feel. Although pollsters try, polls in general are particularly poor at measuring the depth of people’s convictions or natural human ambivalence. Ambivalent people don’t tend to get on a bus to go to a demonstration.

Something for Republicans to think about before looking to the latest polls to determine which way they intend vote on a certain issue. For that matter, it’s something the Democrats should also consider.

UPDATE (09.19) Hugh alerts us to this Politico piece which echoes my point:

But unlike during the Vietnam era, when the size and strength of street protests gradually grew over time, the Iraq war initially produced massive demonstrations that have since petered out. On Saturday, only about 20,000 gathered for what was billed a major peace march.

When watching coverage of the Democrats’ New York presidential Primary Debate in March, 1992, I had the sense that Bill Clinton* would win his party’s nomination. He simply looked like more of leader than did his two then-opponents, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown.

I had once maintained that his wife could never win the Democratic presidential nomination. While she had her husband’s last name, a name as beloved among Democrats as it is hated among Republicans, she lacked his presence, his charisma. Whereas he comes across as warm and caring, a man who cares about your problems, she comes across as cold and calculating, someone most interested in furthering her own ambition.

Watching the campaign so far, I have, however, changed my mind. A feeling similar to the one which came upon me all of a sudden in March of 1992 has been growing on me for some time. It’s not so much that Hillary appears any more presidential than she did in the past. It’s just that she’s been the weakness (and/or ineptness) of her opponents makes her look, by contrast, more like a leader.

She must be laughing when conservative bloggers (& pundits), some of them her harshest critics, delight in lampooning her two strongest opponents, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Those two Democrats do seem to get more flak than she does.

Hillary has benefited from the focus on these hapless men. Obama’s gaffes have made him appear less like a leader with each passing day. At the same time, Edwards’ opportunism, tapering his political views to fit those of the angry leftists who play a key role in his party’s nomination process, makes people see him as someone who would do anything to get elected (a charge leveled against her).

I wonder how she would do if she had a serious opponent. I mean, a lot of Democrats initially flocked to Senator Obama’s campaign largely because they saw his charisma as an antidote to her less-than-inspiring demeanor. Had he been able to combine that charisma with substance, he would likely be giving his Senate colleague a run for the money.

In contrast to her opponents, she appears level-headed and sensible. Combine that with her intelligence, discipline and determination** and you have a formidable candidate.

Whether the Norma Hsu scandal will put a dent in her standing among Democrats remains to be seen. Dean Barnett may be on to something when he writes that, “When it comes time to raise campaign funds, the Clintons employ grifters like Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ickes.  When they get caught breaking the law, no one cares.” He may well be right.

I do think this scandal (combined with her decision to rely on Sandy Berger as a key foreign policy advisor even after he plead guilty to “charges of taking classified material without authorization“) will certainly help cement her negatives, but without a credible alternative, the episodes will likely not prevent her from steamrollering her way to the Democratic nomination.

Whether she will be able to build on the momentum she will no doubt gain should she (as I expect) secure her party’s nomination in early February depends how she holds up when the focus is on her. Will these scandals matter more to the independent voters she’ll need to sway in order to win in the fall? Or will she benefit from a divided Republican Party?

That remains to be seen, but for now, Hillary Clinton should be feeling quite fortunate for the opponents she attracted. Had a charismatic Democrat stepped forward who could provide evidence of leadership while rallying his party’s base, I daresay we’d be seeing a much different race for he Democratic nomination, not one where a former First Lady maintains a double-digit lead over her rivals.

*********

*Yup, that’s the place where he made his infamous, “I didn’t inhale” comment.

**I am somewhat indebted to blogger Jonathan Adler for this expression. He wrote that Mrs. Clinton is “intelligent, savvy, disciplined, and determined; by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field” (H/t: Instapundit). I would only add that given this Democratic field, it isn’t too hard to become the most impressive.

[GP Ed. Note - This is a guest posting from GP Reader "I Love Capitalism "]

**************

Following MoveOn.org’s contemptible attack on the patriotism of General Petraeus, one of the sillier comments to be heard from some of the ad’s defenders is along the lines, ‘How is this any different from the Swift Boat Vet attacks on Kerry in the 2004 election?’ For example, Senator Dick Durbin tried it on the Senate floor.

The Swift Vets and POWs for Truth apparently got under the skin of the Left in 2004. All manner of falsehoods and conspiracies are now attributed to their perceived members. For example, just recently, more than one Kos diarist wanted to tie them to an alleged plot to ‘steal’ California’s electoral votes. (Yeah. Weird.)

That the Swift Vets allegedly “lied” and “stole” the 2004 election has become an article of faith, not to be disputed, among the MSM-Left-Nutroots in their soundproof echo chamber. Even MSM editorials willing to criticize the attack on Petraeus will breezily cite the SVPfT as examples of “libel”. Let’s note here that Kerry’s supporters tried to muzzle the SVPfT ads at the time on grounds of allegedly being libelous, and wanted Kerry to sue the Swift Vets for libel, but Kerry avoided a courtroom showdown and now he will never sue them. (Scared much, John?)

In any case, MoveOn.org’s attacks on Petraeus are, in fact, different from SVPfT’s on Kerry. Here’s why.

Who they are: The Swift Vets and POWs were a case of decorated, honorable veterans – including Bud Day from the POW side, the most-decorated U.S. veteran still living – in a dispute with a fellow veteran running for office, John F. Kerry. MoveOn.org, by contrast, is a bunch of civilian politicos attacking, not a long-ago veteran running for political office, but a currently-serving general.

Who they’re affecting: The Swift Vets were in dispute with Kerry over matters past. By contrast, to the extent MoveOn.org’s attack on Petraeus will have any meaning or impact, it must and will be to undermine the morale of U.S. troops in the field today.

Who started it: Kerry started the dispute with his Swift Vet comrades and commanders when he publicly – and falsely – smeared them as war criminals. Needless to say, Petraeus had done nothing of the kind to anyone at MoveOn.org.

How they know: The Swift Vets served with Kerry (or commanded him), and knew him personally. They objected to Kerry’s fitness as a potential Commander-in-Chief because of incidents that occurred in their own direct, personal experience of him.Click here to see who some of the Swift Vets were and are.

MoveOn.org speaks with no comparable authority, as regards Petraeus’ character or actions in “betraying” anyone.

What they’re after: Contrary to left-liberal myth, the Swift Vets represented a broad spectrum of American political opinion, including “Democrats, Republicans and Independents” (and also the occasional Green, and the occasional Constitutionalist). As a young man, their leader John O’Neill pointedly told President Nixon he was a Democrat. Later, O’Neill contributed to some Republican candidates, but also voted for Al Gore in 2000. Their motive truly was that they believed that Kerry – given his record of slandering the United States, its military, and them – would make the worst possible Commander-in-Chief.

By contrast, MoveOn.org represents only the far Left, and even pretends to own the Democratic Party.

The state of their evidence: The Swift Vets had prime evidence against Kerry, including not only their own first-hand experiences, but also Kerry’s own words in slandering the United States, and them. Some of their most important ads did nothing but present Kerry’s own words and actions.

How can the same be said of MoveOn’s shameful, sleazy allegations about Petraeus? MoveOn.org cites as its “evidence”, things like the fact that Petraeus had thought we were making progress in Iraq back in December 2004 – which indeed we were at the time, before the Golden Mosque bombing of early 2006. Kerry, in sharp contrast to Petraeus, really did betray America by meeting with its enemies to directly give them political aid and comfort.

I could go on, but let’s sum up.
- Attacked a general currently serving us well in the field: MoveOn.org
- Only attacked a politician running for office: Swift Vets
- Had served with their target, and knew his poor character from personal experience: Swift Vets
- Attacked only in response to their target’s earlier scurrilous attacks on them: Swift Vets
- Represented a political-cross section, attacking essentially from a non-partisan and personal kind of concern: Swift Vets
- Had incontrovertible evidence against their target, including his own words in his explicitly condemning and turning on America: Swift Vets

Advantage: Swift Vets.

**UPDATE** – Log Cabin’s President Patrick Sammon has issued a statement….

“We condemn Moveon.org’s baseless attacks on General Petraeus.  These
irresponsible allegations harm our nation’s ability to continue making
progress in Iraq.”

*******************

ORIGINAL POST:

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out…. but even I was surprised at the extensive web of money connections between MoveOn.org and America’s top gay organizations:  Human Rights Campaign, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Log Cabin Republicans.

If the American gay community has any decency and honor and truly “supports the troops” they need to prove it now. 

I would ask everyone who is involved with these organizations to contact them immediately.  Urge the HRC, NGLTF and LCR  to immediately denounce the “Betray Us” ad attacking General Petraeus.  

In addition, our gay mainstream organizations need to sever all financial ties they have with MoveOn.org.  That would include direct financial connections, as well as their relationships with the George Soros-umbrella organization – America Votes — that directly connects MoveOn.org with the American gay mainstream organizations using the money of their dues-paying members.

Finally, the corporate partners that support HRC and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force need to know that these groups have direct financial and working relationships with MoveOn.org.  These corporate partners also need to withdraw support to HRC and NGLTF unless these two organizations denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad from MoveOn.org.  

The Human Rights Campaign’s corporate partners include:  American Airlines, Citigroup, IBM, Ernst & Young, Chase Bank, Dell, Motorola, Nike, Merrill Lynch and Showtime Cable Network.

The NGLTF’s corporate partners include: American Airlines, WellsFargo Bank, Here! Cable Network, and Bacardi.

Also, WellsFargo Bank has received direct financial expenditures from MoveOn.org, so they should have a special role in denouncing the Petraeus/Betray Us ad.

First, Andrew Tobias who is one of the Human Rights Campaign’s biggest political and money supporters, and who is also the Treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, is listed as one of the top individual contributors to MoveOn.org from the 2004 cycle.  Tobias has given to MoveOn.org since the 2004 elections as well.

Now, we move to Tim Gill of the Gill Foundation.  As you know, I’ve repeatedly reported in the past on Gill’s extensive political involvement and contributions to America’s gay organizations…. especially his connections to Log Cabin Republicans.  Former LCR head, Patrick Guerriero is now an employee of the Gill Foundation and though LCR has refused to provide the details, I have laid out a strong case that Gill helped fund the $1M TV ad campaign that LCR ran in 2004 targeting President Bush in key battleground states.

Finally, both Gill and Tobias have contributed to the Soros-umbrella organization “America Votes“.  This organization is the web that connects the money trail between MoveOn.org and the major American gay organizations:  HRC, NGLTF, and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.  These groups, plus MoveOn.org are direct financial and political partners under the Soros/”America Votes” umbrella.

Gill’s large individual contributions to “America Votes” and his extensive ties to Log Cabin Republicans should be a major concern to LCR and encourage them to denounce the Petraeus/Betray Us ad and ask Tim Gill to do the same.

So that’s what I got so far, gang.  I know there is a lot more.  Many contributors to “America Votes” are also involved and/or contributors to all of the major American gay organizations. 

If any of you would like to take this research further…. I’ll be happy to update it as I get more information from you.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

So writes LSU student opinion writer Michael Denton found in the latest issue of The Daily Reveille. After an dizzying mish-mash of pseudo-science, religious objections to homosexuality and quite a bit of uber-conservative political commentary that would make the extreme Right proud, Denton concludes his piece with the following:

America needs to grow in self-confidence on this debate. The homosexual argument is illogical; sexuality is obviously meant for reproduction. Any sexual activity that is opposed to life is intrinsically disordered. Yet we continue to refuse to stand up for ourselves, allowing courts, school boards and speech codes to dictate political correctness to us.

There are few greater debates in America today. The gay marriage issue threatens marriage and the family, which are the very foundations of society. Unless America decides to stand for something in this case, we’ll continue to fall. When we land, we might not get back up.

The irony here is that I would be the first person to defend his right to hold this view (speech codes are indeed unconstitutional), along with his right to freely practice his religion, yet he cannot find it within himself to extend the same to me or anyone else who is gay. Heck, I myself find much to object among “gay activists”. Yet nowhere in the Constitution is there a right for Mr. Denton or even a majority of this country to impose their religious beliefs onto society. If such were the case than interracial marriage would have remained illegal in Lousiana and much of the South for far longer than the late 1960s. It is even more bitter irony that a Catholic of all people would have forgotten exactly what such a zealous attitude in the past meant to his fellow believers at the ‘loving’ hands of some non-Catholics. If it is a debate on religious doctrine and homosexuality that Mr. Denton desires, that is fine and he’ll undoubtedly find someone who’ll accept the challenge. Pharsea (cached version) might enjoy discussing the late JPII’s Theology of the Body as it relates to this matter. Yet his argument in this piece boils down to a religious objection to homosexuality that is irrelevant and blatantly unconstitutional in the public arena. My rights and yours are not subject to the whims of the majority.

(h/t Good As You)

– John (Average Gay Joe)

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Several things struck me today when I read about the decision of the University of California at Irvine (UCI) to rescind its offer of the deanship of its new law school to Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s top liberal constitutional law scholars. The school deemed the outspoken professor “politically controversial.” Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake said “Chemerinsky’s political views would make him a target for criticism from conservatives.”

It was not just that in its article on the rescission that the LA Times identified him as “liberal.” When a professor is outspoken, mainstream newspapers tend only to identify his political/philosophical leanings if he is right of center.

But, what really struck me, impressed me indeed, was that a number of bloggers who themselves are right of center were quick to denounce the decision. Glenn Reynolds (the first to inform me of the decision) found the hiring and firing within one week “just weird,” noting the Chemerinsky was a “a nice, fair guy regardless of his politics.” Hugh Hewitt, more conservative than Glenn, labeled the decision UCI’s Disgrace. Hugh wrote:

It had selected my friend and regular radio guest Duke University Law School Professor Erwin Chemerinsky as the school’snew dean. Erwin is a man of the left, of course, but a remarkably distinguished and accomplished scholar who enjoys the esteem of professors, jurists and practitioners across the ideological spectrum.

Seems a liberal law professor who counts among his friends one of the nation’s most outspoken conservative bloggers would surely respect intellectual differences in a new law school. Such a man would not be likely to let his own political views prejudice his administrative responsibilities.

While I knew sometime in law school that I would likely never practice law, I completed my legal education, in large measure because I enjoyed the intellectual atmosphere at the University of Virginia (U-VA). One of my favorite professors was among the most left-wing. As I wrote in previous post:

In my last semester in law school, I chose a course with my second favorite law professor (one of the most liberal members of the U-VA Law faculty) over one (which met at the same hour) with my favorite professor (a conservative) because I thought I could learn more from teacher with whom I frequently disagreed.

That professor, while offering a challenging course, showed great respect to students who offered conservative viewpoints in class. U-VA was one of the few law schools where liberal and conservative students regularly conversed and even attended the events of each other’s organizations. It was indeed a most civil environment.

It would seem that a liberal law professor of Mr. Chemerinsky’s caliber, respected by his “ideological adversaries” might be able to create just such an environment at the new law school being created at the University of California at Irvine. Indeed, acknowledging that he’s a “liberal law professor,” Chemerinsky said, “My hope was that I’d address it [concern about his views] by making the law school open to all viewpoints..”

It’s unfortunate the school thought his viewpoints would get in the way of his intellectual leadership. And it says a lot about my favorite bloggers that they are standing up for a guy with whom they are often at odds on matters of politics and legal interpretation.

UPDATE: Just caught John Leo’s comments on the matter. He sees this as a “test case for conservatives who support free speech and argue vehemently against political tests for faculty and administration appointments.” He asks whether “these principles apply only to conservatives, or do they protect liberals as well” (Via Instapundit). Let us hope that conservatives who decry the bias against our philosophical allies on campuses stand up for a liberal who faces discrimination because of his ideas.

And it seems that Chemerinsky is cut from the same cloth as some of my liberal professors at U-VA. Leo notes that this liberal professor gave a student a 4.0 for a “Scalia-esque” final exam.

I’m in the mood to lighten things up a bit here.   So I wanted to share with y’all an email that made me laugh when I saw it in my In-Box today….

Cast Call — Seeking Extra Pirate Actors

For the “Invasion Of The Maritime Pirates” at the Greenport Maritime Festival, Greenport, Long Island, New York, September 22nd & 23rd. Seeking Pirates, Wenches, Mermaid & Runaway Gorilla. Travel stipend provided. Some meals provided. Will sail on the Schooner Mary E.
Also seeking stage/roadie crews with stipend pay.

Website: www.MaritimePirates.com (Click Auditions)

This of course comes just in advance of one of my favorite yearly holidays:  Talk Like A Pirate Day on September 19!

Arrrrrrggggggggggh!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just hitting the wires tonight…..

President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.

In a 15-minute address from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT, Bush will endorse the recommendations of his top general and top diplomat in Iraq, following their appearance at two days of hearings in Congress, administration officials said. The White House plans to issue a written status report on the troop buildup on Friday, they said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Bush’s speech is not yet final. Bush was rehearsing and polishing his remarks even as the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker were presenting their arguments for a second day on Capitol Hill.

In the speech, the president will say he understands Americans’ deep concerns about U.S. involvement in Iraq and their desire to bring the troops home, they said. Bush will say that, after hearing from Petraeus and Crocker, he has decided on a way forward that will reduce the U.S. military presence but not abandon Iraq to chaos, according to the officials.

Nancy Pelosi has already denounced the plan, content on allowing Iraqis to be abandoned to chaos and wanting al-Qaeda to claim victory over the United States. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Today, six years after the terror attacks on America, I once again dedicate this space to my lost friend, James Joe Ferguson, who was killed aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when that plane was used as a weapon and crashed into the Pentagon. This posting goes up at the exact time that plane was flown into the Pentagon six years ago this morning.

We miss you, Joe.
-Bruce and John

********************

The last time we had dinner, Joe told my partner John and I about how much he was looking forward to being a part of the bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark Expedition. Typically, I found myself jealous of him. In his role as Director of Geographic Education at the National Geographic Society, Joe had one of the most unique and rewarding jobs I can ever imagine having.

He traveled around the world, bringing American school children face-to-face with the natural wonders of our Earth. He was not only a teacher but also provided a critical turning point for these kids, many of whom had never before left their own neighborhoods. Joe provided the path for these students to experience things that many of us never will in our entire lives.

In addition, he got to travel to the four corners of the globe. How rewarding that must have been. How do I sign up for that job?

I got an email from Joe on Thursday, September 6, 2001. “Hi cutie” it started — typical opening line for Joe to any of his friends. He had just returned from Alaska and wanted to tell show me all the pictures, but the following week he said he was headed to California for another work trip. I printed out and kept that email for many months in my briefcase as a way to keep Joe alive.

As dawn broke on September 11, 2001, Joe called his Mom in Mississippi to give her a wake up call as he always did when he traveled. He said to her, “I’ll call you when I get to California. Have a good day.” He was that kind of person. The kind of person, who, no matter where he was and how busy he was, dropped a postcard to his friends so we could share a part of his experiences throughout the world.

At Dulles International Airport, Joe stood with his group traveling to California and took some last minute photos. He and another colleague were scheduled passengers on American Airlines Flight 77, accompanying three D.C. public school teachers and three students on a National Geographic-sponsored field trip to the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara, Calif. After the photos were taken, they bid farewell to the children’s parents and proceeded to their gate.

At 9:37AM, Joe lost his life at the young age of thirty-nine when terrorists slammed the plane into the side of the Pentagon at 500 mph. A teacher and positive role model to young Americans was taken from the world in an act of sheer violence and viciousness.

As I was dealing with the many emotions of the events of September 11, a thought crossed my mind the next day. Gosh, I thought, Joe had said he was traveling and now he’s stuck somewhere until the airlines are allowed to fly again. So I called his work number in DC and left a message. After I heard his voice for the last time, I said “Give me a call if you are checking messages.” “I hope you make it home soon,” I concluded. When I called that day, I had no idea.

It wasn’t until Friday, September 14 that I found out that one of my dearest friends had become a casualty of the attacks on America. Suddenly, this war was personal — it had hit home. I wasn’t expecting to have to go to two memorial services and walk around in a state of numbness for many weeks.

At Joe’s memorial service, there were lots of tears and lots of laughs as well. One of Joe’s friends told the gathering that Joe had this way of making you feel as if you were his best friend in the world. I knew exactly what he meant. I saw Joe every once in a while. We would have lunch, or more likely trade emails or phone calls. But every time we talked, I felt like Joe’s best friend. Joe still has a lot of best friends all around the world.

Perhaps Joe’s death hit me so hard because it was the first death of someone close to me that I had experienced as an adult. I am still surprised by the impact that his death has had, and in many ways continues to have, on my life. In fact, I did a lot of personal reflecting in the months following 9/11. I questioned how important my job and even my life were in a time of war where terrorists could invade your workplace or your school and slaughter you with no remorse. I questioned what value and worth my own career had in comparison with a man who had chosen to teach and change the lives of young people. I felt trapped in a good job that was giving me no personal satisfaction.

All I could remember was how happy Joe always was and how that cheer was infectious to all of his friends and colleagues. I would miss that cheerful influence on me. Joe had made the choice to live life to the fullest extent possible. He was the model of an optimistic American who knows no frontiers and no bounds. He was doing more than his fair share of contributing to a better society.

My partner John and I took a trip to the American West in the summer of 2003 and followed some of the Lewis & Clark Trail. I know Joe would have loved the scenery and spirit of America that lives and breathes in the land of Montana and Wyoming. The IMAX film about the “Corps of Discovery” produced by the National Geographic Society — Lewis & Clark: The Great Journey West — was dedicated to the memory of Joe Ferguson. It is available on DVD and I strongly recommend watching it.

One day in early 2002, I heard a song on the radio that I don’t remember hearing before 9/11/2001. I didn’t even know it was LeeAnn Womack voice, because the words are the soul and essence of Joe Ferguson. The words are an expression of his personal passion and love of life. And the words are also an inspiration for all of us to get through the many trying days of our post-9/11 world.

I hope you never lose your sense of wonder.
Get your fill to eat, but always keep that hunger.
May you never take one single breath for granted.
God forbid love ever leave you empty-handed.
I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean.
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens.
Promise me that you’ll give faith a fighting chance.
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.
I hope you dance.

I hope you never fear those mountains in the distance.
Never settle for the path of least resistance.
Livin’ might mean takin’ chances, but they’re worth takin.
Lovin’ might be a mistake, but its worth makin.
Don’t let some hell bent heart leave you bitter.
When you come close to sellin’ out, reconsider.
Give the heavens above more than just a passing glance.
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.
I hope you dance.

This posting serves as a “moment of silence” commemorating the start of the September 11th attacks on America.  This is the time that American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

Never Forget.

There are times when words fail me. And times when I struggle with the right word. Or the right post. Sometimes, when I experience an unexpected kindness, I, who have often defined my gift as words, stammer and can’t respond. I can’t find the words to match the generosity. Would it that this post were about such silence.

Alas that this is about something which so totally stupefies me because it’s so outrageous, I feel I must write to express my incredulity. But, given that what has so outraged me has come from the angry anti-war left, incredulity is not quite the word. Because by now, we already seen the levels to which these extreme outfits would descend to attack President Bush or people who promote and/or execute his policies. We are accustomed to the mean-spirited and dishonest attacks they have long since produced.

I am referring of course to Moveon.org’s ad insinuating that General Petraeus is General “Betray Us.”

I have spent the better part of the day struggling to find the proper words to express my own outrage not only at this ad, but at the New York Times for agreeing to publish it, quite possibly at a discount (Via Instapundit).

The ad itself begins by accusing the general of being “constantly at war with the facts,” yet it is the ad itself that is at odd with the facts.

I’m sure the left-wing bloggers busy trying to sift through his testimony and label anything with which they happen to disagree as a “lie” or spin. I’ve already seen such tactics in a post linked in the comment section to my post on the Democrats’ preferring their version of the truth to the report of Petraeus on the facts on the ground in Iraq.

Too many on the left, including a number of Democratic elected officials, aren’t interested in the report of the top general of the ground in Iraq. They would rather attempt to discredit him by twisting his words than listening to his testimony.

Fortunately, while I can’t quite find the words to express my outrage, other bloggers have. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline said that MoveOn has hit the bottom.” Hugh Hewitt called the ad “repulsive and, as I noted before calls on Democrats who “fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American . . . complicit in that slander.”

And Bob Krumm (also via Instapundit) calls this the “Far Left’s Joe McCarthy vs. the Army moment.” He concludes, “The Far Left has . . . no sense of decency.”

I may have more to say about this in future posts, but at least I’ve had the chance to express my outrage at this excess. I encourage you to follow the links I provide to read posts where others have expressed their feelings on this topic much better than I have been able to express mine at this time.

UPDATE: Peter Hughes just e-mailed me, reminding me of Dean Barnett’s post on the topic which I had read yesterday. In his piece, The Party of No Decency, Dean comments on “the symbiotic relationship between the respectable political front men of the Democratic Party and the gutter dwelling sewer rats who do their dirty work.” Read the whole thing!!

UP-UPDATE: This morning, Hugh observes, “The general silence from Democrats tells you that their fear of MoveOn.org trumps their respect for the general and the troops he leads.” That pretty much sums up the modus operandi of today’s Democrats.

Although a movie buff, I’m not all that familiar with the work of Jane Wyman. I have only seen a handful of her films — and a good number of episodes of Falconcrest, the 1980s TV drama in which she starred and for which she won a Golden Globe Award.

I’ve long wanted to see Johnny Belinda, the 1948 film for which she won an Oscar. (Guess I’ll just Netflix it). I was most impressed with her performance in All That Heaven Allows, the 1955 Douglas Sirk flick where she plays an upper-class widow who falls for a much younger man. And in the 1945 film The Lost Weekend.

All that said, I was sad today when I learned that this talented actress had died today at 93. I will most remember the class she showed, the type of class once commonplace in Hollywood and Washington, when asked about her third husband, Ronald Wilson Reagan, the nation’s 40th president.

As AP Reporter Bob Thomas put it in his obituary, when her ex-husband “became governor of California and then president of the United States, Wyman kept a decorous silence” about him (Emphasis added). As she put it, “it’s bad taste to talk about ex-husbands and ex-wives.”

The Gipper returned the favor, writing very little about their marriage in his biography, An American Life. All he said was that it “produced two wonderful children, Maureen and Michael, but it didn’t work out, and in 1948 we were divorced.”

Perhaps the Gipper learned to be publicly silent about such private matters from the “decorous silence” his first wife maintained about their marriage. And perhaps while understanding that while a union between them could not “work out,” he continued to respect her talents as an actress and her quality as a human being.

For it seems that she was indeed a great actress and an even better person. Hollywood could learn from her example.

Wow.  It is a bad time to be a “Cut and Run” Democrat. 

First, Osama (pronounced “oh-sah-mah”, not “oss-ah-mah” Rep. Skelton!) comes out with his diatribe on Friday that sounded strangely like John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all tied up under one turban and dyed/fake beard.

And today, Commanding General David Petraeus handed the Dem-featists their hat in his Congressional testimony.  Even before Petraeus eloquently outlined his moving-forward strategy, the American people reminded lawmakers who they trust on Iraq.

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they were open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

Which is what General Petraeus delivered today in his plan… a measured plan to withdraw and bring success.  So now the Democrats are>… as I blurted out earlier today to PatriotPartner while watching the hearing…. completely f***ed. 

They have invested so much political capital in defeat, they are caught between a nut-in-a-cave and a hard place… and a public that wants (according to the NYT poll) a successful end in Iraq. 

Mario Loyola at National Review explains it quite well.

So the bombshell is in. Because the surge has been so successful in meeting its objectives, General Petraeus recommends a drawdown of 25 percent of the combat brigades in Iraq by next summer, and expects to continue drawing down after that. 

Since this is what the Democrats have been asking for, they must now shift their position, and insist that the drawdown be deeper and faster. This is the lesson of the Vietnam period. The Nixon administration often announced troop withdrawals in excess of what the Democrats had called for. Weeks later, the Democrats would conclude that the withdrawals were not nearly deep enough, or rapid enough, and press for more.

Notice the pickle that the Democrats are in, however — the difference between this and Vietnam. Petraeus recommends a massive drawdown because in his view we are winning and the surge troops won’t be needed for much longer. But the Democrats have no choice but to dispute the premise of this recommendation — absurdly arguing, by implication, the troops are needed, but the cause is hopeless so we should withdraw anyways.

The fact of the matter is that between the desires of their base and the increasingly clear progress in Iraq, the Democrats have an almost impossible communications problem.  It is going to interesting to see how they negotiate it. 

Mario now reports that the words were barely out of Petraeus mouth when the Democrats ”Fact-Denying Caucus” began talking:  “Right On Cue…. on Fox [News Channel], Congressman [Robert] Wexler [D-FL] disputes the facts presented by General Petraeus.  He simply refuses to believe them.”

That’s because Wexler and his fellow Democrats cannot allow the American public to believe the truth either.  They are faced with a potential political implosion because they have put party above nation and winning elections above winning a global war against America.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (by JohnAGJ): I hate to be a buttinski on someone else’s post, but this is related to Bruce’s comments here. We can see how shrill and detached from reality many on the Left have become, by their antics towards General Petraeus as this despicable “General Betray Us” ad from MoveOn.org demonstrates. Yet this cute nickname that undoubtedly has lefties giggling like schoolkids didn’t just spring Athena-style from the Zeus-like minds of MoveOn (nod to Dan here). No, as Dan Riehl notes, “It appears they started testing out the slur in June – and it caught on”. Indeed it has. One finds this being used by many leftist nutjobs online from DailyKos and After Downing Street to Pam’s House Blend. No doubt our troops are just basking with all the support the Left is showering on them…

UP-UPDATE (from GPW): I was thinking of how to tackle a post on the MoveOn.org ad that John referenced in the update above when I read Hugh’s comments which pretty much sum up my thoughts:

For MoveOn.org is it a moment of searing clarity that reveals them to be as divisive and as repugnant as Joe McCarthy was at the time of his 1954 fiasco in the Army-McCarthy hearings. The Democrats who fail to denounce the slander of this honorable and courageous American are complicit in that slander.

CLICK HERE TO WATCH WEB/TV COVERAGE ON C-SPAN 

….. and feel free to comment here at GayPatriot.  Please try to stay on topic:  Petraeus/Crocker Report to Congress.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Congrats to Bob Owens (Confederate Yankee) for this outstanding report blowing the lid off of the never ending lies of The New Republic regarding their fiction-writer-in-Baghdad, Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

Bob Owens has this exclusive report up at Pajamas Media this morning.  It is a must read for those of you keeping track of the Iraq-as-Fiction meme put forth by TNR, Thomas and his wife — TNR “fact-checker” Elspeth Reeve.

Army Checkmates The New Republic – Bob Owens at Pajamas Media

While Scott Thomas Beauchamp has repeatedly turned down interview requests—including one as recently as last week— Pajamas Media’s Bob Owens, who runs the PJM network blog Confederate Yankee , was enterprising enough to arrange an email interview with Major Cross.  [GP Ed. Note - Major John Cross - Executive Officer, 1-18 Infantry (Vanguards), Second (Dagger) Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division - was the lead investigating officer of the Beauchamp allegations.]

In a wide-ranging interview, Maj. Cross provides surprising new evidence about Beauchamp and the editorial process at the New Republic.

Read the whole thing!

Owens’ conclusions from his exclusive interview with Major Cross:

- Private Scott Beauchamp did not reveal that he was “Scott Thomas,” author of “Shock Troops,” until he was asked to sign a second sworn statement. It was after he signed this statement that his identity was revealed in The New Republic.

- Major Cross has seen no evidence of any sort of fact checking by The New Republic’s editors prior to publication, a sentiment shared by Army Public Affairs Officers in both Iraq and Kuwait.  It is also worth noting that TNR editors have refused to publish PAO statements that contradict their claims.

- Major Cross was unable to find anyone in Beauchamp’s squad, platoon, or company that would corroborate the stories he told in “Shock Troops.”

- Beauchamp was the subject of a second investigation, which found him guilty of violating his unit’s operational security for which he could have been thrown out of the Army.

The U.S. Army and the soldiers in Beauchamp’s unit seem to have been very forgiving of his fraudulent stories and potentially dangerous operational security violations.

This is the third time in recent memory that a New Republic writer has been persuasively charged with fabrication. Stephen Glass, who was found to have made up 27 of the 41 articles he wrote for the magazine, is perhaps the most famous case. Glass’ exploits were chronicled in the movie “Shattered Glass.” The Glass incident severely damaged the credibility of the magazine, and should have led to far more stringent editorial standards…it obviously did not.

It is doubtful that editor Franklin Foer and The New Republic deserve yet another chance, and that readers will be as loyal to the magazine as the military has been to Beauchamp.

Clearly heads should roll at The New Republic…. and that ever-on-the-wrong-side Andrew Sullivan should apologize to the US military for defending “Scott Thomas” and TNR’s cover-up.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Not long after reading a report Senator Biden’s dismissal of General Petraeus’s testimony which headlined Yahoo!’s news for the day, I chanced upon Powerline’s synopsis of the remarks, a short post headlined, “MY MIND IS MADE UP, DON’T CONFUSE ME WITH THE FACTS.

You see, even before Petraeus, the top military commander, in Iraq has testified before Congress, including the Foreign Relations Committee, which Mr. Biden chairs, the Delaware Democrat has insisted the general “dead flat wrong”

And I thought it was Democrats who last year were faulting the president for not listening to military commanders on the ground in Iraq. This leading Democrat (who, as many on the left would point out if he supported the war, never served in the military) thinks he knows better than such a commander.

Biden isn’t the only member of his party dismissing the general before he has had a chance to come before Congress, report from the front and answer their questions. Top Democrats, including Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid and Whip Richard Durbin have been calling his report the “Bush Report.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who, as many on the left would point out if she supported the war, never served in the military) claims that “The facts are self-evident that the progress is not being made.” A nice claim to make before she even knows what the facts are.

All this prejudging causes Ed Morrissey to note:

the same Senators who didn’t cast a single vote against this highly-regarded commander taking over the effort in Iraq suddenly feel that Petraeus would conspire with George Bush to deliver a dishonest report to Congress. Which is more likely — that a career commander would deliberately lie about events in Iraq that already have garnered plenty of independent evidence for success, or that Dick Durbin and Harry Reid would smear the military for their own political gain?

I guess for leading Democrats the facts just don’t matter when you’re out to convince yourself that President Bush (and any strategy he proposes) is doomed to fail.

Wow… Bin Laden’s latest diatribe is right out of the Daily Kos, Howard Dean & DNC playbook.    It is uncanny!

[Osama bin Laden] says to the American people, “you made one of your greatest mistakes, in that you neither brought to account nor punished those who waged this war, not even the most violent of its murderers, [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld…”

“You permitted Bush to complete his first term, and stranger still, chose him for a second term, which gave him a clear mandate from you — with your full knowledge and consent — to continue to murder our people in Iraq and Afghanistan.   [GP Ed. Note:  Calling John Kerry, Jack Murtha & Dick Durbin!  Osama is stealing your material!!]

“You claim to be innocent!  The innocence of yours is like my innocence of the blood of your sons on the 11th — were I to claim such a thing.”  [Has he also read OJ Simpson's book draft??!!]

Bin Laden says President Bush’s words echo “neoconservatives like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Richard Perle.”

“Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning.  On the contrary, they continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there.” [Paging Cindy Sheehan!  Osama is stealing YOUR material, too!]

He goes on to call Noam Chomsky “among one of the most capable of those from your own side,” and mentions global warming and “the Kyoto accord.”  [Al Gore, calling Al Gore!]

“To conclude,” bin Laden says, “I invite you to embrace Islam.”  He goes on to say:  “There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent.”  [Oh, and there are no gays in Islam either.]

Is these a foreshadowing of things to come?  I can see the bumper stickers now! Osama/Obama ’08.   Hillary/Bin Laden  — Bill Misses You.  Edwards/Osama – Delivering Both Americas To Islamism.