From the Archives: Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on June 20, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia Senator Mark Warner assesses situation in Iraq and the Middle East

On Friday evening, June 20, the University of Virginia Center for Politics hosted a screening of its Emmy award-winning documentary short film, “Out of Order,” followed by a panel discussion featuring former U.S. Senator John Warner (R-Va.) and his successor, incumbent Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.). Both Warners appear in the film along with Bob Schieffer of CBS News and other current and former Members of Congress.

After the two-hour, formal program, the current Senator Warner answered questions from the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner about his re-election campaign and also about foreign policy issues.

The day before the interview, President Barack Obama had spoken to the White House press corps about the administration's plans to send military advisors to Iraq in an effort to defend that country against the army of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Learning lessons in Iraq
Senator Warner said that he supported the president's deliberate approach with regard to Iraq, saying that it is important to gather all the facts on the ground before taking action.

“Of all places in the world,” he explained, “Iraq is a place [where] we should have learned the lessons that we've got to get all the facts first.”

Noting that he is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 'Warner said he believes “very strongly that we need to slow the rush of these terrorists into Iraq.”

At the same time, however, “I also believe that we need to support any Iraqi government that's going to be inclusive” rather than narrowly sectarian.

“Particularly since part of the Iraqi army melted away rather than try to defend their own country,” Warner said, the United States needs to gather and assess intelligence about who the “bad guys” are.

“Before we take action,” he explained, the U.S. government must find out whether the ISIS forces might be “in uniforms that used to be Iraqi army uniforms.”

He asked, “How do we get that intelligence?,” stating that “on this issue, I think the president is moving with the right deliberate speed in terms of getting information first before we take action.”

Corrupt regimes
Warner also commented on the nature of regimes in the region and the sacrifices made on behalf of the people there.

“If there are only corrupt, sectarian regimes in all of those countries' future, then the region and the world's future is going to have a real challenge,” the senator said.

Suggesting that the American people are disheartened by the situation, Warner asserted that “the challenge is going to be: will these countries step up” in their own defense?

He said that it “was sickening” to see Iraqi soldiers “drop and run” rather than fight, especially after “thousands of Americans lives were lost” and “trillions of dollars were spent” on behalf of Iraq by the United States, which spent “billions of dollars” on training and equipping Iraqi troops.

Senator Mark Warner's dialogue with former Senator John Warner, moderated by political scientist Larry Sabato, can be seen in its entirety on YouTube.

SUGGESTED LINKS

GOP Senate candidate Ed Gillespie sees 'energized, excited' party activists
'Proselytizing for freedom,' Robert Sarvis bids for U.S. Senate in Virginia
Virginia Senator Mark Warner discusses budget issues, independent voters
At Shad Planking, Virginia Senator Mark Warner says ‘budget situation is dire’
GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says strategist Grover Norquist

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-senator-mark-warner-assesses-situation-iraq-and-the-middle-east

From the Archives: Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on October 8, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site was scheduled to go dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt discusses U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq

Just before a campaign rally at Republican party headquarters in Albemarle Square on October 8, U.S. Representative Robert Hurt (R-VA5) spoke to Charlottesville area news media about a range of issues, from health care and education to job growth and presidential usurpation of congressional authority.

In an exclusive interview with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, Congressman Hurt answered questions about foreign policy issues, starting with the use of military force in Iraq and Syria.

Last month, Hurt voted against an amendment to authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide arms to certain Syrian rebel groups, as part of the Obama administration's strategy to fight the so-called Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). Hurt was in the minority, as the amendment passed on a vote of 273-156.

'Grotesque organization'
Hurt explained that he thinks that “the President has made the case – and I'm convinced based on all the briefings that I've attended – that we really do face an existential threat from ISIL, certainly as it relates to our allies in the Middle East, as it relates to our American interests in the Middle East, and then, finally, ultimately, here, if this grotesque organization is not destroyed.”

The Fifth District congressman added for emphasis: “We need to destroy them.”

The reason he voted against the so-called McKeon amendment, he said, was “in large measure due to the fact that the President has not asked for congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq and Syria.”

President Obama, he explained, “claims that he has the power to do it under the 2002 and 2001 military authorizations; I just simply disagree: Different time, different conflict, different parties.”

The President, Hurt said, “needs to recognize that he has a constitutional obligation to come” to Congress, where “we'd have an honest and candid debate about what is going to be required of the American taxpayer [and] most of all, what's going to be required of the American men and women in uniform.”

Moreover, he added, the President has to explain what victory will look like.

Hurt said he does not believe that the President has “laid out that case, so I think it's something that needs to be debated in Congress.”

Asked whether the U.S. military can effectively end a conflict in the Middle East that has been going on for 1,300 years, Hurt replied: “It's a very hard question.”

'Secure in our homes'
He said that “it's unlikely that we can solve these problems. The best that we can do is destroy the immediate threat [ISIL] and degrade the long-term threat and, hopefully, get to a place where we can at least be secure in our homes here on our soil and certainly provide for safe passage for those Americans who are traveling across the world in different countries, [and for] business that's being done internationally. Those are all important things.”

Admitting some uncertainty, Hurt added: “I don't know that we'll ever be able to solve those problems. Like you said, it's been going on a pretty long time, and I think it's unlikely that we can do that but I do think that we need to destroy the immediate threat as soon as we can.”

Robert Hurt is running for re-election to a third term in the House of Representatives. He has three opponents: Democrat Lawrence Gaughan, Independent Green Kenneth Hildebrandt, and Libertarian Paul Jones. The election takes place on November 4.

SUGGESTED LINKS

Congressman Robert Hurt expresses 'grave concerns' over potential Syria war
Congressman Bob Goodlatte 'skeptical' about U.S. military intervention in Syria
GOP congressional nominee Robert Hurt discusses constitutional principles
Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt reacts to federal unemployment report
U.S. Representative Robert Hurt discusses eminent domain and redistricting

Original URL:  http://www.examiner.com/article/virginia-congressman-robert-hurt-discusses-u-s-policy-syria-and-iraq

Protesters Object to Cheney Visit

Vice President Dick Cheney was the featured speaker at Friday's Republican Party gala in Richmond.

His presence in the state capital did not go unnoticed by the anti-war crowd. A small number of protesters gathered at the corner of Fifth and Broad Streets in Richmond to demonstrate their disdain for the vice president and call for his impeachment.

Here are a few moments of the protest, captured on video:

You might notice some condescending comments from the protesters (amplified for all to hear) about how passers-by should start reading more and different sources of information. That's not the way to endear yourself to people who might be inclined to support your cause: to accuse them of being ignorant, and willfully so.

Ahead of the Curve

NPR listeners had the opportunity, earlier this morning, to hear filmmaker Nick Broomfield talk about his "new" movie, Battle for Haditha. Broomfield and one of his non-professional actors, Marine veteran Elliot Ruiz, spoke with Scott Simon on Weekend Edition Saturday. As the NPR web site explains:

Filmmaker Nick Broomfield has made a dramatic movie about the 2005 massacre in the farming town of Haditha, Iraq. The soldiers in the film are played by Iraq war veterans and Iraqi refugees living in Jordan play the parts of Iraqi civilians and insurgents.

Battle for Haditha is opening in New York this coming week and it will be in cinemas nationwide later in the month. For participants in the Virginia Film Festival, however, this is all old news. Broomfield brought Battle for Haditha to Charlottesville last November, where he discussed his film in a Q&A session with audience members. (Including those, like me, who had been shooed away from a screening of Tamara Jenkins' The Savages by security guards hired to prevent anyone with a cell phone or camera from entering the Paramount Theatre.)

Seeing Battle of Haditha turned out to be the better choice, however, because Broomfield's film was one of the best offerings of the festival. Whether his will turn out to be the first movie about the Iraq War to make money as well as garner critical praise remains to be seen. It surely deserves both.

I posted video of Broomfield's post-screening discussion a couple of hours after it ended; here it is again.

Part I:




Part II:

I recommend Battle for Haditha. See it if it comes to a cinema near you.

Held in Low Esteem

For the former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-California) has a remarkably low opinion of the men and women who serve in the U.S. military.

During the CNN/YouTube-sponsored Republican presidential candidates' debate in Florida Wednesday night, Hunter was asked by a retired Army general whether he believes "American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians." The point of Hunter's long-winded answer was essentially "yes, they are not professional enough."

Here is Hunter's full response:

General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives.

They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.

Substitute "Negroes" for "homosexuals" in Hunter's statement and you have a near-duplicate of the argument used against desegregation of the military during the Truman administration.

At that time, Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall wrote to Clark Clifford (then an advisor to President Truman, later Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson), attaching a copy of testimony about the Army's "Negro problem," about which he explained to Clifford:

I am trying to give it no large circulation as it would be unwise to have it get to the press...

(Apparently, even in the 1940s, politicians knew that it would reflect badly on them to announce they favored policies based on bigotry.)

A portion of Royall's testimony about Negroes in the military in the 1940s (culled by Average Gay Joe at GayPatriot, who deserves a hat tip) has an uncanny resemblance to what politicians like Duncan Hunter have to say about gays in the military today:

At the outset I want to make it clear that in my opinion the policies which should be applied to the use of all Army personnel, regardless of race, are those policies which best promote a sound national defense. Our basic mission is to win battles and to establish an organization capable of winning battles.

Specifically the Army is not an instrument for social evolution. It is not the Army’s job either to favor or to impede the social doctrines, no matter how progressive they may be – it is not for us to lead or to lag behind the civilian procession except to the extent that the national defense is affected…

Another – and an important – factor to be considered on the question of segregation is the morale of the troops as a whole – their satisfaction with Army life, and the spirit with which they perform Army tasks. In war, when the chips are down, this morale factor may well be the difference between victory and defeat.

We must remember that soldiers are not mere bodies that can be moved and handled as trucks and guns. They are individuals who came from civilian life and often return thereto. They are subject to all the emotions, prejudices, ideals, ambitions and inhibitions that encumber our civil population throughout the country.

Solders live and work closely together. They are not only on the same drill field also in the same living and eating quarters. From the standpoint both of morale and of efficiency it is important in peace and in war that the barracks and the unit areas be so attractive to them that they will devote not only their duty time but a reasonable part of their optional time at the post – that they will not be watching the clock for a chance to get away.

In war it is even more important that they have confidence both in their leaders and in the men that are to fight by their sides. Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unit…

In this connection we must remember that a large part of the volunteers in the Army are Southerners – usually a larger proportion than from any other part of the country. Whether properly or not, it is a well known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to large percentage of Southern whites.

A total abandonment of – or a substantial and sudden change in – the Army’s partial segregation policy would in my opinion adversely affect enlistments and reenlistments not only in the South but in many other parts of the country, probably making peacetime selective service necessary. And a change in our policy would adversely affect the morale of many Southern soldiers and other soldiers now serving…

[I]n my opinion – and I believe in the opinion of a great majority of the experienced Army men and officers – it would be most difficult – and unwise from the standpoint of national defense – to require any substantial proportion of white soldiers – whether from the South or from other sections of the country – to serve under Negro officers or particularly under Negro non-commissioned officers.

It's almost like Duncan Hunter does the same sort of "research" for his speeches that Joe Biden did during his 1988 presidential campaign.

While Hunter did not directly respond to the question posed to him, it is clear from his overall remarks that he thinks most men and women in the military are inbred yahoos who lack the capacity to live and work with people who might be different from them -- people who have different backgrounds or different values, different experiences and different aspirations.

Yet Hunter severely underestimates the capability of the average soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine to be tolerant of differences and to look beyond the surface, creating cohesion even within diversity. (What's that slogan? "E pluribus unum"?) Our men and women in uniform are far better people than Hunter thinks they are.

Zogby International conducted a poll of U.S. troops who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan, which was released in December 2006. Among its findings:

Three-quarters of those surveyed stated that they felt comfortable around gays and lesbians and four-in-five (78%) noted that they would join the military regardless of their open inclusion. Additionally, a majority (52%) reports having received some form of anti-gay harassment training, with Air Force personnel representing the highest level of training (62%) and the Marine Corps the lowest (34%)....

Of those who were certain that a member of their unit was gay or lesbian, two thirds did not believe that their presence created an impact on either their personal morale (66%) or the morale of their unit (64%). Approximately one-quarter of that group believed there to be a negative impact to both.

In contrast, of those who do not suspect the presence of gays or lesbians within their unit, only half (49%) perceive no impact on personal morale, and only less than one third (26%) feel there would be no impact on their unit’s morale. Regarding their unit’s morale, a majority of this group (58%) believes if there were gays or lesbians within their unit, there would be a negative impact.

Put another way, those soldiers who know someone gay also know there is no deleterious effect on morale or unit cohesion. Those who think they do not know someone gay think otherwise.

That is the price of ignorance.

In a separate answer to the same question, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said during the St. Petersburg debate that he thinks the current "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy "seems to have worked." (Of course, Romney earlier opposed DADT, but he is such a weasel that it is impossible to know if what he says has any relationship to what he thinks -- or if he thinks at all.)

Has DADT worked? Has it worked for the thousands of men and women who were expelled from the military, having their careers disrupted? Has it worked for the taxpayers, who paid to train these men and women, only to lose their services? Has it worked for the highly-valued, scarce translators of languages like Arabic, Farsi, and Korean, who were forced to leave the armed forces simply because they were gay?

Those questions answer themselves.

I understand that Duncan Hunter is the only active GOP presidential candidate who will appear in person at the Straw Poll being held at the Republican Party of Virginia Advance this weekend in Arlington. I hope that someone there has an opportunity to ask him why he thinks American soldiers are such boobs.

Members of our armed forces deserve much more respect than what Congressman Hunter seems willing to accord them. He should be ashamed of himself.

Virginia Film Festival 2007 - Second Video

The war in Iraq -- specifically the battle for Haditha -- was the subject of the last film I saw on day two of this year's Virginia Film Festival, appropriately entitled The Battle for Haditha, a cinema-verite style feature directed by British documentarian Nick Broomfield. Although in full color, the film brings to mind the pathbreaking 1960s film of the same genre, The Battle of Algiers. (Broomfield told me after the screening that that earlier film was on his mind when he produced his latest work.)

The film uses mostly non-professional actors, including Iraqi refugees in Jordan and veterans of the U.S. Marine Corps who served in Iraq.

After the film was screened, the University of Virginia's Michael Smith moderated a discussion with Broomfield and the audience (which was surprisingly sparse given the subject matter but perhaps not so surprisingly, given the late hour).

Here, in two video clips, is that discussion.

(Part 1)

(Part 2)

Dr. Ron Paul in Sunday's GOP Debate

Courtesy of a Congressional Quarterly transcript posted on line by the New York Times, here are the responses to questions posed by Fox News panelists to Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, one of the candidates for the Republican party's 2008 presidential nomination.

The debate was staged in Orlando, Florida -- home of Disney World and Universal Studios, among other tourist attractions.

The first question directed toward Dr. Paul was asked by the chief political correspondent for Fox News, Carl Cameron. Brit Hume introduced him:

Carl Cameron has the second round of questions.

Carl?

CAMERON: Thanks very much, Brit.

Congressman Paul, to you, on the subject of one of the core debates in the party, over social issues: gay marriage.

You've been quoted as saying, Any association that's voluntary should be permissible in a free society. And you've expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Many of your rivals on that stage disagree. Why are they wrong?

PAUL: I'm afraid I haven't been able to get most of your question. I know you brought up the subject of gay marriage, but I didn't get the point of what you're saying. I can't hear it that well.

CAMERON: Why are on those stage who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage wrong?

PAUL: OK. Well, if you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony.

PAUL: And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.

We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.

There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five or ten or 15 years. The authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

The second question for Congressman Paul came from Wendell Goler, the Fox News White House correspondent:

GOLER: Congressman Paul, you say that insurance companies and government programs have made health care simply unafforable. You objected so strongly to Medicaid that, as a doctor, I'm told, you simply treated patients on your own, at your own expense.

Is charity the way we should provide health care for the poor right now?

And how are you going to encourage doctors to do that -- primary care doctors to do that, when their salaries have been declining for more than a decade?

PAUL: Well, we've had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It's not working, and nobody's happy with it. The doctors aren't happy. The patients aren't happy.

PAUL: Nobody seems to be happy -- except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs.

You take care of poor people by turning the medical care back into the system, where people have some choices.

Now, we have a mess because we have -- a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But I have the only way we can afford to take care of people now, because we're going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year. And we have a foreign policy that is draining us.

I say, take care of these poor people. I'm not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit.

So you don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work.

And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today, which promotes and benefits and rewards the corporations -- because it's the drug companies and the HMOs and even the AMA that comes to us and lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high.

PAUL: It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.

(APPLAUSE)

Chris Wallace, moderator of Fox News Sunday, also directed a question toward Ron Paul, eliciting a comment on the Republicans' bete noire, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the all-but-certain and certainly-the-GOP's-heaven-sent-choice-for Democratic presidential nominee.

WALLACE: Congressman Paul...

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Congressman Paul, you're against the Iraq war. So is Senator Clinton. So what are the differences between you?

PAUL: Well, there's a very big difference, and I think the American people, if we as a party realize this and understand it, 70- some percent of the people in America want the war over with. They're sick and tired of it and they want our troops to come home.

Now, Senator Clinton has nothing new to offer. She's endorsing the same policy. She said that the troops would be there for another five years, continue to build this embassy that's going to be bigger than the Vatican, continue to build 14 air bases as are going on there, these private bases going on there, and never change.

PAUL: We in this party have to realize the American people are sick and tired of big government, big government overseas, an empire we can't maintain, the bankruptcy of this country, and also the attack on our personal civil liberties. We don't have privacy left anymore, and Hillary Clinton offers no solution to that, and neither does any of the Democrats. And we are not doing a very good job either.

If we don't recognize that, we don't have a chance because we need to get back to the basics, believe in the Constitution, believe in the rule of law, and not allow our government to spend endlessly and bankrupt this country.

(APPLAUSE)

HUME: Congressman Paul, thank you.

Brit Hume, who moderated the panel and the debaters, asked Dr. Paul to follow up on a question about Social Security and retirement savings for Americans that was posed to another candidate:

HUME: Congressman Paul, your thoughts on these issues?

PAUL: it's a mess. And it proves that the government is not very good at central economic planning, even for retirement.

PAUL: The money was taken from the people with good intention. We should do our best to return it to those that have taken it.

But we need to allow the young people to just flat out get out of the system. Because, I tell you what...

(APPLAUSE)

... if you have the government managing these accounts, it's not going to work.

And the other thing that you have to consider if you're really serious about protecting people's incomes, each and every one of us, is how you're going to protect the dollar. If you don't have the dollar maintaining its value, no matter where you put the money you're not going to have any value. That's where the crisis is coming.

You're going to go up with all these cost of living increases but you'll never keep up with the cost of living because the dollar's going down, the cost of living is going up.

Our dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to the dollar of 1913, when the Federal Reserve took charge of it. And if you don't deal with the dollar there will be no retirement for anybody. We're going to have chaos.

And that is why you have to cut spending. That's why we need a new foreign policy. We need to tie it to people over here in this country, the people who are dependent, but we need to let the people get out, whether it's Social Security or medical care or education. The Constitution doesn't advise that we do any of that anyway.

PAUL: That's the only way we can solve the problem.

(APPLAUSE)

Carl Cameron asked this question of Senator Fred Thompson, and then asked the other candidates, including Congressman Paul, for their opinions on the same issue:

CAMERON: Senator Thompson, violence escalated again today on the Turkish-Iraq border. The terrorist group, PKK, took Turkish soldiers hostage. If as President Bush says, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq to protect our homeland, shouldn't the Turks be able to go into Iraq to protect their own?

Dr. Paul's reply:

PAUL: This is a -- this is a result of a foreign policy of interventionism. The founders advised non-interventionism. And even our president won the election in the year 2000 to have a more humble foreign policy, not to go into nation-building, and not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations.

And we won an election on that.

But here we are. We're over there and we've invaded this country and this is just another unintended consequence. The war is spreading, the war is likely to go into Iran, nobody's willing to take anything off the table.

What would it be like if somebody came in here into Mexico and did some of these things -- say, like, putting missiles in Europe? We're just looking for trouble. It's so unnecessary. And we jeopardize ourselves. And, quite frankly, we're not able to afford this.

So we don't need to go looking for trouble. We don't need another Cold War. And all we have to do is start talking to people and trading with people.

We don't need to assume that the world is going to blow up. Just think of...

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

PAUL: When I was drafted into the military, and I served five years in the military, the Soviets had 40,000 nuclear weapons.

And here, we're now learning about agitating and putting missiles in Europe.

PAUL: It's the Turks' business. It's not our business.

(AUDIENCE BOOS)

(APPLAUSE)

The last question addressed to Dr. Paul came from Wendell Goler, and it really gave the congressman a chance to shine: The question, intentionally or not, sparked a brief summary of the political philosophy and policy stance that has drawn so many activists to the Ron Paul campaign (or, as it is affectionately known from coast to coast, the "Ron Paul Revolution"):

GOLER: Gentlemen, I want to ask you a series of questions on no particular subject. These are simply questions I haven't had a chance to ask yet.

Congressman Paul, I want to start with you. You have drawn some of the strongest reactions of any person on the stage, both pro and con, sir. When Ronald Reagan became a Republican, he said he hadn't left the Democratic Party, the Democrats had left him.

Given your differences with the other gentlemen on the stage, has the Republican Party left you? Have these gentlemen left the Republican Party?

PAUL: I think in many ways they haven't followed our platform and they don't follow the Constitution. So they're really not following (inaudible). I think in many ways we have become big spenders. Republicans are the big spenders. Our big-government conservatives, they're part of the neo-conservative movement. They've lost their traditions about traditional conservatism and the Constitution.

We have benefited for so many years and decades by having a position of less use of force. Eisenhower won his election in 1952 by trying to clean up the mess that Democrats created in Korea. Nixon won in '68. We continuously won in taking this position of a more commonsensical foreign policy.

Like I said, even George Bush won criticizing this interventionism, and now all of a sudden, just in this short period of time, we have accepted the Democrats' position on foreign policy, on entitlements, on deficits. I mean, we have lost our way.

No, I think that the position of the Republican Party today has not fulfilled their traditions.

And that's why we lost last year. And if we don't go back to our traditions and believe in the Constitution, limited government, personal liberties, and a foreign policy that's noninterventionist, that won't bankrupt us, so that we can defend this country -- we can't even defend our own cities while we're prancing around the entire world.

(APPLAUSE)

Dr. Paul also appeared with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes on a post-debate wrap-up show, and he was in excellent form for that interview, too. When Hannity tried to pooh-pooh the cell-phone/text message poll that showed debate viewers favoring Ron Paul with 38 percent of their votes, Dr. Paul explained that this was just the enthusiastic response from discerning Fox News viewers across the country.

Rudy's Reading List

U.S. Representative Ron Paul, who stood his ground despite a verbal dressing-down by fellow presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in the South Carolina debate on May 15, has issued a list of books he recommends to Giuliani (and, by implication, to others) with regard to how U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has led to unwanted and unintended consequences.

In a news release issued by his campaign today, Congressman Paul recommends several books that support his reading of recent history -- including the published findings of the presidentially-appointed 9/11 Commission.

Here is the full list:

Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback. Henry Holt and Company: New York, NY. 2000.

Pape, Robert A. Dying to Win. Random House: New York, NY, 2005.

Scheuer, Michael. Imperial Hubris. Potomac Books: Washington, DC, 2004.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. The 9-11 Commission Report, Final Edition. Barnes & Noble Publishing: New York, NY, 2006

The campaign news release says:

"I hope Rudy Giuliani reads these books from top foreign policy experts," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "We have also included some Cliffs Notes in case Mr. Giuliani is too busy giving $100,000 speeches on national security."

Unfortunately, Giuliani apparently thinks he is fully educated, according to a campaign spokeswoman:

Mayor Giuliani said it best -- it is extraordinary and reckless to claim that the United States invited the attacks on September 11th," [Maria] Comella said. "And to further declare Rudy Giuliani needs to be educated on September 11th when millions of people around the world saw him dealing with these terrorist attacks firsthand is just as absurd."

That retort rather misses the point. Nobody doubts that Mayor Giuliani responded with swiftness and courage when the 9/11 attacks happened. His response to that event helped Americans rediscover a mayor who, through fiscal discipline and force of will, converted New York from an economic basket case to a vibrant, safe city that its residents and leaders can point to with pride.

But it says nothing about whether "America's Mayor" has studied the causes -- direct and indirect -- of those attacks. To say "I was there" is not to say "I know why it happened." Observing a solar eclipse does not make a man an astronomer, if he still thinks that the sun is being eaten by a snake, rather than being obscured by the moon.

There is bound to be disagreement among scholars, policymakers, journalists, and average-but-informed citizens about issues like this. The disagreements arise through discussion and debate, and appear frequently in the popular press, on talking-head TV programs, in documentary films, in the blogosphere, and in academic publications. Giuliani's remark during the Fox News debate about Ron Paul's view -- that "I don't think i've heard that before" -- indicates that he has not been paying attention to the discussion of the past six years.

Now he's got a chance to catch up. There is plenty of time for reading -- or listening to audio books -- on the campaign bus.

Across Five Marches

Monday marked the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

I remember clearly where I was when I heard the news that the actual war had begun: The evening of March 19, 2003, was the occasion of the last Washington-Lincoln-Reagan Dinner to raise funds for the Albemarle County and Charlottesville Republican parties. The after-dinner speaker was former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. The buzz about the war news spread through the banquet room at the Boar's Head Inn even as the keynote address was still being delivered. As soon as Mr. Thornburgh finished his remarks, nearly everyone skedaddled back to their homes so they could watch CNN or (more likely) Fox News. A post-dinner reception with coffee and liqueur for high-dollar donors with Dick Thornburgh was abandoned.

It was still a very successful evening and much remembered in local GOP circles.

By lasting four years and counting, the Iraq war has already leaped over the time the United States was involved in World War I, World War II, and the Korean Conflict. (Technically, of course, the war in Korea has not yet ended; there is a ceasefire that has been remarkably solid for more than 50 years, and the shooting war has not recommenced.) The Iraq war has spanned nearly the same period as the U.S. War Between the States.

Somehow, I do not think the Bush administration expected to still be embroiled in a conflict in Iraq forty-eight months after the invasion and the relatively easy toppling of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. It has often been commented that the administration knew how to win the battles, but was befuddled as to how to handle the peace that followed. "Peace," of course, is used here in a relative sense.

During the run-up to the Iraq war, I wrote a piece that appeared in several religious and secular publications that outlined how to approach the impending war through the lens of Western just-war tradition. It may be useful to pull that article up today to see how it stands in retrospect. I ask my readers: Have the criteria I discuss in the article been met? If not, why not? If you believe they have, feel free to elaborate as to why you think that to be the case. (Your answers will not be graded but similar questions may appear on the semester final.)

The "Just War" and Iraq
(from The Metro Herald, September 20, 2002)

(Charlottesville, VA) --- Each day, the United States edges closer to war with Iraq, with an aim of deposing Saddam Hussein and finishing the task begun in the Gulf War of 1991. The Bush administration seeks cooperation from U.S. allies in this endeavor, even as doubts about a new U.S. invasion of Iraq are being raised in many quarters, including among Republicans on Capitol Hill, most notably House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX).

Especially within the context of the broader War on Terrorism, we must assess the morality of this prospective situation in light of the "just war" theory. Although a minority pacifist tradition teaches that war can never be justified, the larger religious heritage of the West teaches that in certain circumstances the use of military force may be just, obligatory, or both.

Just war theory is the common ethical heritage of all the mainline Christian churches -- Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist -- embraced in international law as the right of national self-defense. While most of the criteria for the just war were refined in the Middle Ages by Catholic scholars, basic documents of the Protestant Reformation reaffirm the applicability of the just war doctrine. For instance, the Augsburg Confession says: "Our churches teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God and that it is right for Christians to engage in just wars," and the Westminster Confession speaks about wars that are "just and necessary."

Augustine of Hippo asserted that war must be fought only as a last resort, after other political or diplomatic efforts have failed. Thomas Aquinas added that war must be authorized by a sovereign (in our case, through the democratic process defined by the U.S. Constitution), it must be for a rightful cause, and it must be fought to stop evil or advance good. Three questions require answers:

* Is the objective of the action just? According to Western norms, military action taken solely to conquer or subjugate other peoples is unjust, while military action designed to defend one's own or an ally's territory against external aggression is justified. Neither is revenge alone a just cause.

* Are the means employed both just and appropriate? The force used must be proportionate to the objective: just ends can be betrayed by unjust and inappropriate means.

* Will the chance for justice be enhanced if the action succeeds? However noble the end and just the means, military action is not justified if it has little or no prospect of achieving its objective. Assessing the chances of success or failure is a moral as well as a political imperative.

Policymakers must translate abstract goals -- peace, security, freedom -- into more specific objectives so they can choose appropriate means to achieve them. Moral judgment must be tempered with a sense of political realism.

Given the not-so-secret aim of overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, it may be instructive to frame the "just war" question in another way.

Ernest W. Lefever, founding president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, turned to Abraham Lincoln for instruction on what to do when faced with a tyrannical regime. Lincoln offered philosophical and common-sense principles that Lefever summarized in this way:

People have a right to overthrow a tyrannical or utterly corrupt ruler or government when three conditions are met. First, they must have suffered the tyrant for some time; second, they must have exhausted all legal and peaceful means of getting rid of him; and third, the prospect for the tyrant's disappearing without their intervention must be bleak. Under these conditions, said Lincoln, the people have not only a right but an obligation to remove the tyrant, by violent means if necessary.

If a U.S. invasion of Iraq is considered as aid to the long-suffering Iraqi people, Lincoln's tripartite formula might inform the decision-making process.

But let's not fool ourselves. This is not a rescue mission. Whatever the political or humanitarian condition of the Iraqi people, no invasion will take place unless vital U.S. interests are at stake. And no invasion should take place unless all the conditions for a just war are met.

However we arrive at the decision, the default position must always be not to intervene, not to go to war. This is not a decision to be made capriciously nor -- as Thomas Jefferson wrote -- "for light and transient causes." Such a decision requires tough thought peppered with moral reasoning.

The job of the Bush administration is not merely to persuade our allies that the cause is just. It has to persuade the American people, as well. The administration must assure us that even if the cause is just, the war will be carried out with appropriate means and right intention, with the aim of promoting justice, peace, and security.

Readers, it's up to you: Did the Bush administration do the job I suggested in the last paragraph?

Death of Saddam

If one needs proof that the Americans are not in control in Iraq, it's in the fact that Saddam Hussein did not sit on death row for 20 years waiting for appeal after appeal. Due process is such a bourgeois, Western concept.

"Thoughts" for Independence Day

From an Independence Day reflection written by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, as she flatly abandons principled dissent and replaces it with Chomskyite babbling:

The star-spangled banner, which I can now see whipping in the wind outside an airport terminal where I am writing this, does not fill me with pride: it fills me with shame, and that flag symbolizes sorrow and corruption to me right now. The flag represents so much lying, fixed elections, profiting by the war machine, high gas prices, spying on Americans, rapid erosion of our freedoms while BushCo literally gets away with murder, torture and extreme rendition, contaminating the world with depleted uranium, and illegal and immoral wars that are responsible for killing so many. A symbol that used to represent hope to so many around the world now fills so many with disgust.

Don't hold back, Cindy: Tell us what you really think.

My Lunch with Dick Cheney

Through a confluence of happy accidents, I ended up spending a couple of hours today at the National Press Club, where Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at a luncheon honoring the recipients of the annual Gerald R. Ford Journalism Prizes. Cheney, you'll recall, served as Ford's White House Chief of Staff before serving in Congress and both Bush administrations.

Longtime readers of this blog will remember that I am an admirer of President Ford, who I rank with Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge as among the most liberty-minded presidents of the 20th century, as all three aimed at restraining and shrinking the size and scope of government.

After lunch, I ran into Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University, who was one of the judges for the journalism prizes. I used to be a guest lecturer for Rozell when he taught at American University. While we were chatting near the elevators, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger walked up to us. I extended my hand and said, "Dr. Kissinger, you probably don't remember me, but I was in your class at Georgetown 25 years ago." He seemed pleased to see me -- what teacher isn't glad to see a former student -- but the gentleman with him one-upped me. "I took his class 40 years ago!," he said, with a wink.

My table at the lunch was no more than 20 or 25 feet from the Vice President, so I got a few good photos. I was sitting between Senator Jon Kyl's press secretary and two gentlemen from the Red Chinese embassy, who were scribbling rapidly to take down as many of Cheney's words as possible.

I scribbled a few notes myself, which I turned into an article for this week's Metro Herald. To wit:

Cheney Speaks Out on War on Terror, Iraq, Government Secrecy
Rick Sincere
Special to the Metro Herald

(WASHINGTON) --- Vice President Dick Cheney was the featured speaker on Monday, June 19, at a National Press Club awards ceremony. In response to questions from the audience, Cheney spoke out on the war on terror, the war in Iraq, and government secrecy.

Cheney spoke at the annual luncheon ceremony, sponsored by the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, for the presentation of two journalism prizes named for the former president. The award recipients were Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News, for his reporting on the presidency, and Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times, for his reporting on national defense issues while working for the Los Angeles Times.

National Press Club president Jonathan Salant introduced Cheney as “pinch-hitting for Gerald Ford,” since Ford, who will turn 93 on July 14, was unable to attend the luncheon.

Cheney began his remarks by noting that his own history with President Ford goes back to 1974, when Donald Rumsfeld became Ford’s chief of staff and Cheney was Rumsfeld’s deputy. Later, when Rumsfeld became Ford’s Secretary of Defense, Cheney was promoted to White House Chief of Staff – later serving 10 years in Congress, a term as Secretary of Defense, as CEO of Halliburton, and today as vice president.

The Vice President noted that Ford served a short term – only 29 months – but because of the turbulent times, the “pace of activity was enough to fill an eight-year presidency.”

Paying tribute to Ford, Cheney said that “through all of this, America was extremely fortunate to have a steady hand at the wheel.”

“In every respect,” he said, “Gerald Ford labored hard at his job and he was good at it,” adding: “Gerald Ford is the kind of person whose good qualities appear on first impression and are only confirmed when you spend time with him.”

Joking with the audience, which consisted largely of members of the Washington press corps, Cheney continued: “President Ford is a patient and forgiving man, so naturally he has a high regard for the news media.” (This reference may not be so tongue-in-cheek. In his 2005 book, Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s, Dowling College historian Yanek Mieczkowski reports that Ford had unusually good relations with the press in comparison to other presidents of the late 20th century.)

Following his remarks about the former President, who was as much honored at the luncheon as the reporters who received crystal figurines in his name, Cheney answered questions from the audience, filtered through moderator Salant.

Asked “Are we winning the war on terror?,” Cheney said, “I believe we are.”

Explaining that after 9/11 that the United States developed an “aggressive strategy,” Cheney said that the biggest threat we now face is an al-Qaeda cell armed with a nuclear weapon or some other weapon of mass destruction. Still, he continued, “a look at the broad sweep of events” shows that “several things stand out.” One of these is that the United States “cannot all by itself succeed in every place unless we have friends and allies,” pointing to the cooperation we have received in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq in rounding up and killing terrorists connected to al-Qaeda.

The biggest sign of success, Cheney said, is that “it’s been nearly five years now and we haven’t been hit again,” though he qualified this by noting that “nobody can promise that we won’t be hit again” by al-Qaeda or “al-Qaeda wannabes.”

Cheney asserted that two of the reasons for success were the USA PATRIOT Act and the terrorist surveillance program – both of which, he acknowledged, have been controversial. He insisted, in regard to the surveillance program, that “it clearly is legal and consistent with the Constitution.” The program, he said, is “reviewed by the President every 45 days and he is assured by the Attorney General that it complies with the laws of the land.”

“The fact of the matter,” Cheney said, “is we’ve been safe and secure at home and that is no accident.”

Another questioner asked if Cheney had underestimated the strength of the insurgency in Iraq. Cheney replied that “nobody anticipated the level of violence we encountered.” He attributed this misjudgment to how the Bush administration “underestimated the effect of 30 years of Saddam’s rule.” There was a huge transition to make from dictatorship to democracy, he said, and he personally “underestimated the extent to which Iraqi society had been damaged by the Saddam regime.”

Asked if there will be a return to military conscription, Cheney flatly answered no. “I’m a big believer in the all-volunteer force,” he said, and although the structures for a military draft are maintained for the eventuality that certain extreme conditions might require it, “I don’t foresee the development of those conditions.”

As one might expect from a gathering of working journalists, there was a question about how the Bush administration is reacting to leaks, particularly leaks of national security information. Cheney said that he believes “there need to be secrets. There are things the federal government does in the national security arena that need to be kept secret.”

“One of the frustrations of this debate,” Cheney added, “is that you can’t talk about current operations to explain why” certain information has to be kept classified. He gave as an example of how reports of communications interception technology tipped off al-Qaeda that they should change their means of communicating with each other. He also noted that when U.S. secrets are compromised, “other intelligence services find it difficult to work with us.”

Just before he had to leave, Cheney was offered a light-hearted question: With the President celebrating his 60th birthday on July 6, what gift does Cheney plan to give to him?

Cheney pondered his answer for a moment, noting that the two of them do not usually exchange birthday presents, but only Christmas presents. Pausing to think, he smiled and said, “This is one of those things that need to be secret.”

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

Rick Sincere covers political and cultural events for the Metro Herald.

-30-

For more information about the Gerald R. Ford journalism prizes, visit the Gerald R. Ford Foundation. A transcript of today's event can be obtained through the National Press Club, and C-SPAN recorded the luncheon speeches for broadcast. The Associated Press also has a report on the lunch.

Which Finger Is That?

Syndicated radio talk-show host Neal Boortz is suggesting that, in a gesture of solidarity with the Iraqi people, Members of Congress should dip their index fingers in purple ink and wave them in the air during tonight's State of the Union Address by President Bush.

Given the attitude of most Members of Congress toward us Americans, wouldn't it be more appropriate (and accurate) for them to wave their middle fingers in the air?