By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/23/07

            While most Americans were preoccupied with the continuing saga of O.J. Simpson this week, the details of two alarming events that occurred in July came to light reinforcing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism.

            According to the highly regarded United Kingdom publication, Jane’s Defense Weekly, dozens of Iranian engineers and Syrian military officers were killed while attempting to mount chemical weapon warheads onto missiles capable of striking Israel.

            According to the report, a joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on Scud missiles in Syria when the explosion occurred spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas. According to Andrew Semmel, acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for nuclear nonproliferation policy, the missiles were being armed and prepared for shipment to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Scud missiles, manufactured and proliferated by North Korea, reportedly have a range of 300 miles, easily able to reach Israel from Hezbollah missile sites in Southern Lebanon.

            Also released this week was news that Israeli air strikes took out a series of bunkers in Syria. According to Israeli intelligence, the bunkers were being used by Syria to perpetuate a nuclear bomb project that the Syrians have long denied even existed. Based on the reticence by Syrian officials about the strike, and the failure to condemn the attack by Israeli warplanes, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that whether the installation was nuclear or not, it was clearly up to no good and Syria got caught with the proverbial “hand in the cookie jar.”

            Since July when these two events occurred, North Korean, Syrian, and Iranian officials have been scampering between the three nations in an obvious frenzy to regroup on their WMD production and proliferation plans. Of greatest concern to Iran, is the fact that a tactical Israeli ground force was able to penetrate deep into Syria to target the bunkers a day before the air strike took place, as well as the fact that Syria’s air-defense system went down just as the squadron of Israeli fighters entered Syrian air space.

            Semmel stated the obvious, that “good foreign policy, good national security policy, would suggest that we pay very close attention to what Syria is doing. We're watching very closely. Obviously, the Israelis were watching very closely.”

            Meanwhile, Iran continues to provide financial and military support to the terrorist groups fighting our troops in Iraq. Not only is much of the weaponry being captured by our forces manufactured by Iran, but an increasing number of Iranian military personnel are being killed and captured there as well, further validating the claims of a connection between Iran and the Islamic-extremist jihadists seeking the eradication of all non-believers, especially Americans.

            These events underscore the nefarious nature of the triumvirate between Syria, Iran, and North Korea as a threat to global security, the new “axis of evil.” As obvious state sponsors of global terrorism, the continued development of nuclear weapons technology by all three nations, and their possession and intent to deliver chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups should make it obvious that these countries clearly represent a significant threat, not only to the Middle East and Israel, but to our national security and global security as well.

            In spite of these threats, one party of presidential candidates remains virtually silent on the external threats facing us now and in the future. While national security and international concerns are threatened, they debate health care, homosexual rights, whether a woman can run the White House and man-made global warming. While these are quasi-legitimate issues of varying significance, there are more pressing issues that they seem oblivious to, ignorant of, and unconcerned with.

            Conversely, the level of awareness and concerns about these external threats is high among another party of candidates. Mitt Romney and Rudi Giuliani especially evidence a great awareness, as well as having well developed strategies for dealing with these threats that at least ostensibly appear viable. At least they’re aware and informed and talk about it; much more than can be said for their counterparts from the other party.

            The next fourteen months will be filled with a frenzy of political talk as candidates jockey for votes in the 2008 presidential election. While each of us may have individual topics of interest, the more consequential issues of global and national security must be factored into the equation as we select our new president. After all, terrorism and threats from state sponsors of jihad seem to be much more a threat to us than the fabricated alarmism of man-made global warming and a host of other inconsequential issues. It’s not just a bumper sticker slogan.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/16/07

            An unprecedented display of contempt, disrespect, and effrontery greeted General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as they appeared before Congressional committees this week. As required by Congress, the two returned to provide an update on conditions in Iraq and to assess the status of “the surge,” General Petraeus’ ingenious counterinsurgency method of establishing stability in terrorist-ridden regions.

            The last time the General was on Capital Hill was when he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be granted his fourth star and head operations in Iraq. Senators from both sides of the aisle at that time praised Petraeus’s military service and intellect. Even Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee acknowledged at that time that, “General Petraeus is well qualified for this command, widely recognized for the depth and breadth of his education, training and operational experience. Noteworthy is his recent leadership of the team writing the new counterinsurgency manual for Army and Marine Corps... We appreciate General Petraeus’ service and his willingness to lead our forces at this critical and dangerous time.”

            Yet even before he had a chance to testify on the Hill, legislators were attempting to cast aspersions on the General and his integrity, minimizing the value of his report, and preemptively denouncing whatever results he may have to report to them. That was before he had even opened his mouth!

            The radical leftist organization Moveon.org, that apparently owns the liberals in Congress, ran an ignoble full-page ad in the New York Times which carried the large title: “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” “He is just trying to cook the books for the White House,” the ad said. “Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.” The ad also characterized Petraeus as a “military man constantly at war with the facts” who “will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.” Again, I remind you, this was before he had delivered his update to Congress.

I have known many liberals who are truly open-minded and objective, but those currently serving in congress obviously do not share that trait. This shortcoming is exemplified by a comment by Senator Clinton, and echoed by many others: “I believe that nothing which Petraeus or Crocker or anyone else coming before the Congress will say will in any way affect my view that this operation is wrong.” For such politicos, prejudices, biases, predispositions, presumptions and political expediency preempt any open-minded assessment of fact. I’m convinced that it also evidences an increasingly implemented pattern of calling everyone with whom they disagree “liars.” What good does that for the national dialogue?

The anti-war component on Capital hill, and the “non-profit” political action groups that own them, are so totally invested in defeat and early withdrawal from Iraq that they went on the offensive to discredit Petraeus even before he spoke. The man’s tolerance, patience, and discipline during the hearings were a marvel to behold. The hearing rooms provided a circus-like atmosphere with the radical anti-war Code Pink hysterical screams denouncing our efforts in Iraq and the General, which served as a precursor to the acrid, accusing, and condescending interrogation conducted by the legislators of the majority party.

While it is good for the nation to witness firsthand the collective imbecility, inaneness, and ignorance of many currently serving in Congress and the depths to which they will dredge to discredit an outstanding General of impeccable integrity, it scares me for the world and especially our enemies to see the disloyalty and disunity on display in Washington this week. Those who chided and belittled the General displayed their ignorance of the threat posed by terrorism, showed their contempt for the military, and showed all too readily that what they perceive to be a winning strategy for the 2008 elections for their party is more important than our national security.

            If the egregious treatment of General Petraeus is any indication of how some in Congress “support the troops,” we can certainly do without their “support.” In FDR’s time, this would have been tantamount to treason and sedition. But because of the complicity of the mainstream media in painting all efforts associated with Iraq as bad, such seditious treatment of the top general in the field of battle is touted as nothing more than “loyal opposition,” or “freedom of speech,” or “noble dissent.” And they wonder why we question their patriotism!

            Politically, I’m gratified by the virtual library of quotes and despicable actions of reproach shown our military and disdain for national security. Yet my love of America causes me to anguish over the myopic, spineless, anti-American stance of so many in Congress. Lanny Davis, former Chief of Staff for President Clinton, says all Democrats should denounce and dissociate themselves from Moveon.org. Yet, in spite of many requests and opportunities to so, none of the Democratic presidential candidates or congressional leaders have done so. That should speak volumes to any American who values national defense, loyalty and support of our military personnel, and patriotism in its unadulterated form.

            It appears more verifiable than ever that the heart and soul of the liberals in Congress is comprised of the likes of Moveon.org and the wacko Code Pink. The truism is often repeated that we’re defined by the company we keep. That should be profoundly scary to many of you.

Perhaps most revealing this week was the uncanny similarity between what Osama Bin Laden said in his taped message for the anniversary of 9/11 and what the leftists in Washington say everyday. His charge that “Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception” about Iraq, and his reference to Haliburton and “the liar in the White House,” sounded just like Senators Reid, Kennedy, Boxer, and Congressmen Pelosi, Murtha, Lantos et al. If I was a Democrat, I would find it extremely disturbing that my party leaders sounded just like America’s arch-enemy.

            In her condescending inquisition General Petraeus, Senator Barbara Boxer said based on poll results we should leave Iraq now. As an apparent student from the Clinton School of Management (finger to the wind of public opinion), perhaps she and her comrades should be willing to leave congress now based on their 18% approval rating!

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/09/07

            I find it disturbing that so many are mocking an answer provided by a teen beauty pageant contestant last week. In the Miss Teen USA Pageant, Lauren Caitlin Upton, Miss South Carolina Teen USA, was given a very challenging question to answer on live TV.

            She was asked, “Recent polls show a fifth of Americans can't locate the US on a world map. Why do you think this is?”

            Her answer was, “I personally believe that US-Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps, and I believe that our education, like such as South Africa and the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and I believe that they should -- our education over here in the US should help the US -- or should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.”

            The natural tendency for anyone with a high school diploma more than twenty years old may feel sorry for the young lady. But those who are products of contemporary public education will undoubtedly see the answer as completely cogent based on political correctness and outcome based education models for the past twenty years.

            For example, she distinguishes US-Americans from Americans. In today’s politically correct culture, all Americans are hyphenated: African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Asian-Americans. There’s no such thing as just a plain old “American.” Plus there’s the added dimension of distinguishing US-Americans from all others in the Western Hemisphere since technically we’re all Americans, whether we live in Canada, Mexico, or South America.

            She’s also correct in stating that some Americans don’t have maps. And it appears obvious that many emerging from high school these days haven’t seen any in school either. But that’s actually more appropriate for today’s youth since geography is mostly a subject based on facts, and that’s difficult to fit into the outcome based education model. Her geography requirement in high school was probably filled by taking the course “Human Geography and Mental Mapping.” According to the National Geographic website, this approach to geography asserts that “We all form impressions and images of our physical surroundings—even of places we’ve never been. These impressions are what geographers call our mental maps. Geographers are interested in the concept of mental maps and how they are developed.”

            So in this approach to teaching geography, the petty details of where countries are located on the map fade into insignificance in favor of how the student “feels” about different regions on the globe. This makes it easier to sort out politically incorrect concepts evidencing insensitivity to people of diversity around the globe, without getting bogged down with inconsequential details like where the U.S. is on that globe.

            Her next phrase perfectly mirrors what she has been taught in her public school. She equates the wrongs of “the Iraq” and South Africa with the U.S. She’s been taught all through school that everything that’s wrong in the world is the fault of the U.S. The one thing she missed in her answer here was invoking the name of George W. Bush, for everything wrong with the world is his fault. It’s too bad she missed that important detail.

            I’m not sure what she meant by the next phrase, that education in the U.S. should help the U.S. That really is a non sequitur, for education in much of today’s public system is supposed to be more about standardized “outcomes” placing all students on a level playing field, as exemplified by many districts around the country abolishing valedictorians, because that causes some to stand out above the pack and may hurt the feelings of other students who may not earn such an appellation based on performance.

            But she gets the next part right when she properly states that our education should help “the Iraq” and South Africa and Asia. Because when we “feel” for the disadvantaged in other regions of the world, we really are helping them because of our emotional angst over their disadvantaged situation. It’s no good to actually do something, like fight for their freedom and their safety and protection when our “feelings” are so much more effectual.

            Then she concludes with the very politically correct conclusion “so we will be able to build up our future for our children.” This shows she’s learned her lessons well, for everything in society, politics, and even economics can be qualified with that perspective, “for the children.” For example, we shouldn’t run up the Federal debt fighting evil people who want to kill us so we don’t leave a deficit “for the children.” And we shouldn’t allow our health care system to be based on the free market system, even though it’s the best in the world, but we should allow the government to run it, since it does everything so much more efficiently. Universal access to a mediocre health-care system is much better than more limited access to an excellent system. And, you guessed it, it’s “for the children.” And we shouldn’t do anything to try to fix Social Security now, because since it’s so well run it’ll be bankrupt in twenty years or so, and this is “for the children.” Well, I guess that one doesn’t work.

            As further proof that she was an outstanding student, she told South Carolina’s “The State” newspaper the next day, “I didn’t do anything wrong.” Not only could her answer not be wrong in the outcome based educational system, but it perfectly reflected the lessons she’s obviously been taught for the past several years. Even her principal said she was an “excellent student” in high school.

            Perhaps the biggest flaw in her answer was that she only said “like” two times. To fit the appropriate speech pattern of contemporary teenagers her response of 85 words should have included “like” at least 21 times to approximate the 1:4 ratio most youth incorporate today.

            Maybe the teaching of geography in our public school system should be outsourced to Mexico, for they don’t seem to have any problem locating the U.S. on their maps.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/02/07

            Anyway you look at it, the news this week on Senator Craig is tragic: tragic for him if the accusations are false and he has been tarred and feathered by the media for a falsehood, and tragic if true and he has struggled with identity issues and has resorted to sordid means to sort them out. And tragic for him and his family that after three decades of exemplary public service for Idahoans, that this would be his legacy, whether the claims are true or not.

            Equally disturbing, however, is the double standard applied to such events. The New York Times led the story with the headline, “Scandal Scarred GOP asks ‘What’s Next?’” implying that scandal is endemic with the Republican Party. It appears that the “guilt by association” charge only applies to Republicans, whereas historical reality paints quite a different picture.

            There was no declaration of party-wide scandal after William Jefferson (D) Louisiana, was found to have accepted $100,000 bribe later retrieved from his freezer during the Katrina hurricane. He still serves in the House, although he had to give up his position on the Ways and Means Committee.

            I don’t recall cries of party corruption when Senator Diane Feinstein (D) California, was found to be funneling defense contracts to her husband’s company. She faced no charges, has remained in the Senate, and has also retained her committee assignments, including the one with the Armed Services Committee where she was wielding her improper influence for her own aggrandizement!

            When former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D) Georgia verbally and physically assaulted Capital Hill policemen, or when John Ford, a Democrat party Kingman in Tennessee pleaded guilty to accepting bribes, there were no cries of scandal for the Democrat party. They were all “crises,” but certainly not for the party. Even after Gerry Studds (D) from Massachusetts engaged in homosexual behavior with an underage Congressional page, he declared it was his own business and nobody else’s, and was re-elected five more times to the House. By contrast, Mark Foley (R) from Florida was forced out of Congress for sending questionable e-mail to male pages. The double standard is readily apparent.

            Even if we were to add up all the misdeeds of Republicans over the past twenty years, they still probably wouldn’t be as long as the list of accusations and confirmed misdeeds of President Clinton just while he was in office. Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don’t recall any headlines after Bill Clinton’s escapades in the Oval Office proclaiming a crisis for the Democrat party.

            Every time there is a scandal that has anything to do with a conservative, Republicans are forced to go on the defensive, as if the party itself was guilty of improprieties, but it never seems to work the other way. To the Democrats, every event is political, and personal tragedy or indiscretion is not personal, but is an opportunity to ascribe blame and publicly crucify the offending Republican, but their own are immune to such public denunciation.

            When Senator Tim Johnson, (D) from South Dakota suffered a stroke, in the same breath that expressions of condolences were expressed on behalf of the family, the Democrats were expressing concerns about how this would affect the composition of the Democratically controlled Senate. Again, every event is political, and personal tragedy is a by-line at best. If there’s a political advantage to be gained, they’ll exploit it for all it’s worth.

            Let’s look again at the Bill Clinton scenario. Clinton was impeached by the House for lying under oath. But the escapades with the cigar, the blue dress, and a White House intern only disgusted us, and did not provide the grounds for the impeachment proceedings themselves. If that had been a Republican president engaging in such behavior, do you really think the events leading up to the perjury charge would have been as seemingly inconsequential as they were for Clinton?

            If anything, Republicans seem to expect more from their own. They are vociferous in denunciation of wrong-doing, or even the appearance of impropriety. Name for me the last Democrat thrown under the bus by their own for improprieties, yet the list for Republicans is considerable. Do you honestly think that if a Republican left a woman to drown in his car after he drove it drunkenly off a bridge he would still be in the U.S. Senate after 30 years as Ted Kennedy (D) has? I didn’t think so.

            In the present context, if Craig was a Democrat and he announced that he was a homosexual, he would be lauded by the party and embraced by the media for “coming out.” After all, look how long Barney Frank (D) from Massachusetts has continued to serve in the House since he came out, even though his live-in partner was running a homosexual brothel from their shared D.C. apartment.

            One distinction some may make is that Craig is a conservative, and has always been supportive of traditional marriage and other conservative causes that some interpret as “anti-gay.” For one thing, supporting traditional marriage is not anti-gay, it’s just recognizing marriage as the foundation upon which the rest of the building blocks of society are built. But is that hypocrisy? How many people have you met who have been engaged in substance abuse who declare to others to never try it, or get involved in it? To me that’s not hypocrisy; that’s wisdom and insight afforded by someone with conviction born of experience.

            Further, if Craig was a Democrat, you can bet that the focus would not be on his actions, as questionable as they are. The focus would rather be on how an intolerant society is to blame for someone having to secretly pursue alternative experiences, and there would be the concomitant denunciation of law enforcement efforts to curtail such behavior.

            Yes, there are two standards. No political party has a monopoly on indiscretion in politics. I just wish that the same standards would be applied across the board. Larry Craig has done great things for Idaho. I will always appreciate what he has done in his many years of service regardless of how his years of service are terminated.