Tuesday, December 6, 2005

None Dare Call it Treason

The Democrats insist on being the party of defeat and defeatism. Now they are bent on becoming the party of treason as well. Here's the party chairman Howard Dean:

Saying that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.

Dean made his comments in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio.

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

Dean says the Democrat position on the war is 'coalescing,' and is likely to include several proposals.

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces.

Imagine that you are an American soldier in Iraq and you hear the leader of the Democratic Party announce that there's no way you're going to win the fight you are engaged in. What effect do you suppose that would have on your morale? What would those words from one of your nation's key political leaders do to your will to fight and your willingness to risk your life one more day in Iraq?

Now imagine that you are an insurgent, a terrorist, and you hear the leader of the Democratic Party say that America can't win and that we need to commence an immediate pullout. What effect would that have on your determination to keep fighting at least until the 2006, and maybe the 2008, elections to see if they bring Democrats back to power. You know that if the Democrats regain political dominance they will quit the war, their leader has said as much. Would you not feel encouraged to stick it out, to keep killing Americans as long as you can, to see if the Democrats prevail?

Howard Dean is undermining our troops and encouraging the enemy. He's either committing treason or he's a fool. When will his party tire of his reckless and irresponsible bombast and show him the door?

Trying to Keep the Cat in the Bag

According to George V. Coyne: "In the third paragraph of his op-ed article in the NY Times, 7 July 2005, Cardinal Schoenborn mistakenly defines neo-Darwinian evolution as 'an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection' and then condemns it. If you arbitrarily define something in a condemning way and then condemn it, you make dialogue pretty difficult." [From circulated e-mail.]

Okay. Well, let's ask some questions of Mr. Coyne. Is he saying that evolution is actually guided and planned? What evolutionary mechanisms carry out this extraordinary task? What is it, exactly, in the Cardinal's definition that is incorrect? And what percentage of evolutionary biologists would disagree with the Cardinal's definition?

The fact of the matter is that unless there is an intelligent agent behind the origin and evolution of life it must perforce be unguided, unplanned and purposeless. There is nothing in the mechanisms of neo-Darwinian evolution that can foresee the future, that causes them to work toward some goal, or that follows some plan. Life is a product of fortuitous serendipity, according to the Darwinians, and for Coyne to complain because the Cardinal correctly identifies this as their position is rather odd.

Indeed, we wonder if Coyne complained when Elie Weisel drafted a letter signed by 38 Nobel Prize winners to protest attempts to insert ID into public schools in Kansas. In the letter the signatories state that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." Was Mr. Coyne distressed over the difficulties the definition employed by these worthies posed for dialogue? We doubt it.

The reason Mr. Coyne objects to identifying this truth about Darwinian evolution, of course, is that he recognizes that this description removes evolution from the field of empirical science and places it squarely in the realm of metaphysics. As such, it's theoretical status is identical to that of intelligent design, and if this description, the description most biologists use for evolution, is allowed to be taught in public school classrooms, there can be no justification for excluding ID.

Shameful Gestures

That left-wing lawyer Ramsey Clark has never met an enemy of the United States that he didn't like, or a tyrant that he didn't fawn over, is a matter of historical record. Thus it comes as no surprise that this former attorney general under Lyndon Johnson has traveled to Iraq to help defend Saddam Hussein as he stands trial for numerous atrocities against his people.

Clark's supporters will insist, of course, that everyone deserves a fair trial, but it doesn't follow that someone who has a decent respect for mankind and a sympathy for all the grieving family members Hussein has left in his murderous wake should go so far out of his way to insure it himself. Nor does it mean that Clark should feel the need to show deference and respect for a man whose crimes are universally acknowledged and beyond all reasonable doubt. Indeed, Clark has even tacitly admitted that Saddam is guilty of the crime he is presently defending himself against. Yet that's the sort of person Ramsey Clark is. For him, evil, if it is in the cause of opposing the United States, deserves respect:

At the start of Monday's [trial] session, Saddam walked into the court with a smile, carrying a copy of the Quran and greeted everyone there. Most of the defendants and several of the defense lawyers, including Clark, al-Dulaimi and al-Nueimi, stood up out of respect when Saddam walked in.

Ramsey Clark has disgraced himself with this gesture and has embarrassed all those who have considered him over the years to be a champion of human rights. For more evidence indicting Clark's character read Christopher Hitchens' piece here.