Reflections From a Murky Pond

As is right and proper, the 2nd Presidential Debate of the 2008 US Presidential election campaign included questions on US foreign policy and the use of US military forces in foreign countries. The War on Terror as it is being fought in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a key point in these questions. Each candidate was asked how they would handle with hunting down Al-Qaeda terrorists within Pakistan.

Since I have friends in Pakistan this interested me on a more personal level than it did many of the viewers of the debate. My friends, who are fairly secular and educated would be placed in direct peril if the government of Pakistan collapsed due to the rising unrest, insurgency, and terrorism that could result from an increased and expanded US and / or NATO campaign within Pakistan.

So let us discuss Pakistan’s fate at the hands of each of the US presidential candidates. Each candidate has a different approach to the question. Each approach will have a different impact on the nation of Pakistan and its peoples.

The question:

Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

Sen. John McCain’s answer:

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

McCain wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda. More importantly he seems to want to work with the people in Waziristani region to convince them to help remove Al-Qaeda. This means that Pakistan gets to keep its sovereignty – and probably its government – intact. It also probably means that the Pakistani military will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. McCain’s plan to be unsatisfying. I can also find several flaws with this methodology for dealing with Al-Qaeda.

Firstly, there’s no positive proof that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s regime is friendly enough towards the US to consider aiding us in this struggle. Secondly, McCain’s plan hinges on successfully winning “the hearts and minds” of the Waristanis.

Sen. Barack Obama’s answer:

What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

Obama wants also wants to work with the Pakistani government and military to remove Al-Qaeda – when it suits our purposes to do so. He makes no mention of- or allusion to working with the people in the Waziristani region to further this effort. This means that US forces will bear the brunt of the attacks into the Waziristani region of Pakistan.

From a purely American-centric point of view I find Sen. Obama’s idea very emotionally appealing; our dead and bereaved from 9/11 deserve to be avenged. I can find several grievous flaws in his plan however.

Firstly, Zardari’s regime is already quite unfriendly to the US and Pakistani troops have already fired upon US / NATO forces within and near the borders of Pakistan; Obama’s plan would most likely escalate that violence into open warfare. Secondly, Obama’s plan would require that US forces launch unsupported attack into Waziristan. This is an action that the Soviets and the Pakistanis themselves have failed at accomplishing.

From Pakistan’s point of view…

I would have to say that Pakistan would fare better with Sen. McCain as President of the United States of America than with Sen. Obama in that role. In point of fact I think Pakistan would do much better with McCain than they would with Obama.

McCain’s plan is a cooperative effort with the Pakistani government and the people of the Waziristani region. By involving all parties it would mitigate the potential for disaster to be the Pakistani government and it’s people.

Obama’s plan seems to focus on using financial aid to convince Zardari’s regime to aid our forces, or at least ignore our encroachments into their territory.  This would likely result in an increase of violence and terrorism in Pakistan if Zardari’s regime could even be convinced in the first place.  Alternatively Obama’s plan could place Pakistan in open warfare against the US and at odds with Waziristan. Either is a recipe for disaster within Pakistan.

Sen. Joe Biden has a problem with the Catholic Church – his stance on abortion which is in direct defiance of teachings and precepts of the religion the Delaware Senator purports to belong to.

Several Bishops and Arch-Bishops have already issued declarations denying Biden the Eucharist within their diocese and arch-diocese. This is but one step away from excommunication.

Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, wrote in 2004:

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

So one must wonder how long it will be before the Catholic Church takes the next step in remonstrating the wayward Senator and formally excommunicates him. Since all 55 US Catholic Bishops and Arch-Bishops have denounced the Democratic vice Presidential candidate I do not believe this step is very far away.

Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI has previously in 2007 unequivocally stated that pro-choice politicians not only should be denied communion, but face outright excommunication from the Church for supporting the killing of a human child.

Yes, that they are excommunicated isn’t something arbitrary. It’s envisioned in the law of the Church that the killing of a human child is incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ.

— Pope Benedict XVI

According to Wikipedia, in the Middle Ages, formal acts of public excommunication were accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled as for the dead, the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out – hence the idiom “to condemn with bell, book and candle.”

It is not normal for such public ceremonies to be held today. Only in cases where a person’s excommunicable offense is very public and likely to confuse people – such as Biden’s case – is a person’s excommunicated status even announced, and that usually by a simple statement from a church official.

This may present quite a problem for the Obama-Biden campaign. Biden is being trashed across every state of the Union by Catholic newspapers, TV and radio stations, and blogs – and the likelihood of his excommunication will only make that worse.

There are 47 million Catholic voters in the United States. One quarter of all registered voters are Catholics. At every presidential election in the past 30 years the Catholic vote has gone to the winning candidate, except for Al Gore in 2000.

How many of these Catholic voters will vote for a man on the verge of being excommunicated?

Will the tolling of a bell be the death knell of Obama’s campaign? Will the book that is closed be the book on the Democrat’s chance at the White House? Will that candle that is snuffed out be the hope of the pro-choice Liberals?

Here’s a little bit of truth concerning Sen. McCain, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the current economic crisis that Obama, his followers and their MSM shills don’t want to publish.

Here is the truth straight from the US Congressional Record:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

— Sen. John McCain
The Floor of the US Senate, May 25, 2006

That is correct; in 2005 Sen. McCain co-sponsored – along with four other Republican senators – legislation that might well have prevented the housing debacle and its resultant economic upheaval. Sadly, the Democrats led by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd quashed the bill before it could even be brought to vote.

Alaska’s Governor Sarah, Palin has been chosen by Senator John McCain to be his Vice Presidential nominee and running mate in the 2008 US presidential elections. The vast majority of people – certainly almost all of the Left – believe that Gov. Palin was chosen solely because of her gender. The general assumption among the Democrats is that her nomination was nothing beyond a poorly executed pandering to the die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters who feel so abused and maligned by the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign.

I truly wonder if this was the case. This does not mean that I believe the the GOP is beyond such tactics. It merely means that I do not hold them in such contempt that I believe they would execute any campaign strategy that poorly.

It’s absolutely no secret that McCain wanted Sen. Joe Lieberman as his VP. Lieberman was an politically unacceptable choice though. An ex-Democrat now Independent who ran with Al Gore in the 2000 election wasn’t going to be acceptable to the GOP or their conservative base. McCain had to choose another running mate. That’s where it gets interesting.

Palin based on her political views – especially her hatred of government corruption – was always a fine choice for McCain’s VP.  Much of her – albeit limited – political history shows that she was a good match for the “maverick” McCain. Alas, she was a woman and the GOP could not be expected to accept a female VP candidate. Then along came Hillary and the resulting rather bitter schism within the Democrats. Suddenly a female VP candidate was politically viable.

So the question becomes did McCain choose Palin as his running mate because she was a woman or did he choose her for political positions and cultural views despite or irrespective of her being a woman thanks to Clinton making it palatable to the GOP?

The Left will tell you the reason was the former, but I believe it was the latter.  Palin bring far to much to McCain’s campaign from within the Right and so little from the Left that it’s ridiculous to think that the McCain and the GOP would have chosen her in order to pander to Hillary’s supporters.

Sen. John McCain really needs to step up and announce his choice for Vice President and running mate. Politically speaking this is the absolutely best time to make the announcement, directly in the middle of the Democratic national Convention.

At least as important as when McCain should announce his running mate is who he should announce as being that person. The odds on bet seems to be Sen. Joe Lieberman (CN), but he seems a poor choice.

Personally I think McCain should choose Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) as is Vice President. From a purely political standpoint she could draw off more of the Clinton supporters and other women than any male candidate could.

That’s far from the whole of her appeal though. Gov. Palin would bring a lot to the campaign and to McCain’s Presidency:

• She must know how to fight a campaign. She’s Alaska’s first female Governor and its youngest Governor.  She was elected by first defeating the incumbent Republican governor in the Republican primary, then a former Democratic Alaskan Governor in the general election.
• Palin would reinforce McCain’s stance against earmarks and pork-barrel spending. During her tenure as Governor she managed a successful push for an ethics bill, crippling pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans.
• She is strongly pro-life and belongs to Feminists for Life of America, the largest and most visible pro-life feminist organization in America. Palin and Feminists for Life of America believe in “systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion — primarily lack of practical resources and support — through holistic, woman-centered solutions.” Gov. Palin recently gave birth to her fifth child — who she knew would have Down syndrome.
• Palin opposes same-sex marriage but used her very first veto as Governor of Alaska on legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples.
• She is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a life time member of the National Rifle Association.
• Palin seems to have a balanced approached to US energy policy. She believes in increasing domestic oil and natural gas drilling, but in April 2007, she announced plans to create a new sub-cabinet, to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska. In 2003, as Ethics Commissioner on the state’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, she risked her political career by resigning her position in protest of ethical misconduct within the state’s Republican leadership as well as then-Gov. Frank Murkowski’s acceptance of that corruption.
• She has gone into the war zone! In July, Palin went to Kuwait where she visited the Alaska Army National Guard’s 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry, a unit that is made up of about 575 Alaska men and women.  Her eldest child and only son, Track Palin recently enlisted in the US Army and is expecting to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Let’s face the truth. Sen. McCain is a crochety old man. Sarah Palin is young, beautiful, and reported to be both sharp and charming – a wonderfully dangerous combination. She holds similar views to McCain on a variety of issues, but approaches them in a more holistic manner except when swift authoritarian action is absolutely required. Can anyone think of a better choice for VP?