Earmarks & Tin Ears

Congressional earmarks are perhaps the most emblamatic symbol of corruption and out of control spending by our government. Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has taken a clear and fiscally conservative stand against earmarks, promising not to sign a single bill with earmarks. Republicans lost the 2006 election in large measure because of their profligate spending and embrace of earmarks. So how idiotic is it that our Republican caucus is now going to break with McCain on his call for ending earmarks?

_________________________________________________________

Some things make you step back and wonder just how out of touch our leadership is in Washington. In both the House and the Senate, the Republican leadership talks about fiscal responsibility, but their actions tell another story entirely - one that suggests that they are fitting comfortably into their role as a minority party. This a few weeks ago from Instapundit on the problems in the House:

House Minority Leader John Boehner and his colleagues among the GOP leadership shanked one this week on the earmarks issue. A GOP slot opened up on the House Appropriations Committee, which signs off on the pet projects of lawmakers. If Boehner and company were serious about ending the earmark culture, which has badly undermined the credibility of Congress, they had a perfect man to fill the vacancy: Jeff Flake of Arizona. He has introduced more amendments to strike earmarks than any other member of the House, and putting him on the appropriations panel would have shown that the GOP was no longer just talking about earmark reform. Instead, Boehner and company settled on Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama.

Read the post here. Rep. Bonner is highly porcine. And in the Republican Senate, things are worse. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell - himself a heavy feeder at the earmark trough - is providing something far less than stellar leadership on this issue. This from the Hill explains the situation:

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) may return to Capitol Hill this month to support an amendment imposing a one-year ban on earmarks, a move that could set up a divisive clash within the GOP caucus.

McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has long broken with most of Congress, including the Senate Republican leadership, in seeking an end to the practice of inserting line items in spending bills for parochial projects. . . .

“I absolutely would support such an amendment – and abolish [earmarks] altogether,” McCain said, according to the Red State blog. “As I’ve said, I will veto any earmark project that comes across my desk.”

McCain is highlighting his opposition to earmarks as a way to appease conservatives skeptical of his candidacy because of other issues, such as his support for a legalization program for illegal immigrants and campaign finance restrictions and his initial opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts. On the stump, he has criticized his Democratic opponents, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), for individually securing almost $4 million and $100 million, respectively, for pet projects in the fiscal 2008 spending legislation enacted in December.

McCain, who secured no pet projects in the recent spending law, calls them a waste of taxpayer dollars.

“I really can’t tell you, traveling and campaigning now for many months, how dispirited the Bridge to Nowhere or earmark and pork-barrel spending was to our Republican base,” he said on this week's conference call. “We lost in 2006 not because of Iraq but because spending got out of control.”

. . . A McConnell aide said the Republican leader probably wouldn’t take a position on the DeMint measure until after the GOP task force issues its recommendations. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, McConnell secured $126 million in individual earmarks in the recently enacted spending law; his deputy and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl earmarked $2 million; the third-ranking Senate Republican leader, Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), inserted $6 million individually; GOP Policy Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) racked up almost $42 million in projects; and Conference Vice Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) got $14 million.

If McCain returns and lobbies his members to support an amendment that the leadership opposes, it could test rank-and-file members to support either their nominee or their Senate leaders.

“McCain is a Senate reformer who’s locked horns with our leadership for years,” a GOP aide said. “But now he’s our nominee and the old bulls will have to decide if their pork is more important than our party’s future.”

Read the article here. As Bluegrass Roots puts it:

So Mitch McConnell has a choice: (1) continue his campaign strategy of bragging about how how pork and government waste he can bring to KY in order to secure support for himself, or (2) go with "conservative" principles and end earmarks for the sake of John McCain and the Republican Party.

But when it comes to Mitch McConnell, one thing should be certain: the only thing he cares about is himself and his own power. McConnell does not have any principle and will do whatever is necessary for himself. So, as the GOP aide said in the story, Mitch indeed will have to "decide if (his) pork is more important than (his) party’s future."

Don't hold your breath folks, I can tell you how this story ends.

Read the post here. If Republicans succeed in recapturing either the Senate, the House, or the Presidency, it will be on the strength of John McCain's national security credentials and his very principled position to reform our government. It will be over the kicking and screaming of our current tin-eared Congressional Republican leadership. This really will be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party. As Ed Morrisey states:

A vote for fiscal responsibility will put McCain in conflict with the GOP? The party won’t back McCain on earmarks, even though his improbable come-from-behind victory for the party’s nomination shows exactly how seriously the Republican voters take fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability?

This shows the deafness that comes from living within the Beltway for too long. If the Republicans didn’t lose in 2006 because of Iraq, nor because of profligate spending, nor because of corruption generated from the nexus of political contributions and earmarking, exactly why do these geniuses think they’re in the minority? Misaligned stars in the firmament? Not only did the voters send a message on corruption, they had it delivered by FedEx with two signatures and a return receipt. Yet the survivors of 2006 somehow think that fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter.

Read the post here. This tin ear among our Congressional Republican leadership is setting up a battle that they cannot possibly win in the long run and that can only do untold damage to the conservative cause.

Read More...

Summary only...

Rethinking NATO and A Nuclear Pre-emptive Strike

There is an exceptional article in the Guardian today. The article concerns several very august former military commanders who recognize that NATO is faltering and have issued proposals to strengthen the alliance. Both the criticisms of NATO's performance in Afghanistan, the considerations of the threats to NATO members, and the proposed reforms seem are spot on. With the fall of Soviet Union, NATO lost its moorings - and understandably so. European regimes that had always relied on the US and UK for protection looked at the fall of the Soviets as a reason to ignore their militaries and slash defense spending. But the Soviet Union's demise did not end the threats to Europe and America. The 9-11 attacks and Afghanistan have exposed the weaknesses of NATO. And now we see a real attempt to reform the alliance with thoughts of the new threats Europe faces. The article plays up the nuclear angle which will no-doubt have the pacifists all a'twitter, but that seems reasonable in light of the Iranian problem and the spectre of nuclear proliferation throught the Middle East.

This today from the Guardian:

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".

The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.

"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

The authors - General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK - paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato's future is on the line in Helmand province.

"Nato's credibility is at stake in Afghanistan," said Van den Breemen.

"Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure," according to the blueprint.
Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country's performance in Afghanistan. "The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner." By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato".

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call". "This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we're in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges."

Naumann conceded that the plan's retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence".

Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west's cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.
Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was "puzzled".

"Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I'd be wary of saying it out loud."

Another senior EU official said Nato needed to "rethink its nuclear posture because the nuclear non-proliferation regime is under enormous pressure".

Naumann suggested the threat of nuclear attack was a counsel of desperation. "Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it. We don't know how to deal with this."

Nato needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option", he said. . . .

Read the entire article. Hats off to the Guardian for this exceptional bit of reporting that I have not seen elsewhere. The Guardian may be a far left version of the NYT - it recently ran an opion piece decrying the fall of communism and has, on its staff of opinion columnists, some of the most committed marxists, socialists, and all around multicultural leftists one could possibly assemble - but it also has some of the finest reporting out there.

(H/T Crusader Rabbit)

Read More...

Summary only...

King Pardons Saudi Victim of Gang Rape

We now have a minimaly acceptable end to what has been a Sharia human rights nightmare. The matter arose in Saudi Arabia out of the brutal gang-rape of the 19 year old "Girl from Qatif" and her subsuquent sentencing to 200 lashes and six months in prison.

The Washington Post is reporting:

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has pardoned a female rape victim who had been sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes, a Saudi newspaper reported Monday.

Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Muhammed al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper that the pardon does not mean the king doubted the country's judges, but instead acted in the "interests of the people.

"The king always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair," al-Jazirah quoted al-Sheik as saying.

The facts of this case have been well documented to show the incredible brutality and misogyny of Saudi Arabia's Sharia law. Those facts are documented here, here and here. Prior to this pardon, it appeared that the Saudi Justice Ministry was attempting a very ham handed and transparent cover-up. Indeed, as you can tell from the Justice Ministry quotes above, it would seem they are still trying to spin the unspinable.

While King Abdullah has done justice in this case, the reality remains that there has been no systemic change to the medieval Saudi system of justice and punishment that was able to produce this travesty. What has happened is the tremendous international criticism - and internal criticism - over this case likely motivated the pardon.

In all fairness to King Adbullah, who is what amounts to a "reformer" in Saudi Arabia, he has tried unsuccessfully to reform his country's justice system. The attorney for the Girl from Qatif, Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, was hopeful that this case might indeed provide the impetus for reform. Let us hope he is right, or there will be other such "girls" who may find themselves being judicially flogged for little more than being the victims of rape.

And that said, al Lahem was himself threatened with suspension of his law license by the Ministry of Justice over his defense of this case. What happens to him might be a better indicator of the likelihood of reform than the much needed pardon for the gang rape victim in this case.

Read More...

Summary only...