BUSH'S SPEECH

So the president gave his speech last night, laying out a roadmap to what he believes will be victory in Iraq. Will it work? Who knows...but to the terrorist appeasers on Capitol Hill, it just wasn't good enough. Surrender is the only plan they'll support. Winning isn't in the cards for them and it never was.

There's no doubt about it .. things in Iraq are a mess. It was an understatement when George Bush said last night that mistakes were made. Not enough troops to begin with. Not preserving elements of the Iraqi Army and its leadership. Not taking back Fallujah. Too little shock and awe. It's a war! Do you think wars follow a script or a business plan?

If we listen to Nancy Pelosi and take a walk, the results would be disastrous. The new Iraqi government would immediately collapse and roving bands of thugs would take power. Sunnis and Shiites would start a civil war that would last until the end of time. Iraq would almost certainly become a hotbed of terrorist activity and planning. Other nations in the Middle East would see America tuck its tail and run, and know that they had to make peace with the Islamic fascists because there would be nobody around to help them if they didn't. Our legacy? Three thousand American deaths ... for what?

The Democrats are going to have a couple of demonstration votes ... all for show .. and they're going to beat their chests a bit. But President Bush will send the troops, and the Congress will fund them. I truly believe that there are Democrats who want anything but a victory in Iraq. A victory would make Bush look good. A victory would make Democrat defeatism look bad. Job one for Democrats is most certainly not trying to salvage Iraq. Job one for Democrats most certainly is laying the groundwork for increasing the Democrat majority in in Congress, and electing Hillary in 2008.

So the only thing we can do now is try to win, I suppose. Let's just hope it isn't too late.

Giving a green light to Iraqi and American troops to enter the neighborhoods that have, up until now, been refuges for terrorists should make a difference.

There is this to consider. Almost anywhere in the world where you see violence .. where you see one identifiable group of people trying to kill another .. you will find that they are Muslims. I'm not sure just how many shooting wars or conflicts, large and small, there are around the world. I think that the number is somewhere between 120 and 130. In all but about four you will find Muslims involved. Everywhere you look .. Muslims killing people; and we're supposed to believe that this is a peaceful religion? Muslim organization beat their gums all they want about the wonderful, peaceful nature of the serene religion of Islam .. but just look around on your own a bit and you find all the evidence you need to see that this concept of loving, peaceful Islam is simply not true.

Now there are areas of the Middle East that are both Muslim and relatively peaceful. Turkey stands out, and you also have the United Arab Emirates. The UAE is even a tourist destination for non-Muslims around the world! Is there any reason to believe that this could be the future of Iraq? Well .. if you rely solely on the American media for your image of Iraq, that would seem doubtful. The mainstream American media has made almost no effort at all to bring us images of Iraq outside of the areas of Islamic violence. The Kurdish areas of Iraq, for instance, are almost idyllic compared to Baghdad. I've seen videos of Kurdish families enjoying picnics and festivals along a riverside while their friends water-ski and play with jet skis. I've also seen videos of commercial areas of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities that are flourishing and vibrant.

The problem is, people have to send these videos to me. I just can't seem to find them on any newscast on any mainstream news program. Why not? is there a concern that these images might actually convince the American people that some progress is being made? That there might actually be a chance to tame this country and introduce freedom and economic liberty into the heart of the Middle East?

DOES KENNEDY WANT US TO LOSE IN IRAQ?

The anti-war, peace-at-any-price, submissive Left, which took over the Democratic party in the last election, is rearing its ugly head once again. On one side, you have those opposed to war and willing to deny funds to the troops there, on the other side, you have nervous Democrats who know better. What fun! And all of this is playing out before our eyes.

The Nation's Disgrace, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, decided to preempt President Bush yesterday with a little speech of his own. We already know that Kennedy is a coward. I know you're tired of hearing this, but you have to understand the quality of the man speaking these words. This is a man who let a woman (his date for the night?) suffocate in the back seat of his car while it sat in four feet of water as he paced up and down a nearby road trying to figure out how to salvage his political career.

Anyway .. Kennedy has made it clear. No more money for any more troops in Iraq. Winning is no longer an option to Kennedy. Never was. Kennedy would be perfectly pleased to have Saddam Hussein in power still. You get the distinct impression that the worst thing Kennedy can imagine would be an actual American (that would mean a Bush) success in Iraq.

The Democrats are walking a tightrope here. They are opposed to any escalation in the war in Iraq...and are going to fight the sending of the 20,000 additional troops. But what can they do? George W. Bush is the rightly elected Commander-In-Chief. He can send the troops wherever he wants. The only way Congress can control it is to cut off the funds. Come on, folks. You just know they aren't going to do that.

Why? Because as much as Americans are opposed to the war, they are even more opposed to doing anything that would deny troops needed money or supplies. The idea that a soldier in Iraq might do without something he needs is not acceptable to the average citizen of the United States. So the Democrats are stuck. They can oppose the troop surge all they want, but when the vote is taken on funding it, you can bet the majority of them will vote for it.

And which way will The Hildabeast vote? She has to answer to the entire country in the next election. Gotta support the troops.

POOR SADDAM HUSSEIN

A new video has been released apparently showing Saddam Hussein lying on the gurney with an injury where the hangman's noose ripped open the skin after snapping his neck. Ouch. Get that man a cough drop and go look for a sewing kit! But now we're being treated to all these stories about how there is all this sympathy for Saddam Hussein. What?

Sympathy for a butcher? That must be something unique to the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam. Saddam was a butcher, a rapist and a tyrant...why should we care what happens to him? Justice is when people get what they deserve. Saddam received justice.

It doesn't matter how the sentence was carried out...and it doesn't matter how many cell phone videos of Saddam's corpse wind up on YouTube. But that's not what's at work here. What's going on is those in the mainstream media and in anti-American countries around the world have now found some new ammunition.

They think that they can use the execution of a brutal and murderous dictator to somehow generate sympathy for him and create more opposition against the United States. It may work, to an extent. After all, didn't Hillary Clinton say women in Iraq were better off under Saddam? I wonder if she'll be attending the memorial service in Tikrit?

So as the mainstream media, the Democrats and other anti-American Leftists around the world mourn the passing of Uncle Saddam, we get to watch the videos. Hurry up Abu Ali, hurry up!

IRAN THREATENS TO BLOCK OFF STRAITS OF HORMUZ

That’s the word according to this Jerusalem Post article. Here’s what the article says:

A senior Iranian officer warned that if the West continues to threaten Iran’s economy over its nuclear program, Tehran will discontinue the flow of oil via the Strait of Hormuz, Israel Radio reported Monday.

According to the officer, 40% of the world’s oil is transferred through the strait, and the world is dependent on Iran for a source of energy and a stable economy.

Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, added that Iran cannot allow itself to give up the right to develop its nuclear technology program.

The first thing I though of was this Ralph Peters op-ed. Here’s what Col. Peters wrote:

WORD that Adm. William Fallon will move laterally from our Pacific Command to take charge of Central Command, responsible for the Middle East, while two ground wars rage in the region baffled the media. Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?

There’s a one-word answer: Iran.

ASSIGNING a Navy aviator and combat veteran to oversee our military operations in the Persian Gulf makes perfect sense when seen as a preparatory step for striking Iran’s nuclear-weapons facilities, if that becomes necessary.

While the Air Force would deliver the heaviest tonnage of ordnance in a campaign to frustrate Tehran’s quest for nukes, the toughest strategic missions would fall to our Navy. Iran would seek to retaliate asymmetrically by attacking oil platforms and tankers, closing the Strait of Hormuz, and trying to hit oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates.

Only the U.S. Navy, hopefully, with Royal Navy and Aussie vessels underway beside us, could keep the oil flowing to a thirsty world.

In short, the toughest side of an offensive operation against Iran would be the defensive aspects, requiring virtually every air and sea capability we could muster. (Incidentally, an additional U.S. carrier battle group is now headed for the Gulf; Britain and Australia are also strengthening their naval forces in the region.)

Democrats are loudly criticizing President Bush for everything he’s done in the Middle East, whether it’s the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan or too much sectarian violence in Baghdad or “not winning the peace.” This move shows that he’s a step ahead with Iran. There’s no convincing me that he didn’t anticipate Iran threatening this when he started down the path of sanctions with Iran’s mullahs.

I’d further submit that this proves that he’s got a plan for keeping the oil flowing through the Straits. This shouldn’t be taken lightly because the unnamed senior Iranian officer is right: 40% of the world’s oil is transferred through the strait. I would say that there’s enough cushion in the world’s production capacity to offset Iran’s withholding its oil from the market, at least temporarily.

BRUSH UP ON YOUR SPANISH

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was on TV yesterday saying the president told him he would have an easier time dealing with them on immigration policy than with the Republicans. In other words, get our your Pesos...the Mexican invasion will continue. Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

Right now, there are some 12 million illegal aliens in this country from Mexico, give or take a few hundred thousand. Some estimates go as high as 20 million. That's the number we're at with illegal immigration still being....well, illegal. What is going to happen once you adopt the president's amnesty plan and throw open the doors to anyone who wants to come here for a guest worker card? Another 10 or 15 million? Can your local Home Depot parking lot handle the surge?

El Presidente also knows that the Democratic Congress, eager to pander for the Hispanic vote, will bury this idea of building a border fence. After all, it was only for 700 miles anyway....and besides, they could spend the money elsewhere. You think our laws against illegal immigration are a joke now...it's only going to get worse.

This is the first time in American history that we have been invaded...and the president of the United States doesn't care. Somebody's gotta pick the strawberries, you know.

DEMOCRATS PREPARE ONSLAUGHT OF INVESTIGATIONS: WELCOME TO THE NEW CONGRESSIONAL "LEADERSHIP"

Democratic strategists say it is far better for the party to keep the war focus on Bush than it is to devise a detailed exit plan for Iraq.

“We are not at a point at this moment where I can say we have a specific strategy, but we have several options,” said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader. (Associated Press, 1/6/07)

The truth at last. And this coming from the man who compared our military to Nazis, and is probably still drying his eyes over Saddam’s execution.

So much for “a new direction”. So much for “we have a plan”.

The election is over, voters are back to sleep, and now it’s time to play partisan politics — at the expense of the public good. For Dems without ideas, the best practice is always to criticize others. Welcome to the dawn of Democratic leadership.

AP reports:

“In this new era of divided government, the congressional hearing room is where the executive and legislative branches will clash.

Over the next few weeks, Senate Democrats plan to hold at least 11 hearings just on Iraq. In the House, one of the Democrats’ most dogged investigators is waiting to spring his committee on a different mission — suspected government fraud.

From the war to environmental policy and secret surveillance, the Democrats who now control both the House and Senate are armed with subpoena power and ready to summon panels of witnesses.

These newly empowered Democrats plan to put the Bush administration under scrutiny like never before.
. . .

Iraq is the focal point of Democratic efforts.”

So, instead of rolling out original ideas, introducing strategy, and making plans — as usual, Democrats are just making noise and leaving the heavy-lifing to others.

“The hearings are one way for Democrats to respond to the party’s anti-war wing. Last week, as Democrats prepared to assume power in the new Congress, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and a group of protesters interrupted a Democratic press conference, chanting “De-escalate. Investigate. Troops home now!”

The outburst highlighted the limited options Democrats have on redirecting policy in Iraq. Short of cutting off money for the war — a step Democratic leaders say they will not take — Congress has little recourse but to agitate publicly against Bush’s strategy.”

That spells it out, doesn’t it? Amazing what kernels of truth can be found between the lines. Dems have “little recourse but to agitate”? No wonder they’re bankrupt for ideas.

Here’s another option, Democrats should try it sometime: Ignore the fringe. Disregard the vocal activists. Don’t pander to leftist nutjobs like Sheehan, and do what’s best for America.

We’re fighting a war. We’re battling against terrorism. We’ve lost lives, so make the sacrifices of those fallen soldiers count. Put national interest above political self-interest.

That’s the job at hand. That is your sworn duty.

Stop posturing to score points and do something original. In other words, show some real leadership.