David McElroy

What if the United States has just spend almost a decade in Iraq — wasting trillions of dollars, killing thousands of Americans and killing maybe as many as 100,000 Iraqis — and accomplished absolutely nothing? A new report from Human Rights Watch suggests that might be the case.

The Middle East director for Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post that the Iraqi government installed by the United States through its accepted democratic processes seems to have a lot in common with the dictator we supposedly freed Iraqis from.

“Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism as its security forces abuse protesters, harass journalists and torture detainees,” said Sarah Leah Whitson. “Despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy, the reality is that it left behind a budding police state.”

Before the United States invaded Iraq, we were given conflicting stories about why. The administration of George W. Bush talked darkly about the certainty that Saddam Hussein’s regime had “weapons of mass destruction.” When U.S. troops invaded, Bush talked about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq. The things happening in Iraq today show the folly of “nation-building” and they also show the fallacy of assuming that democracy has to lead to individual freedom.

Keep Reading

In South Carolina, Ron Paul finished in last place — fourth out of the four remaining candidates. This isn’t exactly the “revolution” that my friends have been expecting. So how are they dealing with this dose of cruel political reality? And where do libertarians go from here?

If you’ve read much here, you know that I believe Paul has no chance of winning. None. Zero. Nada. It’s not that I don’t like him. He’s probably my favorite statist. But he can’t win, because he’s advocating things that the majority just plain don’t want. After the complete collapse in the first southern primary, I thought I’d skim through what my Facebook friends were saying about the situation. Without calling any names, here are the sort of things that were being said Saturday night among my Paul-supporting friends:

— “Obama must go, so no matter who our nominee is, he’s far better than the current occupant of the White House.” Really? In what ways is Mitt Romney — the father of RomneyCare — an improvement over Barack Obama? In what ways is Newt Gingrich — the man who wants to attack Iran — an improvement over Obama? As bad as Obama is, when it comes to substantive issues — not rhetoric — how are any of the other GOP choices an improvement over Obama?

— “The MSM [mainstream media] is silencing Ron Paul’s message, so that’s the only reason he’s not winning.” Actually, Paul has gotten a tremendous amount of television time over the last year or two, especially compared to the percentage of the electorate that supports him. He’s had plenty of chance to make his case and he’s spent millions of dollars on ads, too. Anyone who believes he’s being silenced isn’t paying attention. It’s just not true.

Keep Reading

From an early age, most of us are taught that hope is a good thing. When things go wrong, we’re taught to hope for better things. We’re taught not to be discouraged, not to dwell on the negative — to hope that things will be better than anticipated. Is that good advice? Or are we setting ourselves up to be hurt by cruel reality?

I’m pondering that today because a doctor handed me some hope Friday, and I had trouble deciding whether it’s a good thing or not.

As I told you Monday, I’m scheduled for surgery on Jan. 30 to remove a growth in my breast. Just nine days ago, a doctor told me that I had cancer and would have to have all the tissue of my left breast removed. On Friday, he said that new biopsies have raised some hope that the “atypical” cells in the tumor aren’t really cancer after all.

“The pathology people are saying that they just see atypical cells,” the doctor said. “They’re not seeing gross, obvious cancer. It may all be good news.”

My heart leapt upon hearing his words. What might it mean? How would it change things? And, mostly, what was the likelihood that it wasn’t really cancer?

Unfortunately, the doctor doesn’t have good answers for me yet. The initial “fine needle aspiration” biopsy had given cells that made him conclude it was cancer. Much more extensive samples taken eight days ago had failed to confirm the diagnosis. It could be that the four or five samples he dug out of me with a “core biopsy gun” didn’t happen to hit the parts of the tumor with obvious cancer cells. Maybe. We don’t know yet.

Keep Reading