Another group of quick hits for you to ponder. Here you go...
Quick Hit #1: Obama - genocide not good enough reason. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said last week that the U.S. shouldn't use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that a potential genocide isn't a good enough reason to keep us in Iraq. He points to Darfur and says if that was the case, we should have huge numbers of troops there. What Obama fails to note is the key difference - as tragic as it is, we didn't cause the genocide in Darfur. We did invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein's government, and we did it based on good and legitimate reasons (as I've blogged about before). So, it IS our responsibility to prevent such a genocide from happening. That Obama doesn't see the logical connection is disturbing, especially since he wants to be our next President.
Quick Hit #2: Why the MSM and Democrats are so tight. Hugh Hewitt blogs about a conversation of his with Jake Tapper, who is a MSM reporter that says he's 'objective'. As Hewitt says, "When an elephant shows up in your backyard, it isn't evidence that you run a zoo, it is an extraordinary occurrence that everyone talks about and points to." Translation: just because you asked one hard question doesn't mean you're objective. He goes on to show the consistent bias by the MSM in favor of the Democrats and shows how this agreement makes them think that they're the mainstream of the nation. In fact, Hewitt surmises: "It isn't journalism they practice, but a sort of high-end yodeling: shouting out cliches which, when echoed back, they take for proof positive of their prejudices. It is all very amusing - until you realize that the lives of millions of Iraqis and eventually millions of Americans are imperiled by their collective incompetence." 'Nuff said.
Quick Hit #3:Terrorists in the U.S. Lebanese Christian Brigitte Gabriel -- founder of American Congress for Truth -- on OneNewsNow.com warns of growing threat of terrorist cells in the U.S. She maintains that Hamas has over 40 cells already here, and that Hezbollah has almost a dozen. Good thing we've got such good, tight border control that keeps all these people out, huh?
Quick Hit #4:Reid Pulls Funding Beneficial To Troops. Senator Jeff Sessions criticized Harry Reid for pulling the Iraq funding bill due to the failure of the retreat amendment, saying it was an act of "pique and frustration" that makes no sense since the larger bill included pay raises and special 'wounded warrior' provisions for military personnel. If Reid was truly interested in protecting and supporting our troops, he would have allowed the bill to proceed despite the failure of the retreat amendment. Maybe Reid needs to...change course.
Quick Hit #5: They Really Don't Support the Troops. William Kristol reveals in the Weekly Standard that though the MSM says they support the troops, they really don't. With his typical relentless logic, Kristol outlines how Cindy Sheehan and stories of atrocities from a supposed soldier on the ground (the probability is that this 'person' doesn't actually exist, and these stories are frauds) are being used to erode support for the war. The line is that these stories allow people to oppose the war while still 'supporting the troops'. He poses a question that makes anti-war types uncomfortable: "How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies?" I certainly haven't seen a good answer to that. But, Kristol goes on, saying that although editing mistakes (i.e. allowing fictitious stories to be published) are always possible, "what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops." In a stark contrast of the media and most Americans: "Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them--that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country. They are not "Shock Troops." They are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them. More than that, we admire them."
Think these are isolated incidents? Think again. Michelle Malkin has been keeping track for a long, long time. You need to understand who supports our troops -- and American victory -- and who doesn't.
There's my two cents.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Harry Reid's Hypocrisy
The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, either has an extremely poor memory, or he's a blatant hypocrite. In the last round of war funding debates, Reid whined about how the Republicans used the 60-vote requirement to block legislation to begin a retreat from Iraq, despite the long tradition of that particular Senate rule.
Here are Reid's own words, as reported by Hugh Hewitt:
After the pointless all-nighter in the Senate: "What went on last night was ridiculous. There’s no way to stop that unless…as the time ran. And we should change those rules, and I think it could be done with the Rules Committee. We may have to take a look at that. It just doesn’t help anybody."
From April of 2005, from the Senate Democrat’s press release on the web, then minority leader Reid said the following when discussing the potential Constitutional Option to change Senate rules in order to prevent judicial filibusters: "If they can't get everything they want, they try to break the rules. Based on the facts, it is clear that this attempt to strip away important checks and balances in our government is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power, and Senate Democrats are proud to stand with over 1 million Americans against this attempt to change the rules."
...But when the same rule worked in his favor...
From his own website, December 8th, 2006, Reid, applauding the Gang of 14 compromise deal on judicial filibusters, had this to say: "I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of the Senate rules. As Majority Leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules, and for the minority rights that the rules protect."
And this: "The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people."
And this: "To be sure, there are times when I will need to use the rules to advance the Democratic agenda. But I will not resort to the nuclear option or any other illegitimate manipulation of the rules. When it is time to limit debate we will do so within the rules, under the terms of Rule XXII."
And this: "It is often said that laws are 'the system of wise restraints that set men free.' The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as Majority Leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution."
Hugh Hewitt summarizes: "Maybe Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee will remind Mr. Reid of his previous position on the importance of Senate rules. And then again, maybe an oak tree might spontaneously sprout out of my left elbow. Somehow, I don’t expect either one to happen anytime soon."
But, that's not all...
Let's look at Reid's comments on the War in Iraq as reported by Don Surber.
On Nov. 17, 2005: "This week, Senate Democrats and Republicans right here in this Senate voted overwhelmingly to send the President this message — it’s time to change course in Iraq."
On Jan. 18, 2006: "I really support Jack very much. He’s a good man. And we do agree that we must change course in Iraq and that the year 2006"
On Sept. 18, 2006: "For two years Democrats have offered constructive solutions to change course in Iraq, give our troops and the Iraqi people a chance for some type of stability and success"
The Surge began in June of 2007, and almost immediately showed signs of working. Did Reid change his course? No.
On July 9, 2007: "We believe that it’s time to change course."
Surber writes: "President Bush has changed course. The Surge began last month in an effort to tamp down the resistence. What hasn’t changed is Reid’s mantra of 'change course.'"
Is Reid's memory that faulty, or is he just playing politics? These are the facts, from Reid's own words...I'll let you decide.
There's my two cents.
Here are Reid's own words, as reported by Hugh Hewitt:
After the pointless all-nighter in the Senate: "What went on last night was ridiculous. There’s no way to stop that unless…as the time ran. And we should change those rules, and I think it could be done with the Rules Committee. We may have to take a look at that. It just doesn’t help anybody."
From April of 2005, from the Senate Democrat’s press release on the web, then minority leader Reid said the following when discussing the potential Constitutional Option to change Senate rules in order to prevent judicial filibusters: "If they can't get everything they want, they try to break the rules. Based on the facts, it is clear that this attempt to strip away important checks and balances in our government is not about judges. It is about the desire for absolute power, and Senate Democrats are proud to stand with over 1 million Americans against this attempt to change the rules."
...But when the same rule worked in his favor...
From his own website, December 8th, 2006, Reid, applauding the Gang of 14 compromise deal on judicial filibusters, had this to say: "I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of the Senate rules. As Majority Leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules, and for the minority rights that the rules protect."
And this: "The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority. I’m sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of the Majority Leader next year. But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long-term interests of the Senate and of the American people."
And this: "To be sure, there are times when I will need to use the rules to advance the Democratic agenda. But I will not resort to the nuclear option or any other illegitimate manipulation of the rules. When it is time to limit debate we will do so within the rules, under the terms of Rule XXII."
And this: "It is often said that laws are 'the system of wise restraints that set men free.' The same might be said of the Senate rules. I will do my part as Majority Leader to foster respect for the rules and traditions of our great institution."
Hugh Hewitt summarizes: "Maybe Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee will remind Mr. Reid of his previous position on the importance of Senate rules. And then again, maybe an oak tree might spontaneously sprout out of my left elbow. Somehow, I don’t expect either one to happen anytime soon."
But, that's not all...
Let's look at Reid's comments on the War in Iraq as reported by Don Surber.
On Nov. 17, 2005: "This week, Senate Democrats and Republicans right here in this Senate voted overwhelmingly to send the President this message — it’s time to change course in Iraq."
On Jan. 18, 2006: "I really support Jack very much. He’s a good man. And we do agree that we must change course in Iraq and that the year 2006"
On Sept. 18, 2006: "For two years Democrats have offered constructive solutions to change course in Iraq, give our troops and the Iraqi people a chance for some type of stability and success"
The Surge began in June of 2007, and almost immediately showed signs of working. Did Reid change his course? No.
On July 9, 2007: "We believe that it’s time to change course."
Surber writes: "President Bush has changed course. The Surge began last month in an effort to tamp down the resistence. What hasn’t changed is Reid’s mantra of 'change course.'"
Is Reid's memory that faulty, or is he just playing politics? These are the facts, from Reid's own words...I'll let you decide.
There's my two cents.
What If We Retreat Now?
The big question on the war right now is whether or not we should see the mission in Iraq through to a successful completion, meaning getting Iraq's new government off the ground. What's missing from the debate on this question is what happens if we quit now?
Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe addresses this question last week: "If US troops leave prematurely, the Iraqi government is likely to collapse, which could trigger violence on a far deadlier scale than Iraq is experiencing now. Iran's malignant influence will intensify, and with it the likelihood of intensified Sunni-Shiite conflict, and even a nuclear arms race, across the Middle East. Anti-American terrorists and fanatics worldwide will be emboldened. Iraq would emerge, in Senator John McCain's words, 'as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11.' Once again -- as in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Somalia -- the United States would have proven the weaker horse, unwilling to see a fight through to the finish."
He points out the similarities to the war in Vietnam, which anti-war types love to bring up. Okay, let's take a look at that. In March of 1975, despite President Ford's warning that 'the horror and the tragedy that we see on television' would only grow worse if the U.S. pulled out, Congress ended military aid to Cambodia. Then-Representative Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said: "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns." The New York Times reported: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, A Better Life." What happened after we left? The Khmer Rouge exterminated two million Cambodians through starvation, torture, and outright murder.
Jacoby says that the miscalculations of the U.S. could perhaps be blamed on the fact that we didn't know what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was capable of, but that is certainly not the case for Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic jihadists: "Beheadings. Suicide bombings. Lynchings. Child murder. Chlorine gas attacks. Bali. Madrid. 7/7. 9/11." He finishes by saying we're in a war with barbarians who proclaim their love of death and revel in the slaughter of innocents.
Frank Gaffney, a former defense policy expert in the Reagan administration, agrees: "if you fail, it will fall to your children and your grandchildren to fight this war. And trust me -- if totalitarians have taught us anything in history, it is that it gets harder to contend with them, let alone defeat them, as time goes on."
When the generals on the ground say they just need some more time, let's believe them and give it to them.
We don't have any excuse for not understanding what will happen if we retreat from Iraq - these terrorists have showed us exactly what they will do if they are not stopped. If you don't recall, just do a Google search on Daniel Pearl or any of the other Americans that have been brutally tortured and/or murdered by these thugs. If we retreat, the Middle East will explode in violence, likely dragging much of the rest of the world with it. This is our generation's watershed moment, and we need to step up to the plate. Our military is hitting the ball out of the park every day, so we need to keep supporting them and let them finish their mission.
There's my two cents.
Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe addresses this question last week: "If US troops leave prematurely, the Iraqi government is likely to collapse, which could trigger violence on a far deadlier scale than Iraq is experiencing now. Iran's malignant influence will intensify, and with it the likelihood of intensified Sunni-Shiite conflict, and even a nuclear arms race, across the Middle East. Anti-American terrorists and fanatics worldwide will be emboldened. Iraq would emerge, in Senator John McCain's words, 'as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11.' Once again -- as in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Somalia -- the United States would have proven the weaker horse, unwilling to see a fight through to the finish."
He points out the similarities to the war in Vietnam, which anti-war types love to bring up. Okay, let's take a look at that. In March of 1975, despite President Ford's warning that 'the horror and the tragedy that we see on television' would only grow worse if the U.S. pulled out, Congress ended military aid to Cambodia. Then-Representative Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said: "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns." The New York Times reported: "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, A Better Life." What happened after we left? The Khmer Rouge exterminated two million Cambodians through starvation, torture, and outright murder.
Jacoby says that the miscalculations of the U.S. could perhaps be blamed on the fact that we didn't know what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was capable of, but that is certainly not the case for Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic jihadists: "Beheadings. Suicide bombings. Lynchings. Child murder. Chlorine gas attacks. Bali. Madrid. 7/7. 9/11." He finishes by saying we're in a war with barbarians who proclaim their love of death and revel in the slaughter of innocents.
Frank Gaffney, a former defense policy expert in the Reagan administration, agrees: "if you fail, it will fall to your children and your grandchildren to fight this war. And trust me -- if totalitarians have taught us anything in history, it is that it gets harder to contend with them, let alone defeat them, as time goes on."
When the generals on the ground say they just need some more time, let's believe them and give it to them.
We don't have any excuse for not understanding what will happen if we retreat from Iraq - these terrorists have showed us exactly what they will do if they are not stopped. If you don't recall, just do a Google search on Daniel Pearl or any of the other Americans that have been brutally tortured and/or murdered by these thugs. If we retreat, the Middle East will explode in violence, likely dragging much of the rest of the world with it. This is our generation's watershed moment, and we need to step up to the plate. Our military is hitting the ball out of the park every day, so we need to keep supporting them and let them finish their mission.
There's my two cents.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
On The Ground In Iraq
Monday's edition of the UK Times Online has a story about something that may seem small but is really very significant. The opening paragraph says it all: "Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person’s face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood." The article goes on to illustrate how these low-level defections have helped bag some pretty major leaders. Why is this such a big deal?
Because it means there's a shift in the perception of the locals that the U.S. is winning and that Al Qaeda is losing.
That's huge, and all the more reason we should listen to General Petraeus when he says we need more time to let the surge finish its work. Speaking of Petraeus, he did an interview with Hugh Hewitt last week regarding the conditions on the ground in Iraq. You really should read the entire thing, but some highlights include:
- "we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground"
- "Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda", "We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq"
- "there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region"
- [part of the Iraqi military] "is really quite impressive, and almost at the level, certainly in regional terms, of the special operations forces of our own country"
- [the enemy] "are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge"
So, the man commanding the U.S. forces in Iraq has many positive things to say about our mission there (he doesn't gloss over the negative, though - he's very fair-minded). I think we should listen to him, don't you?
Charles Krauthammer at RealClearPolitics wrote an editorial last week about the new (American) vision for Iraq. He starts out by saying that everyone hoped the fledgling Iraqi government could come up with some political compromises to propel their own freedom forward; since that hasn't happened, the U.S. forces have had to go with a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda. The results of this new strategy are already being seen in Anbar province and Diyala province, where Al Qaeda has been almost completely flushed out. The tactics used by Petraeus (turning locals against the largely foreign Al Qaeda) include arming and aiding Sunnis to help fight alongside U.S. forces, and have a double-edge to them: some Iraqi leaders are concerned that a future civil war may be looming, and that all sides would have the strength to fight independently. While that may be the case, Krauthammer basically points out that since the Iraqi government couldn't accomplish what it needed to, the U.S. forces had to step up and do whatever was necessary to quell the insurgent violence. Once the violence is gone, the government can begin to function. If a civil war occurs after the U.S. leaves, that's Iraq's issue to deal with, not ours, and the fact that all sides have a certain measure of strength could prove to be a deterrent in the long run. The key point here is that if Iraqi leaders are worried about this, it is just further proof that our mission is succeeding.
Incidentally, if you want to read more about what's happening in Iraq, Michael Yon and Bryan Preston are two reporters traveling with U.S. forces there, and are giving first-hand accounts of what they see and hear. Check them out here and here.
In summary, by listening to the people who are there, we find yet again that a little bit more time is what is needed. Will everything be completed by September? No. But, these things take time, and the government will only become secure enough to rule on its own if we clear out the violence long enough for them to do their job. That's the mission we're on right now, and that's the mission that is succeeding. Urge your Reps and Senators to give Petraeus and our troops the time they need to complete that success. As I've said before, the only way we'll lose is if Congress legislates it.
There's my two cents.
Because it means there's a shift in the perception of the locals that the U.S. is winning and that Al Qaeda is losing.
That's huge, and all the more reason we should listen to General Petraeus when he says we need more time to let the surge finish its work. Speaking of Petraeus, he did an interview with Hugh Hewitt last week regarding the conditions on the ground in Iraq. You really should read the entire thing, but some highlights include:
- "we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground"
- "Anbar Province has really become quite relatively clear of al Qaeda", "We have recently cleared Western Baquba, which was almost al Qaeda central, the capitol of the new caliphate that they have tried to establish here in Iraq"
- "there’s enormous potential implications for some of the courses of action that have been considered out there, and certainly, a precipitous withdrawal would have potentially serious implications for important interests that we have in Iraq, in the region"
- [part of the Iraqi military] "is really quite impressive, and almost at the level, certainly in regional terms, of the special operations forces of our own country"
- [the enemy] "are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge"
So, the man commanding the U.S. forces in Iraq has many positive things to say about our mission there (he doesn't gloss over the negative, though - he's very fair-minded). I think we should listen to him, don't you?
Charles Krauthammer at RealClearPolitics wrote an editorial last week about the new (American) vision for Iraq. He starts out by saying that everyone hoped the fledgling Iraqi government could come up with some political compromises to propel their own freedom forward; since that hasn't happened, the U.S. forces have had to go with a Plan B: pacify the country region by region, principally by getting Sunnis to join the fight against al-Qaeda. The results of this new strategy are already being seen in Anbar province and Diyala province, where Al Qaeda has been almost completely flushed out. The tactics used by Petraeus (turning locals against the largely foreign Al Qaeda) include arming and aiding Sunnis to help fight alongside U.S. forces, and have a double-edge to them: some Iraqi leaders are concerned that a future civil war may be looming, and that all sides would have the strength to fight independently. While that may be the case, Krauthammer basically points out that since the Iraqi government couldn't accomplish what it needed to, the U.S. forces had to step up and do whatever was necessary to quell the insurgent violence. Once the violence is gone, the government can begin to function. If a civil war occurs after the U.S. leaves, that's Iraq's issue to deal with, not ours, and the fact that all sides have a certain measure of strength could prove to be a deterrent in the long run. The key point here is that if Iraqi leaders are worried about this, it is just further proof that our mission is succeeding.
Incidentally, if you want to read more about what's happening in Iraq, Michael Yon and Bryan Preston are two reporters traveling with U.S. forces there, and are giving first-hand accounts of what they see and hear. Check them out here and here.
In summary, by listening to the people who are there, we find yet again that a little bit more time is what is needed. Will everything be completed by September? No. But, these things take time, and the government will only become secure enough to rule on its own if we clear out the violence long enough for them to do their job. That's the mission we're on right now, and that's the mission that is succeeding. Urge your Reps and Senators to give Petraeus and our troops the time they need to complete that success. As I've said before, the only way we'll lose is if Congress legislates it.
There's my two cents.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Purely My Opinion: Democrat Leaders At Fault
I realize that I've been hammering 'Democrats' a lot lately on a variety of issues, and I'd just like to set the record straight. I have nothing against Democrats. In fact, if we were all one party, things would be awfully dull. It's good to have opposing viewpoints - it requires people on both sides to flesh out their ideas and be persuasive as to why theirs is the best idea. Ultimately, having multiple political parties is a form of capitalism in itself - in the marketplace of ideas, you must prove why yours is the best; if you do, you win. That's the heart of capitalism and democracy.
So, why do I hammer on Democats so much? Let me be clear: it's not Democrats that are the problem. It's their leaders.
The Democrat leadership has fallen so far out of touch with normal, everyday Americans that they've almost completely stopped representing their constituents. Instead, the Democrat party leadership has begun catering to their far-left kook supporters, like MoveOn.org, CodePink, CAIR, George Soros, and other complete wackos who hate pretty much everything about America and what America stands for. The goal of these wackos is to destroy America as it is now and rebuild it to their tastes. Unfortunately, most of those wackos are extreme socialists, and we know from history that socialism is a failed system, but it puts almost total control of everything into the hands of the elite, and that's why they like it. More on that in a future blog. Anyway, this is an extremely small segment of the population (and the Democrat party), but it's become very loud and has very deep pockets (Soros, for example, is a multi-billionaire). The end result is that the Democrat leadership has become very anti-American on a wide range of issues, from the War on Terror to tax increases to global warming to activist judges. The MSM has the same kind of bias, and that's why the Democrats and the MSM are so tightly in step on most issues.
Again, let me be clear: I do not believe these wackos are the mainstream of the Democrat party! Here's how I know - on the amnesty debate, there were just as many Democrats opposing it as there were Republicans. A number of freshman Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 because they were conservatives, and Americans are (for the most part) fundamentally conservative people, regardless of Republican or Democrat. As far as I know, Democrats don't want to pay higher taxes any more than Republicans do, and Democrats generally don't hate America any more than Republicans do. But, the party leadership has caved in to the wackos, and in effect, they've hijacked the steering wheel of the party, driving away from their Democrat base. That's the real problem. So, when you hear me hammer on Democrats, please know that it's the Democrat leadership that I'm hammering, not normal Democrats.
So, what to do? Well, this one is up to Democrats. It's your party, and if you believe there are problems, you need to take steps to fix them. If you want to be represented in Congress by wackos who would raise your taxes through the roof, ignore voter fraud, demand retreat of American troops who are fighting and dying to protect our security, grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and then provide handout after handout for them regardless of the financial consequences on law-abiding American taxpayers, prevent protections for Americans reporting suspicious activity, then...do nothing. You're already being well represented.
If, however, you are unhappy with the way your leaders are behaving, you need to contact them and tell them so. Repeatedly, with intelligent arguments and facts to back them up. You need to object every time they bow to wackos, and praise them when they represent you. And, most of all, you need to pay attention to which Democrats most closely represent you, and which ones most closely represent the wackos; when it comes time to vote, vote for the one who stands for you.
I don't believe that most Democrats appreciate what Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, and many other Democrat leaders are doing in Congress (as evidenced by 14% Congressional approval ratings). I believe most Democrats are good, hard-working, America-loving people, just like me. We may disagree on some things, but we agree on many things, too. The problem is the leadership - they need to stop representing wackos, and start representing YOU.
There's my two cents.
So, why do I hammer on Democats so much? Let me be clear: it's not Democrats that are the problem. It's their leaders.
The Democrat leadership has fallen so far out of touch with normal, everyday Americans that they've almost completely stopped representing their constituents. Instead, the Democrat party leadership has begun catering to their far-left kook supporters, like MoveOn.org, CodePink, CAIR, George Soros, and other complete wackos who hate pretty much everything about America and what America stands for. The goal of these wackos is to destroy America as it is now and rebuild it to their tastes. Unfortunately, most of those wackos are extreme socialists, and we know from history that socialism is a failed system, but it puts almost total control of everything into the hands of the elite, and that's why they like it. More on that in a future blog. Anyway, this is an extremely small segment of the population (and the Democrat party), but it's become very loud and has very deep pockets (Soros, for example, is a multi-billionaire). The end result is that the Democrat leadership has become very anti-American on a wide range of issues, from the War on Terror to tax increases to global warming to activist judges. The MSM has the same kind of bias, and that's why the Democrats and the MSM are so tightly in step on most issues.
Again, let me be clear: I do not believe these wackos are the mainstream of the Democrat party! Here's how I know - on the amnesty debate, there were just as many Democrats opposing it as there were Republicans. A number of freshman Democrats were elected to Congress in 2006 because they were conservatives, and Americans are (for the most part) fundamentally conservative people, regardless of Republican or Democrat. As far as I know, Democrats don't want to pay higher taxes any more than Republicans do, and Democrats generally don't hate America any more than Republicans do. But, the party leadership has caved in to the wackos, and in effect, they've hijacked the steering wheel of the party, driving away from their Democrat base. That's the real problem. So, when you hear me hammer on Democrats, please know that it's the Democrat leadership that I'm hammering, not normal Democrats.
So, what to do? Well, this one is up to Democrats. It's your party, and if you believe there are problems, you need to take steps to fix them. If you want to be represented in Congress by wackos who would raise your taxes through the roof, ignore voter fraud, demand retreat of American troops who are fighting and dying to protect our security, grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and then provide handout after handout for them regardless of the financial consequences on law-abiding American taxpayers, prevent protections for Americans reporting suspicious activity, then...do nothing. You're already being well represented.
If, however, you are unhappy with the way your leaders are behaving, you need to contact them and tell them so. Repeatedly, with intelligent arguments and facts to back them up. You need to object every time they bow to wackos, and praise them when they represent you. And, most of all, you need to pay attention to which Democrats most closely represent you, and which ones most closely represent the wackos; when it comes time to vote, vote for the one who stands for you.
I don't believe that most Democrats appreciate what Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, and many other Democrat leaders are doing in Congress (as evidenced by 14% Congressional approval ratings). I believe most Democrats are good, hard-working, America-loving people, just like me. We may disagree on some things, but we agree on many things, too. The problem is the leadership - they need to stop representing wackos, and start representing YOU.
There's my two cents.
John Doe's Protection Eroding
As a result of Congressional Democrats' efforts to allow frivolous lawsuits against 'john doe' tipsters reporting suspicious behavior, Debra Burlingame, writing in the New York Daily News, questions "[w]hat could prevent any member of Congress from supporting no-brainer, bipartisan legislation that protects Good Samaritans from frivolous lawsuits". Initially rising from the 'Flying Imams' case last fall, this legislation could have a great impact on future terrorist attacks. She uses another recent example as perspective: the Fort Dix Six.
An alert Circuit City clerk who was converting a video to DVD for a customer noticed that the video showed several Middle Eastern-looking men shouting "Allah Akbar" while firing assault rifles and engaging in military-type maneuvers on the video. After discussing with his family, he decided to alert officials, and the Fort Dix Six plot was foiled, and the FBI rightfully called the clerk a hero. Burlingame poses the money questions: "But would he have made that call if he thought getting it wrong might require defending himself against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit? Would you?"
Why would these lawsuits be allowed? One reason: to fight against profiling.
Indeed, Burlingame reports about 9/11: "One of those most haunted by that day is the airline employee who checked in two of the hijackers that morning. He told the 9/11 commission that the pair, traveling on first class, one-way, e-tickets, 'didn't act right.' Though he selected them for secondary screening, he didn't request a more thorough search because 'I was worried about being accused of being 'racist' and letting 'prejudice' get in the way.'"
She argues that succumbing to political correctness (i.e. not profiling) like this simply disarms us, overriding common sense.
I agree. This is a perfect example of the dangers of political correctness: why should we ignore obvious warning signs that could lead to another tragedy like 9/11? We shouldn't. This amendment would have protected the willingness of Americans to come forward when those warning signs become apparent. Now, we might have someone who is too intimidated by the potential of a major (frivolous) lawsuit to come forward, just like that airline employee on 9/11. Think about the consequences. And, think about who blocked this legislation. Now, think about who you want running the country.
There's my two cents.
An alert Circuit City clerk who was converting a video to DVD for a customer noticed that the video showed several Middle Eastern-looking men shouting "Allah Akbar" while firing assault rifles and engaging in military-type maneuvers on the video. After discussing with his family, he decided to alert officials, and the Fort Dix Six plot was foiled, and the FBI rightfully called the clerk a hero. Burlingame poses the money questions: "But would he have made that call if he thought getting it wrong might require defending himself against a multimillion-dollar lawsuit? Would you?"
Why would these lawsuits be allowed? One reason: to fight against profiling.
Indeed, Burlingame reports about 9/11: "One of those most haunted by that day is the airline employee who checked in two of the hijackers that morning. He told the 9/11 commission that the pair, traveling on first class, one-way, e-tickets, 'didn't act right.' Though he selected them for secondary screening, he didn't request a more thorough search because 'I was worried about being accused of being 'racist' and letting 'prejudice' get in the way.'"
She argues that succumbing to political correctness (i.e. not profiling) like this simply disarms us, overriding common sense.
I agree. This is a perfect example of the dangers of political correctness: why should we ignore obvious warning signs that could lead to another tragedy like 9/11? We shouldn't. This amendment would have protected the willingness of Americans to come forward when those warning signs become apparent. Now, we might have someone who is too intimidated by the potential of a major (frivolous) lawsuit to come forward, just like that airline employee on 9/11. Think about the consequences. And, think about who blocked this legislation. Now, think about who you want running the country.
There's my two cents.
Voter Fraud - Who Supports It?
Michelle Malkin reports on a late-night Senate action to stop voter fraud perpetrated by illegal aliens and others. She's got a wealth of links about the issue, especially as it relates to illegal aliens, here and here. I'd highly recommend you check this out (I'll get into more of these details as we approach the next election, but not right now)!
Late last night, the Senate failed to take a stand against voter fraud. An amendment to a student loan bill that would require a valid photo ID to be presented when voting was rejected 42-54. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment.
What's the problem here? Why is it such a hardship to provide a photo ID in order to prove you are who you say you are when you vote? As I've blogged about before, there is no legitimate reason that anyone can't obtain a government-issued photo ID at very minimal cost and hassle. So, the argument about 'voter disenfranchisement' holds no water. What other reasonable objection is there? If you have one, please let me know, because I honestly can't think of one. Seriously, send me an e-mail, because this one completely escapes me.
The only logical conclusion I can come to for why anyone would not want to have this photo ID provision is that they actually want voter fraud to occur. Why would anyone want voter fraud to occur? Because the perpetrators of the fraud are voting for them. Now, I repeat: not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment. Let's connect the dots...
There's my two cents.
Late last night, the Senate failed to take a stand against voter fraud. An amendment to a student loan bill that would require a valid photo ID to be presented when voting was rejected 42-54. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment.
What's the problem here? Why is it such a hardship to provide a photo ID in order to prove you are who you say you are when you vote? As I've blogged about before, there is no legitimate reason that anyone can't obtain a government-issued photo ID at very minimal cost and hassle. So, the argument about 'voter disenfranchisement' holds no water. What other reasonable objection is there? If you have one, please let me know, because I honestly can't think of one. Seriously, send me an e-mail, because this one completely escapes me.
The only logical conclusion I can come to for why anyone would not want to have this photo ID provision is that they actually want voter fraud to occur. Why would anyone want voter fraud to occur? Because the perpetrators of the fraud are voting for them. Now, I repeat: not a single Democrat voted in favor of the amendment. Let's connect the dots...
There's my two cents.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
There Is No Outrage
Here's a follow up to a post I made a few days ago regarding Congressman Keith Ellison's comparison of Bush to Hitler. In that post, I posed the question of whether or not Ellison's comments were representative of the Democrat party, and that only a strong rebuke by the Democrat leadership would prove they were not.
Powerline has obtained a copy of a letter sent by Representatives Zach Wamp and Eric Cantor to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi about the incident. They blast Ellison's behavior and call on Pelosi to reprimand Ellison.
While it's great to see at least a few Democrats rightfully angered by this incident, I think it's very telling that Pelosi has yet to respond.
Remember, remember...
There's my two cents.
Powerline has obtained a copy of a letter sent by Representatives Zach Wamp and Eric Cantor to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi about the incident. They blast Ellison's behavior and call on Pelosi to reprimand Ellison.
While it's great to see at least a few Democrats rightfully angered by this incident, I think it's very telling that Pelosi has yet to respond.
Remember, remember...
There's my two cents.
The Battle for John Doe Protection
Well, a lot has happened this evening on the battle over the King amendment. Michelle Malkin has all the details. Here's a summary:
- the amendment was stripped out of the bill by the conference committee
- King was incensed: "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists."
- Senator Susan Collins (Rep, ME) attempted to put the amendment on an education funding bill
- that measure failed by three votes since it was not directly related to the intent of the bill (full vote results here)
- voting against protecting Americans: McCaskill
- voting in favor of protecting Americans: Bond, Roberts
- not voting: Brownback (what's up with that, Sam? hedging again??)
Not a single Republican voted against this measure - the entire opposition was from Democrats. As Malkin summarizes: "The Dems believe that if you see something, you should just shut up." Interestingly, several Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2008 voted in favor of this bill, while several freshmen Senators did not (i.e. McCaskill). This vote was a calculated risk - they know the American people want this amendment (duh, it's common sense!), so those who will face election first can say they were 'tough on terrorism' while those freshmen are relying on time to dim the memories of this vote.
Again, this amendment would protect anonymous American citizens who report suspicious behavior from being sued. There is absolutely no legitimate reason this measure should have been killed.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but remember which party is trying to protect you, and which party is taking calculated risks with American lives.
There's my two cents.
- the amendment was stripped out of the bill by the conference committee
- King was incensed: "This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists."
- Senator Susan Collins (Rep, ME) attempted to put the amendment on an education funding bill
- that measure failed by three votes since it was not directly related to the intent of the bill (full vote results here)
- voting against protecting Americans: McCaskill
- voting in favor of protecting Americans: Bond, Roberts
- not voting: Brownback (what's up with that, Sam? hedging again??)
Not a single Republican voted against this measure - the entire opposition was from Democrats. As Malkin summarizes: "The Dems believe that if you see something, you should just shut up." Interestingly, several Democratic Senators who are up for re-election in 2008 voted in favor of this bill, while several freshmen Senators did not (i.e. McCaskill). This vote was a calculated risk - they know the American people want this amendment (duh, it's common sense!), so those who will face election first can say they were 'tough on terrorism' while those freshmen are relying on time to dim the memories of this vote.
Again, this amendment would protect anonymous American citizens who report suspicious behavior from being sued. There is absolutely no legitimate reason this measure should have been killed.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but remember which party is trying to protect you, and which party is taking calculated risks with American lives.
There's my two cents.
Fun and Frivolity: Money, Money, Money
Nothing political here, I just thought this was fascinating. If you've ever wondered how Bill Gates and Warren Buffett stack up against the richest Americans throughout the nation's history, check this out.
Twisting in the Wind
RealClearPolitics links to a column in the New York Post where Ralph Peters blasts the Democrats for their recent shenanigans on the war. He points out that Democrats have long accused the Bush administration of 'cherry-picking' intelligence data, but that's exactly what they did with this week's National Intelligence Estimate. Peters sums it up: "The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we're not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda."
Peters goes on to say that although Democrats (and the MSM) is implying that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, that's actually not what the report says; it just says that they've regained a measure of their pre-9/11 strength after our devastating campaign against them since 2001. He points out that the Democrats still say we're less safe today than before 9/11, despite the fact that we haven't seen another successful attack on U.S. soil. He also lays out the case that we'll be fighting Islamic terrorism for a very long time by using an analogy that I've used in the past, too.
In a way, it's like law enforcement. You won't ever completely eradicate murders or rapes, but does that mean you stop trying? Absolutely not! You stop as much of it as you can, even though you know you're going to miss one every now and then. It's tragic when that happens, but you don't just give up the fight because you won't be 100% successful. The point is that we'll be fighting this fight for a very long time, and a victory in Iraq will just bolster our enemies that much more.
He calls on the Democrats to put forward their own plan for victory, and says that if they don't have one, they need to "shut up and help".
Speaking of terrorists, you've got to check this out. Little Green Footballs posts an audio file of a secretly recorded message from Mizanur Rahman -- one of the UK Islamic extremists sentenced to six years in jail yesterday for inciting violence -- while he was out on bail. Keep in mind that Rahman doesn't know he's being recorded here - this is his pure, unfiltered message. If this does not chill your blood and give you a glimpse of how they really think, nothing will.
How's that War on Terror looking now? Do you want to win, or would you rather surrender? Remember who stands for which side when it comes time to vote.
There's my two cents.
Peters goes on to say that although Democrats (and the MSM) is implying that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, that's actually not what the report says; it just says that they've regained a measure of their pre-9/11 strength after our devastating campaign against them since 2001. He points out that the Democrats still say we're less safe today than before 9/11, despite the fact that we haven't seen another successful attack on U.S. soil. He also lays out the case that we'll be fighting Islamic terrorism for a very long time by using an analogy that I've used in the past, too.
In a way, it's like law enforcement. You won't ever completely eradicate murders or rapes, but does that mean you stop trying? Absolutely not! You stop as much of it as you can, even though you know you're going to miss one every now and then. It's tragic when that happens, but you don't just give up the fight because you won't be 100% successful. The point is that we'll be fighting this fight for a very long time, and a victory in Iraq will just bolster our enemies that much more.
He calls on the Democrats to put forward their own plan for victory, and says that if they don't have one, they need to "shut up and help".
Speaking of terrorists, you've got to check this out. Little Green Footballs posts an audio file of a secretly recorded message from Mizanur Rahman -- one of the UK Islamic extremists sentenced to six years in jail yesterday for inciting violence -- while he was out on bail. Keep in mind that Rahman doesn't know he's being recorded here - this is his pure, unfiltered message. If this does not chill your blood and give you a glimpse of how they really think, nothing will.
How's that War on Terror looking now? Do you want to win, or would you rather surrender? Remember who stands for which side when it comes time to vote.
There's my two cents.
Protect John Doe (Yourself)!
***UPDATE
Audrey Hudson with the Washington Times provides this update:
A Senate Republican aide says they scored one victory when the chamber's parliamentarian ruled this morning that the 'John Doe' protections are within the scope of the legislation and can be included by amendment.
"Combine that with the public outcry and Democrats may be forced to cave," the aide said.
It's not a done deal yet, though, so keep contacting your representatives, and especially the Democrats who are trying to block this amendment.
Andy McCarthy writes at NRO about an amendment proposed by Representative Peter King (Rep, NY) to protect citizen 'john does' for reporting suspicious activities. A highly publicized example is the 'Flying Imams' incident that happened in November of 2006. Six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways airplane when numerous citizens on that airplane became concerned about their behavior (sitting in exit-row seats that weren't theirs, praying loudly, asking for seat belt extensions even though they weren't fat, making anti-American statements, etc.). They were questioned and eventually released. In March, the six Imans sued U.S. Airways, as well as the citizen 'john doe' passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
King quickly proposed an amendment which was overwhelmingly adopted by the House in March, 304-121, as an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. Its intent was to protect citizens reporting suspicious activity from just this sort of frivolous lawsuit.
Now, House Democrats are attempting to strip the King amendment from the legislation due to an alleged technical violation of old House rules. McCarthy writes: "Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists' history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense."
I agree. And, isn't that what our leaders were telling us after 9/11? Go about your lives, and if you see something say something. That's why you need to contact your Senators and Representatives today to tell them to keep the King amendment.
Since this bill is currently in conference committee (which means the House and Senate are working out the final version of the bill that will be voted upon), you need to apply pressure to some key people in the House and Senate. So, here are some other numbers you might need:
- Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
- Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
- Harry Reid's office: 202-224-3542
Call today - Michelle Malkin reports that the conference discussion about this amendment will happen today. This legislation is essential to protecting American citizens who are simply trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from another disaster like 9/11.
There's my two cents.
Audrey Hudson with the Washington Times provides this update:
A Senate Republican aide says they scored one victory when the chamber's parliamentarian ruled this morning that the 'John Doe' protections are within the scope of the legislation and can be included by amendment.
"Combine that with the public outcry and Democrats may be forced to cave," the aide said.
It's not a done deal yet, though, so keep contacting your representatives, and especially the Democrats who are trying to block this amendment.
Andy McCarthy writes at NRO about an amendment proposed by Representative Peter King (Rep, NY) to protect citizen 'john does' for reporting suspicious activities. A highly publicized example is the 'Flying Imams' incident that happened in November of 2006. Six Islamic leaders were removed from a U.S. Airways airplane when numerous citizens on that airplane became concerned about their behavior (sitting in exit-row seats that weren't theirs, praying loudly, asking for seat belt extensions even though they weren't fat, making anti-American statements, etc.). They were questioned and eventually released. In March, the six Imans sued U.S. Airways, as well as the citizen 'john doe' passengers who reported their suspicious behavior.
King quickly proposed an amendment which was overwhelmingly adopted by the House in March, 304-121, as an amendment to H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. Its intent was to protect citizens reporting suspicious activity from just this sort of frivolous lawsuit.
Now, House Democrats are attempting to strip the King amendment from the legislation due to an alleged technical violation of old House rules. McCarthy writes: "Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists' history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense."
I agree. And, isn't that what our leaders were telling us after 9/11? Go about your lives, and if you see something say something. That's why you need to contact your Senators and Representatives today to tell them to keep the King amendment.
Since this bill is currently in conference committee (which means the House and Senate are working out the final version of the bill that will be voted upon), you need to apply pressure to some key people in the House and Senate. So, here are some other numbers you might need:
- Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
- Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
- Harry Reid's office: 202-224-3542
Call today - Michelle Malkin reports that the conference discussion about this amendment will happen today. This legislation is essential to protecting American citizens who are simply trying to protect themselves and their loved ones from another disaster like 9/11.
There's my two cents.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
If You're New to the Blogosphere...
In case you're just now starting to check out blogs for news, information, or entertainment, here is a helpful link that gives you some idea of what it's like from the blogger's point of view, and how you can support your favorite bloggers.
Believe it or not, blogs have become serious business, and some of the big ones have literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of visitors per day. The power wielded by major bloggers nowadays is significant - just ask Dan Rather or John Kerry. As Hugh Hewitt noted in his book, blogs are the future of mass communication, so jump on into the revolution - there's always room for more!
There's my two cents.
Believe it or not, blogs have become serious business, and some of the big ones have literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of visitors per day. The power wielded by major bloggers nowadays is significant - just ask Dan Rather or John Kerry. As Hugh Hewitt noted in his book, blogs are the future of mass communication, so jump on into the revolution - there's always room for more!
There's my two cents.
Fun and Frivolity: Squirrel Spies!
Yes, I know it may be hard to believe, but here's another news story about squirrels. I honestly didn't think I'd ever laugh so hard about squirrels as I did with my last squirrel-related blog, but this one is even better!
Apparently, Iran has arrested 14 squirrels for espionage.
Yep, you heard it here first, folks - spying squirrels, arrested by Iranian intelligence operatives. According to state-sponsored news agency IRNA, "[t]he squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services." Apparently, Iran has recently increased its efforts in combating Western espionage, but the use of rodents has not been documented in the past.
My question: are these squirrels going to be tortured? Will they be given appropriate treatment for prisoners of war? Will the U.S. send in a rescue team? We can only hope, but I fear the worst for these poor, brave souls.
Seriously, truth is stranger than fiction. You just can't make this stuff up!
Apparently, Iran has arrested 14 squirrels for espionage.
Yep, you heard it here first, folks - spying squirrels, arrested by Iranian intelligence operatives. According to state-sponsored news agency IRNA, "[t]he squirrels were carrying spy gear of foreign agencies, and were stopped before they could act, thanks to the alertness of our intelligence services." Apparently, Iran has recently increased its efforts in combating Western espionage, but the use of rodents has not been documented in the past.
My question: are these squirrels going to be tortured? Will they be given appropriate treatment for prisoners of war? Will the U.S. send in a rescue team? We can only hope, but I fear the worst for these poor, brave souls.
Seriously, truth is stranger than fiction. You just can't make this stuff up!
Peace Through Strength
What's the most effective way to achieve peace? Is it to sit and talk with our enemies? Is it to give in on concessions over and over? If we act peaceful, will that encourage our enemies to also act peaceful? Let me answer with an analogy.
Think about every movie you've ever watched with a clearly defined 'good guy' and 'bad guy'. The bad guy is willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, and do whatever he can to achieve his aims, regardless of whether or not those actions are morally right and good. The good guy, however, has self-imposed limitations due to his own moral character - he will do whatever he can to defeat the bad guy within the confines of those moral limitations. Why? It makes for good tension (and a good story) because the good guy has to overcome such unfair odds to succeed.
Call me crazy, but I think there's a deeper reason. I think that people of all stripes recognize basic human nature in those stereotypes. People realize that on a fundamental level the good guy will play by the rules, but the bad guy will stop at literally nothing to win. This basic understanding of human nature also applies to war. It doesn't matter how strictly we play by the rules, we have a basic understanding that our enemy will stop at literally nothing to kill us and win.
So where am I going with this? While it sounds noble and sophisticated to have 'peace talks' or negotiations, the reality is that it's not the start of the peace process - it's the end. It is only when one side or the other shows sufficient strength that the opponent gives up that the 'peace' talks can begin. The concept is peace through strength, and it only happens when the will of one side to continue fighting is broken by the other side. That's the key, and that's what we need to remember in regard to the War in Iraq: either we win, or Al Qaeda wins; either our will to fight will be broken, or theirs will be broken. There is no hope in 'peace talks' or negotiations; the only peace that can be obtained here is through strength, and that means victory on the battlefield.
Is this a new or recent concept? Not at all. In fact, it goes back to the very foundation of America's history:
"There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
-- George Washington
Bill Clinton showed this weakness by pulling out after the Blackhawk Down affair in Somalia, and Osama bin Laden referred to that weakness in regard to the 9/11 attacks, calling the U.S. a 'paper tiger'. Al Qaeda cannot combat the U.S. through strength of arms, but is counting on the fact that the U.S. will show the same weakness of will Clinton displayed and simply stop fighting. It's up to the American people -- who are strong enough to prevail -- to prove what we're made of by supporting our troops and giving them what they need to succeed, including time. If we show weakness again, it will be open season on all Americans from terrorists and Islamic radicals all over the world. But, if we rise to the occasion as we have done so many times in the past, we will once again achieve peace through our strength.
There's my two cents.
Quote posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
Think about every movie you've ever watched with a clearly defined 'good guy' and 'bad guy'. The bad guy is willing to lie, cheat, steal, kill, and do whatever he can to achieve his aims, regardless of whether or not those actions are morally right and good. The good guy, however, has self-imposed limitations due to his own moral character - he will do whatever he can to defeat the bad guy within the confines of those moral limitations. Why? It makes for good tension (and a good story) because the good guy has to overcome such unfair odds to succeed.
Call me crazy, but I think there's a deeper reason. I think that people of all stripes recognize basic human nature in those stereotypes. People realize that on a fundamental level the good guy will play by the rules, but the bad guy will stop at literally nothing to win. This basic understanding of human nature also applies to war. It doesn't matter how strictly we play by the rules, we have a basic understanding that our enemy will stop at literally nothing to kill us and win.
So where am I going with this? While it sounds noble and sophisticated to have 'peace talks' or negotiations, the reality is that it's not the start of the peace process - it's the end. It is only when one side or the other shows sufficient strength that the opponent gives up that the 'peace' talks can begin. The concept is peace through strength, and it only happens when the will of one side to continue fighting is broken by the other side. That's the key, and that's what we need to remember in regard to the War in Iraq: either we win, or Al Qaeda wins; either our will to fight will be broken, or theirs will be broken. There is no hope in 'peace talks' or negotiations; the only peace that can be obtained here is through strength, and that means victory on the battlefield.
Is this a new or recent concept? Not at all. In fact, it goes back to the very foundation of America's history:
"There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
-- George Washington
Bill Clinton showed this weakness by pulling out after the Blackhawk Down affair in Somalia, and Osama bin Laden referred to that weakness in regard to the 9/11 attacks, calling the U.S. a 'paper tiger'. Al Qaeda cannot combat the U.S. through strength of arms, but is counting on the fact that the U.S. will show the same weakness of will Clinton displayed and simply stop fighting. It's up to the American people -- who are strong enough to prevail -- to prove what we're made of by supporting our troops and giving them what they need to succeed, including time. If we show weakness again, it will be open season on all Americans from terrorists and Islamic radicals all over the world. But, if we rise to the occasion as we have done so many times in the past, we will once again achieve peace through our strength.
There's my two cents.
Quote posted at Heavy-Handed Politics.
Iraq Retreat Fails!
The cloture vote on the amendment to begin the retreat from Iraq, which needed 60 votes to proceed, did not pass. It ended up at 52-47; full vote results here.
Missouri/Kansas Senators voting for victory: Bond, Brownback, Roberts
Missouri/Kansas Senator voting for retreat and surrender: McCaskill
The good news - the Senate has so far failed to legislate defeat out of the victorious hands of our troops!
There's my two cents.
Missouri/Kansas Senators voting for victory: Bond, Brownback, Roberts
Missouri/Kansas Senator voting for retreat and surrender: McCaskill
The good news - the Senate has so far failed to legislate defeat out of the victorious hands of our troops!
There's my two cents.
Post-Sleepover Shifts
Michelle Malkin's wall-to-wall coverage of last night's Senate sleepover includes some interesting blog posts this morning. First up is Jules Crittenden, who cites a New York Times article that shows some 'wobbly' Republicans may now be shifting away from the Democrats' retreat plan. Lugar and Domenici, two senior Republicans who recently spoke out against Bush's Iraq policy, have both said they will oppose the plan, which should come to a vote sometime this morning.
Republicans pointed out that the whole all-nighter stunt was a complete joke because the Democrats who were complaining about having to come up with 60 votes on critical issues like this one used the same tactics themselves when they were the minority party. "You wonder if they are more interested in politics than dealing with the substance of this," said Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio.
Don Surber agrees with Crittenden, and expounds: "So the Senate stayed up last night? Thousands of troops stay up every night. They put in 12-hour days. They are beating an enemy that wants to kill us. Reid’s stunt — his word — showed the American people what pampered babies senators are — and how incompetent the Democratic Party’s leaders are. Bush’s approval is 29%? So what? That is still double the 14% confidence rate of the Democratic-controlled Congress. Bush may be nearing Carter levels on job approval, but Congressional Democrats have already bested the 19% record low they set a 14 years ago. How dare Reid complain about the Iraqi government? He cannot even pass a budget. The immigration bill went poof on him. The sole bill that he’s passed was a minimum-wage amendment tacked onto an Iraqi funding bill."
Also of note at this time is this huge HUGE HUGE news report: the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested. Michelle Malkin's Hot Air has all the juicy details, but suffice it to say that this guy is one of the top people in Al Qaeda. His purpose appears to be that of putting an Iraqi face on Al Qaeda to appeal to locals, and he was an intermediary between Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Big-time news, and a big-time victory for the U.S. When will Congress realize that we ARE winning this thing, and that they need to support our troops rather than short-circuit their efforts by legislating a premature retreat?
There's my two cents.
Republicans pointed out that the whole all-nighter stunt was a complete joke because the Democrats who were complaining about having to come up with 60 votes on critical issues like this one used the same tactics themselves when they were the minority party. "You wonder if they are more interested in politics than dealing with the substance of this," said Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio.
Don Surber agrees with Crittenden, and expounds: "So the Senate stayed up last night? Thousands of troops stay up every night. They put in 12-hour days. They are beating an enemy that wants to kill us. Reid’s stunt — his word — showed the American people what pampered babies senators are — and how incompetent the Democratic Party’s leaders are. Bush’s approval is 29%? So what? That is still double the 14% confidence rate of the Democratic-controlled Congress. Bush may be nearing Carter levels on job approval, but Congressional Democrats have already bested the 19% record low they set a 14 years ago. How dare Reid complain about the Iraqi government? He cannot even pass a budget. The immigration bill went poof on him. The sole bill that he’s passed was a minimum-wage amendment tacked onto an Iraqi funding bill."
Also of note at this time is this huge HUGE HUGE news report: the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested. Michelle Malkin's Hot Air has all the juicy details, but suffice it to say that this guy is one of the top people in Al Qaeda. His purpose appears to be that of putting an Iraqi face on Al Qaeda to appeal to locals, and he was an intermediary between Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Big-time news, and a big-time victory for the U.S. When will Congress realize that we ARE winning this thing, and that they need to support our troops rather than short-circuit their efforts by legislating a premature retreat?
There's my two cents.
Putting the Freshmen in Place...?
It looks like one of the new leaders of the conservative movement in the Senate is catching some heat from his own party's leadership. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit blogs about how Jim DeMint's willingness to buck certain traditions has also prompted private GOP warnings that "their tolerance has worn thin". DeMint declined comment on any warnings from his leadership, but "he did say it is up to McConnell and other GOP leaders to take up the mantle of reform if they do not want others to do so."
As Reynolds points out, this freshman Senator is doing what needs to be done simply because the leadership is failing to do it. Another reason DeMint should be praised, and heat should be brought to bear on McConnell, Lott, and the other Republican leaders to step up.
There's my two cents.
As Reynolds points out, this freshman Senator is doing what needs to be done simply because the leadership is failing to do it. Another reason DeMint should be praised, and heat should be brought to bear on McConnell, Lott, and the other Republican leaders to step up.
There's my two cents.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Good News on the Ground, Senate Dems Act Stupid
Hugh Hewitt blogs about an AP report that General Peter Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said Iraq has undergone a "sea change", and that the current situation on the ground will definitely affect his recommendation to President Bush in September. For example, in Ramadi -- once a hotbed for terrorist violence -- Al Qaeda has been effectively pushed out, and the continued U.S. presence is helping local police and army personnel get up and running.
Meanwhile, in an admittedly pointless political stunt, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has forced an all-night debate tonight on an amendment (even though no one thinks he's got enough votes to push the amendment through) that would begin the retreat from Iraq in four months and complete it by the middle of 2008. The Senate Republicans were up for the challenge -- in my humble opinion, this is a welcome change from the norm -- as evidenced by the words of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader: "Our enemies aren’t threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts." So, even now as I write this, the debate goes on in the Senate building. As usual, Michelle Malkin is "liveblogging" the debate here - go check it out! Or, tune in to C-Span or online here.
Some interesting things to note from other recent war-related debating:
- the Dorgan amendment, on bringing Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders to justice, passed 87-1, with 12 not voting
- the Cornyn amendment, "to express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists" also passed 94-3, with 3 not voting
The thing I find curious about these voting results is the people who actually voted against these amendments - this should show you something about the total lack of willingness of those Senators to confront an enemy intent on killing us! Thankfully, none of the Missouri or Kansas Senators is included in that group of idiots.
Anyway, assuming this amendment does not pass tonight, it would probably be good to continue contacting your Senators to give them your thoughts on cutting and running from Iraq.
There's my two cents.
Meanwhile, in an admittedly pointless political stunt, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has forced an all-night debate tonight on an amendment (even though no one thinks he's got enough votes to push the amendment through) that would begin the retreat from Iraq in four months and complete it by the middle of 2008. The Senate Republicans were up for the challenge -- in my humble opinion, this is a welcome change from the norm -- as evidenced by the words of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader: "Our enemies aren’t threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts." So, even now as I write this, the debate goes on in the Senate building. As usual, Michelle Malkin is "liveblogging" the debate here - go check it out! Or, tune in to C-Span or online here.
Some interesting things to note from other recent war-related debating:
- the Dorgan amendment, on bringing Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders to justice, passed 87-1, with 12 not voting
- the Cornyn amendment, "to express the sense of the Senate that it is in the national security interest of the United States that Iraq not become a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists" also passed 94-3, with 3 not voting
The thing I find curious about these voting results is the people who actually voted against these amendments - this should show you something about the total lack of willingness of those Senators to confront an enemy intent on killing us! Thankfully, none of the Missouri or Kansas Senators is included in that group of idiots.
Anyway, assuming this amendment does not pass tonight, it would probably be good to continue contacting your Senators to give them your thoughts on cutting and running from Iraq.
There's my two cents.
Bits and Pieces of Amnesty
Michelle Malkin has often predicted that if a comprehensive amnesty bill gets defeated we would then see a series of smaller pieces trying to get many of the same provisions slipped through individually. She's right again.
Dick Durbin (the number 2 Democrat in the Senate) has re-introduced the DREAM Act, which would grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, giving them a better financial position than American citizens. The vile part of this is that he's trying to put it into a defense spending bill, as reported by the Coalition Against Illegal Immigration.
Kris Kobach dismantled the DREAM Act in last year's immigration reform debate here, lining out the dangers of the bill as well as the problems with the 10 states (one of which is Kansas) that defied the 1996 federal law preventing what the DREAM Act essentially attempted to do.
Check out the links for all the details. Then call your reps and give them your thoughts. Just because the comprehensive amnesty bill was defeated doesn't mean all the work is done. Long-term victory comes to the vigilant.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: After reading a little bit more on this, it appears that this amendment (and the DREAM Act itself) are a thinly disguised attempt at getting amnesty itself slipped past the American people. Check out the link to CAII above for all the slimy details! And contact your Senators to vote NO on the Durbin-Hagel-Lugar DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 1585!
Dick Durbin (the number 2 Democrat in the Senate) has re-introduced the DREAM Act, which would grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens, giving them a better financial position than American citizens. The vile part of this is that he's trying to put it into a defense spending bill, as reported by the Coalition Against Illegal Immigration.
Kris Kobach dismantled the DREAM Act in last year's immigration reform debate here, lining out the dangers of the bill as well as the problems with the 10 states (one of which is Kansas) that defied the 1996 federal law preventing what the DREAM Act essentially attempted to do.
Check out the links for all the details. Then call your reps and give them your thoughts. Just because the comprehensive amnesty bill was defeated doesn't mean all the work is done. Long-term victory comes to the vigilant.
There's my two cents.
***UPDATE: After reading a little bit more on this, it appears that this amendment (and the DREAM Act itself) are a thinly disguised attempt at getting amnesty itself slipped past the American people. Check out the link to CAII above for all the slimy details! And contact your Senators to vote NO on the Durbin-Hagel-Lugar DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 1585!
Monday, July 16, 2007
We Must Succeed - Literally Everyone Knows It
The Washington Post had a very interesting editorial in it today by Fred Hiatt. Hillary Clinton was on the campaign trail in Iowa to give a speech, and in the speech she said that she "would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future because 'we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region.'"
Funny, I thought she and the other Democrat leaders wanted to get us out of Iraq immediately. I wonder why this major change in policy slipped by almost everyone...
Of course, her campaign's press release conveniently left out that crucial little tidbit: "Today in Iowa, Hillary Clinton announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately."
Hm, what's with the double-speak? Well, it's typical of the Clintons. Hiatt points out that Clinton's speech included 10 pages of demands for troop withdrawal but only a single paragraph stating her actual plans for keeping troops there. Naturally, the MSM is going to give her a pass on that solitary paragraph and keep up the drumbeat about how the war is lost and how we need to get out right now. But, it should signal to you that even the Democrats know how critical it is for the American mission in Iraq to succeed, even though they're willing to risk a complete disaster down the road in exchange for the acquisition of power right now.
It's a dangerous compromise, and people would do well to remember the games Clinton is willing to play with American lives just to get back into the White House.
There's my two cents.
Funny, I thought she and the other Democrat leaders wanted to get us out of Iraq immediately. I wonder why this major change in policy slipped by almost everyone...
Of course, her campaign's press release conveniently left out that crucial little tidbit: "Today in Iowa, Hillary Clinton announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately."
Hm, what's with the double-speak? Well, it's typical of the Clintons. Hiatt points out that Clinton's speech included 10 pages of demands for troop withdrawal but only a single paragraph stating her actual plans for keeping troops there. Naturally, the MSM is going to give her a pass on that solitary paragraph and keep up the drumbeat about how the war is lost and how we need to get out right now. But, it should signal to you that even the Democrats know how critical it is for the American mission in Iraq to succeed, even though they're willing to risk a complete disaster down the road in exchange for the acquisition of power right now.
It's a dangerous compromise, and people would do well to remember the games Clinton is willing to play with American lives just to get back into the White House.
There's my two cents.
Where Is The Outrage?
Last week, freshman Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison compared President Bush to Hitler, and implied that Bush had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
This isn't the first time that such a vicious accusation has been hurled against the leader of our nation, but these words are a little more vile when uttered by an elected representative of the American people.
As Newsbusters says, "Is the press silence due to Ellison being a Democrat, or because he is the first Muslim member of Congress?"
Personally, I'm not sure which is more disturbing. Either reason is an inexcusable lapse of judgment, and should have invited immediate and severe public ridicule. Even so, I'm not surprised that Ellison said this. He's a far left-winger, and they regularly throw these outrageous verbal bombs. The bigger problem, in my mind, is that there was little if any coverage of these statements in the MSM.
Where is the outrage? Where are the calls for apologies? Where is Howard Dean (head of the Democrat National Convention), Hillary Clinton, or any other prominent Democrat, standing up and saying that Ellison doesn't represent the mainstream Democrat party? Could it be because he does? I'd really love to see some big-time Democrat come out and chastise Ellison, but I'm not holding my breath. Absent such a rebuke, what other conclusion can we come to?
That's the question that should really disturb you, especially if you are a Democrat.
There's my two cents.
This isn't the first time that such a vicious accusation has been hurled against the leader of our nation, but these words are a little more vile when uttered by an elected representative of the American people.
As Newsbusters says, "Is the press silence due to Ellison being a Democrat, or because he is the first Muslim member of Congress?"
Personally, I'm not sure which is more disturbing. Either reason is an inexcusable lapse of judgment, and should have invited immediate and severe public ridicule. Even so, I'm not surprised that Ellison said this. He's a far left-winger, and they regularly throw these outrageous verbal bombs. The bigger problem, in my mind, is that there was little if any coverage of these statements in the MSM.
Where is the outrage? Where are the calls for apologies? Where is Howard Dean (head of the Democrat National Convention), Hillary Clinton, or any other prominent Democrat, standing up and saying that Ellison doesn't represent the mainstream Democrat party? Could it be because he does? I'd really love to see some big-time Democrat come out and chastise Ellison, but I'm not holding my breath. Absent such a rebuke, what other conclusion can we come to?
That's the question that should really disturb you, especially if you are a Democrat.
There's my two cents.
Border Fence? What Border Fence?
Michelle Malkin updates us on the latest...uh...accomplishments surrounding the border fence that's supposed to be protecting our southern border. The short version: it's still not happening. For the whole story, click here.
She also continues to build the case for the violent consequences of leaving our southern border open. The latest victim is 12-year-old Zina Linnik, who was kidnapped and killed by an illegal alien. Zina's tragedy only lengthens the list of crimes committed by illegal aliens who could -- and should -- have been deported by authorities if our nation's immigration laws were being enforced.
Amnesty was killed, but a lot of work still needs to be done to actually fix the real problem.
There's my two cents.
She also continues to build the case for the violent consequences of leaving our southern border open. The latest victim is 12-year-old Zina Linnik, who was kidnapped and killed by an illegal alien. Zina's tragedy only lengthens the list of crimes committed by illegal aliens who could -- and should -- have been deported by authorities if our nation's immigration laws were being enforced.
Amnesty was killed, but a lot of work still needs to be done to actually fix the real problem.
There's my two cents.
Osama Move Over...?
You've probably heard the rumblings about potential increased risk of terrorist attacks over the summer, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments about having a 'gut feeling'. You've probably also heard that there are some reports saying Al Qaeda is at or near the strength it was before 9/11. You may not have heard, however, is that Al Qaeda is actively planning to plant cells inside the U.S., or that Iran has recently asked Japan to pay for its oil using yen rather than U.S. dollars. Add to that the general admission that there is increased 'chatter' from terrorist networks, and the picture being painted is a bit of a grim one.
Ali Eteraz, a writer/blogger/activist who knows a lot more about radical Islam than I do poses an interesting theory about the latest Osama bin Laden video to hit the Internet.
He says that this video could mean bin Laden is dead or dying.
There are several reasons for this. The last time we heard from bin Laden was in an audiotape. Why audio? Eteraz speculates that he may have looked too ill to present a sufficiently inspiring video. Furthermore, Zawahiri -- bin Laden's number 2 guy -- has been all over the place over the past few months in videos. This could be a sign that they're trying to signal a passing of the guard from bin Laden to Zawahiri. Eteraz also speculates that the words of bin Laden's recent video (as reported in the AP: "'The happy (man) is the one that God has chosen him to be a martyr,' added bin Laden, who was shown outdoors wearing army fatigues and looking tired.") could be significant. By using scripture he speaks with a higher 'authority', and with the talk about martyrdom, Al Qaeda could be trying to set up a future change in power while also cementing bin Laden's martyrdom and iconic status in the terrorists' eyes. As Eteraz says, however, it's pure speculation until bin Laden actually turns up dead, so take it with a grain of salt. I watched a Fox News segment a few days ago (unfortunately, I didn't get enough info to reference it here) where they talked about the recent bin Laden video, and they mentioned that the repetition in the video was significant - he repeated a warning three times. According to the report, the video was reminiscent of pre-9/11 messages, and the Koran requires such a warning before an attack.
So, could this be the end for Osama bin Laden? There has long been speculation that he was seriously injured in the initial phases of the War on Terror; could he finally be succumbing to those injuries? Could Zawahiri be looking to take over in the next few months? Time will tell, but another major attack would be quite a send-off for bin Laden, as well as a show of force for Zawahiri to take control of Al Qaeda. I just hope and pray that our military and law enforcement continues to do its exemplary job of keeping us safe, and that the politicians will stay out of the way.
There's my two cents.
Ali Eteraz, a writer/blogger/activist who knows a lot more about radical Islam than I do poses an interesting theory about the latest Osama bin Laden video to hit the Internet.
He says that this video could mean bin Laden is dead or dying.
There are several reasons for this. The last time we heard from bin Laden was in an audiotape. Why audio? Eteraz speculates that he may have looked too ill to present a sufficiently inspiring video. Furthermore, Zawahiri -- bin Laden's number 2 guy -- has been all over the place over the past few months in videos. This could be a sign that they're trying to signal a passing of the guard from bin Laden to Zawahiri. Eteraz also speculates that the words of bin Laden's recent video (as reported in the AP: "'The happy (man) is the one that God has chosen him to be a martyr,' added bin Laden, who was shown outdoors wearing army fatigues and looking tired.") could be significant. By using scripture he speaks with a higher 'authority', and with the talk about martyrdom, Al Qaeda could be trying to set up a future change in power while also cementing bin Laden's martyrdom and iconic status in the terrorists' eyes. As Eteraz says, however, it's pure speculation until bin Laden actually turns up dead, so take it with a grain of salt. I watched a Fox News segment a few days ago (unfortunately, I didn't get enough info to reference it here) where they talked about the recent bin Laden video, and they mentioned that the repetition in the video was significant - he repeated a warning three times. According to the report, the video was reminiscent of pre-9/11 messages, and the Koran requires such a warning before an attack.
So, could this be the end for Osama bin Laden? There has long been speculation that he was seriously injured in the initial phases of the War on Terror; could he finally be succumbing to those injuries? Could Zawahiri be looking to take over in the next few months? Time will tell, but another major attack would be quite a send-off for bin Laden, as well as a show of force for Zawahiri to take control of Al Qaeda. I just hope and pray that our military and law enforcement continues to do its exemplary job of keeping us safe, and that the politicians will stay out of the way.
There's my two cents.
Who's Torturing Now?
In a Washington Post article over the weekend, a quiet controversy has been stirred up by the continued discussions of closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
The key point of contention is that Democrats are concerned that if we close the facility, we'll end up sending a bunch of these terrorists back to their home countries where they might be tortured.
Huh?! I thought WE were supposedly torturing them at Gitmo!
What does this mean? It means that even the Democrats in Congress know that we're treating those terrorists very, very well, and they're just using the "T" word as a political hot-button. But, if we send them back to their home (i.e. third world) countries, they will actually undergo real, legitimate torture that might actually involve more than being tired and listening to -- gulp -- rock music.
There's my two cents.
The key point of contention is that Democrats are concerned that if we close the facility, we'll end up sending a bunch of these terrorists back to their home countries where they might be tortured.
Huh?! I thought WE were supposedly torturing them at Gitmo!
What does this mean? It means that even the Democrats in Congress know that we're treating those terrorists very, very well, and they're just using the "T" word as a political hot-button. But, if we send them back to their home (i.e. third world) countries, they will actually undergo real, legitimate torture that might actually involve more than being tired and listening to -- gulp -- rock music.
There's my two cents.
Fun and Frivolity: Tall and Small
Check out this story about when the world's tallest man -- almost 8 feet -- meets (maybe) the world's smallest -- 2 1/2 feet -- man! Wow!
Friday, July 13, 2007
Mythbusters (2 Cents Style): Bush Lied About WMDs
If Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld lied about WMDs, then so did the UN, the European Union (and the entire rest of the world's intelligence communities), Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and many current Democrat leaders. Some examples:
- Clinton in 1998: "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction.... Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
- Bill Clinton on February 17, 1998: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."
- On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its
military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."
- former Democrat Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle in 1998: "Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
- John Kerry on February 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
- Al Gore's entire speech on September 29th, 1992 at the Center for National Policy, where he hammers George H. W. Bush for not attacking Saddam Hussein for WMDs. Even better, watch the video here.
- Senator Hillary Clinton on October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Ted Kennedy on September 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Al Gore on September 23, 2002: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
These are the very same people who have reversed their positions and are now saying that there were never any WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to the U.S. Rush Limbaugh has compiled three pages of these quotes from prominent Democrat leaders, which you can read here.
The truth is that Hussein did have WMDs in the past - he used them to kill tens of thousands of Kurds in an attempted genocide. The problem is that the subsequent UN inspections couldn't account for the destruction of all of them, so it remained a possibility that he still had them. And, as mentioned repeatedly above, the whole world knew without a doubt that Hussein would continue to pursue them until he was forcibly stopped. Although there was no shortage of ominous reports before the war (see articles here, here, here, here, and here), we now believe that much (if not all) of that intelligence was mistaken, or at least overstated. Basically, the entire world got snookered about this.
Still, the question remains: did Hussein have any viable WMDs in recent years? Was he truly in violation of the UN sanctions, thus warranting military reprisals?
Yes.
Consider the following from after the invasion. In 2003, UN inspectors uncovered documents in the homes of two Iraqi scienists that proved Hussein's continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Combined with the discovery of warheads capable of carrying chemical/biological weapons at a storage facility, it was a sign that the accusations were correct. Later that year, AFP reported that US and British experts discovered that Iraq was developing a missile capable of reaching Israel and other parts of the Middle East, which was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Also in 2003, weapons inspectors found unmanned drones that were in violation of UN sanctions. In 2006, Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra announced the discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically 'sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles,' in Iraq. Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, 'Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.'
Even if they were old munitions, the fact is that they were still there. Saddam Hussein had WMDs in Iraq.
So why didn't we hear much about all of these discoveries? Because it meant Bush was right, and that the invasion was justified. Hussein deserved to be removed simply for being a brutal, murderous dictator guilty of torturing children, mutilating adults, and unspeakable acts of torture, but he was also in violation of repeated UN sanctions regarding WMDs.
On top of all that, let's also apply some common sense (aka 'connect the dots'):
- we know Saddam Hussein had (used) WMDs in the past
- inspectors couldn't verify they'd all been destroyed
- Iraq had literally years of warning before the U.S.-led invasion began
- Iraq is a country the size of California
Hmmm... Do you think it's possible that Hussein might have -- and this is really stretching it, I know -- tried to hide his WMDs, maybe by burying them in the sand or in caves? He did it with airplanes, so why not other weapons? How long do you think it would take to search literally every square foot of a place the size of California (both above and below ground)? A lot longer than inspectors were actually given to complete their search. Here's another thought: could Hussein possibly have -- and this is also really stretching it -- moved his WMDs into a neighboring country like Syria or Iran, who are both known state sponsors of worldwide terrorism, and who are both actively supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now?
Nah, probably not. That would be stretching credibility too far, wouldn't it?
There's my two cents.
- Clinton in 1998: "If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction...he will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction.... Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
- Bill Clinton on February 17, 1998: "Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan." Here are just some of the things this defection forced Iraq to admit, as cited by Clinton: "[A]n offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum...2,000 gallons of anthrax, 25 biological-filled scud warheads, and 157 aerial bombs."
- On December 16, 1998, Bill Clinton ordered a strike "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and its
military capacity to threaten their neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interests of the United States..."
- former Democrat Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle in 1998: "Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
- John Kerry on February 23, 1998: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
- Al Gore's entire speech on September 29th, 1992 at the Center for National Policy, where he hammers George H. W. Bush for not attacking Saddam Hussein for WMDs. Even better, watch the video here.
- Senator Hillary Clinton on October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Ted Kennedy on September 27, 2002: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-Al Gore on September 23, 2002: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
These are the very same people who have reversed their positions and are now saying that there were never any WMDs in Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein never posed a threat to the U.S. Rush Limbaugh has compiled three pages of these quotes from prominent Democrat leaders, which you can read here.
The truth is that Hussein did have WMDs in the past - he used them to kill tens of thousands of Kurds in an attempted genocide. The problem is that the subsequent UN inspections couldn't account for the destruction of all of them, so it remained a possibility that he still had them. And, as mentioned repeatedly above, the whole world knew without a doubt that Hussein would continue to pursue them until he was forcibly stopped. Although there was no shortage of ominous reports before the war (see articles here, here, here, here, and here), we now believe that much (if not all) of that intelligence was mistaken, or at least overstated. Basically, the entire world got snookered about this.
Still, the question remains: did Hussein have any viable WMDs in recent years? Was he truly in violation of the UN sanctions, thus warranting military reprisals?
Yes.
Consider the following from after the invasion. In 2003, UN inspectors uncovered documents in the homes of two Iraqi scienists that proved Hussein's continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Combined with the discovery of warheads capable of carrying chemical/biological weapons at a storage facility, it was a sign that the accusations were correct. Later that year, AFP reported that US and British experts discovered that Iraq was developing a missile capable of reaching Israel and other parts of the Middle East, which was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. Also in 2003, weapons inspectors found unmanned drones that were in violation of UN sanctions. In 2006, Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Peter Hoekstra announced the discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically 'sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles,' in Iraq. Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, 'Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.'
Even if they were old munitions, the fact is that they were still there. Saddam Hussein had WMDs in Iraq.
So why didn't we hear much about all of these discoveries? Because it meant Bush was right, and that the invasion was justified. Hussein deserved to be removed simply for being a brutal, murderous dictator guilty of torturing children, mutilating adults, and unspeakable acts of torture, but he was also in violation of repeated UN sanctions regarding WMDs.
On top of all that, let's also apply some common sense (aka 'connect the dots'):
- we know Saddam Hussein had (used) WMDs in the past
- inspectors couldn't verify they'd all been destroyed
- Iraq had literally years of warning before the U.S.-led invasion began
- Iraq is a country the size of California
Hmmm... Do you think it's possible that Hussein might have -- and this is really stretching it, I know -- tried to hide his WMDs, maybe by burying them in the sand or in caves? He did it with airplanes, so why not other weapons? How long do you think it would take to search literally every square foot of a place the size of California (both above and below ground)? A lot longer than inspectors were actually given to complete their search. Here's another thought: could Hussein possibly have -- and this is also really stretching it -- moved his WMDs into a neighboring country like Syria or Iran, who are both known state sponsors of worldwide terrorism, and who are both actively supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now?
Nah, probably not. That would be stretching credibility too far, wouldn't it?
There's my two cents.
Mythbusters (2 Cents Style): Nothing Good is Happening in Iraq
A blogger by the name of Arthur Chrenkoff has compiled a huge repository of the good news that has come about from the War on Terror (specifically in Iraq). This is also linked through the Wall Street Journal here. There are literally hundreds of pages here (maybe more) detailing polls, studies, events, and other information about all the good things that are happening over there. I can't possibly even begin to summarize it all (not that I've even been able to read a large percentage of it), so you'll have to go look for yourself. It's incredible. These things include our troops opening schools and hospitals, rebuilding infrastructure, and passing out toys/clothes/food to Iraqi civilians, as well as the first free Iraqi elections in decades, and progress on their own Constitution.
I've heard numerous calls on talk radio shows, as well as read stories in lots of places indicating incredible frustration from soldiers about this lack of reporting on the good things they're doing. Why would soldiers sign up for repeated tours of duty if they didn't believe that what they were doing was truly helping the Iraqi people and making us safer at the same time? Because it doesn't match the MSM's beliefs (see previous blogs about the New York Times) about what's going on, so they don't report it.
There's my two cents.
I've heard numerous calls on talk radio shows, as well as read stories in lots of places indicating incredible frustration from soldiers about this lack of reporting on the good things they're doing. Why would soldiers sign up for repeated tours of duty if they didn't believe that what they were doing was truly helping the Iraqi people and making us safer at the same time? Because it doesn't match the MSM's beliefs (see previous blogs about the New York Times) about what's going on, so they don't report it.
There's my two cents.
Mythbusters (2 Cents Style): Can't We Negotiate?
It hasn't ever worked before. Can you think of one concrete example of any negotiation with Middle Eastern fanatical jihadist groups that has actually accomplished anything (for us, not the terrorists)? That's because it doesn't work. We give in a little bit, they calm down for a while, they eventually get violent again and want more. It's a well-established cycle; the question we should ask is: why?
Because of the core beliefs of these jihadist terrorists: their mission is to kill us...simply for existing. If we don't convert to Islam, that is.
Don't believe me? Then take it from Osama bin Laden himself: "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam." By the way, this would include the brutal Sharia law, which I'll get into more in a future blog. Anyway, in the transcript of the bin Laden video referenced above, he rambles on at length about all the various evils of America, then finishes with "If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation."
Convert or die.
There is no negotiation possible in such a stark clash of ideology. Rush Limbaugh put forth a parody of how ludicrous the negotiation mindset is in this situation:
Al-Qaeda's sworn mission is to kill us. That is the mission of militant Islam. It's to wipe out infidels, and we are the worst of all
because we are Christian and we are Western. Okay. We're going to negotiate with these people. Their starting point is: you're dead.
"We're not stopping 'til you're dead."
What's our counter? Do we say, "Uh, okay. How about, will you let us live for 50 years?"
"No. We're going to wipe you out in 30."
"Okay, well, uh, will you only take an arm from each of us for the first 50 years?"
"Nope. We're going to kill you all as soon as we can."
"No, no, no, no. That's not fair! We're negotiating with you. Will you settle for two arms and let us live?"
"Nope. Our mission is to kill you, infidel."
"Okay, uh, how about an arm and a leg and let us live for 50 years?"
"No! We are not compromising."
"Okay, how about if you kill half of us, the Republicans? If we give you the Republicans, will you --"
"No! We are going to kill all of you."
My point is, where do you negotiate with this? On what threshold or basis is there reason for any kind of settlement?
They want to kill us simply for being who we are, simply for existing. There is no negotiating with them. We either win by defeating them, or we lose - by dying.
There's my two cents.
Because of the core beliefs of these jihadist terrorists: their mission is to kill us...simply for existing. If we don't convert to Islam, that is.
Don't believe me? Then take it from Osama bin Laden himself: "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam." By the way, this would include the brutal Sharia law, which I'll get into more in a future blog. Anyway, in the transcript of the bin Laden video referenced above, he rambles on at length about all the various evils of America, then finishes with "If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation."
Convert or die.
There is no negotiation possible in such a stark clash of ideology. Rush Limbaugh put forth a parody of how ludicrous the negotiation mindset is in this situation:
Al-Qaeda's sworn mission is to kill us. That is the mission of militant Islam. It's to wipe out infidels, and we are the worst of all
because we are Christian and we are Western. Okay. We're going to negotiate with these people. Their starting point is: you're dead.
"We're not stopping 'til you're dead."
What's our counter? Do we say, "Uh, okay. How about, will you let us live for 50 years?"
"No. We're going to wipe you out in 30."
"Okay, well, uh, will you only take an arm from each of us for the first 50 years?"
"Nope. We're going to kill you all as soon as we can."
"No, no, no, no. That's not fair! We're negotiating with you. Will you settle for two arms and let us live?"
"Nope. Our mission is to kill you, infidel."
"Okay, uh, how about an arm and a leg and let us live for 50 years?"
"No! We are not compromising."
"Okay, how about if you kill half of us, the Republicans? If we give you the Republicans, will you --"
"No! We are going to kill all of you."
My point is, where do you negotiate with this? On what threshold or basis is there reason for any kind of settlement?
They want to kill us simply for being who we are, simply for existing. There is no negotiating with them. We either win by defeating them, or we lose - by dying.
There's my two cents.
Mythbusters (2 Cents Style): It's Our Fault
This one is just stupid, and shows a complete (or willful) ignorance of the enemy we face. Let's look at a few specific variations of this sentiment.
We're provoking Al Qaeda by being in Iraq.
Had we invaded Iraq before 9/11/2001? No, but Al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans anyway.
We're creating more terrorists by being in Iraq.
Seriously? If you think this, then you apparently don't remember the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the various U.S. Embassy bombings all around the world, or the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (just to name a few). There have been terrorists attacking the U.S. and other western nations for decades. If anything is accelerating terrorist recruitment right now, it's the liberal leftists and America-haters who defend terrorist activities by granting them the rights of U.S. citizens and seeking to actively prevent U.S. victory in Iraq by leaking national security secrets (like the freezing of Al Qaeda assets and eavesdropping on known terrorists) and seeking legislation that hinders American success on the battlefield.
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we invaded.
Baloney. Former Iraqi military officers and defectors have revealed that not only did Saddam Hussein's government support terrorism, but he even let them use Iraqi training facilities. One, named Salman Pak, had a Boeing 707 fusilage where they practiced taking over airplanes. Check out the satellite photos for yourself here, here, and here (it's a progression that zooms in).
There's no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
There's no conclusive link between Saddam Hussein and the specific 9/11 attacks. But, there is a mountain of evidence proving the link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in general. If the Salman Pak facility isn't enough for you, there is a vast amount of evidence dispelling this rumor, including meetings between the two, funding support, and training assistance. The Weekly Standard compiled a document titled 'The Mother of All Connections' which sheds a great deal of light on this ridiculous notion. In it are details on one particular detainee's journey from Iraqi army member to Taliban member to Al Qaeda member to attempted embassy bombings (in 1998) to arrest in Pakistan. This happened at the same time as President Clinton publicly accused Iraq of supplying Al Qaeda, and at the same time as two U.S. embassy attacks in Africa. Also included are descriptions of authenticated documents from Saddam's own Iraqi Intelligence Service stating bin Laden was an intelligence asset, and describing how a bin Laden aide stayed in a Baghdad hotel as a guest of the IIS. Hussein also welcomed Al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war in Iraq began, controlling their activities to set up a resistance to our invasion. There are pages and pages of details in this document, but I'll let you read them yourself. CNSNews reported in 2004 that Iraqi intelligence documents showed numerous efforts by Hussein to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders. Rush Limbaugh did his own two-page insert on such links in his July 2004 issue of the Limbaugh Letter, including statements from the 9/11 Commission, Janet Reno, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and newspapers from around the world. Check it out here and here.
These are just a few examples of the vast documentation that links Al Qaeda and Iraq. This is one of the most firmly fixed -- yet easily disproved -- myths surrounding this war.
There's my two cents.
We're provoking Al Qaeda by being in Iraq.
Had we invaded Iraq before 9/11/2001? No, but Al Qaeda killed 3,000 Americans anyway.
We're creating more terrorists by being in Iraq.
Seriously? If you think this, then you apparently don't remember the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing, the various U.S. Embassy bombings all around the world, or the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 (just to name a few). There have been terrorists attacking the U.S. and other western nations for decades. If anything is accelerating terrorist recruitment right now, it's the liberal leftists and America-haters who defend terrorist activities by granting them the rights of U.S. citizens and seeking to actively prevent U.S. victory in Iraq by leaking national security secrets (like the freezing of Al Qaeda assets and eavesdropping on known terrorists) and seeking legislation that hinders American success on the battlefield.
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we invaded.
Baloney. Former Iraqi military officers and defectors have revealed that not only did Saddam Hussein's government support terrorism, but he even let them use Iraqi training facilities. One, named Salman Pak, had a Boeing 707 fusilage where they practiced taking over airplanes. Check out the satellite photos for yourself here, here, and here (it's a progression that zooms in).
There's no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
There's no conclusive link between Saddam Hussein and the specific 9/11 attacks. But, there is a mountain of evidence proving the link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in general. If the Salman Pak facility isn't enough for you, there is a vast amount of evidence dispelling this rumor, including meetings between the two, funding support, and training assistance. The Weekly Standard compiled a document titled 'The Mother of All Connections' which sheds a great deal of light on this ridiculous notion. In it are details on one particular detainee's journey from Iraqi army member to Taliban member to Al Qaeda member to attempted embassy bombings (in 1998) to arrest in Pakistan. This happened at the same time as President Clinton publicly accused Iraq of supplying Al Qaeda, and at the same time as two U.S. embassy attacks in Africa. Also included are descriptions of authenticated documents from Saddam's own Iraqi Intelligence Service stating bin Laden was an intelligence asset, and describing how a bin Laden aide stayed in a Baghdad hotel as a guest of the IIS. Hussein also welcomed Al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war in Iraq began, controlling their activities to set up a resistance to our invasion. There are pages and pages of details in this document, but I'll let you read them yourself. CNSNews reported in 2004 that Iraqi intelligence documents showed numerous efforts by Hussein to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders. Rush Limbaugh did his own two-page insert on such links in his July 2004 issue of the Limbaugh Letter, including statements from the 9/11 Commission, Janet Reno, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and newspapers from around the world. Check it out here and here.
These are just a few examples of the vast documentation that links Al Qaeda and Iraq. This is one of the most firmly fixed -- yet easily disproved -- myths surrounding this war.
There's my two cents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)