Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Yesterday I wrote about the Constitutional showdown looming over the Iraq War. Now, I’d like to examine some other things that the NYS Times article brings up. The most important thing to be examined is who’s hands the blood would be on if Congress cut off funds for Iraq.

Prof. Robert Turner of the University of Virginia suggested that Congress had made itself responsible for the deaths of the 1.7 million Cambodians estimated to have been slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge, by denying funds for President Nixon to wage war inside Cambodia. Similarly, he said Congress bore responsibility for the deaths of 241 marines killed by a suicide bomber in Lebanon in 1983 because it raised the question of forcing a withdrawal there.

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers is proven by their insisting that the Commander-in-Chief sets and executes war policy. A Democrat congress made the major mistake to cut off funding for the South Vietnamese and Cambodia, with 1.7 million Cambodians getting killed as a direct result. If this Democrat congress cuts off funding for Iraq, there will be a bloodbath both in Iraq and here.

When we left Vietnam, we were certain that the Soviets wouldn’t follow us home. If we leave Iraq in defeat, the terrorists will know that they can wear down Democrats simply by surviving. They’ll know that we are a paper tiger. When that becomes proven fact, they’ll become emboldened just like when Clinton pulled the troops out of Mogadishu.

One common denominator in Beirut and Mogadishu is the loudest anti-war critic today: John Murtha. He talked Reagan out of Beirut and Clinton out of Somalia. Now he’s trying to run President Bush out of Iraq. You’d think that he’d feel guilty about Beirut and Somalia but you’d be wrong:

MURTHA: But the thing that disturbs me and worries me about this whole thing, we can’t get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it. In Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia, President Clinton changed direction, and yet here with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and looked at as occupiers. Eighty percent of the people want us out of there, and yet they continue to say we’re fighting this thing.

Simply put, John Murtha’s hands are bloody. They’re bloody because his foolish advice, especially about Somalia, led bin Laden to conclude that America is a paper tiger. Now he’s working hard to prove bin Laden right.

There are a few senators who were around when Congress cut off funding for Vietnam, namely Kennedy and Byrd. I don’t know if they voted for cutting off funding but I wouldn’t be surprised. If they did, the blood of the Cambodians and Vietnamese is on their hands.

Other experts testifying at the hearing said that Congress had the power not only to declare war, but to make major strategic and policy decisions about its conduct. Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law for the Library of Congress, said, “I don’t know of any ground for a belief that the president has any more special expertise in whether to continue a war than do the members of Congress.”

It isn’t a matter of expertise; it’s a matter of whether the military can function with 436 commanders-in-chief. It clearly can’t. That’s why the Founding Fathers assigned the role of Commander-in-Chief to the executive branch.

He said that the title of “commander in chief” was meant by the framers to emphasize unity of command and civilian control over the military. “The same duty commanders have to the president, the president has to the elected representatives.”

The Constitution demands that there be checks and balances to everything. The checks and balances in this instance is the power of the purse and the power to declare war. While I’m certain that Sen. Feingold is serious about cutting off funding for the war, I suspect that he knows his own leadership won’t agree with him. I’d be surprised if they cut funding off.

Then again, these are irrational Democrats we’re talking about.



Senator Arlen Specter, as they say a "Republican In Name Only," has re-written the United States Constitution. He is challenging President Bush's assertion that he is the sole decider on deploying troops to Iraq. Evidently Bush is not the only Commander-In-Chief anymore. According to Specter: "I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider. The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

Really: Could Specter please show us where in our Constitution it says that the Senate shall share responsibility with the President as Commander in Chief of our armed forces?

The decision of whether or not to go to war in Iraq was already decided as a shared and joint responsibility, Senator Specter. Perhaps you don't remember when the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Small detail most in Congress now want swept under the rug. As to whether or not the president is the sole decider....well, it's always been that way. The president is the commander-in-chief. That's what the Constitution says, as much as Democrats hate the whole idea.

You don't command by committee.

So what can the Congress do? The Congress does have the power of the purse. To that end, that makes them somewhat of a decider in the whole matter. But they know they don't have the votes to pull the funding for the war, nor would that sit well with the American people. There's not much they can do.

All they can do is sit around and pass non-binding resolutions against the war. That's not much of a decider, now is it?

Tuesday, January 30, 2007


If you don’t believe it, read the quotes from this NY Times article and tell my why I shouldn’t expect it.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee began laying the constitutional groundwork today for an effort to block President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

They were joined by Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the panel for the last two years, in asserting that Mr. Bush cannot simply ignore Congressional opposition to his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

“I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Mr. Specter said. “The decider is a joint and shared responsibility.” Mr. Specter said he considered a clash over constitutional powers to be “imminent.” The Senate next week will take up competing proposals that would express disapproval of Mr. Bush’s plan.

Specter is right in the sense that Congress has a role in going to war. They are the ones to formally declare war. They also can decide not to fund that war. Other than that, they aren’t co-deciders. The Constitution is quite clear that there is one Commander-in-Chief, not 436.

As you might expect, Russ Feingold is in the middle of this imaginary brouhaha:

Senator Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who acted as chairman for the hearing, said he would soon introduce a resolution that would go much further. It would end all financing for the deployment of American military forces in Iraq after six months, other than a limited number working on counterterrorism operations or training the Iraqi army and police. In effect, it would call for all other American forces to be withdrawn by the six-month deadline. “Since the President is adamant about pursuing his failed policy in Iraq, Congress has a duty to stand up and prevent him,” Mr. Feingold said.

Sen. Feingold, bring it on. Please, please, please force the fence-straddling gutless wimps in your party to say that they’re defeatists. Please force the fence-straddling gutless wimps in your party to say that their vote to go to war was purely political. Please tell the nation that Democrats are a spineless lot who don’t give a damn about national security or defeating the terrorists. Please tell the nation that you can’t be trusted with the nation’s highest office. Please turn this nation against your party with a single piece of legislation. Please tell the nation that you’re the Disgrace of Vietnam Party.

Mr. Feingold was joined by only two other Democrats at the hearing, Senators Richard Durbin of Illinois and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, perhaps reflecting the wariness in the party’s caucus about any direct attempt to thwart the president’s strategy. Some Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have all but dared the war’s opponents to try cutting off financing, a move they believe would be seen as undermining the nation’s troops.

It’s obvious that Democrats want to raise a stink about this but they’re too gutless to actually defund the war. They know that defunding the war is political suicide. If America really was vehemently opposed to the war, Democrats would be coming out of the woodwork with legislation cutting off funding of the war. It’s that simple.

If history has taught us nothing else, it should’ve told us that Democrats are the party that votes for only those things that are inevitable. They aren’t the bold party. They’re the ultra-cautious party. That’s why this is about “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” To borrow an old cliche, when everything is said and done, more will be said than done.


Fark isn't the only one who has fun with photoshop. Check out
Hillary Clinton has officially hit the campaign trail, and the hypocrisy is already flowing. She says President Bush should pull all the troops out of Iraq before he leaves office...because it was a mistake to go to war. Now this statement from Hillary was in response to a question about her vote for the war in Iraq. She didn't answer the question ... she just said that Bush should get us out of there before it becomes her responsibility.

Speaking at a townhall-style meeting, The Hildabeast actually said this: "This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy. We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office." His decision, huh? Funny...back in 2002 when she voted for the war in Iraq, Hillary didn't find Bush's plan all that ill-conceived. No problem, though...the media will punch her pass anyway.

But don't worry...she says she takes responsibility for her vote giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. She's just not going to take any of the blame. Nice sidestep. And so it goes that the 2008 campaign is underway. In a little over a year and 10 months, we'll know if Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

Let the nightmare scenarios begin.

By the way .. you might want to look at today's reading assignments for a link to Hillary singing the national anthem. I'll say this ... I wouldn't have the guts to do that in public.

Monday, January 29, 2007


This LA Times article is potentially disastrous news for Senate Democrats.

It’s hard to buy undeveloped land in booming northern Arizona for $166 an acre. But now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled.

In 2002, Reid (D-NV) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years. The payment gave the senator full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Reid and the pension fund had jointly owned. Reid’s price for the equivalent of 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.

Haven’t we heard of Harry’s real estate bargains before? Did Reid think that nobody would notice? Frankly, Dingy Harry has gotten more great deals than any American politician in my lifetime.

What’s worse news for Democrats is that they’re betwixt and between on this. If they don’t make an example of Reid’s shady land deals, then they’ll be characterized as totally corrupt. Remember that Reid short-changed an employee pension fund, giving them only 10 cents on their retirement dollar. Based on this article, the assessor valued the property at more than $100,000 per acre. I’m not a real estate expert but that seems cheap in a hot real estate market.

If they do make an example of him and expel him from the Senate, that gives Jim Gibbons, the Republican governor or Nevada, the power to name Reid’s successor. If the Democrats don’t make an example of Reid, people will know that they aren’t worthy of the public’s trust. They’ll know that Democrats will sell out anyone for a buck.

Believe it or not, it gets worse:

Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies. It was an issue the Haycock family had brought to Reid’s attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events.

Can you say quid pro quo? It’s difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that this was slush money paid to Reid for his intervention on a constituent’s behalf.

If Reid were to sell the property for any of the various estimates of its value, his gain on the $10,000 investment could range from $50,000 to $290,000.

That’s probably the most conservative thing that I’ve heard from the LA Times in ages. Based on their own reporting, Reid paid $166 per acre was “less than one tenth” of what the assessor valued the land at. Frankly, I’m skeptical of that assessment. Frankly, I can’t imagine this land not being worth $50,000 per 1/3 acre lot, not $166 per acre. That would put Reid’s eventual profits alot higher than $290,000.

Based on this information, this deal makes Hillary’s futures deal all those years ago look modest. And that takes some doing. That takes alot of doing.

In a statement, Reid’s spokesman Jon Summers said that the transaction was not a gift and that the price was due to the property’s history and the fact that only a partial interest was sold. Reid’s action on the lubricants issue was unrelated to the sale and reflected the senator’s interest in fairness for small businesses, Summers said.

RIIIGGGHHHHTTT. Harry Reid, the small businessman’s hero. That should be his campaign slogan the next time he runs. That is, if he isn’t run out of the Senate before that. If he’s such a friend of small business, why would he have ripped of this small business’s pension fund that badly?

Because an employee pension fund had owned the land Reid purchased, labor law experts contacted by The Times said, a below-market sale would raise additional questions. Pension fund trustees like Clair Haycock have a duty in most cases to sell assets for their market value, the experts said.

“I think this would have been considered a potentially serious issue” at the time, said Ian D. Lanoff, who led the Labor Department’s pension division during the Carter administration…

Let’s suppose for the sake of discussion that Reid didn’t push legislation for this ’small business owner’. Let’s stipulate for this discussion that he simply paid 1/10th of the market value of the land, keeping in mind that Reid essentially bought this from the employees’ pension fund. At a time when pension funds are badly underfunded, this is serious business.

If there is justice in this world, Harry Reid will be run out of town on a rail & Republicans will have a 50-50 split in the Senate. The bad news is that I doubt that there is justice in a Democrat Senate.

Can you say ‘Democrat Culture of Corruption’?


The Democrats class warfare minimum wage increase is now being debated in the Senate .. and Ted Kennedy is about to have a stroke. Did you hear this pathetic man screaming at the Republicans? [video] "What is it about it (the minimum wage) that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?"

Well ... of course .. most of you will recognize this as cheap demagoguery. There are two faulty premises to Kennedy's question:

  1. The working wage has some meaningful connection to "working" men and women.
  2. Republicans are offended by working men and women.

Both premises are false.

Let's deal with this "working men and women" line first. This rhetorical nonsense is now a basic part of the left wing class warfare arsenal. The goal here is to foster the idea that the more money you make the less you work. The reality is that there we have two resources we can use to make money, physical labor and mental labor. Most of us use a combination of the two. The ugly little fact is that, generally speaking, and professional athletes aside, the more of your mind you use the more money you will make, and the more of your muscle you use the less money you'll make.

Here's another fact. The more money you make, the more likely it is that you will vote Republican. The less money you make, the more likely you will vote Democrat. Bring this all together and you'll soon figure out that the more you use physical labor to earn money, the more likely it is you will vote Democrat.

Knowing that almost all Americans value the concept of hard work, the Democrats have worked to promote the concept that the only real work that physical labor. Working with your mind -- managing investments, for instance -- just isn't work. Therefore the only real working people out there are those who work with their hands instead of their brains .... or those more likely to vote Democrat. Once you've made this absurd concept a reality you have created a wonderful class warfare weapon. If you're smarter than the average bear, and if you realize that it is not the role of government to set wages, you then become an enemy of "working men and women."

This, then, enables Ted Kennedy's demagoguery. He first asks what it is about the minimum wage that, as he says, drives Republicans so crazy. Simple. First -- there are still a few Republicans out there who believe that in a free market economy it is not the role of government to set wages. If the government can set a minimum wage, what is to stop the government from setting a maximum wage? If the government can set a minimum wage, then why can't the government set a minimum wage based on family size? Why can't the Imperial Federal Government of the United States just pass a law saying that the minimum wage goes up by $2.00 per hour for every child born to the worker? Once you allow the government to have a say in establishing the value of labor ... the sky is the limit. Where does it stop?

Secondly ... Republicans realize that less than 20% of the people in this country who earn the minimum wage live in families that are anywhere near or below the poverty level. Over six out of ten people who begin work at the minimum wage have received their first raise within the first year. Only 15% of minimum wage workers are still receiving the minimum wage after three years on their job. What percentage of the full time work force is earning just the minimum wage? Around 1 percent.

So .. to answer Kennedy's screaming questions: The minimum wage drives (some) Republicans crazy because there is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that allows the government to set wages, and the minimum wage is used by Democrats as nothing more than a tool of class warfare. Around one percent of full-time workers earn the minimum wage, and most of them are part of families that are well above the poverty line. It just isn't an issue. Knowing Republicans are also upset because they know that the Democrats push for the minimum wage increases are just another way of telling unions "thanks for your support."

And to answer Kennedy's second question, there is nothing about "working men and women" that Republicans find offensive. What they do find offensive is the Democrat use of the phrase "working people" as a tool of class warfare through their attempts to convince lower income Americans that those who make more than they do aren't really working for the money they earn.

Sunday, January 28, 2007


Kenneth Stein has written an article about his leaving the Carter Center. Suffice it to say that it’s devastating to Carter.

While Carter says that he wrote the book to educate and provoke debate, the narrative aims its attack toward Israel, Israeli politicians, and Israel’s supporters. It contains egregious errors of both commission and omission. To suit his desired ends, he manipulates information, redefines facts, and exaggerates conclusions.

The question I’d love asking Jimmy Carter is this: How can you pretend that the goal of your book is to “educate and provoke debate” when it’s so factually inaccurate and biased?

I ask you to think back to your favorite teachers. Didn’t these teachers have their facts straight and their logic seamless and compelling? Where is the compelling logic in Carter’s book? How many facts have been pointed out in the media alone? It’s enough to bury what little is left of Carter’s credibility.

Carter’s preferred method in writing the book was to lay a brief and somewhat selective historical foundation for each chapter and emphasize the contemporary. I sought to anchor each chapter more deeply in history and political culture. He had little patience for precedent or laborious recapitulation of history. Too often it interfered with his desire to find action-oriented solutions, which befit his training as an engineer. For Carter, history and ideology bestowed unwanted moorings and unnecessary rigidities; they shackled the pragmatism and flexibility of the would-be negotiator.

When Stein says that Carter thought that “history and ideology bestowed unwanted moorings and unnecessary rigidities”, what he’s really saying is that historical truths proved cumbersome to Carter because he was already then living in a fantasy world devoid of real truth. Carter is nothing if not divorced from reality and indifferent to historical truth.

The Roots of Carter’s Anger

Carter believes the conflict’s resolution to be simple: After the Israeli government agrees in principle to withdraw fully from the West Bank, a dedicated negotiator like himself can usher in an independent, peaceful Palestinian state. That this has not happened is, in Carter’s view, primarily due to the legacy of late Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, not the fault of poor Palestinian decision-making or the Palestinian embrace of terrorism.

This is where verifiable facts get in President Carter’s way. That’s why he simply ignores the facts.

Carter believes that if the U.S. government reduces or stops its support for Israel, then the Jewish state will be weakened and become more malleable in negotiations. His underlying logic is based upon an imperial rationality that assumes Washington to have the answer to myriad issues besetting Middle Eastern societies. This plays into the notion in Arab societies that the cause of their problems lies with Western powers and other outsiders.

That’s about as wrong-headed of thinking as it gets. First of all, that’s awful policy. It’s awful policy because it’s based on the U.S. favoring a terrorist nation over a full-fledged democracy who’s biggest desire is to simply live in peace while raising their families. Arab nations have been used a myriad of excuses for the ineptitude of their governmental institutions. These institutions are inept because the terrorists aren’t interested in a government that provides for their people. These terrorist governments are only interested in wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

Saturday, January 27, 2007


Unless you are Rip Van Winkle, you now know that President Bush wants to send more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq.

Personally, I would have felt better if the president had come to this conclusion a bit sooner. However his rational for doing this makes sense to me: there wasn’t enough troops to secure the areas that were cleaned out by our soldiers, so terrorists moved back in once the soldiers moved on to another area. Now we will secure those areas.

Alright, count me in as a supporter of the plan.

The Democrats now say that we should begin a phased withdrawal in order to force the Iraqis to get serious about training their own troops and taking responsibility for their own security. They don’t want us to be a participating referee in a religious civil war.

It all seems reasonable at first glance. Then I remembered that it wasn’t long ago when many of the same Democrats dissenting against the plan were the “hard realists” who said that we needed more troops. So what changed other then Bush’s tactical reversal and principle support for that plan?

So it’s the same old game; one where the president says “vice-versa,” the democratic leadership says “verse-vice,” or pronounces the word “tomato” differently than Bush by political design.

To show that they are people with the energy of their convictions, the democratic leadership has decided to back a non-binding resolution against the president’s plan.

It’s the past repeating itself all over again. Many Democrats voted with Bush to authorize the deposing of Hussein before the 2002 mid term elections. Left to their designs, these Democrats might have voted differently, but the tide of the American people was against them then, and they didn’t want to lose congressional seats by failing to support a popular military action.

Things haven’t changed much at all. A non-binding resolution–what’s that? It’s like keeping a guard dog tethered on a 10-foot chain in the back yard, in order to keep prowlers from breaking in through the front on the house. The dog barks and barks, but can’t bite.

The Democrats hope to appease the most left-leaning constituents within their base by wagging their collective fingers at the president. If the Democrats thought this idea were a winning strategy, then they would stop funding the Iraq campaign completely. Of course that would be a euphemism for abandoning the troops already there, and undermine the dDmocrats hard-fought for reputation that “they are patriotic too.” Apparently, even liberal politicians learned something politically useful from the aftermath of pulling out of Vietnam.

I would like to think we as a country have matured from the infantile society that spat on its soldiers, and called them “baby-killers” when they returned from Southeast Asia over three decades ago. Even abortion doctors seldom suffer such abuse and name-calling.

Non-binding resolutions are meaningless and gutless–politics at their most irrelevant level.

Apparently the New Mexico State Legislature is going to vote on a symbolic resolution to impeach Bush over Iraq. What a childish and senseless action. As the liberals often complain, let’s move on to substantive issues, rather than engage in political jousting over ideological issues that are divisive and polarizing.

The real problem is that the people who are reflexively opposed to the Iraq policy, haven’t given careful thought to what will happen if we pull our troops out without the victory of stabilizing that country. Yes, the Iraqi government must take more responsibility, but we can’t just abandon that situation because we are unhappy about the slow progress being made in training Iraqi security forces.

Those who question military strategy on the basis of whether this or that leader has sons or daughters in the theater of conflict are among the worst political propagandists. A leader has to have the fortitude to make unpopular decisions that can result in tragedy for some citizens in order to preserve national liberty for all.

I still see “letters to the editor” nearly every week that declare the president lied about Iraq—probably from the same ideological brethren who said that gas prices would go up substantially after the November elections.

This isn’t Vietnam, were we could pull out without worrying about whether the insurgents would follow us back to our shores. If I didn’t honestly see that this was ultimately an issue of national security, I might agree with those who want to pull out. Those favoring a “redeployment” of troops either ignore, or don’t understand that possibility.

Robert E. Meyer is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Friday, January 26, 2007


That’s what Dafna Linzner is reporting in this morning’s Washington Post:

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran’s influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The “catch and release” policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran’s regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country’s nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

“There were no costs for the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back.”

It’s about time we took the gloves off and let our troops fight back with lethal force. If Iran wants to deploy troops to this war, they should be made to pay with their lives. We should let Iran know that their interference will be met with extreme resistance and that we won’t worry what the world community thinks. When history records its verdict, it should be said that we replaced our ‘catch-and-release’ strategy with a ’shoot-first-ask questions-later’ strategy.

We’re told that the Islamic extremists’ greatest goal is to die a martyr’s death while fighting ‘the infidels’. The U.S. military’s goal should be to ‘unilaterally’ help these extremists meet that goal.

The new “kill or capture” program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran’s commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons.

The administration’s plans contain five “theaters of interest,” as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East.

It’d be nice if the end was in sight but I’m thankful that the Bush administration is dramatically expanding the war by confronting Iran’s influence on the region. I’m thankful that they’ve finally changed the ROE, essentially letting soldiers do the job that they were intended to do. I like this more aggressive strategy, too. Now we’re telling that region’s despots that there’s a heavy price to be paid for undercutting our allies and killing our soldiers.

Telling Tehran that we’re serious won’t stop their meddling but it will tamp down on their efforts to undermine the Iraqi government.

Iran’s sending of troops, trainers and munitions indicates just how serious a threat an Iraqi democracy is to their mullahcracy. Knowing that Tehran views a stable Iraq as major threat, we should redouble our efforts to drive them from Iraq. I’d argue that this information should provide the incentive for us to get after Iran with lethal force rather than through diplomacy.

In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.

That’s a smart policy. Targeting Iranian diplomats isn’t essential because they aren’t the problem in Iraq. Targeting Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and their intelligence operatives is a different story, though because they’re the source of the problem. Attacking peripheral targets is of limited value. Hitting the source is how you solve problems.

On a related matter, this article tells me that Sen. Hagel’s resolution is arguing against a new, more aggressive, strategy designed to stop the Iranians. This tells me that Sen. Hagel is nothing more than a grandstanding politician who isn’t interested in the facts on the ground.

For that reason, I renew my plea to GOP activists in Nebraska to recruit a primary challenger to Sen. Hagel so we can get rid of him ASAP.


According to the Washington Post, President Bush has granted authorization to our troops in Iraq to kill Iranian agents that are operating there. It's about time....why weren't we doing this years ago? Perhaps we finally have the chance to win and get out of there. This has been a long time coming. Iran has been sending fighters into Iraq for 4 years now.

It turns out that for over a year, we've been running this policy with the Iranians where we detain them for a couple days, make note of their identity, then send them on their way. Don't want to offend Tehran, you know. Are you kidding me? No wonder people think we're losing the war. It's just these sorts of appeasement tactics that have put us in the position we are in now.

So now we're going to kill them. Good. Any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard ought to be shot on site and shipped back to Ahmadinejad in a cardboard box. This is war.....nobody ever won by being nice. Of course if the story in the media is to be believed, officials at the State Department are already worried that this could provoke a confrontation with Tehran. Too bad. They started it by interfering in the first place.

But at least the situation has been corrected. This has been our problem all along in Iraq. We didn't clean out Fallujah when we had the chance. We didn't shoot the looters. In trying not to offend anyone, we're doing our best to lose.

Thursday, January 25, 2007


That’s Jonathan Gurwitz’s opinion in his latest column. I wholeheartedly agree.

Give Democrats credit. They campaigned on a legislative agenda. They won on it. They delivered it in fewer than 100 hours — according to Nancy Pelosi’s clock.

Lesson to Republicans: It really is that easy. Once upon a time, the GOP leadership understood that lesson. Forty years of wandering in the minority desert led Republicans to the political promised land in the 1990s. Perhaps a shorter sojourn will suffice this time.

But having completed their legislative imperatives before the month of January is out, Democrats now face an important question: What next? Not to diminish the importance of, say, halving the interest rate on student loans, but there are a few significant issues the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn’t begun to touch.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, (D-IL), who served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last year, was the principal architect of his party’s stunning victory in November. He is today chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

In a recent interview with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, Emanuel spelled out the Democratic leadership’s legislative agenda for the rest of 2007: energy independence and better health care for children.

If it’s true that Democrats have already finished with their highest priority agenda items, the this will be a short-lived House majority for them. I know that they’ve got other items on the agenda but they aren’t popular at all.

A couple of the things that I’m betting are on their agenda are ending profiling as we know it and ending global warming.

We learned that ending religious profiling was on their agenda when John Conyers ‘coincidentally’ produced a resolution the day after the Flying Imam Fiasco broke just before Thanksgiving. Here’s what we found out from Investors Business Daily:

Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

Granting Muslims “special civil-rights protections in this post-9/11 world won’t fly. In fact, I’d bet that the Senate would think of that as so radioactive that they wouldn’t even grant it a committee hearing. It’s difficult to imagine a legitimate reason why a newly elected majority would squander their political capital on such a loser of an issue. Then again, we’re talking about John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi, who don’t have a reputation of having a high political IQ.

The truth is that Jonathan has highlighted something that was apparent last fall. Democrats didn’t run on a true agenda. Their campaign was based on “We’re not like Republicans”, which is true. As bad as Republicans were this past couple of years, the newly-minted Democrat majority is far worse.

Another thing that will unfortunately be on their agenda is undercutting the President and demoralizing the troops. Ms. Pelosi has already announced that they won’t cut funding for the troops but they’ll certainly berate the President no matter what he does. Here’s a brief exchange on Iraq policy from GMA:

Sawyer: But short of that, questions posed, resolutions passed, short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?

Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm’s way, that we won’t cut off the resources. That’s why he’s moving so quickly to put them in harm’s way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.

The truth is that Pelosi is treading water because she knows that Democrats don’t have a coherent policy on Iraq. They can’t have a coherent policy because the Pacifist Left of their party is so militant that they won’t let Democrats develop a coherent strategy for winning any war.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007


The Democratic response to the president's speech last night sure was a real knee-slapper. Now the Left is suddenly worried about Islamic terrorism, concerned about our troops and doing the political backstroke on their surrender plan for Iraq. And Jim Webb was the stooge to deliver it all. Who ever thought the former Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration would be carrying water for Nancy Pelosi?

Webb whined about how the economy really isn't that good. He launched into his class warfare routine, complaining about how corporate CEO's make 400 times the money regular workers do. It really is a tired act. Funny how the economy is doing better than it was 10 years ago, but when Clinton was in office, the Democrats and the media declared it an economic boom. The Big Lie continues.

Then there was the laughable line about how the president took us to war in Iraq recklessly. Really? Were Hillary Clinton and John Kerry reckless when they voted for the war in Iraq? Somehow that little fact seems to escape critics of the war. The Democrats want the war to end ... OK, we get it. But what is their plan for dealing with the violence that will only escalate if we withdraw now? Just sit back and watch it? Have the Democrats completely given up on the idea of actually accomplishing our goal in Iraq?

Apparently so.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007


Jim Hoft thinks there might be disruptions from the balcony.

Brit Hume says Nancy Pelosi put on a new outfit for her historic moment at the last minute because she spilled chocolate on her suit.

Madame Speaker

Hang in there, Dick

Everything's already anticlimactic from here. The full SOTU text is up--and so is Democrat Jim Webb's rebuttal. Allah's yawning.

Okay, I found something nice to say. There are many extraordinary people in First Lady Laura Bush's box tonight. Take a look (via

-Wesley Autrey of New York, a construction worker awarded the city's highest civilian honor for jumping onto the tracks in a subway station to save a man who had fallen from a seizure.

-Shuqui and Syshe Autrey of New York, daughters of Wesley Autrey.

-Air Force Tech Sgt. Michelle Barefield of Goldsboro, N.C., survivor of three improvised explosive device attacks in Baghdad.

-Pamela Battle of Washington, among the first low-income parents to apply for scholarships under the D.C. School Choice Incentive Program, the nation's first and only federally funded voucher program.

- Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Corey Firman of Alexandria, Va., who volunteered for more than 30 convoys in Iraq and was subjected to more than 180 incidents of hostile fire.

-Shannon Hickey of Lancaster, Pa., founder at age 11 of Mychal's Message, a nonprofit organization to further the legacy of her favorite priest, Father Mychal Judge. The New York Fire Department chaplain was killed on Sept. 11, 2001, when hit by debris from the World Trade Center.

-Marine Corps Sgt. Aubrey McDade Jr. of Parris Island, S.C., who received the Navy Cross, the service's second-highest medal, for heroic actions as a machine-gun squad leader with the 1st Marine Division in Iraq.

-Coast Guard Petty Officer 2nd Class Nathan Thomas of Hollywood, Fla., deployed overseas twice this year to support the Iraq war. He designed a law enforcement tactics video and lesson plans, training more than 500 foreign military servicemen.

-Army Sgt. Tommy Rieman of Independence, Ky., awarded the Silver Star for his actions on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq in December 2003.

Ace of Spades saves everyone the trouble of live-blogging:

Here's my live-blog on it, delivered in advance:

"He seems uncomfortable and is just repeating many of the same tired slogans of the past, except with even less conviction... Now he's proposing a raft of pricey new spending initiatives designed primarily to win over the support of those who hate him more -- much more -- than Osama bin Ladin. Okay, now he's saying that Mexicans were good, nice people who deserved jobs more than Amercians. He's saying something in Spanish now I don't really understand -- anyone know what Me casa, su casa means?"

And, of course, for the post-mortem:

"I think he did himself some small amount of good here tonight. He did what he needed to do."


Time for American Idol.

9:15pm. President Bush: We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies – and the wisdom to face them together.

Some in this Chamber are new to the House and Senate – and I congratulate the Democratic majority. Congress has changed, but our responsibilities have not. Each of us is guided by our own convictions – and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this Nation’s prosperity ... to spend the people’s money wisely ... to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ... to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

Glenn Reynolds is happy to see earmarks mentioned right up front:

Bush: " Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour – when not even C-SPAN is watching."

There was a bit of laughter from the audience. I wonder if they were thinking of this:

Pelosi denies CSPAN's request for cameras on House floor WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, denied a request Friday by CSPAN to install its own cameras on the House floor.

Under the current arrangement, the House cameras are solely operated under the discretion of the speaker, CSPAN Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Brian Lamb told CNN.

The speakers sole control of the cameras "does a disservice to the institution and to the public," Lamb said in a letter to Pelosi requesting a change.

In a letter to CSPAN, Pelosi responded, "I believe that the dignity and decorum of the United States House of Representatives are best preserved by maintaining the current system of televised proceedings."

I noticed Nancy's eyes were fluttering extra-fast for a few seconds there.

9:28pm. Bush is paying lip service to border security and moving forward with amnesty that he won't call amnesty. Tom Tancredo is shaking his head.

There we go. The magic, meaningless words: "Comprehensive immigration reform."

Everybody stand up!

Other low moments so far: The commander-in-chief mentioning "battery research," "wood chips," "agricultural waste," and "global climate change." Inspiring rhetoric from those overworked White House speechwriters.

9:35pm. Bush: " With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled – that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. To win the war on terror, we must take the fight to the enemy."


Pelosi reaaaally didn't want to stand up.

Here we go. The things that need to be said:

In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats ... instruct with bullets and bombs ... and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: “We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse.” And Osama bin Laden declared: “Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.”

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah – a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. But whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent, they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans ... kill democracy in the Middle East ... and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

In the sixth year since our Nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers have ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.

This war is more than a clash of arms – it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our Nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and come to kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom – societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies – and most will choose a better way when they are given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates, reformers, and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security . . . we must.

In the last two years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East – and we have been sobered by the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections – choosing a transitional government ... adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world … and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia – and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.

Action items:

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our Nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. And this is why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. And we will show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

One of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military – so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. And it would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

FYI: That last idea is something we heard support for among officers at the Dagger Brigade when we were embedded at FOB Justice.

9:54pm. Bush mentions saving Darfur. Pelosi pops up.

9:59pm. Bush saluting citizens in the gallery. I liked the Baby Einstein videos, but what is the company's founder doing there?

A good ending:

Three weeks ago, Wesley Autrey was waiting at a Harlem subway station with his two little girls, when he saw a man fall into the path of a train. With seconds to act, Wesley jumped onto the tracks ... pulled the man into a space between the rails ... and held him as the train passed right above their heads. He insists he’s not a hero. Wesley says: “We got guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms. We got to show each other some love.” There is something wonderful about a country that produces a brave and humble man like Wesley Autrey.

Tommy Rieman was a teenager pumping gas in Independence, Kentucky, when he enlisted in the United States Army. In December 2003, he was on a reconnaissance mission in Iraq when his team came under heavy enemy fire. From his Humvee, Sergeant Rieman returned fire – and used his body as a shield to protect his gunner. He was shot in the chest and arm, and received shrapnel wounds to his legs – yet he refused medical attention, and stayed in the fight. He helped to repel a second attack, firing grenades at the enemy’s position. For his exceptional courage, Sergeant Rieman was awarded the Silver Star. And like so many other Americans who have volunteered to defend us, he has earned the respect and gratitude of our whole country.

In such courage and compassion, ladies and gentlemen, we see the spirit and character of America – and these qualities are not in short supply. This is a decent and honorable country – and resilient, too. We have been through a lot together. We have met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence – because the State of our Union is strong ... our cause in the world is right ... and tonight that cause goes on.


Post-mortems: Over at MSNBC, the left-wingers can't figure out why Bush articulated the various terrorist threats from both Sunni and Shiite extremists. Chris Matthews pooh-poohed the threat of Hezbollah to America. Guess he missed the Fox News special. Hezbollah is here.


Writing an op-ed in today’s Washington Post, Liz Cheney shows that she’s as formidable intellectually as her parents.

We are at war. America faces an existential threat. This is not, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed, a “situation to be solved.” It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Sen. Barack Obama suggested at a Jan. 11 hearing, “Enough is enough.” Wishing doesn’t make it so. We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can’t negotiate with them or “solve” their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later.

In their “race to the bottom”, most Democrats and a handful of wobbly Republicans avoid the reality of the situation. They’re showing their willingness to prove bin Laden right. They’re willing to prove that we’ll eventually abandon our allies and shirk our responsibilities to ourselves. Almost no consideration is given to national security. Almost no consideration is given to the fact that abandoning Iraq would embolden the terrorists, create an Iranian puppet regime in Baghdad and give terrorists a training ground.

Frankly, the thought of a Speaker Pelosi is frightening, especially with her saying that terrorism is a “situation to be solved.” That’s dangerously naive. It isn’t a situation to be solved. It’s a war we must win. PERIOD.

When al Qa’ida crashed the planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was a genuine act of war. We didn’t talk then that the terrorists behind 9/11 were a “situation to be solved.” The vast majority of Americans then thought that bin Laden’s bunch of terrorists were scum of the earth that had to be killed ASAP. Al Qa’ida still wants to kill us. That means that they’re still the scum of the earth who still need to be killed ASAP.

Here’s a couple other key points that Ms. Cheney makes:

Quitting helps the terrorists. Few politicians want to be known as spokesmen for retreat. Instead we hear such words as “redeployment,” “drawdown” or “troop cap.” Let’s be clear: If we restrict the ability of our troops to fight and win this war, we help the terrorists. Don’t take my word for it. Read the plans of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman Zawahiri to drive America from Iraq, establish a base for al-Qaeda and spread jihad across the Middle East. The terrorists are counting on us to lose our will and retreat under pressure. We’re in danger of proving them right.

Beware the polls. In November the American people expressed serious concerns about Iraq (and about Republican corruption and scandals). They did not say that they want us to lose this war. They did not say that they want us to allow Iraq to become a base for al-Qaeda to conduct global terrorist operations. They did not say that they would rather we fight the terrorists here at home. Until you see a poll that asks those questions, don’t use election results as an excuse to retreat.

Last night, I wrote about an ABCNews article here, which said:

Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas, the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11.

This is hard proof that al Qa’ida is still plotting terrorist attacks against us. This is hard proof that al Qa’ida still hopes to kill us by the hundreds and the thousands. What part of that doesn’t Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi understand? If they want to take the approach that this is an optional war with little impact on national security, why haven’t they cut off funding for this war? Why should they be putting forth non-binding resolutions on the war? Shouldn’t they be proposing genuine budget restrictions that force the President’s hand?

The truth is that Democrats prefer not taking a principled stand on the GWOT. They prefer simply disagreeing with anything that President Bush says. That isn’t leadership. That’s intellectual cowardice. They’re no longer willing to acknowledge that Iraq is part of that GWOT. Remember numerous Democrats saying that (I’m paraphrasing here) “al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq until we invaded.” Implicit in that statement is that these Democrats knew that al Qa’ida was a threat to Iraq’s government and our national security. Now they’re tired of the fight and want to quit. They just don’t want to use that word because they don’t want to be thought of as losers who quit the moment the going gets tough.


This will be the first time in Bush's presidency that he has delivered this address to a Democratic controlled congress. To make matters more difficult, he's delivering this address at a time when his approval ratings are at an all-time low, down near Nixonian levels.

With so many people disapproving of his administration and its policies, there doesn't seem to be much point to the whole exercise. Whatever he says will be shot down by the media. The press is eager to elect Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham president of the United States...they simply don't have time for the current occupant of the Oval Office. The public, hungry for socialism and American Idol, will be tuning out as well. So perhaps President Bush should just cancel the address and go on about his business? But he won't do that. Instead, we'll get a speech. What will it be about?

He'll no doubt address his critics on his troop surge plan for Iraq. This is not very popular, because most people and politicians want to surrender to Islamic terrorists in Iraq and cut and run. He'll announce some sort of new policy on global warming. And true to form, we'll get plenty of new spending initiatives, even though the government is broke. We can always print more money, right?

He'll also push a new health care plan, with a tax deduction for those who buy their own insurance. Well, it's about time that the private individual got the same tax breaks that an employer does when it comes to buying health insurance. Democrats won't like this idea because it could lead to health care independence. The Democrat plan is for health care dependence ... the more dependence the better. It's a shame Bush can't finance this plan with some spending cuts elsewhere .. instead he wants to start taxing people with high-end health insurance plans.

And don't forget the guest worker program for illegal aliens...yeah, that will excite people. Oh...and renewing the No Child Left Behind act. Can't forget that. Should be an interesting speech...President Bush has nowhere to go but up.

This widespread derision of President Bush bothers me. I'm distressed that a man like George Bush can be so reviled, while a moral degenerate like Bill Clinton can be so widely praised.

Notice, now, that I didn't say that I couldn't understand why this is so, I just said that it distresses me. The why is easy to understand. Bush has been a target since the day he was sworn in. Over 90% of the members of the mainstream New York and Washington press corps voted for Al Gore in the 2000 elections. Some of these people have come to accept the reality that it was a close election .. .and that Bush won. Others, perhaps the majority, have never come to terms with Bush's win and have been dedicated to the idea of destroying his presidency since January of 2000.

Since day one there has been a template applied to the media coverage of Bush's presidency. If the story makes Bush look good, either ignore it or downplay it. If the story makes Bush look bad, put it on the front page.

The media hasn't been fighting this war against Bush alone. The Democrats, of course, have been on board. There was a momentary respite in the aftermath of 9/11. But it took no time at all for the Democrats to renew their attacks. I firmly believe that the Democrats made a conscious decision that it was more important that they destroy the image of George Bush than it was for them to get behind the war against Islamic terrorism.

I believe that 9/11 transformed George Bush. I believe that since that date he has been completely dedicated to the purpose of protecting this country from further terrorist attacks.

How can he be blamed for acting against Saddam Hussein? Have we all forgotten that the official U.S. policy of removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was adopted during the Clinton administration? Have we forgotten Saddam's cat and mouse games with U.N. weapons inspectors? Have we forgotten that American intelligence officials have recovered documents and materials that constitute proof positive that Saddam was proceeding with a program to develop nuclear weapons? Hussein defied the U.N. He defied the international community. The proof is there ... he had contacts with Al Qaeda. No, I'm not saying that Saddam was behind 9/11, but there were agents in Saddam's government who had contact with those who did plan 9/11. Add the rape rooms, the mass graves, the use of WMDs to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and his own countrymen .. .and you come up with a despot that should have been left in power --- in power to continue with his weapons programs?

Come on, folks. Either you're glad Saddam is gone, or you wish he was still in power. Which is it? You can't just wallow in your hatred of George Bush ... you have to make a decision. Saddam or no Saddam.

And what of Bush's goals for Iraq. What did he want. He wanted to create a country in the heart of the Islamic middle east with an elected government and a rule of law that protected the rights of each and every citizen .. no matter what Islamic sect that citizen belonged to. He wanted Iraq to be a demonstration project to show the rest of the Middle East what could be accomplished through freedom and representative governments. Was this such a bad goal? Do you think that Bush should have just gone into Iraq, destroyed Saddam Hussein, and then left? That has never been the way America operated. But that's the way you wanted it to be this time? Or are we back to leaving Saddam in power.


Damn right he made mistakes. They're easy to chronicle. But how do Bush's mistakes compare to the Democrat Party plan to demonize George Bush? What do you think had a greater affect on the situation in the Middle East --- the mistakes Bush made in the pursuit of a better way of life for the citizens of Iraq, or the Democrat's determination to sabotage Bush's efforts?

From where do you think the Islamic fascists have received their most encouragement? From the tactical mistakes made by George Bush, or from the weakness in the American spirit that has been fostered by the whining Democrats?

Even in the face of these depressing approval polls, Bush remains determined to protect this country from Islamic terrorism. Someday perhaps the American people will appreciate him for his determination, however flawed, to protect this nation, and will come to recognize the damage that has been done by the actions of the not-so-loyal opposition, actions that have convinced them that America is becoming weak in the face of the ongoing Islamic jihad.

Monday, January 22, 2007


If you believe as I do, then you believe that a simple floor speech is all it takes to demonstrate Democratic hypocrisy. Such is the case with the Democrats’ fake student loan legislation. Here’s what Bob Novak said about that legislation:

Democrats last Wednesday were extolling their student loan bill for opening college to modest-income Americans when Rep. Tom Price, a second-term Republican from Georgia, took the House floor. “If only this bill did what they say,” Price declared. His admonition constituted more than the usual hyperbole of congressional debate.

The bill, passed by an overwhelming bipartisan House vote, was headlined as reducing the interest on federally subsidized student loans from the present 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. Actually, it gradually reaches the 3.4 percent level on July 1, 2011. A student taking out a loan July 1 this year would pay 6.12 percent after graduation. Only 29 percent of all students getting loans would be eligible for this gradual cut. Other student loan programs will be cut to help pay for the $7 billion cost over five years. And, contrary to Democratic implications, the bill does nothing to slow skyrocketing college tuition.

In other words, Tom Price simply walked to the microphone and told the world that Democrats were scamming the very people that they’re supposedly helping. Tom Price simply strode to the microphone and told anyone who would listen that Democrats had reduced the interest rates. They just reduced them gradually. They also made certain that only 29 percent of the college students were eligible for these gradually reduced interest rates.

Another Pelosi scam that got exposed was the minimum wage bill that Minnesota’s Tim Walz sponsored. Here’s what World Net Daily wrote about it:

But while the proposed change in law adds American territories to the minimum wage requirements for the first time, American Samoa remains exempt. That’s where Del Monte’s brand name StarKist tuna has a huge plant, employing thousands of workers who would have been affected by inclusion in the minimum wage plan.

Ms. Pelosi started backtracking as soon as this information became public. Here’s how she’s tried spinning it:

“And now her people are saying that, you know, she has never been influenced by StarKist at all but other people are saying, hey, this is a little bit of hypocrisy because how can this particular group of people benefit by not having to pay the new minimum wage which is almost $2 more an hour,” she said.
Pelosi later told reporters she would try to work to see if “all territories” could be included in compliance requirements for the new law.

Because Republicans exposed this hypocrisy, the bill that passed won’t be sent to the Senate for their approval. Instead, it’s being returned to the House so this exemption is eliminated.

Frankly, Ms. Pelosi’s first days as Speaker (and Speaker-in-Waiting) have been filled with mistake after mistake. She endorsed John Murtha for Majority Leader only to see Steny Hoyer picked. She prevented Jane Harman from chairing the Intelligence Committee, first toying with the idea of impeached Judge Alcee Hastings for the job before picking Silvestre Reyes for the job. Rep. Reyes later made a fool of himself by not identifying al Qa’ida as being made up of Sunni Muslims and not knowing that Hezbollah is a Shi’ite Muslim organization.

Later, Pelosi stood by John Conyers as Judiciary Committee Chairman after he admitted to ethical violations. Here’s what the Hill Magazine reported:

“The Hill reported last March that two former Conyers’ aides alleged that repeatedly violated House ethics rules by requiring aides to work on local and state campaigns, and babysit and chauffeur his children. Deanna Maher, a former deputy chief of staff in the Detroit office, and Sydney Rooks, a former legal counsel in his district office, shared numerous letters, memos, e-mails, handwritten notes and expense reports with The Hill.”

In other words, Nancy Pelosi’s decisions have consistently been disastrous to the Democratic Party on multiple levels.

Don’t expect Pelosi to retain the House in 2008 if she continues displaying this level of incompetence and this level of cronyism.

OK........SO SHE'S IN

Well, well. Big surprise. Hillary Rodham has decided that she's in, and she's "in to win."

Oh goody.

The news over the weekend really wasn't that Hillary is in the presidential race; the news is that the media treated it as such a stunning surprise. To listen to CNN on Saturday, you would have thought that nothing was going on anywhere else in the entire known world. Now was it just me, or did the mainstream media sound positively orgasmic over Clinton's announcement?

The New Hampshire primary is one year away -- unless they move it up. There is plenty of time to watch Hillary and tell you the stories you won't see in the mainstream media. Let's just cover the basics:

  • Hillary Clinton is vicious. There is absolutely nothing that she won't do to gain the political power she has been coveting for most of her life. She is a cold-blooded politician who will take no prisoners in her quest for the presidency.

  • Hillary Clinton heads the list of those who think that America is great because of its government.

  • Hillary Clinton believes that Americans get their rights from government. If you don't know why this is a dangerous attitude, you probably attended government schools.

  • Speaking of government schools, with Hillary Rodham you can forget the idea of school choice. The teacher's unions will continue to run the show.

  • Hillary holds our military is complete disdain. Remember, this is the woman who had U.S. Marines in their dress blue uniforms serving cheese and crackers to guests at White House functions. When her husband was president there were repeated stories that Hillary's White House staff showed deliberate rudeness to military personnel. In one story you've probably forgotten a Hillary aid in the White House once told a uniformed military office that "We don't talk to people in military uniforms in this office."

  • Hillary tried to implement a health care plan that would have made it a crime for you to use your own dollars to hire your own doctor. Now think about that for a moment. How much else do you need to know? She actually wanted to make it a crime for you to arrange for your own medical care outside of her great Hillarycare system using your own dollars. Picture this. You're sitting in a jail cell. Your cellmate is in there for bank robbery. He looks at you and says "So, what did you do?" You tell him "Oh ... I tried to hire a doctor with my own money to take care of a medical problem." That, my friends, is Hillary's America.

  • Hillary Rodham is a disgrace to the institution of marriage. That relationship she has with Bill Clinton is no marriage at all. It is a political partnership entered into for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining political power. Nothing more.

  • Hillary has not only tolerated her "husband's" many trysts with other women, she has been actively engaged in, and sometimes led, the effort to destroy any of these women who dared to step forward to complain.

  • She is fundamentally dishonest ... almost pathologically dishonest. Perhaps the greatest example of her innate dishonesty would be the saga of the Rose Law Firm billing records. The congress served a subpoena on Hillary for those records. She said that she did not have them. For two years she denied that those records were in her possession, and in fact suggested that they may not exist at all. Then, two years after the subpoena was served, those very records were found in her private living quarters at the White House. Not only were they found, but they had her fingerprints and handwriting all over them. In other words .. she lied.

  • Hillary Clinton is anti-individual. When discussing her socialized medicine plan with a group of Republican congressmen in 1993 Hillary said "We have to stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." No .. she's wrong. We have to start thinking about what it would be like to have a president who put the common good above individual rights. Hillary Rodham is part and parcel of the war on individualism.

A bit more about Hillary Rodham and your health care:

Now that Hillary Clinton is officially in the race, she is choosing health care as her signature issue. What a great worked so well before. By the way, anybody notice how it was warm and sunny out her office window in her videotaped announcement that she was running? Seems like that little piece of tape was recorded in advance. Many people have noticed, by the way. There's late word that the announcement was indeed taped in Washington last week. Maybe it's a fake tree in the window behind her. Who knows. But back to health care.

So what is Hillary's health care proposal going to be this time? Things didn't work out so well 13 years ago when she proposed a government takeover of the medical industry. Says The Hildabeast: "I will be introducing legislation to make quality, affordable health care available to every child in America." What does that mean? just covering children? It would seem so. Well, according to Hillary...anyone would be able to buy into her program. And just how much is all of this going to cost? Naturally, no mention of the price tag. But suffice it to say that if Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, your earnings will be confiscated to pay for other people's health care. Just get used to the idea.

And don't buy for a minute this routine that Hillary Clinton only jumped in because Barack Obama forced her to. She has been planning this move for decades...and everything unfolding right now is part of that plan. It all goes back to when she was running things and wearing the pants in her husband's administration. Except now it's her turn.
Know this. If Hillary Clinton becomes President Rodham, and if the Democrats increase their hold on power in the congress, this will be the last presidential election in which talk radio will play any significant part at all. Though I've been telling you this for years, it has become clear in the last few weeks that Democrats plan to destroy talk radio with the resurrection of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

Sunday, January 21, 2007


That’s what you’d have to say after her accusations against the President. Here’s how Reuters is reporting the war of words:

Intensifying a war of words over a U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused President George W. Bush on Friday of playing politics with soldiers’ lives, a charge the White House called “poisonous.”

“The president knows that because the troops are in harm’s way that we won’t cut off the resources,” Pelosi, head of the Democratic-led House, told ABC’s “Good Morning America. “That’s why he’s moving so quickly to put them in harm’s way.”

I’ve always understood that Ms. Pelosi is a back-stabbing lowlife but I never thought she’d go this far to lose this war. She’s the person playing politics with the war. She’s playing to the pacifist/loser wing of her party. Where else would she have gotten the audacity of accusing President Bush of putting soldiers into the line of fire for political gain? That accusation is both disgusting and illogical. It isn’t logical because the easiest way for President Bush to play politics with this situation is by pulling a Murtha, the definition of which is quitting without winning.

There isn’t a place in American politics for Pelosi’s disgusting behavior. Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and Daniel Patrick Moynihan would’ve chastised her and sent her packing for undercutting the war effort.

Another thing that shouldn’t be forgotten in all this is the role purist conservatives played in handing power to Ms. Pelosi. Let’s remember that they cast ‘protest votes’ because President Bush wasn’t conservative enough for them. Shame on them for putting power in the hands of someone like Ms. Pelosi. I wasn’t happy with spending habits or his stance on illegal immigration but there’s a war to be won, for God’s sake. Until that war is won, all the other issues take a secondary role. PERIOD.

These same holier-than-thou conservatives better not stay home in 2008 because if they do, Hillary wins, which means losing ground in the GWOT and other significant setbacks. Among the other setbacks would be to lose the judiciary for another decade. America can’t tolerate that.

Nancy Pelosi Tells America: The President
Wants Our Troops “In Harm’s Way”

Saturday, January 20, 2007


Do you want to be a Border Patrol agent and do your job to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country? Do you want to prevent drug smugglers from bringing drugs across the border?

If you do your job diligently there is a good chance you may wind up in jail. That’s what has happened to Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.

In February 2005, the agents tried to stop a van driven by drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila near the Mexico border. After a scuffle with Compean, Aldrete-Davila fled on foot. Ramos says he believes that he saw a gun — which the smuggler denies. Both agents fired at Aldrete-Davila, who fell, then continued his escape across the border. After he got away, Ramos and Compean filed a report on the 743 pounds of marijuana they found in the van, but not on the gunfire. As it turns out, Ramos had shot Aldrete-Davila in the butt.

Returning to Mexico, Aldrete-Davila related his misfortunes to his mother, who contacted the mother-in-law of Border Patrol agent Rene Sanchez. Sanchez in turn tipped off a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who went to Mexico to offer immunity if Osbaldo would act as a state’s witness against Ramos and Compean: the feds wanted to prosecute the agents shooting the alien narcotics supplier.

To sweeten the immunity deal, the feds paid for Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila’s medical treatment of his ailing backside – a taxpayer-funded recuperation at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso, Texas. He showed his gratitude by breaking his immunity agreement in October 2005, when officers say he attempted to smuggle 1,000 pounds of marijuana into America. The prosecution further extended its immunity to this felony and sealed the indictment from jurors. Aldrete-Davila repaid this new shower of grace by suing the federal government for $5 million, alleging the shooting violated his civil rights. However, he agreed to help in their criminal prosecution, as well, and the feds are apparently happy to collaborate with the pusher as long as he helped put effective lawmen behind bars.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, a Bush appointee, prosecuted the agents. In March, a jury found them guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon, discharge of a firearm during a violent crime, obstructing justice, lying about the incident and willfully violating Aldrete-Davila’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure.

Because there was gunfire, the mandatory-minimum prison sentence the agents will serve is 10 years. As for Aldrete-Davila, he faces no charges for the 743 pounds of pot. That leaves him free to carry out his plan to sue the Border Patrol — that is, U.S. taxpayers — for $5 million because his civil rights were violated. What a country.

Ramos, who was nominated Border Patrol Agent of the year in 2005, told the San Bernardino County Sun, “There’s murderers and child rapists that are looking at less time than me.”Ignacio Ramos and wife

At the heart of the prosecution is a vehicle-pursuit policy that makes absolutely no sense. As Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof explained to the Sun, “It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing.” It’s like a no-arrest policy.

No surprise, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore the regs. As Ramos responded to Kanof: “How are we supposed to follow the Border Patrol strategy of apprehending terrorists or drug smugglers if we are not supposed to pursue fleeing people? Everybody who’s breaking the law flees from us. What are we supposed to do? Do they want us to catch them or not?”

I will answer that question. No, they do not want you to catch them. It is one of the things I do not understand about this Administration. There is no will to enforce the border, protect our sovereignty and prevent the admission of illegal immigrants or substances.

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the case, as she fears this prosecution may represent “a serious miscarriage of justice.” It definitely does.

Sutton’s office cannot comment on the case until sentencing, but referred me to a statement, that explains, “They were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender, but, while his open hands were held in the air, Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of his shotgun.” Later, the agents picked up shell casings and failed to file a gunfire report.

Sutton’s best point: A jury found the two agents guilty of all charges except attempted murder. As Bonner sees it, the most punishment the agents deserve is a five-day suspension for not reporting the shooting. Say, for argument’s sake, that the agents were wrong to shoot at Aldrete-Davila. They were wrong to not file a report. Discipline them. Fire them, even. But don’t send them to prison for decades for a bad split-second decision and failure to file a report.

If they were crooks, they would serve shorter time. Last month, a Border Patrol agent, who admitted to smuggling 100 illegal immigrants while he served on the Border Patrol, got five years. (Prosecutors had recommended three years, but in San Diego, U.S. District Judge John Houston hiked the sentence, telling the man: “You violated the sacred trust of your comrades. As a link in the chain, they depended on you.”)

Compean’s attorney, Maria Ramirez, told me that her client, a first-generation American, served honorably in the U.S. Navy, then worked for the Border Patrol. He had a home, now sold, a wife and two children. Another child is on the way. But in the 15 minutes after the agents saw that van, after one split-second judgment call, his life melted away: “In 15 minutes it’s gone, just gone.”

The two U.S. Border Patrol agents were sentenced to prison terms of 11 years and 12 years for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks as he fled across the U.S.-Mexico border.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case, the Washington Times reported.

Phyllis Schafly writes in Eagle Forum that we need compassion for our Border Guards. She states

President George W. Bush pardoned 16 criminals including five drug dealers at Christmastime, but so far has refused to pardon the two U.S. Border Patrol agents who were trying to defend Americans against drug smugglers. It makes us wonder which side the self-proclaimed “compassionate” President is on.

Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso on February 17, 2005 when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. For what happened next, they were convicted and sentenced under a statute that was designed to impose heavy punishment on criminal drug smugglers caught in the commission of a crime.

The two agents are scheduled to start 11- and 12-year prison terms, respectively, on January 17, for the crime of putting one bullet in the buttocks of the admitted drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and failing to report the discharge of their firearms. The non-fatal bullet didn’t stop the smuggler from running to escape in a van waiting for him on the Mexican side of the border.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher called the two agents heroes. “Because of their actions, more than a million dollars in illegal drugs were stopped from being sold to our children. Bringing felony charges against them is a travesty of justice beyond description.”

The White House and the U.S. Department of Justice are stonewalling requests for a presidential pardon from 55 Members of Congress and U.S. citizens who have sent at least 160,000 petitions and 15,000 faxes. When the Bush Administration deigns to respond at all, the official line is that the Border Patrol agents got a fair trial.

But that’s not true; they didn’t get a fair trial. They were convicted because the Justice Department sent investigators into Mexico, tracked down the drug smuggler, and gave him immunity from all prosecution for his drug smuggling crimes if he would please come back and testify against Ramos and Compean.

It was massively unfair to give immunity to an illegal alien narcotics trafficker while destroying the lives and families of two Border Patrol agents who risked their lives to stop him. Ramos and Compean were convicted mainly on the testimony of the immunity-sheltered drug smuggler, whose integrity should have been called into question, but Ramos and Compean were forbidden to do that during the trial.

Ramos and Compean were doing what they thought was their job – preventing a drug dealer from illegally crossing the border with illegal substances. Yes, they failed to report the fact that they fired their weapon. Yes, they gave chase to the illegal, which they were told they shouldn’t do. Ok, they broke some rules. Give them six months in jail – but to sentence them to 11 and 12 years is a gross miscarriage of justice.

I understand the the judge had no choice because the mandatory Federal sentence for this is 10 years. Fine, but where is the Presidential pardon?

According to Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) in House Resolution 1030:

To say that Ramos and Compean have been treated unjustly and unfairly is an understatement. Adding insult to injury, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has granted immunity to the Mexican drug dealer, the smuggler who these two officers intercepted. This criminal alien was caught with 743 pounds of marijuana, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office has treated this criminal as if he were a victim.

At the same time, the book was thrown at our border patrol agents. I will submit for the RECORD, Mr. Speaker, my letter to the Attorney General regarding this outrageous case. The brutal treatment of the two border guards has demoralized our Border Patrol agents. I hope as we sing our praises today, that we understand that we are, yes, grateful to all of these people who protect us at the border, including the two Border Patrol agents that are now under attack.

In the meantime, let the case of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean be revisited and the outrageous criminal charges against them dropped.

The Washington Times on January 10, 2007 reports,

Republican House members yesterday asked President Bush to keep two U.S. Border Patrol agents out of prison pending their appeal of convictions for shooting a suspected drug smuggler in the buttocks as he fled into Mexico.

“Several discrepancies in the government’s case strongly question whether justice has been served, and permitting these men to be incarcerated in the interim puts their lives at risk,” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California said at a Capitol Hill press conference.

“We’re going to find out whose side you’re on … the American people or the side of our enemies,” Mr. Rohrabacher said in a reference to Mr. Bush. “If you let these two men go to jail for defending us, then we’ll know you’re on the side of our enemies.”

He was joined by Reps. Duncan Hunter of California, Ted Poe of Texas, Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, Joe Wilson of South Carolina and Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

In lieu of a pardon, a letter petitioning Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was presented during the press conference asking the Justice Department to direct federal prosecutors not to oppose a motion filed in a Texas court to keep the agents free on bond during the appeals process.

This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. These men were protecting their country and doing what they were hired to do. I suggest that everyone who agrees with that statement do two things that will make a difference:

1) Phone the White House and let them know how you feel. The phone number is: (202) 456-1111.

2) Write to President Bush asking him to pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean. A letter sent by U.S. mail is more effective than a fax, an email or any other form of communication.

If we have enough people contacting the White House, it will make a difference. Do it now. And while you are at it, you might ask the President why he is not willing to enforce our borders.