THEY'RE AT IT AGAIN

The NY Times has resumed their never-ending quest of helping our terrorist enemies. Here’s their latest attempt to undermine national security:

The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering. (Ed.- emphasis added)

The CIA has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.

Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.

Notice that this isn’t taking in hundreds of thousands of names. It says that it’s been done on “hundreds of Americans.” That’s hardly being abusive. In fact, I’d argue that it’s rather restrained.

I expect John Conyers to take this up in his committee. This paragraph says why he’s interested in it:

Government lawyers say the legal authority for the Pentagon and the CIA to use national security letters in gathering domestic records dates back nearly three decades and, by their reading, was strengthened by the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.

I’ve written a few times lately about Conyers’ desire to gut the Patriot Act. Don’t think that he won’t see this as a perfect opportunity to exploit.

I’d further suggest that the credibility of this reporting is suspect because we’re getting this information leaked. If there’s anything that makes me suspicious of a report, it’s when the information was acquired through a snitch with an agenda.

If the government’s lawyers are right that the Patriot Act strengthened the use of national security letters, then it’s reasonable to assume that there’s regular oversight done on this program. If that’s the case, then we don’t need to read about it in the NY Times.

I’d further add that it’s suspicious that Eric Lichtblau, one of the reporters that exposed the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program, another important tool in preventing terrorist attacks, is one of the reporters for this article. Does the NY Times hire Mr. Lichtblau each time they want to tell terrorists about the tools the U.S. is using in preventing terrorist attacks? Or do they just keep such subversives on payroll for use during Republican administrations?

Obviously, they didn’t use the likes of Mr. Lichtblau to expose Bill Clinton’s Echelon program. Furthermore, they didn’t use Mr. Lichtblau to write about Bill Clinton’s use of warrantless searches in other cases. Are we to believe that that’s pure coincidence? Or should we just believe that the NY Times has it in for Republicans? They certainly don’t have it in for Democrats.

It’s time we got rid of reporters with such a history of undermining our war efforts. He’s potentially endangering millions of lives with his reporting. That isn’t reporting; it’s subversion.

DEMS RESPOND TO BUSH 'SURGE SPEECH'

President Bush said in his prime time speech to the nation Wednesday evening that changes are coming to the strategy in Iraq. The full text of the speech is here.

The Democratic response to the President’s speech was given by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. FULL TEXT HERE. Turning on a political dime, Durbin now says our troops are courageous, praising them for their “immense sacrifice”. In June 2005, however, Durbin compared our “courageous” soldiers to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags and Pol Pot.

Durbin quoted GEN Abizaid, commander of CENTCOM Middle East, which includes Iraq, saying, “More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future,” end of quote. Yet GEN Abizaid also told the Congress in November that all options were on the table and he ruled nothing out. In fact, when Abizaid said he felt troop levels should stay where they were, Abizaid was accused by Democrats of promoting the status quo.

The worst part of Durbin’s asinine assertions are about Iraqis themselves:

And we have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We’ve given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government.

We Americans, and a few allies, have protected Iraq when no one else would.

WE? WE have given Iraqis so much? WE deposed their dictator? WE gave them a chance? WE have protected Iraq when no one else would? Since when have the Democrats protected Iraqis? If “no one else” isn’t the Democrats, who is? “No one” has stood more opposed to Iraqi freedom beside insurgents and terrorists than the Democratic Party. Even Iran and Syria side with Democrats in opposition to President Bush’s plan to bring resolution to Iraq. When Osama bin Laden endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004, it’s pretty clear who is on the side of the Iraqis and who isn’t. If it were up to Democrats, Saddam would still be on his throne, torturing his people and living well from bribes and kickbacks from the United Nations.

Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions which will bring an end to this bloody civil war, disband the militias and death squads, create an environment of safety and opportunity for every Iraqi, and begin to restore the basics of electricity and water and health care that define the quality of life.

Apparently Mr. Durbin doesn’t know how long it took for America to stand and defend herself or how long she battled against the “insurgency” born out of the American civil war called the KKK. Left wing Democrats launched a “reign of terror” against Republican leaders both black and white at the end of the civil war. The KKK was literally a terrorist group that came from the left wing of the Democratic party. 141 years later, the KKK is petering out. How long does Mr. Durbin afford Iraqis to rid themselves of their death squads and militias?

When the Iraqis understand that America is not giving an open-ended commitment of support, when they understand that our troops indeed are coming home, then they will understand the day has come to face their own responsibility to protect and defend their nation.

If anyone understands this it’s the Iraqis, not the Democrats. In reality, Iraqis have stood up for themselves and defended their nation since the beginning. They’ve challenged terrorists armed with nothing more than a purple finger in three historic elections. They’ve lined up outside police and military stations to serve their country knowing they could be targets of suicide bombers. They’ve worked with Coalition Forces to turn in insurgents and terror suspects in trying to reclaim their neighborhoods, supplying our best intelligence at great risk to themselves.

“The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie ahead. And they must know that, every time they call 911, we are not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers.”

What utterly contemptible ignorance! Sen. Durbin might recall that Iraqis counted on the U.N. to be the world’s 911, but their hopes were crushed when the U.N. crawled into bed with Saddam under the guise of the Oil for Food program. Iraqis hold only Saddam Hussein in greater contempt. It was America, compliments of the Bush administration, that did what the U.N. was supposed to do in enforcing the resolutions that the world’s “911″ refused to. If Democrats have their way, it won’t be long before Iraq knows it can never count on the U.S. again. That’s a win-win for Democrats.

Democrats might want to remember that they also voted for this war in Iraq and that they share an equal obligation to support the war effort. To do anything else is morally and politically wrong. While the United States under the Bush administration deposed Saddam Hussein, it also totally gutted the Iraqi government from the inside out and it is the obligation of the United States of America to help rebuild Iraq and support a people who have been victimized by a dictator, exploited by the world’s “911″ and forgotten by everyone else.

It is not U.S. involvement in Iraq that has created more terrorists, but solidarity the Democratic party has shown America’s enemies. By May 2006, Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq admitted they were losing the war in Iraq. They claimed in written documents to be outnumbered, outwitted, inept, and that their mission was “getting worse year after year” because of Iraqi and US resolve and resiliency. Al-Qaeda admitted trying to divide and conquer Iraq through sectarian violence and that “American investment in (Iraq) was not in vain.” By June 2006, Iraq had al-Qaeda on the run and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said:

“We believe that this is the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Iraq. (These documents show that al-Qaeda) is in pretty bad shape. Now we have the upper hand.”

So what happened? Joe Wilson conducted a false public campaign challenging the premise that Saddam had sought uranium from Nigeria so as to undermine the President’s claim in the State of the Union address 2003 that Saddam was indeed seeking to build a WMD program. In fact, Wilson admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2004 that he “misspoke” about the uranium procurement. Based on this lie, Democrats then began an all out political campaign to discredit the war and with extreme left wing anti-war groups began to give hope to the terrorists and insurgents. With every passing month that John Murtha, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, et al, proclaiming the demise of Iraq, the failure of America and the success of the terrorists, more and more “willing martyrs” signed up for al-Qaeda training camps or sectarian militias. Who wouldn’t want to be on the winning side?

Durbin said a troop surge in Iraq is not what Americans voted for in the November mid-term elections, giving Iraqis more cause for concern. The enemies of Iraqi freedom are encouraged now more than ever and believe they can simply wait out U.S. withdrawal. This undermines Iraqi confidence that the U.S. will see through the mission, putting Iraqis in a position to align themselves with groups looking to inherit the power the United States is leaving behind.

The Democratic Party is the party of “choice”, yet despite the exceeded re-enlistment and recruitment rates by every branch in the United States military in 2006, liberals seek to take away the choice of Americans in uniform. These brave Americans believe in this mission and volunteer to fight this enemy in Iraq to prevent another 9/11. Instead of condoning the choice of the soldier to finish this job, they sabotage it. Liberals say they don’t always agree with a woman’s choice to kill her unborn child, yet they support her right to do so. It’s no wonder soldiers don’t believe Democrats really support them.

President Bush said in his speech:

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.

It’s clear what Prime minister al-Maliki understands: there is no change in Iraq but retreat and withdrawal that can satisfy the Democrats and they now have a majority in the House and Senate. The only hope for Iraq is rapid response to counter the Democrats sabotaging of Iraq’s destiny.

MINIMUM WAGE DOUBLE STANDARD

As part of their first 100 hours plan, Democrats are pushing a hike in the minimum wage. It's going to happen, with several Republicans and even President Bush prepared to go along with it. But did you know that American Samoa...a Democrat stronghold...is being exempted from the minimum wage increase?

And just what are the reasons being given for this? According to the chairman of the House, Education and Labor Committee, Democrat George Miller of California, the economy of American Samoa doesn't have the ability to handle the United States' minimum wage and should be exempt. Nice try...want to know the real reason? The answer is the tuna industry and like the product itself, this one stinks to high heaven.

The average wage for tuna workers in American Samoa is $3.60 an hour. One of the biggest employers there is Starkist Tuna...which is headquartered in San Francisco...Nancy Pelosi land. Anybody care to take a closer look at the campaign contributions of Democrats in the last election? One thing is for sure, the delegate from American Samoa, a Democrat, is loaded down with campaign cash from the tuna industry.

So there you have it...a double standard. On the one hand, we're told you can't raise a family on $5.15 an hour and the minimum wage must be raised to $7.25 an hour. But for the right price in campaign contributions, the tuna industry in American Samoa can avoid the minimum wage altogether...they just have to stuff the pockets of the right Democrats. Where is the media on this one?

Will the press be taking a closer look at Nancy Pelosi's campaign finance disclosures? Probably not. But somebody will.

DEMS' IRAQ POLICY: WHAT WE KNOW. WHAT WE DON'T KNOW

Tim Walz, the freshman congressman from MN-1, has given us a quote that tells us what the Democrats’ plan for Iraq is. Here’s Walz’s quote:

Walz said he expects lots of “voices and debate” on how the new majority in Congress will withdraw from Iraq. He said Democrats have “no set solution, just the ability to thin through it logically to try to find a solution.”

This adds to what we know about the Democrats’ Iraq policy. Here’s a roundup of other things we know about their ‘plan’:

• We know that Harry Reid “would look at everything to wind down the war effort, short of cutting off support for troops already there.”
• We know that John Murtha advocates a God-forsaken ‘immediate redeployment’ policy.
• We know that Barack Obama doesn’t have a plan for victory.
• We know that Obama appeared this morning on NBC’s “Today” Show, saying “We’re not going to baby sit a civil war.”

What we don’t know is why Democrats think that leaving Iraq is a viable option. We’ve heard them say we need to leave. We just haven’t heard anyone explain how we’d benefit from that strategy. They certainly haven’t told us both sides of this strategy.

• Just once, I’d like to hear Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary or Barack Obama tell us that leaving Iraq now wouldn’t endanger us in the future.
• Just once, I’d like to hear Tim Walz, Amy Klobuchar or Keith Ellison explain why terrorists wouldn’t turn Iraq into a breeding ground for future 9/11’s aimed at America and elsewhere.

You won’t hear it because they know that they’d be crucified politically if they ever took a real stand based on losing leaving before winning.

This begs another question: If they know that losing isn’t an option in Iraq, why aren’t they making specific proposals for winning in Iraq? Why aren’t they interested in stabilizing Iraq while making America safer?

The answer is found in Dingy Harry’s flip-flop on a troop surge. Here’s what Dingy Harry said before Christmas:

“If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that,” said Reid.

Here’s what Dingy Harry’s saying now:

“Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed…Adding more combat troops will endanger more Americans and stretch our military capability to the breaking point for no strategic gain.”

I’m reminded of John Kerry’s infamous statement that “I actually voted for it before I voted against it” when I read Harry’s polar opposite statements. Here’s the rough translation of Dingy Harry’s statement:

I was ok with a troop surge until the Democratic leadership met. I was ok with a troop surge until Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama set me straight on what our political strategy should be on this. Now that they’ve shown me the focus group results showing that opposing a troop surge isn’t popular with our base, I’m abandoning my prior statement.

There’s something else that’s worth noting. Nancy Pelosi was for a troop surge before she was against it. Here’s the proof:

Thus former House minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, citing General Shinseki in May 2004, on “Meet the Press”: “What I’m saying to you, [is] that we need more troops on the ground.” Thus, too, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, just four weeks ago: “If it’s for a surge–that is, for two or three months–and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I’ll go along with it.”

Now we know what’s driving the Democratic policy on Iraq: They’re for anything that President Bush is against and they’re against anything that President Bush is for. Democrats aren’t the loyal opposition, they’re just the opposition.

JFK, FDR and Harry Truman would be ashamed to associate with such a spineless, fickle bunch.

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.