Brilliant!
Victor Davis Hanson

The New York Times Surrenders

A monument to defeatism on the editorial page

12 July 2007

On July 8, the New York Times ran an historic editorial entitled “The Road Home,” demanding an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. It is rare that an editorial gets almost everything wrong, but “The Road Home” pulls it off. Consider, point by point, its confused—and immoral—defeatism.

1. “It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.”
Rarely in military history has an “orderly” withdrawal followed a theater-sized defeat and the flight of several divisions. Abruptly leaving Iraq would be a logistical and humanitarian catastrophe. And when scenes of carnage begin appearing on TV screens here about latte time, will the Times then call for “humanitarian” action?

2. “Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.”

We’ll get to the war’s “sufficient cause,” but first let’s address the other two charges that the Times levels here against President Bush. Both houses of Congress voted for 23 writs authorizing the war with Iraq—a post-9/11 confirmation of the official policy of regime change in Iraq that President Clinton originated. Supporters of the war included 70 percent of the American public in April 2003; the majority of NATO members; a coalition with more participants than the United Nations alliance had in the Korean War; and a host of politicians and pundits as diverse as Joe Biden, William F. Buckley, Wesley Clark, Hillary Clinton, Francis Fukuyama, Kenneth Pollack, Harry Reid, Andrew Sullivan, Thomas Friedman, and George Will.

And there was a Pentagon postwar plan to stabilize the country, but it assumed a decisive defeat and elimination of enemy forces, not a three-week war in which the majority of Baathists and their terrorist allies fled into the shadows to await a more opportune time to reemerge, under quite different rules of engagement.

3. “While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs—after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.”

Of course there were breakthroughs: most notably, millions of Iraqis’ risking their lives to vote. An elected government remains in power, under a constitution far more liberal than any other in the Arab Middle East. In the region at large, Libya, following the war, gave up its advanced arsenal of weapons of mass destruction; Syria fled Lebanon; A.Q. Khan’s nuclear ring was shut down. And despite the efforts of Iran, Syria, and Sunni extremists in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, a plurality of Iraqis still prefer the chaotic and dangerous present to the sure methodical slaughter of their recent Saddamite past.

The Times wonders what Bush’s cause was. Easy to explain, if not easy to achieve: to help foster a constitutional government in the place of a genocidal regime that had engaged in a de facto war with the United States since 1991, and harbored or subsidized terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, at least one plotter of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida affiliates in Kurdistan, and suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank. It was a bold attempt to break with the West’s previous practices, both liberal (appeasement of terrorists) and conservative (doing business with Saddam, selling arms to Iran, and overlooking the House of Saud’s funding of terrorists).

Is that cause in fact “lost”? The vast majority of 160,000 troops in harm’s way don’t think so—despite a home front where U.S. senators have publicly compared them with Nazis, Stalinists, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, and Saddam Hussein’s jailers, and where the media’s Iraqi narrative has focused obsessively on Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and serial leaks of classified information, with little interest in the horrific nature of the Islamists in Iraq or the courageous efforts of many Iraqis to stop them.

4. “Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.”

The military is stretched, but hardly broken, despite having tens of thousands of troops stationed in Japan, Korea, the Balkans, Germany, and Italy, years—and decades—after we removed dictatorships by force and began efforts to establish democracies in those once-frightening places. As for whether Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror: al-Qaida bigwig Ayman al-Zawahiri, like George W. Bush, has said that Iraq is the primary front in his efforts to attack the United States and its interests—and he often despairs about the progress of jihad there. Our enemies, like al-Qaida, Iran, and Syria, as well as opportunistic neutrals like China and Russia, are watching closely to see whether America will betray its principles in Iraq.

5. “Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs.”
The Times should abandon the subjunctive mood. The catastrophes that it matter-of-factly suggests have ample precedents in Vietnam. Apparently, we should abandon millions of Iraqis to the jihadists (whether Wahhabis or Khomeinites), expect mass murders in the wake of our flight—“even genocide”—and then chalk up the slaughter to Bush’s folly. And if that seems crazy, consider what follows, an Orwellian account of the mechanics of our flight:

6. “The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

“The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.”

This insistence on planned defeat, following incessant criticism of potential victory, is lunatic. The Times’s frustration with Turkey and other “inconsistent” allies won’t end with our withdrawal and defeat. Like everyone in the region, the Turks want to ally with winners and distance themselves from losers—and care little about sermons from the likes of the Times editors. The ideas about Kurdish territory and Turkey are simply cover for the likely consequences of defeat: once we are gone and a federated Iraq is finished, Kurdistan’s democratic success is fair game for Turkey, which—with the assent of opportunistic allies—will move to end it by crushing our Kurdish friends.

7. “Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

“This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.”
The Times raises the old charge that if we weren’t in Iraq, neither would be al-Qaida—more of whose members we have killed in Iraq than anywhere else. In 1944, Japan had relatively few soldiers in Okinawa; when the Japanese learned that we planned to invade in 1945, they increased their forces there. Did the subsequent carnage—four times the number of U.S. dead as in Iraq, by the way, in one-sixteenth the time—prove our actions ill considered? Likewise, no Soviets were in Eastern Europe until we moved to attack and destroy Hitler, who had kept communists out. Did the resulting Iron Curtain mean that it was a mistake to deter German aggression?

And if the Times sees the war in Afghanistan as so important, why didn’t it support an all-out war against the Taliban and al-Qaida, as it apparently does now, when we were solely in Afghanistan?

8. “Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening. . . . To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.”

But Bush did go to the United Nations, which, had it enforced its own resolutions, might have prevented the war. In fact, the Bush administration’s engagement with the UN contrasts sharply with President Clinton’s snub of that organization during the U.S.-led bombing of the Balkans—unleashed, unlike Iraq, without Congressional approval. The Times also neglects to mention that the UN was knee-deep in the mess of its cash cow Iraq, from its appeasement of the genocidal Hussein regime to its graft-ridden, $50 billion oil-for-food scandal, reaching the highest echelons of Kofi Annan’s UN administration.
9. “Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences.”

New governments in France and Germany are more pro-American than those of the past that tried to thwart us in Iraq. The Times surely knows of the Chirac administration’s lucrative relationships with Saddam Hussein, and of the German contracts to supply sophisticated tools and expertise that enabled the Baathist nightmare. Tony Blair will enjoy a far more principled and reputable retirement than will Jacques Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder, who did their best to destroy the Atlantic Alliance for cheap partisan advantage at home and global benefit abroad.

Nations like France and Germany won’t “walk away” from Iraq, since they were never there in the first place. They never involve themselves in such dangerous situations—just look at the rules of engagement of French and German troops in Afghanistan. Their foreign policy centers instead on commerce, suitably dressed up with fashionable elite outrage against the United States.

10. “For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.”

China and Russia, seeing only oil and petrodollars, will take no responsibility to help. Both will welcome a U.S. retreat. Yes, “civil war” will spill over the borders, but not until the U.S. precipitously withdraws. Iran and Syria—serial assassins of democrats from Lebanon to Iraq—are hoping for realization of the Times’s scenario, and would be willing to talk with us only to facilitate our flight, with the expectation that Iraq would become wide open for their ambitions. In their view, a U.S. that fails in Iraq surely cannot thwart an Iranian bomb, the Syrian reabsorption of Lebanese democracy, attacks on Israel, or increased funding and sanctuary for global terrorism.

11. “President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened—the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.”
But as the Times itself acknowledges, what has happened in the past only previews what is in store if we precipitously withdraw. And this will prove the case not only in Iraq, but elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, Taiwan, and Korea. Once the U.S. demonstrates that it cannot honor its commitments, those dependent upon it must make the necessary adjustments. Ironically, while the Times urges acceptance of defeat, Sunni tribesmen at last are coming forward to fight terrorists, and regional neighbors are gradually accepting the truth that their opportunistic assistance to jihadists is only threatening their own regimes.

We promised General Petraeus a hearing in September; it would be the height of folly to preempt that agreement by giving in to our summer of panic and despair. Critics called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a change in command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops. But now that we have a new secretary, a new command in Iraq and at Centcom, new strategies, and more troops, suddenly we have a renewed demand for withdrawal before the agreed-upon September accounting—suggesting that the only constant in such harping was the assumption that Iraq was either hopeless or not worth the effort.

The truth is that Iraq has upped the ante in the war against terrorists. Our enemies’ worst nightmare is a constitutional government in the heart of the ancient caliphate, surrounded by consensual rule in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Turkey; ours is a new terror heaven, but with oil, a strategic location, and the zeal born of a humiliating defeat of the United States on a theater scale. The Islamists believe we can’t win; so does the New York Times. But it falls to the American people to decide the issue.

Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

This letter was written by Charles Grennel and his comrades, veterans of the Global War On Terror. Grennel is an Army Reservist who spent two years in Iraq and was a principal in putting together the first Iraq elections in January 2005.

They wrote it to Jill Edwards, student at the University of Washington, who did not want to honor Medal of Honor winner USMC Colonel Greg Boyington. Ms. Edwards, other students and faculty do not think those who serve in the U.S. armed services are good role model.

To: Jill Edwards, Student, University of Washington Subject: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs

Miss Edwards, I read of your student activity regarding the proposed memorial to Colonel Greg Boyington, USMC and a Medal of Honor winner. I suspect you will receive many angry emails from conservative people like me.

You may be too young to appreciate fully the sacrifices of generations of servicemen and servicewomen on whose shoulders you and your fellow students stand. I forgive you for the untutored ways of youth and your naiveté. It may be that you are simply a sheep. There's no dishonor in being a sheep, as long as you know and accept what you are.

William J. Bennett, in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997 said
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident. We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people, not capable of hurting each other except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

Then there are the wolves who feed on the sheep without mercy. Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

Then there are sheepdogs and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the

wolf. If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the unchartered path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

We know that the sheep live in denial that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kid's schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard. So they choose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports, in camouflage fatigues, holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go Baa. Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them.

This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be.

Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter. He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed, right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." You want to be able to make a difference. There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that would destroy 98 percent of the population.

Research was conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said they specifically targeted victims by body language: Slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When they learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd and the other passengers confronted the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents - from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

Edmund Burke said "There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." Here is the point I want to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They don't have a choice.

But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision. If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you.

If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between.

Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously.

Its OK to be a sheep, but do not kick the sheepdog. Indeed, the sheepdog may just run a little harder, strive to protect a little better and be fully prepared to pay an ultimate price in battle and spirit with the sheep moving from "baa" to "thanks".

We do not call for gifts or freedoms beyond our lot. We just need a small pat on the head, a smile and a thank you to fill the emotional tank which is drained protecting the sheep. And, when our number is called by The Almighty, and day retreats into night, a small prayer before the heavens just may be in order to say thanks for letting you continue to be a sheep. And be grateful for the millions of American sheepdogs who permit you the freedom to express even bad ideas.

Michael Ramirez again hitting a tremendous shot over the center field pavilion roof.

This is what the immigration of a person to the US should be... proud to be here. Below is a letter sent by Cesar to those that subscribe to his newsletter... good man, calm and assertive.

Greetings,

The first time I really felt like I was a part of America was when I was watching fireworks and eating hot dogs and hamburgers on the Fourth of July. You can't get much more American than that! There are few places in the world where you can see a dog around the food. Here dogs are really family members. Whether taking a shower or cooking a meal, your dog can be right there with you – it's not a problem.

The sky is the limit in America. I truly believe that. It is the reason immigrants, such as myself, move here. In this country, you are free to be the person you choose to be spiritually, emotionally and intellectually. What can sometimes be missing is common sense. America is an intellectual country, an emotional country, a spiritual country – but not instinctual. Through my work with dogs and their families, I hope that I can bring a little of the instinctual aspect back to a country that has given me so much – a country that allowed me to be born again, to dream again, and to see my dreams become reality.

It’s a beautiful feeling to be acknowledged here for the work I have done with dogs and in the community. I really feel as though America has adopted me as one of its own because of what I have done for one of their own: the dog.

Stay calm and assertive!


Cesar Millan

Lest we forget what is important...from Move America Forward...

FORGET PARIS HILTON- HONOR OUR TROOPS
The past 24 hours have seen television, radio, print and online news organizations fixated with the subject of Paris Hilton.

Meanwhile, our nation has over 150,000 men and women of the United States military fighting a war against terrorism on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the next week, meteorologists predict temperatures in some parts of Iraq will range between 110 - 120 degrees. You can see the forecast for Basra, Iraq - HERE.

Our troops are once again facing the dual challenges of stifling heat, wearing 50-100 pounds of body armor, uniforms, equipment and supplies, and facing attack from Islamic militants determined to kill U.S. troops. On the homefront our troops hear reports of the Senate Majority Leader declaring, "this war is lost," and see efforts by Congress to cut off their funding.

Whenever our troops achieve success in their day-to-day operations it receives little or in many cases no media coverage. It seems like they can't win for losing.

We here at Move America Forward want the men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces to know that they ARE appreciated.

That's why we're asking you to join us in sponsoring a " Gatorade and Beef Jerky for Our Troops" or " Coffee and Cookies for Our Troops" care package.

Between now and the 4th of July we're going to step up our efforts to ship thousands upon thousands of these " Support Our Troops Care Packages."

Please help us make this effort a success by sponsoring a package - and please include a personal message of support with each package. You'll see a place on the order form where you can type in your message, which will be affixed to each item in the packages that are sent.

If Paris Hilton deserves saturation media coverage and attention from this nation for 2 days straight, don't you think our troops deserve recognition and attention from each of us as well?

Visit MAF's site at http://www.moveamericaforward.org for more info...OOPS, I'V CORRECTED THE ADDRESS ERROR...

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.