Ted Kennedy "Weighs In" On Spying

Pardon the pun.

This interesting tidbit from the FoxNews Political Grapevine on Tuesday.

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy has said the vice president "ought to reread the constitution" if he thinks President Bush can approve domestic surveillance without congressional oversight or a court order.

But Institute for Homeland Security director Randy Larsen says that on the day after 9-11, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Kennedy invited Larsen to his office for a briefing and asked Larsen whether the attacks meant that the government should unleash the NSA and CIA inside the United States. After a pause, Larsen says he told the Senator "we may have to look at that, but we'd need a lot of oversight." Senator Kennedy could not be reached for comment.

Heh. I'll bet he couldn't.

Americans aren't fooled by Media Bias on 'Spying'

So...what are we to make of the latest Rasmussen poll?

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

It appears that, despite the breathless outcry from the MSM, the American public is smart enough to know that we need to be able to 'spy' on people with links to terrorists in the United States to protect ourselves against future 9/11-style attacks.

The problem with the hysteria on the left & the media is that their objections are all based on hypothetical situations. There have been very few disruptions to any civil liberties--no little, grey-haired ladies dragged screaming from libraries. However, there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S.

The Democrats continue to position themselves as the party one would least like to have in charge during wartime. They need to start putting national security above politics if they want to win future elections.

Interesting Poll Results from Strategic Vision

Results out from a recent poll of likely Wisconsin voters from Strategic Vision.

Below are the results of a three-day poll of likely voters in the state of Wisconsin. Results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Wisconsin, aged 18+, and conducted December 16-18, 2005. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.


Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Jim Doyle's job performance?
Approve 46%
Disapprove 44%
Undecided 10%

If the Republican primary were today, whom would you vote for? (Republicans only)
Mark Green 47%
Scott Walker 40%
Undecided 13%

If the election for Governor was held today, and the choice was between Jim Doyle, the Democrat and Mark Green, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Jim Doyle 45%
Mark Green 43%
Undecided 12%

If the election for Governor was held today, and the choice was between Jim Doyle, the Democrat and Scott Walker, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Jim Doyle 46%
Scott Walker 39%
Undecided 15%

Do you approve or disapprove of United States Senator Russ Feingold's job performance?
Approve 56%
Disapprove 29%
Undecided 15%

Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Herb Kohl's job performance?
Approve 54%
Disapprove 26%
Undecided 20%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Tommy Thompson, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Tommy Thompson 45%
Herb Kohl 42%
Undecided 13%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Robert Gerald Lorge, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Herb Kohl 59%
Robert Gerald Lorge 29%
Undecided 12%

If the election for United States Senate was held today, and the choices were Herb Kohl, the Democrat or Tim Michels, the Republican, whom would you vote for?
Herb Kohl 56%
Tim Michels 37%
Undecided 7%

Do you think Wisconsin headed in the right direction or wrong direction?
Right 32%
Wrong 56%
Undecided 12%

Very interesting. You can check out the whole poll here.

King Kong vs. Aslan

Interesting series, "King Kong vs. Aslan" by Mark D. Roberts on his blog site.

I saw a movie on Friday. Here's the basic plot:

Some people travel to a mysterious land where they find strange beasts and unsought for adventures. This land is ruled by an awesome animal, whose kingly roar is deafening and who instills awe in the creatures of the land. When one member of the party is taken captive, the others seek to rescue that person, even though they'd rather just go home. As they are looking for their captured colleague, the rescue party is chased by ferocious beasts, who almost kill them. Ultimately, the captured person is saved from certain death by the sacrificial intervention of the animal king. Thereafter the captive, now rescued, feels a strong connection to the savior beast. Yet because of this captive, the great animal ends up losing his life.

So here's your quiz: What movie did I see on Friday?

Mark, as usual, provides an insightful commentary on the messages contained in both movies. Worth a read.

Democrats Need Definition of Victory

Remember the endless publicity from the media over the Murtha amendment? The furor caused by the Republicans for calling the Democrats bluff and forcing a vote on immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

Well, I had to dig long and hard to find this story.

House disavows calls for Iraq withdrawal

By LIZ SIDOTI ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- For the second time in as many months, the House rejected calls for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with a vote Friday that Democrats said was politically driven and designed by Republicans to limit debate on the war.

In a 279-109 vote, the GOP-controlled House approved a resolution saying the chamber is committed "to achieving victory in Iraq" and that setting an "artificial timetable" would be "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory."
Democrats voted against the resolution by 108-59, while 32 of them voted "present," a rarely used option that signals neither support nor opposition. That split underlined divisions within the party over alternatives to President Bush's Iraq war policies.

Among Republicans, 220 supported the proposal, none were opposed and two voted "present," while the House's lone independent voted "no."

So, you can read the entire amendment on my December 16th post. What do you suppose were the Democrats' objections?

Murtha sent his fellow Democrats a letter objecting to the GOP resolution. "It calls for 'complete victory' which does not define victory, is open-ended, and therefore means that our troops could be there for ten or fifteen years," Murtha said.

And this one...

"What is victory? Nobody has defined what victory is," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., objected.

These people rejected a resolution calling for victory in Iraq. Their reason? No one has told them what victory in Iraq means. This is probably why they are so completely clueless about what DEFEAT in Iraq means.

It is hard to understand the motivation of the Democratic party on a purely philosophical basis. After all, isn't the Democratic Party the champion of the 'little guy'? The Party of taking care of those who can't care for themselves? The compassionate party who doesn't believe that people should raise themselves by their own bootstraps? The party of government intervention in every aspect of life?

So, why are they so absolutely unconcerned about the Iraqi people? Ask yourself...if the Iraqi people could vote in OUR elections, do you think the Democrats' outlook would change? In a New York minute.

This is all political. The irony is that they accuse Bush of being political (yeah, right, let's start a war in the Middle East--that'll boost my popularity) when he is not political enough. Notice how his approval ratings have soared once he started fighting back?

Really. These people need to get their act together and start standing FOR something. They have been trying to build a platform of being AGAINST Bush for so long, I'm not sure that they have it in them. For America's sake, I hope I am wrong.

The Real Progress of Freedom in the Middle East

So, how much actual evidence have you heard from the anti-war crowd about 'no progress in Iraq'? Remember the people at the onset of the war who argued that people in Arab countries didn't want democracy 'foisted' upon them? (I actually had a conversation with a very smart colleague who told me that maybe the Arab peoples just couldn't handle democracy! He was dead serious.)

An organization called The Freedom House conducted a scientific survey to gauge the progress of freedom in the Middle East. Their findings?

The people of the Arab Middle East experienced a modest but potentially significant increase in political rights and civil liberties in 2005, Freedom House announced in a major survey of global freedom released today.

The global survey, "Freedom in the World," shows that although the Middle East continues to lag behind other regions, a measurable improvement can be seen in freedom in several key Arab countries, as well as the Palestinian Authority. In another key finding, the number of countries rated by Freedom House as Not Free declined from 49 in 2004 to 45 for the year 2005, the lowest number of Not Free societies identified by the survey in over a decade. In noteworthy country developments, Ukraine and Indonesia saw their status improve from Partly Free to Free; Afghanistan moved from Not Free to Partly Free; and the Philippines saw its status decline from Free to Partly Free.

According to Thomas O. Melia, acting executive director of Freedom House, "The modest but heartening advances in the Arab Middle East result from activism by citizen groups and reforms by governments in about equal measures. This emerging trend reminds us that men and women in this region share the universal desire to live in free societies."

Freedom is like a virus. Once it starts spreading, it is very difficult to stop. Emboldened by U.S. support in Afghanistan and Iraq, the people of the Middle East are putting pressure on their governments, with astounding results.

On the whole, the state of freedom showed substantial improvement worldwide, with 27 countries and one territory registering gains and only 9 countries showing setbacks. The global picture thus suggests that the past year was one of the most successful for freedom since Freedom House began measuring world freedom in 1972.

"These global findings are encouraging," said Arch Puddington, director of research. "Among other things, the past year has been notable for terrorist violence, ethnic cleansing, civil conflict, catastrophic natural disasters, and geopolitical polarization. That freedom could thrive in this environment is impressive."

You can read the whole study and the statistics behind it at the Freedom House website. And lest you be cynical about who might be behind this organization, it was founded by Famous Democrat Eleanor Roosevelt and gets contributions from the Soros Foundations (flaming liberal) as well as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation (neo-con).

Best Argument by a Democrat for Voting Republican in '06

Vying valiantly with Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean for the "Best Argument by a Democrat for Voting Republican" Award is John Kerry.

Kerry pulls ahead of the competition with his latest remarks at a dinner December 14th for his '04 Campaign Workers.

This statement should whip the 'undecideds' and moderate Democrats into a voting frenzy for the Democratic Party in '06...John Kerry predicts that if Dems retake the House, they should start impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Story in The Hotline.

In a short speech, Kerry praised Dems who were working on Senate and House campaigns, and then said, according to one listener: "If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president." Another listener heard a slight variation: "If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this President." Kerry then quickly added, according to several in the audience, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

His communication director, David Wade, later said Kerry was "just kidding".

Hah. He is a laugh riot.

The Dems are always accusing Bush of 'dividing the country'. Is this their idea of 'bringing it together'?

Forget Condi vs. Hilary, My Money is on Betty vs. Murtha

For those of you who missed this priceless video clip on Fox News Wednesday night, you can catch it at The Political Teen.

Iraqi citizen and voter, Betty Dawisha, tells it like it is. I guess she isn't one of the 80% of Iraqis who want us out of the country. Too bad the BBC doesn't do any polls in Iraq on what they think of Howard Dean!

House Republicans Call Democrats' Bluff

The House Republicans drafted legislation tonight and plan to force a House vote tomorrow on the commitment of the U.S. to achieve victory in Iraq.

The Resolution is as follows:

RESOLUTION expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.

Whereas the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, the first to take place under the newly ratified Iraqi Constitution, represented a crucial success in the establishment of a democratic, constitutional order in Iraq; and

Whereas Iraqis, who by the millions defied terrorist threats to vote, were protected by Iraqi security forces with the help of United States and Coalition forces: Now, therefore, be it resolved that--

1. the House of Representatives is committed to achieving victory in Iraq;

2. the Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, was a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy;

3. the House of Representatives encourages all Americans to express solidarity with the Iraqi people as they take another step toward their goal of a free, open, and democratic society;

4. the successful Iraqi election of December 15, 2005, required the presence of United States Armed Forces, United States-trained Iraqi forces, and Coalition forces;

5. the continued presence of United States Armed Forces in Iraq will be required only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose;

6. setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;

7. the House of Representatives recognizes and honors the tremendous sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed Forces and their families, along with the members of Iraqi and Coalition forces; and

8. the House of Representatives has unshakable confidence that, with the support of the American people and the Congress, United States Armed Forces, along with Iraqi and Coalition forces, shall achieve victory in Iraq.

(It was online in Adobe format here. I re-keyed it, hopefully without typos!)

You can tell it was a great move, because Nancy Pelosi is already foaming at the mouth...(from Fox News)

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said House Republicans hope Democrats will stand with them in backing the resolution.

But a Pelosi spokeswoman, Jennifer Crider, said: "Talk about playing politics with the Iraq war, American troops and the American troop deserve a real debate — not the Republican stunt."

This is a direct response to Jack Murtha and his silly suggestions (let's redeploy our troops to Okinawa???), Howard Dean and his ranting (the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq...is just plain wrong) and Nancy Pelosi's mind-boggling claims that the majority of Dems are for immediate troop withdrawal (after they all voted against it a few weeks ago).

Once again, the Republicans are forcing the Democrats to vote and go on the public record as to where they stand on this war. And finally putting to rest the silly notion that withdrawing the troops is somehow the best strategy to achieve victory in Iraq (well, it is...but for the wrong side!)

C-SPAN will be 'must-see TV' tomorrow!!!

William Proxmire Dies at Age 90

I just heard on the news on the way to work this morning that William Proxmire, a former Wisconsin Democratic Senator, passed away today at the age of 90.

The AP has a story here in the Washington Post.

Proxmire was known for his "Golden Fleece" awards, which he gave out regularly to highlight waste in government. He drank his own Koolaid, too, by spurning campaign contributions, being a frugal money manager of his own office (he never went on an international trip in 20 years of service and fighting senatorial perks and salary increases.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with him, you had to admire his energy, dedication and "practice what you preach" approach to government. His passing reminds me of how far our elected officials have fallen from his example of hard work, integrity and dedication.

Make December 15th "Purple Finger Day"

Timmer over at Righting America is urging everyone to follow William Bennett's advice and color their fingers purple in a show of solidarity with the Iraqi people on December 15th, election day in Iraq. Check out his post here.

What a great idea! I have my purple Sharpie ready! Pass it along!

Another good man killed by terrorists

I got tears in my eyes the other night when I saw Jennifer Griffin's Fox News report that Lebanese journalist and politician Gibran Tueni had been killed in a bombing in a Beirut suburb Monday.

Tueni had predicted that he would be a target of assassination attempts back in August. I blogged last March on an interview Griffin did with Tueni where he said:

Huge impact. A huge impact. (note: he is referring to President Bush's State of the Union address) You know, really, people felt very happy when President Bush was re-elected. Believe it or not, we had a headline that day which was on eight columns--one word--Bush. Like that. You know why? Simply because, we think that is the first time that an American president is speaking clearly about democracy and is serious about implementing democracy in the Middle East.

Really, the Lebanese were always cautious about the American policy in the Middle East. The Lebanese always thought that the Americans bartered them with the Syrians. Lebanese are still cautious and afraid that one day or another, you will have a Syrian/American agreement, you know, and Lebanese will pay the price.

What helped a lot also, I think, really, is that this is the first time that we felt that maybe we are not going to pay the price alone. Because at the time we were outspoken, but you were killed.

So, in the end Tueni did pay the price alone and was killed for what? For speaking out. For encouraging freedom. For calling for Syrian troop withdrawal.

He was not threatening a violent overthrow of the government. He wasn't recruiting suicide bombers. He was speaking out--voicing what many Lebanese were thinking. He was a 48-year-old father of four, including twin daughters a few months old.

Totalitarianism is the enemy of human freedom. Freedom is the God-given heritage of all people. Why have Americans suddenly become confused about this? Do we want to be on the side of people who yearn and struggle for freedom and self-determination? Or do we want to tacitly support dictators whose regimes suppress their people in order to amass personal wealth and power? What do we want to stand for? What heritage do we want to leave to our children?

In addition, the situation in Lebanon provides an interesting counter to the liberal argument that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a cause of the terrorist violence there. We are not in Lebanon. We were not in Beslan. What explains the violence going on in countries where we are not?

The bottom line is that evil exists. (Did Hitler just have a 'different perspective'?)

The bottom line is that it is futile to try to explain terrorism through a rational thought process. They are not just people with a different point of view, a la Chris Matthews:

If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we’ve given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective.

Really, sometimes I am embarrassed to be an American.

Chronicles of Narnia

We saw the movie "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" this weekend. I have long been a fan of C.S. Lewis and have read many of his books (although he was a prolific writer, so I still have a few to go!).

The movie was very well done. Not surprising, since Douglas Gresham, Lewis' stepson by his marriage to Joy Davidman, was involved in the film as a producer. It was very true to the book and the graphics were absolutely amazing. (I saw it on the Ultrascreen and kept wanting to reach out to touch Aslan's furry mane!)

It was a good family movie. Young children would enjoy it (I found it less scary than Harry Potter) and there is enough depth to the story to keep adults interested. We went Friday night and the large Ultrascreen theater was packed.

It is fascinating that C.S. Lewis wrote one of the world's most beloved set of children's books, but was a confirmed bachelor until age 59, when he married Joy, a friend who had been recently diagnosed with cancer.

You can see the influences of his life--being wounded in France during WWI, his loss of his mother at an early age, his friendship with J.R.R. Tolkien and his Christianity--in the story. The story is a good one on its own merits and even better when you consider some of the truths that Lewis is trying to convey through the story.

I would highly recommend reading the entire set of Chronicles. Another good fiction book is The Screwtape Letters and his science fiction trilogy, Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength.

But my favorite Lewis book would have to be Mere Christianity.

Sounds Like Progress to Me...

Okay, does this sound like "no progress in Iraq" or "civil war" or "80% of the Iraqis want the U.S. out" to you?

BAGHDAD, Dec. 7 -- Tucked into a bunker-like former headquarters of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, a type of war room unfamiliar in this country buzzed with life Wednesday. Halfway through a 14-hour shift, campaign workers from the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni Arab group that boycotted the country's previous elections in January, munched rice and kebabs, their faces lit by computer screens.

Across town, hundreds of black-clad followers of the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr -- who decried balloting 10 months ago as something imposed under American occupation -- beat their backs with chains and stomped across a large poster of former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. Sadr's political wing has joined forces with the alliance of Shiite religious parties that leads Iraq's current government and opposes Allawi's secular movement.


As Iraqis nationwide prepare to go to the polls for the third time this year on Dec. 15 -- this time for a new parliament -- candidates and political parties of all stripes are embracing politics, Iraqi style, as never before and showing increasing sophistication about the electoral process, according to campaign specialists, party officials and candidates here.

From The Washington Post.

You'd Think They Would Have Learned from the Last Election...

Finally. The GOP has had enough. After months of taking it on the chin and letting the Dems rule the airwaves with gross factual misrepresentation, the Republican National Party has decided to fight fire with....well, actual video! (from Drudge)

It was interesting today to hear Howard Dean accuse the Republicans of 'cherry-picking' his comments. He claimed that his remarks were taken out of context.

In case you missed it, he said "the idea that we are going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong". So, try to imagine a possible context in which that comment would mean anything different than it does standing alone. In case you would like to hear the entire interview for yourself to see whether you can divine an alternative meaning, check it out here at the website of San Antonio radio station WOAI. There is an audio file of the entire interview.

I still can't quite figure out why the Democratic leaders persist in making loony remarks on the record (on television, radio, in interviews) and then protest that their remarks are being twisted in some Machievellian Republican plot. (I'm sure that Karl Rove is at the bottom of it all!)

I keep thinking that they are stuck in the past, where their version of the story was supported in the mainstream media and the general public had no way to verify the facts. For example, without the internet, you or I would have no idea what he actually said in San Antonio (unless we lived there and happened to catch the show).

However, now that anyone with a computer and an internet connection (or, heck, a library card) can replay EXACTLY what Howard actually said and decide for themselves whether the 'context' changed his meaning, why would he try to 'spin' his way out of it?

I don't know, but either Howard is pretty stupid, or he thinks we all are.

John Kerry--the gift that keeps giving

I've decided that, this year, all I want for Christmas is for John Kerry to keep attempting to articulate the Democratic position on the war on terror (with some assistance from Howard Dean--but that's another blog for another day).

On Sunday's "Face the Nation" program, John Kerry accused U.S. troops of terrorizing innocent Iraqi civilians.

Bob Schieffer says, "Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, he takes a very different view, Senator Kerry. He says basically that we should stay the course, because he says real progress is being made. He says, 'This is a war between 27 million Iraqis who want freedom and 10,000 terrorists.' He says we're in a watershed transformation. What about that?"

JOHN KERRY: I don't agree with that. But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all --

(transcript from Rush Limbaugh's website)

So, Kerry's position is:

~American troops are terrorizing kids and children (are these two different groups?) in the middle of the night (adding women as an afterthought). Is he serious? Is this what he thinks of our troops? Where is his concern for what Saddam Hussein was doing, which was terrorizing men, women, kids AND children in the morning, in the afternoon and in the middle of the night?)

~Breaking historical and religious customs (against breaking into people's homes in the middle of the night??). To what historical and religious customs is he referring? Here Kerry displays the breathless grasp of Middle Eastern culture and religion that would make him a great President. It is obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. Watch the other Dems and the media for this new talking point--maybe Kerry was just trying it out to see if it had any 'legs'.

~The Iraqis should be doing this, not the American troops. I don't get this at all. Is he advocating that Iraqis should be terrorizing kids and children and women in the middle of the night and breaking their historial and religious customs?

~He doesn't agree that the war is between the Iraqi civilians who want peace and freedom and the terrorists? Who DOES he think the participants are in the war, exactly?

Really, it is scary that this guy is considered worthy of interviews on television, let alone an elected official who came anywhere close to winning a presidential election. I don't know if I can handle three more years of this....

Marquette Punishes Student for Blog Comments

In a controversial ruling, the Marquette University Dental School has decided to make an example of a student blogger who wrote uncomplimentary remarks about his professors and fellow students on his blog.

From the MJS article in today's JSOnline edition:

A dental student at Marquette University has been suspended for the rest of the academic year and ordered to repeat a semester after a committee of professors, administrators and students determined that he violated professional conduct codes when he posted negative comments about unnamed students and professors on a blog.

So, will the university start suspending students who make negative verbal comments about other students and professors?

Read the excellent analysis of this situation at Marquette Warrior.

The student is considering suing the university on First Amendment Grounds. This will be one to watch.

Just Do It

Per Kevin McCullough's blogsite, Musclehead Revolution, join the "Send the ACLU a Christmas Card" brigade.

We are excited to be launching the opportunity today...between now and Christmas we are asking you to send the ACLU direct "MerryChristmas" cards.

And we aren't talking about these generic "happy holiday" (meaning nothing) type of cards...

Go get as "Christmas" a Christmas card as you can find... something that says.. "Joy To The World", "For Unto Us A Child Is Born", but at least "Merry Christmas", put some of your own thoughts into it, sign it respectfully and zip it off in the mail to:

ACLU
"Wishing You Merry Christmas"
125 Broad Street
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

While you're at it, send one to your local ACLU Chapter. For Wisconsinites, it is:

State Office
ACLU of Wisconsin
207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5774

Just think what might happen if everyone who opposes the ACLU's constant interference with our freedom of religious expression would send them a card.

If there's hope for the Grinch, maybe....

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

Dems React to Bush's Plan

Great post from Jon Henke at The QandO Blog on the Democratic reaction to Bush's strategy on Iraq. The best thing that could happen to Bush's approval ratings is to have John Kerry hold frequent press conferences and remind the American people how close we came to actually putting this nincompoop in the White House.

Here's what Kerry said:

"The truth is that the president draws a false line in trying to make his case to America. The troops don't belong to his point of view, they belong to America..."

Here is Jon's response:

Well, and I don't want to presume to tell a sitting Senator his business, but I seem to recall Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution giving the Executive branch just that—authority over the armed forces: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States".

Maybe John Kerry has a different edition of the Constitution.

In the Comments section, Steve Schippert has an additional response to this nonsense.

So what we should have is 52% of the troops fighting the war with conviction, 47% of them angrily testifying in Congress and/or protesting in Fallujah by tossing their medals over some fence still standing, and 1% of them refusing to go along with either crowd, confidently defiant to everything.

Earth to Kerry: We had an election. America chose. The title is "Commander in Chief". Not Military Democratic Procedural Facilitator in Chief.

Jon takes aim at the responses of other key Dems, including our own Russ Feingold, who said:

The problem here is that the president put out the wrong document. It should be strategy for victory against al Qaeda. Iraq is not the be-all and end-all of our national security.

So, for months (including just yesterday), Feingold has been calling for Bush to present a specific strategy for the war on Iraq. Now Bush presents one and Russ says it addresses the wrong thing? And I thought that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

Read the entire post.

The Dems are clearly in a sorry state of disarray. It will be interesting to see how that master of politics, Hillary Clinton, rises to this challenge.

MJS Column Spreads Falsehood About Bush

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today chose to publish a stunning column from community columnist Marcia Thurnbauer, who in her column defending the right of Milwaukee citizens to vote on a referendum opposing the war, demonstrates that anti-war liberals are willing to spread out-and-out lies in order to support their cause. And, unfortunately, the mainstream media is all-too-willing to print them.

I quote from the column:

And whether you believe that the U.S. attack on Iraq is the result of innocent lapses in intelligence, the opportunity to seize control of Iraq's oil, or-as The New Yorker magazine chillingly reported--a mandate from God to President Bush to force democracy on the Middle East, there is little doubt that this ill-conceived war is depleting resources that are badly needed at home.

What I believe Marcia is referring to is that now-infamous BBC 'crockumentary' where Nabil Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, made the following statement:

Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".

"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did.

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East. And by God I'm gonna do it."

So...speaking of God, let's use our God-given common sense and re-read the above quotes. Do you honestly think that George Bush really said this? Even if you think he thinks this way--would he be stupid enough to say this to Nabil Shaath and Mahmoud Abbas? (And if he is THAT stupid, how could he possibly be the criminal mastermind that 'duped' the Congress, Senate, American people and THE WORLD into attacking Saddam Hussein? Can't have it both ways, folks. But I digress.)

Apparently, to liberals opposing the war, it is okay to just make stuff up. To characterize this as a revelation from The New Yorker Magazine is blatantly misleading. I did an archive search on The New Yorker Magazine website and I can't find anything related to this story. I don't doubt her word that The New Yorker reported on the BBC story, but apparently, they did not have any independent 'scoop' on this topic.

So what? Maybe Marcia just failed to attribute the source of her comment incorrectly. And if that's all there was to it, it would just be sloppy research. But wait, there's more.

Of course, the White House flatly denied that Bush made these remarks. But since leftist Democrats and anti-war Liberals have called Bush an inveterate liar, I guess they value the word of a Palestinian negotiator more highly than that of the President of the United States.

But would they take the word of another Palestinian? One that was actually in the same meeting? If you had followed this story at all, you would know that Abbas, who was in the meeting, flatly denied that Bush made any such remarks.

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A statement in Abbas's name released by his office said an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath due to be broadcast by the BBC in which Shaath described a meeting with Bush in June 2003 gave a "completely false" account.

In the interview for the series, Israel and the Arabs, Shaath described the meeting, at which he said Abbas was present.

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did. And then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.' And I did,'" Shaath said.

"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my visit in 2003."

Shaath could not be reached for comment.

From an AP report quoted in The Sydney Herald (Of course, this got about as much coverage in the U.S. mainstream media as my Aunt Martha's funeral).

And even Shaath backed away somewhat from his remarks in an October 7, 2005 interview with the BBC, headlined "Bush God Comments 'Not Literal'".

But in an interview for the BBC Arabic service on Friday, he said the president - who had just announced an end to hostilities in Iraq, was merely expressing his heartfelt commitment to peace in the Middle East.

"President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny," he said.

"We understood that he was illustrating [in his comments] his strong faith and his belief that this is what God wanted."

Despite this, the BBC chose to run the 'documentary' anyway. Do a Google search on "Bush God Iraq War BBC". It will give you goosebumps. This out-and-out lie from the Palestinians has been circulate all around the world. And apparently accepted as truth.

So, Marcia swallows it all, hook, line and sinker. Again, can we really blame her? Unless she was motivated to really question the story and do some further research, can we blame her for being duped by the story? Maybe, maybe not. But The Journal Sentinel has a responsibility, if not to its readers, then to its stockholders, who have to be appalled at dwindling circulation numbers, to vet the information contained in columns that they run.

In addition, I find it laughable that the mainstream media continues to knock the internet and the bloggers as being 'unreliable'.

And I wonder. If you can't attack the war strictly on its merits, then I guess you are reduced to just making stuff up. Ironic that this is what liberals are accusing the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the war.

I think it is about time that American citizens, regardless of our feelings about the war, start demanding truth from our news sources. If we accept a press that is no longer 'free', but bound by their own ideology, we are on a slippery slope. A free, accurate and reliable press is a linchpin of democracy.

Bush Must Read the Journal Sentinel Editorial Page

So....

Yesterday, the Journal Sentinel editorial page demanded, "Give specifics, Mr. President" (see yesterday's blogs).

So today, the White House published the specifics. "A National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

Read it.

Hopefully, now, we can have a fruitful national debate about the plan instead of the incessant whining that there isn't one.

I can't wait to see what kind of coverage this gets in the mainstream media.

She was FOR withdrawal before she was AGAINST it

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reversing course, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday endorsed a call by a prominent member of her rank-and-file to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

``We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make American safer, to make our military stronger and to make Iraq more stable,'' Pelosi said. ``That is what the American people and our troops deserve.''

Pelosi, D-Calif., said she wouldn't be calling for a party caucus position on the plan by the Pennsylvania Democrat because ``a vote on the war is an individual vote.''

Nevertheless, she said: ``I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha.''

So, I have one question for Nancy Pelosi. Why didn't you vote FOR the November 18th Congressional resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq, if you were so convinced that it was the right thing to do?

Actually, I have two questions....

What has happened in the last week-and-a-half to make you change your mind?

Okay, okay, so make it three....

What sort of mind-altering drugs are you on?

The House voted overwhelmingly against immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Nancy is unwilling to put it to another vote, but she believes that a majority of Dems support Murtha.

Wow.

Is this specific enough for you?

Latest Journal/Sentinel editorial on the progress of the war, entitled "Give Specifics, Mr. President".

Wednesday, President Bush is scheduled to make the short trip from Washington to Annapolis, Md., to give a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy assessing progress in Iraq and also in what he calls the broader war on terrorism. The president, who has often made reassuring statements about such progress, should take this opportunity to complement those words with convincing evidence.
Americans deserve to know whether at home they are safer from terrorists today than they were on 9-11. They also deserve to know whether in Iraq progress is being made in taming the terrorist insurgency.

Yes, I agree. Wouldn't it be nice if the mainstream media would report on the facts surrounding these topics, instead of endlessly harping on the suicide bombings and Vietnam analogies? Why is the press absolutely silent on giving the American people any context by which to judge the true progress of the war?

So how's this for a specific? We win. We defeat the terrorists. We help the Iraqis establish a representative government and a constitution. We help them rebuild their infrastructure--roads, schools, power. We train their troops and fight alongside them until terrorism subsides. "No end but victory." I think that qualifies as a strategy.

What do the Democrats offer? Well, according to golden boy Jack Murtha (whom no one can criticize, since he is a Vietnam veteran--a rule that only applies to Dems and libs, since the Swift Boat Vets were certainly 'fair game' in the last election), and I quote..."There is no exit strategy. The path to victory--victory is not a strategy." (from Hardball transcript)

Victory is not a strategy? Well, is defeat a strategy? Is surrender a strategy?
To help us understand this concept, the Journal Sentinel goes on to explain how a non-victory strategy might work.

The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is the establishment of a target date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. (emphasis mine)

The most effective way to make progress against the terrorists is to announce to them when we are going to withdraw? Come again? (Take that, you terrorists! We are going to run away!) The Journal Sentinel editorial writer must have graduated from the French school of warfare....

Iraqi soldiers will have little motivation for the difficult work of fighting terrorists as long as they know the Americans will be there to help them out.

How can they possibly think that the Iraqis have insufficient motivation for fighting terror? This is their country. Their lives are at stake. Their children's futures are at stake. To think that they have no motivation to protect and rebuild their own country is an insult to their integrity and bravery.

Unfortunately, Bush has rejected target dates. Instead, his strategy can be summed up in the phrase, "As they stand up, we will stand down." That is, as Iraq's security forces become better prepared to take on the insurgents and defend their country's fledgling government, America's forces will be able to leave. That process, Bush insists, will not be driven by a calendar.

And I thank God every day for his integrity.

As a practical matter, however, Bush cannot ignore the calendar. Because the war has become unpopular, he will be under irresistible pressure next year to make troop reductions before midterm elections. In fact, plans for such cutbacks have already been made. Also, it is very possible that the Iraqi government will demand a troop reduction; recently, some 100 Iraqi political figures meeting in Cairo called for a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Unlike his political counterparts in the Democratic party (whose hypocrisy was unveiled for all to see on Friday, November 18th, when they spent hours accusing Bush of lying, calling the war a mistake and a quagmire and then refused to vote to withdraw our troops), Bush is more interested in doing the right thing for our country and for the Iraqis than in the latest 'popularity poll' on the war.

Actually, the mere thought of trying to measure the 'popularity' of a war is really ridiculous. No wars are popular. No troops deaths are desirable. No civilian casualties are 'acceptable'. But an America who is unwilling to fight its enemies, to protect its allies, to protect its national interests--that would be an America 'not worth dying for' to quote Cindy Sheehan.

This pressure to reduce U.S. forces adds urgency to the job of training, equipping, motivating and fielding a home-grown Iraqi army and police force. Bush's upbeat remarks about progress in this effort have been echoed by a leading Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who recently returned from Iraq. Lieberman reports, in an opinion article Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal, that under a strategy of "clear, hold and build," Iraqi forces are now holding several cities formerly occupied by terrorists.
But how long will they hold them, and will they really build? Reports about these Iraqi troops are mixed and therefore confusing. The Pentagon told ABC News in mid-November that only one Iraqi battalion - about 700 troops - is capable of fighting without U.S. help. There are continuing reports of a lack of discipline in the ranks of the Iraqi army and also reports that terrorists and militias have infiltrated Iraqi police units.
That is why Bush needs to supply abundant and, above all, credible evidence when he talks about Iraq in Annapolis today. Only when he stands up with convincing facts, not slogans, will his critics stand down.

No, I think the Journal Sentinel has it backwards. I think it is high time that the opponents of the war start standing up with convincing facts. We need to see their plan. We need to understand their definition of success. We need a serious discussion of our level of commitment to the Iraqi people and to the success of establishing a representative democracy in the middle East. We need to understand the ramifications of a U.S. withdrawal--not only in Iraq, but also in our dealings with Iran and others.

We need our elected representatives to stop the partisan sniping and work together to have a serious debate about the issues and agree on a plan that all can support (and continue to support, even if it becomes uncomfortable or unpopular). But, unfortunately, I don't think the Democrats have it in them.

Maybe, since they don't have a plan, they should cut and run.

Pix of Cindy you WON'T see on the cover of the New York Times

Here's Cindy, at her book signing near Crawford, last Saturday (November 26th).

















You could almost feel sorry for her.

There IS and WAS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN...a timetable

Great article from Asharq Alawsat, the leading Arabic International Daily, owned by the Saudi Distribution Company. It is written by Amir Taheri.

In the circles opposed to the toppling of Saddam Hussein one word is making the rounds these days: timetable.

Having failed to stop the war that liberated Iraq, and with their hopes of the insurgents marching triumphant into Baghdad dashed, they are now focusing on one issue: the withdrawal of the US-led coalition forces. Some want this to happen immediately, while others are prepared to grant a few weeks or months.

Those Democrat politicians in Washington, who had backed the war with as much enthusiasm as George W Bush, are now using the issue of withdrawal as a means of distancing themselves from their initial positions. The Arab reactionaries who shuddered at the thought of a despot being toppled by foreign intervention are now clinging to the withdrawal slogan in the hope of sabotaging the process of democratisation in Iraq. In Europe, professional anti-Americans of all ilks are trying to cover their political nakedness with the “ withdrawal” fig leaf.

The truth, however, is that a timetable has been in place from the first day of the war that ended the Ba’athist tyranny in 2003.

Yes. Makes you think. Who are the Democrats aligning themselves with, exactly, in calling for us to withdraw from Iraq? The Ba'athists? Al Qaeda? Zarqawi? They all want the same outcome....

Any checklist would clearly show that the Iraq project has been more successful than Saddam nostalgics with to portray. The first objective, to bring down Saddam Hussein, was achieved in three weeks. The next objective was to break the apparatus of oppression created by the Ba’ath. Despite some residual problems that objective, too, has been achieved. Another objective was to break Saddam’s war machine that had been used against Iraq’s neighbours as well as the Kurds and the Shi’ites. After just three years nothing is left of that infernal machine.

One could continue the checklist with the formation of the Governing Council representing the first step towards the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty.

Next on the checklist we have the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis that was accomplished in June 2004.

That was followed by the formation of an interim government, a series of municipal elections, a general election leading to the formation of Iraq’s first pluralist government, the writing of a new constitution and a referendum to get it approved. The next item on the checklist is the general election scheduled for 15 December.

The checklist clearly shows that every objective included in the political programme has been achieved within the exact timeframe fixed by the new Iraqi leadership and its coalition allies.

Indeed. But Ted Kennedy calls the war a 'quagmire'. Russ Feingold calls it a 'flop'. What, exactly, is their definition of success?

With the exception of the Zarqawi gang and its residual Ba’athist allies, almost no one in Iraq wants an immediate withdrawal of he coalition forces. The Iraqis know that their country is located in a rough region with predatory neighbours that cannot be trusted. They see the presence of the coalition forces as a kind of insurance policy against even more brutal intervention in their affairs by several of Iraq’s neighbours.

The idea of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been built into the entire project from day one. It was on that understanding that the Iraqi people chose not to fight for Saddam, thus allowing the coalition to win a rapid and easy military victory. That fact created a moral contract between the people of Iraq and the US-led coalition as co-liberators of the country. The Iraqi people’s part of the bargain was not to prevent the dismantling of the Ba’athist machinery of repression and war and to welcome the chance to build a new political system. The coalition’s part of the bargain was to protect Iraq against its internal and external enemies until it was strong enough to look after itself.

A voice of reason. The Democrats, backed by their allies in the mainstream media, have been yelling 'no plan to win the war', 'we need a timetable', 'the war is a failure' so often that, unfortunately, I think people are starting to believe it. This is extremely dangerous for the U.S.

What matters, however, is that it is up to the people of Iraq and its coalition allies to decide the moment an the modalities of the withdrawal It is a judgment that no outsider could make .. Those who opposed the liberation and those who have done all they could to undo it have no moral right to join that debate.

Read the whole thing.

Nobody's Senator But....

The latest wisdom from Senator Russ Feingold...

"People, I think, feel overall this has been a flop," Feingold said of the war.

A flop? Does he think he is talking about a new sitcom?

and from the Associated Press via Newsday:

"But I do think one thing we can all agree on is that this country is overdue for a cheesehead president. We've never had one," he told ABC's "This Week."

A cheesehead is a native or resident of Wisconsin, a leading dairy state. The term also refers to the yellow "cheese" wedges worn on the heads of Green Bay Packers football fans.

Jeesh. And the Democrats complain that Bush is a dummy.

Poll Results on War Pulled from Murtha's Website

This is priceless. From World News Daily.

The congressman at the center of the battle last week over withdrawal of troops from Iraq removed the results from his own Internet poll on the subject after online voters overwhelmingly opposed his stance.

Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., posted the poll after he ignited a firestorm in the House that led to Republicans forcing a quick vote on the issue Friday.

While a revised poll page remains on the site, the link to it from his homepage has been removed, making the survey effectively invisible to the public.

A contributor to Web forum Free Republic.com, however, posted results as of 3:34 p.m. Eastern time.

The call for immediate withdrawal garnered just 12 percent of the more than 12,000 votes.

Please indicate which of the following best summarizes your view on what the United States should do in Iraq:
A. We should immediately remove all troops. 1,562 votes, 12.3 percent

B. We should redeploy to the periphery of Iraq as soon as practical to protect troop safety and give the Iraqis incentive to take charge sooner, not later. 3,239 votes, 25.6 percent

C. We should maintain current troop levels until Iraq builds an army to defend and stabilize their country, even if that takes years. 6,726 votes, 53.1 percent

D. We should re-institute the national draft to increase troop levels to where we can seal the Iraqi borders and stop the passage of insurgents and insurgent-supply missions. 1,146 votes, 9 percent

E. None of the above. 3 votes, 0.0 percent

Hat tip: Jessica McBride's Media Matters

CNN Apologizes for X-ing Cheney's Face

Okay, so here is CNN's response to the flashing X over Cheney's face this week...

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - CNN apologized on Tuesday and offered a rare explanation from its control booth for a technical glitch many viewers failed to notice -- a large "X" the network flashed over Vice President Dick Cheney's face.

The wayward graphic, which CNN said lasted for about one-seventh of a second, appeared during the network's live coverage of Cheney's speech on Monday addressing critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq.

Word of the snafu quickly surfaced on the Internet, including still photos of the image posted by online columnist Matt Drudge, along with a story suggesting that some who saw the momentary "X" thought it might have been deliberate.

CNN, a unit of Time Warner Inc., later issued a mea culpa saying an investigation by senior management concluded "this was a technical malfunction, not an issue of operator error" and expressing regret for the incident.

The network followed up with a special on-air segment during its "CNN Live Today" broadcast, in which anchor Daryn Kagan joined the network's technical manager, Steve Alperin, in the control room to offer a fuller explanation.

The "X" image, a place-holding marker used by technicians to cue up graphics, is not supposed to be visible to viewers but was inadvertently projected onto the screen by a malfunction in a "switcher" device, they explained.

"So, for all the conspiracy theories out there," Kagan said, " ... that's not what this is about. It's a computer bug that people deal with everyday. It's just that ours was in front of millions of people."

A spokesman for the vice president said Cheney had no comment on the incident.

Democratic Schizophrenia

You must read the latest column from Victor Davis Hanson. He provides a brilliant analysis of the pickle the Democrats find themselves in today, as a result of their inability to take a stand (and stick to it) on the initiative in Iraq.

Hanson is much more articulate than I, but basically, their problems include the following:

*They were for the war before they were against it.

*They run the risk of aligning themselves with the lunatic fringe of the Left.

*They cannot refute the progress we are making in Iraq--so they focus on U.S. casualties.

*They are not sure that the American people are ready to give up on Iraq.

*They are not sure how Iraq is really going to turn out.

This is why you see them doing crazy things like last Friday's vote in Congress--spending hours decrying the war and then voting overwhelmingly against a resolution to withdraw our troops.

Read the whole article.

This Says it All....

CNN Hits New Low

From Drudge:

In a televised broadcast of Vice President Dick Cheney's live speech from the American Enterprise Institute earlier today, CNN flashed a large black "X" over Cheney's face.














See my earlier posts on the manipulation of photo-journalism to make subtle, political points. This is a new low, even for CNN. They had better get to the bottom of it and fire the person responsible. I can't believe that this was just a random broadcasting error.

'War Hawk' Jack Murtha Urged Pullout from Somalia that Emboldened OBL

From NewsMax.com:

After terrorists attacked U.S. troops in Mogadishu, Somalia 12 years ago, anti-Iraq war Democrat, Rep. John Murtha urged then-President Clinton to begin a complete pullout of U.S. troops from the region.

Clinton took the advice and ordered the withdrawal - a decision that Osama bin Laden would later credit with emboldening his terrorist fighters and encouraging him to mount further attacks against the U.S.

"Our welcome has been worn out," Rep Murtha told NBC's "Today" show in Sept. 1993, a month after 4 U.S. Military Police had been killed in Somalia by a remote-detonated land mine.

The Pennsylvania Democrat announced that President Clinton had been "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."

...

In a 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, Osama bin Laden said that America's withdrawal from Somalia had emboldened his burgeoning al Qaida force and encouraged him to plan new attacks.

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

We have met the enemy and he is.....us

this powerful email from Lieutenant Colonel Joe Repya. I am including the post in its entirety.

We've written here several times about Minnesota's Lt. Col. Joe Repya, who volunteered to return to active duty for service in Iraq at age 59. Joe's previous service includes command of a rifle platoon in Vietnam and flying helicopters in the first Gulf War.

Joe is a classic citizen patriot and activist. He first came to public attention in March 2003 when, disturbed by the anti-war campaign mounted by Minnesota liberals, he arranged for the production of lawn signs saying "Liberate Iraq -- Support Our Troops." His effort garnered a lot of publicity, and Joe eventually distributed 30,000 signs.

Today he writes:

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq in January to finish my tour. I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they "Support the Troops" by wanting them to "Cut and Run" before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.

I'm tired that so many American's think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy ove

Democrats don't seem to mind unilateralism....when it is exercised in retreat

And another thing....

In Friday's heated debate in the House over the resolution to withdraw immediately from Iraq, I did not hear one word about the effect of our withdrawal on other coalition countries.

We have a number of allies who have joined us in Iraq. Their men and women are dying right alongside ours. Many of them joined us not only because they support the cause, but also because of their loyalty and friendship to the United States.

While the Dems were foaming at the mouth when we went to war (remember John Kerry's 'global test'?), I did not hear one of them suggest that we huddle with the coalition before making any decisions about our continued involvement in the war. I guess they have repeated the lie of 'unilateralism' so many times that they actually believe it.


How do we expect our allies to react to all this internal discussion of Iraq? Should they just stay in Iraq, holding the bag? Do we realize that all of this U.S. discussion about cutting and running might affect their policies and attitudes about Iraq?

How can we expect our allies to stand firm with us in Iraq (and elsewhere in the world), if we are publicly second-guessing our involvement? How do we think they might respond to accusations that Bush deliberately misled the country (and the world) to enter into war with Iraq? Do you think they might be dismayed? Do you think they might be reluctant to support us in future conflicts?

As our allies see our resolve and commitment begin to crumble, do you think they will just hang around? I suspect that they might want to remove their troops from harm's way. Once they begin pulling their troops, the Left will use this as further rationale for our immediate withdrawal.

Heaven help the U.S. if we prematurely withdraw from Iraq. If we leave these people to annihilation by the terrorists, I don't see how we can ever approach our allies in the future and expect them to support us in foreign conflicts.

It would be a self-inflicted wound from which we would never recover.

More Good News from Iraq

While it looks like Zarqawi is still on the run, this good news was buried in an article in today's Washington Post...

Over the past month, the official said, there has been a series of raids following a surge in tips from Iraqis unhappy with Zarqawi and his operation. These tend to be traditional Iraqi leaders -- sheiks and imams -- upset with the organization, especially its recent execution of Sunni Arabs in Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar. "Their feeling is that al Qaeda in Iraq has overstepped its bounds," he said.

One of our biggest problems in dealing with an in-country 'insurgency' (read: terrorists) is the tacit complicity of their fellow countrymen. Iraqi leaders may have been willing to 'hedge their bets', by outwardly supporting the U.S., but yet doing nothing to stop Zarqawi and his thugs. If they are now willing to turn him in, I think his days are numbered.

Was Zarqawi Killed and Would that be 'Progress'?

Rumors abound that Zarqawi was killed in a gunfight in Mosul on Saturday. Here is the latest story from ABC News. The Jerusalem Post has another article here.

FoxNews tonight reported that, while some of the terrorists were killed by U.S. gunfire, several of them blew themselves up, rather than be captured.

In any case, Zarqawi has been denounced by his family. Hopefully, as his supporters diminish, our chances of catching or killing him will increase.

So, do you think that the Dems would consider this 'progress in Iraq'? Probably not, since they don't consider the following as signs of progress:

*First elections ever
*Drafting of country's first Constitution ever
*Sunnis regretting not voting in first election; urging members to vote in upcoming election
*Rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure
*Creation of an Iraqi military, fighting side-by-side with U.S. troops
*Terrorist encounters changing from strategic military operations to suicide bombings

I think that the mainstream media should have the decency to at least report the number of terrorists killed and captured next to the U.S. death tolls printed daily in the newspapers. The American people need some sort of context in order to understand how the war is really progressing.

It will be a fatal mistake if we make cruicial decisions about our foreign policy based on opinion polls based on inaccurate, misleading information from the mainstream news media.

By the way, I know I'm rambling, but Jack Murtha quoted a statistic (twice) in the floor debate over the withdrawal resolution Friday night. He stated that 80% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. out of Iraq (or don't want us there--not sure of the exact wording--it was late and my blood pressure was soaring). Has anyone seen this particular survey? I would love to know who conducted the survey and how the question was worded.

While I am sure that the Iraqis eventually want the U.S. to leave, thus signaling Iraqi stability and sovereignty, I can't believe that they want us to leave NOW. It would be interesting if someone could do some fact-checking on this one.

Women and Heart Disease

Fascinating blog post from Dr. Helen, who is the wife of Glen Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, on her mis-diagnosed heart attack.

Should be required reading for all women and their physicians.

Perhaps someone should start a 'pink ribbon' campaign for women's heart health.

Thoughts for the Day

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. ~Will Rogers


Congress is so strange. A man gets up to speak and says nothing. Nobody listens - and then everybody disagrees. ~Boris Marshalov

Republicans Call Dems' Bluff

In a brilliant stroke of genius last night, the Republicans in Congress called for a vote on the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (Good post: A Spine is Detected). This forced the Democrats to basically 'put up or shut up' over the war in Iraq. We listened to the whole thing on C-SPAN Satellite Radio as we were driving up to Minneapolis.

The Democrats have been calling George W. Bush, the President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief a liar for the past several weeks. So, it is hard to understand their frenzy last night when the following occurred...

Members were heatedly debating a procedural rule concerning the Hunter resolution when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) was recognized at 5:20 p.m. Schmidt won a special election in August, defeating Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, and is so new to Congress that some colleagues do not know her name.

She told colleagues that "a few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp," an Ohio legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer. "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Dozens of Democrats erupted at once, pointing angrily at Schmidt and shouting repeatedly, "Take her words down" -- the House term for retracting a statement. For a moment Schmidt tried to keep speaking, but the uproar continued and several GOP colleagues surrounded her as she sat down, looking slightly dazed. Presiding officer Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) gaveled in vain for order as Democrats continued shouting for Schmidt to take back her words. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) yelled "You guys are pathetic!" from the far end of the Democratic section to the GOP side.

Just as matters seemed to calm a bit, Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) suddenly charged across the aisle to the GOP seats, jabbing his finger furiously at a small group of GOP members and shouting, "Say Murtha's name!" Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who had led the chants for striking Schmidt's comments, gently guided Ford by the arm back to the minority party's side.

At 5:31, when order was finally restored, Schmidt rose again and said softly, "My words were not directed at any member of the House." She asked that they "be withdrawn" from the record.

It was a very bad idea to have her words withdrawn from the record, because this gives license to the Dems and the media to reconstruct what she actually said. Watch for them to spin this as an 'attack' on Murtha.

Whoa. No sooner had I typed these words than I saw this great post at The California Conservative.

She didn't attack Murtha. She said that she got a call from a fellow legislator who asked her to remind Murtha that cowards cut and run. Since Murtha is suggesting that we cut and run, I guess the shoe fits. While he is (was?) a war hero and deserves our gratitude for serving his country bravely, this does not exempt him from criticism when he makes a cowardly suggestion. (And apparently doesn't keep him from making a cowardly suggestion).

But you had to hear the rest of the debate that evening (and this probably won't be reported in any major media outlet). Murtha used his time at the end of the debate to tell story after story of individual families and soldiers dealing with the tragedy of injury and loss of life.

Now, the American people place a high value on individual lives, unlike the terrorists. No one wants to lose our young men and women (or older ones, for that matter) in a conflict in a distant part of the world that few of us will ever see and most of us will never understand.

That is why the terrorists blow up innocent men, women and children. That is why they kidnap and behead unarmed contractors and drag burned bodies through the streets. To weaken our resolve and cause us to give up. So, by playing up the very same thing that the terrorists have identified as our weakness, isn't Murthau playing right into their hands?

Anway, after hours of bloviating, fist waving and foaming-at-the-mouth, in the end, the vote came down to 403 to 3. So, the 'heroic' Dems after arguing for weeks that...

*We should not be in Iraq.
*Bush deliberately misled the country to war.
*The Iraqi people don't want us there.
*We are making terrorism worse.
*We are causing the rest of the world to hate us.

...voted that *gulp* we should, "stay the course". Kind of makes your head spin, doesn't it?

It will be fascinating to see how the Democrats try to resuscitate the 'let's withdraw from Iraq' mantra after all of the them voted against it.

"Your comments may be recorded for training purposes....."

Check this out.

The American Spectator has a post on their site courtesy of The Washington Prowler, listing quotable quotes from the Democrats on the subject of Saddam Hussein and Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Also, check out the excellent video posted on the Republican National Committee website, showing some of these quotes (and others) in video format.

Either the Democrats think the American people are incredibly stupid, or they are basing their tactics on the world of the 'old media', where they could manipulate history and remain unchallenged.

Rockefeller Lies, People Die

If you have ever watched a magician, you know that one of their key techniques is diversion. While they are waving their wands in the air, or twirling their cape, they distract you so that you don't notice them pulling the coin out of their sleeve.

This has been the approach of the Democrats. Keep harping on the 'pre-war intelligence', "where are the WMDs?" and question Bush's motivations to keep the American people distracted from the true progress in Iraq and the vital strategic importance of nurturing democracy in the Middle East. The Dems have scrupulously avoided any real debate on the war itself or offered any alternative strategies for dealing with either garden variety or state-sponsored terrorism. Business as usual for the Dems.

But recently, they have crossed the line with their tactics. And Bush is finally responding. It is about time.

Senator Jay Rockefeller made an amazing and chilling confession on Fox News Sunday. Here is an excerpt from William Bennett's NRO article.

Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, the following exchange took place between Chris Wallace and U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

While Democrats in Washington are berating the White House for having prewar intelligence wrong, a high-profile U.S. senator, member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, who has a name more internationally recognizable than Richard Cheney's, tells two putative allies (Saudi Arabia and Jordan) and an enemy who is allied with Saddam Hussein (Syria) that the United States was going to war with Iraq. This is not a prewar intelligence mistake, it is a prewar intelligence giveaway.

Syria is not only on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and the country many speculate is where Hussein has secreted weapons, it is also the country from which terrorists are flowing into Iraq to fight our troops and allies. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have had, over the years, conflicted loyalties. What was Senator Rockefeller doing? What was he thinking? And all this before President Bush even made a public speech about Iraq — to the U.N. or anyone else.

We can have our umpteenth investigation into what the White House knew and when it knew it about Iraqi weapons — we will find the same answer: It knew what President Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, and William Cohen knew when they made speeches about the dangers of Iraq in the late 1990s and when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. How about an investigation, now, into what exactly Senator Jay Rockefeller told Syria and just what Syria might have done with the information made available to them presumably before it was made available to the U.N., the Senate, or the American people.

Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies — but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.

If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.

This is incredible. So. Do you think any of the major media outlets who thought that our national security had been compromised by 'outing' Valerie Plame (which no one actually did, by the way, lest you forget the truth in the constant barrage of lies)--do you think any of them will even report this exchange? Do you think any of them will call for an investigation? Do you think that any of them will call for Rockefeller's resignation? Don't hold your breath.

Meanwhile, Bush has finally stepped up to the plate and is fighting back. He made these comments in his speech at Elmendort Air Force Base in Alaska on Monday.

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war, but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my administration and members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq, and reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

Let me give you some quotes from three senior Democrat leaders: First, and I quote, "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." Another senior Democrat leader said, "The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power." Here's another quote from a senior Democrat leader: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think the President is approaching this in the right fashion."

They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now. (Applause.)

The truth is that investigations of intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world -- and that person was Saddam Hussein. ***

Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagreed with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.

As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them into war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. (Applause.)

You can read the text of the speech here.

Go, George, Go. This message is long overdue. It is one thing to disagree with the President's policy. It is one thing to question whether our intelligence community is effective and how we might improve it in the future to gain better information on our enemies. It is another thing entirely to start accusing Bush of deliberately lying and misleading the country. It is another thing to visit leaders of other countries (one a known enemy) and lie to them--undermining our President and our government.

In the old days, we would call it treason. Now, some would call it 'patriotism'.

Bush and the Republicans need to stage a media blitz to refute the lying tactics of the Left. Even if you agree with the anti-war crowd, their tactics should alarm you. Let's debate the issue of Iraq on its merits, not on baseless accusations. And let's remember that our debate is no longer confined to the boundaries of the U.S. We live in a global culture. Messages here, designed for political ends and aimed at the American people, can and will find a very different audience. With very real consequences.

The danger of a campaign based on lies is this...

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. ...

Who said it?

Adolf Hitler.

Think about it.