COMING CLEAN

It’s time that John Murtha came clean and showed us who he represents. In the past, people refered to Murtha as a “Democratic hawk”, something that I didn’t totally buy into. I certainly don’t buy into it anymore.

Still, it’s worth noting that Murtha got a -2 rating from Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel for 2003-2004. A -2 rating is roughly a D- or an F. Here’s how VoteSmart worded it:

2003-2004 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel’s position, Representative Murtha received a rating of -2.

The ‘parent’ organization for Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel is United for Peace & Justice, which advocates, among other things, getting us out of Iraq. Immediately. Here’s their official position on Iraq:

1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.

2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.

3. The Iraqi people, not foreigners, should make the decisions about the future of their country, including security. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq’s reconstruction. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed. Labor and human rights should also be guaranteed.

4. The United States should pay for the reconstruction of and reparations to Iraq, in accordance with international law.

5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the UN, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should help the Iraqis establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders and reclaim sovereign control of their own country.

Let’s fast forward to November 17, 2005. Let’s remember John Murtha’s press release from that day:

Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.
The public is way ahead of Congress and is thirsting for a new direction. Over 70% of the responses I have received are in favor of my re-deployment plan. The public knows this war cannot be won with words. Most agree the insurgency cannot be won militarily. The Iraqis themselves must be the driving force. Yet we have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. America wants and DESERVES real answers: What is the clear definition of success? Is there a plan? How much longer and how many more lives? In short, what is the end game?
Aside from the fact that the original plan to win the peace was flawed, two and a half years later, the indices that would determine the ultimate success of a stable Iraq have not improved. Electricity and oil production are below pre-war levels, unemployment remains at 60% and insurgent incidents have increased from 150 to over 700 per week. Average monthly death rates of U.S. service members have grown since the Abu Ghraib prison incidents from 1 per day to almost 4. Despite the addition of MORE troops, MORE equipment and MORE money, Iraq and the region have become LESS stable over time. Global terrorism has risen. What is MORE of the same going to do for Iraq or the region?
Some claim the answer is to put even more troops on the ground, but many of our troops are already on their third deployment, our Army cannot recruit to its current target, even as they lower recruiting standards. We cannot do this without a draft.
My plan calls for a more rapid turnover of Iraq to the Iraqi people. General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” We have become a catalyst for violence. A recent poll showed that 80% of the Iraqi public are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops and 45% believe attacks against Americans are justified.
The Iraqis are a smart and proud people. They must take control of their country. My plan motivates the Iraqis to take control, sooner rather than later.

Notice the breathtaking similarities between UFPJ’s official position and Murtha’s ‘immediate redeployment’ proposal.

UFPJ: 1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.
Murtha: I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

UFPJ: 2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.
Murtha: We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny.

UFPJ: 3. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed.
From Murtha’s Press Conference:

All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free, free from a United States occupation.

UFPJ:5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Murtha: I said two year ago, “The key to progress in Iraq is Iraqitize, internationalize and energize.”

This isn’t to say that Murtha’s done anything illegal. He’s entitled to his opinions. My point is that Murtha went from disagreeing with an anti-war organization all the time to agreeing with that anti-war group’s parent organization like they were writing his press releases. This raises troubling questions like: Why would Murtha accept as fact that the US is an occupier? Why would he think that “the international community” would help the Iraqi people when they haven’t helped in the rebuilding thus far? Why does Murtha think that immediately pulling our troops from Iraq would make Iraq safer? Does he think that Saddam’s thugs will stop their attempted ‘hostile takeover’ if we leave?

This information raises the question what other policy ramifications this might have if Murtha becomes the House Majority Leader. UFPJ’s position on Iran is troubling at best:

United for Peace and Justice opposes any military action against Iran, as well as covert action and sanctions. We reject the doctrine of “preventive war.” All diplomatic solutions must be pursued.

Does Murtha support their position on Iran? God help us if he does. Based on how totally he’s accepted their position on Iraq, I can’t rule it out that he’d oppose any action on Iran except endless ‘negotiations’ with Iran until they develop a nuclear weapon capability.

Here’s UFPJ’s view of the Israeli-Hezbollah war:

We condemn Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli civilians, and we condemn the Israeli assault in Gaza and Lebanon. We also see the vast differences in the scope and scale of these actions. As the French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, described it, Hezbollah’s seizure of the soldiers and firing rockets into northern Israel were “irresponsible acts”; Israel’s bombing of the Beirut international airport was “a disproportionate act of war.”

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy is wrong: “Hezbollah’s seizure of the soldiers and firing rockets into northern Israel” weren’t “irresponsible acts”. They were acts of war. Does Murtha agree with UFPJ on that, too?

George Bush is giving a green light to Israel’s use of force, which is being conducted in part with U.S.-supplied weapons. The Bush administration’s trampling of international law and national sovereignty in its war on Iraq has also emboldened Israel to disregard international condemnation of its behavior.

Based on this quote from UFPJ’s website, it’s obvious that they think that George Bush is a war criminal and that Israel’s ignoring of the international community’s condemnation for its behavior is unacceptable. Israel has every right to ignore the international community’s condemnation, especially if they abandon Israel when Israel is attacked by international terrorists.

DEMOCRATS LAUNCH SIX POINT PLAN

The Democratic Party has decided to lift a page from the Newt Gingrich playbook and come up with their own 'Contract With America,' which was the plan the House Republicans ran on in 1994. For the first time in 40 years, the Democrats' were blown out of the House and the rest is history.

So what are the Dems calling their plan?

"Six for '06." How nice. Just six? What are they? Well, here they are: national security, jobs and wages, energy independence, affordable health care, retirement security and college access for all. Now, since these points were written by Democrats, they will need a bit of translation, so here goes.

National security? The correct word, when talking about Democrats would be appeasement. That is their doctrine. Nobody could possibly believe that the Democrats are serious about fighting the Islamic radicals. Hell, they won't even call them what they are!

Energy independence? That's a code phrase for government-mandated small cars no one wants, gas lines and higher gas taxes. It also means tens of millions of taxpayer dollars sent to colleges and universities to study alternate fuels, and quite possibly a nice little windfall tax on energy companies to top things off!

Affordable health care? Your answer there is socialized medicine. Simple as that. Remember HillaryCare? Well, wait until you see the second coming!

Retirement security? What they really mean is huge increases in Social Security taxes in order to fund a bankrupt program with a poor return on your money. They surely don't mean letting you plan and control your own retirement savings.

College access for all? That's even more of a joke. Everybody already has access to college, but what the Democrats want is 100% taxpayer-funded government schools.

So really, their 6 points really come down to 3 points. Appease the Islamic terrorists, raise taxes and grow government. Since it's all more of the same, this is unlikely to energize the voters. Besides, they forget their 7th most important point: we hate George Bush.

AL-QAIDA CALLS FOR HOLY WAR AGAINST ISRAEL- AND THE REST OF THE WORLD, TOO...

AP reports: “Al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from “Spain to Iraq.”

In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.”

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with “cease-fires or agreements.”

Do you hear that, liberal protesters?

“It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails … from Spain to Iraq,” al-Zawahri said. “We will attack everywhere.”

Well, there you have it. That’s the plan.

Diplomacy? Anyone?

He said Arab regimes were accomplices to Israel. “My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit … and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies … make yourselves martyrs.”

Appeasement and negotiation are not options.

He also called for the “downtrodden” throughout the world, not just Muslims, to join the battle against “tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America.”

Sounds like Cesar Chavez and his pal, Cindy Sheehan. Is he also blogging on the DailyLostKos?

“Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny. Stand with us as we stand with you against this injustice that was forbidden by God in his book (the Quran),” al-Zawahri said.

Y’know, maybe we should rethink our strategy and forget about military might. Instead, simply send armed liberals and the ACLU to the Middle East. Just like the successful battle they’ve been waging in U.S., in no time they would have all references to religion driven from politics and the public square.

Only problem is, unlike Christians today, who allow themselves to be mocked and persecuted by remaining nonviolent, the Islamists would respond to the ACLU much differently.

Terrorism is a plague upon the earth. And that’s no joke.

UPDATE:
Austin Bay: “What About The Next Hezbollah?”
Michelle Malkin: “Israeli Soldier Release?”
CounterTerrorism Blog has more.

SURPRISED? MAYBE WE HAD BETTER WAKE UP HERE

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Israeli army is having a rather tough time with Hezbollah. In story after story you read that the Israeli army doesn't seem to be the awesome, feared fighting machine it once was, and that Hezbollah is showing no fear of the Israelis and putting up a stalwart fight. Some reports I've read even say that Hezbollah is winning this confrontation - this war - and that it will soon be the Israelis who are looking for a cease fire; a cease fire they can use to regroup and consider their options.

Israel, at the urging of the world community, sowed the seeds for this current situation when they withdrew from Southern Lebanon years ago. The Israelis responded to world opinion (usually a mistake) by pulling back without any agreement from either the terrorists in Hezbollah or in Lebanon. The idea behind the pullback was that maybe, just maybe, Hezbollah and Lebanon would be content to honor the international border between the two countries and leave Israel in peace.

Fat chance.

Instead, Hezbollah remained loyal to the Islamic dream of a Middle East with no Israel. They used the time to build its fortifications in Southern Lebanon, moving the bulk of them underground. They used this time to build their military capability and to stash rockets and arms -- most of which were supplied by Iran with no small amount of help from Syria.

When Iran and Hezbollah felt that the military buildup and the entrenchment was sufficient, they launched their provocations against Israel, knowing that Israel would respond.

Muslims around the world are cheering Hezbollah on. Not only Muslims, but a goodly number of anti-Semitics in this country who suffer from that strange form of dementia that causes one to blame every evil in their personal life and in the world on "those Jews."

I hope the rest of us are paying attention here, and I fear we are not. This is much more than a battle between Israel and Hezbollah. This is one front, one battle in World War III, the war between the West and radical Islam.

Israel tried to do the right thing. They withdrew. They sought peace. They asked nothing more to be left alone. The Islamists in Hezbollah and their supporters and enablers in Lebanon, Syria and Iran saw this as a sign of weakness. Israel is tired. Israel doesn't want to fight any more. Israel is weak. Israel can be defeated.

These Islamic murderers see the same weakness in the United States. Oh, to be sure, for a while they feared George Bush. In George Bush they saw an American leader who understood their intentions and who was bent on their destruction. Soon after Bush showed his resolve by invading Afghanistan you saw Muslim leaders starting to backtrack. They were starting to retreat back into their holes ... until, that is, the American left stepped forward.

For American liberals, for the Nancy Pelosis, Ted Kennedys and Howard Deans of this world, the hatred of George Bush and the bitterness of the 2000 election just couldn't be overcome. It mattered not that the president understood the danger presented by Islam, and was prepared to fight. It only mattered that George Bush defeated their Damien, their precious Al Gore, and that Democratic honor had to be assuaged. Bush had to be demonized.

As the Democrats intensified their attacks on George Bush over the war in Iraq, the Muslims started to see the weakness they were looking for. Another Western weakness ripe for exploitation.

Right now Israel is paying the price for appeasement. Some in Israel thought that there might be a better way .. .a way to live in peace with radical Islam. They now know better.

Do we?

Now ... before you move on, read this Ann Coulter column. Once you have you'll realize that we are, indeed, in a world war against radical Islam. It's time for some folks to decide which side they want to support.

LIBERALISM AND NATIONAL SECURITY- THE ULTIMATE DICHOTOMY

The evidence is continuing to mount but it seems clear that modern liberalism is at odds with national security. Whether they sit on the Supreme Court, occupy a seat in Congress, or publish some of our nation’s largest newspapers, several high profile liberals have significantly impeded our ability to wage the War on Terror, and we may be less safe as a result.

In a breathtaking decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a liberal majority on the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to order that terrorists be tried before military commissions. In a case where the court should not have had jurisdiction if the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 were to be taken seriously, liberal judicial activism has once again reared its ugly head. Justice Clarence Thomas offered a stinging dissent regarding the court’s willingness “to second-guess the determination of the political branches that these conspirators must be brought to justice is both unprecedented and dangerous.” Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and National Review contributor, anticipated such a ruling offering this prescient thought: “Make no mistake: if this happens, the Supreme Court will have dictated that we now have a treaty with al Qaeda—which no president, no senate, and no vote of the American people would ever countenance.”

Applying the Geneva Conventions to barbarians who recognize no international laws of war would be laughable if it wasn’t so reckless. Perhaps Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the majority, would allow the Pentagon to take his home via eminent domain (see: disastrous Kelo decision) in order to house Guantanamo guests if the prison were to close. After all, shutting down Gitmo is a high priority in the left’s War on Terror strategy. And if Stevens is looking for a driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan can list Osama bin Laden as a reference.

Cheers undoubtedly rang out at the New York Times when the Hamdan case was adjudicated. After all, any effort to rebuff or expose the efforts of the Bush administration in the War on Terror will be encouraged by the old gray lady. The top of the fold Times story (“Bank Data is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror,” 6/23/06) revealing the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was the latest in a series of damaging exposes dealing a hard blow to our clandestine capabilities. Coupled with the leak involving the NSA’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Times has made it abundantly clear that American national security will take a back seat to Pulitzer Prize nominations. It’s unclear, however, if those awards can withstand a dirty bomb attack. It might be best to keep them locked in an underground vault.

The New York Times has no left-wing agenda and is only interested in exposing matters of “public interest” its editors and defenders assert. But a closer look can be quite revealing. Take, for instance, Pinch Sulzberger’s recent commencement address at a New York State University: “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land,” bemoans Sulzberger. He continues, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to choose. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where oil still drives policy and environmentalists have to relentlessly fight for every gain. You weren’t. But you are. And for that I’m sorry.” Sulzberger doesn’t write for the Times—he publishes it.

While criticizing the efforts of the Bush Administration and at the same time besmirching our military service people is nothing new to those occupying power on the left. Although he later attempted to “clarify” his statement, the damage was already done when Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke about his interpretation of U.S. policy regarding treatment of prisoners. Referring to a report describing prisoners being subjected to rap music and isolation, Durbin said, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings.” Our kidnapped soldiers are brutalized and beheaded while Gitmo terrorists are subjected to lyrics from the likes of Snoop Dogg. Something tells me that Snoop and his cohorts may be getting a bad rap.

When Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) told a civic group that our Army was “broken, worn out” and “living hand to mouth,” did he not consider that his statement would be read by our enemies? Even if he was right—which he isn’t—it is, at best, an irresponsible comment.

Here’s an inconvenient truth that many liberals fail to grasp: the biggest threat facing civilization isn’t carbon dioxide emissions; it’s climate warming via a nuclear detonation. And our enemies will stop at nothing to achieve this objective on American soil.

—

Michael Nevin, Jr. is a contributor to several Internet websites and a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He receives e-mail at nevin166@comcast.net.

STOP THE PEACE EFFORTS

Do I like the idea of peace? Absolutely! But I like the idea of freedom and economic liberty more. Many of the so-called "peace activists" you hear from today will accept any existence, as long as it is an existence without fighting. Living under a despot with no freedom of thought, speech or worship, and certainly no economic liberty, is preferable to some of these people than fighting -- and dying -- to be free.

The Communists had a rather interesting definition of peace back when the Soviet Union was in full bloom. They said that peace would exist when there was an absence of opposition to communism. Nice twist.

You want peace? Let me tell you of one of the most peaceful places in the world. A solitary confinement cell in a prison. There you will find no conflict. You can sleep at night without any fear of someone coming in through the window to harm you or steal your stuff. You can spend every day secure in the knowledge that there will be no rockets raining down on you, no fights, no threats, no violence. Oh .. .there's no freedom, to be sure. But these peace "activists" don't seem to be concerned about freedom. It's just peace -- an end to the violence -- that drives them. The want to make sure that women and children don't die. Fine! Rob them of all freedom, of all human dignity, of all liberty -- and move them into concentration camps where they're guarded day and night by armed soldiers ready to turn away any threat. Peace will reign! Women and children won't die! Freedom will.

I'm also sick to death of the attempts by the peace-at-any-price crowd to draw a moral equivalence between Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel.

Hezbollah and Hamas Islamic murderers hide among their own civilian civilizations and lob rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal? To kill civilians and spread terror. The Israelis fire back to kill those who are attacking them. Civilians die. Why? Because the Islamic cowards are hiding behind their women and children. Yeah ... tell me about your moral equivalence.

Hezbollah has fired more than 2000 rockets into the civilian areas of Israel. The goal is not to kill Israeli soldiers. The goal is to kill women and children --- innocent civilians. This is the nature of radical Islam. How could you expect anything else from the Islamic monsters who shot school children in the back in Beslan?

You know, of course, that Hezbollah wants Israel to release some Islamic prisoners. But did you know that one of the prisoners Hezbollah wants released killed a four-year-old girl by slamming a rifle butt into her skull? This Islamic goon crushed the skull of a small Israeli girl with a rifle butt, and the radical Muslims want him released. I suppose there is a grand celebration awaiting him in his hometown if, and when he returns.

Radical Islamists have watched the left in America and in Europe condemn the removal of Saddam Hussein. They have reveled in the criticism leveled against Bush for his efforts to bring a democratically elected government to Iraq. The vilification of Bush has encouraged the Islamic radicals and made them stronger. They now feel that their jihadist goal of bringing the entire world under Islamic rule can be realized. If those who fight them are condemned, and those who appease them are praised, how can you blame them for feeling emboldened?

Israel understands what so many Americans do not. There is a war going on. Islamic terrorists and militants are feeding on the weakness of the West. They're feeding on the weakness shown by the American left that has condemned our president for daring to strike back at Islamofascism.

We gain nothing by asking Israel to hold back.