Disgusted

I admittedly take a dim view of most Democratic politicians, but in the wake of John Kerry's comments yesterday, and his pathetic attempt to justify them today, my opinion of Democrats could charitably be described as "disgusted" or "loathing."

For anyone who doesn't know, Kerry said yesterday to a group of students that if they worked hard, studied hard, and did their homework, they could do well in life. If not, they could end up getting stuck in Iraq.

When I first heard about these remarks this morning, I was willing to believe Kerry had been misunderstood, misquoted, or somehow had his words taken out of context. That was before I watched his televised response damning those who had the gall to question his words. His angry outburst included this indignant gem:

"It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did."

A few points:

First, it seems directly quoting a politician's words is only considered a lie when that politician is a Democrat who now wishes he had not said those words.

Second, Senator Kerry's service nearly forty years ago in no way makes him immune to criticism now. It disgusts me that a man who last wore a uniform in 1970 now hides behind that uniform as a justification to say whatever he wants. It seems to me that after a career of working against the security interests of the United States and after slandering fellow servicemembers as Kerry did before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, one negates any debt of gratitude the country may owe.

Third, this outburst is highly indicative of Kerry's and most Democrats' true feeling towards our servicemembers and the general disregard towards all things military. Not only does Kerry question the motivation of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines serving in uniform, he dismisses that service as equivalent to a dead-end job suitable to high school dropouts. It is characteristic of a disgusting elitism that disdains patriotism and looks down on those who choose a life of service to their country.

Democrats insult our soldiers, insult their efforts overseas, and then insult Americans by blaming "Republican hacks" for criticizing the insults.

Senator Kerry, as a soldier who served in Iraq and as a student preparing for a further career as an officer, let me state unequivocally that it is you, not President Bush, who should be ashamed and it is you who owe American soldiers an apology.

Muhammad Cartoon Lawsuit Dismissed!

I, for one, am very pleased that the Danish courts have thrown out a lawsuit by Danish Muslim organizations seeking compensation from the editors of the Jyllends-Posten newspaper for depicting Muhammad "as belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent."

Unfortunately, the official ruling is that the publishing of the cartoons was not done to intentionally insult Muslims. The court should have had the conviction to overturn the laws criminalizing speech that may be considered racist or blasphemous. Such laws are highly subjective, open to abuse, and dangerous to the concept of free speech.

In any case, the suit should have been thrown out immediately on the grounds that truth should be an absolute defense to libel.

The Hunger Site

A worthwhile site to visit daily is The Hunger Site. They have a group of sponsors who, for every click, donate a certain amount of staple food to two charities that then distribute it to the hungry throughout the world. It costs nothing to click and donate and there are links to similar sites that donate to fund free mammograms for poor women, provide medicine for poor children, promote literacy, preserve rainforest land, and donate to animal shelters. Again, it is completely free to click and all you are asked to do is view the sponsors' advertising banners.

University Star's Sloppy Attack on President Bush

The august newspaper of record at my school, Texas State University, is well-known on campus for a liberal bias, sloppy writing, and a galling lack of research. One of the University Star's left-leaning writers wrote this screed in today's edition.

Here's my response:

To the editor:

Tuesday’s column by Stephanie Silvas (“Death toll, statistical facts denied by Bush administration”) displayed a worrying lack of journalistic research as well as an irrelevant attack on President Bush. Without much investigation into the Johns Hopkins study she cites, Silvas pulls her figures and arguments out of thin air.

As to her assertion that President Bush estimates only 30,000 Iraqis have been killed, Silvas seems to be referring to a speech he gave in December 2005, almost a year ago. This estimate was in line with the numbers published at that time by the website IraqBodyCount.net, hardly a mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Since that December 2005 speech, the President has not made any public references to estimated civilian casualties. As of Tuesday October 17, 2006 Iraq Body Count estimates between 43,937 and 48,783 deaths since the beginning of the war. According to their website, “the count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.”

Silvas quotes the Hopkins study as saying “eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported to be cause by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes or artillery.” This quote is not taken from the October 2006 Hopkins study and in fact comes from an October 2004 press release on the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health website. The 2006 study estimates the “deaths attributable to the coalition accounted for 31% of post-invasion violent deaths.”

Furthermore, the authors of the study try to put the Iraq conflict in perspective, comparing it to the Vietnam War (3 million civilian deaths), civil war in the Congo (3.8 million civilian deaths), and the crisis in Darfur (200,000 deaths).

Serious observers can have legitimate differences in their estimates of war casualties. (The Iraqi Ministry of Health offers an estimate of at least 50,000.) This is a war and in war civilians will die, no matter how unpleasant that fact may be. The United States removed a brutal dictator whose atrocities were overlooked by the world for 35 years and were perpetuated by a religious minority on a violently repressed religious majority. Freed of their oppressors, that majority is now exacting revenge for 35 years of rape, torture, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing. There is little the US military or President Bush can do to stop that however Silvas seems eager to believe the President is either ignorant or unaware of that human cost. Whether 650,000 or 50,000, Iraqis will continue to die until Iraqis decide to embrace decent governance.

At best, this is sloppy journalism on the part of Silvas and sloppy editorial standards on the part of the University Star. At worst, Silvas is attempting to portray the President and US military as bloodthirsty and having a callous disregard for human life. Mark Twain is often attributed as saying “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” Silvas is content to cite statistics, without any effort at balance or research in her attacks. Silvas and the University Star should be embarrassed this column made it to print.


Sincerely,

Coleman Kneisley
International Relations Senior

The Nobel Committee makes a good decision...

...for once and awards the 2006 Peace Prize to a deserving winner.

Christmas Gift Ideas

Muhammad Bobbleheads anyone?



I know I want one.