Hey Westword, your PC is showing

So using someone's Arab surname, which she herself often uses, is as bad or worse than that same person interrrupting a US election campaign to pander to a foreign audience with the bogeyman of rich, powerful Jews exerting stealthy influence? And wondering if someone is an ally of Islamists is as bad or worse than that person's long record of acting like an ally of Islamists?

Such is the implication of a scolding directed at me and this blog by Michael Roberts, media critic for Westword, on Tuesday in relation to my weekend posting about the anti-Semitic stance of legislative candidate Rima Barakat Sinclair.

Sinclair lost her Republican primary for HD-6 in Denver last night by a landslide to Joshua Sharf, so she'll soon be no more than a footnote in Colorado political history. Before that happens, though, let's set the record straight about Roberts's accusation of "race- and faith-baiting" by Andrews and Sharf.

Read the rest on my blog at PoliticsWest.com.

Iraq bugout negates Obama's professed support for Israel

One of the first speeches Barack Obama gave after becoming the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party was to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In this speech, delivered on June 4, he began the difficult transformation of going from left-wing dove to progressive hawk. It is axiomatic that every nominee of both parties plays to his partisan base in the primaries and then tacks back to the "center" for the general election. In the case of Barack Obama, who has had tremendous success pandering to the lefties of his party, this tack will have to be something close to a sharp right turn. It will be exceedingly difficult for Obama to do -- something that was made abundantly clear in his speech to AIPAC. For Obama to be a credible Commander in Chief that is interested in protecting America's interests in the Middle East, he will have to become a close friend and abiding ally of Israel. Why? Because even with the nascent democracy in Iraq, Israel remains both the only thriving capitalist democracy in the Arab world and our only true politico-military ally. The U.S.-Israel alliance has been the cornerstone of our Mideast foreign policy since the late 1960s, and American Jews remain a powerful (if reliably Democrat) voting block. The speech to AIPAC was Obama's chance to show his bona fides in his support for Israel. Not surprisingly, the speech centered on the growing threat of Iran in the region.

Why Iran? Because Iran remains the single most pressing security threat to both Israel and Iraq. The mullahs have been proactively building a nuclear bomb and the missile technology to deliver it, and with a range that is capable of striking both Baghdad and Jerusalem. They have been sending weapons into Iraq with impunity, and those weapons have been used to kill both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians with lethal effectiveness. They actively support Hezbollah which has been fighting the Israeli army along the Lebanon border and which has been indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel. In short, Iran -- even without nuclear weapons -- is fighting an active war against both the U.S. and Israel in the region.

So, how did Obama do at AIPAC? If you are a fan of more diplomacy, Obama did very well indeed. Obama began with a strong statement that sounded well, hawkish:

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat".

So far, so good. Unfortunately, what followed this was plenty of grist for the idealists in the audience. Obama's approach to this "grave" threat of Iran is -- you guessed it -- an "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions":

"We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. (I am) willing to lead a tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if -- and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."

And what would Obama say to the "appropriate Iranian leader"? He'd apparently offer up (again) the same carrots that the Bush Administration and the Europeans have been dangling for the past four years: lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community.

Has Barack Obama been asleep for the past few decades? Yes, I know, sitting in the Reverend Wright's church for 20 years can certainly numb the mind. But this is an incredibly naive response and a testament to his inexperience. He just -- to coin a phrase -- "doesn't get it". The Iranian regime is a revolutionary government. By definition revolutionary regimes don't seek accommodation with the existing order, they seek its destruction. The mullahs in Iran seek not just the destruction of Israel but a return to the caliphate -- an Islamic social and political order that is 100% antithetical to the existing "international community". It is, thus, no surprise that the Iranians are not interested in all the myriad concessions that the Europeans and Condoleeza Rice have been offering. What they are seeking isn't negotiable.

Of course, Obama has his own non-negotiables, namely in leaving Iraq as quickly as possible -- even in the face of the obvious success of the surge, the recent declaration by CIA Director Hayden that we are approaching a "near strategic defeat" of Al Qaeda there, and the growing clout of the Maliki government. At AIPAC, Obama again called for the "responsible phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq", though he neglected to explain just how this would help Israel. Presumably, in Obama's view of the world, the retreat from Iraq would somehow signal the Iranians that we really "mean business" and represent a force to be reckoned with. Huh? As Mathew Continetti writes in the Weekly Standard, this policy would

"Erase the security and political gains the United States and its Iraqi allies have made in the last 18 months. It would lead to more violence, not less, and to a weaker Iraqi government, not a stronger one. It would breathe new life into the radicals -- many sponsored by the Iranian regime -- who seek a failed state in Iraq. And Tehran would quickly move to fill any power vacuum that the Americans left behind in Iraq."

Beyond the obvious fact that this would hurt America and help Iran, it would actually be devastating to Israel. I know that this position is not "en vogue" among American Jews, who lean heavily left, but the best thing that America could do to protect and support Israel is to win decisively in Iraq. The total defeat of Al Qaeda and of the radical Shiite forces there, the expulsion of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the presence of a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East -- are all part and parcel to Israel's security. In contrast, our retreat and ultimate defeat in Iraq -- and the attendant fall of the Iraqi government -- will lead to a devastating vacuum in the region that will further threaten Israel.

American Jews should understand clearly this: If you support Israel, you should be wary of a candidate pushing the tired line of diplomacy with a regime that doesn't negotiate. And you need to vote for victory in Iraq in November.

Ugly Americans R Not Us

Italians, Germans, and British welcomed me and Donna cordially as we traveled through Rome, Florence, Frankfurt, Munich, London, and Bristol the past couple of weeks. Obviously, of course, Americans spending tourist dollars are always pretty well received over there no matter whether NATO relations are warm or chilly, especially when it takes a wad of dollars to acquire the euro or pound as at present. I was reminded, though, how much more there is to bind us together with our cousins across the Atlantic than there is to divide us. Merkel leading Germany and Brown leading the UK are solid allies of the US in resisting Islamic jihadism, as the latter proved last week by staking his job on a close vote for extended detention of terror suspects -- the same day Bush and Congress were unable to get Supreme Court backing for related policies over here.

Weekend headlines after our return to Denver on June 13 had the American President and French President Sarkozy speaking with one voice to warn Iran on nuclear weapons. Before going to Paris, Bush was in Rome (arriving there just as we left), where Prime Minister Berlusconi, another of the right-leaning, pro-US leaders now steering Europe, said at an official ceremony:

Italians... will never forget that this is a country that has sacrificed many lives to save us from totalitarianism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and this is a country that has given us back our dignity and has ensured freedom and well-being for all Italians.

President Bush is an ally who has always helped our country have strong relations with the United States.... I also wish to thank him for all the efforts which he has undertaken during his administration in order to safeguard democracy and freedom.

I thank you very much, Mr. President, for your friendship between the two of us, on a personal level, your friendship shown to our country, and I thank you for the very courageous role that you have always taken as the leader of the most important country in the world, which is able to determine peace and freedom throughout the world.

Campos & CU vs. McCain & TR

Clearly, the price of war is horrendous. The Civil War cost 600,000 lives. Worth the cost to emancipate a few slaves? Editor: So says Fran Miller in reply to "McCain's Dangerous Belief," a Paul Campos column in the Rocky on 4/24. Dave Crater tags on his impressions of Campos as a law school professor. Here are both pieces.

War? Why Bother?

(By Fran Miller) Paul Campos has sparked an important conversation that many will want to pursue. If we dispense with the glorification of past battles won and lost and focus on the merits of war it will inform our actions in the future.

Is the drafting of millions of men and resocializing them to get them to a point psychologically where they can kill or be killed worth doing? What, to liberate people like the French and British who will be ungrateful anyway.

And what about the Jews in those camps? Wasn't that a local problem on its way to being solved locally? Deposing dictators? Retaliating for the World Trade Center bombing? Aren't more people killed on our streets in a couple of months than were killed in New York?

Wouldn't the Russians have eventually won WWII? Couldn't we have sacrificed a few islands in the Pacific, trusting that the Chinese would have eventually taken care of the Japanese?

Clearly, the price of war is horrendous and its scars leave blemishes on the skin and mind of soldiers and civilian collaterals for a lifetime. I really didn't appreciate getting drafted in 1971 and being forced to put on combat boots.

My father and father in law both served in WWII and were never the same afterwards. The Civil War cost 600,000 lives and 2 to 3 million wounded. Worth the cost to emancipate a few slaves?

Discussing the merits of war as against the consequences of not fighting is a valid debate in a free society. But where I draw the line is Paul Campos's outrageous insinuation that the men who step forward when their nation demands are war-mongering sociopaths.

He is not fit to eat the droppings that fall off Teddy Roosevelt's mess kit. What Mr. Campos does really well, though, is act as the symbolic spokesman for the Colorado Bar, the University of Colorado and the Rocky Mountain News. He's your man. I'll keep TR as mine.

Who says 2 + 2 = 4?

(By Dave Crater) Fran, I had Campos for a class on legislation last semester at CU law school. It was not really a class in legislation, but one in literary, linguistic, and legal deconstruction.

We spent one entire class period discussing whether the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 actually describes the universe we live in or is just an arbitrary social and linguistic construct produced by humans.

I raised my hand and said, "With all due respect, the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 accurately describes the universe for all people, at all times, in all places." There was an awkward silence of a few seconds, then Campos said, "And how do you know this?"

He is as cynical and liberal as they come - a real moral and political disaster. As Fran hints, there are many reasons to not be excited about McCain, but his support for the Iraq war is not one of them.

Editor: Here are some key passages of the Campos column...

War is a form of mass psychosis, during which horrifying acts are transformed into heroic deeds, through the magical moral disinfectant of state sanction. .... When historians look back on the Iraq catastrophe, I suspect they'll discover a significant factor in this latest outbreak of mass psychosis was a kind of warrior envy, as reflected in recent popular culture. Books like The Greatest Generation, movies like Saving Private Ryan and television series like Band of Brothers are, despite some gestures toward moral ambiguity, essentially glorifications of war. .... Indeed, some of the support for the Iraq war came from the belief that war builds character by subjecting the pampered citizens of the modern state to a beneficial dose of suffering in the service of a great cause. The most famous American exponent of this view was Teddy Roosevelt, who believed in "muscular Christianity" and manly self-sacrifice, and who advocated militaristic imperialism as a kind of bloody outdoor adventure program, for a nation he feared was becoming soft and decadent. For anyone who considers this view both absurd and dangerous, Republican presidential candidate John McCain's evident affection for it is a cause for great concern.... There can be no better reason to vote against him.

Timely warning from the 13th century

Blessed Humbert of Romans was a Dominican preacher who died in 1277. He, along with how many thousands of other holy men and martyrs who devoted their lives to establishing Christianity over the last 2000 years, is now virtually forgotten. Fifty to seventy years of toil, strife, and heroism by Humbert can hardly be summed up in a small paragraph. But part of his undying legacy is a prediction that certain things would come to pass if we lost the Gospel:

* That demons would rule. Certainly this video on "Hamas Kindergarten" is that!

* That the world would be sterile. The plummeting birthrate across post-Christian Europe is this fulfillment.

* That hearts would have neither hope nor joy in their salvation. Western society living as though there were no tomorrow becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My sister lives half her time in France and the rest in London. She and her friends are the educated Western European elite. I am sure their attitudes are indicative of many.

I point out the growing Islamization, the falling birthrate, and ask: "What kind of world are you bequeathing to the grandchildren? Their answer: "That's their problem!"

As to Islamization, "It won't happen in my lifetime." Maybe. But is this not an inter-generational betrayal? The old cliché "the future belongs to those who prepare for it" holds too true.