Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!

Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Prepping for the SOTU
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 10:58 AM

I wonder how much the laundry list of new programs in this one is gonna cost. Yuck.

You'll love the WaPo's front-page headline on the web: State of Union Comes at Low Point for President

He will offer recycled (big-government, I'm sure) ideas on immigration, energy, and education, but he'll spend about half the speech on Iraq and Islamofascism. Including, perhaps, a challenge:

While Bush will devote about half of tonight's 40-minute-plus speech to Iraq, the broader battle with Islamic radicals and other foreign policy matters, advisers said they understand that only sustained and visible progress on the ground in Iraq might change American minds about the war. The best Bush can hope for tonight, they said, is to prevent a wholesale defection by Republicans and buy enough time for his plan to work.

"He knows there's great skepticism," said a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the speech before its delivery. "But in spite of that, he believes there's much to be done if we can work together."

Aides said Bush will not directly engage in a debate over congressional efforts to block the troop increase. But in private briefings for administration allies yesterday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove said Bush will challenge Congress to put up its own plan if it does not like his "new way forward," according to people who were briefed.

Will half a speech save us from the 11/7 Republicans? Perhaps, if he follows Michelle's advice, and reads the late 2nd Lt. Mark Daily's MySpace entry on the war. Daily died in an IED attack in Mosul last week. His words should live on. Read the whole thing and pass it along:

Sunday, October 29, 2006

WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

If someone in the White House's speechwriting office has his ear to the Internet, maybe a line or two from Daily's piece could make it into the SOTU. It's one of the most inspiring defenses of the war I've read, and it's exactly the kind of inspiration Bush has proved clumsy with. And, Lord knows, the American people need to hear something like it when it comes to the war in Iraq.

 

 





FEATURES FEATURES

Sugar, we're (not) going down swinging...

Posted by: Matt Lewis
10/10/2008

Truly a Scandal

Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau
10/10/2008

On "Panic," Recovery and Dynamic Capitalism

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
10/10/2008

Your Blog Postings:
Last updated 11 Minutes 46 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 4 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 8 Seconds Ago
Last updated 17 Minutes 8 Seconds Ago
Last updated 36 Minutes 45 Seconds Ago
 

Archives Archives

Blog Search



Townhall Blogs Townhall Blogs
Columns Columns
Your Blogs Your Blogs
By Month
 October 2008
 September 2008
 August 2008
 July 2008
 June 2008
 May 2008
 April 2008
 March 2008
 February 2008
 January 2008
 December 2007
 November 2007
 October 2007
 September 2007
 August 2007
 July 2007
 June 2007
 May 2007
By Issue
 A Culture of Life
 Budget & Government
 Campaigns & Elections
 Education
 Energy & Environment
 Faith & Family
 Foreign Affairs
 Health Care
 Immigration
 Jobs & Economy
 Judges & Courts
 Media & Culture
 Property Rights
 Safety & Security
 Science & Technology
 Second Amendment
 Social Security
 Tax Relief
Advertisement

Comments Comments

Magua
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By hotrod
Briggsy
 Re: Branchflower report on Tasergate: Just one guy's opinion that contradicts itself and ignores the relevant facts and law
  By hunterson
Beldar Nails it
 Re: Branchflower report on Tasergate: Just one guy's opinion that contradicts itself and ignores the relevant facts and law
  By Al
It is simply ridiculous to try to make a
 Re: Branchflower report on Tasergate: Just one guy's opinion that contradicts itself and ignores the relevant facts and law
  By Briggsy
Great...anymore nails for the media and
 Re: Branchflower report on Tasergate: Just one guy's opinion that contradicts itself and ignores the relevant facts and law
  By Jerry
1000 people?
 Re: Conservatives Rally for Free Markets
  By Ryan01
Let's Play Hugh Delusion
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By Michael
Did Obama Cheat Hillary via ACORN?
 Re: Another Incredible ACORN Story
  By Paul
Winesnob
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By Magua
Nice way to end this helluva week
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By Jerry
Hey Artist (nut)
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By Reason
Reason
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By PC
Rush?
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By Renegade
Briggsy
 Re: Guest Post from Ben Shapiro: "The Jewish Case Against Barack Obama"
  By catherine
Hotrod - You got my hopes up!
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By Magua
The tasering
 Re: Obama's Prevent Defense
  By PC
...and, foobie...Marriage IS, As I May
 Re: More judicial tyranny from Obama-style judges: CT courts overturn state law to recognize gay marriage
  By NeoConScum