Too Much Political Correctness

The threat of a terrorist attack against the United States was renewed this Holiday Season when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab almost blew up NWA Flight 253 as it approached Detroit.

In his remarks to the American people, which by the way came three days after the attempted terrorist attack and in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday which most Americans were working, President Obama condemned the attacks and called it a “serious reminder of the dangers we face.”

He failed to address, however, the real problem: radical, religious extremism, specifically, radical, Islamic extremism.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a radical, Islamic extremist and that extremism alone remains the greatest to the United States of America. President Obama, and others, have failed to address that point.

Political correctness is causing problems, especially when it comes to airport screening. Mark Steyn accurately addressed this by saying “you can congratulate yourself on how impeccably multi-cultural and non-discriminatory you are, but people are going to die because of it. Fourteen people died at Fort Hood because of political correctness.”

More people could have died on NWA Flight 253 and more people could die in the future because we’re to afraid to admit that radical Muslims are the ones trying to blow up our buildings and airplanes.

It’s difficult to say this without coming across as discriminatory, but that’s the honest truth of it.

Clear Information: The Problem with Iran

“Alarming” revelations this weekend about Iran’s peaceful uranium enrichment program show that it may not be so peaceful after all. CNN picked up on the story this morning, citing a Western diplomat, but the UK’s Times Online had the story yesterday.

Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.

The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.

An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.

The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.

“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”

This highlights the problem of President Obama’s international relations thought on dealing with Iran. The truth of the matter is we really do not know what we are getting from them and if it in any way resembles the truth. Clear information is very important when it comes to resolving conflicts short of war and what we’re getting from our discussions with Iran and other major powers on the nuclear issue is anything but clear.

Legitimate Democracies do not go to war with legitimate Democracies because of dispute-resolution mechanisms and clear information. Iran is not a legitimate Democracy, evidenced by the fraudulent elections this summer.

My lack of faith in engagement should not imply support for a get tough approach. There are no indications that worked either, evidenced by the failures of the Bush Administration to prevent Iran from getting to this stage in the development process.

The point is however to say that something, albeit I am not sure what, needs to be done if we are truly determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Thoughts on the President’s Strategy for Afghanistan

The President’s decision to send 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan is the right decision. Unfortunately, the attached conditions leave me disappointed. While I understand the political difficulty of the President’s decisions, I hoped for another outcome.

White House Photographer Pete Souza

President Obama in his address on “the Way Forward” in Afghanstian said he would commit 30,000 new troops to the war-torn country, but stipulated they will begin withdrawing in 18 months.

I recognize the tough political position President Obama is in. The left is already blasting him for creating a “surge” and the right, though more friendly than the left, is upset at the timetable.

His decision reflects the difficulty of bridging domestic politics and international relations. Throughout U.S. history, policymakers have faced this dilemma. Moreover, throughout the recorded history of international relations, policymakers have faced this dilemma. How does one reconcile the “national interest” with public opinion, the influence of democratic institutions like Congess and other political interests, i.e. the people who donate money and drive your policy?

President Obama was elected on a platform of change. Thus is his difficulty of continuing the war in Afghanistan much the way his predecessor did and thus is the reason for the timetable – to pacify his political pace. You can’t blame him, it is an obviously necessary move if he doesn’t want to ruin his party’s midterm elections in 2010 or his reelection campaign in 2012.

Having admitted that I understand his logic and reasoning for implementing a time table, I still have to share my distaste. I hoped that the President might put politics aside for the sake of victory.

It comes down to this question: do we have a vital interest in a peaceful and allied Afghanistan? I would answer yes and say furthermore, we have an interest in a peaceful and allied Middle East. That includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and beyond. Because defeat in Afghanistan would allow the Taliban to operate functionally, Afghanistan is a country of vital interest to the security of the United States. Lest we not forget from where the terrorist attacks of September 11 were orchestrated.

The President disagrees, I believe and has done so by making evident his lack of desire to achieve total victory in Afghanistan. He has scaled back the war on terror, actually ended it, and this move further reiterates that point.

The President has developed an exit strategy not predicated on victory. He has done so for the two reasons I already mentioned: (a) domestic political influence and (b) failure to understand the vital importance of a peaceful and allied Afghanistan.

Sarah Palin

There’s been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin in recent weeks. Her book tour as thrust her back in the national spotlight a little over a year after her defeated bid for the White House with John McCain.

Her book, Going Rogue, sits loftily on top of the New York Times Bestseller List. She sold 700,000 copies in the first week and that is undoubtedly only the beginning. People have waited in lines for hours, in mid and late November, mind you, to meet the former Governor of Alaska.

The Associated Press reported last week Palin sold 700,000 copies of her memoir in its first week, a number that far surpasses most political books.  But it falls short of the more than 900,000 copies sold of Bill Clinton’s 2004 memoir “My Life” during its debut week.

As a conservative, I was supportive of her candidacy for the Vice President and thought John McCain made an excellent decision when he picked Palin to be his running mate. Had he not, the landslide victory for Barack Obama might have been an even bigger landslide.

No one can say for sure what Sarah plans to do over the next four years, but it appears she is in the early stages of mounting a campaign for President.

There is obviously no litmus test for who is qualified to be President. No one, I think, is truly qualified to do the job. Sarah Palin is just as capable of making decisions that affect the country and the world as anyone else. I say this because I believe no one is capable or qualified to make the decisions. Rather, all we can do is send up the best person we have and hope they don’t screw it up.

With that said, Sarah Palin isn’t the best person we have.

I love Sarah Palin. She excites people, she motivates people and she is an unapologetic conservative. But she is not a viable candidate. She is not the right kind of person to be President. Sarah Palin is better suited for an AM talk radio show rather than the situation room.

I firmly believe America needs a President much like the one we have now. Not that I agree with his politics or philosophy, but Barack Obama is a smart and capable man. A smart man who has excelled at every stage in his life. The people around him have attested to his ability and desire to work on policy rather than politics, and we all know he gives a good speech. In short, we have the right type of man as President now, just not the right one.

Sarah Palin isn’t the type of person I want to be President. She’s not a thinker, not a decider. Yes, she’s inspirational and yes she’s exciting, much like President Obama, but she isn’t necessarily intellectual. She isn’t a visionary or leader like Reagan.

I don’t oppose a Sarah Palin Presidency for who she is, but rather for who she is not.

Does President Obama’s Approval Rating Mean Anything?

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has been hovering just below 50 percent this week. According to Gallup’s three-day rolling average, only 49 percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing as President.

Symbolically, it is somewhat significant. Historically, it might not matter at all. Addressing the latter first, it should be duly noted that although President Obama is the fourth fastest President to fall below 50 percent, every President but John Kennedy since Harry Truman has done so.

Although the current decline below 50% has symbolic significance, most of the recent decline in support for Obama occurred in July and August. He began July at 60% approval. The ongoing, contentious debate over national healthcare reform has likely served as a drag on his public support, as have continuing economic problems. Americans are also concerned about the Obama administration’s reliance on government spending to solve the nation’s problems and the growing federal budget deficit. Since September, Obama’s approval rating had been holding in the low 50s and, although it has reached 50% numerous times, it had never dropped below 50% until now.

Of the post-World War II presidents, Obama now is the fourth fastest to drop below the majority approval level, doing so in his 10th month on the job. Gerald Ford dropped below 50% approval during his third month in office, and Bill Clinton did so in his fourth month. Ronald Reagan, like Obama, also dropped below 50% in his 10th month in office, though Reagan’s drop occurred a few days sooner in that month (Nov. 13-16, 1981) than did Obama’s (Nov. 17-19, 2009).

Of all the Presidents who dropped below 50 percent, Truman, Richard Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush were all re-elected. Only Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were not.

Which way will things go for President Obama? The answer probably depends on health care and Afghanistan.

If Congress is able to work through health care reform, with or without a public option, the President may be able to claim victory and use this as a spring board in the 2010 mid-term elections and then in 2012. Also, if his Afghanistan decision is well received with the public, his numbers could rebound.

These are only two of the issues President Obama will have to address and it is still early in his term. But, the President’s opportunity to get his agenda passed is slowly waning. Next spring will be his last opportunity with this Congress. After elections in 2010, he’ll have the early part of 2011, but after that campaigning will begin again for 2012.

In sum, the trend for President Obama probably means little, if anything at all. Nonetheless, it has to be troubling for a President who was so popular just 10 months ago to have fallen this far.