Alabama Tracks

I recently took the plunge in the Facebook realm and reconnected with some old school friends. Of all the people I found, David is probably one of my most intriguing friends. He always has interesting questions and today he asked a doozy based on this article

My problem is that while I am convinced that the reasonable accomodations Frankie has come to advocate seem like the proper policies to pursue–I think his analysis on how to get there is flawed. Similarly, while I am still convinced that abortion is murder, I don’t want to become John Brown or Scott Roeder; but I can’t find an intellectually satisfying reason for why I shouldn’t be.

There’s just something about these kinds of questions that draws me to them like a moth to a flame. Sometimes you get burned but it’s sooo pretty… So this may be a practice in self immolation but I think that Frank and David have some points that could stand more discussion than the tiny little box Facebook gives you. So, rather than eat up David’s wall with my ramblings, I turn here where I have room to stretch my legs.

If you’ve not read Frank’s article, it is probably one of the most feckless articles I’ve ever read. Frank used to be a Christian and now, not so much. The article is a mocking mea culpa about how he and “other Christians” are really responsible for the murder of one George Tiller. Tiller was probably one of the most vocal and active abortionists in the country, going so far as to abort up to the moments before birth. He was murdered at his church by a deranged gunman who had dealings with a pro-life group. There’s no indication the group had anything to do with the shooting.

Given Frank’s choice of platform, I knew it wasn’t going to be a friendly article but I was downright stunned at how well postmodernism had grabbed him. His assertions are that the “religious right” is largely a hate filled group, “pro-life” is really another way of saying “kill abortionists”, and that the primary objection to abortion is largely due to late term abortions, which have a nasty way of producing byproducts that resemble human anatomy. David’s question seems to be how to rebut this without turning into a raving lunatic.

The best place to start is with the assertion that the “religious right” (read Christianity) is a group with “hate-filled rhetoric”. If this were true, shootings like this would be common. Furthermore, I don’t think Frank was all that much into the Bible. The biggest hole in Frank’s assertion is that, to be a Christian, you can’t run around spewing hate, much less arbitrarily executing people you don’t like. I mean, Christ himself said that the law was summed up as loving God and loving your neighbor. You can twist the Bible all you want but you can’t wring hate from its pages with an objective reading. Ravi Zacharias put it best when he said that you can’t judge ANY philosophy on its extremes. People will take pretty much anything and twist it to their own bent. Furthermore, how, then, does he explain the massive outpouring of things like charity, or love? Why would people filled with hate condemn this action as just as wrong, if not worse, than the actions of Dr Tiller?

Then there’s the issue of murder. Since murder requires intent, let’s simplify it for the sake of discussion. When is it justifiable to kill another person? The two basic answers (for the sake of this discussion) are in wartime combat and when another life is in eminent danger. To reach the point where you are committing murder like, say, Paul Hill, you have to twist several ideas to reach justification. The most common are that the subjects of abortion, being murdered themselves, make it some form of defense and that it is the “will of God”.

The latter is one that cannot be addressed in any fashion except to say that, when a man has convinced himself he is carrying out God’s will, he is capable of anything. To the former, it is madness to run around executing people doing things you disagree with. In essence, they would become gods unto themselves in the same way that various shooters around the country do. Once you are your own moral authority with a gun, you become an arbiter of death, meting it out as you see fit and ending it only when someone (perhaps yourself) questions (or is about to question) the basis for that authority.

It’s also important to note that, in some ways, the media feeds this. I saw Paul Hill as an attention junkie. People paid a LOT of attention to him after an abortion shooting in the late 80s because he was one of the few kooks who defended  the shooter. It wasn’t too long after the limelight faded that he took up arms himself and got it back and once again  just before he was executed. He fed on the attention and if you look at the interviews you can see it.

The last assertion is that the primary objection to abortion comes from late term abortions.

The Roe v. Wade decision went to far, too fast and was too sweeping.I believe that abortion should be legal. But I also believe that it should be re-regulated according to fetal development. It’s the late term abortions that horrify most people.

Not entirely. He’s right about Roe v Wade, and I think that Liberals will, at some point, have to come to terms with the fact that the judiciary can’t make sweeping reforms that elected officials are too scared to. But abortion is a deeper issue that what trimester we’re talking about. Christians, and the “pro-life” stance, declare that all life is sacred. Period. The “pro-choice” stance is that only some life is precious. What few on the Left like to discuss is what is a plain truth elsewhere: they want to be the people to choose. This sounds far fetched until you read statements like this recent one from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court justice (emphasis mine)

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way.

That the NY Times saw no problems with such an idea only compounds the horror. It makes perfect sense when you consider that abortion is a fig leaf for things like eugenics. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, held similar views (abortion clinics in black neighborhoods, forced sterilization for mental retardation, etc). Abortion erodes the conscience. It tells us that some people shouldn’t be here, that they are mistakes the universe made and we can fix them with a simple procedure. If we get government funding for it, we can make “them” go away quicker. Given that abortion is largely unregulated (few people, if any, are prosecuted for violating abortion laws), there’s no telling just how far this can go. Tiller was probably just in it for the money. Heaven help us if others are in it to get rid of “you”.

So who is responsible for George Tiller’s murder? The man who pulled the trigger. It’s not Frank, nor is it Christianity, nor a book nor an organization (although that makes for a better story). Frank can sleep better knowing his confession was unnecessary.

Many years ago I read a book by the late Larry Burkett entitled The Coming Economic Earthquake (out of print so not easy to find). If you’re not familiar with him, it founded Christian Financial Concepts which eventually merged with Crown Ministries. Larry had cancer and knew it was time to step aside. His cancer claimed him in 2004. He was a Dave Ramsey voice long before even Dave was.

I say all of this because I’m glad he never got to see a day his predictions may very well come true. That link was written eight years ago about a book now published some eighteen years ago. Keep that in mind as you read on.

If you’re not familiar with the word trillion, one trillion written out looks like this

1,000,000,000,000

Or, put another way, one trillion is one million squared, or a million sets of one million. Obama has us spending over $3,000,000,000,000 and he’s not only not broken a sweat, he’s not slowing down for trifling questions like “How will we pay for all of this?” Out expenditures may well be beyond $5T by the time this is all done.

Social policy no longer scares me (and that should scare you). Abortion? Can be undone. Fairness Doctrine? Reversible. But this loan (make no mistake about what it is) is not reversible. And what it is going to do to you (yes you) should scare you.

One of Burkett’s major cautions was against the Fiat Standard.  That means that the money in your pocket, bank account, etc, has value because the US Treasury says it does. There is nothing beyond what the Treasury says to back this up. Once upon a time, the US Dollar was backed by gold and silver found in places like Fort Knox. This is what Ron Paul was on about in his presidential bid. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing out of hand but it lets the US tinker with the value of the Dollar by controlling the supply. This is what made Allan Greenspan such a powerful man.

The problem comes when any government gets into monetary trouble. So let’s say the US owes you $1,000. They could, literally, print some up and give it to you. Not a big deal. But let’s say they did that for everyone in the country. Free $1000 to everyone! Sounds good, right? But consider that there’s 350M or so Americans. So that would be $350B in new currency running around. What happens next is called inflation. Inflation happens when the buying power of currency falls. This happens naturally over time. But when the government prints money to pay debts you get hyperinflation. This is a bad thing. A VERY bad thing.

Germany did just that at the end of WWI. They had to repay France and England so their leaders figured they would print some up and hand it over. But France didn’t buy it. They took Germany’s coal mines and all the profits from them. But Germany had all this extra currency laying around. So you got hyperinflation. Imagine a world where a loaf of bread costs $1000. That really happened in Germany. The exchange rate between the US Dollar and the German Doich Mark before Germany’s economy collapsed was 1 trillion to 1.

Unsurprisingly there was a revolt in Germany because the average working guy didn’t get any of the currency and yet had to make do with the same wages that bought less and less until they might as well have been paying him in dirt. People starved and the country ground to a halt. The result of that revolt brought a man named Adolf Hitler to power.

So why type up all of this now? Well, consider for a moment that we’re overextended as a country. Not by a little bit but by well over $1T. Now consider what Burkett wrote eight years ago, after the Clinton era ended (emphasis mine).

I felt that our national debt and annual deficit were out of control and would eventually bring our economy to its knees, creating an economic collapse of historic proportions. Although I did not say that I thought the economy was going to drop in any particular year, I did feel that if we did not change our ways we would experience a huge economic crisis sometime after the turn of the century.

The reality is that neither the Democrats in power, nor Barak Obama, are dealing with the economy. Instead, we’re watching wholesale passage of every liberal spending plan ever dreampt of. What was in the $787B “stimulus” bill? Nobody can really say for sure yet. Certainly almost nobody read it in its entirety before passing it. And we have Bush’s folly of the $700B “bailout” where nobody knows where that went either. In fact, some of its largest recipients have come back for more. Then there the $410B earmark, er, spending bill. And now Obama wants Universal Healthcare and mortgage bailouts to boot. Is there no end to this?

Obama ran on the platform of change and many people voted for just that. No more wars with potential draft. No more “war on terror”. Maybe even no more economic gloom and doom. But we might have just saved our children from fighting in a war that’s pretty much over anyways only to put them on the hook for what may be the largest political fraud ever. Even if we held a new election tomorrow (we’re only 45 days into the Obama presidency), much of this is already law and being done as I write this. Everyone will be paying higher taxes soon in the form of energy taxes and bad energy policy and that’s just the start of this menagerie. If inflation surges (and I suspect it will soon) then all bets are off. If the Chinese (the larget buyers of Treasury Bills, basically a government bond) call in their markers then we’ll be so far up a creek even a paddle factory won’t be able to pull us back.

Pray for our country. Pray this madness ends soon. Pray that someone stands up to this and that we at least make it until 2010, where politicians feel some accountability for this foolishness.  It’s just not social policy at stake anymore, it’s freedom.

The rich rule over the poor,
and the borrower is servant to the lender.
Proverbs 22:7

I really can’t say I was surprised to see McCain lose. If he had, it would have been by a razor thin margin and there would have been explosions of hatred unlike anything this country has ever seen. In some ways it was good for Obama to win.

First, the Republican party deserved to lose. Had Obama really been more moderate it would have been a landslide. The fact that it wound up as close as it did spoke volumes to the mistrust he garnered on the Right. I don’t think too many were voting for McCain as voting against Obama. Why did Republicans lose?

Spending. The cornerstone of Conservatism is small government. You tax only what you need to raise and that’s that. But Republicans with 100% control expanded government by some 40%. Most egregious was Ted Steven’s Bridge to Nowhere and Bush’s Medicare Prescription benefit. Both outraged conservatives. Bush may fear God, but sometimes I wonder if he ever feared his constituency.

McCain also was not a conservative. I still have not forgiven him for the awful Gang of 14 decision. Or McCain-Feingold. Or McCain-Kennedy. The fact that Joe Lieberman endorsed him didn’t help him one bit. Without the solidly conservative Palin, McCain would have lost even more than he did.

Second, Obama is in a historic position. The black community has languished from people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton pulling out the race card every chance they got. Blacks overwhelmingly felt oppressed, even though there was no evidence of such a thing. Obama’s win puts it to bed. I really think Jackson’s tears on Tuesday were because he knows he’s out of a job with nobody to whip up into a frenzy about social injustice. Obama could do a world of good. One of his few bright spots in the campaign was when he noted that fathers need to play a role in their childrens’ lives. Every time the negative aspects of “black culture” are brought up he has been quick to decry them. The gangsta mentality. The illegitimacy rate of black children. Not since Bill Cosby in the 80s has a black man so embodied what could be right for a change. He is successful, appears to be a good father and is now the de-facto leader of the black community. Let’s hope and pray that he channels the enthusiasm around him into real change that I’ve watched a desperate Bill Cosby try to effect for the last few years. This kind of change I certainly applaud.

Third, Republicans appear to have held onto enough Senate seats to prevent a fillibuster-proof Senate. It’s not enough to where a moderate’s departure won’t hurt, but if Mitch McConnell can hang tough on the major issues then we have some hope that the Left won’t be passing their agenda without any sort of balance.

This brings me to the less pleasant part of our election. Read on only if you want the less rosy part of the next four years.
Continue Reading »

I’ve not been posting politics because I’ve been busy and because, well, John McCain has been about as exciting as watching paint dry. His commercial after Obama’s acceptance speech looked like “Hey, I’m also running!” After having been bashed so badly by Obama, it looked like bad news. I mean, Obama was on a roll. How on earth would McCain compete.

I underestimated him. Badly.

I’ve heard Palin’s name banded about in the “short list” but most people had written her off. She certainly didn’t seem like veep material and she didn’t seem like McCain’s cup of tea. And yet… she’s a brilliant pick. Maybe not the best (would have prefered Michael Steele, all things considered) but certainly not what anyone was expecting. I mean, it was so shocking that the mainstream media had to stop swooning over Obama and get to Alaska, of all places, to find out just who the heck this Palin woman is. But she came pre-vetted. Aside from some guarded optimism here and there, I have yet to hear conservatives say all that much bad about her. McCain managed to pull off

1. Stopped the Obama train cold. His commercial took on a new light as “Enjoy the limelight because I will own it tomorrow”
2. Rallied the conservatives. People who could have cared less about McCain on Thursday were suddenly enthusiastic on Friday. The RNC was just as energetic now as the DNC was.
3. Put the first woman on a Republican ticket
4. Put the first major pro-life candidate on a national ticket
5. Wooed moderates upset that Hillary was left with nothing for all her campaigning (Obama may regret not putting her and her 18 million primary votes on the ticket)

Not a bad way to pull an upset. Unsurprisingly, the Left pulled out its smear machine and the national media regained its composure and has been attacking her as best as they can. The worst, thus far, was the nasty smear that Trig was not Palin’s son but her grandson. The news that Bristol is 5 months pregnant put something of a damper on that but, because it’s not impossible that she gave birth to Trig and then got pregnant some 6 weeks later, they refuse to believe that it’s untrue. The smears have largely backfired. Obama refused to touch the Bristol story with a 10′ pole. The base, having been informed about Bristol now, have largely accepted it.

Palin is not without other problems. She’s still a newcomer and may very well fold like a lawn chair under the national spotlight. She has some baggage (although nothing anywhere near what Obama has) and she may not be articulate. We’ll find out more on that tonight.

What really got me going, though, was this post which seems to typify the Obama side of this election. I’m truly starting to think that some people out there worship Obama as a god or something. Can he ever do any wrong? But there’s some things I cannot leave left unsaid because they are so wrong or ignorant of Obama or Palin that they deserve a response.

I didn’t like the way I felt when I saw McCain’s choice. I felt manipulated. I felt like this choice on his part was objectifying women….it feels like she was chosen for her appearance and gender because I doubt a man of comparable credentials would be chosen for the position. I don’t like the way she got here because she was plucked by an old politician instead of having time to get to know her. I don’t like what I hear…like her elected offices are mayoral and very short-term gubernatorial (18 months? Is that right?) in an area where “small town” issues preside, or like how she has an infant with special needs that must be getting precious little attention from her right now. I feel insulted that it’s suggested women should vote for her for the “soccer mom” parallels. I feel uncertain in her ability should Old-Man McCain die.  I feel unconvinced that the position of vice-president would really be very influential in matters of war and policy. I remember being impressed with the Cheney-Lieberman debates and thinking we had great VP candidates but feel now that it’s just a distraction in the race. I feel hesitant to engage in political conversation again because this choice polarizes somehow. I feel like she’s sheep’s clothing for a wolf. If she participated in continuing a war that could extend long enough to take my children, I’d feel her betrayal as a fellow mother.

Let’s boil this down to its core parts.

1. John McCain is manipulating the system to his advantage. Such is the story of Washington, though. The veep choice is a pretty big one because the veep job is, well, not all that big. Unless we wind up with a 50-50 split in the Senate this year (unlikely) the veep doesn’t have a whole lot to do. So you pick someone who complements you. Am I supposed to vote Obama because he picked an old white guy as his veep?

2. Palin was picked because she has a hoo-ha uterus. First, there’s the hypocrisy here. The Democratic primary was melanin vs estrogen. All the while people who can count to 21 naked were eliminated and that left two “underprivileged” groups to duke it out. Second, yes she’s a woman. Are we suddenly judging that John McCain is a sexist and picked her ONLY for that reason? Another major candidate for veep was Gov Jindal of LA who, realizing his state really needed him more than McCain, withdrew his name.There’s a warning against that kind of thinking. Unless someone can read hearts and minds, let’s knock off the speculation, OK?

3. Sarah Palin is inexperienced. Well, can’t argue with that one. She’s got less than 2 years of running the Alaskan gov. But she’s had a heck of a time in doing it. Alaska has major corruption problems and she’s been a major fighter. The problem is if you argue this, you have to take note of Obama’s record as well. Obama was an IL state senator before (more on this in later) and became a freshman senator in 2004. He started campaigning for president in 2005. Keep in mind that Palin is in an executive role. She runs the gov (signs law, runs agencies, etc). Obama is in a legislative role which means he writes, sponsors and votes on bills. So it’s not a wash, it tilts slightly in favor of Palin on this one. And Obama is running for the top slot…

4. Sarah Palin has a Downs baby. Hands down the reason conservatives love her. She chose life. You don’t get any more pro-life than this. He’s got some very loving older sisters and a father who help care for him so he’s not starved for attention.

5. John McCain is an old man who could die. And so is Joe Biden. There’s no guarantee Obama will see tomorrow either (or me or you for that matter). McCain will be the oldest if elected but he’s released reams of medical records. Obama has released one page.

6. John McCain won’t stop the Iraq war. Ah, there’s the rub. I’ve wondered what this mysterious “change” was and now it comes out. This issue continues to be rhetorically challenged on the left as if we were still in 2005 with soldiers dying daily. We lost 13 soldiers in August. Friday we handed Anbar province, once the deadliest in Iraq, back to the Iraqis. It’s important to admit a few things here

• The war was prosecuted poorly
• Bush was naive on some points
• Rumsfeld should have been allowed to resign much earlier
• The surge was needed much earlier than it was

That having been said, the Iraq war has gone much better now that the surge has come and gone. What’s important is that the long term role does not look nearly as brutal. Furthermore, don’t forget Afghanistan (which Obama has pledged to expand) and the fact that soldiers die there too. Finally, there’s the fact that we’re still fronting an all-volunteer miltary so unless your children sign up, they’re not likely to be sent into harm’s way. Yanking troops out precipitously? That’s a hazard that would doom Iraq just like South Vietnam found out.

I feel hesitant to engage in political conversation again because this choice polarizes somehow.

Why? I’m not posting this to mark a kill on the side of my keyboard. I’m posting this because I don’t see any reason to vote for Obama. Is the war really so important to some people that they would vote for him despite the fact that he

• supports infanticide (I only wish that were an exaggeration, you need to read the transcript)
• Wants to raise your (yes you) taxes After last year, I am now quite intimate with capital gains taxes (and I doubt anyone would define me as rich) Remember, capital gains also affect your 401k, retirement benefits and many other organizations that normal Americans deal with
• is naive about Iran. Iran is taking stances like 1930s Germany and we are responding like Eurpoe did. If Iran carries out its threats and we go to war, it will be World War III. An ounce of prevention…
• has been well supported by William Ayers, a terrorist who escaped through legal problems with his case. If we were talking about them simply being on the same board I’d say it had no legs but it goes far beyond that Obama’s camp clearly fears it being explored further because they sent out an email alert to supporters who abused WGN Radios’ phone lines.

As to the whole divisive part… I find this absurd. If you want to believe Obama will change America for the better then believe. Don’t fear me or anyone else. But I’m tired of the the way this is playing out: hold it close to the vest, don’t discuss it and just go do it without really vetting it. I don’t ever want to discourage anyone from putting forth ideas and it’s disappointing that anyone would think that I and other people are only hinderances to how they want to think. Put ideas out there and if they’re good they’ll stand up under scrutiny. If they’re bad they’ll die and go away. When ideas are locked away it gives the bad ideas a place to grow. People need to look with their own eyes and investigate with their own minds and hearts. Don’t take my word for it. But don’t just take theirs either.

You have to admire the man. He’s not JFK (JFK wasn’t quite the spinmeister Obama is and he articulated goals, not just rhetoric) but he’s definitely the most spectacular politician I’ve seen in a very long time. But he likes to talk a lot about change without qualification of said change. I don’t expect any winner of the 2008 election to be a continuation of George Bush (a double edged sword no matter your political bent) but what exactly IS he going to change? Why is it that some people are going nuts over a man who talks very well but says very little? So I’m going to highlight what President Obama will bring. This isn’t as speculative as you might think, either.

The Supreme Court

This one’s going to hurt. A lot. Bush, for all of his shortcomings, has installed two very stalwart anchors in SCOTUS. Not conservative activists in the same way Clinton installed liberal activists, but people who believe in strict constructionism (a belief that the court should interpret law, not write it). A President Obama will let Stevens and Souter retire, knowing full well that Democrats will seek to replace them with, at best, people like O’Connor or, at worst, people like Ginsburg.

So what does this mean for you? Well, it’s the lack of strict constructionists that lead to bad decisions like Kelo (the gov’t can seize your property if someone will pay more tax), Engel (separation of church and state) and, most infamously, Roe (abortion). Perhaps the best example would the SCOTUS inconsistancy in the separation of church and state. Things have been so muddied that many government agencies feel they have to ban anything religious or face the wrath of the ACLU. A court that is a bit more towards the center might give us just such a standard (and perhaps even rule that you have to show harm before filing a lawsuit over the matter). But the worst problem is the fact that liberal justices tend to lean more on international law. How’d you like to find out you can’t home school anymore because an Obama justice voted it unconstitutional because Germany disallows it?

Taxes

Obama has opposed making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He’s a tried and true Democrat on the tax front. His colleagues are just as foolhardy. Despite claims that Bush cut taxes for only the rich, other data contradicts that.

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

$30,000 a year is rich? Obama is going to let the tax cuts expire so it’s not far fetched that you may be paying twice the taxes come 2010. And if his colleagues pass tax hikes I have little doubt he’ll sign them. Taxing the big, rich oil companies sounds good but exactly who do you think will foot that bill? Take a look in the mirror to see who that would be. I hope you consider yourself monetarily wealthy because Bill Gates is worth only some $40 billion and our entire Federal budget is well over $1 trillion dollars. To quote Bill Cosby, “The government comes for the regular people first”.

Abortion

NARAL gives Obama a 100%. Here’s why, from Obama’s own lips

Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a . . . a child — a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I’ve felt my wife’s adbomen move. According to Obama, I was confused and that’s not really my son in there after all. It’s just a fetus. For those of you who think Bush is a complete disaster, I invite you to compare the previous quote to this one

We aspire to build a society where each one of us is welcomed in life and protected in law. We haven’t arrived, but we are making progress.

Iraq

The real hotbutton issue of 2008. More than all of the above, it seems. I could go on to other issues for hours but I will close with this one. The Democrats want retreat. They want to leave Iraq and they want to leave yesterday. As long as Iraq was spiraling out of control it sounded better all the time. The rampant bombings, the IEDs wounding or killing our guys daily. It makes you want to stop it all.

Laying aside the reasons we went to war (in the scope of this discussion it’s moot), Bush put together a strategy called the Surge. And it worked. Vast reductions in bombings, sectarian violence. People actually returning to Iraq. Sunni and Shia working together. Stability has returned. Al Quaeda, once gaining ground, has lost almost all it once dominated. Iran has lost their Shia brethren. Things are, for a change, looking up.

Obama will, undoubtedly, yank the troops out of Iraq, regardless of the status over there. He’s already promised to do so. What I fear is that we will watch in horror as Iraq implodes like South Vietnam did in 1975. Effectively speaking. the US pulled out of Vietnam and, when the North violated the treaty, all we did was extract our people and leave the populous to a horrible fate (Democrats refused to fund any futher action in Vietnam). If you think Iraq was bad before, this could eclipse it all. Iran will pour resources into insurgents, bombings will resume en masse and the fragile government will fold like a lawn chair. What will rise, instead, is a Shia dominated puppet government, locked in step with Syria and Iran. Stability will return, but only in the hands of Ahmadinejad. President Obama, trying his best to lay the catastrophe at the feet of Bush, will turn to diplomacy. I don’t know if he really believes the rhetoric that Bush is the reason it’s so bad over there but his positions on foreign policy are naive at best (some are already comparing him to Jimmy Carter). Diplomacy sounds good but diplomacy only works with enforcement. Neville Chamberlain learned this the hard way. Hitler talked a good talk up until he started knocking down Europe like dominos, unhindered by anyone. Talk is cheap, action costs lives but may save others.

I may not be a fan of John McCain but I think that he’s going to be the (much) lesser of two evils at this point.