Monthly Archives: February 2008

Addressing War, National Interest, and Iraq-Part 1

On a previous post that I wrote, oddly enough one about Josh Romney possibly running for congress, a debate has broken out in the comments section about war and President Bush.  Anytime this is discussed between me and someone who wants us to withdraw immediately from Iraq, a few of the same arguments are made, two of which are stated in comment below, given to us by SLCondensed:

I guess my problem is I can’t honestly justify attacking a country for its oil when there are so many worse countries and regimes around the world. The situation in Darfur is much worse than it ever was in Iraq, and we don’t do something about it why?

I posted a fairly brief response to this comment, but feel that there is so much more involved with this comment that it justified a whole post here.  The first comment SLCondensed writes comes down an issue of national interest and this is what will be addressed in Part 1 (the comment about Darfur will be addressed in Part 2).  After reading that sentence there are a few questions that need to be asked: 

1. Why did we go to war in Iraq?
2. Did we go to war in Iraq for Oil?
3. Were there worse regimes and countries than Iraq?
4. Considering how much conflict there is in the world, what responsibility does the U.S. have to intervene?  What is the threshold for such an intervention? How should the U.S., being the industrialized world’s security provider, determine when military intervention is acceptable?
5. Does the reason we went to Iraq in the first place even matter to the situation today?

Regarding why we went to war in Iraq, there was not one single reason.  Sure, the Bush administration sold us that there were WMDs and that was really the only reason given, but it was so much more than that.  First, I need to remind the reader that EVERYONE believed Iraq had WMDs before we invaded, everyone (except Saddam).  The question wasn’t, “Does Iraq have WMDs?”, it was, “how much of a threat are those WMDs?”  So I don’t want to hear anything about Bush lied, what a crock.

Anyway, here is the list of reasons why I think we went to Iraq: 1. WMDs (9/11 was still fresh on our minds), 2. Surround Iran with U.S. forces 3. Oil and Gas, 4. Send a message to other despotic regimes (which worked magically, just about 9 months after Iraq started Libya gave up it’s WMD program, perhaps Bush’s greatest acheivement and solidified my vote for him in ’04), 5. Revenge against Saddam for trying to assassinate Bush ’41, 6. To provide freedom to the Iraqi people, 6. To finally force people to take Western threats seriously (I mean, how many times can you say, “you better do this or else” and never follow through-lookin’ at you U.N.), 7. To fight terrorists somewhere not named the United States.

Some of those reasons are more honorable than others, some are more realistic than others, some are childish, but ultimately I believe all of those things were considered by the Bush administration during the decision making process.  Of course, the Administration could not come out and say all those things, it would have been political suicide. No President, whether GOP or Dem, would be that stupid. 

Question 2 was answered in question one, of course the need for oil played a part in our decision to go to war in Iraq.  So what?  The need for energy and fuel is essential to any society, the whole reason we have any interest in the Middle-East at all is because of energy.  If they didn’t have oil or gas we would view them and treat them the way we do Mali and Sudan.

Question 3, certainly there were worse regimes in the world, but not many.  North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, and Haiti to name a few.   But this brings us back to national interest and it’s role in our decision making process, which I will discuss in full in Part II.

Question 4,  these questions have no cut and dry answer.  But I will certainly share my opinion.  The way I view the current world is I see the U.S as the world’s only superpower and essentially, as the military for Canada, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and New Zealand.   Each of these geographies, whether we or they like or not, rely on the U.S. predominantly for their security.  The reason they can get away with having such miniscule military forces is because they know the U.S. is there to back them up and we will so long as the reason is just.  This is a good scenario for both parties, it allows us to maintain our place in the world and grow and expand our economic interests.  It allows them to focus their more limited resources on providing for the people socially and economically.  The fact the U.S. acts in this role is precisely why the developed world blossomed.  Now these realities may upset you or you may like them, but the fact remains that this is the reality of the world in which we now live.

So, with the U.S. having such a large role in the world, both economically and militarily, it puts us in a place of responsibility.  How to use that responsibility is a question of great debate and the cause of much frustration and animosity, both on the part of America and the rest of the world.  The fact is, despite our current position as the world’s hegemon, we still have limited resources, we can’t do all things and we can’t be involved in everthing; nor should we.   Thus, all decisions are usually to be made based upon national interest.  Every country in the history of the world operates this way.

With the U.S. in such a unique and powerful position, we also have to show restraint.  Just because we have freedom and democracy does not mean that we have to force every other country to institute the same.  Forcing democracy seems like an oxymoron.  At the same time, the spread of democracy is in our national interests so we encourage democracy and try to demonstrate the value of it. 

Similarly, both because of national interest/limited resources and because we need to allow countries to largely work out their own issues, we just can’t and shouldn’t get involved everywhere.  Sometimes it is justified, but determining that justification is difficult.  I will address this much more in Part II.  Ultimately, though, the U.S. needs to make decisions based upon what is best for the U.S.

Question 5, ultimately SLCondensed’s comment basically was saying that we need to leave Iraq because we never should have been there in the first place.  Whether that reasoning is true or not, it has absolutely no relevance on the current situation.  The anti-Iraq people’s favorite argument against Iraq is this reason we are there thing and it is utterly ridiculous. The fact is, we are in Iraq, we destroyed their government, and we decided that we were going to help rebuild it and to provide freedom.  Essentially, we broke so we are going to fix it.

Why we went to Iraq in the first place does not change the fact that we are there.  Pulling out all of our troops and causing an even worse humanitarian crisis because you disagree of our original justification for the interaction is ridiculous, ignorant, and naieve.   Further, we are now winning.  Why are we going to pull out when victory and success is in our sights?

But you may say, what determine’s victory in Iraq? I would argue that victory is a country that is relatively stable, can provide for the basic needs of the people, and has a semblance of democracy.  We don’t need Iraq to be like the U.S. or even like Turkey right away, we need Iraq to just be able to largely support itself, defend its people from radicals, and provide an environment for continued economic development.

This leads me to briefly discuss U.S. history in war.  The United States has a large history of doing terrible in wars at the beginning but pulling out the victory in the end.  Let’s run down that history.  The U.S. had no business winning the revolutionary war.  We lost battle after battle and very nearly lost the war in the first year.  The war lasted about 8 years, in 1776 things were awful, yet by 1783 and ’84 we had come back and won. 

The War of 1812 was near disaster as well.  Our Navy was terrible and we lost many battles early on, but managed to pull it out in the end.  The Civil War is the perfect example.  From 1860 to 1863 the Union army was terrible, many people criticized the war and wanted us out.  had we listened to them the United States would be two countries. Fortunately we had a President that had resolve and refused to cower to public pressure.  Eventually, we won some big battles and won the war. 

In WWII the German military had the upperhand for the first year or two of our involvement, but again, American determination resulted in victory.  This takes us to Vietnam.  The reality in Vietnam is that when we gave up, we were on our way to winning, things were looking up.  The only reason we lost the War was because our politicians back home caved to public pressure.   We would have been outright victorious a short time later had we seen it through.

The only two wars that we haven’t been behind in were WWI, because we came in late and gave the Brits and French the boost they needed to break the stalemate with the Germans, and Iraq I, we faced a ridiculously weak military and only required Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.  (By the way, that was a War that was solely for oil, I wonder where all you were then?).

Today, we are going through a similar pattern to what we SHOULD be used to, except for the fact our people are historically ignorant.  The first 3 years of the “war” (I don’t even consider it a war, it more a peacekeeping and stability mission, we won the war when the Iraqi Army collapsed and Baghdad fell) were disasterous.  We made a lot of mistakes, just like the Lincoln administration did in the 1860’s, but year four has been a resounding success and year 5 is starting out much the same; even the Political situation is starting to stablize.  Yet so many of you still want us to throw in the towel.  It makes no sense!

As a result, the only conclusion I can come to as to why you want us to give up actually has nothing to do with Iraq or the realities there, it is that you hate and despise President Bush and want whatever it takes to bring him down to occur (short of assassination of course).   I am confident that had Kerry won in 2004 and followed the exact same path that Bush has taken in this second term, today you would be loving Kerry.  The reality is that so many of you are so blinded by your vitriol for Bush that you fail to recognize that the fastest way for us to get out of Iraq and the best way to ensure that a humanitarian crisis will be averted is by finishing the job there.  It reminds me of a common phrase our training instructors told us in Air Force Basic Training, “the fastest way out of here is to graduate.”   Things are going well in Iraq, sure they aren’t perfect, but they are still going well (you can tell that by the limited coverage Iraq gets in the media).  Give it a chance and try to look at the situation realistically.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under 9/11, Air Force, Anti-War, Army, Congress, Conservative, Democracy, Democrats, Election 2008, Genocide, History, International Affairs, Iraq, Liberal, Liberalism, Marines, Media, Military, Myanmar, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Senate, Terror, terrorism

Can’t Bush Be Given at Least a Little Credit?

Christiane Amanpour and her CNN cohorts released a report about North Korea’s nuclear program on Monday.  They were given a tour of a known nuclear powerplant that North Korea admits they were using to build a nuclear bomb.  Today that plant is empty and desolate but Amanpour rather than giving any credit to the Bush administration and their handling of the situation, simply decided to make fun of the President. Consider the following paragraph:

For a nation President Bush labeled as part of the “axis of evil,” it was not an impressive sight: a dilapidated concrete hulk, built with few resources back in the early ’80s.

Basically, we are supposed to laugh and say, “ha, ha, Bush is an idiot.  He claims they are evil and dangerous but their nuclear plant is empty.  Moron.”

Nevermind the fact that the very next paragraph in the article she acknowldeges this:

But it did produce plutonium, enough to make a few bombs and to test-fire a nuclear weapon 18 months ago.

Hmmm, so 18 months ago that same plant was fully operational and was making bombs, but Bush and his policy get no credit?  So what happened then. Did Kim Jong Il just decide to become a benevolent dicatator and lose his ambition for a nuke for the good of the world?

I doubt it.  In fact Amanpour continues to tell us why North Korea did it:

For all of this, North Korea expected a million tons of heavy fuel oil, a lifting of sanctions and removal from the U.S. list of terrorist sponsors. This has not happened yet, so North Korea has slowed down the disabling process at Yongbyon.

The United States says Pyongyang hasn’t yet fully accounted for its past nuclear activities. However, both sides seem determined to overcome this stumbling block and reach out in other ways, too.

So basically, North Korea decided to dismantle it’s nuclear program because the U.S. and other countries offered benefits.  That sounds an awful lot like it is due to U.S. policy dictated by the Bush administration. 

I find it quite telling that CNN and Amanpour would fail to give Bush any credit for such a turn of events.  I also find it outrageous that every other news source is ignoring this North Korea story, instead they are talking about the NY Philharmonic Orchestra playing in Pyongyang.  This is a major story and a major victory, not just for Bush, but for the U.S. and the world as a whole.  The sad thing is, Clinton’s agreement with NK was a complete failure, but if it were as successful as Bush’s it would have lauded and praised, but simply because it is Bush it is ignored and cast aside.  What a sad state for our society and media. 

As a side note, purely discussing the NK nuclear program, I am still quite skeptical that they have dismanteled their nuclear program.  I am not saying they haven’t, but I would not be the least surprised to find out that they have a secret plant elsewhere.  Also, it is quite possible that now that they have their multiple nukes, they are content and decided to appease the U.S.   I mean, how many nukes do you need to destroy Seoul.  All we have heard about is a plant being dismantled, not about bombs.

13 Comments

Filed under Election 2008, International Affairs, Media, Military, Nuclear, Politics

A Frigid Winter, Part II – Global Cooling

Here is more information and articles discussing the cooling and not the warming of the globe:

While I would not go so far as to say that it “erases global warming”, 10 year evidence demonstrates a leveling off of global temperatures, with a sudden drop this winter.  Certainly we will need to watch the upcoming winters to see if they are as cold and snow filled as the ’07-’08 winter has been so far.

To me and my less than stellar expertise on climate, the temperature and activity of the Sun makes the most sense as having the greatest impact on global temperatures.  In addition to this article, other studies that I have read in the past indicate during previous times of a less active Sun, cold weather and an overall cooler climate ensued.  In the same vein, it makes more sense to me that a more active Sun that produces more heat would be the likely culprit for global warming, with human blame minimal at best.  Here is a Denmark study on cosmic rays and global warming.

OK, so this one is a Russian article, do we still not trust them?  Anyway, it too gives a lot of credence to the impact of the Sun on the climate.

Basically, I put all of this out there not because I hate the environment; I actually love the environment and want to see it protected and conserved.  However, I am also sick and tired of the fear mongering on the part of our press via environmental activists who insist a global catastrophe is on its way because we humans are greedy and are destroying the environment.  The solutions they propose tow the line of Communist ideology (something that our media and politicians conveniently overlook), despite the fact that communist regimes are the biggest polluters and destroyers of the environment.  I am sick and tired of the strong arm tactics that the activists use against anyone who dares suggest different possibilities for climate change.  Things have gotten ridiculous, just 30 years ago the whole rage was global cooling, in the last 15 it has been global warming, and who knows, now we could be to global cooling because of global warming.

One of the things that the activists have been spectacularly successful at achieving is an evolution of what global warming is.  Does anyone else find it interesting that all of the sudden the new catch phrase of fear is climate change and the phrase global warming is becoming fewer and farther between?  This is because the science for global warming is spotty at best. But they have been successful convincing us that any unique or abnormal weather event is the result of global warming.  Even if global temperatures drop by six degrees over the next 10 years, they will claim that it was because of global warming.  It is ridiculous.  And sadly, most Americans, and especially the media, will buy it hook line and sinker.

The fact is, climate change is not really understood and science is wholly inconclusive.  Personally, I attribute the strange weather events to mother nature being mother nature.  Climate and nature have always been unpredictable, the earth regularly gets warmer then gets cooler.  All of this is nothing new, but we Americans apparently love to live in fear so we have to invent stuff to be afraid of.  It would be healthy for us to slow down and really study the issue instead of being reactionary.  Unfortunately, no matter what the issue is – climate, economy, war – our latest trend both as a culture and as a government has been to be reactionary; this is a dangerous path to take.

Leave a comment

Filed under Climate, Environment, Global Warming, Outdoors, Politics, Progressive

A Frigid Winter and Militant Global Warmists

Anyone who his living through this winter knows that it has been one of the coldest winters in memory.  Across the United States and Canada it is has been frigidly cold and a considerable amount of snow (although where I live in southern PA the snow has been minimal, but it has been cold).   It seems apparent to me that such a winter is contrary to the claims of activists dedicated to the cause of global warming, haven’t they been saying that global warming will first cause the globe to warm?  So where has the warming been? 

In the National Post there is a fascinating article titled, “Forget Global Warming, Welcome to the New Ice Age.”  The author, Lorne Gunter, makes some great and relevant observations, both about the science of climatology and the culture of global warming activists.

To start, let’s look at this past winter.  Gunter points out that the January 2008 temperature average was .3 degrees colder than the average of the last century (1901-2000).   He adds that China is suffering its “most brutal” winter in memory and Toronto broke it’s February snowfall record, set back in the ’50s, in the first two weeks of February.  Additionally, a friend who lives in Salt Lake said that the Utah was at 120% of the snowfall average for the entire winter season, and that was in the first week of February (I should note that I have not validated that claim). 

So, so what?  One season does not a trend make! Amen to that.  But it is indicative that things are not as bad or dire as some may want us to believe, but let’s move on to other points made in this article.  One of the favorite fearmongering threats we here is that the polar ice caps are melting and are likely never to come to back.  I will not argue that the caps have been melting and that glaciers are in serious decline, but this winter has cured much of that.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

Two points here, the obvious is that the polar ice is in nowhere near as much trouble as we thought, the second is that though this is anecdotal evidence, that is essentially all global warmists use.  I love the last paragraph from the quote above.

The science mentioned in the article is very fascinating, but I will omit that information here as my post is getting too long and people don’t like to read that stuff much anyway (unfortunately) and I will address that info in future posts.  But there are some other points to be made about the environmentalists who have been ratcheting up the fear mongering and how their actions automatically caused me to question the validity of their claims. 

The first action that made me question global warming derives from the last paragraph of the quote above, that is that they use anything and everything, no matter how minute to try to install fear into us that we are all doomed because of global warming. 

The other action is the activists actions and attitudes towards anyone who either questions them or suggests that we look at all the science or theories out there.  People who suggest this are immediately and unequivocably cast aside as crazies and industry lackies.  Despite the fact that many of the global warming doubters are MIT, Harvard, and other respected researchers and scientists.  The Wall Street Journal had a must read article about this topic titled, “Chilling Effect: Global Warmists Try to Stifle Debate.” 

All three serious contenders for the Presidency acknowledge that more needs to be done to slow global warming and take care of the environment (I agree with the latter). So, as the article states:

You’d think this would be a rich time for debate on the issue of climate change. But it’s precisely as sweeping change on climate policy is becoming likely that many people have decided the time for debate is over. One writer puts climate change skeptics “in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial,” another envisions “war crimes trials” for the deniers. And during the tour for his film “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore himself belittled “global warming deniers” as unworthy of any attention.

I have noticed that type of response for a while now and it should give everyone pause.  If global warmists were so confident with their science why do they so vehemently stifle debate and criticize anyone who remotely questions them?  It makes no sense. 

Take for example, from the article, Bjorn Lomborg an author and left leaning believer of global warming.  In his recent book, “Cool It”, he simply calls for a reasoned debate on the appropriate responses to stem global warming.  This alone infuriated activists, many of whom considered him a traitor. 

Additionally, there is finally a major conference coming up to discuss the realities of climate change, basically an anti-global warming conference.  Undoubtedly the science presented will be as biased as the science presented at the pro-global warming conferences, but that is not the point.  The point is that the environmental activists are already demeaning the presenters as corporate apologists and that, ” ‘no real scientists’ (will be) present despite an impressive array of speakers such as Patrick Michaels, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.” 

I am convinced that global warming as a whole is a sham.  Especially man-made global warming.  I am also convinced that the militant-like global warming activists are only using the issue to push a socialist and communist agenda.  Call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever, but I am just calling it as I see it.  I can come up with no other explanation for the irrational claims, actions, and attitudes of the activist global warming movement.   

8 Comments

Filed under Climate, Earth, Election 2008, Environment, Liberal, Liberalism, Media, Politics, Progress, Progressive, Science

A Romney to Vote for in ’08?

Like father like son may be the new motto of the Mitt Romney household.  It appears quite possible that Mitt Romney’s 32 year-old son Josh Romney will run for congress to challenge Democrat incumbent Jim Matheson in Utah’s 2nd congressional district, which includes Salt Lake City and all of eastern and southern Utah.  

I am no expert on Utah politics, but all indications are that Jim Matheson is a fairly popular and successful congressman.  Matheson first won election in 2000, beating Derek Smith by 15% and most recently won re-election with is largest margin yet, a 22%, 59-37 drubbing of LaVar Christienson.

Heading into this election cycle, Democrats most likely felt that this was a safe seat that they should easily hold on to, especially in this election cycle when Republicans are so down.  However, Utah’s 2nd (The Fightin’ 2nd) voted overwhelmingly for President Bush in 2004 and this is what is the cause of worry for Matheson should Josh Romney decide to run.

Mitt Romney is extremely popular in Utah, he won the the Utah primary with 90% of the vote.  Most of the Mormon voters in the state feel that Mitt and his religion were unfairly treated in the primary and would likely feel some sort of vindication being able to vote for a Romney, any Romney, in 2008. 

This election would likely be a blowout for Matheson if Josh does not decide to run.  But if Josh runs and his family (especially his Dad) come to Utah and campaigns on his behalf, Matheson will be sweating it and very worried.  If the national GOP is smart and they are interested in limiting the blood to be shed this November, they need to invest in Josh and get him to run. This is the only way for the GOP to pick up this seat, a seat they likely didn’t think would be possible a year ago.

19 Comments

Filed under Congress, Election 2008, Mitt Romney, Politics

My Obamania is Over

Well, not that I was ever an Obama supporter, but I certainly considered voting for him over McCain, especially if Huckabee were on the ticket.  However, now that I am actually looking at what Obama stands for and what he believes, any interest I had in him has completely dissolved. 

Sure, Obama is charismatic, a good speaker, and seemingly a good person but I need more than that.  Last week I discovered his, if not support, indifference for partial birth abortion something that is absolutely unacceptable.   Now, this morning I read an article by David Frum published by the National Post titled Hillary Has a Point.    This article mentions some troubling things about Barack that further diminishes him and potentially makes him my third choice behind both McCain and Hillary (How can that be?!).

The first thing that sticks out to me is that Obama has pledged unconditional and immediate withdrawal from Iraq.  While I don’t believe he would actually be stupid enough to carry out such a pledge, it is still worrying.   Remember, conservatives demanded pledges from candidates regarding taxes and abortion, people take these things seriously.  With such a pledge, if Obama were to win the Presidency and then four years from now we still have a presence in Iraq his supporters are going to be up in arms and may likely revolt.  It could be comparable to Bush 41’s “read my lips” debacle.    Frum goes on to say that Hillary has “given every indication of being a more responsible commander-in-chief than Obama.”

Further, Obama has agreed to meet with such despotic leaders as Ahmadi-Nejad, Chavez, and Castro (Raul version).  And while I certainly think that our foreign policy can almost be childish regarding whom we will and will not talk to, these talks certainly should not be done without conditions and should not be openly encouraged. 

Obama has consistently demonstrated his weakness and a lack of judgement with foreign policy.  Perhaps he and Ron Paul should hook up.   I still have a lot to learn about each of the three candidates still remaining, but I will be honest, if I didn’t already know Hillary and know of her character (or lack thereof) and just went solely on her campaign rhetoric, she would be right up there with McCain on whom I would support in November.  However, she lost me well before the campaigning began, she is a bad person.  I don’t care how much I may agree with a person’s policies, character and honesty goes a long way and are essential for my vote.  

So while it appears that Obama is tops for character and integrity (but what do I know), he is third on policy and ideas.  So apparently my only option left is a “hold-nose” vote for McCain, but I don’t know if I can do it.  I may not be voting for President this cycle or will write in Mitt just for fun.

P.S.  Zen, it is time for you to stop your silly support for Obama :).

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Democracy, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Politics

Obama and Live Birth Abortion

Abortion is a topic that I hate to get into, it is one issue that draws out the irrational passions on both sides of the aisle, that it is impossible to leave a discussion of it with a satisfied and productive feeling.   Additionally, it is a topic that I think too much emphasis is placed on by the right, for many it is the ONLY issue that matters and I find that going a little too far for an issue that is hardly a scourge in our country.

All that being said, I came across a post this morning on Race 4 2008 by Kavon Nikrad that discussed a very, very disturbing stance by Barack Obama on live birth abortions.  Jill Stanek from World Net Daily (a site I am not a huge fan of by the way) gives us the following:

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to “choose” stopped at her baby’s delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

Chicago Sun Times

 She continues:

Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to “explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

I don’t recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash.

Neither do I recall religion being brought into the partial-birth abortion ban debate. I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.

Obama stated pro-life proposals must be “amenable to reason.”

Amenable to reason, eh?  There is absolutely nothing reasonable about supporting either partial-birth or live-birth abortion (aka infanticide), especially the latter.   How much of a heartless and horrible person do you have to be to support such measures.  It is one thing to support abortion in the first trimester when the baby is barely formed (although I would never support it), but to think it is  acceptable when the baby is fully developed or even “officially alive” is preposterous and shows a complete lack of judgement on the part of Barack Obama and others like him. 

I am not one to allow one single issue to dictate my vote for President, I prefer to look at the candidate as a whole and then decide, but this is one instance that is a complete deal breaker.  It is my impression that Obama is a good person (and Hillary is not), for me that is a big deal.  I want someone with integrity leading our country.  However, good judgement and upholding some sort of a moral standard is absolutely essential and that takes more than integrity and being a good person, one’s policies make a difference.

Assuming the claims made in this article are true, Barack Obama has a lot to answer for and if he indeeds supports such positions he is no longer tied with McCain for my top choice of those remaining, but now even Hillary would prove to be a better option.   Live or partial birth abortion is never acceptable, never.

28 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Barack Obama, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Law, Politics