Gerald Ford 1913-2006

Former President Gerald Ford passed away on December 26, 2006. We would like to take the time to reflect on this man who had the monumental task of boosting America's morale during one of our lowest points in history.






KJW: In his August 8, 1974 resignation speech, President Richard Nixon, stated that "the first essential is to begin healing the wounds of this Nation, to put the bitterness and divisions of the recent past behind us, and to rediscover those shared ideals that lie at the heart of our strength and unity as a great and as a free people."

Gerald Ford was the person who first and foremost was charged with that responsibility. In his first and most historic step toward that end he pardoned President Nixon on September 8, 1974. In doing so he said in part:

"My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquillity but to use every means that I have to insure it. I do believe that the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what is right. I do believe that right makes might and that if I am wrong, 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference. I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as President but as a humble servant of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy. "

Gerald Ford was the right man at the right time for our country when we were literally being torn apart as a nation. He was truly a humble servant whose mercy helped us all to begin to heal.

EJS:

Gerald Ford was a steady leader during a time when this country desperately needed a moderating bipartisan voice. Although controversial at the time, his subsequent pardon of Richard Nixon was completely necessary, not only for the country's psyche, but also for his own. He had a job to do, and he didn't have the time or energy to dedicate to Nixon's problems. At that point, the US was in a recession, had a gasoline problem, and communism was spreading like wildfire. Gerald Ford led the country with great dignity during these difficult times, and lost one of the closest elections ever to Jimmy Carter in 1976. One advantage Ford possessed that I wish Carter had more of was respect. Ford had enough respect for the Presidency to keep his opinions to himself and support whomever was in power, regardless of party. I guess it is called class, and Gerald Ford was full of class. He was an Eagle Scout, combat veteran, congressman, vice-president, and President. He served the country faithfully and this country should thank Gerald Ford and his family for his amazing service to the American people.

The First 100 Hours

Democratic leaders in the House have promised to pass several items on their legislative agenda in their first 100 hours in power. Potential items include: raising the minimum wage; halving the interest rate on college student loans; allowing stem cell research; authorizing the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare; implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission; rolling back subsidies to big oil companies; and, committing to no new deficit spending. What, if any, of these items will, or should, be pursued ?

KJW: It appears that soon to be Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, understands the opportunity that lies before her. The question that always seems to arise when it comes to the Democrats is: will they take advantage of the opportunity, or will they screw it up?

RAISING MINIMUM WAGE: This is a no brainer. It should be the first piece of legislation introduced by the new Congress. The legislation should not be a part of any other bill. It should simply be an up or down vote on raising the federal minimum wage. Such a bill will pass overwhelmingly.

REDUCING INTEREST RATE ON STUDENT LOANS: This is also a no brainer. What group will persuasively lobby against this bill? The only one I can think of are the banks who are the lenders for the student loans. Good luck. This bill will also pass overwhelmingly.

STEM CELL RESEARCH: This issue is emotional for those on both sides of the debate. However, the polls seem to indicate that the public is in favor of allowing further stem cell research. I would support pursuing this issue but not as the first item and not at all political capital costs.

ALLOWING NEGOTIATION OF LOWER DRUG PRICES FOR MEDICARE RECIPIENTS: I would save this issue for another 100 hours.

IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION: Another item I would save for the second or third 100 hours.

ROLLING BACK SUBSIDIES TO OIL COMPANIES: Certainly based upon recent profits the oil companies are hardly in need of subsidies. Nevertheless, I would not recommend making this item one of the first 100 hours issues.

COMMITMENT TO NO NEW DEFICIT SPENDING: If they want to totally drop the ball then go ahead and make such a commitment. I would put this idea up there with George H.W. Bush's famous: "read my lips, no new taxes".

In historical context the first 100 hours of this Democratic controlled Congress may not have significance when it comes to truly significant legislation. However, it can be very significant in setting the tone with the American public. If the perception of the new Congress is one of getting things done for the American people it not only may bode well for the public, but also for the Democrats chances in the 2008 election. Conversely, if the hand off of power to the Democrats is perceived as opening the floodgates of investigations, subpoenas, hearings, etc., then the public may quickly sour on the benefits of throwing out the party in power.

EJS:
Nancy Pelosi has a very ambitious agenda planned for the 110th Congress set to convene in just a few short weeks. The question is: How many of these items can actually make it through the legislative process and will be signed into law by President Bush?

Bush's eyes lit up during a post-mortem news conference the day after the election when a reporter asked him what he thought about possible bipartisan support of his "comprehensive" immigration reform bill. It is ironic that due to the Republican loss, McCain, Bush, and the other globalists are actually going to come up roses in their biggest piece of domestic legislation. Expect amnesty to be front and center and signed into law by our faithful leader within the first few months of the new Congress. Then we can all polish up our Spanish and prepare for the waves of humanity that are sure to follow shortly thereafter. Current estimates put the illegal immigrant population in this country anywhere from 10 to 20 million. Expect that number to double within five years, and triple within a decade.

I am fundamentally opposed to an increase in the minimum wage, which is proven to cost jobs and cost consumers more money. Instead, I would support further tax incentives for small businesses and low-income families. This will stimulate business and create more jobs, therefore increasing tax revenue. However, it appears the bill will have no trouble passing, and Bush will probably sign it and use that as leverage to get some of his items passed.

I have no issues with reducing the amount of interest on federal student loans. Education is always a good thing and is an investment in our nation's future.

Allowing federal funding of new stem-cell lines isn't going to happen. It may get through Congress, but Bush has made his position clear on this issue, and I believe he will not waver on this. That tends to be his approach to such moral issues; he has a set principle and does not waver from it.

The profits that oil companies are making these days is an outrage. I believe we need to rollback the subsidies that were put in place to help the floundering oil industry in the 1970's. Times have changed and obviously oil is a great business to be in. I am of the opinion that the government go one extra step, and this applies to media conglomerates as well. We need some old-fashioned Teddy Roosevelt trustbusting to break up the big oil and media companies. Business in the United States was never intended to be run in such a manner.

Democrats saying they won't spend any more money is like a Packers fan saying they're not going to eat anymore cheese. It is laughable. The only question is, how much are they going to raise our taxes to cover their socialistic plans?

Will Frederick Kagan's December 14, 2006, "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" be the option that President Bush pursues ?

Will Frederick Kagan's December 14, 2006, "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" be the option that President Bush pursues? If so, should we support it? And most importantly, will it work?

KJW: I am frequently asked by my conservative friend, EJS, whether I want us to win in Iraq. I usually hesitate when he asks me that question. Of course he interprets that to mean that I don't want us to win. In fact, the reason that I hesitate is that I have not seen any indication that the course being followed by the Bush administration could conceivable lead to any form of "victory".

The initial military action was clearly won by the U.S. With regard to the peace, we have just as clearly been losing. So now we are faced with the question, can we reclaim victory through further military and diplomatic actions? As I have related in previous posts I believe that it will be necessary for the U.S. to remain in Iraq for at least the next 18 to 24 months regardless of the course we pursue. To do otherwise would leave Iraq in a more disastrous situation than currently exists. So should we spend that 18 to 24 months attempting to gracefully extricate ourselves from Iraq, or should we take one last shot at achieving the victory that President Bush says is the only solution?

I have read the "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" Plan in its entirety, not just a synopsis prepared by some commentator with an agenda. In a nutshell, The Kagan Plan calls for us to change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. It urges that we send more American combat forces into Iraq, especially into Baghdad. This increase in troops would include a surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments. These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, would clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shi’a neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city. After the neighborhoods had been cleared, U.S. soldiers and marines, again partnered with Iraqis, would remain behind to maintain security. As security is established, reconstruction aid would help to reestablish normal life and, working through Iraqi officials, would strengthen Iraqi local government.

The Kagan Plan doesn't sound revolutionary in many respects. In fact, he points out such a plan was successful in containing similar ethno-religious conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo. Of course, myself and others will be left wondering if that is true, why has it taken us this long to reach a similar conclusion in Iraq? Nevertheless, if all we do is look back and analyze how the Iraq war was mishandled there would never be time to try to bring it to an end.

So, back to the issue presented in a prior post: Do we go big, go long, or go home? At that time I was against Going Big - since it had not been defined in a manner that would be to my satisfaction. I believe that the Kagan Plan would definitely be Going Big by anyone's definition.

I further believe that the Kagan Plan, or something similar, is the course of action that President George Bush intends to pursue. Despite many of my beliefs about this administration and its propensity to screw things up, if the Kagan Plan were adopted in the form I have just read, then I would support it. If it failed to achieve the intended results in 24 months, then I would support a less than graceful exit.

EJS: The American people owe the troops on the ground in Iraq one more shot at victory. I believe that the Kagan plan gives us the best opportunity to secure that victory.

Kagan's fundamental argument is that we need to increase our troop levels. However, he doesn't just recommend throwing troops into Iraq anywhere with no particular mission. That, he argues, would be another in a long line of blunders committed in this war. The US needs to change the military objectives in Iraq. Where before our number one priority has been training Iraqi troops to handle security, the new situation warrants that the US take the lead in establishing security in Iraq. In looking at past conflicts such as the one in the Balkans and Afghanistan, a ratio of 1 soldier for every 100 citizens seems to be the formula for stability.

Most of Iraq is calm though, so troop placement is of utmost importance. The north and south of Iraq are relatively calm, with 80% of violence occurring within a 35-mile radius of Baghdad. This would mean an increase of 50,000 US troops in and around Baghdad to establish security. These levels would ensure that once neighborhoods are cleared out, there would be sufficient forces to stay behind and secure the area. Once the capital is under control, Kagan argues that other restless areas such as Anbar province would fall in line shortly. Any military offensive must be combined with a NEW Deal type jobs program, as well as massive reconstruction. Much of the insurgents' power is derived from poor conditions. We must undermine this power by improving those conditions.

The militant Shiite problem is one that should have been squashed in 2003, but has been allowed to fester now to a point where Al Sadr's Mahdi Army now boasts 60,000 members and is being compared to Hezbollah in Lebanon. This is now listed by the Pentagon as the number one problem in Iraq, with Shiite militias causing much of the sectarian violence. Any military advance on the Shiites by strictly American forces would not be viewed by Iraqis as a constructive approach.

When confronting the Shiites, Iraqi soldiers must play a leading role.

The Kagan plan, or some parts of it, appear to be the choice most supported by President Bush at this point. He still has immense pressure on him to get out of Iraq quickly, but he has been steadfast in his approach, which should be commended. This provides the last opportunity for the US to correct past mistakes and salvage some type of "victory" in Iraq.

We cannot allow Iraq to descend into a full blown regional conflict, with Iran supporting radical Shiites, and the rest of Arabia supporting the Sunnis. This is a recipe for disaster, and would also provide a sufficient power vacuum for would-be terrorists to set up training camps in Iraq. As incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, America CANNOT afford to fail in Iraq. We will pay for that failure for generations.

Are the Holocaust deniers something we should be concerned with?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has convened approximately 70 "researchers" such as ex-Klansman David Duke to discuss their doubts about the extent of the Holocaust, and questioning whether or not it actually happened. Have Western leaders' reactions up to this point been sufficient, or should there be a larger outcry? How does this influence Muslims' thinking around the world?


KJW:

I do not believe that the denial of the Holocaust should be a criminal offense. I believe that every person should be allowed to express their views and opinions, even power hungering maniacs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Furthermore, I believe that the number of people educated in a free society who actually believe that the Holocaust never occurred is rather small. However, Iran and much of the middle east are societies that do not allow their citizens to be freely educated. In such societies that are oppressive and regulate what their citizens may and may not learn, there is a problem. Societies such as Iran indoctrinate their citizens to extreme beliefs (and actions) by using ideas such as Holocaust denial to mischaracterize Israel, and the United States, as evil that needs to be eliminated. Terrorism, just like racism, is not inborn, but instead is learned behavior.

So while I believe that persons should have the right to say the most absurd and controversial things, I also believe that it is incumbent upon all of us to stand up and say it isn't so. World leaders must not just dismiss Iran's Holocaust denier meeting, but instead should stand up and vehemently condemn it.

As Irish orator, statesman, and politicial philosopher Edmund Burke said over two hundred years ago:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


EJS:

Like I have said before, we are living through the 1930's all over again. We have a world leader once again espousing world domination and using the Jews as the scapegoat. Sound familiar? With the US sending clear signals of wavering in Iraq and wanting to negotiate with Syria and Iran, and with appeasers such as Robert Gates and James Baker now forming policy, the stage is set for another despotic regime to commit genocide on a grand scale.

The question we must ask ourselves: where is the outcry? Yes, a few Western leaders have spoken up to condemn the Holocaust deniers. But the response, quite frankly, has been sub par. Why do we study history? Answer: so we don't repeat history's mistakes. According to today's revisionist historians though, the Jews are to blame for displacing the Palestinians. These premises come from the same wackos that say 9/11 was an inside job. The fact remains though, Israel is the only UN-created state, and they still can't manage the situation. The Palestinians claim to the Holy Land is completely baseless. The Jews have ties to the Holy Land which extend back three millennia. One must not forget, in addition to the West Bank, there is also an East Bank. It is called Jordan, and this Arab kingdom was set up after WWI as a homeland for the Palestinians. Eighty percent of Jordan's population is Palestinian.

We must also take into consideration the influence that Iran and Ahmadinejad has on the rest of the Muslim world. Ahmadinejad is attempting to be THE MAN in Muslim culture. What he has been in effect saying since he took office is, "It isn't Mubarak, it isn't King Abdullah of Jordan, it's me. I'm the leader of the Arab world. I have stood up to the Great Satan." Mr. Ahmadinejad is a well educated man. Not for one minute do I believe he actually believes in the religious fanaticism he espouses. But he is using religion as a means to accomplish his goal: world domination. And he is using a scapegoat which has been used for millennia as well: the Jews. The question we must ask ourselves: are we going to let history repeat itself again, or will we confront evil before it gathers? Stay tuned.

Where do we stand now with regard to Iraq?

There has been a flurry of diplomatic efforts in recent weeks to end the violence in Iraq. With the naming of a new defense secretary and the emergence of the Iraq Study Group's report, is the United States on the path to victory in Iraq? Of the three options (Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home), which is the best course of action to take now?


KJW:

The key to succeeding in politics these days seems to be framing your opponents position on issues with a negative sound bite. Although "Cut and Run" eventually went down in flames there is no denying that it was effectively used for many months. While I would not agree that the only options available in Iraq can be framed as "Go Big", "Go Long", or "Go Home", I will nevertheless address this latest example of the political sound bite.

For this discussion I will address the specific issues as if none of them would meet any resistance at home from the public, media or government officials. Let's just pretend for a minute that we are all sheep.

Option 1 - Go Big: I have not yet heard this option fully explained. However, let's assume for discussion purposes that it means dramatically increasing the level of our troops in Iraq and engaging in a massive military campaign. I have heard it suggested that we should start with wiping out Sadr City. Of course we would be faced with the problem of not knowing who the enemy is since they would not be wearing uniforms. But again, assuming we are sheep and such a campaign goes forward successfully, what then?

After wiping out much of the military age male population from Iraq, does anyone believe that the Sunnis and the Shiites would stop trying to kill each other? Do you believe that the Kurds would then want to resume being a part of Iraq? (Remember that Kurds are not even allowed to fly the Iraqi flag.) The fact is that the military campaign ended several years ago and we did in fact win. What we have failed to win is the post war period where diplomacy and nation building is required. Diplomacy is the only way this war is going to end in victory for anyone. Option 1 - Go Big - NO.

Option 2 - Go Long: Again I will need to assume what this means. If it means that we remain at the current troop levels with the same role that we have presently, then such an option is too ridiculous to even urge. Even W has given up on STAY THE COURSE.

However, if Go Long means that we reduce our presence and reposition our remaining troops so that they could be immediately redeployed in the event of military necessity, then that might be palatable. Such a policy would entail an ongoing reduction of troop levels within the borders of Iraq. It would also not involve any specific date for complete withdrawal from Iraq. Even upon the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, we could continue to have an increased presence in the region with added troops positioned in Kuwait for example. These added troops would allow us to be in a position to prevent, or respond to, any intervention in Iraq from neighboring countries. Option 2 - Stay Long - YES, well sort of.

Option 3 - Go Home: I am not in favor of IMMEDIATE withdrawal from Iraq. If that occurred noone, not even W, would disagree that the resulting mayhem would constitute a civil war. In addition, such a course of action would leave the door open for Iran / Syria / Turkey to assume a role or to intervene in ways that would be negative. I believe that the Go Home option would need to involve a gradual draw down of U.S. troops over a twelve to twenty four month period. Anything faster than that would not be advisable. However, twenty four months is adequate for the Iraqi government to have plenty of time to plan for the transition and departure of the U.S. forces. Just as with the Stay Long Option we could continue to have an increased presence in the region, in order to prevent, or respond to, any intervention in Iraq from neighboring countries. Option 3 - Go Home - MAYBE.

EJS:

The United States has, with its' latest moves, given a clear signal to adversaries that we are wavering in our resolve and aren't serious about winning in Iraq any longer, but rather more interested in saving face and "managing the situation," as Nancy Pelosi has referred to it as. The naming of Robert Gates as Defense Secretary signals a change of course, but not necessarily in a way that will provide for victory. Remember, VICTORY is defined as having a stable, secure Iraq capable of governing itself, and most importantly, to have an ally in the War on Terror in the middle of the Mideast. Gates has long been in the James Baker camp, the camp that wants to negotiate with terrorist-supporting nations in order to resolve the situation. This shouldn't come as a surprise from Baker though, who's law firm represents Saudi Arabia's interests in this country. This is also a classic case of appeasement by rewarding bad behavior. In the case of Syria and Iran, this bad behavior is their continued support of terror organizations and their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. This type of appeasement will only encourage more bad behavior.

Unfortunately, President Bush seems to have lost his resolve to secure victory in Iraq. He has buckled under intense media and political pressure. It is most unfortunate for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who wake up everyday and fully believe in the cause they are helping. They understand how important it is for us to win in Iraq, to support moderates in the Middle East and not give in to barbaric thugs who would use Iraq as fertile ground for terror training. They KNOW they are defending the American people, and they wish everyday that the media and people would understand this and get behind them so they can finish the job. They don't just want to "manage the situation," which means that each of their buddies' deaths went for naught. The troops want to WIN, and they know they can do it given the chance. Unfortunately, politicians and media pundits don't appear ready to give them that opportunity.