Bear with me, I know this is off-topic.

A year ago I read a comedic article where some genius at UC Berkley was trying to get academic funding to study "conservatives" to see if there was a genetic source for their apparent lack of cognitive skills.

I started thinking about how much different the world is now as compared to twenty or thirty years ago. That abberations are the now the norm and are celebrated. Our strongest social interaction apparatus is now a fluid and undefinable media octopus. And like those that wouldn't dare tell the king that he didn't have any clothes on we just turn our face away from that which was deemed inappropriate milleniums ago by the forebearers of our overlapping cultures and in most of the present world is considered an offense. We are applauded by the left when we do look the other way, because we can "see" the value of being non-judgemental.

Scott Johnson writes in his "Powerline" Blog...
I think the June issue of the New Criterion represents the conclusion of the magazine's twenty-fifth anniversary celebration. If so, it ends on a high note with articles including Roger Kimball's "Why the art world is a disaster." Roger takes as one of the two epigraphs for his essay a sentence from Randall Jarrell's Pictures From an Institution:

"Some of what she said was technical, and you would have had to be a welder to appreciate it; the rest was aesthetic or generally philosophical, and to appreciate it you would have had to be an imbecile."

As the epigraph suggests, Roger's explanation of why the art world is a disaster -- particularly with respect to "the domestication of deviance" -- applies beyond the narrow world he discusses in the essay.

I understand the problem in the art scene... I am an "artist", both practicing and a fairly well known art teacher. One of my former students who attends Northern Arizona University came by last week (out for the summer) and was discussing the problem she has selling her work in Flagstaff. Students always need capitol and she said that she was willing to bend her "art" a little to sell but she realized that her work was just never going to be dark enough. Of course, her work is fantastic, perfect illustrative work suitable for publishing. Not dark enough. In order to "stand out" she would have to out do her competitors in some "shocking" way.

I think I'm on to something.

Whenever I'm talking to a friend who is a liberal or an outright communist. I catch myself cutting into their skulls and extracting various tissues, examining hollow areas, tapping on solidified constructions, and weighing possible reprogramming techniques. I am always astounded at the "moral" stance, even in the face of facts.

Just this morning I met a guy who I went to Palm Springs High School with about a million years ago. We were reminiscing about the "Easter Break Crusing" of our youth and some of the named groups who used to perform when he launched into a tirade about Sonny Bono. After running a string of well-rehearsed one-liner invectives about Sonny, he concluded first with, " Sonny personally killed Palm Springs Easter Break by outlawing thongs and then with how it was appropriate that Sonny was killed running into a tree."

Of course, there was that strange lag in the conversation when he must have noted by my tilted head and open mouth. Yes, there were thoughts going through my head. A couple of instant "very dark" invectives for my friend (unspoken) and the burning question, "Do you believe in the death penalty?" I know what his answer would be, "Of course not, how can someone willingly take someone else's life? Only a neo-con would consider it." So, follow along here.... I do have a point.

It is unthinkable to put to death a repeat offender who rapes and kills a ten year old girl but it is perfectly natural to celebrate the death of a "thong" disliking mayor and Republican.

The thought process is way out of line. My one time friend doesn't see it. In order to be noticed he has to take the road that sets him apart. In his pushing the envelope he by-passes a millenia of social mores concerned with social balance. Does he care? No, in the next statement he strides out into another even more repugnant exclamation on a completely different topic.

There is something wrong. It isn't that extreme liberals suffer genetic deformation it is that they are clinically anti-social. Yes, even the stoutest Trotskyite (murdered by agents of his best friend) socialist.

Insight..


Sent along by Col. Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

Marines,

This is what so many have sacrificed so much for as a
hard earned road to victory since the Marines arrived
in al Anbar in early 2004.

Semper Fi,

Mike

Sunni revolt against al-Qaida spreads

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writers

An al-Qaida-linked suicide bomber struck a safehouse
occupied by an insurgent group that has turned against
the terror network. Friday's attack northeast of
Baghdad killed two other militants, police said, the
latest sign that an internal Sunni power struggle is
spreading.

The explosion in Baqouba came as Iraqi and U.S. troops
fanned out in the Sunni stronghold of Amariyah in the
capital, enforcing an indefinite curfew after heavily
armed residents clashed with al-Qaida in Iraq
fighters, apparently fed up with the group's brutal
tactics.
"Al-Qaida fighters and leaders have completely
destroyed Amariyah," said Abu Ahmed, a 40-year-old
Sunni father of four who said he joined in the
clashes. "No one can venture out, and all the
businesses are closed. They kill everyone who
criticizes them and is against their acts even if they
are Sunnis."

Other residents, who spoke on condition of anonymity
because they feared retribution, said the clashes
began after al-Qaida militants abducted and tortured
Sunnis from the area. That prompted a large number of
residents, including many members of the rival Islamic
Army armed with guns and rocket-propelled grenades, to
rise up against the terror network. U.S. forces joined
them in the fighting Wednesday and Thursday.

Ahmed denied being a member of any insurgent group but
said he sympathizes with "honest Iraqi resistance,"
referring to those opposed both to U.S.-led efforts in
Iraq and to the brutal tactics of al-Qaida.
With the insurgency appearing increasingly fragmented,
Iraqi officials congratulated Amariyah residents for
confronting al-Qaida.

"Government security forces are now in control of the
Amariyah district," Iraqi military spokesman Qassim
al-Moussawi was quoted as saying by Iraqi state TV. He
also lauded "the cooperation of local residents with
the government."

U.S. and Iraqi officials have claimed recent success
in the effort to isolate al-Qaida, particularly in the
western Anbar province, where many Sunni tribes have
banded together to fight the terror network.
A growing number of Sunni tribes have reportedly been
turning against al-Qaida elsewhere as well, repelled
by the terror network's sheer brutality and austere
religious extremism.

The extremists also are competing with nationalist
groups for influence and control over diminishing
territory in the face of U.S. assaults, a situation
exacerbated by the influx of Sunni fighters to areas
outside the capital as they flee a nearly
four-month-old security crackdown.
But the clashes in Amariyah appeared to be the
fiercest fighting between Sunni groups in the capital.

"I think this is happening because of al-Qaida's
brutality," said Ehsan Ahrari, professor and
specialist in counterterrorism at the Asia-Pacific
Center for Security Studies. "They have been hurting
the Sunni population in Iraq and that is coming back
to hurt al-Qaida."

"The event itself is significant because it looks like
the U.S. is making some breakthrough in terms of
establishing consensus with the Sunni population," he
said. "Of course we have to hold our breath and see,
but this is important no doubt."

Official casualty figures from the fighting in
Amariyah were not available. But a local council
member, who declined to be identified because of
security concerns, said at least 31 people, including
six al-Qaida militants, were killed and 45 other
fighters were detained in the clashes. The council
member also said an indefinite curfew was imposed
starting at 6 a.m. on Friday, confining people to
their houses.

The explosion in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of
Baghdad, came as residents said al-Qaida was trying to
regain control of the central Tahrir neighborhood from
the 1920 Revolution Brigades, a group composed of
officials and soldiers from the ousted regime who have
allied themselves with local security forces against
the terror network.
Local police said at least two members of the rival
insurgent group were killed. The bomber was affiliated
with al-Qaida in Iraq, according to police who would
not be named because they feared they would be
targeted.

AP writers Sinan Salaheddin and Bushra Juhi in Baghdad
and AP's News Research Center in New York contributed
to this report.

Mike Ramirez toon...


How many times have you heard a Dem rant that he/she is a patriot and that no one should question them? Well, we know that most are but the average Dem doesn't know where their leadership wants them to go, and where that goes can be questioned. The far left makes no bones about hating our country and they will do anything to stumble the present administration, even at our national peril.

Surprised Ted Kennedy?



We expect more. We would like enforcement and control of even current law and beyond before we give anyone "short cut" status.

Another Mike Ramirez toon....


It is scary to think that 35 percent of the dem's voting base are so fundamentally lacking in social and intellectual development. You would think that Howard Dean might be concerned that when he turns to see who is following him he sees the faces of the Orc army of Tolkien.

Exploiting Al-Qaida's Weaknesses
www.strategypage.com


by Austin Bay
May 2, 2007
In February 2004, Iraqi and coalition intelligence intercepted a message to al-Qaida's "senior leaders." Written by al-Qaida's Iraqi commander, the now-deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the letter outlined al-Qaida's last ditch "surge" plan for defeating democracy in Iraq and avoiding what it saw as a looming, devastating defeat for its totalitarian theology.

Zarqawi's letter lamented al-Qaida's "failure to enlist support" in Iraq and "to scare the Americans into leaving." After Iraqis run their own government, Zarqawi wrote, "the sons of this land will be the authority. ... This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."

Fearing an American and Iraqi strategic victory (creating a democracy defending itself against terrorists), Zarqawi saw only one strategic option: exploit Iraq's Shia-Sunni religious divide by slaughtering Iraqi Shia civilians. The Shia would respond to al-Qaida's terror attacks by igniting a "sectarian war." He believed the religious war would "rally the Sunni Arabs" to al-Qaida. This war against Shiites, he wrote, "must start soon -- at "zero hour" -- before the Americans hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis."

The February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra brought Iraq to the precipice of Zarqawi's sectarian war, but even that failed to produce the apocalyptic schism al-Qaida desired. Credit Iraq's people and its new government with not buckling in 2006, as Shia-Sunni strife escalated.

This week, Reuters reported an Iraqi government claim that Zarqawi's successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, had died in a battle with "Sunni Arab insurgent groups over al-Qaida's indiscriminate killing of civilians and its imposition of an austere brand of Islam in the areas where it holds sway." At the moment, that report remains unconfirmed. However, for the last 24 months, conflict between al-Qaida and Iraqi Sunnis has become more open and deadly.

The coalition and the Iraqi government have tried to exploit divisions within the terrorist groups. Al-Qaida's method of exploitation is mass murder of civilians. The Iraqi government employs incorporative politics.

This is tactical and operational exploitation, and though its successes are incremental, they are still successes. However, defeating al-Qaida's totalitarian ideology requires a strategic approach, as well. At the moment, the poisoned minds in Washington won't admit it, but the democracy project in Iraq is part of that strategic approach. Zarqawi understood that democracy robs the terrorists of their breeding grounds.

Al-Qaida presents an ideological challenge. Understanding al-Qaida's origins is essential to understanding its appeal and how to defeat it.

Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower" provides the most readable narrative history on the origins of al-Qaida, especially his discussion of Egypt's Sayid Qutb, the modern father of jihadist violence. When I reviewed the book last year, I wrote: "Al-Qaida's dark genius ... has been to connect the Muslim world's angry, humiliated and isolated young men with a utopian fantasy preaching the virtue of violence. That utopian fantasy seeks to explain and then redress roughly 800 years of Muslim decline."

How to defeat the ideology, with its fantasy narrative? Recently, Dale Eikmeier published an essay in the U.S. Army War College's Parameters Magazine. The essay, titled "Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic Fascism," suggests "five lines of operation" for attacking Qutbism, which he calls al-Qaida's "ideological center of gravity."

First: Attack the message -- an ideological offensive by moderate Muslims. Eikmeier says Yemeni Judge Hamoud al-Hitar has a particularly effective theological counter to Qutbism.

Second: Attack the Messenger -- "Many of Qutbism's proponents are individuals with questionable religious credentials."

Third and fourth: Attack Islamo-fascism's supporting institutions, and support mainstream Islamic institutions -- mirror images. Attack al-Qaida's educational, financial, and informational structures. Support those of Muslim moderates.

Fifth: Inoculation. Eikmeier says this requires education regarding the Qutbists' "anti-human rights and religiously intolerant agenda." Eikmeier says the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights are the alternatives.

Which takes us back to democracy, doesn't it?

This is another piece in a series written by Mike Walker, USMC Colonel (retired). Everyone should read this and pass it along.


Where are we going?

I freely admit to be in a minority within a minority (except amongst my fellow veterans of the war) by being optimistic about Iraq as my “All alone in the long view?” opining attests. But at least I can articulate an argument for a successful, albeit difficult, way ahead.

The same is not true for the majority opinion. Where in the heck are you guys in the majority going? What is next?

If the Congress cuts off the funding that precipitates a withdrawal the US Armed Forces from Iraq in six months because “the war is lost” as Senate Majority Leader Reid avers then his strategy raises a lot of serious questions. Yet the Senator and his supporters have been disturbingly silent on raising questions as to the consequences of that action, let alone hazarding any answers.

If Senator Reid has his way and we are militarily out of Iraq by, say, Thanksgiving, what then?

Iraq

Behind the troubling visage of today’s Iraq is a great land. It is ideally positioned to be a leading nation in the Middle East. It is the only country in the region to have oil wealth, a large yet manageable population, and water. Because of the water and its diverse climate it is the only country in the region that can actually be a net exporter of agricultural products while having an industrial base. In other words, Iraq can and should be a power independent of its oil wealth. It is a land of tremendous untapped potential.

What is to be our relationship with Iraq after the turkey and stuffing leftovers have been eaten in this hypothetical November 2007? What is our responsibility to the hundreds of thousands, millions really, of Iraqis who believed in us, served with us, sacrificed with us in Iraq and do not believe that “this war is lost” but rather that they are winning the war? What then will be our relationship with Iraq, Senator Reid?

And what do we tell the millions of Iraqis who live in the provinces where the war is over and the peace is being won? I live in San Bernardino County, California. There are a half a dozen provinces in Iraq where the per capita violent death rate is lower than in the county where I live. The violence you see endlessly on the nightly news is neither the whole story nor an accurate presentation of all that is going on in Iraq. What responsibility do we have to those people after we leave?

The Exploiters

Iraq has a crippling foreign debt. It is Saddam’s last cruelty being inflicted on the Iraqi people from beyond the grave. It totaled some $127,000,000,000 in 2003. The story is interesting. Saddam made Iraq the most indebted nation in the world. A nice portion of the debt was money owed to France, Russia, Germany, and China to mainly pay for all the military technology, munitions, weapons, and equipment purchased from, well, Russia, France, China, and Germany. I always smile when I hear the big lie about how we armed Iraq. The four nations above armed the Saddam regime and made a fortune. Unfortunately, they were still owed a further fortune in Iraqi debt when Saddam fell. The UN has successfully held the debt collectors at bay but the relevant resolution will eventually run out (UNSCR 1546).

Although the debt has been reduced by more than half today, the owners of the debt can still control the fate of Iraq. If they demand full payment along a normal timeline, it will destroy the country economically. If they extend the timeline, it may still be a crippling drag on the economy for a generation and it will serve as a “Sword of Damocles” over the heads of any Iraqi government. Russia, for example, could effectively blackmail Iraq into doing its bidding for years to come. And if you do not believe that Russia would do it ask some of the nations in Eastern Europe about Russian oil and natural gas pricing and shipments. By the way, the United States has already forgiven all the $4.1 billion in debt owed by Iraq.

What is our policy to be on this issue? Are we going to continue to aggressively defend the Iraqis from the bill collectors even if it means crossing Russia or France, Senator Reid?

Iran, Syria and Lebanon

What will be the reaction of Syria and Iran after the Thanksgiving Day feast? What are the consequences of declaring that “this war is lost” and withdrawing from Iraq? What message are we to send to Syria and Iran in the wake of our withdrawal from a “lost” cause in Iraq? What do we do to discourage their meddling in Lebanon? How will the “lost war” in Iraq play out in Lebanon? What will our policy be with Syria or Lebanon?

And what will our policy be with Iran? Governor Howard Dean promised the American people that “…under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.” Good, but how? By what means? Another war in the Persian Gulf? Please pass the mashed potatoes and gravy.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia

These countries are all on the front line in war the on terrorism. What is next in our relationship with these folks? By a show of hands, the four of the Democratic Party presidential candidates do not believe there is a global war on terrorism.

Really? Here are some inconvenient truths for those four hopeful presidential candidates:

On 4 November 1979, the US embassy in Teheran, Iran was taken over by radical Shi’a Islamists. Many feel the seizure was the opening act of a radical Islamic war that still rages today.
On April 18, 1983, Hezbollah, the Iranian backed Lebanonese terrorist organization, launched a suicide bombing of the United States Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three people were killed including seventeen Americans. Over one hundred were wounded.
On 23 October 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by terrorists from the Islamic Amal Movement, part of Hezbollah. Two hundred and forty-one Americans lost their lives.

On 14 June 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked by Hezbollah Islamic terrorists in Athens and U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem, a passenger, was tortured then murdered.

On 7 October 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old wheelchair-ridden American passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, was murdered and thrown overboard by the Abul Nidal terrorist organization that was actively supported and protected by the Saddam Hussein regime.

Between 1985 and 1989 seven Americans were amongst some eighty foreigners kidnapped in Lebanon by Islamic extremists. Many where tortured and some murdered, to include US Marine LtCol William Higgins.

On 21 December 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was blown apart in midair by Arab radicals under the direction of the Qaddafi regime in Libya. Two hundred and fifty-nine people were killed.

On 26 February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. Six Americans were killed and 1,042 injured. The attack was directed and financed by al Qaeda.

On June 25 1996, Hizballah Al-Hijaz exploded a fuel truck near the US Air Force Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia. Nineteen Americans were killed along with one Saudi. Another three hundred and seventy-two were wounded.

On 7 August 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda at the direction of Usama bin Laden. In Kenya, two hundred and twenty-four people were killed, including twelve Americans, and some four thousand injured, mostly Kenyan civilians. In Tanzania the attack killed eleven and wounded eighty-five.

On 12 October 2000, USS Cole was attacked by al Qaeda terrorists in Aden. Seventeen Americans were killed and thirty-nine others were injured in the blast.

On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked in order to carry out suicide missions by al Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Usama bin Laden; two were used to strike the World Trade Center and a third, the Pentagon. The fourth, United 93, was prevented from completing its mission when the terrorists were attacked by the passengers. All aboard perished. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed and wounded in the attacks.

And those are just the attacks launched by radical Islamists against the U.S. The death toll of innocents would be many times greater if we were to include India, China, the Philippines, East Timor, Algeria, Egypt, Israel…well, you get the point.

Since 1970, Islamic jihadists have carried out attacks in over sixty cities, in at least forty-one countries, on five continents as well as Pacific islands. Thousands have died and many more have been wounded and maimed.
So if we are to believe these fellows that the war in Iraq is lost, then there is no other war, right? But what then is the proper conclusion to be drawn from 9/11 and all the other events above?

And why are we fighting a war in Afghanistan under NATO command? Why are we coordinating our intelligence and military activities against very real terrorists with the government of Pakistan if there is no war? Why are we allied to the government in Saudi Arabia and coordinating our intelligence and military activities against terrorists if there is no war there? If spending precious resources in fighting a self-proclaimed “lost war” in Iraq that does exist is wrong, then why are we expending American lives, time, and resources on a war that those four guys profess does not exist? What is the policy? Where are we going?

Finally, to again quote the promise of Governor Dean: “The Democrats have a better idea …we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden…” Great! When? How? But that sure sounds a lot like a goal in a war on terrorism. Pumpkin pie, anyone?

Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Turkey etc

What happens to Turkey and our Arab allies in the region after we withdraw from the “lost war” in Iraq? Al Qaeda has been clear. The goals of al Qaeda are:

Phase I. Expel the Americans from Iraq
Phase II. Establish a Salafist Emirate in Iraq
Phase III. Extend the Jihad to Iraq’s Sunni neighbors
Phase IV. Destroy Israel

Senator Reid has already declared Phase I a done deal if he has any say about it.

Is the new American policy for the region to be summed up by stating that since there is no global war on terrorism, we need not be concerned?

That may be a pretty safe bet if you live in rural Minnesota or the spacious deserts of Nevada, but is not reality if you live in Kuwait or Jordan or in any other Arab land where the leaders have put their trust in America. For the people in the Middle East, the war being waged by al Qaeda is all too real. And al Qaeda is not interested in bringing the war to a close.

If the new policy is for America to abandon Iraq what hope is there for our Arab friends when a “victorious” al Qaeda moves on to the next phases?

Senator Reid and his supporters have used the term “redeployment” to define a follow-on military strategy. Let us not delude ourselves about Iraq and Islamic extremism once again; a "redeployment" plan is plain and simply a failed extension of the "declare defeat" plan.

Tactically, it will firmly entrench and legitimize al Qaeda in Iraq’s doctrine of directly targeting civilian populations for merciless torture and murder as the road to victory in war, a disastrous outcome. When we "redeploy" our enemies will rightly argue that targeting and killing civilians is the key in forcing the Americans out.

Operationally, it will also be a disaster. Wherever we "redeploy" to in the region we will immediately destabilize that country as the al Qaeda forces move on to Kuwait, or Qatar, etc. The enemy will be drawn to the "redeployed/defeated" US Forces like a magnet in order to score their next "victory." Innocent civilians will die at their hands until we "redeploy" again. Al Qaeda means what it says. Eventually the “redeployment strategy” will leave the United States without an Islamic ally in the Middle East. It will leave our former allies to either fight a brutal war alone against al Qaeda and/or Iranian backed terrorists in their own land or make the best deal they can with these enemies.

But we will be handing these vicious and savage enemies not just a tactical and operational victory but also a strategic victory of immense proportions. What is the plan to prevent this from happening? What is the policy to protect and keep our remaining allies in the region after we declare “this war is lost” in Iraq and pull out?

And one more question, this one about the Kurdish situation. With the US Military gone, what if Turkey, our close NATO ally, decides they want to invade Iraq to crush the Kurds after we declare “this war is lost” and pullout? What do we tell the Kurds, our most trusting allies in Iraq? What do we tell the Turks? What do we tell Baghdad? What is our policy regarding that possibility? What should we do?

Abandon Iraq but Save Darfur?

Let me see if I got this right? The Senate Majority Leader is arguing that the only solution to what he and his supporters insist on calling the “unwinnable” war in Iraq is by cutting and running because:

1. We are putting US soldiers into the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

2. Our intervention into an Islamic country ruled by a ruthless authoritarian regime rich in petroleum, once suspected of having WMD, and ties to al Qaeda has weakened the US abroad.

3. We have grown very uneasy over all the deaths associated with the war.

4. The country of Iraq is a mess. There is wide-spread lawlessness, corruption, and an ineffective police. The infrastructure is in disarray. There are thousands of invaluable archeological artifacts that are being looted. There are radical Islamists preaching a “Hate America” message from their mosques across the country. It is a breeding ground for al Qaeda.

5. Even though the United Nations had failed in all its previous attempts to bring about a peaceful resolution it was a mistake for the US to take the lead in pushing through a resolution in that body that allowed us to act.

So when I saw the whole of Congress, both those in the Senate and the House, give a standing ovation when President Bush spoke to “…save the people of Darfur” during the State of Union Address, it was enough to make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

So what do you know about Darfur in 2007? Gee, your response to that question alone should be enough to give us all a long pause before we contemplate intervening there.

I bet you don’t know about the Darfur Liberation Front, the Sudan Liberation Army, the Sudan Liberation Movement, or the Sudan People's Liberation Army? How about anamism, the Umma party, janjaweed, Baggara, Masalit?

Here is a short answer: Use the same five reasons for leaving Iraq above, scratch out “Iraq” and write in “Darfur, Sudan” and you have five reasons for not getting involved there. That is going to be our policy, right Senator Reid? And please pass the cranberries.

Forget the Elephant in the Room

I will not even begin to go into the ramifications that “this war is lost” policy will have on Israel and its relationship with the United States. The one outcome I do keep seeing is composed of fleeting glimpses of a frighteningly possible future where an apocalyptic regime in Iran gets the bomb and they march us all down a dark gruesome road, the words of Governor Dean notwithstanding.

Does anyone have a bi-carbonate of soda? I suddenly have a sick stomach.

Conclusions

I just do not see a “new course,” all I see is a pretty flimsy slogan that sounds really great but goes nowhere. Declaring failure and quitting is easy. Leading the way forward is hard and thankless work.

We have a US military that knows it is winning the war but needs time. We have our Iraqi friends and allies that know they are winning but still need our help. Yet inside the beltway we have a different reality. General Abizaid summed up the problem in Washington DC very neatly:

“…despair is not a method.”

If we want to avoid the worst American foreign policy mistake in my lifetime then maybe we should rethink the declaration that “this war is lost.” Maybe winning in Iraq really is important after all. Who saved the wishbone?

Semper Fi,

Mike

Aw shucks! Why is this man smiling?

Alan Dershowitz has always been a liberal force in law matters but has begun to confront the grossly anti-semetic efforts by Jimmy Carter, a man Alan held in high respect. Can Alan see where this ghost ship is going and how anti-American so many on the left really are? Jimmy Carter doesn't just HATE Israel...

Alan's words, "Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source? And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot. ...
The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."

Another great one from Michael Ramirez (Townhall)

Harry Reid...you are a dangerous man! He understands exactly what he is doing.


Reid Declares Defeat in Iraq

Posted by Bobby Eberle (GOPUSA...The Loft)
April 20, 2007 at 6:04 am

On Thursday, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid did something that will surely cut at the heart of troop morale. With brave men and women risking their lives everyday in Iraq to promote freedom and combat terrorism, Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, announced to the media that “this war is lost.”

As noted in the Washington Times, Reid is going public with the same comments he said he relayed to the White House on Wednesday.

“This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said at a Capitol Hill press conference with anti-war state legislators.

Mr. Reid said that both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates agree with his position, though neither has ever declared defeat.

“You have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows,” said Mr. Reid, who left the press conference without fielding follow-up questions.

The fact of the matter is that up until this recent wave of violence, the beefed-up security efforts using additional troops was working to secure Baghdad. As noted in the Times’s story: “Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, this week said a little over half of the 25,000-troop surge he requested has arrived in Baghdad.”

So, Reid concedes defeat when many of the additional troops needed to put down the insurgency have not even set foot in Iraq? This is utterly pathetic. Reid’s comments send a very bad signal to our troops and a message of idiocy to the American people. How is Harry Reid going to know better than our military commanders? Reports from the field commanders of late have been positive, but Harry Reid somehow knows better? I don’t think so!

In a statement released Thursday, House Minority Leader John Boehner said he agrees with President Bush that “military decisions should be made by the generals on the ground, and not by politicians in Washington.”

Boehner added:

When we return to the Capitol later today, House Republicans will force an up-or-down vote on the question of whether the military spending bill should give al-Qaeda a date certain for American surrender in Iraq. Any such timetable would be a disaster for our troops in harm’s way, and I believe a majority of the American people agree. I also believe most Americans are outraged that Congress has insulted our troops by attaching billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending to legislation that is meant to fund and protect our soldiers.

Boehner is also quoted in the Times as saying, “While Mr. Reid may be willing to throw in the towel and declare this a lost cause, I am certain that American troops are not. … Mr. Reid’s comments are demoralizing to our troops, and just plain wrong.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement on Thursday saying:

I can’t begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat Leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost. I can’t begin to imagine what their families will think. Surely this isn’t the consensus position of Senate Democrats.

McConnell cut to the heart of the Democrats’ cowardice and grandstanding for the left wing when he noted that if Reid and other Democrats truly believe the war is lost, then they should vote to defund it now. Instead, the Democrats have lined the funding bill with deadlines and pork in order to prolong the public debate and score points with their supporters.

The Democrats have no plan for Iraq… they have no idea what to do. The best course of action is to listen to the commanders on the ground and adapt to the situation at hand. That is what President Bush is doing. Saying the “war is lost” is the worst message to send to our troops and to governments around the world.

Interesting links...
Doug Ross @ Journal...must read...

Dan Reihl@ Reihl World View ...call for resignation...

Mark Levin @ National Review ...another call for resignation...

Michelle Malkin... always on target

Listen to this man...



BY FRED THOMPSON (WSJ Article)
Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's that time again, and I was thinking of the old joke about paying your taxes with a smile. The punch line is that the IRS doesn't accept smiles. They want your money.

So it's not that funny, but there is reason to smile this tax season. The results of the experiment that began when Congress passed a series of tax-rate cuts in 2001 and 2003 are in. Supporters of those cuts said they would stimulate the economy. Opponents predicted ever-increasing budget deficits and national bankruptcy unless tax rates were increased, especially on the wealthy.

In fact, Treasury statistics show that tax revenues have soared and the budget deficit has been shrinking faster than even the optimists projected. Since the first tax cuts were passed, when I was in the Senate, the budget deficit has been cut in half.

Remarkably, this has happened despite the financial trauma of 9/11 and the cost of the War on Terror. The deficit, compared to the entire economy, is well below the average for the last 35 years and, at this rate, the budget will be in surplus by 2010.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this success story is where the increased revenues are coming from. Critics claimed that across-the-board tax cuts were some sort of gift to the rich but, on the contrary, the wealthy are paying a greater percentage of the national bill than ever before.

The richest 1% of Americans now pays 35% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay more taxes than the bottom 60%.

The reason for this outcome is that, because of lower rates, money is being invested in our economy instead of being sheltered from the taxman. Greater investment has created overall economic strength. Job growth is robust, overcoming trouble in the housing sector; and the personal incomes of Americans at every income level are higher than they've ever been.
.........................................................................................................................

President John F. Kennedy was an astute proponent of tax cuts and the proposition that lower tax rates produce economic growth. Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan also understood the power of lower tax rates and managed to put through cuts that grew the U.S. economy like Kansas corn. Sadly, we just don't seem able to keep that lesson learned.
Now, as before, politicians are itching to fund their pet projects with the short-term revenue increases that come from tax hikes, ignoring the long-term pain they always cause. Unfortunately, the tax cuts that have produced our record-breaking government revenues and personal incomes will expire soon. Because Congress has failed to make them permanent, we are facing the worst tax hike in our history. Already, worried investors are trying to figure out what the financial landscape will look like in 2011 and beyond.

This issue is particularly important now because massive, unfunded entitlements are coming due as the baby-boom generation retires. We simply cannot afford higher taxes if we want an economy able to bear up under the strain of those obligations. And beyond the issue of our annual federal budget is the nearly $9 trillion national debt that we have not even begun to pay off.

To face these challenges, and any others that we might encounter in a hazardous world, we need to maintain economic growth and healthy tax revenues. That is why we need to reject taxes that punish rather than reward success. Those who say they want a "more progressive" tax system should be asked one question:

Are you really interested in tax rates that benefit the economy and raise revenue--or are you interested in redistributing income for political reasons?

Mr. Thompson is a former Republican senator from Tennessee whose commentaries, "The Fred Thompson Report," can be heard on the ABC Radio network.

BobMail...What is that little guy up to?


Bobsters
Bob Field
Morongo Valley, California

Make reservations now for the opening of the '08 Baseball season. Particularly, be sure to make your plans around the Opening Day events at Bob Field. The 2008 season will see the phenomenal Bobsters opening in their own field. This is a rare historic opportunity to take part in foundational activities of what has become the best thing for Baseball since the two-finger slider.

Without question Bob has brought true innovation to the game with his "tennis ball colored" baseballs, the use of a "Rover" in the mid-field, and bamboo bats. None of this would be possible without the exceptional talent of the team that he has gathered or the perception by fans that each game promises something special. Who can forget the exploding balls, the sand traps on the bases lines, or disappearing bases?

Call for reservations today to be in beautiful downtown Morongo on Opening Day 2008.
Be a part of history.

Who will stand with Spain?
It will be amazing to watch the events unfold in the next couple of years in Europe in dealing with a looming monster that they have tried to ignore. I remember reading about the illegal immigration problem in the southern/Gibraltor area of Spain with the Morrocans a few years ago.

Maybe Europe has created a foolproof way to deal with Socialist/Communist issues.... that's right! Allow fascists to take over...Adolph last century and Islamafascists this century.

Read the piece below from EUX.TV... and notice how close Spain is to peril.


EUX.TV ....The Europe Channel
By Sinikka Tarvainen, dpa

Madrid (dpa) - The emergence of a new al-Qaeda-linked organization in Northern Africa is alarming Spain, which is concerned about Islamists' calls for the reconquest of the country they regard as a lost part of the Muslim world.

"We will not be in peace until we set our foot again in our beloved al-Andalus," al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb said on claiming responsibility for an attack which killed at least 24 people in Algiers on Wednesday.

Al-Andalus is the Moorish name for Spain, parts of which were ruled by Muslims for about eight centuries until the last Moorish bastion, Granada, succumbed to the Christian Reconquest in 1492.

The terrorists will undoubtedly attempt to extend their offensive from Northern Africa to European soil, anti-terrorism judge Baltasar Garzon warned, cautioning that Spain was at a "very high risk" of suffering an Islamist attack.

The reference to al-Andalus was not the first by al-Qaeda, which has also vowed to put an end to the Spanish "occupation" of the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast.

Such announcements worry the security services in Spain, where 29 mainly Moroccan suspects are on trial for the 2004 Madrid train bombings that killed 191 and injured about 1,800 people.

The bombings were mainly a reaction to the war alliance of Spain's former conservative government with the United States in Iraq, but some of the terrorists are also known to have dreamed of reconquering al-Andalus.

The bloodbath in Algiers could launch a new string of attacks in Northern Africa and Europe, including Spain, terrorism expert Fernando Reinares warned.

Al-Qaeda is extending its activities in Northern Africa, where the Algiers bombings were preceded by the suicides of three Moroccan Islamists who blew themselves up to avoid being captured by police on Tuesday.

The Algerian-based al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, formerly known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), intends to federate North African Islamist cells under a common umbrella.

Some of the people who could attack Spain may already be in the country, where nearly 80 per cent of prison inmates jailed on charges related to international terrorism have come from Northern Africa over the past five years.

Islamist radicals proselytize at an estimated 10 per cent of Spain's hundreds of unofficial mosques, which operate in garages, basements and the like.

Spain has become an important base for the recruitment of suicide bombers who are sent to Iraq, according to press reports. Some of the fighters are believed to be trained in new al-Qaeda camps in Sahel countries such as Mali, Niger or Mauritania.

The Madrid train bombings appear to have been organized by a home- grown Islamist cell with the backing of the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM).

Ceuta and Melilla, which have sizeable Muslim populations, could well be the next targets, judge Garzon warned.

For a number of years I have intermittently laughed and cried at the appalling belief of many around me in "conspiracies!" I know that conspiracies are hatched for any number of reasons. I am talking about those that straight-facedly "expose" the evil of our government type. I think too many have ingested too much acid, just ask Rosie...


Good read ...
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

Meet General Petraeus...



The words of General David Petraeus to his troops...

"The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear.

In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together we will face down the terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative — qualities that you have in abundance."

He and his approach is making a difference. So why do very few MSM outlets refer to the successes? Why do they want him to fail? It has been said that is all about the left winning the next election and they can't recede from that goal not matter what. It has also been said that the left's extreme hatred for GW is what drives them. But, I think that it is something else that drives this "group think" and it is much more sinister.

You have to check out Bob Parks at Black and Right...


His site...
http://blackandright.mensnewsdaily.com/

A video must see/hear...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BlackAndRight

Also I have a link to a sound bite...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/mp3s/parks2007/FINAL3-30-07HowManyDead.mp3

This guy drives nails from two miles out. What he says makes sense. Why can't the left see these simple truths? The only possible explanation is hysteria. The more a person turns a blind eye to truth or simply accepts unreasonable facts.... and then is required to profess their beliefs or be ostracized then they are embarking on their voyage into group hysteria.

Trolls living under the bridge... we need to mark them so that everyone can spot them where ever they live...



AP and Fox News...
Judge Rules Sex Offenders Can Live Under Bridge
Saturday, April 07, 2007

MIAMI — In a county where any housing within close to a half-mile of a school is off-limits for sex offenders, five convicts have been forced to call the low space under the Julia Tuttle Causeway home.

Above their heads, the loud wooshing of cars headed to and from Miami Beach's warm sands and nightclubs. Below their pallets — if they have them — rats scurry. Add to that the fear that comes with being hated and vulnerable.

"You just pray to God every night, so if you fall asleep for a minute or two, you know, nothing happens to you," said 30-year-old Javier Diaz, who arrived this week. He was sentenced in 2005 to three years' probation for lewd and lascivious conduct involving a girl under 16.

Even some who consider this concrete makeshift shelter just deserts might reconsider if they looked around. About 100 feet away are Biscayne Bay's blue-green waters, where a family with young children played this week.

The conditions are a consequence of laws passed here and elsewhere around the country to bar sex offenders from living near schools, parks and other places children gather. Miami-Dade County's 2005 ordinance — adopted partly in reaction to the case of a convicted sex offender who raped a 9-year-old Florida girl and buried her alive — says sex offenders must live at least 2,500 feet from schools.

Pelosi, a clear and present danger... and a barrel of laughs for the Jihadists!


Pelosi Is Our Neville Chamberlain

By Ronald Kessler, NewsMax

With her trip to Syria, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi achieved two things: She undercut her own credibility in Washington, and she spotlighted what is wrong with the Democrats' approach to national security.

The spectacle of Pelosi making nice with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and accepting at face value his claim that he is ready to "resume the peace process" with Israel had a large portion of official Washington tittering.

At the same time, Syrian authorities were telling the local press that there had been no change in its position. And Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar al-Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel."

Pelosi's Charade

Moreover, Pelosi misrepresented Israel's position to Assad, announcing that she had delivered a message from Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. Olmert quickly issued a statement denying that.

Even the Washington Post saw through the charade.

"Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position, but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda," an editorial in the paper said. The editorial added that "Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish."

While that is certainly true, the specter of Pelosi naively chatting with Assad and announcing that she had helped achieve a diplomatic breakthrough also highlights all that is wrong with the Democrats' approach to foreign police today.

Syria hosts the exiled leadership of Hamas, as well as other Palestinian radical groups, and is a major supplier of funds to Hezbollah. Syria is also believed to be involved in the assassination of Lebanese political figures and allowing its territory to be used by jihadists fighting against the United States-led coalition and the coalition-backed government in Iraq.

History Repeats

Pelosi's willingness to undercut the president and accept the word of the chief of state of a sponsor of terrorism is on a par with the Democrats' effort to set a timetable for fighting the war in Iraq. It brings to mind the efforts of Joseph P. Kennedy, the founder of the Kennedy dynasty, to appease Adolf Hitler.

As ambassador to the Court of St. James, Joe Kennedy met on June 13, 1938 with Herbert von Dirksen, the German ambassador. The two got along famously, and Dirksen later reported on the conversation in great detail to Baron Ernst von Weizsäcker, the German state secretary.

According to that report, Kennedy confided to the German ambassador that Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, was anxious to have some sort of settlement with Germany. By saying this, he undercut Great Britain's negotiating position with Hitler. Moreover, Kennedy said President Roosevelt was not anti-German and wanted friendly relations with Hitler. However, no European leader spoke well of the Germans because most of them were "afraid of the Jews" and did not "dare to say anything good about Germany . . ." Kennedy stated.

Even as the two met at the German embassy in London, Hitler was planning to gobble up most of Europe and exterminate the Jews. The following year, World War II began after Hitler invaded Poland.

"Speaker Pelosi is the Neville Chamberlain of our time," said Brad Blakeman, a Republican strategist who was an aide in the Bush White House. "Cowering to and appeasing the dictator of a terrorist state was a disgrace to the high office she holds. The Sryians used this visit to validate their bad behavior by propagandizing the whole visit and her anti-war stance."

The Pelosi visit underscores that, when it comes to dealing with our enemies, the Democrats live in a dream world. Yet when another terrorist attack occurs in the U.S., they will be the first to say President Bush did not do enough to protect the country.

Must have gotten into a new case... haven't heard much lately from the affable little guy.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

Wrong on Timetables
The Democratic Congress doesn't understand what is going on in Iraq.
by William Kristol & Frederick W. Kagan
04/02/2007, Weekly Standard, Volume 012, Issue 28

Let's give congressional Democrats the benefit of the doubt: Assume some of them earnestly think they're doing the right thing to insist on adding to the supplemental appropriation for the Iraq war benchmarks and timetables for withdrawal. Still, their own arguments--taken at face value--don't hold up.

Democrats in Congress have made three superficially plausible claims: (1) Benchmarks and timetables will "incentivize" the Maliki government to take necessary steps it would prefer to avoid. (2) We can gradually withdraw over the next year so as to step out of sectarian conflict in Iraq while still remaining to fight al Qaeda. (3) Defeat in Iraq is inevitable, so our primary goal really has to be to get out of there. But the situation in Iraq is moving rapidly away from the assumptions underlying these propositions, and their falseness is easier to show with each passing day.

(1) The Iraqi government will not act responsibly unless the imminent departure of American forces compels it to do so. Those who sincerely believe this argument were horrified by the president's decision in January to increase the American military presence in Iraq. It has now been more than ten weeks since that announcement--long enough to judge whether the Maliki government is more or less likely to behave well when U.S. support seems robust and reliable.

In fact, since January 11, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has permitted U.S. forces to sweep the major Shiite strongholds in Baghdad, including Sadr City, which he had ordered American troops away from during operations

in 2006. He has allowed U.S. forces to capture and kill senior leaders of Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army--terrifying Sadr into fleeing to Iran. He fired the deputy health minister--one of Sadr's close allies--and turned a deaf ear to Sadr's complaints. He oversaw a clearing-out of the Interior Ministry, a Sadrist stronghold that was corrupting the Iraqi police. He has worked with coalition leaders to deploy all of the Iraqi Army units required by the Baghdad Security Plan. In perhaps the most dramatic move of all, Maliki visited Sunni sheikhs in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province and formerly the base of al Qaeda fighters and other Sunni Arab insurgents against his government. The visit was made possible because Anbar's sheikhs have turned against al Qaeda and are now reaching out to the government they had been fighting. Maliki is reaching back. U.S. strength has given him the confidence to take all these important steps.

(2) American forces would be able to fight al Qaeda at least as well, if not better, if they were not also engaged in a sectarian civil war in Iraq. The idea of separating the fight against al Qaeda from the sectarian fighting in Iraq is a delusion. Since early 2004, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has sought to plunge Iraq into sectarian civil war, so as to critically weaken the government, which is fighting it. AQI endeavors to clear Shiites out of mixed areas, terrorize local Sunnis into tolerating and supporting AQI, and thereby establish safe havens surrounded by innocent people it then dragoons into the struggle. Now, heartened by the U.S. commitment to stay, Sunni sheikhs in Anbar have turned on AQI. In response, AQI has begun to move toward Baghdad and mixed areas in Diyala, attempting to terrorize the locals and establish new bases in the resulting chaos. The enemy understands that chaos is al Qaeda's friend. The notion that we can pull our troops back into fortresses in a climate of chaos--but still move selectively against al Qaeda--is fanciful. There can be no hope of defeating or controlling al Qaeda in Iraq without controlling the sectarian violence that it spawns and relies upon.

(3) Isn't it too late? Even if we now have the right strategy and the right general, can we prevail? If there were no hope left, if the Iraqis were determined to wage full-scale civil war, if the Maliki government were weak or dominated by violent extremists, if Iran really controlled the Shiites in Iraq--if these things were true, then the new strategy would have borne no fruit at all. Maliki would have resisted or remained limp as before. Sadr's forces would have attacked. Coalition casualties would be up, and so would sectarian killings. But none of these things has happened. Sectarian killings are lower. And despite dramatically increased operations in more exposed settings, so are American casualties. This does not look like hopelessness.

Hope is not victory, of course. The surge has just begun, our enemies are adapting, and fighting is likely to intensify as U.S. and Iraqi forces begin the main clear-and-hold phase. The Maliki government could falter. But it need not, if we do not. Unfortunately, four years of setbacks have conditioned Americans to believe that any progress must be ephemeral. If the Democrats get their way and Gen. Petraeus is undermined in Congress, the progress may indeed prove short-lived. But it's time to stop thinking so hard about how to lose, and to think instead about how to reinforce and exploit the success we have begun to achieve. The debate in Washington hasn't caught up to the realities in Baghdad. Until it does, a resolute president will need to prevent defeatists in Congress from losing a winnable war in Iraq.

--Frederick W. Kagan and William Kristol

In response to Republican Ric (Lawn Boy) Keller's remarks that our involvement in Iraq is like mowing your neighbor's lawn. It is preposterous that he doesn't get it. He is a Republican, sworn to protect and serve...and not a Democrat that typically tries to "stuff" President Bush and to win the 2008 election at all costs. He would have an excuse as a Dem, not as a Republican.

At Victory Caucus ( http://victorycaucus.com ) there was a contest that I wanted to drop a Photoshop Lawn Boy pic....I don't think their server got it up, so it is here...just a little thought Ric...

(From Paul Mirengoff, Powerline) http://powerlineblog.com/
What country does Zbigniew Brzezinski live in?


Zbigniew Brzezinski was the national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. Given the disastrous foreign policy of those harrowing years, you wonder how anyone can take him seriously, and it's questionable whether, for decades, many people did. These days, however, Brzezinski is attempting rather successfully to ride hatred of President Bush back into the national debate.

In his latest contribution, Brzezinski claims that our nation is "terrorized" by the war on terror. I fear the old boy doesn't get out much among his fellow Americans. As one who rides at least twice a day nearly every day on the Washington D.C. subway (Metro) -- a known target of terrorists -- I can assure Brzezinski that there is an utter absence of terror in that venue. Nor do I detect the slightest trace of fear when I visit key buildings such as the Pentagon (which was attacked on 9/11) and the U.S. Capitol (which might have been). As far as I can tell, the same is true at the nation's airports, except when imams start praising Osama bin Laden and ordering spare equipment they don't need.

This absence of fear is due in part to the human spirit and its American incarnation. But it's also due to the fact that we haven't been attacked at home for more than five years. And, unless one believes in the tooth fairy, it's counterintuitive to deny that this happy state of affairs owes much to the fact that our government took the threat of terrorism seriously and acted aggressively to thwart terrorists. In short, our government has been preoccupied with the threat of terrorism so we wouldn't have to be.

The only Americans I know who are living in fear are folks like Brzezinski whose partisanship and hatred of the president has caused them to suffer from a strange form of hysteria.

The 'Surge' Is Succeeding
By Robert Kagan (Washington Post)
Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B07


A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.

As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.

Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, "One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work." In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -- the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying."

A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."

Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."

It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.

There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces.

No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the "good" news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His latest book is "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy.

All Alone on the Long View in Iraq?
(another in the series of letters from Marine Col. Mike Walker, retired)


Marines,

I freely admit to being a fellow traveler within the
rank and file of the small minority who are optimistic
about Iraq. I blame this on three personal flaws.

First, it was my misfortune to have gained most of my
insights about Iraq by serving there (2003 & 2004).
Alas, you read that correctly, I was one of those poor
souls “stuck” over there despite having an
undergraduate degree from Marquette University and
graduate degree from Harvard University and a nice
civilian job back in the States. I was given every
opportunity to make it in correct society but somehow
wound up in the Marine Corps. I will try to do better
next time.

Second, I must confess to being a loner even within my
generation of fellow service members in that during my
career in the Marines I spent a good deal of time
studying insurgencies and/or modern civil wars which,
even within the military, was a subject largely
eschewed due to the trauma of the Vietnam War.

Finally and perhaps most damning, I have never been
able to catch on the to “I want it now, 24-7” mindset
of most of my friends and acquaintances. I am slow in
this regard. I actively seek to become more patient
and take a broader view amidst an American society
that is seemingly evermore cramming yet something else
into each and every day so it can readily chase after
the next “shiny object.” Iraq and war on terror are
not social unpleasantries to me. They are not
something to be done with because I have grown tired
of them and need to “move on.”

Given all those handicaps, I have been sadly compelled
to think this through for myself having to forego the
blissful privilege of being told what to think by
various combinations of the US “Big Media,”
politicians (of all manner of persuasion, and party),
and/or water cooler/cocktail party/barroom pundits.
Here is what I have concluded:

I believe we are winning in Iraq. I am flawed indeed.
But it gets worse.

I think we have (finally) put all the pieces in place
to assure our victory. Of course, we must give credit
where credit is due and thank the Saddamists for
running both a lousy conventional war in early-to-mid
2003 and an equally inept insurgency since. If your
“Capo di tutti Capo” guy winds up with his neck in a
noose, you are hated by the Kurdish minority, and the
Shi’a majority is screaming for your blood rather than
your return to power, then you certainly can’t take
much pride in your accomplishments.

But things are not as simple as that summary. For
example, in an insurgency, the political strategy is
superior to the military. The Saddamists relied
almost exclusively on the military solution, i.e.
trying to kill off an ever growing list of “enemies.”
First it was Coalition Forces then they added
“collaborators,” then they added in the Iraqi Security
Services centered on an Iraqi Army (when we finally
got past our own sorry reasoning opposing its
creation) and finally they added the Shi’a population
in toto, every man woman and child. Gee whiz, Hitler
and Stalin would have been impressed. But where was
the enemy’s political strategy? Missing and still
missing. They can never win without one but they have
created so many enemies that it is now pretty much
hopeless.

What about the Shi’a? I am optimistic about them too.
We need to take some specific steps such as removing
Muqtada Sadr as a military threat and suppressing the
militias but the overall strategy is working. The
Shi’a led government is off the ideal but as much as
it wheezes and gasps, moves in fits and starts, at the
end of the day it is good enough to get the job done.
Look, we worked to introduce “democracy” into South
Korea beginning in the late 1940’s (even before the
war there began) but it really did not flower until
the 1990’s, it took over half a century for the roots
to really sink in but they did. Never underestimate
the power of an idea or the strength of a
constitutional government. As recent polling has
shown, the Iraqi people are moving towards a
democratic government rather than walking away.

This brings up a final lesson I learned in Iraq.
There is a complex insurgency in Iraq but the Iraqis
are a far more resilient and capable people than most
give them credit for. The will of the Iraqi people
will not allow failure even if we lose ours. I left
with a deep degree of respect and admiration for the
Iraqis I knew over there, from all walks and
ethnicity. One of the most frustrating issues I have
in discussing Iraq with my fellow Americans is real
lack of knowledge about how good the Iraqi people are
and how successful they will continue to be in the
future, if we give them a fair chance. My unshakable
conclusion is that the Iraqi people are going to win
this war for themselves. With our continued support,
it will happen quicker, with less loss of life and one
that will strengthen the position of the United States
in the region and weaken that of our enemies, but in
any case, the Iraqi people will prevail.

The lesson is that it takes time.

Let us look at a timeline for the insurgency in Iraq
as compared to some other historical examples. The
insurgency in El Salvador that began in 1980 took 14
years to end. The Communist insurgency in the
Philippines began 1968 and peaked in 1986 before
becoming ineffective in the early 1990’s, over twenty
years later. Perhaps the best example comes from
Malaya.

In 1948, the Communist Party in Malaya began an
insurgency there. At that time it was a British
colonial possession. The British won the war in 1960.
That war took “only” twelve years to win. Noel Barber
wrote the definitive book on the conflict entitled
“The War of the Running Dogs, How Malaya Defeated the
Communist Guerrillas 1948-1960.” As he reports, the
first four years were a seesaw struggle and the path
to victory took a further eight years. The fight was
tough. Barber admits that the early years were
“tragic and wasted” but they won nonetheless because
they had the will and the vision to take the long
view. It also required a strong financial commitment.
It demanded a strong military presence, some “40,000
troops and 25,000 police and 50,000 special
constables” in order to pull it off in a country with
a population that was less than one fourth of Iraq’s.


They won the political war by giving the Malay people
control of their government (which was not a pretty
thing to see when it first began just as the workings
of the government in Baghdad is sometimes hard to
watch now) and they ensured that the large ethnic
minorities had a sufficiently strong economic and
political voice to win them over as is the case in
Iraq.

If all you looked at were the monthly number of
terrorist attacks and the casualties you could never
have seen the “mess” in Malaya as anything resembling
a victory because it took nearly 12 years to win. We
Americans seem to have no patience for those types of
timelines. For too many it is not a matter of winning
or losing but only a matter of it being too long.
That we would consider basing our national policy on
the rule “if it will take too long then declare
failure and quit” is disheartening to contemplate.

Now I am not suggesting that we need to have 130,000
American soldiers in Iraq for 12 years, quite the
contrary in fact. While many Marines knew in January
2004 that the war in Iraq would probably still be
going on in 2014, we also knew the Iraqis would no
longer need us after several years providing we
ensured the establishment of a constitutional
government and security services centered on the Iraqi
Army. The critical components of that task should be
completed later this year or early next year. So I
too am a member of the majority that thinks the US can
start a major redeployment out of Iraq in the next
12-18 months. By then, there will be an Iraqi
government and security force in place that can do the
heavy lifting for the next seven or eight years that
it will take to finish the war.

But that means the US cannot walk away from Iraq in
2008. We need to stand firm as we did by staying
engaged in Western Europe after 1945 and Korea after
1953 during the Cold War. We may still need to
conduct some combined operations over the next two or
three years where the US provides support to Iraqi
ground forces. We will still need military advisors
to work with the Iraqis for the next four or five
years. We will need to place Iraq high on the list of
countries that we provide foreign aid to for the next
decade or so. We will also need to vouchsafe the
borders of Iraq from a military invasion by Iran
and/or Syria. If we do all that then Iraq will be as
much of a success story as the Marshall Plan and the
Korean Intervention were in the last century.

Or we can sit back, tune into “Big Media,” turn off
our brains, take counsel of our own fears, and cut and
run.

…and if we cut and run now we will conduct, in due
course, a witch hunt to determine “Who Lost Iraq?” and
then throw out all the bums in Washington from both
parties. It will be their just deserves.

Semper Fi,

Mike

By John Hinderacker, PowerLine
Follow That Armadillo!

One of the early articles that Scott and I wrote was called, with characteristic understatement, "The Global Warming Hoax." It appeared in the Minnesota Journal of Law and Politics in late 1992. One of the things we wrote about was the global cooling scare of the 1970s; we quoted articles from Time and Newsweek about fears that we humans were about to cause another ice age.

This has been on my mind of late, especially since the global warming-themed Oscar event Sunday night. Coincidentally, earlier tonight a friend put into my locker in the gym a copy of the very Time article, dated June 24, 1974, that we quoted in 1992. The memories came flooding back:

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.


Telltale signs are everywhere--from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F. ... When Climatologist George G. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamong-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
To its credit, Time noted that cooler weather was probably due to less energy reaching the Earth from the Sun. But:

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Time closed with grim predictions of the future global cooling could bring: Warns [Climatologist Kenneth] Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present popuation is sustainable is there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

Fortunately, things warmed up a bit. Here in Minnesota, the prospect of another ice age is one to be taken seriously; the last one left 15,000 lakes behind. Over the weekend, we got a foot of snow. It isn't exactly an ice age, to be sure, but here is the snow pile in the street in front of my house; it's about ten feet high:

Snow is expected to start falling again tomorrow (Feb 28), with another foot or more due by Friday. The kids are hoping for a snow day, and there isn't an armadillo in sight.

Mullah Kerry Mullin'
How can we stop this man? He has always been a liar and an arrogant traitor. The only thing that changes is his dress.

Step up Republicans...

A Terrible Ignominy
How many Republicans will desert the troops?
by William Kristol
02/12/2007, Volume 012, Issue 21
the Weekly Standard

Perhaps the shade of the great Yeats will forgive me:
I write it out in a verse--
Warner and Smith
And Collins and Snowe
Now and in time to be,
Wherever Reagan is remembered,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible ignominy is born.

John Warner of Virginia, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine are the four Republican senators (in addition to Nebraska's Chuck Hagel) currently signed on to the Democrats' anti-surge, anti-Petraeus, anti-troops, and anti-victory resolution. (I give Hagel a pass--perhaps undeserved--in my roster of ignominy, since he has been a harsh critic of the war for quite some time.) Three of the four are up for reelection in 2008--Warner, Collins, and Smith. Collins and Smith will be running in states Bush lost in 2004. Warner will be standing in a state where an antiwar Democrat won in 2006.
Now, politicians are entitled to be concerned about their political survival. They're even entitled to make foolish and shortsighted political judgments--for example, that voting for this resolution in February 2007 will help their electoral prospects if the Bush administration's foreign policy is in shambles in November 2008. Indeed, they're entitled to ignore the fact that voting for this resolution somewhat increases the chances of a shambolic outcome to Bush's foreign policy, and therefore may not be in their own interest.
But of course these senators won't acknowledge they're influenced by the electoral cycle. Consider John Warner. Is he worried about 2008? No. It's memories of Vietnam that suddenly haunt him. As the Washington Post reported onits front page recently:
"I regret that I was not more outspoken" during the Vietnam War, the former Navy secretary said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "The Army generals would come in, 'Just send in another five or ten thousand.' You know, month after month. Another ten or fifteen thousand. They thought they could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn't work."
In fact, John Warner was Richard Nixon's undersecretary of the Navy from 1969 to 1972, then Navy secretary until 1974. No admiral (or Army general) showed up in either his undersecretarial or secretarial office in those years to urge more troops for Vietnam--because we were then drawing down as part of Vietnamization. So Warner would seem to be making up these conversations with foolishly optimistic Army generals--unless they visited him before 1969 in his office at the law firm of Hogan and Hartson, where he was ensconced during the period of the Vietnam buildup.
I presume Smith, Collins, and Snowe aren't rewriting history to justify their votes to disapprove of Bush's new effort in Iraq. Still, we have yet to hear a coherent explanation of their position: They are (understandably) unhappy with how Bush has prosecuted the war over the last couple of years, under the guidance of Rumsfeld, Abizaid, and Casey. So they now are supporting a resolution that precisely embodies the Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey approach: no new strategy, no more troops, and continuing pressure to turn things over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. These senators dislike the status quo in Iraq--and are supporting a resolution that condemns Bush's attempt to change the status quo.
Some seven GOP senators are said to be wavering between the Democratic resolution and the McCain Graham-Lieberman alternative supporting Gen. Petraeus and the troops. They are Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Sununu of New Hampshire, and George Voinovich of Ohio. Alexander, Coleman, and Sununu are up for reelection in 2008. Some or all of the seven may still choose to stand with the president and the troops, and to give Petraeus a chance. This would leave the Democratic resolution short of the 60 votes needed to end debate. Perhaps the four ignominious ones could even reconsider and sign on with McCain, Graham, and Lieberman (whose resolution of support includes, incidentally, "benchmarks" of performance that the Iraqi government is expected to meet).

In any case, Republican senators up for reelection in 2008 might remember this: The American political system has primaries as well as general elections. In 1978 and 1980, as Reagan conservatives took over the party from détente-establishment types, Reaganite challengers ousted incumbent GOP senators in New Jersey and New York. Surely there are victory-oriented Republicans who might step forward today in Nebraska, Virginia, Oregon, and Maine--and, if necessary, in Tennessee, Minnesota, and New Hampshire--to seek to vindicate the honor, and brighten the future, of the party of Reagan.

--William Kristol