TROOPS AUTHORIZED TO KILL IRANIANS

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.

DEMS RUNNING OUT OF IDEAS

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.

THE DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE

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.

STATE OF THE UNION

By Michelle Malkin

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 NYPost.com):

-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."

There.

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."

Applause.

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.

LIZ CHENEY'S OP-ED

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.

TONIGHT'S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH

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.

Mistakes?

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.