Which Record is Worse Market Failure or State Failure?

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Those who so lackadaisically, ignorantly, and one-sidedly, like the liberal ‘questions’, dismiss the efficiency and effectiveness of the “free market” that since its origins and rise has increased by leaps and bounds the standard of living of the masses, according to the Indian economist Amartya Sen, should consider the following: if someone objectively and impartially contrasted historically “market failure” with “state failure” the latter would outweigh the former by tons. A recent egregious example of state failure is President Obama’s spending of a trillion dollars to create jobs. Not to mention the historical example of the failure of the Soviet Union, with its inherently command dirigiste policies, which economists of the stature of Ludwig von Mises had predicted all along.

Liberals Favour Show Trial for Mastermind of 9/11

By Con George-Kotzabasis

“The administration has long” wrongly “argued that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.” Clemons of course would be loathe to admit that Obama’s administration might have realized its great mistake politically and strategically to prosecute Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court and is ready now to be corrected for its stupendous error by “the dark side,” to quote Clemons, methods of former vice-president Cheney and chief of staff of the Bush administration David Addington, which politically and strategically were always on the correct side.

Liberals who tend to support a civilian prosecution for the mastermind of 9/11 are fugitives from reality and are impresarios of a burlesque show trial, since members of the administration like Press Secretary Gibbs and Attorney General Holder already publicly declared him to be guilty. And as Nadine hints to the critics of military tribunals, among who is Clemons himself, and who are in favour of a show trial for Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, the way to hellishly bankrupt arguments is paved with good intentions.

SLEEPING DEMON OF RACISM WILL AWAKE TO BITE OBAMA

The Great Non Sequitur, by Charles Krauthammer

 Washington Post, March 7, 2008

 A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis

In the “progressivist” euphoria of seeing a black American with an agile mind of capturing the up till now Waspish Whitehouse, most people cannot see the first awakening movements of the sleeping demon of racism rising from its slumbers to bite Obama’s ambition to become the next president of the U.S.A. . But the ever watchful Argus-eyed New York Times. which always has its finger up in the air to feel the political cross winds that are battering the American electorate, has already sensed that Obama cannot win the election, despite the fact that he has won most states in the primaries, against John McCaine, and therefore it has “de-barracked” Obama and is barracking for Clinton. The …Times, on March 9, 2008, under the rubric The Editorial Board’s Primary Choices,  states, that “the editorial board endorses Senator … Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination”. Thus surprisingly declaring itself against the majority of Democrats who prefer Obama. And the only reason for doing this is no other than in the editorial board’s educated guess is that America at this stage is not ready  to vote a black American into the Whitehouse.

The next to follow this line of the … Times will be the super delegates of the Democratic Convention who at the penultimate moment the majority of them will be also endorsing Senator Clinton as their nominee. Thus we will be told, that the flagship of the liberal media The… Times and the liberal super delegates of the Democrats had decided that the best way to repulse this wave of impending racism from falling and drowning their black candidate is to attract this rising wave of racism behind their waspish candidate Clinton, whose tsunami will have a greater chance of raising the latter to the Oval Office.   

Moreover, Obama is politically totally unfit to lead a great nation that faces stupendous challenges and dangers in our times with his populist siren songs and idyllic rhetoric to a deeply divided America, issuing from how to deal and handle Islamist global terror, and its corollary, the war in Iraq. And as Krauthammer correctly points out “uniting is not a matter of rhetoric and manner, but of character and courage”.

And in this case John McCaine is Napoleon’s “voila une homme“. As Obama’s spine is made up of neon light flashes and has no backbone. But if he does get the Democratic nomination, I too believe he will lose the election. As the presently dormant demon of race will awake from its present slumber at the crucial moment-this time for the good of America and the free world- along with its auxiliaries, the American Latinos and the Asians, and prevent a political dilettante from getting the helm of power in his hands in our turbulent and most dangerous times.

I rest on my oars:Your turn now

IF COALITION LOCKS-IN CONSUMER DEBT IN LAST WEEK OF CAMPAIGN IT COULD WIN ELECTION

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Presently consumer debt is unprecedentedly high in Australia. Many Australians don’t only pay-off their mortgages but also for luxuries installed in their homes, for four-wheel drives, and for yachts and boats. If the Coalition can make it evidently clear to these consumers in the next few days that these “beloved” luxuries issuing from their debt will be at a high risk of losing them under a Rudd government (remember what Paul Keating said he would do to four-wheel drives if he was still in government?) dominated by the unions, it will have more than a good chance to shift many of those consumers to its side, especially in marginal seats, who could push it over the winning line.

The Coalition’s main slogan “Go For Growth” is totally inept, unimaginative, and does not pull voters to its side as it’s too abstract in their minds. Since the major aim of the Coalition was and is–by concentrating on the economy–to discredit Kevin Rudd as an economic manager, its slogan should have been Go For Economic Security. It’s a concrete slogan and concentrates the minds of those who are heavily in debt. It also highlights the fact that under the Coalition none, with rare exceptions, have lost any of the luxuries mentioned above, whereas under a Rudd Government, the gurus of the Liberal campaign, even at this late stage, could build up the perception among those consumers in debt of the risk that many of them might lose some of these luxuries due to Rudd’s economic policies.

THE WAR CANNOT BE WON IF ITS COMMANDERS ARE HOSTAGES TO POLITICS

Dear readers of  this new blog,

I’m republishing this proposal sent to President Bush as Washington politicians are presently attempting to micro-manage the war.

Con George-Kotzabasis

The following was written on April 11, 2004 and was sent to President Bush on the same date. It’s republished now, as the Bush administration is forging a new strategy for Iraq that hopefully will be victorious against the murderous insurgents.

Dear Mr. President,

The present armed insurgency, threatening to become a general insurgency against your forces in Iraq, unless its momentum is promptly nipped in the bud, of Shiites and Sunnis against the Coalition, threatens to put off balance your whole strategic project for Iraq and the Middle East in general, which would have tremendously negative effects on the war against global terror. Needless to say therefore, the stakes are infinitely high.

At the present moment these fanatic thugs are fighting your forces under the misperception that they have the “upper hand” in this confrontation. It is for this reason therefore, that any conciliatory move your Authority in Iraq will be making toward the insurgents will be perceived by them to be a sign of weakness by your side. A current example of this is the ceasefire in Fallujah, that Paul Bremer was probably compelled to declare as a result of pressures put upon him by some members of the Interim Governing Council (IGC). This was done to presumably give the opportunity to diplomatic palaver to resolve some of the issues that are contested between, in my judgement, irreconcilable opponents. These talks are bound to fail, as you will confront the hardened positions of these fanatics, which arise from their false belief that they will be bargaining from a strong position, that will be totally incompatible with your military plans against the insurgents, and therefore will be rejected by your side.

It is neither surprising nor unreasonable, that some members of the IGC have condemned your military actions in Fallujah and have opted for negotiations with the insurgents. What is unreasonable however, about the stand of the IGC – which apparently does not have political and military strategists among its members – is the futility, except as a public relations stunt of doubtful value, of these negotiations on the core issues between the belligerents, and the loss of valuable time that could be expended instead by your military commanders in putting, urgently and immediately, a stop to the momentum of the insurgency that threatens to engulf the whole country.

Paul Bremer therefore, has the responsibility to awaken these members of the IGC from their somnambulistic illusions, and spell out to them the high stakes involved, which can only be resolved by the use of major military force by the Coalition. However, despite these negative aspects of the ceasefire in Fallujah, it can be used positively by enabling women and children to evacuate the town, hence saving them from becoming collateral casualties from a future attack by your forces.

The paradigm of Vietnam has shown conclusively that your brave commanders and troops could not win a war that was politically restrained, as to the appropriate kind of weapons used against their enemies, by the hands of “micro-politicians”. In any major critical military engagement, military considerations should have the upper hand over political considerations. Certainly, the overwhelming military response of your forces against the insurgents will have local and international repercussions and will spark a “wildfire” of protests against your Administration. But despite this, the priority of the military over the political must not be modified and must prevail. It is the price that statesmanship must pay.

Moreover, what is of the utmost importance in this conflict is to inflict such a deadly blow on the insurgents in selected towns of Iraq, from which they will never be able to recover. It is not enough to capture or kill them in small numbers, but to do so in the largest number possible. Their capture or killing en masse, will have a powerful psychological effect upon other insurgents in other towns, and will irreparably breakdown their morale and their fighting spirit. To achieve this goal, you Mr. President, as Commander-in- Chief, must direct your commanders on the ground to use the weapons that would inflict this devastating blow on the insurgents. That means that incendiary bombs, and the “daisies cutter” be used as a last resort against the insurgents, whose total defeat is so pivotal to your historic project in Iraq and to the war against global terror.

Sure enough, as I said above, there will be multiple political repercussions on a world scale. But one has to be reminded that wars are won or lost by military actions not by political repercussions. It is a terrible situation to be in for a Commander-in-Chief, but the question for free, open, and civilized societies, is to be or not to be. It is by such tragic and historic burdens that your leadership and Tony Blair’s are weighed with presently. But the mantle of statesmanship falls on Churchillian shoulders.