Iraq War a “Clean Shoot,” and History Will Be The Judge

Recently, a regular contributor to http://www.phxnews.com/, Frosty Wooldridge, rehashed a bunch of old rhetoric regarding the Iraq conflict ( http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=55839 ). Mr. Wooldridge’s comments are rather easy to sum up: “Bush lied and people died.” Certainly he will find a clutch of readers who will eagerly agree with those sentiments—no matter how threadbare they have become. It’s not the first time ‘Ol Frosty has pitched in this way, and not likely the last. Go get ‘em Frosty. But I am sure that his stated dedication to Constitutional principles will compel him to allow a bit of reasoned decent.

Picture, If You Will
Picture, if you will, a darkened alley late at night in the most gang and crime ridden part of town. This night has been especially violent with innocent citizens and police officers mowed down by the senseless violence haunting the area. You are a cop on patrol and come upon a known felon in that darkened alley. He has a long rap sheet, has dodged prosecution on a series of heinous crimes, and has even taken a shot at you once or twice in the past. He is a known fellow gang member of another criminal who, just earlier today, committed a mass murder—and now he is crouching behind a dumpster in a darkened alley on your beat.

You pull over your squad car and call out to this man. He rises from his hiding space—his hands firmly stuffed in his pockets and talking tough. You draw your service weapon and order the man to show his hands—he does not. You call out to him, “show your hands and get on the ground or I’ll shoot.” Your orders are ignored and somewhere in the next few moments of shouting and furtive gestures—within the context of the suspicious bulge in his pocket, the dangerous neighborhood, and the reputation of the man who opposes you—an invisible line is crossed and you fire your weapon.

Which brings us to a few questions
If we are to judge the character and professionalism of this officer:

• Does it matter whether or not the suspect had an actual weapon at that time?
• What if he had a weapon that was jammed or broken—whether he knew it was broken or not?
• What if it was a toy weapon?
• What if he had a pocket full of bullets and no gun? Or a gun with no bullets?
• What if he had nothing but a pocket comb and a bit of loose change?
• What if….

The Investigation
The Internal Affairs Department will undoubtedly investigate this shooting and everything will be reviewed in the glaring morning light that filters though the blinds of third-story legal offices as a fresh cup of coffee leaves occasional brown rings on the dog-eared pages of official reports. But one hopes that—after the posturing, positioning, and appeals have dogged the system through the process—only one determination will come from the juries and peer reviews. This was a “clean shoot."

Can one imagine a darker or more violent alley than the Middle East or a homicidal sociopath more unpredictable than Saddam?

There are those who will attempt to parse this analogy to suit their own opinions, but an honest reading must at least give pause to partisan blanket statements, character assaults, and ad-hominem accusations. The fullness of history shall be the jury and final review of our seemingly graceless times and all of us who lived in them.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Immigration and Sophistry in America

“Truth, that’s it! For when a man lies he murders some part of the world...you should know that!” (1)

Good ‘Ol Huck is starting to get in a bad way about this whole mess—refering to the mis-named Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. It’s getting awfully lonely out here on the Intellectual Conservative front. Our evidence today comes from those previously claiming to profess Conservative Principles.

Did They Really Say That?
Is Huckleberry willing to name names? Why sure he is:

• Trent Lott (You should hear some of the tragic interviews he has been giving—this will likely end his chances at further Republican Leadership. And did he really say that “Talk Radio is a problem” that needs to be addressed? Yes he did, to his lasting shame.)
  
• Senator Jon Kyl (I am very sorry to include this fine man in this list of shame, but he has boxed himself into a rather ugly corner on this one. If he comes up with another “it’s more like a pardon, not amnesty” comment I may become ill.)
  
• President Bush (Don’t get me started. When he is right, he is mostly right, though fumbling a bit. When he is wrong, he can be tragically, horribly wrong. Is it correct to say logarithmically wrong? Hurling accusations and name calling at your political base--one that is shrinking fast do to other concerns--because they disagree with you qualifies as being just that wrong.)
  
• The Goldwater Institute (My email exchange with Clint Bolick, a staff member at the Institute, was equal parts enlightening, comic, and horrific. Did he really suggest in an Arizona Republic editorial that Republicans prostitute themselves upon this bill in order to improve their election chances? Yes he did; thus lowering the term “craven” to new depths and debasing the name of the Senator his employer is named for. By the way, ‘Ol Huck ain’t done with the Goldwater Institute just yet. They have done a bit of good work over the years and, if they can be saved from themselves, I will give them that chance.)
  
• John McCain (Perhaps someone whispered in his ear that his support for this bill would augment his Presidential aspirations…and perhaps that person was James Carville…and perhaps even he didn’t think McCain would take him seriously.)

Lest you think that your favorite blogger has gone off the deep end, allow me to mention those few who so far are fighting the good fight on this critical issue:

• Almost all of Conservative Talk Radio that I have heard (see: Trent Lott above)


• The Heritage Foundation (Bucking the trend, they have attempted some scholarly research on the costs involved. By the way, pocket change won’t do it.)


• National Review and the online incarnation of this relatively steady and philosophically sound magazine.


• I cannot think of anyone else right now, but I felt compelled to add a fourth bullet so that it does not look like reasoned Conservativism is so greatly outnumbered—though that appears to be the case.

Sophistry Shuffle
Come to think of it, this isn’t really a Conservative or Liberal issue at all. In anything near its current form this bill violates sound economic principles, denies human nature, ignores the concept of the rule of law, twists the US Constitution into some pretty bizarre shapes, caters to a few special interests and select industries, incentivizes criminal behavior, and plays a shell game with the various extended implications (Health care, Social Security, and so much more). Is it any wonder that a signifcant number of us are outraged?

But perhaps worst of all it is causing the Republican leadership--who have been duped into supporting this travesty--to lie, twist, mangle, and dance the Sophistry Shuffle as they spit into the wind and tell us it’s raining.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Quote from the character Merlin in the movie Excalibur, 1981, Orion Pictures Corporation

Go Get'em Peggy

I do not always agree with her, but Peggy Noonan expresses the current sentiments amongst Republicans rather well in her June 1st, 2007 editorial.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Be Well,

Huckleberry

I Guess 'Ol Huck Just Doesn't Understand
An Open Letter to President George Bush

Mr. President -

It is relatively easy for me to understand and accept political disagreement. I am accustomed to such as I am sure you are. I also understand that my President may not, on occasion, completely agree with me on every position--this is one of the realities I am content to live with.

It is quite another thing for my President--and ostensibly the leader of my party--to lecture me on my need to accept diversity. Please understand, sir, that I do not intend to lecture you and I intend no disrespect. But I cannot support the current (and terribly mis-named) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in anywhere near its current form. I would further say that my reasoning's have nothing to do with fear of diversity or racism and that I have not been manipulated by fear-mongers. Quite frankly, sir, I resent your saying so. In rhetorical arguments, the first one to defer to ad homonyms and non sequiturs is usually the one with the weaker case. I am left to assume that this implies my arguments against this legislation are stronger indeed.

The current bill is mis-guided from the perspectives of economics (monetary and incentive), our established concept of justice, the establishment of unwarranted precedent, and quite frankly our American sense of fair play. Your support and defense of this bill should be abandoned and I have equally communicated this sentiment to my state Senators--Kyle and McCain. I will continue my resistance in the form of my vote, communications (my blog, letters, and related articles), and the withholding of financial and moral support from my Republican Party, you sir, and my Senators to make my position known.

Respectfully--Be Well,
Huckleberry