Michael Novak: It is easy for me to imagine the immense jubilation in the hearts of America’s African-American population. Many eyes will be shining with …. Many will feel arise in their breasts a great new sense of pride, accomplishment, and public dignity. They will feel validated as never before. That is one great blessing of this election.

National Review Editorial: The public has not embraced many of the central aspects of liberalism. President-Elect Barack Obama’s record and positions put him well to the left of any president in the last four decades. But to judge from his campaign, he is a man who wants to cut taxes, defend an individual right to own guns, take a hard line on terrorists in Pakistan, reduce the abortion rate, allow people to keep their health-care plans, and keep trade free. The polls suggest that he was wise to run in this fashion: They show that the public remains as skeptical about federal activism and social liberalism as they have been for years.

Tucker Carlson: Mitt Romney is laying the groundwork for a presidential run in 2012.

California voters approved a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages overriding a recent court decision legalizing them.… The constitutional amendment—widely seen as the most momentous of the nation's 153 ballot measures—will limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the first time such a vote has taken place in a state where gay unions are legal. Gay-rights activists had a rough election elsewhere as well. Ban-gay-marriage amendments were approved in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.

We can win this election if every conservative, Republican, and concerned American helps get out the vote in the next two days. Make sure you vote. Get your friends to vote. Donate now to the RNC get out the vote effort - your donations will be more effective now than ever.

 

Note the polls below. They are close – a lot closer than the liberal media wants you to think. The Obama campaign and their propagandists want you discouraged and disheartened. The polls are skewed against McCain/Palin by over sampling Democrats, under sampling Republicans, overestimating the projected turnout for Democrats, underestimating the projected turnout for Republicans, and not considering “undecided voters.” The huge number of undecided voters (approximately 9%) are among likely and registered voters.

IBD/TIPP (the group that was closest in 2000 and 2004):

Obama 46.7%
McCain 44.6%

Not Yet Sure 8.7%

 

CBS poll picks Obama by 11, but it is helpful to note that the same poll picked Kerry in 2004.

 

Hugh Hewitt: “Scott Rasmussen is a superb pollster and he has Obama's 5 point lead outside of the margin of error, but he also employs a prediction model that assumes a 6.5 point Democrat turnout advantage. … It was a 2% gap in 2004.  Lots of pundits are predicting a demoralized GOP base and subsequent low turnout in support of Rasmussen's and others predictions, but having just returned from Colorado, Minnesota and Ohio where first-hand experiences with volunteers and rallies conveyed exactly the opposite, I think the potential for surprise on the turnout gap is great.”

 

McCain up 2 in Ohio:  The RCP average for Ohio is Obama +4.6, but the latest Mason-Dixon poll has McCain +2. 

 

Pennsylvania a close one: McCain fans should be excited by the fact that Rasmussen puts McCain within 4 in the Quaker state.

 

McCain has pulled back in front in Missouri.

 

Mason-Dixon Poll: Obama lead cut to 2 points in Florida!

 

The RCP Average shows Obama with a 0.3 lead over McCain in North Carolina.

 

UK Telegraph: Obama’s Brother Founding Living in a Hut in Nairobi on Less Than a Dollar a Month

Thomas Sowell: Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Drudge Report for Saturday Morning: “Zogby: McCain Moves into Lead 48-47 In One Day Polling”

Yesterday, McCain scolded supporters at a rally for booing Obama. McCain declared Obama “a decent man.” He added: “I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments."

Contrary to McCain, I do not believe Obama has any substantial accomplishments worth admiring. Nor, do I believe that a decent American would affiliate with Tony Resko, William Ayers, Bernadette Dorn, Reverend Wright, Michael Pfleger or the likes of ACORN. And, I would run the other way from a man who Farrakhan not only endorses for the Presidency, but refers to as Messianic.

It almost seems as if McCain is running more against Palin than Obama. While Palin rallies the troops toward victory, McCain signals retreat. Sarah Palin aptly plays the role of a political Petraeus, while McCain admires and respects “decent” Obama’s single accomplishment of raising the white flag of surrender.

Palin won the debate. She presented a fresh and lucid rationale for her principles. Biden’s style showed a command of the "facts," though often distorted and even blatantly wrong. For example, Joe Biden, in his typically brash, rapid-fire manner, skewered Dick Cheney’s views concerning the constitutional role of the Vice-presidency with this claim:

Somebody please get Senator Biden obtain a copy of the United States Constitution. Article I of the Constitution focuses on the legislative branch. Article 2 defines the executive branch of the Federal Government. The first mention of the office of the Vice President in the Constitution is appears in Article I, section 3, clause 4 is the first time the Vice President is mentioned in the Constitution. This clause states: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Contrary to Biden’s claim, this section briefly develops, explicitly and implicitly, the relationship of the Vice-President to the Senate. A recent article by University of Tennessee College of Law Professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, argues that that the "Vice-Presidency's legislative character" is "significant" (Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 102, 2007).

Article 2 covers the Executive Branch and briefly notes that how the Vice-President is elected with the President. It does not, however, enumerate a specific job description of the Vice-Presidency.

This is just one example of many showing that much of Biden’s blustering is actually bloviating bull.

Palin won the debate. She connected with American’s like Biden never will.

The Gallup Daily Tracking Poll came out over the weekend indicating that “U.S. voters are closely divided in their 2008 presidential preferences, with 47% favoring Barack Obama and 44% backing John McCain.” How does this Daily Tracking Poll square with the numbers reported earlier by the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll showing a McCain–Obama tie at 48%?

Take a close look at the internal numbers. Rush Limbaugh spent time today reviewing the D.J. Drummond’s article on WhizBang.com, “How Liberal Trolls Are Working to Get McCain Elected President.”  This is a great article, and should be read in full. A more succinct article, “Gallup’s Internals and Our Nations” by Richard Miniter actually summarizes the extensive Drummond piece. Rush relies heavily on Miniter for his report. For now, we will suffice with Rush Limbaugh’s report of the findings:

When the numbers were reweighted to match the ratios established by exit polls over the past few presidential elections the results varied significantly from those reported by Gallup. The result for the same poll is McCain leads with 45% to Obama’s 39%.

Limbaugh paraphrased Richard Miniter:  “Could they be right?  If voter turnout doesn't change substantially, yeah, it could be right.”

Good: Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll has McCain and Obama once again tied at 48 percent. The Rasmussen Report Electoral College update is not the best news for the Republicans, but it is still close. Maybe too close.

Bad: With the Electoral College vote so close, The Washington Times present a doomsday scenario – and it really is! Can you imagine what would happen to this country if the election results in a 269 tie in the Electoral College?

Ugly: As if they are preparing for even worse results, the Democrats, according to Dennis Prager, are stoking the racist fires.

Obama made the point yesterday that if anyone was “promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily.” I’m hoping he misspoke. He probably meant to say, as the candidate of change and hope, he would not stoop so low as to put out a negative ad – which would only continue the “same old failed politics of the past.”

We should excuse the gaffe as the result of being flustered when asked by “Good Morning America” why he put out an ad calling McCain old. Obama insisted “that his campaign commercial pointing out that Republican Sen. John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer wasn't a sly shot at his rival's age.”

Obama, the candidate promising to bring people together, argued: “I didn't say that. What I said was ... that John McCain is out of touch.”

In an Associated Press release, entitled “Obama mocks McCain as computer illiterate,” Nedra Pickler describes the ad:

It matters little whether Obama meant to attack McCain for being “out of touch” or just old. The commercial reveals a bewildered Obama campaign in panic mode. The ad was obviously not vetted. The fact that Obama approved the ad shows him to be ignorant, insensitive, and just like the rest of the political hacks running Chicago’s south-side. No decent American would put out this commercial while knowing the reasons behind McCain’s lack of e-mail history. Obama’s refusal to apologize or pull the ad says plenty about who is actually “out of touch.”  

I’m not sure I really care if the President of the United States sends e-mails. He has subordinates that take care of that task. It is reported that Clinton sent two e-mails during his entire presidency.

The reason John McCain doesn't send email, according to Jonah Goldberg, is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country.

Years ago, the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000) explained:

Basically, Obama’s ad mocks McCain for the consequences of his injuries wrought as a POW while in the service of his country. Obama probably did not intend this message. Likely, he simply wanted to mock something else about McCain. Obama seems to be often misunderstood (e.g., his lipstick on a pig “metaphor”). Then again, maybe Obama’s braggadocio promotion of his negative ads against McCain wasn’t actually a gaffe. It could be that Obama was telling the truth when he bragged that if anyone was “promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily.”

The Obama campaign should consider as a new theme song, the Richard Burton tune from Camelot: "How to Handle a Woman." And one quick piece of advice along these same lines: do not call Governor Sarah Palin a pig, with or without lipstick.

It’s hard to imagine that it was only one week ago that Governor Sarah Palin burst Barack’s bubble! She uttered a few deft lines mocking his pompous presumptuousness. And, pop went the weasel. Arguments have actually ensued over which were her best zingers. Was it her line about Barack’s authoring of “two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate?” Or when she reminded us that Obama was the kind of “a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word ‘Victory,’ except when he's talking about his own campaign?” My personal favorite was her warning that “when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out and those styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot... When that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet.”

Still, who would have ever imagined that Obama candidacy could sink so fast? By comparison, the Titanic even looks like a better ride. Palin is evidently the iceberg the Obama campaign never expected. When hit, rather than bailing the flood of incoming water, Barack’s bucket brigade frantically grabs the fire hoses to put out the Palin fire, while their ship sinks. Meanwhile, his passengers are jumping ship at an alarming rate.

Governor Palin may be the General Petraeus of the 2008 election battle. Recent polls show a dramatic surge upward for the McCain/Palin ticket. The RealClearPolics.com polling average now has McCain leading Obama by 2.3 percentage points. According to the L.A. Times, “Democrats expressed anxiety about the new challenge suggested by recent surveys showing McCain has gained ground among independent voters and women, who could decide the race in states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Virginia.” The Times cites the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Tuesday showing that “McCain is now winning among white women 52% to 41% after having been statistically tied with Obama in that crucial category just a month ago.” Congressman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), a strong Obama backer, anxiously worried: “Whenever you see that kind of movement, you ought to be concerned; you ought to try to address it.”

Based on yesterday’s news, the Obama camp has not yet figured out how to address the problem of Sarah Palin. Obama was quoted on an ABC blog as saying: "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Considering Palin’s oft-told joke about the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit-bull is lipstick, one need not make too much of a leap to conclude that Obama was calling the Republican vice presidential nominee a pig. At least that is how many women are interpreting the comment. The lipstick smear must have been part of that morning’s Obama campaign’s talking-point memo. According to Politico, Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan introduced Joe Biden at a campaign event and referred to Governor Palin’s record with slightly different lipstick reference. He said: “There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick.”

Many pundits, including those at Power Line, are now wondering aloud “whether Obama is starting to come apart at the seams. As his party's Presidential nominee, he should be doing battle with John McCain, not Sarah Palin. But he seemingly can't help himself. Over the last couple of days, several generally apolitical people have told me that they think Obama has been melting down ever since Palin's nomination was announced. Hysteria does appear to be sweeping the Obama camp, with over the top attacks on both Palin and McCain. One wonders whether their internal polling numbers are really, really bad.”

Paul Mirengoff suggests that “McCain threw Obama a curve-ball when he selected Palin, and it has Obama off-balance. Actually, the Palin pick might better be seen as a knuckle-curve. The curve ball consists of the gender card, not completely unexpected but still difficult to deal with. The knuckler consists of Palin's instant celebrity status. Surely, Obama did not expect to face the prospect of being matched, or even overshadowed, in this category.”

A quick review of liberal and leftist news-outlets reveals serious concerns from the established elites. Liberal pundits at The New Republic, for example, were “alarmed” at the strength of Palin’s speech. Senate-Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman denounced Governor Palin’s speech as "shrill and sarcastic." Many Democrat leaders, including official sources from the Obama Camp, were quick to point out that Governor Palin used a speechwriter [a shocking revelation] – and worse, one previously employed by President Bush!

Much of the liberal criticism seemed predictable. Gloria Steinem, for example, referred to Sarah Palin as nothing but a Phyllis Schlafly, only younger. On the less-predictable fringe, CNN reported that community organizers were highly offended by her speech. And even more odd, but just as ideologically partisan, Lauren Beckham Falcone hated Palin’s hair – considers it 20 years out of date, much like her policies.

Do not assume that the liberals and the left will sit around wringing their hands in anxious concern over this new Republican gunslinger. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter has already given the challenge. A gunfight is in order, but it will likely not be a duel of honor. The press has a responsibility, claims Alter, to show the public what Palin really is. She must be “forced to submit to real interviews with real questions that show whether her real-life experience is any preparation for assuming high office.” He considers this as much a test of the media as it is of Palin. In other words, Governor Palin better load up, because the media is planning an ambush.

News surfaced this past Labor Day Weekend that Sarah Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. Her decision after counseling with her parents is that she will marry her boyfriend, the baby’s father, and raise the baby. The main-stream media is in a fevered frenzy over the revelation. Already, the public has been barraged with over 3000 news articles after the story broke this past weekend.

The mainstream spin on this story provides an example of media bias. The New York Times has yet to run a story connecting Obama and Tony Rezko. Nor have they published anything on the connection between Obama and William Ayers. The Times has not covered Obama’s votes opposing the Born-Alive Act. They have completely neglected Obama’s support for $3.4 million in earmarks for a lobbyist who happens to be Sen. Biden's son. The New York Times acknowledged the John Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter long after they had the details; and then, only begrudgingly after Edwards’ public admission. Senator Joe Biden’s plagiarism that forced him out of the presidential race three decades ago is simply portrayed as old and irrelevant news. Yet, Today’s edition of the New York Times is running three top stories on the 2008 Republican Convention – all pertaining to Bristol’s baby.

Liberal orthodoxy and intolerance are on display. Although the McCain camp indicated that they became aware of Bristol’s pregnancy while they were vetting her mother for the Vice Presidency. It was not considered an obstacle. However, many in the liberal press, the leftist blogs, and the Democrat Party consider it a major concern. The problem to “progressives” was not that there was sex among unmarried minors. The real affront to liberal sensibilities is that this intimacy may lead to life. And even worse, the Palin parents actually participated in decisions for Bristol and her boyfriend to marry and provide the baby with a loving family. To the left this only showcases Sarah Palin’s “controversial” world view, which includes support for abstinence education, but not reproductive privacy (i.e., meaning children’s right to sex education, birth control, and abortion without the knowledge and permission of their parents). (See, for example, Jane Smiley’s “Women’s Issue,” on Huffington Post).

Some of the same critics argue that Bristol’s pregnancy provides evidence of Governor Palin’s poor judgment. They contend that Palin should not have accepted the Veep nomination with all that is going on in her family, especially Trig Palin’s Down Syndrome and Bristol’s pregnancy. Such arguments seem hypocritical coming from those who have persistently advocated women’s rights at all costs, and no rights for the defenseless unborn.

As to the direct issue of Sarah Palin’s judgment: Is it better judgment to consider life a divine gift and to rejoice in the birth of a newborn with Down Syndrome as a “perfect” miracle from God? Or, is it better judgment to declare at a town hall meeting in Johnson, Pennsylvania in March of this year, as Barak Obama did that if [his girls] “make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.” That’s right; he does not want them to be “punished with a baby.” How is that for good judgment?

Dear President George W. Bush:

The New York Times reports that “President Bush has decided to name Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus as the top American military commander in Iraq, part of a broad revamping of the military team that will carry out the administration’s new Iraq strategy, administration officials said Thursday.” The NYT states that “In addition to the promotion of Lt. General Petraeus, who will replace Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the choice to succeed Gen. John P. Abizaid as the head of the Central Command is expected to be Adm. William J. Fallon, who is the top American military officer in the Pacific, officials said.”

This announcement should make Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive absolutely ecstatic. A few weeks ago, Blackfive called for the promotion of General Petraeus upon hearing rumors of the retirement of General Abizaid.  Although Petraeus is replacing General Casey in Iraq rather then Abizaid in CentCom, Uncle Jimbo should be happy with the news. Praising General David Petraeus, the Blackfive blog stated:

Reacting to the official news, Tigerhawk interprets the announcement of Lt. General Petraeus’ promotion as “evidence that the Bush administration is going to get imaginative in Iraq.” Tigerhawk touts Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus credentials:

New York Post columnist and retired Army Intelligence Officer Ralph Peters entitled his recent article “King David Returns: Gen. Petraeus’ New Iraq Test.” Peters is upbeat concerning the news, but not without some obvious concern. He writes:

In other words, Peters does not see the move, as encouraging as it may be, as a guarantee of success in Iraq. As he puts it:

Clearly, placing the burden of winning Iraq on the shoulders of one or two Generals is expecting too much. The burden of winning this war should really be in the hearts and minds of every American – including every citizen and every elected American official. It is surely heartening to see President Bush turning to great military leaders such as Petraeus, but until our politicians decide they choose victory rather than defeat, I will continue to worry.

News reports stated yesterday that “Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney told reporters Wednesday that he had taken the first step toward a bid for president of the United States in 2008.” Governor Romney declared: “We've filed exploratory papers today, so the process is moving forward on that front.”

 

The liberal media has been doing its best to prevent Romney’s candidacy from going forward. The most recent issue of The New Republic contains the latest liberal hit piece on Romney’s Mormonism. Written by Damon Linker, Taking Mormonism Seriously: The Big Test (subscription required), warns the world about Romney’s “politically perilous, religion.”

 

Already, there has been a flurry of responses from historians, religionists, political pundits, lawyers, and bloggers skewering Linker’s secular diatribe as ill-informed liberal prejudice. One of the first to respond was National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. His brief post on The Corner took aim at Linker’s “secularist hysteria.” To underscore his point, Ponnuru quotes this from Linker:

 

Ponnuru then exclaims:

 

Rich Lowry of National Review later added his reaction to the Linker article calling it “shabby.” Lowry goes on to say:

 

 

The New Republic Online carries a devastating response to Damon Linker’s article from Richard Lyman Bushman, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History Emeritus at Columbia University. Bushman recently authored what some tout as the best biography of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. TRE also includes Linker’s rather weak and defensive reaction to Bushman. For Bushman’s part, he sees Linker’s view of Romney and Mormonism skewed by a typical liberal fascination with fanaticism. Bushman’s entire response is well worth reading, but he does not take long to get to his main criticism of Linker’s article:

 

One of the most interesting criticisms of Damon Linker’s article is by Lowell C. Brown of The Article Six Blog. Brown’s article is too extensive to quote in full and contains quite a number of additional links to other reviews of Linker’s piece. Lowell Brown, a lawyer, and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, includes a few points, however, that ought to be carefully noted.

Lowell Brown agrees with Ramesh Ponnuru (linked above) that Linker’s piece is “alarmist” and full of “secularist hysteria.” This criticism in some way echoes that offered by the historian Richard Bushman, who warns:

Brown also notes that Linker's article reminds him of one of his personal rules:  “Be skeptical when someone who does not belong to a particular church tries to explain its deepest nuances to you.  Trust me, Linker doesn't do a very good job of that.” In this same spirit, Brown warns his readers not to be deceived “when the TNR piece refers to Linker as ‘the former editor of First Things,’ Richard John Neuhaus's journal.” Brown quips:

 

Brown also suggests that “Romney will suffer his true outrages at the hands of left-of-center critics, not conservative Evangelicals.” He warns:

 

 

Finally, Brown reminds his readers that “Mormons are no monolithic voting bloc when it comes to Romney.”  Brown states:

 

 

As expected, there are mixed reactions to the impending execution of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis most impacted by Hussein’s reign of terror generally seem happy with the sentence. Many in the West oppose his execution. Over the past few days, the liberal media implemented a full court “press” in an attempt to stop the execution. What follows is a review of recent articles reporting the impending execution.

 

Iraqis are lining up by the hundreds to execute Saddam Hussein. News reports indicate that “requests have been emailed from around the world to the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.” Even Maliki has been “directly petitioned by government officials who want to place the noose around Saddam's neck.” Although “many Justice Ministry employees are too terrified to carry out the execution, fearing reprisals,” plenty of volunteers are on hand to do the work. An article in Australia’s Herald Sun suggests: “It is likely those who are volunteering to act as the executioner have lost family members to violence in the post-Saddam era or had a relative killed by Saddam's regime.”

 

The Orange County Register reports that “Local Iraqis await Saddam's execution.” From the statements included in the story, it seems that the Iraqis are more than simply “awaiting” – they are anticipating and thrilled that Saddam is soon to be executed. Most of the statements included in the article read like this one: “This is a great victory for the freedom, democracy and judiciary system process in Iraq. This will give a closure to many families where they lost a loved one during Saddam's days of ruling the Iraqis by iron fist.”

 

Some Iraqis, however, do not favor execution right now. They’d rather have him hang after he is held accountable for ALL his atrocities. This statement, for example, is representative of this point of view: “The Kurdish people believe that Saddam must not hang until his court days in the Anfal operations are completed. This is very important that the court find Saddam and his gang ordered and carried out the Anfal operations (genocide) against the Kurdish people (in which) more than 182,000 children, women and elderly died.”

 

The New York Times facilitates a warning from former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, one of Saddam’s attorneys, assailing the United States for pushing for Hussein’s execution. He claims that there will be an increase in violence as a result.  Agreeing with Clark, the Baathist Party issued a similar prediction of “Grave consequences if Hussein's hanged.”

 

The Deutsche Welle headline reads: “Saddam Death Verdict Gets Frown from European Governments.” But the headline does little justice to substance of the story. The essence of the article is best caught with this statement: “European governments expressed their opposition to the death penalty, but respected Iraq's sovereignty in dealing with Saddam.” In other words, much of Europe did not have the guts to pull this off, but thank goodness someone stood up to this tyrant.

 

The Vatican, usually ignored by the world’s press, gets its own headline in the case of Saddam Hussein’s execution. “Don't kill Saddam, Vatican urges.” The secular press is obviously pulling out all stops in their quest to promote their liberal “justice.”

 

Here’s another shocker: The Australian reports the “UN raises doubts over Saddam trial.” The paper quotes Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as stating:

 

The appeal judgment is a lengthy and complex decision that requires careful study.… There were a number of concerns as to the fairness of the original trial, and there needs to be assurance that these issues have been comprehensively addressed… I call, therefore, on the Iraqi authorities not to act precipitately.

 

UN scandals such as the “oil for food program” were left unmentioned. Nor was there any comment made by Ms. Arbour of any of the other corruption involving the UN helping to keep Hussein in power for so many years even while he slaughtered and tortured his own countrymen.

 

The New York Times editorializes that “toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won’t either.” Of course, if the New York Times had their way, the dictator would still be in power which would be a much better option – except for triviality of mounting genocide, Iraqi suffering, and an increasing threat against the United States.

 

Calling Saddam's trial “a missed opportunity for the government to respect human rights,” the left-wing British newspaper, The Guardian denounced “Iraq’s Shallow Justice.”  The Guardian’s article admits that “for 15 years Human Rights Watch and other organizations documented rights violations committed by the former government;” and “there is no question that Saddam and his cohort were responsible for horrific practices.” “But,” The Guardian says, “by ratifying the execution order the tribunal's appeals chamber has compounded the serious errors committed at trial and further undermined the credibility of the process.” The article goes on to argue against any verdict that could include a death sentence, because the “death sentence is a further step away from respect for human rights. The death penalty, regardless of the crimes involved, is tantamount to cruel and inhuman punishment.” Too bad Saddam’s millions of past and potential victims are never figured into this liberal equation.  

 

Captain Ed, from Captain’s Quarters, responds appropriately to the New York Times editorial. His response should be read in full, but these paragraphs capture the spirit of his argument:

 

A little more than three years after Saddam Hussein meekly came out of his spider hole, the Iraqis have finally removed the last obstacle to his execution. Saddam attempted, with some success, to transform his trial into a political showpiece, using it to rail against the American occupation and to inspire the Ba'athist remnants to terrorist attacks. Despite having several members of the court assasinated or attacked, the tribunal convicted Saddam for crimes consistent with the evidence. And yet, this is not enough for the New York Times…

 

[Captain Ed quotes several paragraphs from the NYT.]

 

So let's get this straight. What is really important isn't the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam had killed on his whim. It isn't lengthy public record of his "vile atrocities". It isn't the long string of living victims that had to bear witness under difficult circumstances to those who could not appear in court. What really matters, the Times insists, is that the process did not "nurture hope".…

…In any case, the Times proves itself laughable once again by proclaiming a three-year process towards Saddam's execution as a "rush" and complaining about a verdict and sentence that even they admit were completely justified by the evidence at hand. Perhaps next time, the editorial board should not be in such a "rush" to opine. (via It Shines For All)

 

Captain Ed’s link at the end of the above paragraph is to New York Sun’s pointed response to the New York Times editorial. That full article is also worth reading.

 

An excellent article to study and ponder after reviewing the liberal pleas for Saddam to be spared is on today’s American Thinker. It is by Patrick Poole and entitled: “Why Saddam Must Hang.” He concludes his thought-provoking piece with these words:

 

Those condemning Saddam Hussein's sentence of death but still deploring his actions, rather than seeing how closely his depravity is to theirs, would rather identify him as a monster (excepting those 9/11 Truthers who believe that he never committed the crimes he was accused of) to avoid looking into the moral mirror. In that case, what blame can be attached to an animal that is merely acting according to its nature? As Elton John tells us, it's the Circle of Life! What kind of society is possible when men are allowed to indulge and gratify their basest desires? Doesn't it look very much like the utter chaos and grotesque brutality found everyday on the streets of Baghdad? Say whatever you will about the presence of American troops in Iraq, but make no mistake that it is solely the presence of those troops that is preventing a bloodbath the world hasn't seen since Rwanda.

 

And it is Saddam's regime that has bred this culture of inhumanity in Iraq. Saddam himself embodied the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment and he should be held to account. What better statement can we offer to those who have spent most of their lives under his jackboot brutality that as a man, he is responsible for his crimes? What better testament can we offer to international justice than to demonstrate to the people of Iraq that the untold misery and death of Saddam's victims demands his life be forfeit for his actions? To do anything less than hang Saddam Hussein is to engage in double-speak and to undermine the very principles of human rights we were told that we invaded Iraq to instill.

 

It is interesting to note that those complaining about Saddam's death sentence do so in the safety knowing that they will probably never have to live in the culture he helped create, nor will they ever have Saddam Hussein as a neighbor. If Saddam were allowed to live, Iraqis who suffered under his regime would not have those same assurances. Many of those critics are saying that the death of Saddam Hussein will not serve as a deterrent to other tyrants. But making deterrence, rather than desert, the basis of justice is to revert to the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment. What we can assure the Iraqi people of on the day when Saddam dances at the end of a rope is that he will deterred forever from ever resuming his reign of terror.