Maybe we should just say that the U.S. will never leave

I’m starting to wonder if the right approach in Iraq would be to just openly say that the U.S. doesn’t ever plan to leave. Sixty years after World War II, the United States is just over the past few years ratcheting down its military presence in Germany. What’s the rush to get out of Iraq?

Democrats who continually harp that we “must know when” troops are coming home are guilty of playing politics with human lives. These people cannot possibly really believe that publishing a time table for U.S. troop withdrawals is anything other than conceding defeat. Instead they are yelling this from the rooftops because they know the American electorate is feeling unsure about the efforts in Iraq. They are doing nothing more than trying to weaken the power of a President from an opposing party, and in doing so they’re sending a message that the Unites States is weak.

Defeatists on both sides of the aisle openly doubt whether a free democratic state in the Middle East is even possible. To doubt that all humans yearn to be free is short-sighted, foolish, and its base, frankly, racist. The freedom of thought, movement, and self-expression that we enjoy in the United States is the exact source of this country's political, economic, and moral power. Every human heart yearns for respect and appreciation of one’s unique persona. Achieving that feeling is simply not possible for the citizens of authoritarian or totalitarian controlled countries. The United States should always stand for freedom and liberty, and for elected officials to actually discredit the existence of a people’s potential to be free is…well, un-American.

A democratic state in the Middle East is a just cause. Argue all you like whether the argument for this war was right in the first place, what we are now working to accomplish is a noble effort. Saddam Hussein is one of the world’s most notorious murderers, responsible for close to two million deaths. How is it that the world is not a better place with this butcher taken from power? How is it that a free state in the heart of the oppressed Middle East would not be a victory for the entire human race?

In an uncertain world filled with new dangers, it is clear that all eyes are on the actions of the United States. The United States congressmen nipping at the President’s Iraq policy based on the American public’s current lack of confidence are nothing more than political opportunists. They would better serve their constituents, and the world, by showing the patience, the resolve, and the backbone that George W. Bush has. It is through continued actions that the U.S. proves to the world that we stand for freedom, and that we will always be prepared to defend it.

The Gipper would blog…

People always call out Ronald Reagan’s abilities as the “Great Communicator” as the source of his effectiveness in office. This is certainly one of the qualities that enabled him to accomplish the many things that he did, but I think what is more important was that Ronald Reagan knew unequivocally what it was that he stood for. Unlike most all other politicians, Reagan worked tirelessly to research, think, and record his thoughts on virtually all topics in the public eye, from world peace, to nuclear energy, to the economy, social security, as well as numerous personal stories.

The thing I like about blogging (so far) is that as the author you do it for yourself as much as you do for anyone else. Writing things down helps you think through issues and crystallize your thinking. The fact that someone out there (admittedly few) might read it makes you think that much more about what you're writing. Given the volume of written material by President Reagan that has been published since his passing, it is clear that a regular forum for expressing his ideas was something he appreciated. Which is why I hypothesize that if he were alive and active today, the Gipper would blog.

In 1975, and then again from 1976 until he ran for President a second time in 1979, Ronald Reagan wrote and presented a daily radio commentary on all of the topics I mentioned above and more (the first pause was to challenge Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1975). Each commentary had a one sentence teaser, and was followed by a three minute monologue which Reagan would write out long hand on a legal pad.

Many of these commentaries are collected in the book Reagan, In his Own Hand; however, if you really want the best experience, I strongly suggest listening to the collection in audio form, which includes Reagan’s actual recordings, entitled Reagan, In his Own Voice. (They are the same thing, just one has the actual recordings. I own both…of course!)

Whether read or listened to, these commentaries are sheer gold. Critics of Reagan long chided him as a simple minded actor. Diplomat Clark Clifford famously quipped after meeting Reagan that he was, “an amiable dunce.” Since Clifford isn’t really notable for much else other than this comment, it goes a long way towards showing who was the lesser of the two men.

What astounds me is that through listening to these commentaries and reading his biweekly newspaper columns, Ronald Reagan told the American people exactly what it was he believed. It was estimated that through the radio show and the columns Reagan was able to reach close to 20 million Americans each week. Moreover, if you look at his administration you’ll see that this man took on a course to do exactly the things he stood up for in his writings.

When else in American history, or world history for that matter, has a leader written so profusely in his own hand exactly the things he stood for and then made them so widely known? Ronald Reagan shaped his beliefs over years and years of writing out his thoughts on paper, either in letters, for publication, or for personal use. He literally created his political self on paper and then changed the course of human history because he wrote down what he thought. These radio commentaries are a treasure trove of his thinking right up until he became the leader of the free world.

I’ll sign off using Reagan’s tagline (but with my name of course).

“This is Mike Ditson, thanks for listening.”

Classic Crackberry Story

A classic "government first" story.

A commentary in today's Wall Street Journal illustrate just another way you can always count on your government at work. The article is about the potential pending black out of service for Research in Motion (RIM). RIM is the company that markets, sells, and operates the "Blackberry," a combined email and cell phone device. The devices are so addictive that users nickname them the "crackberry!" I'm a crackberry addict myself.

A company named NTP is suing RIM for patent infringement and has actually won the initial case. The suit has been tied up in the courts for some time. On Monday, RIM lost another piece of the case and there is a slim chance that Blackberry service will actually be turned off across the United States until RIM can license the proper technology from NTP.

The joke is that if and when service gets shut down, it won't actually be shut down for everyone. Over 300,000 government users of the Blackberry will be safe because the Justice Department filed an injunction to exclude government users from the shut down.

If RIM violated the patents in question, it would seem that NTP is dues some payments. Either way, how is it that the U.S. government gets extra, special status protection against shut downs? There may be actual public safety reasons for this exclusion, but does anyone really believe that? Come on, just another case of government taking special status for itself.

I’m Mike Wallace, and….you’re not!

Watching Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight I couldn’t help but getting infuriated with Mike Wallace (and Chris Matthews). Who doesn’t love a good Mike Wallace story on 60 Minutes? I know I do, but why do these guys have to be so arrogant?

The segment started out like this (I’m paraphrasing):

Chris Matthews: “Mike Wallace jokes that he’s interviewed every president since Abraham Lincoln save one, ‘W.’ So why is the man in the Oval office afraid of the man from 60 Minutes? Mike, why is George W. the man in the White house afraid to interview you? (Chris misspoke) Why haven’t you interviewed George W.?”

Mike Wallace: “Because he pays attention to Karl Rove and from the very beginning it’s been very apparent that Karl Rove will not permit him to sit down with me.”

something about Mike Wallace doing a story on judges in Texas when W. was Governor and Karl Rove not wanting him to speak to George W.

Mike Wallace: (indignantly – my interpretation) “I’ve never even met the man. I’ve never even shook hands with him. For some reason Karl Rove and Karen Hughes say ‘uh-uh forget it, you’re not going to talk to this guy.’ Why? You’ve got me.”

This is wrong on so many levels. The implication here is that “I’m Mike Wallace, I’ve interviewed President after President and W. wont’ talk to _ME.” What exactly is the sense of entitlement going on here? Karl Rove is George W. Bush’s political advisor. Shouldn’t he be allowed to advise the President as best he sees fit?

Let’s face it, as much as I admire “W” for his vision (among other things), speaking extemporaneously is not his strongest suit. Mike Wallace is an ATTACK DOG? If Karl Rove lets W. just sit down with Mike Wallace isn’t that borderline professional negligence? It is not the President’s job (or even a good idea) to mold to media. A President needs to find the best method for his “voice” and to communicate that way as much as possible. Karl Rove is paid to do a job and he’s doing it…well, much to the consternation of the left.

What bothers me is this total soft-ball (on a show called "Hardball") t-up of a question from Chris Wallace. Chris says, "why is W afraid of you Mike," and we're supposed to think the Presdient of the United States, arguably the most powerful man in the world, is afraid of an octogenarian from CBS? Yes, I KNOW it's "tounge-in-cheek," but almost all of the main stream meeting is just like this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but being a member of the news media, even a respected one, does not automatically make you "right."

Throw away the key!

Today representative Randy Cunningham (Republican from California) pleaded guilty to accepting over $2 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to specific places. "I can't undo what I have done but I can atone," he said. I'm not so sure. In reading this article I was astounded by the sentence, "He could face up to ten years in prison." My immediate reaction to that was, THAT'S IT???

Serving in congress of the United States is a scared trust. I'm not so naive to think that corruption doesn't exist at all levels of government, but when something as blatant as this comes up, we shouldn't hesitate to lock him up and throw away the key. Taken at face value, this guy deserves hard time.