TROOPS SOUND OFF IN MOSUL WITH HANNITY

Sean Hannity recently visited Mosul, Iraq and had some candid conversations with the troops stationed there. The video was aired last night on Hannity & Colmes. Anyone interested in seeing just how wrong leftist politicians and media types are about soldiers, the war and all things patriotic needs to watch this video. If nothing else, this short video clip will give an insight into the motivations, feelings and opinions of most of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. WATCH HERE (or click the image below)

Some of the issues the soldiers talked about include victory in Iraq, why soldiers enlist during wartime, the naivete of the press and politicians who want overnight success, how they feel about John Kerry’s insulting comments about their educational and vocational status and the dichotomy between saying “We support the troops” and actually supporting the troops. GREAT STUFF. I’ve been saying this all along for three years. This is certainly my experience as an Army wife.

NOW THE FLYING IMAMS WANT MONEY, WHAT A SURPRISE

Do you remember the six flying Imams at the Minneapolis Airport a few weeks ago? These clowns made a big deal of praying at the gate before boarding. They were heard making anti-American comments by Arabic speaking passengers. They adopted the same seating pattern on the airliner that the 9/11 hijackers used. They asked for seat belt extensions they neither needed nor used. These Muslim Imams did everything they could, including shouting "Allah Akbar," to draw attention to themselves and to make the passengers on that flight uneasy. Finally the Captain of the flight did exactly what he should have done. He had them removed.

I am of the firm belief that this is exactly what the Flying Imams wanted to happen. I believe that after their meeting in the Minneapolis area they went to the airport with the intention of creating a stir and with the intention of being taken off that flight before it departed. Everything played out exactly the way they wanted it to play out.

And now its time for the pay out.

We learn now that the Flying Imams want an out-of-court settlement from US Airways for their "ordeal." In other words, they want money. They have gone to the dangerous Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Washington for help in their blackmail attempt. Remember, my friends, CAIR is not some benign, harmless Islamic organization. CAIR spokesmuslim Ibriham Hooper has spoken of his desire to see America under Islamic Law, as have other leaders in the CAIR organization. CAIR is more of an apologist for Islamic jihadists than it is an organization dedicated to improving our relationship with Muslims in America.

Now CAIR wants to participate with the Flying Imams in their attempt to extort money out of US Airways. Will US Airways cave and pay the Flying Imams a few million in hush money?

What we may see here is the beginning of a giant Muslim scam, a scam to be repeated over and over and over across this country. A way to use both our concerns over security and our idiotic penchant for political correctness to harass various American institutions while collecting no small amount of cash on the side.

It's very easy, really. Just go into some public place like an airport, restaurant or shopping mall, and then start to draw attention to yourself. Throw down a prayer rug and start banging your forehead off the floor. Speak loudly in Arabic in a hostile tone. Shout "Allah Akbar" a few times. Look threatening. Just ham it up, play on the legitimate fears of the American people, fears that someday soon some Muslim lunatic is going to walk into a restaurant or a shopping mall with a bomb. Sooner or later someone is going to call the cops, and sooner or later you're going to get kicked out of the restaurant, shopping mall, car dealership ... whatever. Then, as soon as that happens you go running to CAIR screaming something about "Islamophobia!"

Then, of course, will come the request for a meeting with the business that threw you out, and the demand for money.

Let's see how many more times this plays out.

GOOD RIDDANCE TO YOU, KOFI ANNAN

By Michelle Malkin

Do As I Say...

Kofi Annan plans to give the United States the finger in his farewell address. USA Today reports:

In a farewell speech on U.S. soil today, retiring United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to deliver a tough critique of President Bush's policies. He will accuse the administration of trying to secure the United States from terrorism in part by dominating other nations through force, committing what he termed human rights abuses and taking military action without broad international support.

Though Annan has long been a critic of the war in Iraq and other Bush foreign policies, the planned speech is among his toughest and is unusual for a U.N. secretary-general concluding his tenure.

Annan's remarks, provided to USA TODAY by his office, list principles for international relations, among them "respect for human rights and the rule of law."

These ideas can be advanced only "if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism," the speech says. "When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."

Like Kofi Annan knows anything about remaining true to principles? He leaves behind a feckless, corrupted, global bureaucracy incapable of policing the predators in its ranks, unwilling to stand up to evil, and useless in the struggle against terrorism--or any other global threat.

And it's all President Bush's and America's fault.

Good riddance to you and your wagging finger, Kofi Annan. You will not be missed.

***

Betsy Newmark: "I wonder if he'll mention the whole oil for food scandal that occurred under his leadership in which UN officials were raking in kickbacks from Saddam Hussein. Or will he talk about abuses of human rights in Rwanda and Darfur? Or mention the terrorists who kill civilians or hide behind civilians every single day?"

Ed Morrissey dissects Annan's Washington Post op-ed:

Come on, WaPo -- level with us. Claudia Rosett wrote this as a spoof, right?

There's plenty more laughs in Annan's goodbye screed. He tries to use Hillary Clinton's outline for It Takes A Village by telling readers that we are all responsible for each other's security, and that we are all responsible for each other's welfare. I'm sure that the people dying in Darfur will take great comfort in those words, in which the outgoing UN chief invokes them alongside the word "genocide" but manages to avoid applying it directly to them. Rwanda's victims also would second Annan's words, if any of them remained alive.

He then goes on to mention the rule of law and the need for states to play by the rules. However, in his quest for accountability, he fails to mention what consequences should come from failures to do so. We wanted to hold Saddam accountable for twelve years of intransigence in relation to 16 UN Security Council resolutions -- and Annan opposed the effort. We want to hold Iran accountable for its defiance of the non-proliferation treaty -- and Annan has little to say about that as well.

Accountability. Annan. Not exactly two terms one would tie together in UN history. This laughable attempt by Annan to do so will not succeed in anything except providing a much-needed laugh to Post readers.

At least he was good for something.

SPEAKING FRANKLY

That’s what the LA Times titled Jimmy Carter’s op-ed. Unfortunately, that isn’t what President Carter did in this op-ed.

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations, but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

If we based our opinions on just what’s said in this paragraph, we’d believe that Jimmy Carter is the lone man willing to stand up to AIPAC. We’d believe that he’s the only man willing to ’speak truth to power’. I’d use many adjectives to describe Jimmy Carter but courageous isn’t one of those adjectives. I can’t even tell you that I think he’s got a grip on reality. What I can tell you is that AIPAC is powerful inside Washington. Then again, the pro-Arab lobby is powerful, too. That’s what makes this next quote so extraordinary:

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.

While it’s true that speaking out against Israel would be politically suicidal, it’s equally true that speaking out against certain Arab groups is politically suicidal in districts like the ones represented by John Conyers and John Dingell. In fact, the truth is that it’s almost fashionable to speak out against Israel in the more liberal Jewish communities. That’s due to the fact that many liberal Jews think that Israel is to blame for the Middle East’s problems. That’s certainly the perspective of Tikkun Magazine’s editorial staff.

These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League’s offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet’s “Roadmap for Peace,” which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

This is simply delusional thinking on Carter’s behalf. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the PLO has accepted the Roadmap. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Israel has rejected the Roadmap except when Hamas terrorists threaten Israel’s right to exist. Even a pacifist like President Carter knows that the UN Charter provides for the right of a country to defend itself.

Fred Barnes brought up something tonight on the Beltway Boys that I’d never heard before. He said an Israeli official once told him that they considered Carter to be an anti-Semite. Barnes said that he never believed that but this book is making him rethink that. That’s quite the stunning statement.

Here’s another troubling aspect to President Carter’s book:

Former President Jimmy Carter faced new criticism Friday over his controversial book on Palestinian lands when a former Middle East diplomat accused him of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him. The new charge came as Carter attempted to counter charges from a former top aide that the book manipulates facts to distort history. Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter’s book. “I think there should be a correction and an attribution,” Ross said. “These were maps that never existed, I created them.” After Ross saw the maps in Carter’s book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction. When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied: “it sure looks that way.”

I’d think that this book represents a new low for Jimmy Carter. Not only does he paint an inaccurate picture of what’s happening in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel but he’s also ‘appropriated’ maps created by longtime Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. That type of appropriation is often called plaziarism or theft.

This begs another question: How much further can Jimmy Carter sink in terms of integrity and honesty?

A RECIPE FOR DEFEAT

All are not praising the Iraq Study Group's report. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee for 2008, called the plan a recipe for defeat. Rudy Giuliani, the other presumptive Republican nominee for 2008, says leaving Iraq would be a terrible mistake. So what's the problem with the report?

McCain drew a direct parallel with Vietnam, saying "There's only one thing worse than an overstressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps. We saw that in 1973. And I believe that this is a recipe that will lead to, sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq." He's probably right. But after 4 years of fighting, the American people don't care anymore. They've given up. They no longer see the point in winning, which would explain the Democratic victories last month.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is also running for president, is saying pretty much the same thing. Giuliani actually was part of the Iraq Study Group, but resigned. He specifically took issue with the claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to blame for the situation in Iraq: "Israel and Palestine is an important issue. Sometimes it's used as an excuse to deal with underlying issues. But the reality here is that the Islamo-fundamentalist terrorists are at war with our way of life, with our modern world, with rights for women, religious freedom, societies that have religious freedom. And all of that would still exist, no matter what happens in Israel and Palestine." Exactly.

At least a few politicians see the light, for now anyway.

We need leadership now more than ever before. The American people don't really see any further threat from the Islamic fascists! Right now in who knows how many locales in the Middle east we have Islamic radicals working on plans to use horrible weapons to kill thousands of Americans on our own soil. The danger is there, but the American public is now blind to it.

AL GORE WEIGHS IN

Al Gore says the war in Iraq is the biggest mistake in the history of the United States. As usual, Al Gore is wrong. Aside from the Clinton/Gore Administration, there have been many, many much worse mistakes in the history of this country. Let's take a look at a few, shall we?

But first, here is what Gore said: the war in Iraq is "the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States." The entire history? Entire? I thought man's creation of global warming was a huge mistake? What about that, Al? At any rate..here's a few mistakes that rate just a bit higher than the war in Iraq:

1. The Vietnam War. Spanning decades and several administrations, the war in Vietnam was a much worse disaster than the war in Iraq could ever be. Almost 60,000 American dead in vain....after which we wound up pulling the plug, handing the whole thing over to the enemy and walking away.
   
2. The Yalta Conference. The United States, led by Franklin Roosevelt, gave much of Eastern Europe to the butcher Joseph Stalin in the name of "stability." That was a strategic mistake.
   
3. The Clinton/Gore Administration. The most corrupt administration in our history, featuring the impeached Bill Clinton. Al Gore had his own share of scandals...such as fundraising at a Buddhist temple. The whole thing was an 8-year mistake.

There are other mistakes we've made that have been very damaging to our country, though I don't know that they come under the definition of "strategic" mistakes. Just a sampling.

1. The 17th Amendment. This is the amendment that provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. The growth of the federal government and the weakening of state governments can be traced back to this event. Since the ratification of the 17th Amendment state governments have had no official representation in Washington. Nigeria has an official representative in DC. Nebraska does not.
   
2. The 16th Amendment. That's the one that brought us the income tax. Odd, isn't it, that the very income tax we suffer under in this country was called for in the Communist Manifesto? Soon after Marx and Engles wrote their manifesto the push was on in the US for an income tax.
   
3. The formation of our system of government schools. Did you know that some of the people who were deeply involved in the design of our government school system stated that the goal was to make sure we produce generations of graduates who will make good little government subjects?
   
4. Social Security. This is nothing but an income redistribution system designed to enable politicians to purchase votes with someone else's money. Social Security ushered in the era of government dependence. Tens of millions of Americans pay absolutely no attention to their retirement planning ... after all, the government is going to do it for you.

I could go on and on....but you get the idea. The war in Iraq may wind up being an expensive lesson, or perhaps an embarrassing mistake. But the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States? Not even close.