Say Anything Blog

Jury Refuses to Indict Doctor Accused of Killing Patients During Hurricane Katrina

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

NEW ORLEANS — A grand jury on Tuesday refused to indict Dr. Anna Pou, the cancer surgeon accused of murdering four seriously ill patients following Hurricane Katrina.

Pou and two nurses were arrested last summer after an investigation concluded they killed four people with a “lethal cocktail” at Memorial Medical Center during the chaotic conditions after the August 2005 hurricane.

Lawyers for the three said they acted heroically, staying to treat patients rather than evacuating.

Charges against nurses Lori Budo and Cheri Landry were dropped after they were compelled to testify last month before a grand jury, under legal guidelines that kept their testimony from being used against them. They waived their constitutional right against self-incrimination.

The grand jury had been investigating the charges since March.

Incredible.  It would be one thing if the care of the other patients, whose potential for survival was higher, led to a necessary neglect of some patients as opposed to others resulting in the death of these four people.  However, nothing of the sort warrants a deadly cocktail. 

Our society continues to struggle to recognize euthenasia for what it is—murder.  It seems for some motive is enough to distinguish between murder and what they perceive to be mercy killing. What they fail to factor in is the fact that those who took these lives faced no deadly threat from their victims, nor were the victims a threat to any of the other patients.  Life was not preserved by these killings, rather life was taken.

Strangely enough, those who argue the killings were not murder will condemn all killing, other than euthenasia and abortion, as criminal.  This lack of discernment and subsequent confusion over issues of life and death is taking its toll on our society.

Update

The story now continues:

Charges against the nurses, Lori Budo and Cheri Landry, were dropped after they were compelled to testify last month before the grand jury under legal guidelines that kept their testimony from being used against them.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Morales had asked the grand jurors to return one charge of second-degree murder and nine of murder conspiracy against Pou.

He declined to comment after the judge read their decisions rejecting each charge.

When the levees broke in New Orleans following the hurricane's landfall, 80 percent of the city flooded. The lower level Memorial Medical Center was under 10 feet of water, and electricity was out across the city. Inside the hospital, the temperature topped 100 degrees.

At least 34 people died at Memorial, many from dehydration during the four-day wait for rescuers to evacuate them. In the "60 Minutes" interview, Pou acknowledged administering drugs to relieve pain but stressed: "Anytime you provide pain medicine to anybody, there is a risk. But as I said, my role is to help them through the pain."

Other doctors who were there described the situation as resembling a MASH unit during wartime rather than an urban American hospital.

"It was stifling. We were hoisting patients floor to floor on the backs of strong young men. It was as bad as you can imagine," Dr. Gregory Vorhoff, who stayed throughout the storm and eventually hitched a ride on a boat to seek help, told The Associated Press after Pou was arrested.

The four patients Pou was accused of killing ranged in age from 61 to 90. Foti said all four would have survived if they hadn't been given morphine and midazolam hydrochloride.

Pou, whose specialty is eye, ear, nose and throat surgery, gave up her private practice after she was arrested and has been teaching at LSU medical school in Baton Rouge.

The families of people who died at Memorial in the days after Katrina can still sue Pou.

Assistant Attorney General Julie Cullen, who sat in on the grand jury hearings, said investigators in her office still consider the deaths to be homicides.

Asked what the grand jury's decision does for Pou's reputation, she said, "I guess that depends on who's considering her reputation."

Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would-Be Thief
Monday, July 09, 2007

HOUSTON — A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday.

Rep. Borris Miles told police he was fixing a leak on the second floor of the Houston house he’s building Sunday night when he heard a noise downstairs and saw two men trying to steal the copper. After Miles confronted the pair, one of the men threw a pocketknife at him, Houston Police spokesman Victor Senties.

Miles, a former law enforcement officer, shot the man in the left leg, police said. The wounded suspect was being treated at a Houston hospital. Police were trying to identify the other suspect.

Charges of aggravated robbery are pending against the wounded suspect, Senties said.

Police said Miles, who is in his freshman term, is licensed to carry a concealed weapon. No charges have been filed against Miles, Senties said.

Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called “castle doctrine,” passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.

Of course Miles privelege to carry a concealed weapon would not have been affected by his opposition to the “castle doctrine”, but his ability to defend his life in this unfortunate incident may have been legally restricted and his actions may then have been proven criminal. 
Ever notice how these liberal utopian dreams have a way of proving to be completely impractical and even utterly nonsense?  Lucky for Miles common sense prevailed.

Gay activists and their liberal cohorts would have all of society accept and believe that homosexuality is genetic—that homosexuals are born that way. There are a variety of imperfections that are genetic and therefore people are born with.  Many genetic imperfections have been linked to disease, deformity, even psychiatric disorders, and the search continues for others yet undiscovered.  Just because these defects occur naturally doesn’t mean they are normal or healthy.  In fact, in many cases they are a disability, or result in death. 

What hasn’t been explained is why even if a percentage of the population is born homosexual it must be considered normal and accepted?  Why is it that homosexuality should not be viewed as a birth defect? 

Why do the same voices argue that genetic homosexuality must be acted upon?  We spend billions on medication to cure, correct, or contain disease: on psychiatric therapy to correct dysfunction and disorders: on avoiding and overcoming physical deformities.  It may be argued—if first proven—that homosexuals are born that way, but it doesn’t follow that they therefore must act that way.

Obama Says Some Have `hijacked’ Faith

Jun 23 03:24 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN SINGER
Associated Press Writer

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right- wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.
“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

“Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us,” the Illinois senator said.

“At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,” according to an advance copy of his speech.

“There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich,” Obama said. “I don’t know what Bible they’re reading, but it doesn’t jibe with my version.”

Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a church of about 1.2 million members that is considered one the most liberal of the mainline Protestant groups.

In 1972, the church was the first to ordain an openly gay man. Two years ago, the church endorsed same-sex marriage, the largest Christian denomination to do so. Obama believes that states should decide whether to allow gay marriage, and he opposes a constitutional amendment against it.

Conservative Christian bloggers have linked Obama to what they call the “unbiblical” teachings of his church. Theological conservatives believe gay relationships violate Scripture, while more liberal Christians emphasize the Bible’s social justice teachings.

Obama trails Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York by 33 percent to 21 percent in the most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll among Democrats and those leaning toward the party.

First, faith was present at our nation’s inception and said faith walked hand in hand with liberty.  The faith of our Founders was theologically orthodox and subsequently friendly to liberty. Hence, orthodox Christianity leads to politically conservative opinions and persuasions.  On the other hand, the neo-orthodoxy embraced by today’s politically liberal “Christians” allows for biblical interpretations friendly to socialism.

Obama would have his audience believe that the one Christian faith he speaks of “jibe[s]” with liberal ideology, i.e. socialism.  Consider Obama’s implication that the bible teaches the rich should not receive tax cuts.  Now, the only tax rate advocated in the bible was a single tax rate equally required of all income levels.  America’s graduated tax scale is completely foreign to the biblical record, yet, to listen to Obama, a reduction in the graduated tax rates levied on higher incomes is an example of the Christian right hijacking faith.

Second, Mr. Obama seems to be projecting. How long have the democrats heralded the plight of class envy, race, sexual orientation, and labor—among other things—in an effort to divide the population into interest groups?

If anyone is attempting to hijack anything it is the democrats.  It is conservatism that made this country great, not liberalism. Conservatism has ownership in America’s success and has been historically aligned with orthodox Christianity. Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy has contributed little to nothing positive to the American political landscape and is late to the party—thank God.

Our modern practice of science limits the scope of scientific investigation to natural causes. This is known as methodological naturalism.  Naturalism is a philosophy which concludes that nature is all that there is.  Methodological naturalism is the practice of naturalism in scientific investigation without assent to the conclusion that naturalism posits.  Hence, in order to be scientific, an investigation must begin by assuming that natural effects can only be explained by natural causes since nature is all that there is.

Another philosophy which competes with naturalism and is broadly held is naturalistic theism.  This philosophy posits that Intelligent Design may be infered from observable effects.  Science has rejected ID on the grounds that ID is outsided the realm of scientific investigation because it violates the scientific method of investigation - methodological naturalism.

So let me get this straight.  ID is philosophy and therefore outside of science because it competes with the philosophy known as naturalism? I thought methodological naturalism only assumes nature is all there is without giving assent to naturalism.

Oh ya, and what makes one philosophy any more scientifically credible than another? ...both are philosophy.

The darwinists have fairly defined ID as philosophy, while at the same time exempted their own philosophical perspective from such a classification and scientific scrutiny.  They argue ID belongs in the classroom of philosophy but at the same time accept and practice methodological naturalism as the only legitimate scientific method.

Does every mention of a Creator signify the presence of religion?  If we can agree that religion is any system of faith and worship, the answer is unequivocally, no. 

Naturalistic theism demonstrates how that through the exercise of reason alone, the logical conclusion is reached that a creator exists.  Such a conclusion requires no faith in, nor worship of, a creator in order to be reached. 

Other competing logical sequences exist which reach the conclusion that no creator is necessary or that no creator exists.  Among these, the most common today is naturalism.  Naturalism concludes that no creator is necessary.  Both theism and naturalism are philosphical in nature.

Naturalistic theism and naturalism both attempt to offer reasonable explanations for observable effects.  As such, each is a philosophy neither of which is religious or a religion.  It must be admitted then, that a reference to a creator may be made without endorsing or even implying religion—just like in the US Declaration of Independence.

The cosmological proofs afford an eternal, independent, first cause.  The teleological proofs invest said cause with intelligence as evidenced by the rational and final construction of things.

Building upon these, we may infer the attributes of this creator from the immaterial attributes of humanity—hence, anthropological proofs.  For, if, as the teleological proof affords, inference from rational and final construction implies an intelligent cause for the same, it is no stretch to infer a necessary cause for the powers and forces which attempt to govern the height of creation—humanity.

“The immaterial part of man, which embodies the elements of life, intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and an inherent belief in God, presents even a more insistent demand for an adequate cause. ...the intelligence of man with its acheivements in discovery, invention, science, literature, and art, exacts with relentless requisition an adequate cause.  Similarly, and under the same unyielding compulsion, both sesibility and will, with their transcendent capacities, demand a worthy cause.  And finally, the conscience as well as the inherent belief in God can be accounted for on no other ground than that man has come forth from One who possesses all these attributes to an infinite degree.  A blind force, however exceptional it may be, could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator.  The product of a blind force will never betake itself to the pursuit of art and science, and the worship of God.” (Chafer)

“Man, as an effect, can be referred only to a cause possessing self-consciousness and a moral nature, in other words, personality....” (Strong)

The cosmological proofs afford an eternal, independent, first cause.  The teleological proofs invest said cause with intelligence as evidenced by the rational and final construction of things.

Building upon these, we may infer the attributes of this creator from the immaterial attributes of humanity—hence, anthropological proofs.  For, if, as the teleological proof affords, inference from rational and final construction implies an intelligent cause for the same, it is no stretch to infer a necessary cause for the powers and forces which attempt to govern the height of creation—humanity.

“The immaterial part of man, which embodies the elements of life, intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and an inherent belief in God, presents even a more insistent demand for an adequate cause. ...the intelligence of man with its acheivements in discovery, invention, science, literature, and art, exacts with relentless requisition an adequate cause.  Similarly, and under the same unyielding compulsion, both sesibility and will, with their transcendent capacities, demand a worthy cause.  And finally, the conscience as well as the inherent belief in God can be accounted for on no other ground than that man has come forth from One who possesses all these attributes to an infinite degree.  A blind force, however exceptional it may be, could never produce a man with intellect, sensibility, will, conscience, and inherent belief in a Creator.  The product of a blind force will never betake itself to the pursuit of art and science, and the worship of God.” (Chafer)

“Man, as an effect, can be referred only to a cause possessing self-consciousness and a moral nature, in other words, personality....” (Strong)

This argument from design is quite relevent to the modern debate about Intelligent Design.  Note the honest adherence to the principles of reason.  Reason alone provides solid arguments from that which is plainly observable by all.  Funny how naturalistic theism is regarded by so many as religious or religion…

“When a complex combination of heterogeneous phenomena is found to agree with the possibility of a future act, which was not contained beforehand in any of these phenomena in particular, this agreement can only be comprehended by the human mind as a kind of pre-existence, in an ideal form, of the future act itself, which transforms it from a result into an end—that is to say, into a final cause. (Paul Jones)

Example:

“The hull of a ship, masts, sails, anchor, rudder, compass, chart, have no necessary connection, and in relation to their physical causalities are heterogeneous phenomena.  The future use of a ship is not contained in any one of them, but is possible through their combination.  This combination in the fully equipped ship has no interpretation in our rational intelligence except in the previous existence of its use in human thought and purpose. (emph. added) The use of the ship, therefore, is not the mere result of its existence, but the final cause of its construction” (John Miley).

The preceding explanation of design made more sense than any modern ID advocate I have read.  (Neiman may appreciate Mr. Miley’s statement.) The presence of intelligence and design throughout our universe bespeaks an Intelligent Designer as a first cause.  And, let’s be honest—from a strictly rational observation, this argument is no more Christian than evolution is demonic.

P.S.  The darwinists have fairly defined ID as philosophy, while at the same time exempted their own philosophical perspective from such a classification and scientific scrutiny.  They argue ID belongs in the classroom of philosophy but at the same time accept and practice methodological naturalism as the only legitimate scientific method.  At the very least this behavior is dishonest.

The cosmological proofs of a first cause have been offered in previous posts, here, here and here.  The exercise of reason in accordance with “the intuitive credence that every effect must have a cause” (Chafer) attempts to establish the following:

1.  What was first must have always been.

2.  What has always been was not of another.

3.  What is not of another is independent and all else dependent.

4.  What is independent is necessary by its own nature.

5.  What is necessary is self active (having the power, in and of itself, to act).

The cosmological proofs offered require that some thing exists which is eternal, uncaused, independent, necessary, and self active.  The teleological proofs build upon the principle of the cosmological, and once again, employ reason to establish… “…the intelligence and purpose of God as manifested in the design, function, and consummation of all things.  By so much, the existence of God is declared.” (Chafer) The following consideration is in regards to intelligence.

If then, knowledge be possible, we must declare that the world-ground proceeds according to thought-laws and principles, that it has established all things in rational relations, and balanced their interaction in quantitative and qualitative proportion, and measure this proportion by number. “God geometrizes,” says Plato. “Number is the essence of reality,” says Pythagoras. And to this agree all the conclusions of scientific thought. The heavens are crystallized mathematics. All the laws of force are numerical. The interchanges of energy and chemical combination are equally so. Crystals are solid geometry. Many organic products show similar mathematical laws. Indeed, the claim is often made that science never reaches its final form until it becomes mathematical. But simple existence in space does not imply motion in mathematical relations, or existence in mathematical forms. Space is only the formless ground of form, and is quite compatible with the irregular and amorphous. It is equally compatible with the absence of numerical law. The truly mathematical is the work of the spirit. Hence the wonder that mathematical principles should be so pervasive, that so many forms and processes in the system represent definite mathematical conceptions, and that they should be so accurately weighed and measure by number.

If the cosmos were a resting existence, we might possibly content ourselves by saying that things exist in such relations once for all, and that there is no going behind this fact. But the cosmos is no such rigid monotony of being; it is, rather, a process according to intelligible rules; and in this process the rational order is perpetually maintained or restored. The weighing and measuring continually goes on. In each chemical change just so much of one element is combined with just so much of another. In each change of place the intensities of attraction and repulsion are instantaneously adjusted to correspond. Apart from any question of design, the simple fact of qualitative and quantitative adjustment of all things, according to fixed law, is a fact of the utmost significance. The world-ground works at a multitude of points, or in a multitude of things, throughout the system, and works in each with exact reference to its activities in all the rest. The displacement of an atom a hair’s breadth demands a corresponding re-adjustment in every other within the grip of gravitation. But all are in constant movement, and hence re-adjustment is continuous and instantaneous. The single law of gravitation contains a problem of such dizzy vastness that our minds faint in the attempt to grasp it; but when the other laws of force are added the complexity defies all understanding. In addition we might refer to the building processes in organic forms, whereby countless structures are constantly produced or maintained, and always with regard to the typical form in question. But there is no need to dwell upon this point.

Here, then, is a problem, and we have only the two principles of intelligence and non-intelligence, of a self-directing reason and blind necessity, for its solution. The former is adequate, and is not far-fetched and violent. It assimilates the facts to our own experience, and offers the only ground of order of which that experience furnishes any suggestion. If we adopt this view all the facts become luminous and consequent.

If we take the other view, then we have to assume a power which produces the intelligible and rational, without being itself intelligent and rational. It works in all things, and in each with exact reference to all, yet without knowing anything of itself or of the rules it follows, or of the order it founds, or of the myriad products compact of seeming purpose which it incessantly produces and maintains. If we ask why it does this, we must answer, because it must. If we ask how we know that it must, the answer must be, by hypothesis. But this reduces to saying that things are as they must be. That is, the problem is abandoned altogether. The facts are referred to an opaque hypothetical necessity, and this turns out, upon inquiry, to be the problem itself in another form. There is no proper explanation except in theism.  – BOWNE, Philosophy of Theism, pp. 66-69

So far the cosmological proofs advanced are:

1.  What was first must have always been.

2.  What has always been was not of another.

3.  What is not of another is independent and all else dependent.

...Whence also it is plainly consequent, Fourthly, that such a Being [what was first, not of another, and independent of all] is necessary, or doth necessarily exist:  that is, that it is of such a nature as that it could not or cannot but be.  For what is in being, neither by it’s own choice, nor any others, is necessarily.  But what was not made by itself, (which hath been shown to be impossible), nor by any other, (as it hath been proved something was not), it is manifest, it neither depended on its choice, nor any other’s that it is.

(What couldn’t make itself, nor was made by any other, its being depended not on its choice, nor on any thing dependent of it, hence, that it exists is necessary.)

And therefore, its existence is not owing to choice at all, but to the necessity of its own nature.  Wherefore it is alway by a simple, absolute, natural necessity; being of a nature to which it is altogether repugnant and impossible ever not to have been, or ever to cease from being.  And now having gone thus far, and being assured, that hitherto we feel the ground firm under us; that is having gained full certainty, that there is an eternal, uncaused, independent, necessary Being, and therefore actually and everlastingly existing; we may advance one step further.

And with equal assurance add, Fifthly, that this eternal, independent, uncaused, necessary Being, is self active; that is (which is at present meant), not such as acts upon itself, but that which hath the power of acting upon other things, in and of itself, without deriving it from any other.  Or at least that there is such a Being as is eternal, uncaused, &c, having the power of action in and of itself.  For either such a Being as hath been already evinced is of itself active or unactive, or hath the power of action of itself or not.  If we will say the latter, let it be considered what we say, and to what purpose we say it… --John Howe (1630-1705).

After establishing that “it is most apparent, that some being hath ever been, or did never begin to be” we move on to the second and third evidences.

...Whence, farther, it is also evident, Secondly, that some being was uncaused, or was ever of itself without any cause.  For what never was from another had never any cause, since nothing could be its own cause.  And somewhat, as appears from what hath been said never was from another.  Or it may be plainly argued thus; that either some being was uncaused, or all being was caused.  But if all being was caused, then some one at least was the cause of itself; which hath been already shown impossible.  Therefore the expression commonly used concerning the first being, that it was of itself, is only to be taken negatively, that is that it was not another; not positively, as if it did some time make itself.  Or what there is positive signified by that form of speech, is only to be taken thus, that it was a being of that nature, as that it was impossible it should ever not have been; not that it did ever of itself step out of not being into being.

To sum up: whatever was eternal was uncaused, or existed without cause.  Since what was first cannot be its own cause, something is eternal.  We take this then negatively only, that what was first is not of another. 

...And now is hence farther evident, thirdly, that some being is independent upon any other, that is whereas it already appears that some being did never depend on any other, as a productive cause, and was not beholden to any other, this it might come into being; it is thereupon equally evident that it is simply independent, or cannot beholden to any for its continued being.  For what did never need a productive cause, doth as little need a sustaining or conserving cause.  And to make this more plain, either some being in independent, or all being is dependent.  But there is nothing without the compass of all being whereon it may depend.  Wherefore to say, that all being doth depend, is to say it depends on nothing, that is that it depends not.  For to depend on nothing, is not to depend.  It is therefore a manifest contradiction to say that all being doth depend; against which it is no relief to urge, that all beings do circularly depend on one another.  For so, however the whole circle or sphere of being should depend on nothing; or one at last depend on itself, which negatively taken, as before, is true, and the thing we contend for—that one, the common spport of all the rest, depends not on any thing without itself.—[John Howe, (1630-1705)]

Again to summarize: Since what was first is not of another it is not dependent upon another, but self-sustaining.  It then follows that either what is first is independent or all is dependent.  Since all cannot be dependent else it depends on nothing, what was first is independent and all else dependent upon that which was first.

Many claims are made that theism is without reason and solely the product of faith.  It seems naturalistic theism has all but disappeared from our education resulting in ignorance of its claims.  Theism is the basis of natural philosophy and natural law.  Hence, theism was instrumental in the thought and framing of our US Constitution. 

It will take a series of posts to cover the cosmological, teleological, anthropological, and ontological proofs theism offers—the greatest proof being the summation of all four proofs. The cosmological proofs will be in 5 parts over 3 posts. With all the talk on SAB about a Creator, religion, atheism, etc., and that such is really at the heart of our positions and perspectives, this topic could shed some useful light on things.

....We therefore begin with God’s existence; for the evincing of which, we may be most assured, First, that there hath been somewhat or other from all eternity; or that, looking backward, somewhat of real being must be confessed eternal.  Let such as have not been used to think of any thing more than what they could see with their eyes, and to whom reasoning only seems difficult because they have not tried what they can do in it, but use their thoughts a little, and by moving them a few easy steps, they will soon find themselves as sure of this as that they see, or hear, or understand, or are any thing.

For being sure that something now is, (that you see, for instance, or are something,) you must then acknowledge, that certainly something always was, and hath ever been, or been from all eternity; or else you must say, that, some time, nothing was; or that all being once was not.  And so, since you find that something now is, there was a time when all being did begin to be; that is, that till that time there was nothing; but now, at that time something first began to be.  For what can me plainer than that if all being some time was not, and now some being is, every thing of being had a beginning.  And thence it would follow that some being, that is, the first that ever began to be, did of itself start up out of nothing, or made itself to be when before nothing was.

But now, do you not plainly see that it is altogether impossible any thing should do so; that is, when it was as yet nothing, and when nothing at all as yet was, that it should make itself, or come into being of itself?  For surely making itself is doing something.  But can that which is nothing do any thing?  Unto all doing there must be some doer.  Wherefore a thing must be before it can do any thing; and therefore it would follow, that it was before it was; or was diverse from itself; for a cause must be a distinct thing from that which is caused by it.  Wherefore it is most apparent, that some being hath ever been, or did never begin to be.—John Howe, (1630-1705)

Here is a little something for all those who believe there are no moral absolutes.

“For if there is no higher law, there is no basis for saying that any man-made law is unjust…and, in such case, the ultimate reason for things, as Justice Holmes himself conceded, is force. If there is no natural law, there are no natural rights; and if there are no natural rights, the Bill of Rights is a delusion, and everything which a man possesses—his life, his liberty and his property—are held by sufferance of government, and in that case it is inevitable that government will some day find it expedient to take away what is held by such a title as that. And if there are no eternal truths, if everything changes, everything, then we may not complain when the standard of citizenship changes from freedom to servility and when democracy relapses into tyranny.” (Harold McKinnon)

Which American political party stands to benefit politically from an early withdrawl from Iraq?

Which American political party stands to benefit politically if America gives up on Iraq?

Which American political party stands to benefit politically from an American defeat in Iraq?

Which American political party stands to suffer politically from an American victory in Iraq?

It then follows that whichever party answers the above questions has a vested political interest in America’s failure in Iraq.  What does that say about that party and its leadership? What kind of party invests in the failure of its own country against its sworn enemies?