When Democrats Advocated Protecting Social Security
Did you know there once was a time when Democrats admitted they believed Social Security needed protection and reform? Of course, it's quite significant that, of the occasions they took to trumpet the need to fix the program, they were the loudest when they used Social Security reform to justify their strident opposition to President Bush's first tax relief package in the first few months of 2001.
Juxtaposing the Democratic Party's lackadaisical position on Social Security reform today (remember, they actually booed the President of the United States on this issue during the State of the Union) with what they were saying during the budget fights of 2001, when President Bush's tax relief package was being debated, reveals quite a contrast.
Here, then, are a few excerpts from Democrats during the debates, speeches, and tirades on the Senate floor in 2001. I pulled all quotes from the Congressional Record (CR).
WARNING: This list of quotes is awfully long, but they're all worth having in your arsenal.
----------
***SEN. ROBERT BYRD (W.V.): What about Social Security and Medicare reform? When the baby-boom generation begins to retire over the next ten years, financial pressure on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will rise rapidly as payroll tax income falls short of what is needed to pay benefits. Both programs are expected to have expenditures in excess of receipts in 2016. Where will the federal government find the money to finance these benefits? In the absence of budget surpluses for the rest of the government's operations, policymakers would have three options: raise other taxes, curtail other spending, or borrow money from the financial markets. If we go along with these massive tax cuts, how will we honor our pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare? [CR s3674, April 6, 2001]
----------
***SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (CONN.): Because of the excessive Republican tax cut and the inadequate size of this contingency fund, Congress may be forced to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust funds or face the prospect of a return to budget deficits. The GOP budget imposes deep cuts on important programs. The Budget Resolution would cut non-defense discretionary spending by about $8 to $9 billion or two percent below the level needed to keep pace with what was provided last year, adjusted for inflation. Funding for environmental protection, disaster assistance, veterans' medical care, Community Oriented Policing (COPS) and the Army Corps of Engineers would be particularly hard hit.
[. . .]If we are successful in building on our prosperity, we will be able to guarantee the future of Social Security and Medicare. Everyone knows that strengthening Medicare will require more resources, not less. Yet the President's tax cut reaches into the Medicare surplus, leaving scant hope for modernization, or a new, meaningful prescription drug benefit, as the President promised. While today's workers will rely more and more on personal savings for retirement, for millions of Americans, Social Security is still the foundation of their old-age support. We must meet our obligations to our retirees, but we must also seek reforms that will make their retirements more secure. [CR s3675, April 6, 2001]
----------
***SEN. PAT LEAHY (VT.): Mr. President, I must oppose this budget because it is an irresponsible gamble with our economic future.
This resolution sets aside trillions of projected budget surpluses for tax cuts proposed by President Bush that are steeply tilted to the wealthy. It pays for the Bush tax plan at the expense of needed investments in Social Security, Medicare, education, law enforcement and the environment.
After years of hard choices, we have balanced the budget and started building surpluses. Now we must make responsible choices for the future. Our top four priorities should be paying off the national debt, passing a fair and responsible tax cut, saving Social Security, and creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit. [CR s3681-3682, April 6, 2001]
----------
***SEN. CARL LEVIN (MICH.): In approaching our Federal budget, I believe we should divide the projected surplus among four budget goals: giving the American people fair and fiscally responsible tax relief, paying down the debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and responsibly investing in key priorities such as education, prescription drug coverage for seniors, environmental protection and national defense.
Understanding that these projections are uncertain, here's what I think should be done with surplus dollars that actually materialize:
First, I would protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We have to take prudent steps today to ensure that as 77 million baby boomers retire over the next 30 years, the costs of their Social Security and Medicare won't explode the Federal budget. In just 15 years, the Social Security and Medicare programs will require transfers from the "non-Social Security and non-Medicare" side of the Federal budget in order to pay benefits. Without reform, these transfers will get larger and larger, placing enormous pressure on the federal budget--pressure that would be compounded if President Bush's proposed tax cuts were enacted. Thus I think it is imperative to set aside the surpluses that are currently accumulating in these trust funds and not use them for new spending or tax cuts--as the President's budget proposes to do.
As budget debate continues in the weeks ahead, Congress will be making some important decisions regarding our country's future. We have the ability to provide targeted tax relief, fund some important national priorities and protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations, while dedicating significant resources to paying down the national debt. To achieve all of these goals, we need to act wisely today so that we strengthen our economy in the long run, not weaken it once again by risking a large Federal deficit with an excessive tax cut benefiting mostly those who need it least. [CR s3683-3684, April 6, 2001]
----------
***SEN. TED KENNEDY (MASS.): Mr. President, at the heart of the budget dispute between Republicans and Democrats is the size of President Bush's proposed tax cut. Republicans claim the surplus is so large that we can have it all, that their massive tax cut will not interfere with efforts to address the country's most serious concerns.
The impact of the Republican tax cut on the Federal Government's ability to address the most pressing concerns of the American people would be devastating. It is too large to fit into any responsible budget. The available surplus over the next ten years is, at most, $2.7 trillion. Whatever we do over the next decade to address this country's unmet needs must be paid for from that amount. Whatever we want to do to financially strengthen Social Security and Medicare for future retirees must be funded from that amount.
The Democratic budget plan stands in stark contrast to the Republican plan. Budgets are a reflection of our real values, and these two budgets clearly demonstrate how different the values of the two parties are. In political speeches, it is easy to be all things to all people. But the budget we vote for shows who we really are and what we really stand for. Our budget is geared to the needs of working families. It will provide them with tax relief, but it will also address their education and health care needs. And it will protect Social Security and Medicare, on which they depend for secure retirement.
There are four criteria by which we should evaluate a budget plan: 1. is it a fiscally responsible, balanced program? 2. does it protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations?, 3. does it adequately address America's urgent national needs?, and 4. does it distribute the benefits of the surplus fairly amongst all Americans? By each yardstick, the Republican budget fails to measure up. The Democratic budget is a far sounder blueprint for building America's future.
By consuming $2.5 trillion of the $2.7 trillion available surplus on tax cuts, the Republican budget would leave virtually nothing over the next ten years: to strengthen Social Security and Medicare before the baby boomers retire. . . .
The Social Security and Medicare surpluses are comprised of payroll taxes that workers deposit with the Government to pay for their future Social Security and Medicare benefits. Just because the Government does not pay all those dollars out this year does not make us free to spend them. Over the next ten years, Social Security will take in $2.5 trillion more dollars than it will pay out and Medicare will take in $400 billion more dollars than it will pay out. But every penny of this will be needed to provide Social Security and Medicare benefits when the baby boomers retire. [CR s3687 - 3689, April 6, 2001]
----------
***SEN. PAUL SARBANES (MD.): The Democrats have proposed a responsible budget alternative which balances the need for debt reduction, targeted tax cuts, and investment in critical national needs. The Democratic alternative fully protects the Social Security and Medicare surpluses to ensure that we will be able to meet our obligations to America's seniors, now and in the future. [CR s3691, April 6, 2001]
----------
***SEN. HARRY REID (NEV.): We need to be fiscally responsible and protect social security, provide a prescription drug benefit, fund education, ensure a strong and stable military, continue to pay down the debt, and to ensure the funding is available for our Nation's veterans. [CR s3695, April 6, 2001]
----------
***SEN. DICK DURBIN (ILL.): I also want to make certain we protect Social Security and Medicare. If as an outcome of this debate we end up jeopardizing Social Security or Medicare, then we have not met our moral and social obligation to the millions of Americans who have paid into these systems and depend on them to survive.
I believe the good news about the surplus should be realistic news. We should understand that surpluses are not guaranteed. We ought to make certain that any tax cut we are talking about is not at the expense of Social Security and Medicare. We should focus the tax cuts on working families to make sure they are the beneficiaries so that they have the funds they need to make their lives easier. That should be the bottom line in this debate.
As I said at the outset, Democrats and Republicans alike believe these tax cuts are going to happen. I believe it is a good thing to do. Let us pay down this national debt. Let us provide a tax cut for the families who need it. Let's make sure we protect Social Security and Medicare in the process. [CR s839, January 31, 2001]
----------
***SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (MICH.): We believe fiscal responsibility, keeping the budget balanced, paying down the debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare are critical and should not be compromised for any other actions no matter how well intended. We have a train going down the track. My fear is there will be no budget trigger to stop the train before it goes off the track. That is common sense.
I believe common sense would dictate we pay down the debt, we protect Medicare and Social Security , we give a major tax cut focused on our middle-income families and small businesses and family farmers, and that we can do that and also be able to continue investments to keep the economy going. [CR s5684, May 25, 2001]
----------
***SEN. KENT CONRAD (N.D.): We are offering an alternative that we think is more cautious, more conservative, and more balanced. We take the forecast surplus of $5.6 trillion, and then we reserve every penny of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for the purposes intended. That leaves us with $2.7 trillion remaining.
We separate that amount into equal thirds: A third for a tax cut; a third for the high-priority domestic needs of a prescription drug benefit, strengthening our national defense, improving education, and funding agriculture; and, with the final third, we set that money aside for strengthening Social Security and dealing with our long-term debt because just as we have surpluses now in this 10-year period, we know that when the baby boomers start to retire these surpluses turn to massive deficits.
We also say we ought to reduce the size of his tax cut to set aside money to strengthen Social Security for the long term. [CR s3264-3269, April 2, 2001]
----------
***SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (MD.): The democratic plan is balanced, fiscally prudent, and leaves resources so we can continue to pay down our debt, and make the balloon payments coming due on Social Security and Medicare. [CR s5502, May 23, 2001]
----------
***SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (W.V.): The facts are stark: Social Security payments will exceed income in 2015, and Medicare payments exceed income in 2010. We will be forced to tap into the Social Security Trust Fund principal in 2025 and the Medicare Trust Fund principal in 2017. In 2037, the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted, and the Medicare Trust fund will be exhausted even earlier, in 2025. I believe this tax bill jeopardizes the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. These programs are fundamental for our seniors, and we have an obligation to ensure that both the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are protected before enacting massive tax cuts. [CR s5505, May 23, 2001]
----------
***SEN. JOHN KERRY (MASS.): We are about to enact a $1.35 trillion tax cut and at the same time, we have done nothing to deal with fundamental issues resulting from mandatory spending and the retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
Social Security's trustees reported in March that Social Security's tax income will fall short of Social Security's benefit payments beginning in 2016. Medicare's tax income will fall short of Medicare spending the same year. Social Security and Medicare's problems are related to the aging of the labor force. In the not-to-distant future, there will be too few workers in the workforce to maintain Social Security and Medicare as pay-as-you-go programs. These are not small problems.
In the case of Social Security, Congress will have to either reduce Social Security benefits, raise Social Security taxes, or find a third alternative.
The same issues apply to Medicare. The Congressional budget resolution sets aside $300 billion in a Medicare Reserve Fund. However, that $300 billion is needed just to finance a decent prescription drug benefit. In addition, there will be substantial costs associated with reforming Medicare. This year's Trustees' Report showed that health care costs per capita will rise. But as I have demonstrated, the tax cut would place Medicare surpluses in jeopardy.
Dealing with Social Security and Medicare's financial problems sooner rather than later minimizes the pain for beneficiaries and workers by allowing the government to address transitional costs before the problem reaches the breaking point. Congress should be acting in a fiscally responsible way by addressing Social Security and Medicare's long-term problems while we have the opportunity, while the Federal government is operating under surpluses and not deficits. [CR s5508-5509, May 23, 2001]
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
The 'Exit Strategy' Democrats
The only thing they can't imagine is success in Iraq.
Opinion Journal.com.
Thursday, February 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Every so often, an American politician takes an unpopular stand for the sake of what's right: Think of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. Frequently, he takes an unprincipled stand for the sake of what's popular: Take Richard Nixon's price controls. Sometimes, even, he does what's right, which also happens to be popular: Ronald Reagan's bombing of Libya.
Only in the rarest of instances, however, do politicians take positions that are both unpopular and unprincipled. That is where the Democratic Party leadership finds itself today on Iraq.
On Sunday, some eight million Iraqi citizens risked their lives to participate in parliamentary elections--as vivid and moving a demonstration of democratic ideals in action as we've seen in our lifetimes. Whereupon Senate Democrats Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry took to the airwaves to explain that it was no big deal and that it was time to start casting about for an "exit strategy."
Mr. Kerry:
"No one in the United States should try to overhype this election.... It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't and doesn't vote."
Mr. Kennedy:
"While the elections are a step forward, they are not a cure for the growing violence and resentment of the perception of American occupation. . . . The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the Administration to withdraw some troops now . . ."
Minority Leader Reid:
"We need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there. . . . Iraq is clearly important, but there are so many bigger threats to our national security . . ."
The only thing they can't imagine is success in Iraq.
Opinion Journal.com.
Thursday, February 3, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Every so often, an American politician takes an unpopular stand for the sake of what's right: Think of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. Frequently, he takes an unprincipled stand for the sake of what's popular: Take Richard Nixon's price controls. Sometimes, even, he does what's right, which also happens to be popular: Ronald Reagan's bombing of Libya.
Only in the rarest of instances, however, do politicians take positions that are both unpopular and unprincipled. That is where the Democratic Party leadership finds itself today on Iraq.
On Sunday, some eight million Iraqi citizens risked their lives to participate in parliamentary elections--as vivid and moving a demonstration of democratic ideals in action as we've seen in our lifetimes. Whereupon Senate Democrats Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry took to the airwaves to explain that it was no big deal and that it was time to start casting about for an "exit strategy."
Mr. Kerry:
"No one in the United States should try to overhype this election.... It's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't and doesn't vote."
Mr. Kennedy:
"While the elections are a step forward, they are not a cure for the growing violence and resentment of the perception of American occupation. . . . The best way to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that we have no long-term designs on their country is for the Administration to withdraw some troops now . . ."
Minority Leader Reid:
"We need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is and how we can get there. . . . Iraq is clearly important, but there are so many bigger threats to our national security . . ."
So what is the Democratic Party's message on this inspiring exercise in Iraqi self-determination? First, that the election's legitimacy is questionable. Second, that its effects will be minor. Third, that America's presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good by generating terrorism and anti-Americanism where none previously existed. Fourth, that the U.S. has better things to do. Fifth, that American sacrifices in Iraq are best redeemed not by victory, but by the earliest feasible departure.
As a matter of policy, this is a manifesto for irresponsibility. Just as the postponement of elections would have been a gift to the insurgents, a timetable for withdrawal now would amount to a concession of defeat. The Iraqis certainly know this, with interim President (and Sunni Arab) Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar saying Tuesday that it is "complete nonsense to ask the troops to leave in this chaos and this vacuum of power." The claim that the U.S. has become a force for occupation only validates the Al-Jazeera hypothesis that the terrorists are engaging in a legitimate exercise in "resistance."
What is more astonishing, however, is the Democrats' political tone-deafness. In their indictment of Administration policy, the Senators always take care to add a few words of tribute to the American soldier. But what's the point of praising his courage when only a fool would want to be the last man to die for a mistake?
Today, the Democratic Party has put itself in the awkward position of hoping to gain political advantage in the 2006 elections as a result of American wartime reverses, just as some House Republicans did during the war in Kosovo (they were saved by their Senate betters). This is not a place any political party should wish to be.
We understand that it is in the nature of the party of opposition to oppose. But there's no law in politics that says opposition has to be blind. Following the Iraqi election, Senator Hillary Clinton offered that "we have to salute the courage and bravery of those who are risking their lives to vote and those brave Iraqi and American soldiers fighting to protect their right to vote. They are facing terrorists who have declared war on democracy itself and made voting a life-and-death process." Last we checked, nobody had accused Mrs. Clinton of being a Republican.
At the onset of the Cold War, and despite opposition from the isolationist wing of their party, Arthur Vandenberg and other Republican Senators worked with Democratic President Harry Truman to forge the containment strategy against Communism. Where is today's Democratic Vandenberg?
Monday, January 31, 2005
Sic Temper Tyrannis
1649 and now.
By Arthur Herman
National Review Online
In the raging debate about the meaning and significance of the Iraqi election on Sunday, no one has noticed a strange fact. This election, which many hope will spark a democratic revolution for the Middle East, falls on the same day — January 30 — as the event which set in motion the modern West's first democratic revolution more than 365 years ago. It was on that day in 1649 that King Charles I of England was beheaded after his formal trial for treason and tyranny, an epoch-shattering event that destroyed the notion of divine right of kings forever, and gave birth to the principle that reverberates down to today, from President Bush's inaugural address last week to the Iraqi election this Sunday: that all political authority requires the consent of the people. Although few like to admit it now, it was Charles's execution, along with the civil war that preceded it and the political turmoil that followed, that established our modern notions of democracy, liberty, and freedom of speech. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he was thinking primarily of the legacy of the English civil war.
Charles I's trial and execution followed years of violence which dwarf anything happening in Iraq today. Still, the parallels between Iraq in 2005 and England in 1649 are striking. While Charles I was no Saddam Hussein, he had jailed and even tortured his opponents to exact obedience to his autocracy, and had used his army to wage war on his own subjects. It took six years of bloody fighting across England, Scotland, and Ireland to finally topple him and his regime, in a civil war costing thousands of lives — more in a proportional sense, than died in the First World War.
This was also a conflict shaped by religious rivalries, with Catholics and Anglicans, the equivalent of Iraq's Sunnis, fighting against Presbyterians and other radical Protestant sects who, like Iraq's Shias, had lived for decades under the heel of their oppressors. And like Iraq, the war invoked fierce ethnic hatreds, pitting Englishmen against both Irish and Scots and leading to atrocities on all sides. Nor was there a United States to step in to shape events or to guarantee security against hostile neighbors, like Spain and France, who tried to prop up Charles's cause and prevent the democratic revolution unfolding in England from reaching their shores.
Yet in spite of the chaos and instability, the defeat of the English monarchy shattered once and for all the idea that had governed Western political institutions since the Middle Ages, that a king's authority was divine and beyond question. When Charles I went to the execution block on January 30, a brave new world was born, that of sovereignty of the people. The declaration of a self-governing English commonwealth took place the following March, while debates and discussion had already taken place across England about whether popular sovereignty literally meant one man one vote or required a property qualification; or meant the abolition of property as radical groups like the Levelers argued; or even whether women should have a role.
Few of the participants in these debates, and in the pamphlet explosion which the king's death set off, were intellectuals like John Milton or Thomas Hobbes. Most were soldiers, ministers, farmers, and ordinary working men-the equivalent of the bloggers in today's post-Saddam Iraq. Yet the ideas they forged in the flames of revolution would inspire the writings of John Locke and later the Founding Fathers.
They included the idea that human beings have a "natural right" to liberty; that a free commonwealth requires a free and open public square for debate and deliberation, a affirmation of free speech which John Milton passionately defended in his Aeropagitica; and that politics is about human needs and issues, not divine dictates and ordinances. Although participants on both sides freely quoted the Bible to support their positions, they also recognized that if freedom was to reign, political authority must be detached from religious authority. This was the original formulation of our doctrine of the separation of Church and State: 366 years ago, Englishmen had come to realize that the mullah must yield to the magistrate, and that both must ultimately yield to the people.
Not bad for a decade of chaos and turmoil. And although the throne was restored eleven years later in 1660, it was for a king who admitted the principle of parliamentary consent. England had become Europe's first true constitutional monarchy. Will anything as important and influential come out of Sunday's election in Iraq? Hard to say. But just as Milton and Algernon Sidney and John Locke, and later Jefferson and Adams, translated the ideas of the English civil war, along with those of the Greeks and Romans, into the idiom of modern democracy and freedom, so this generation of Iraqi democrats may do the same for Islamic political thought in the Middle East. No one should underestimate the revolutionary power of the ballot box-or the executioner's axe.
— Arthur Herman is the author of To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World, published by Harper Collins.
1649 and now.
By Arthur Herman
National Review Online
In the raging debate about the meaning and significance of the Iraqi election on Sunday, no one has noticed a strange fact. This election, which many hope will spark a democratic revolution for the Middle East, falls on the same day — January 30 — as the event which set in motion the modern West's first democratic revolution more than 365 years ago. It was on that day in 1649 that King Charles I of England was beheaded after his formal trial for treason and tyranny, an epoch-shattering event that destroyed the notion of divine right of kings forever, and gave birth to the principle that reverberates down to today, from President Bush's inaugural address last week to the Iraqi election this Sunday: that all political authority requires the consent of the people. Although few like to admit it now, it was Charles's execution, along with the civil war that preceded it and the political turmoil that followed, that established our modern notions of democracy, liberty, and freedom of speech. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "the tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he was thinking primarily of the legacy of the English civil war.
Charles I's trial and execution followed years of violence which dwarf anything happening in Iraq today. Still, the parallels between Iraq in 2005 and England in 1649 are striking. While Charles I was no Saddam Hussein, he had jailed and even tortured his opponents to exact obedience to his autocracy, and had used his army to wage war on his own subjects. It took six years of bloody fighting across England, Scotland, and Ireland to finally topple him and his regime, in a civil war costing thousands of lives — more in a proportional sense, than died in the First World War.
This was also a conflict shaped by religious rivalries, with Catholics and Anglicans, the equivalent of Iraq's Sunnis, fighting against Presbyterians and other radical Protestant sects who, like Iraq's Shias, had lived for decades under the heel of their oppressors. And like Iraq, the war invoked fierce ethnic hatreds, pitting Englishmen against both Irish and Scots and leading to atrocities on all sides. Nor was there a United States to step in to shape events or to guarantee security against hostile neighbors, like Spain and France, who tried to prop up Charles's cause and prevent the democratic revolution unfolding in England from reaching their shores.
Yet in spite of the chaos and instability, the defeat of the English monarchy shattered once and for all the idea that had governed Western political institutions since the Middle Ages, that a king's authority was divine and beyond question. When Charles I went to the execution block on January 30, a brave new world was born, that of sovereignty of the people. The declaration of a self-governing English commonwealth took place the following March, while debates and discussion had already taken place across England about whether popular sovereignty literally meant one man one vote or required a property qualification; or meant the abolition of property as radical groups like the Levelers argued; or even whether women should have a role.
Few of the participants in these debates, and in the pamphlet explosion which the king's death set off, were intellectuals like John Milton or Thomas Hobbes. Most were soldiers, ministers, farmers, and ordinary working men-the equivalent of the bloggers in today's post-Saddam Iraq. Yet the ideas they forged in the flames of revolution would inspire the writings of John Locke and later the Founding Fathers.
They included the idea that human beings have a "natural right" to liberty; that a free commonwealth requires a free and open public square for debate and deliberation, a affirmation of free speech which John Milton passionately defended in his Aeropagitica; and that politics is about human needs and issues, not divine dictates and ordinances. Although participants on both sides freely quoted the Bible to support their positions, they also recognized that if freedom was to reign, political authority must be detached from religious authority. This was the original formulation of our doctrine of the separation of Church and State: 366 years ago, Englishmen had come to realize that the mullah must yield to the magistrate, and that both must ultimately yield to the people.
Not bad for a decade of chaos and turmoil. And although the throne was restored eleven years later in 1660, it was for a king who admitted the principle of parliamentary consent. England had become Europe's first true constitutional monarchy. Will anything as important and influential come out of Sunday's election in Iraq? Hard to say. But just as Milton and Algernon Sidney and John Locke, and later Jefferson and Adams, translated the ideas of the English civil war, along with those of the Greeks and Romans, into the idiom of modern democracy and freedom, so this generation of Iraqi democrats may do the same for Islamic political thought in the Middle East. No one should underestimate the revolutionary power of the ballot box-or the executioner's axe.
— Arthur Herman is the author of To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World, published by Harper Collins.
"We will build a statue for Bush,"
said Ali Fadel, the former provincial
council chairman.
"He is the symbol of freedom."
NY POST
By JOSH WILLIAMS
January 30, 2005 -- BAGHDAD — The man replacing the mayor of Baghdad — who was assassinated for his pro-American loyalties — says he is not worried about his ties to Washington.
In fact, he'd like to erect a monument to honor President Bush in the middle of the city.
"We will build a statue for Bush," said Ali Fadel, the former provincial council chairman. "He is the symbol of freedom."
Fadel's predecessor, Ali al-Haidari, was gunned down Jan. 4 when militants opened fire on his armor-covered BMW as it traveled with a three-car convoy.
Fadel said he received numerous threats on his life as the council chairman, and expects to get many more in his new post.
"My life is cheap," Fadel said. "Everything is cheap for my country."
As Iraq prepared for a volatile election that is being watched across the world, Fadel heaped praise on the United States.
Fadel acknowledged that many in his country appear ungrateful for America's foreign assistance. He said most Iraqis are still in "shock" over the changes, and need time to adjust.
Any public monument to Bush is likely to further incense terrorist forces, who have attacked American troops and their supporters for months.
Fadel said he is undaunted.
"We have a lot of work and we are especially grateful to the soldiers of the U.S.A. for freeing our country of tyranny," Fadel said.
As for his own protection, the new mayor will be traveling in a new $150,000 SUV complete with bulletproof windows and flat-resistant tires.
said Ali Fadel, the former provincial
council chairman.
"He is the symbol of freedom."
NY POST
By JOSH WILLIAMS
January 30, 2005 -- BAGHDAD — The man replacing the mayor of Baghdad — who was assassinated for his pro-American loyalties — says he is not worried about his ties to Washington.
In fact, he'd like to erect a monument to honor President Bush in the middle of the city.
"We will build a statue for Bush," said Ali Fadel, the former provincial council chairman. "He is the symbol of freedom."
Fadel's predecessor, Ali al-Haidari, was gunned down Jan. 4 when militants opened fire on his armor-covered BMW as it traveled with a three-car convoy.
Fadel said he received numerous threats on his life as the council chairman, and expects to get many more in his new post.
"My life is cheap," Fadel said. "Everything is cheap for my country."
As Iraq prepared for a volatile election that is being watched across the world, Fadel heaped praise on the United States.
Fadel acknowledged that many in his country appear ungrateful for America's foreign assistance. He said most Iraqis are still in "shock" over the changes, and need time to adjust.
Any public monument to Bush is likely to further incense terrorist forces, who have attacked American troops and their supporters for months.
Fadel said he is undaunted.
"We have a lot of work and we are especially grateful to the soldiers of the U.S.A. for freeing our country of tyranny," Fadel said.
As for his own protection, the new mayor will be traveling in a new $150,000 SUV complete with bulletproof windows and flat-resistant tires.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
IRAQ PESSIMISTS' REAL FEAR
January 26, 2005 -- IN just four days, Iraqis will go to the polls to vote in an election that could prove to be a hinge moment in history. All indications are that some 80 percent of Iraq's electorate will go to the polls, a level of turnout that would put most of the world's established democracies in the shade.
For the sake of contrast, consider that turnout in this year's presidential election was 60 percent of all those eligible to vote — and that was the most substantial rate of participation in 36 years.
Even in Israel, where everybody talks politics the way we talk about the weather and turnout is routinely the highest in the world, only 62 percent of the population voted in the last major election.
Yet a deep pessimism pervades the discussion of the coming election in the English-language press.
read the whole article,
Now, it will certainly be tragic if Sunnis who wish to vote are forcibly prevented from doing so by the terrorists in their midst. But those Sunnis' best chance to secure their freedom to vote at a later date will emerge from a viable result in Sunday's elections.
Why? Because once a legitimately elected Iraqi assembly is seated, the insurgents will have no argument left with which to advance their cause — except for the open hatred of liberty.
The latest tape from Iraq's terrorist master, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, made that point crystal clear.
January 26, 2005 -- IN just four days, Iraqis will go to the polls to vote in an election that could prove to be a hinge moment in history. All indications are that some 80 percent of Iraq's electorate will go to the polls, a level of turnout that would put most of the world's established democracies in the shade.
For the sake of contrast, consider that turnout in this year's presidential election was 60 percent of all those eligible to vote — and that was the most substantial rate of participation in 36 years.
Even in Israel, where everybody talks politics the way we talk about the weather and turnout is routinely the highest in the world, only 62 percent of the population voted in the last major election.
Yet a deep pessimism pervades the discussion of the coming election in the English-language press.
read the whole article,
Now, it will certainly be tragic if Sunnis who wish to vote are forcibly prevented from doing so by the terrorists in their midst. But those Sunnis' best chance to secure their freedom to vote at a later date will emerge from a viable result in Sunday's elections.
Why? Because once a legitimately elected Iraqi assembly is seated, the insurgents will have no argument left with which to advance their cause — except for the open hatred of liberty.
The latest tape from Iraq's terrorist master, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, made that point crystal clear.
"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those whoZarkawi says.
follow this wrong ideology,"
"Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)