Latest letter to Senator Cornyn
Senator Cornyn,

Thank you for the opportunity to communicate with you through this email.

On Monday, March 24th 2008, I read with dismay an article in the Wall Street Journal, "Bogotá Eyes the Irish Model", by Mary Anastacia O'Grady, of how the Democrats in Congress are blocking the pending Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with our closest South American ally, Columbia.

Maybe "disheartening" is a better word for how I feel. In Columbia, we have a friend who wants to emulate the same freedoms and success that we have in these United States. This country has cleaned up public corruption, and their people are some of the freest in South America. A country who is asking for one of the most basic and iconic of American ideals, “The Fair Shake”. And yet Democrats want to slap the Columbian people away. A bulwark of democracy in an unstable region, and the Democrats don't care.

The next time any Democrat says, "America's reputation is the world is damaged", the counterpoint must be made, "What did you do to help those who asked for our help?" Instead of standing on principles of what is best for the United States, the Democrats who whine about our American reputation hide behind special interest propaganda.

I can not think of any better way to strengthen American interest (political, trade, security) in South America other than to pass the FTA with Columbia. Stronger trade with Columbia will fortify the country from enemy attacks from the likes of Venezuela and Ecuador. We must protect our friend from continued assaults from an increasingly unstable tyrant like Hugo Chavez.

I kindly ask you to help move this agreement forward under the aegis of American security.

thank you
- posted by Simmering @ 6:24 PM

 
Letter to Senator Cornyn
Dear Senator Cornyn,

Thank you for your consideration of this email.

I watched today’s (1/24/2007) proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations committee meeting, and when I heard the fetid sewage that poured forth from the mouths of Senator’s Hagel and Voinivich, it stirred my anger. In their strutting peacock pomposity, they reveal themselves for what they really are, and that is a coward. I say they are cowards because they hide their convictions until the outcome is at hand, casting their lots with the popular majority and slight of hand. And now the November election results have cast a light into their shadow of convictions, forcing these cowards to find a scapegoat and shine the light somewhere else.

The President has stood before all Americans, laying open his convictions, staying strong on his principles. He has taken pot shot from the oppositions, which is to be expected. He should not take pot shots from his own party, and I expect more from Republican Senators than the jelly-back-boned response I have seen from the Washington lately.

The President has taken us to Iraq on a principle of protecting this country by spreading democracy. This non-binding senate resolution spits in the face of the President, our country’s security, and the democratic principle that everyone can be free and the United States is there to help. This action will continue to re-enforce the belief already held by our enemies and allies, you can not count on the USA if there is a chance that someone will get a bloody nose. Look back to our reaction of how Sadam crushed the Shia after the Gulf War, and you will see the rest of world expects us to respond in Iraq today, and conflicts in the future.

The USA is the progenitor and protector of modern democracy. We can also be democracy’s purveyor, bringing peace and prosperity to a world too often filled with violence and corruption. It is these ideals where the Senate should be focused. The principled debates of democracy should not be pushed aside so that others can preen for the 2008 election photo op.

Senator Cornyn, I ask you to please take this message to the Senate. Please do not be dragged down by this despicable resolution, and please hold fast to the principles of democracy.

Thank you,
- posted by Simmering @ 12:02 AM

 
Syria and Iran are not the USSR!!!
I posted this to the Wall Street Journal, then to the GOPUSA board, now to my site.

I would add that it is because of the thinking as expressed in the article, I can see how Clinton got himself in trouble with the Islamofascist terrorist. Clearly, none of us truly understood the sort of trouble we were in or the trouble to come. Yet, if our foreign policy debates had only been centered on one enemy for 50 years, and then that enemy is suddenly gone, I'm not sure you can expect policy advisors to immediately recognize a new threat if it doesn't fit into the current perceptions. Thus, the Clinton administration probably approached all foreign negotiations like we had for the past 50 years, as if we were still dealing with the Soviets. I think it has been clear since 9/11 that we aren't dealing with the Soviets nor should the negotiation tactics be similar. Yet, there is still a large contigent of Washington insiders who do believe this, and the article I mention below shows this.

_______________________________

Thank you for the rant. You folks may have seen Wednesday's (12/20/06) Opinon section of the Wall Street Journal were Abraham Sofaer, former legal advisor to the State Department, '85-'90, gave his opinion as to why the President should follow the Iraq Study Group proposals of negotiations with Syria and Iran. I don't agree, and I try to point out the fallacies in his argument, specifically, don't compare the USSR and how we negotiated with the Soviets, with the Syrians and Iranians.Mr Sofaer's piece can be found on line here: http://www.opinionjournal.c

Below is my rant to the Wall Street Journal.

Thank you for printing Mr. Abraham Sofaer’s piece, “A Reagan Strategy for Iran and Syria”. It provided me with insight the foreign policy “stability” crowd’s way of diagnosing our foreign policy challenges. It clearly highlighted for me how previous administrations saw negotiations with foreign countries through the prism of “what would the USSR do?” The wall came down, these same policy advisors did not and still have not shifted gears to the new reality, the USSR is dead and strategy comparisons to modern day conflicts are facile. Foreign policy advisors need to quit referring to the our play book for what worked with the USSR and accept that the field has changed, and thus our approach to the new players also needs to change.The very beginning of Mr. Sofaer’s piece begins with an error when he compares the USSR with Syria/Iran. Yes, all of those parties were and are full of naughty boys, yet:

1. The USSR wanted international stability as much as the USA.
a. The Soviets had an empire to protect and would roll out the forces in border issues, a la Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan
b. Nuclear deterrence was a real threat, especially if you felt that you had everything to lose.

2. Stability in the Middle East is not in the interest of Syria/Iran. Mr. Sofaer says that it is, yet doesn’t support that point and leave it open as if it is self evident.
a. Instability in Iraq makes us look silly and the Syrians/Iranians look strong.
b. This relative Syrian/Iranian stability, at a cost to their respective populations, could provide an appealing model for those in Iraq. Consider Germany’s struggling democracy in the 20’s. Fascism was a relief to many Germans.
c. Instability in Iraq continues to allow Syria/Iraq to meddle in external affairs and to continue to strengthen their holds on their respective countries.

I do not expect either the Syrians or the Iranians will ever allow a flourishing stable democracy to develop on their doorsteps. Such a country will pose a threat to those two fascist regimes, and thus you can make another comparison to the former USSR.

Diplomatic negotiations are good in that it keeps everyone talking, and hopefully, fingers crossed, looking for solutions. Yet to expect the Syrians/Iranians to have meaningful negotiations on the stability of Iraq without giving up our principles would involve weaving a tale of fantasy.
- posted by Simmering @ 11:59 AM

 
From the Jerusalem Post
I could not agree more:
Caroline B. Glick, Center for Security Policy Senior Middle East Fellow and Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post, on the Iraq Study Group Report:

With the publication of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, III and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, the debate about the war in Iraq changed. From a war for victory against Islamofascism and for democracy and freedom, the war became reduced to a conflict to be managed by appeasing the U.S.'s sworn enemies in the interests of stability, and at the expense of America's allies.

The ISG report makes me sick. What a wretched piece of trash. The shortsighted knuckleheads in the media, the ones with no sense for history, report the results like "Oh, here's the plan that will save everyone." Knuckleheads. They seem to conveniently forget that the "stability" plan is how we arrived at the moment of 9/11. GEEZZ!!!
- posted by Simmering @ 8:50 PM

 
Congress Approves Offshore drilling in Gulf States
HOORAY!! There is finally some good energy news out of Congress.

Before the elections, I saw an interview of James Carville (Yes, the Carville with the scary visage and the “I’m going to talk loud until you give up” debate tactics) and he had completed some poling research that showed a vast amount of Americans were in favor of alternative energy sources. I’m watching the interview, thinking “yes, it’s called drilling in ANWAR.” Yet Carville with his Louisiana drawl says “’em peoples want ‘lectric cars!”

Electric cars? Oh, come on. I remember my father telling that as a kid, everyone believed they would be flying helicopters to work. It’s a neat idea, but one that is hardly economically feasible. When you look at the alternative fuel tradeoff I’m thinking electric cars have a future like those helicopters.

Still, let me give Carville credit, he was right about our desire for alternative sources. Yes, we want alternative sources of fuel; those sources come from drilling offshore and remote places like ANWAR. We are sick of being held hostage to thugs in the Middle East and punks in Venezuela.

For you future candidates, THIS IS AN ELECTION ISSUE. Make yourself a winner, stand up for more drilling.
- posted by Simmering @ 3:49 PM

 
The lost little ones of North Korea
Back on Nov 6th, I was moved by a column in the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal, written by Melanie Fitzpatrick, titled "The Lost Little Ones". The article highlights the plight of North Korean orphans left in China and it just ripped my heart out.

I was so moved my the article and the YouTube video I found that I was compelled to send the following email to the President, Vice President, and the two Senators who represent me and other Texans, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn.

Here is a copy of the email:
Subject: Wanting to save the Little Ones in North Korea

Dear Mr. President

Thank you for your consideration in reading my email. My hope is to make the email brief yet poignant.

Today (11/6/06), as I read the Opinion section of my Wall Street Journal, I came across the column written by Melanie Fitzpatrick titled "The Lost Little Ones" which highlighted the plight of North Korean orphans who have been abandoned in China. Without a parents or a country, these children are left to scavenge the streets, with their best hope is to be taken in by a secretive orphanage. Many of these children aren't this lucky and starve.

Groups like Liberty in North Korea (LINK) are doing what they can to help, though the task appears monumental. Here is a link I found to a short video of what these children face. I'm a 41 year old male, self described tough guy, and these images made me cry out loud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBzHCVv5GeQ

I've heard the stories for years of starving folks in North Korea, yet this brings it home. As Americans, we must do something NOW.
My suggestions:
1) China is critical in solving the problem. We need the Chinese to allow more groups into China to openly help take care of these abandoned children.
2) US funding for groups like LINK.
3) South Korean support for repatriation of these orphans. It is in the South Korean constitution to take North Korean refuges.
4) Regime Change! Yes, I know we are busy in Afghanistan and Iraq, but count me in for support of deposing Kim Jong Il.

Again, thank you for your consideration in reading this email

Frankly, I didn't expect a reply, nor did I receive one until today. Senator John Cornyn, or at least his office, sent me the following email in reply.

Subject: Thank You For Contacting My Office

Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States’ policy toward North Korea. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this important matter, and I am glad to have the benefit of your ideas and suggestions.

As you know, North Korea successfully tested a nuclear weapon on October 8, 2006. This test, together with North Korea’s development and testing of short- and long-range ballistic missiles, represents a serious threat to the United States, our allies, and the security of Northeast Asia. North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, expelled monitors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and reopened previously banned nuclear installations. Moreover, North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons violates the U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework of 1994, an agreement requiring North Korea to halt development of its nuclear weapons program.

I strongly support multilateral diplomacy and the continuation of six-party talks to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. Countries in the region that have considerable economic and political leverage over North Korea—among them Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia—must play a key role in resolving the North Korean crisis; and the international community must act decisively to prevent a brutal dictator like Kim Jong-Il from continuing to develop and, potentially, to proliferate nuclear weapons. As such, I am pleased the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to levy strict sanctions and other punitive actions against North Korea, and I am hopeful that North Korea’s decision to return to the six-party talks will move the peninsula toward a North Korean decision to abandon nuclear armament.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to closely monitor this situation and keep your suggestions in mind as these matters are discussed. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

That was nice. I hold no real illusion that "Oh my God! John Cornyn is thinking of me while on the hill!", yet he did respond and addressed the subject in only a way a politician can, "Thank you, and now let me talk to you about what I want to discuss." I don't blame them. You have a message you need to get out and you need to be consistent. I'm just glad he took the time and responded.

- posted by Simmering @ 5:37 PM

 
Iraq Study Group
(I have more thoughts on this topic. Namely, military victory, political victory, where Neocons succeeded, where they failed. More on this later)

What I haven’t seen in the analysis of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) is the in depth analysis of who wrote the study. Sure, its James Baker and Lee Hamilton, long time Washington insiders, blah blah blah. Yet, no one has said, “Hey, if the President follows the recommendations of the ISG, this is a cataclysmic shift in the US foreign policy, and the old line “realists” from the State Dept have won”. Has everyone forgotten old line foreign policy wonks like Brent Scowcroft, Baker, et al., were critical when the President built his case and announced his intention to go into Iraq? That is because the attacking first goes against everything the old line “realist” believe. These folks believe in stability at any cost, and thus the reason we have an uncomfortable history of propping up dictators like Noriega, shaking hands with thugs like Saddam (remember the picture of Rumsfeld from the early 80’s), and running arms to half crazed fundamentalist in Afghanistan. If the president follows these recommendations, Neocon foreign policy is dead. Instead, we go back to a time before 2001 when the State Dept would cut deals shady thugs, all in the name of stability, while lying through our teeth about the importance of spreading democracy.

I believe that it can be rightly said that the same authors of this report own a share of the responsibility of the terror attacks on this country. It was their 30+ year’s foreign policy in the Middle East that led to the attacks we’ve seen in the last few years. This reasoning, to follow the old paths that lead to our being attacked, is just ridiculous.

Ask Iran and Syria for help? You have got to be kidding? Is this the same Iran that read about today in an AP story where their top security official urged other Arab nations to expel US military bases from the region and to join Tehran in a security alliance? Yep, that sounds like a good choice of folks to ask for help.

The report also says that there can be on military victory? Well, there has been a military victory. Saddam is gone and a democratically elected government is in place. What has been missing is a political victory, and that is who you bring everyone to the table for the greater good.

There was a lot made of “the Arab street” soon after 9/11, and whether or not America had heard from this disgruntled group within pan-Arabia. The voice said, “You were hit because you ignored us. You are democracy personified, yet you turned your back on us and supported a feckless thug, and thus you were worth less to us than the thug. We hit you with impunity because we couldn’t strike our own and you are the evil surrogate.

I never really bought into the East vs. West thing, that Islam wants to make our women wear burqas, yadda yadda. Yes, I do believe there is a sizable portion of those people in the Middle East, especially the Wahabbis, who want a cultural war, yet I really believe what is going on is that those rebels in leadership are doing what all punk leaders have over the ages and that is to play upon the fears of the disaffected youths and give them a cause greater than themselves. In this case, “America keeps the strong man in power. The same strong man who tortured your cousin, made your grandfather disappear, and allows the police to threaten rape upon your women. America is weak to support to support this man who holds you down. Allah says it is so, just see how the American women dress (hold up People magazine, begin the greater cause). We can bring down this strong man, but we must first defeat the one who gives him money. America is weak and will allow us to travel and attack them like a pig in its pen.” What I wrote is just simply corrupted power manipulating those who are looking for a cause, or those who desire to be manipulated.

If we follow this path outlined by the principle of old line American foreign policy, Americans be riding through the World with blinders on, oblivious to those disaffected people who don’t have a chance for democracy, and we’ll ask ourselves, in 5, 10, or maybe more years, the same questions we asked after 9/11, “why were we attacked?”
- posted by Simmering @ 10:33 PM