Comments Posted By Ian McPhail
Displaying 1 To 2 Of 2 Comments
DEMS HOLDING THEIR BREATH DOWN THE STRETCH
Just like the comment to a representative of then North Vietnam that the United State had won every battle in that war, the fact that the Democrats have no alternative policy for Iraq is true but irrelevant. Pres. Bush embarked on a policy which has cost thousands of lives, tens of thousands of injuries, hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed money, for reasons which have been shown to be inaccurate.
No wonder voters have lost confidence.
As a conservative I believe that a restoration of checks and balances is vital, and if it has to be the Democrats, so be it. After all, Congress can't pass any legislation over the President's veto, and why should conservatives think it so important that legislation be passed for the benefit of having more laws. So why should conservatives, as opposed to Republicans, be so concerned?
Comment Posted By Ian McPhail On 30.10.2006 @ 23:10
AN UNSCHOLARLY, NON-LAWYERLY OPINION ON THE NSA DECISION
Dear Rick,
Interesting articles, and you're 100% right about the tendency of courts and tribunals of all levels to write longer and more legalistic decisions.
I won't pretend to know whether the NSA decision is good or bad law. I do recall Ronald Reagan saying, and I know this may not be word for word accurate "People who are willing to surrender their liberty in order to gain security will usually end up losing both."
Too many conservatives, who ought to know better, have succumbed to this idea that everyone else in the world should adopt American style democracy or have it forced down their throats. Again, I refer to Ronald Reagan. The "Shining City on the hill" was meant as an example to inspire people.
The fundamental problem with the Iraq war is not its exection, horrendous as that has been. In the case of war by choice or pre-emptive war, the case should be overwhelming. The kindest thing that can be said about it is that the intelligence was defective. It is crystal clear that Iraq under Hussein, who was a nasty character all around, had nothing to do with terrorism against the US. The idea that the US invaded Iraq to establish a democratic state doesn't pass the laugh test. People will argue for many years what the motivating factors actually were.
But the US is now in a dilemma. It can attempt to crush the resistance viz the French in Algeria, and demonstrate the talk about democracy to have been a fraud. Or it can allow the democratic process to work, and see authority in the country assumed by the Shia, who want a theocratic state and closer relations with Iran.
All in all an unpleasant situation with no palatable answer.
Comment Posted By Ian McPhail On 20.08.2006 @ 22:11
