What's reckless is continuing the Bush-McCain foreign policy that has cost us thousands of lives and a trillion dollars in Iraq, strengthened Iran, enabled Hamas to take Gaza, took our eye off al Qaeda, failed to capture Osama bin Laden, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and left us less safe and less respected in the world.
Even though President Bush won't be on the ballot, Democrats want to make November a plebiscite on the Bush administration. Not only will you hear Obama's campaign repeatedly use the phrase "Bush-McCain," but other Republican candidates can expect to find themselves portrayed as joined at the hip to a president whose popularity continues to sink ever lower.
Jim: The trouble with "the decoupling of benefits associated with marriage from marriage itself except where those benefits are fundamental to the purpose of marriage (e.g., related to children and reproduction)" is that the child-rearing benefits of marriage are exactly what a lot of gay couples want -- that is, they want to be parents (via adoption, artificial insemination, etc.), and they want to be treated as such. The mothers of married homosexuals -- who are unlikely to be any less inclined than the mothers of married heterosexuals to ask "When am I going to be a grandmother?" -- are likely to be a rather powerful force in preserving the traditional link between marriage and child-rearing.
The evidence that gay parenthood is harmful to children is rather weak -- and it's incontrovertibly better for a child's well-being to have two parents than it is to have one. In the many jurisdictions where its legal for gays to adopt but not legal for them to marry, the link between marriage and child-rearing really is being stepped on. The social norm that makes marriage a prerequisite for parenthood urgently needs bolstering, and gay marriage may well be a boon on that front.
None of this should be taken as a defense of the California Supreme Court's ruling; I'm still wading through the decision and its precedents, but so far I'm rather unimpressed.
How, in the Lord's name, can ANYbody, much less an experienced politician, say something as incredibly crass and stupid as Mike Huckabee said today about Barack Obama? I rest my case that Mike Huckabee is not a man Republicans or conservatives should want to have ANYthing to do with. If McCain picks him for Veep -- which is much less likely now -- I repate that every good conservative ought to actively oppose the ticket. Meanwhile, and more important, our prayers go out to Sen. Obama, because this is the sort of thing that gets haters riled up. Nobody deserves to have "jokes" such as these told about him. This is serious stuff, and Huck owes (and will probably give) a huge apology to the senator from Illinois.
In light of my column yesterday on Lindsey Graham, a reader wrote in to tell me of a whole book he wrote on the same topic. It's called This Dog Don't Hunt. Wow. And I thought I was tough on the senator!
Marc Ambinder says the Libertarian presidential candidate and former Republican congressman supports it. Here is the quote:
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work.
It's true that the Defense of Marriage Act, even if constitutionalized or protected from judicial review by jurisdiction-stripping legislation, is compatible with same-sex marriage in California or Massachusetts. It's also true that it would prevent these two states from imposing their redefinition of marriage on other states. But the weakness of DOMA from a social conservative perspective, which I acknowledge even though I support this approach, is that it does nothing to prevent the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage by state courts.
The elected legislatures in California and Massachusetts did not create same-sex marriage. The voters in those states did not approve same-sex marriage. In fact, in California, they voted for the opposite. In Massachusetts, the voters have repeatedly been denied the opportunity to weigh in on this subject. In both states, the courts, by narrow 4 to 3 decisions, altered a fundamental social institution. Fred Thompson once suggested a constitutional amendment specifically preventing the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage at all levels of government, while leaving the door open to a legislature allowing it. I'm not sure that such a policy is workable or that an amendment like that could be passed, but I do understand the rationale behind it. Federalism is good, but judge-made law is not necessarily federalism.
In today's Washington Post, James Rubin writes that Johm McCain is a hypoctite on Hamas, because he said after their election, "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another..." A video of the comments made the rounds on liberal blogs, but it struck me as odd, because everytime I have seen McCain quoted on the subject of Hamas, it has been to say that the U.S. shouldn't talk to them unless they changed their ways. Also, his statement would be inconsistent with his opposition to dealing with Iran and other state sponsors of terrorism. Soon enough, the McCain campaign fired back with a video taken the same day, with McCain in the same garb, only this time making it clear that dealing with Hamas would not be unconditional. He said, "hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process. It's very, very important though that they renounce this commitment."
The two clips are below. You can decide for yourself.
Shortly before debating our publisher Al Regnery on Laura Ingraham's show yesterday, David Frum posted the following:
Here's the problem: All the data I've seen suggests that Republicans would be in even more trouble today if they had followed a more principled line. That's exactly why they strayed from principle in the first place! The bloated prescription drug benefit is popular! The expensive bits of No Child Left Behind? Popular! School choice and social security reform? Unpopular! Conservative social stances on Terri Schiavo, stem-cell research, etc.? Way unpopular!
Let's leave aside for a minute that he doesn't mention Iraq, which has done far more damage to Republicans than Social Security reform or even Terri Schiavo. Sometimes conservatives can afford to ignore the polls, I guess. Frum is right about what the polls show on the issues he does mention and why the Republicans have so frequently taken unprincipled positions, but I'm afraid that's not enough. What did the Medicare prescription drug benefit or No Child Left Behind really buy us? At most, arguably, Bush's second term. But the Democrats have already regained their traditional advantages on these issues. Republicans are already fumbling around looking for new issues with which to win elections. And the damage, both to the party and the country, of having enacted the prescription drug benefit while failing to reform Social Security has been done.
Big government conservatism has so far been like Rockefeller Republicanism: Helpful to individual politicians who espouse it in the right political conditions, unhelpful to the Republican Party as a whole. Whatever gains Bush made among seniors and parents worried about public schools in 2004, the GOP as a whole lost its brand as a fiscally responsible party while entering a bidding war with the Democrats that it cannot win. The Republicans end up getting blamed for the red ink without getting any credit for the programs they've built or expanded.
Frum is right about the need to identify conservative policies that will deal with the things the voters actually care about, like rising health care costs, middle-class income stagnation, and high energy prices. Those are different problems than the ones Ronald Reagan was elected to solve. But if conservatives do not find ways to deal with these issues on conservative terms rather than liberal terms, they will lose even if the occasional Bush or McCain wins.
Jim Manzi has a longish post up about the conservative reaction to gay marriage in which he makes some important points. When this issue was first being debated in the late 1970s, support for same-sex marriage was a fringe position. Before that, the concept of same-sex marriage was too absurd to contemplate. Even by the time the issue went national in 1996, polls showed more than two-thirds of the American were opposed. The Defense of Marriage Act sailed through both houses of Congress by something like 5-to-1 margins and was signed into law by Bill Clinton, the most pro-gay-rights president in history.
A majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage. Ballot initiatives opposing such a redefinition of marriage have passed almost everywhere they have been put on the ballot and probably would have passed in Arizona too if the language had been less broad. Even liberal states have passed such initiatives, usually by comfortable if not landslide margins. And yet support for same-sex marriage is not a fringe position anymore -- instead, it is a position held by upwards of 45 percent of the American people. This includes large majorities of young voters. In many polls, fewer people support the federal marriage amendment than support gay marriage, which may explain why it hasn't done as well in Congress as the Defense of Marriage Act. Within a minimum of three election cycles, the Democratic presidential nominee will support full gay marriage.
Many polls show a majority of Americans supporting civil unions, including a critical mass of people who oppose same-sex marriage. As I argue on the main site today, I don't think civil unions are a workable compromise. It's a middle ground that abandons the logic of traditional marriage while not satisfying supporters of same-sex marriage. Ultimately, as we've seen in California, it just leads inexorably to gay marriage. But the status quo of a decade ago doesn't seem sustainable anymore either.
In my view, conservatives ought to support the decoupling of benefits associated with marriage from marriage itself except where those benefits are fundamental to the purpose of marriage (e.g., related to children and reproduction). That will give people in untraditional couples most of the benefits they desire without extending official recognition to their relationships in a way that undermines traditional marriage. Second, we should seek remove the Defense of Marriage Act from federal judicial review while accepting that some states might begin to move toward same-sex marriage or something like it. This will allow true cultural federalism on the issue: Massachusetts and California won't be prevented from doing what they want to do but they won't be allowed to change marriage in Alabama or Ohio. All branches of the federal government will stay out of the issue beyond an official recognition of traditional marriage.
Is such a policy ideal? No. But it's probably the best we can hope for at this point. And even it isn't a slam dunk politically.
Upon a full night's reflection, I still can't shake the thought that the over-the-top reaction of Obama and his fellow Democratic officeholders to the president's speech yesterday was a perfect example of how age-old expressions become age-old: because they capture essential truths so well. In this case, the expressions I am thinking of are: Methinks thou dost protest too much and If the shoe fits, wear it.
Look, it is absolutely clear that President Bush never mentioned Obama's name. The fact that Obama and his "Praise be to Obama" chorus (Biden, Pelois, etc.) reacted so strongly shows that they KNOW that the description of "appeaser" applies to him anyway, and that he is quite vulnerable on this count. Without their heated response, the general public would not have directly associated Obama with Bush's remarks -- but now most voters paying attention will have an indelible impression in their minds that Obama = Appeaser. As well they should. Obama's calls for direct talks with Ahmadinejad are spectacularly irresponsible.
And, to John McCain's credit, McCain called him out on the subject yesterday. I listened to the bloggers' call, and McCain's tone and strength -- i.e. strong words, pointed words, but well modulated voice, serious and sober rather than nasty and cheap-shotty -- on the subject were both quite impressive. As quoted accuratedly by Phil, McCain said:
"My question ... to Senator Obama is, what do you want to talk about with him? President Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel is a 'stinking corpse'? That they want to wipe Israel
off the map? That they continue to supply these terrible, most lethal,
explosive devices that are killing young Americans? What do you want to
talk to him about?"
And: "It's the highest degree of naivete and inexperience that would
indicate that anyone would want to sit down in face to face talks with
the Iranians, including their president, who just a few days ago
pronounced Israel a 'stinking corpse'."
McCain also noted, quite accurately, that (and here my quotes are probably exact, but may have a word or two off because he was talking faster than I could type: "I feel in the strongest terms that if you sat down across the table from these state sponsors or terrorism, you would give them enhanced prestige." That's exactly the point: Giving them prestige they do not deserve only strengthens them in their murderous grip on power.
For a guy who really ticks me off, McCain can sure show some excellent leadership at times! As for Obama..... well, Joe Biden's expletive about Bush's remarks were aimed at the wrong man. it is Obama's position that is bull****.
Conor, rereading the post now, I think the problem is more with how I
paraphrased McCain in haste to report on the conference call. McCain
wasn't necessarily saying that Iran had to meet all of those conditions
in advance in order to trigger talks, but at least show a willingness
to do so. McCain noted that low level talks already take place, and Iranians "haven't shown the slightest
inclination" to change their ways. So why should we escalate all the way to talks at the presidential level?
I do think there could be a lot of harm caused by negotiating with
Iran, because talking to them gives them a certain legitimacy that they
aren't worthy of. Diplomatic relations with the U.S., after 29 years in
the wilderness, itself is a coveted reward. In Iran, you also have a
restive young population that could potentially rise up against the
ruling regime. But were the U.S. President to meet with the Iranian
leadership, they could use images of the meeting to send the message
that the regime is stronger than ever, and thus discourage such
dissident movements. Especially in the age of terrorism, it's important
to take a moral stand and send a signal to the world that any regime
that behaves as Iran does will be ostracized. So, I think there clearly
is harm to come from meeting with Iran. If there were the slightest
reason to believe that such negotiations might be successful, than
perhaps one could argue for conducting talks. But when you and I both
know that there's no realistic reason to believe that anything positive
will come from such discussions, I don't see why the U.S. should risk
what I outlined above.
For a further discussion of why it's a bad idea to talk to such regimes, I refer you to an article I wrote in 2006, in which I used failed negotiations with North Korea in the 1990s as my case study. Yes, just because we talk to another nation, it doesn't mean we have to make concessions to it, but we often do.
But really, this is all backwards. Since the status quo for nearly 30 years has been not having diplomatic relations with Iran, those who want to open up talks at the presidential level need to make a strong, positive, case for doing so. Thus far, the case for meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has come down to: 1) Why not? 2) It'll make us feel warm and fuzzy and 3) Bush isn't doing it, so it must be a good idea.
John McCain knows a lot more about diplomacy than I do, which isn't tough since I don't know anything. But ignorant voters like me must muddle through the issue as best we can. So I ask, earnestly, that someone explain to me why Senator McCain's criticism of Barack Obama makes sense.
"It's the highest
degree of naivete and inexperience that would indicate that anyone
would want to sit down in face to face talks with the Iranians,
including their president, who just a few days ago pronounced Israel a
'stinking corpse,'" McCain said.
He asked rhetorically, "My
question ... to Senator Obama is, what do you want to talk about with
him? President Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel is a 'stinking corpse'? That they want to wipe Israel
off the map? That they continue to supply these terrible, most lethal,
explosive devices that are killing young Americans? What do you want to
talk to him about?"
Geez, isn't it obvious? Obama wants to talk about Iran's indefensible attitude toward Israel, its nuclear program and its meddling in Iraq! Am I missing something here?
McCain said he would only support talks with Iran if the Persian nation
retracted its rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map, abandoned its
nuclear weapons program, stopped exporting weapons, and stopped
sponsoring terrorism.
Again, maybe I'm missing something, but if all those things happened wouldn't any need to talk to Iran be obviated? It just seems so weird to say, "We're not going to negotiate unless you concede everything we'd hope to gain in negotiations."
I actually doubt that sitting down with the leader of Iran will improve our relationship, but I can't say that if John McCain or Barack Obama decided to give it a try I'd lose much sleep over it -- seems unlikely that it would make the Iranians hate Israel more, or seek a nuclear weapon more aggressively, or meddle in Iraq even more.
"I feel in the strongest terms that if you sat down across the table
from these state sponsors of terrorist organizations, you would give
them prestige enhancement and a bigger influence in the region, which I
think would directly counter to America's national security interests,"
McCain said.
I wish Sen. McCain would articulate the process by which this would happen. I'm prepared to be convinced that "across the table" meetings are a bad idea. But I don't understand the cause and effect relationship he asserts. Are there Middle Eastern states that aren't allied with us who would look upon Iran more favorably were we to meet with them? Which states? In what ways would Iran's influence therefore be greater? How would this influence threaten our security.
If I don't understand these things I'm sure other voters don't either. Please, Senator McCain, help us better understand your position.Your arguments aren't nearly as obvious as you seem to think they are.
John McCain, in a just completed call with bloggers, blasted Barack Obama's commitment to meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, chalking it up to "inexperience."
Asked to weigh in on the debate ignited by President Bush's anti-appeasement remarks in Israel today, and to comment on Obama's views on talks with Iran, McCain first cautioned that, "President Bush said he wasn't talking about Senator Obama, and I certainly take the president at his word."
But then McCain proceeded to rip into Obama's proposed approach to Iran.
"It's the highest degree of naivete and inexperience that would indicate that anyone would want to sit down in face to face talks with the Iranians, including their president, who just a few days ago pronounced Israel a 'stinking corpse,'" McCain said.
He asked rhetorically, "My question ... to Senator Obama is, what do you want to talk about with him? President Ahmadinejad's statement that Israel is a 'stinking corpse'? That they want to wipe Israel off the map? That they continue to supply these terrible, most lethal, explosive devices that are killing young Americans? What do you want to talk to him about?"
McCain said he would only support talks with Iran if the Persian nation retracted its rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map, abandoned its nuclear weapons program, stopped exporting weapons, and stopped sponsoring terrorism.
It would be quite easy to signal to America that it intends to do these things. McCain noted that the U.S. ambasador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has contact in Baghdad with the Iranian ambasador, and the Iranians, "haven't shown the slightest inclination" to change their ways.
"I feel in the strongest terms that if you sat down across the table from these state sponsors of terrorist organizations, you would give them prestige enhancement and a bigger influence in the region, which I think would directly counter to America's national security interests," McCain said.
In last year's CNN YouTube debate, Obama pledged to meet, without preconditions, within the first year of his administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Video here.
In his strong speech to Israel's Knesset, President Bush argued against appeasing terrorists. In what should be telling enough, Barack Obama automatically assumed the president was talking about him. Of course, given that he wants to meet with the leading terror sponsor Iran and his adviser until recently Robert Malley holds regular meetings with Hamas, perhaps Obama hath reason to protest so much.
But I thought the most ironic criticism of the speech came from Nancy Pelosi, who called it "beneath the dignity of the office" for President Bush to visit our staunch ally and make the case against appeasement. This is the same Pelosi, you may recall, who visited the terror state of Syria amid State Department protest and told President Bashar Assad that Israel was ready for peace talks with its longtime enemy, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied saying anything of the sort.
I meant to post this last night, but Marc Dann has resigned as Ohio attorney general. Long before the Sept. 24 deadline, that means whomever Gov. Ted Strickland picks as a temporary replacement will have to stand for election in November. The Democrats obviously decided getting rid of Dann's corruption as an issue was worth this political risk -- the attorney general doesn't have a seat on the apportionment board, so even if Republicans win the office back there is no risk there -- and may even get credit for their handling of the scandal. Now a Spitzer wannabe has fallen.
I agree that the ad runs the risk of overpromising. Obama already likes to set lofty goals with little attention to how he plans accomplish them. I also remember President Bush's sweeping plans for his second term back in the heady days when he still had "political capital." These plans are now almost entirely on the cutting room floor.
Note, however, the slight change in emphasis on Iraq: McCain doesn't alter his policy goals in Iraq, he doesn't give us any strong reason to believe he will be able to deliver on what he is promising, and his past Iraq predictions haven't always panned out. But McCain is emphasizing the return home of most of our troops as an explicit near-term goal. The perception that McCain would stay in Iraq for 100 years is a losing message when pitted against a candidate who is even semi-credibly promising withdrawal. But a Nixonian peace-with-honor gradual drawdown without disavowing the war aims is a stronger position politically. The Democrats can promise to withdraw faster than McCain, but George McGovern can tell you that this approach does not always work. The American people want to get out of Iraq and win the war. Whether or not this is possible, they might prefer a candidate who promises both to a candidate who promises one or the other.
The thing about cotton candy is that it looks nice and
fluffy – It's pink! It's poofy! – but
as soon as you actually take a bite, unless you're a four-year-old with a
serious sugar-tooth, you realize how awful it actually is.
That's kind of how the U.S. sugar program works, too, except
instead of sugar-addled kids, the folks who like it are sugar-growing farmers
who benefit from the program. The problems with federal sugar subsidies are well-documented, but
year after year, the sugar lobby keeps the pressure on and taxpayer money flowing. And lo and
behold, it appears that's exactly what's happened, once again, with the new farm bill.
Seems the bill's authors weren't content merely to stuff it full of
pork; they also decided they needed to add to the subsidies
and favors our sugar program already gives to Big Sugar. Rep. Paul Ryan's got the gory
details.
This strikes me as as a pretty demeaning way for an enlightened liberal like Obama to address a female reporter. If I talked to any woman this way, I'd probably get hit over the head with a brick.
This morning, John McCain gives a speech and launches an ad touting what the world would look like after his first term in office. Some commentators have made the argument that given his age, McCain should pledge to only run for a single term, and set very specific goals for his time in office. To me, this seems like an effort to do so implicitly, while avoiding looking like a lame duck by doing so explicitly. I think what he runs the risk of, though, is making so many ambitious promises that he undercuts his image as a straight talker, and makes it harder to portray Barack Obama as a naive dreamer who resides in Fantasyland. I thought this was especially true in the ad, which you can view below. It comes across like he's running a chicken in every pot campaign.
Here is some of what he envisions:
--"By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension."
--"The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated."
--"The United States and its allies have made great progress in advancing nuclear security."
--"The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us."
--"After exercising my veto several times in my first year in office, Congress has not sent me an appropriations bill containing earmarks for the last three years. "
He also sees a League of Democracies to supplant the UN, which acts to end the genocide in Darfur, free mark health care reform, tax code simplification, and so on. You get the idea.
This is the exact type of issue that John McCain needs to be pounding the table on. There is no greater example of the "old kind of politics" than this $300 billion dollar special interest boondoggle that distorts markets and amounts to welfare for the rich. Barack Obama is for it, and McCain is against it. He would be an agent of change on farm subsidies, and make conservatives swoon in the process. What better way to expose the Obama myth than to raise hell over this disgraceful bill that benefits a tiny fraction of voters?
Ross Douthat thinks the inability of entitites like the UN to deal effectively with humanitarian crisises like Burma will eventually make liberal internationalists abandon their insistence on multilateralism. That's probably true, at least in the next Democratic administration.
Is even the discussion of an expansion of the welfare state out of bounds for the Free to Choose or Road to Serfodom crowds? Yes, of course there are times when military action is necessary. And of course there are times when the use of government power is necessary domestically. But just as we should ask "To what end?" when liberals request big government at home, we should do so when humanitarian Gersonite conservatives do so abroad. Why should this project be undertaken above all others? What might the unintended consequences be? What does this have to do with the defense of the United States? And just as defenders of higher taxes ought to pay their own voluntary surtax, the simple moral decision-makers should sometimes make their own decisions instead of sending other people to shoot and be shot at for their humanitarian instincts. Americans are understandably tired of our current foreign policy adventures. At the very least, those who want to expand the scope of our gunboat generosity ought to be less tiresome.
Hey, wait a minute, John! Just because I reported on "Losers for Peace" doesn't automatically make me a peacenik. And merely quoting Bill Kauffman's arguments shouldn't be interpreted as my belated endorsement of the American First Committee.
But this "humanitarian" invasion idea is one of the looniest things I've ever heard of -- hostile humanitarianism? armed compassion? militant charity? This is the same "meals on wheels" approach to the military that conservatives mocked when the Clinton administration did it. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but Emerson's aphorism doesn't justify veering wildly all over the place.
"Humanitarian intervention" either is or is not liberal nonsense. If it is nonsense, then its opponents are not to be confused with pacifists.
You might want to read a bit more carefully, Stacy. Kaplan didn't call a Burma invasion a simple moral decision -- he wrote "It seems like a simple moral decision," and then explained why it shouldn't be taken lightly.
Really, is even discussing the possibility of a military action out of bounds to the Losers for Peace crowd? (By the way, the suggestion that there was nothing remotely pro-Nazi about the America First Committee is preposterous. It was a diverse group, but it absolutely did include some hardcore anti-Semites and Hitler apologists.)
Well, why the heck not? Lots of oil and natural gas in Burma -- 1.5 billion barrels of petroleum, they say. Forget about humanitarian compassion. Just invade the place and take that oil! I mean, this "war for oil" thing worked out so well in Iraq, right?
The Pentagon should deploy Robert D. Kaplan to Burma immediately. If necessary, we should send every think-tank wonk in Washington -- pack 'em into C-130s and airdrop them on Burma. We ought to be willing to fight to the last "senior analyst" over this Burma thing, and I look forward to watching the Beltway policy establishment flock to the Marine Corps recruiting stations to volunteer for this "simple moral decision," as Kaplan calls it.
UPDATE: National Review's Rich Lowry frames the question slightly differently: "A Humanitarian Invasion of Burma?" Yes, enthusiastically so. By all means, let the humanitarians invade Burma. The do-gooders, the 501(c) compassion crowd, the State Department bureaucrats and NGO types -- Sally Struthers! Bono! Bob Geldoff! -- we'll send them in as the second wave of the invasion, immediately after we airdrop all those policy wonks into Burma.
