HARRY REID'S 'LOST WAR'

by Reid Collins

No, Senator Reid. The "war" is not lost. The "war", which has become the misnomer of this or any other age, was won a long time ago. In 2003 American troops invaded Iraq on the heels of a "shock and awe" bombing and missile campaign. Within months the war was over. Officials of the Iraqi government either surrendered or fled. Among the latter, Saddam Hussein would later be found hiding in a hole in the ground. Military commanders and their troops surrendered. Organized resistence was ended. The war, by any measure of conflict, was over and the United States and its allies had won.

What remained was, and is, a postliminium conundrum having nothing to do with a war. A secularly-divided populace has resumed an internicine struggle held in abeyance for years only by the iron-fisted cruelty of the now-absent dictator, Hussein. To the extent that they were victors, and occupiers, the American and other foreign forces were met by rag-tag civilian opposition in a nation universally armed. Since the vast majority of the victorious forces are American it is they who bear the brunt of casualties.

The misnomer, "war," has become the semantical mistake of this new century for the United States. The President and his administration embrace the misnomer with fervor, calling for "victory" in this non-existant war without ever carefully defining what victory in a phantom struggle might entail. Opponents swiftly adopted the misnomer in the belief that a "war" was surely something to be ended. They have been trumped. You want to surrender, cut and run, in the middle of a war? America does not lose wars! Ah, but America, as poiinted out, has already won this one. The misnomer is of course adopted by the Generals. They wear stars composed for warfare. They do not fight postliminums.

So long as the great debate is framed around that word, "war," there can never be rational discourse. But what would happen should some national political candidate issue a statement of policy: "I will not refer to the continued presence of American forces in Iraq as a war in any debates to come or any speeches to be made. I will make possible rational discourse on the subject."

If widely adopted, this will depoliticize a subject which has depoliticize a subject which has brought the American psyche to its knees.

The War in Iraq is Over. We won.

THE FAIRTAX..WHY CAN'T THE CRITICS AT LEAST BE HONEST?

Is any tax reform plan perfect? Of course not. Can't happen. I doubt that there is a way to devise a perfect plan for the government to seize money from its subjects, either through force, such as the income tax, or through choice, such as with a sales tax, in a perfect way. Certainly nobody, not even the most fervent big-government socialist liberal, would say that our current income tax system is anywhere near perfect.

Lacking perfection, it is inevitable, then, that any tax reform proposal would escape criticism, and there are criticisms of the FairTax that need addressing. To that end Congressman John Linder and I are now working on a sequel to The FairTax Book. The new book will be called "The FairTax, Answering the Critics." In researching for this book we have gathered letters from politicians as well as private citizens, tax policy experts, government officials, elected representatives, academicians, think tanks and, of course, those crafters of public opinion --- the pundits.

Work on the new book has shown that critics of The FairTax can be divided into two groups; those who deal with the subject honestly, and those who do not. Perhaps we shouldn't have been, but we were amazed to discover that most --- not some, but most --- of the critics of The FairTax have to first lie about the proposal before they launch into their critique. Amazingly enough, the president's tax reform commission took just such a tact. In laymen's terms, the tax reform commission said that while the FairTax idea looks good, there is no way the congress would pass it as written. So the commission then proceeds to re-write the FairTax legislation into a form that it thought the congress might actually pass, and then proceeded to criticize it.

The FairTax is the most thoroughly researched piece of tax reform legislation ever presented to the U.S. Congress. Well over $20 million has been spent on economic and sociological research in putting this plan together, and the research continues to this day. Still, though, we have a tax reform proposal that actually transfers power to the people, and this is just not to be tolerated -- especially by the left. So the procedure is to develop a list of lies and half-truths about the FairTax and then use those lies to go on the attack.

Such is the path that was taken in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution by Jay Bookman, the deputy editorial page editor. Bookman is a fervent liberal, a huge believer in the cause of big government. Perhaps he's most troubled by the fact that the FairTax would constitute the biggest transfer of power from the government to the people since the formation of this country. He also may be upset that if the FairTax were to become the law of the land politicians would no longer be able to pursue their class warfare goals through tax policy. With the FairTax Jay Bookman would no longer be able to write opinion pieces relating to tax matters with constant references to "the richest 1%" and phrases like "pay their fair share."

So ... why pick on Jay Bookman today? Because he has a column in today's AJC entitled "Fervent faith in FairTax defies reason." First, a small critique. It's "FairTax." One word .. with the F and the T capitalized. No big deal? Well, you could actually read the bill or the book and discover this fact, or a few Google clicks. Besides .. the name is trademarked. I'm sure Mr. Bookman has a great fondness for accuracy .. so this should matter to him.

Wait! Did I say Jay Bookman had a fondness for accuracy? Sorry. By the second paragraph of his column we find out that this is not so. There he is, doing what so many other critics of the FairTax have done, blatantly lying about its terms. Bookman writes "Instead, those taxes will be replaced with a retail sales tax of 30 percent on all services and new goods."

That is flat-out wrong, and he knows it to be flat-out wrong. Bookman has adopted the "first lie, then critique" policy of the FairTax opponents. The FairTax is a 23% inclusive tax, not 30%. The FairTax is a replacement for the income tax, so it is calculated using the same methods we use to calculate the income tax. You know --- comparing apples to apples and all that? I wonder if someone would do me the favor of researching the writings of one Jay Bookman to find out if he ever quotes our income tax on an exclusive basis. If he did, he would find out that the top rate is somewhere well over 50%. But wait! He likes the income tax, so those figures will be reported honestly.

The problem here is that you just know that if a critique of the FairTax contains a blatant and intentional misrepresentation in the second paragraph, there is not much that will follow that can be treated seriously. Sure enough ... in the very next paragraph Bookman says that Congressman Linder has claimed that the FairTax would force prices down by as much as 30%. Wrong again. That figure is closer to 22%.

And so it goes. Misrepresent, then attack. The tactics of the left.

Hey ... here's an idea! I'm up for a fight right now. How about a public debate somewhere? Jay Bookman and me! Look, I've debated Yale tax law professors and former deputy assistant Treasury secretaries on the FairTax, I think I might be able to stand up pretty well against a deputy editorial page editor who finds it necessary to lie about an idea before he can criticize it.

Date and time? We'll work it out!

MAKE NO MISTAKE: THIS IS WAR

By Michael Chertoff

As the rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered in 2001, no one could have imagined a day when America's leaders would be criticized for being tough in protecting Americans from further acts of war.

Now, less than six years later, that day has arrived.

Since Sept. 11, a conspiracy-minded fringe has claimed that American officials plotted the destruction. But when scholars such as Zbigniew Brzezinski accuse our leaders of falsely depicting or hyping a "war on terror" to promote a "culture of fear," it's clear that historical revisionism has gone mainstream.

Brzezinski stated the obvious in describing terrorism as a tactic, not an enemy ["Terrorized by 'War on Terror,' Outlook, March 25]. But this misses the point. We are at war with a global movement and ideology whose members seek to advance totalitarian aims through terrorism. Brzezinski is deeply mistaken to mock the notion that we are at war and to suggest that we should adopt "more muted reactions" to acts of terrorism.

The impulse to minimize the threat we face is eerily reminiscent of the way America's leaders played down the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary fanaticism in the late 1970s. That naive approach ultimately foundered on the kidnapping of our diplomats in Tehran.

A sensible strategy against al-Qaeda and others in its ideological terror network begins with recognizing the scope of the threat they pose. Al-Qaeda and its ilk have a world vision that is comparable to that of historical totalitarian ideologues but adapted to the 21st-century global network.

Is this actually a war? Well, the short answer comes from our enemies. Osama bin Laden's fatwa of Feb. 23, 1998, was a declaration of war, a self-serving accusation that America had somehow declared war on Islam, followed by a "ruling" to "kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military . . . in any country where it is possible to do it."

Since then, bin Laden and his allies have sought to carry out acts designed to strike at our global system of security, safety and economy. I am reminded of that every day when I see threat assessments and other evidence of a militarized and networked foe.

Measured by intent, capability and consequence, fanatical Islamist ideologues have declared -- and are prosecuting -- what is, by any objective rendering, a real war.

Intent: Today's extreme Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda do not merely seek political revolution in their own countries. They aspire to dominate all countries. Their goal is a totalitarian, theocratic empire to be achieved by waging perpetual war on soldiers and civilians alike. That includes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Capability: The fanatics' intent, while grandiose, is not entirely fanciful. Islamist extremists such as those in al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups from North Africa to Iraq and South Asia are fighting for and sometimes achieving control of territory in which they can train; assemble advanced, inhumane weaponry; impose their own vision of repressive law; and dominate local life. To be sure, as Brzezinski observes, the geographic reach of this network does not put them in the same group as the Nazis or Stalinists when they achieved first-class military power. But without relentless vigilance and effort from the civilized world, Islamist extremists could gain control of a state or establish a network of radical "statelets" in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Consequence: The events of Sept. 11 highlight the dramatic difference between the consequences of Islamist extremist war-making and those of the political terrorist attacks unleashed against the West in the 1970s. The Sept. 11 attacks were the most devastating single blow ever visited upon our homeland by foreign enemies. The Islamist extremists' plot last summer to blow up multiple transatlantic airlines in Britain threatened a similarly devastating -- but thankfully unrealized -- consequence. Both episodes demonstrate that the terrorist ideologues aim to achieve not only a massive loss of life but also substantial disruption of our international system of travel and trade.

Simply put, our foes have declared their intent to make war, have demonstrated a capability to prosecute war and have laid on us the horrific consequences commensurate with war.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, our allies correctly perceived al-Qaeda's strikes as acts of international aggression. By Sept. 12, the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution vowing to respond, and NATO began its unprecedented move of declaring the attacks to be aggression against all of its members.

That radical Islamist fanatics have not yet achieved all the elements of state power should not blind us to the global threat they pose. This globalized war has theaters from traditional battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq to the streets and alleys of cities where al-Qaeda-trained killers lurk. Moreover, this war cannot be won by arms alone; "soft" power matters. In these ways, our current struggle resembles the Cold War. As with the Cold War, we must respond globally. As with the Cold War, ideas matter as much as armaments. And as with the Cold War, this war requires our patience and resolve.

Perhaps the rhetoric of war makes Brzezinski and others uncomfortable. But history teaches that the false comfort of complacency is a dangerous indulgence in the face of a determined enemy.

HARRY REID: ANTI-MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER

By Michelle Malkin

Rodger at Are We Lumberjacks? sends some Photoshopped posters for Harry Reid's Surrender Now campaign:

***
Previous:

Lieberman slaps Reid: "We should not surrender in the face of barbarism"
Raising The White Flag
More letters for Harry "Lost It" Reid
An invitation for our troops: Letters to Harry Reid

LIEBERMAN SLAPS REID: "WE SHOULD NOT SURRENDER IN THE FACE OF BARBARISM"

By Michelle Malkin

Statement from Sen. Joe Lieberman:

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today made the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the Iraq War is "lost:"

"This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is 'lost.'

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week's atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."

***

Now, get a load of Reid's response to Lieberman. Make sure you are not drinking or eathing anything. And if you have high blood pressure, do not read any further:

Friday, after Lieberman made his remarks, Reid struck again.

"The longer we continue down the President's path," the majority leader told colleagues in a Senate floor speech, "the further we will be from success."

He also pointed out that Democrats generally agree with him.

"In an effort to shift attention from this Administration's failed polities – and I say that in the plural – the President and his allies have repeatedly questioned whether I and my fellow Democrats support our troops," the majority leader told fellow senators. "No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We've proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war."

***

David Lunde sends a most appropriate Photoshop of Harry "supporting" the troops:

***

Previous:

Raising The White Flag
More letters for Harry "Lost It" Reid
An invitation for our troops: Letters to Harry Reid

IT'S TIME TO GIVE PELOSI THE BOOT

Question: Will Republicans chicken out and allow Nancy Pelosi to get away with prancing off to Syria and conspiring with Syria's leader Bashar al-Assad, a supporter of terrorism?

Answer: Only if you and I fail to do something about it -- and MIGHTY QUICK!

For months, Pelosi has been strutting around the country... waving a white flag... savaging the President... demanding our UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ON THE WAR ON TERROR. In fact, if she had her way, the United States would skulk out of Iraq like whipped dogs, letting a bunch of rag-tag Islamic Fascists run the world.

And that's her privilege -- not as Speaker of the House -- but as a U.S. citizen whose right of free speech is protected by the First Amendment.

But Pelosi arguably committed a FELONY when she traveled to Syria and whispered behind closed doors with Bashar al-Assad, Syria's terrorist-loving leader.

First, the U.S. Constitution implicitly gives the President the authority to conduct foreign policy.

In order to make that responsibility explicit, in 1798 President John Adams initiated the Logan Act, which forbids any American -- "without authority of the United States" -- to communicate with a foreign government with the intent of influencing that government's actions in any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

VIOLATION OF THE LOGAN ACT IS A FELONY. Upon conviction, an offender can be sentenced to prison for up to three years.

If she was just a regular person like you, Nancy Pelosi would be a prime candidate for a prison cell.

Why should Speaker Pelosi -- third in the line of Presidential succession -- get away with blatantly undermining U.S. foreign policy by meeting with the leader of a country that supports terrorism? Why aren't our conservative leaders calling for a full investigation of her actions, or censure or even impeachment?

The U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Syria in 2005, so no communication with that country's government could possibly occur "with the authority of the United States."

Pelosi's flagrant and shameless strutting on the world's stage... her cavorting with supporters of terrorism... constitutes a declaration of war against the Executive Branch of our government.

But more than that... She basically gave every terrorist around the world a GREEN LIGHT!

She sent a clear and unmistakable message to terrorists and terrorist sponsors around the world that the United States is divided and weak... That we don't have the will to fight an enemy that has shown itself to be ruthless and not beyond killing innocent Americans at home and abroad.

Pelosi's actions aren't simply foolish -- they're dangerous. But what is even more of a danger is the "ho-hum" reaction of our so-called conservative leaders in Congress.

It's time for our conservative leaders in Congress to stop behaving like Little Goody Two-Shoes and start defending the President, the rule of law, U.S. troops in Iraq and those Pelosi went to the Middle East to betray.

It's time for our conservative leaders in Congress to send the RIGHT MESSAGE to terrorists and terrorist supporters like Bashar al-Assad!

Use the hyperlink below now to go to our secure server and send your urgent Blast Fax Messages to President George Bush and the Republican leadership of the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives. Tell our conservative leaders to shed their "wimphood" just this once.

Demand that Nancy Pelosi be investigated with the same zeal and tenacity Patrick Fitzgerald showed when he set a perjury trap for Scooter Libby. Demand that they show the same zeal and tenacity that liberals are now showing as they go after President Bush and the Attorney General over the totally legal firings of U.S. District Attorneys.

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/pelosibe.html

AOL Members Use This Hyperlink