First off, did you know that the Iraq War has just about been won? I know, I'm also shocked -- SHOCKED -- that the MSM hasn't really reported it, but it's true. Gerard Baker writes at the UK Times Online:
He goes on to outline all the stunning accomplishments of the U.S.-led coalition in the War on Terror over the past few years, way too much to summarize here. If you think we haven't gotten much done, go read this article and be amazed. The troops fighting for freedom against terrorist tyranny have done an incredible job! Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates claims Al Qaeda has been 'routed' in Iraq. Ann Coulter even claimed Iraq was safer than Detroit based on May casualty numbers."My centre is giving way. My right is in retreat. Situation excellent. I shall attack!"
If only our political leaders and opinion-formers displayed even a hint of the defiant resilience that carried Marshal Foch to victory at the Battle of the Marne. But these days timorous defeatism is on the march. In Britain setbacks in the Afghan war are greeted as harbingers of inevitable defeat. In America, large swaths of the political class continues to insist Iraq is a lost cause. The consensus in much of the West is that the War on Terror is unwinnable.
And yet the evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: "Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!"
But what about those 18 benchmarks that Congress put on the Bush administration? The last you've probably heard about that was last September, when Democrats accused Gen. Petraeus of failure due to only completing 8 of them (the military ones). How often have we heard the mantra about political progress being the measure that counts? Well, if you've been a regular reader of this blog, you know it's been coming along steadily over the past few months. Just the other day, in fact, the AP put out a story that said 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met now, and I saw another report saying two of the last three were almost done, too.
The war is almost over, and it's a resounding success!
But don't count on the MSM to repeat it nearly as often or loudly as the occasional suicide bomb that still pops up. Trudy Rubin says we are a victim of our own success in Iraq as Iraqis are now clamoring for an American withdrawal. This has been seized upon by Democrats, of course, but Rubin warns of grave consequences (both for Iraqis and Democrats) if the context of this increasing demand for Iraqi independence is not correctly understood. Mainly: it wouldn't have been possible, and it still wouldn't be possible, without American support.
Now, how about busting another myth about Iraq? Remember Bush's State of the Union address in which he accused Iraq of buying yellowcake uranium from Africa for Saddam's WMD program? Joe Wilson lied through his teeth in a report that the Democrats used to slander and obsessively investigate the administration for years (and Scooter Libby took the ultimate hit for it), but guess what? The U.S. just finished removing 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium from Iraq!
What I can't understand is why the Bush administration isn't out there trumpeting these see-I-told-you-so moments and milking them for all they're worth. It's almost as if they've lost the will to battle the MSM at this point. It's true that they've faced an incredible amount of opposition through the last seven years, but these are things that will vindicate Bush's decisions and actions, as well as give a much-needed psychological boost to the American weariness with the war, as well as create some momentum for McCain, who proposes largely the same policy stances as Bush when it comes to terrorism. So why the silence? I don't get it.
Let's shift gears to Iran. We're now receiving news that Iran is resuming its nuclear weapons program:
But wait a second...I thought Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program...! How can they resume a program they didn't have? Iran, of course, claims their nuclear program is for peaceful uses like electric power, but let's stop and think why the world's 4th largest oil exporter would need a new source of energy...Intelligence information received by Western diplomats reports that Iran has resumed building equipment used for constructing atomic weapons.
According to the London-based Daily Telegraph, the latest intelligence indicates that the work is aimed at developing a bomb according to a blueprint provided by Pakistani scientist Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, father of the Pakistanian nuclear program who sold information on building atom bombs to Iran in the early 1990s.
Iran's Revolutionary Guard, along with senior officials from its Atomic Energy Agency, is reportedly directing the clandestine project that has been concealed from United Nation's inspection teams.
The 'peaceful use' claim is simply a facade that allows appeasers an excuse to ignore the threat that Iran poses to the world. Israel is still claiming that Iran is within a year of creating a nuclear weapon, and this situation is only worsened by Iran's recent test firing of nine ballistic missiles, at least one of which is capable of carrying nuclear warheads as far as Israel. The White House condemned the firing, saying it violated U.N. sanctions and shows that Iran isn't serious about gaining the world's trust when it comes to WMDs. And don't forget - Iran has repeatedly pledged to start a world war in which Israel and America cease to exist! Despite all this, Democrats are ignoring the clear and present danger of the threat that Iran poses. Take a look at the stark differences between the responses of our presidential candidates to this missile firing:
Ahmadinejad calls threats of war against Iran a 'joke'. I wonder if he's talked with Saddam Hussein lately...John McCain responded with this statement:
Iran's most recent missile tests demonstrate again the dangers it poses to its neighbors and to the wider region, especially Israel. Ballistic missile testing coupled with Iran's continued refusal to cease its nuclear activities should unite the international community in efforts to counter Iran's dangerous ambitions. Iran's missile tests also demonstrate the need for effective missile defense now and in the future, and this includes missile defense in Europe as is planned with the Czech Republic and Poland. Working with our European and regional allies is the best way to meet the threat posed by Iran, not unilateral concessions that undermine multilateral diplomacy.
Obama's response is a muddle. He wants "much tougher" economic sanctions, which the Bush administration would also like, but can't get because of Russia and China. Obama then says we should "avoid provocation", which contradicts his own statement about "much tougher" economic sanctions. Sanctions are provocations; otherwise, they wouldn't work at all.
And let's not forget how Obama acted when given the opportunity to impose tougher sanctions on Iran. He voted against the Kyl-Lieberman bill that named the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, placing those tougher sanctions on the Iranian military and everyone associated with them. His website still brags about that vote, and Obama attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting it. Why? Maybe because he didn't consider Iran a threat, until, you know, he did.
Also, listen to the first part of his response. Obama says he would first need to "gather intelligence" before responding. That's very similar to what Obama said in a debate, in response to a Tim Russert question about his response to an attack on American cities conducted by al-Qaeda, identified by irrefutable evidence. How much intel does one need to gather on a missile test using well-known systems? It's pretty clear they went up in the air, and it's pretty clear that the Iranians openly challenged us with it.
He then walks through the tired "outsourcing" argument on diplomacy with Iran. The US has pursued a multilateral approach with Iran, leveraging the trading relationships with Iran's partners in Europe. We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran for good reason — they sponsor terrorism around the world, targeting American assets and those of our allies. Democrats used to complain that Bush was a unilateralist, and now they complain that he's not. It's absurd, especially since the supposed partner with whom Obama would speak, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the worst provocateur in the region.
This will only become even more of a problem, folks, and the next President is going to have to deal with it. Who do you think will protect America better?
Now, let's look here at home. The ACLU and the liberal Left have opened the floodgates of insane lawsuits on behalf of terrorists, not only appealing for freedom and rights that they don't have, but also for reparations for 'torture'. If you think this is ridiculous and bass-ackwards, you're right. But it's happening, thanks to liberal Leftists in this country who think the terrorists are honorable and that America deserves whatever damage is inflicted upon it. Oh, and by the way, a startling number of terrorists captured abroad have prior U.S. criminal records. What is wrong with this picture??
There's a lot going on around the world, too. For example, it has now come to light that the government of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has been supporting Hezbollah, the radical Islamic (Iranian backed) terrorist group in Lebanon. I'm sure it's a coincidence, but they also want the destruction of Israel and America. Another interesting action is taking place in Europe - thousands of troops are being moved into Muslim occupied territories to take back the streets...in Italy! This is what is happening all over Europe - Muslims are flooding in and demanding more and more capitulation, and most European nations are giving in to their every whim. Keep in mind, though, that Italy was just taken back by conservative leadership, so this could be a big signal of another coming battle with radical Islam. Speaking of Muslims, the latest thing that has Muslims in fits of violent rage is a picture of a puppy sitting in a policeman's hat in Scotland. I kid you not. This is not the religion of peace, it's the religion of insane outrage.
Now, back to the U.S. A recent bill was finally passed to allow immunity for telephony companies, thus finally re-instating the FISA wiretapping law -- which has been off-limits since mid-February due to Democrat obstruction on behalf of trial lawyers -- that has been so successful in tracking terrorist activities. More details and analysis here, here, and here. That's good news, since there is a growing consensus that we could experience a major terrorist attack in 2009:
In response to Sen. Joe Lieberman's warning Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation" that the United States will likely face a terrorist attack in 2009, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino agreed Monday, saying, "I think Senator Lieberman, unfortunately, could be right."
Perino says Lieberman's warning that terrorists could test the new president with an attack next year might just hold true. The spokeswoman for the Bush Administration agrees with Lieberman's assessment that extremists determined to attack the U.S. will likely exploit the situation of a newly elected president assuming office.
"Our enemies will test the new president early [in the new administration]," Lieberman forewarns. "Remember, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration, and 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
Lieberman says the United States is in desperate need of a commander-in-chief who will best be prepared to lead the nation immediately upon taking office and says McCain is that candidate because "he doesn't need any training. He knows the world. He's been tested, and he's ready to protect the security of the American people."
While this seems like a good possibility if McCain wins, I would wager it's almost a guaranteed certainty if Obama wins. They know that he won't lift a finger in terms of significant response, and that he will prosecute the War on Terror like Clinton did. Let's recap: Clinton's way involved post-attack law enforcement and resulted in multiple bombings with increasing intensity until 9/11 happened; Bush's way involved preemptive military action and resulted in liberating two countries and zero attacks on American soil. Hmmm...
Anyway, we should be good to go if someone launches missiles at us, given the recent fifth consecutive successful THAAD missile defense system test, but ground-based terrorist attacks are another story. Make no mistake - these warnings should be taken very seriously, especially in the light of the fact that Hezbollah sleeper cells are being activated in Canada with intent to attack 'Jewish' targets outside the Middle East.
In the face of all these things, Barack Obama continues to sputter about sanctions, negotiations, and diplomacy with Iran. What does he think the Bush administration and the entirety of Europe have been doing for the past few years? Even France, the single biggest importer of Iranian goods, has begun freezing assets to squeeze the war-crazy Iranian President. The problem here is that Iran's biggest backers are Russia, China, and North Korea, who don't give a rat's patooty what we think or say. The only thing that speaks to them is overwhelming force. Every time we've tried talking, we get attacked - it happened in the 90's, it happened in the 80's, and it happened even before that. The only reason it has stopped in the 21st century is that Bush has unflinchingly used force.
War is a very serious matter, and the world appears to be skating on the edge of a major nuclear war. We simply cannot afford the astounding naivete and incompetence that Barack Obama brings to the White House. It would be inviting a disaster of epic proportions.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment