The Bully Pulpit! - Fanning the Winds of Freedom!

The Global Warming Myth!

2006-04-23T16:51:00.000-07:00

“Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions.” Washington Post & Beltway Blitz

As Americans ignored the passage of Earth Day this past week, some scientists are finally beginning to question much of the dramatic predictions make by the “Global Warming alarmists. A new study recently completed at Duke University concluded that much of the hype surrounding the environmentalist fears of climate change are greatly exaggerated.

For years the world has been subjected to the claims of scientists and politicians who insist that Global Warming is a real threat to the planet. On note were a University of Toronto scientist who predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. Other geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases. Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming, while the Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees. In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises." Of course in the minds of these people the United States is to blame for this potential calamity.

These environmentalist extremists argue that the Earth’s temperature could raise as much as sixteen degrees due to the depletion of ozone from pollution causing disaster. The Duke study however concluded that there is only a five percent chance that temperature could increase even eleven degrees. The Duke study found patterns of temperature increases and decreases throughout the history of the planet. "Ancient and modern evidence suggest limits to future global warming," the study concluded.

The humanist arrogance of those who buy into junk science puzzles me. These environmental liberals fail to recognize and respect the power of the Earth. Humans are insignificant in the face of earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, etc. Logically, the idea that humans could alter the natural God given power of the planet is presumptuous at best.

For example, thirty thousand years ago Neanderthal man thrived in the ice cold regions of what is now Western Europe. However one day the ice melted and Neanderthal died out. To my knowledge these primitive people did not own SUV’s or pollute the air yet the Earth got dramatically warmer.

To form public and economic policy around unproven junk science is folly. For more of Manifest Destiny’s views on the environment please check out this week’s podcast!

Duke Rape Case Worthy of Local, Collegiate Coverage

2006-04-19T10:26:00.000-07:00

By W.T. Dixon III

I work for a living, as does my wife. We are new parents to a beautiful 15 week old girl. If we can catch a breath between re-heating leftovers and bottles and watching re-runs of Everybody Loves Raymond, we occasionally tune into the broadcast and cable news channels to see what’s going on outside our little world of spit-up and paychecks.

Last night, I was appalled by what was considered newsworthy by most every talking head out there (conservative or liberal, it didn’t matter). The Duke rape case is hardly worthy of the national attention it’s received. This is a case that deserves some local and campus level coverage, and that’s it.

Bill Bennett was even devoting airtime to the event this morning on his radio show. Pardon me, but why does this merit national attention?

Every rape allegation is tragic, either because it’s true, or because it’s not. But rape allegations are routine, like house fires and murders.

Recently in our hometown, there was a fire that killed some children (tragic, of course). We are a big media market (16th largest in the country), and I was arguing last week that this story belonged in the local section of the paper(instead of on page one, above the fold). How does it look to out-of-towners traveling to our beloved city that we devote such coverage to a flipping fire?

I’m a little old school when it comes to all of this touchy feely local interest stuff in our media. I was a journalism major in college. We were trained to follow an “inverted pyramid” when it came to writing news articles (important details first, less relevant details last). If only the editors of our newspapers and news programming would follow such rules, especially when it comes to deciding which stories are relevant. One friend of mine, who is apolitical, jokes that the local news is all bad news except for the final story which, he jokes (not entirely inaccurately), “is always about some a-hole petting a duck.”

Do these national guys get all their cues from Drudge or “News of the Weird?”

Can we talk about terror? Iraq? Iran? North Korea? Rumsfeld? Bush? Something relevant? But let’s focus our attention on what really concerns America. This Duke rape case is simple. Either these guys did it, or they didn’t. Why do we care? Same with Kobe and Natalie Holloway.

When I was in college (1992-1996), there was an alleged rape that took place my freshman year. It made the college newspaper, but there was no hint of it in the local press. Let’s stop obsessing about Duke when we should be obsessing about things that affect our lives, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Namely terror and the economy.

Time to Feed the Government Sow - Tax Time!

2006-04-18T05:21:00.000-07:00

As conservative Americans cringed this week after filing their taxes, liberals everywhere jumped for joy as 75% of your money went to their socialist utopia. then they have the nerve to say that we are spending too much on the war. Hard working Americans feed the “sow” which is the bloated federal government meant redistribute your wealth. More Adam Smith Lassie Fair would further bolster the economy.

Today’s tax system flies in the face of the Founding Fathers and American values. The idea that the government takes your hard earned money and gives it to someone else has proven historically to be in error. If you’re a liberal please see USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Vietman, North Korea, etc. These places are all economic failures. Western European socialism is on the verge of failure because of too many social programs and to high of a tax rate. There freebies like medial care are poor and not worth the money. They would be better off without the safety net and a private care system.

Liberal Social Programs are like a giant SOW! You pay - they suckle
The United States cannot fall into this liberal trap. We need to move in the other direction. The nation must simplify the tax code, lower the tax rate, and stop spending money on worthless social programs like LBJ “Great Society” or “Welfare Entitlement Society.”

Liberals cry and whine about the rich! I am not rich. I work hard for my money and want to keep it. I do not recent the rich. They work hard to and create jobs, supply products and services, and make our country strong. How many jobs has a poor person on welfare created? Why is it then that our economic policy is to punish the rich?

Dick Cheney, a man liberals love to hate for being successful in life, gave seventy five percent of his income away to charity this past year. How many bleeding heart liberals can claim that? He of course also shelled out five hundred thousand dollars in tax! If liberals like taxes so much why do they not pay more? Why do they accept their tax cuts?

**For more ranting on taxes and a historical perspective check out this week’s Bully Pulpit Podcast!**

McCain's Primary Plan - Historical & Political Perspective!

2006-04-14T11:51:00.000-07:00

“ CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa - Republican Sen. John McCain, reaching out to wary conservatives, delivered some bad news to the party's core constituency on Thursday, warning that the midterm elections will be hard for the GOP.” Yahoo News

In recent weeks, Senator John McCain has been touring conservative gatherings across the country. If you live in a red state the “McCain Conservative Express” may be visiting you too in an effort to mend fences with the conservative base. His apparent goal is the further self promotion of his bid for the 2008 Republican nomination.

On April 11th in Ohio, a key electoral battle ground state, McCain attended a $1,500 a plate Ken Blackwell fundraiser. Blackwell, a strong contender in the Ohio gubernatorial race and a staunch conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, is hardly the type of conservative one would expect to find in the arms of Senator McCain. However politics make strange bed fellows. The Bully Pulpit believes that McCain is hoping that by appearing with staunch conservatives that he will be able to garner more support from the Republican base during the primary season. McCain is also auditioning potential traditional conservative running mates such as Ken Blackwell to further his appeal to the base and balance a potential ticket.

The “McCain Conservative Express” continued on April 13th as it thundered into Iowa, the first stop on the way to Pennsylvania Ave. a stop he did not make in 2000. McCain spoke to a group of Iowa conservatives and delivered what will become part of his campaign message “the Republican Party is in trouble.” "We Republicans are going to have a tough race in 2006 because the country is not happy with us . . . We have a 25 percent approval rating in Congress" McCain said. He also strongly supported President Bush’s policies in the War on Terror and take a tough stance on the Mullahs in Tehran. However, McCain has not changed his position on other issues such as gay marriage and immigration. He also opposes ethanol production which is near and dear to Iowa conservatives.

McCain is going to make a strong bid for the Republican nomination in 2008. Considered a renegade by many conservatives, ironically McCain will have to play to Republican weakness in order to obtain the party’s endorsement. McCain’s primary campaign will be based on strong national security, fiscal conservativism, and a new face who can appeal to a broad range of Americans.

Republicans are going to face the prospect of President Hillary in 2008 and will need to nominate someone who can beat her. McCain, who leads Hillary in every poll, will try and position himself as the only Republican stop impending doom.

McCain will first rely on his voting record on the War on Terror and his support for President Bush to help bring leery but hawkish conservatives into his column. He may even receive convert assistance from the Bush team as payback for not agreeing to join Kerry’s proposed “unity ticket.”

McCain will then try and seal the deal with a strong conservative fiscal agenda. "Many of our Republican supporters are not happy because we are spending money like a drunken sailor . . . We risk not our base voting Democratic, but what I worry about is there being disillusions with us and (voters) staying home" McCain said in Iowa. Most conservatives feel that the administration and the GOP Congress have not lived up to their fiscal conservative creed.

What can History tell us?

McCain is the enigma of American politics these days. He is in a sense a modern day Henry Clay or Steven Douglas trying to play all sides of the spectrum in order to obtain the Oval Office. Neither of them achieved that objective. Will McCain? To some extent McCain is also somewhat like Teddy Roosevelt in that he is strong on defense yet a progressive. TR was too a maverick. Republicans are going to have to find a real conservative to beat Hillary or settle for what Marcus Hannah described after President McKinley had been assassinated when he said “that God Damn Cowboy is in the White House!” Even worst like TR if McCain does not get the nomination he will run as a third party candidate. Have you ever heard of TR’s Bull Moose Party that allowed Wilson to become president? A battle for the Republican party has begun.

Bush Will Use Nukes on Iran!

2006-04-09T14:36:00.000-07:00

“The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.” News Telegraph

A senior pentagon source has reveled that intense military planning is underway for a possible confrontation with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. "The Bush team is looking at the viability of airstrikes simply because many think airstrikes are the only real option ahead" said Kurt Campbell, a former Pentagon policy official. At this juncture the planning is most likely meant to pressure Iran at the diplomatic table as military action is not yet imminent.

While the source claims that a ground invasion of Iran is not being considered at this time other military options available to the president are being explored such as a sustained air campaign, submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM’s), and even the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Possible targets might include the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. The British press especially is concerned that President Bush is considering the use of tactical nuclear weapons to spite some objections within the Pentagon. One possible contingency entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites like those around Natanz.

President Bush is said to believe that he must definativly deal with the Iranian menace before the end of his presidency. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy". According to Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, Bush is said to describe Iranian hard line President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as "the new Hitler” that “will get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war." In the eyes of President Bush this would be an unacceptable outcome and regime change may be the only option to prevent such a conflict.

Evil requires force to stop its spread
If these reports are true than the president clearly understands the threat to world peace posed by Iran. While idealistic liberals cry for “world peace” and “diplomacy” the sad reality is that mankind has always been historically confronted with evil. Such evil cannot be reasoned or negotiated with in order to keep the peace. History has taught us that the very nature of evil requires force to stop its spread. Would Hitler or Imperial Japan have come around to diplomacy? If you are a liberal and still confused just ask former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who returned from a 1938 meeting in Munich with Hitler with an agreement for “Peace in our Time.” After words Chamberlain said "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." It was that type of weak naiveté that doomed mankind to World War II.

History has taught us that the only answer to evil like that posed by Iran is to confront it with decisive military force. While regime change in Iran is ideal, it is not likely to happen soon enough. Therefore the sooner we deal with Iran militarily the better the world will be. While war is never anyone’s first option, sometimes it is the only way to save lives.

When President Truman dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, over 170,000 Japanese were killed in the fireball. Thousands more were injured. While liberals are still crying about those causalities and injuries today imagine if the U.S. would have instead invaded Japan. The entire country would have been destroyed, millions of Japanese would have been killed, and at least one million Americans would have died. Therefore the horrific power of the bombs actually saved lives and stopped evil on the march.

Iran must be dealt with today so the world does not regret its inaction tomorrow as Chamberlain must have. A smaller war now, that even included nukes, is much more preferable to a larger conflict later when Iran also has the bomb. President Bush understands this concept and with that I “go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”

African Americans Moving off the Dems Plantation!

2006-04-06T16:44:00.000-07:00

“ An internal document prepared by a top Democratic strategist warns that a majority of African American voters in Maryland are open to supporting Republican Senate candidate Michael S. Steele and advises the party not to wait to "knock Steele down.” Washington Post

Recent polling data for Maryland’s upcoming senatorial campaign suggests that up to forty-four percent of African American voters may be willing to cross traditional party lines to cast their vote for Republican Senate candidate Michael S. Steele, a conservative African American. Cornell Belcher, a polling consultant for the Democratic National Committee polled nearly five hundred African Americans in Maryland and posted these results.
Understandably, DNC officials are alarmed that this type of sentiment within the usually rock solid African American community could be eroding the Democratic base nationwide. Other important battleground states such Ohio and Pennsylvania feature strong African American conservatives. In Ohio current Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is likely to win the Republican nomination for governor, while in Pennsylvania, former NFL star Lynn Swann is the gubernatorial frontrunner. Both are expected to garner a larger percentage of the African American vote much larger than typically Republican support.

Ken Blackwell of Ohio

All of this is good news for African Americans. For years, they have been taken for granted and marginalized by Democrats. Democrats have prevented upward mobility to the Black community by dooming them to endless social programs. After trillions of dollars have been spent, these liberal programs have not created opportunity but instead have created an interminable underclass of African Americans subservient to the Democrats. They have told African Americans that they cannot be successful on their own merit; but instead need their help to get a job or into college via affirmative action. Democrats for years have also shamelessly played the race card seeking to divide people along racial lines for their own petty political gains. Democrats have also continually denigrated strong successful Black leaders like Condi Rice and slandered their character as “Uncle Toms”. They only accept Black leaders who drink the liberal Kool-aid and who stick to the liberal talking points a la Jesse Jackson. Democrats like Hillary only like African American leaders who stay on her plantation.

The fact is that for more than fifty years the Democratic Party has done little to help the African American community. Many Blacks are now starting to realize this and turning to the Republican Party. African Americans also tend to be more conservative on many social issues which has helped sway many Black voters to the right. There is a golden opportunity for Republicans today to make inroads into the Black voting caucus. President Bush received less than eighteen percent of the African American vote in 2006. If Republicans could increase that percentage to around twenty-five percent they would be nearly unbeatable nationwide.

This takes work obviously, but the door is open. The best place for Republicans to start garnering more African American votes is to showcase the many strong conservative African Americans leaders across the country. Individuals such as Steele, Blackwell, and Swann provide a conservative option to remove the yoke of Democratic disregard.

I am proud to not only support but to also be working as a volunteer for Ken Blackwell in Ohio. Ken is a strong conservative and a leader. Blackwell is by far the best candidate for governor in Ohio. Ohio must stay red in order for Republicans to be successful in that important state in 2008. Recently the state has been leaning blue due to a disasterous Republican run statehouse and Governor Bob Taft. Ken is a conservative for a change both literally and figuratively. Blackwell is the man to ensure that conservative principles remain in Columbus and I predict that someday he may become a national political figure.

Uncle Teddy is Not His Brother!

2006-04-05T17:48:00.000-07:00

“WASHINGTON -- In a forthcoming book, Senator Edward M. Kennedy invokes the leadership of his brothers during the Cuban missile crisis to launch a sharp new attack on President Bush, declaring that Bush should have followed the example of President John F. Kennedy and his attorney general, Robert F. Kennedy, in forging a diplomatic resolution to the standoff with Saddam Hussein.” Boston.com

In his soon to be released book titled ''America Back on Track", Kennedy, praises his late brothers for avoiding the advice of the military which urged him to launch a preemptive attack on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He also praises JFK’s and RFK’s use of diplomacy to find resolution in the nuclear showdown.

Kennedy asserts that ''a first strike was inconsistent with American values" and that it would be a ''Pearl Harbor” in reverse. ''Preventive war is consistent with neither our values nor our national security . . . It gives other nations an excuse to violate fundamental principles of civilized international behavior, and the downward spiral we initiate could well engulf the whole planet."

Based on this thesis, Kennedy criticizes the Bush administration throughout the book for the invasion of Iraq. Kennedy was one of the few Democrats voted against. ''War should always be our last resort. Instead, the Bush administration made preventive war an option of first resort," Kennedy writes.

Do you trust Uncle Teddy and the Dems with your safety?

Uncle Teddy’s perspective is consistent with the modern Democratic Party’s flawed pre-9-11 national security mentality. In the age of WMD’s and nuclear proliferation the United States cannot wait to be attacked before acting to defend American citizens. The world has changed and so to must our defense policy. A potential nuclear attack on the United States is far different than Pearl Harbor. Even if mass retaliation were to follow, such an attack would leave the country battered and scared forever.

Kennedy’s historical interpretation of the Cuban Missile Crisis is also inaccurate. JFK was an entirely different kind of Democrat than his drunken brother. JFK was tough on national security in the mold of FDR and Truman. He knew that allowing Soviet missiles in Cuba was an unacceptable threat to the country. He dealt with that evil threat by confronting it, promising the Soviets all out nuclear war if they did not acquiesce. JFK did resist at first the preemptive strike option, however just like President Bush he set and ultimatum after which a military strike would have commenced. It was only the fact that the Russians knew that U.S. action was imminent, that last minute negotiations were successful. The USSR did not want to be destroyed making deterrence possible years ago. However when you are fighting an enemy who wishes to be martyred this strategy will not work.

Like other Democrats Uncle Teddy still does not understand how best to defend the United States from the threat of terrorism and a nuclear attack. The Democrats are no longer the party JFK, they are a party of weak internationalist appeasers. Should Democrats ever regain power, this type of attitude is a serious danger to national security. Kennedy folly is joined by the other Senator from Massachusetts John Kerry who recently suggested on Huffington Post that the U.S. should leave Iraq entirely within 90 days. More and more each days the Democrats are becoming the antiwar anti-defense party. Everyday they are being pulled more and more to the left over the issue of defense. Politically, the Democrats will never win over public support for such weakness.

Iranian War Games!

2006-04-04T16:24:00.000-07:00

“TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A top Iranian military official said Tuesday the country can now defend itself against any invasion originating from outside the region - a clear reference to the United States - as it tested a second new radar-avoiding missile.” AP!

Iranian officials boasted yesterday that the country is now capable of defending its shores against any possible U.S. invasion and air campaign. At the center of the Iranian defense plan is their new Kowsar missile dubbed the “Stealth Missile.” The Kowsar is a new medium range anti-ship missile which is said to be capable of avoiding radar and therefore missile defense systems. "The missile command of the Guards' naval force ... via positioning various types of surface-to-sea missiles, is able, while defending the coastlines and islands, to confront any extra-territorial invasion." The missile is far more advanced than the 1980’s era Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missile now in service. State run Iranian TV reported a second successful test firing of the missile during a series of war games called "Great Prophet" and that the Kowsar could be easily mass produced.

Iran has also recently tested other weapons systems designed to target oil tankers and U.S. Naval assets. Last Friday, Iran successfully launched a “Fajr-3” missile which is not only said to be radar avoidant but also to have multiple independent warheads capable of hitting several targets simultaneously. Iran also tested two new torpedoes during operation "Great Prophet" that are said to be capable of attacking ships in the Straits of Hormuz, a vital oil passageway. The torpedo called a "Hoot," or "whale" is able to move at up to 223 mph, too fast for any enemy ship to elude. The new torpedoes are of Russian design and were likely built in China. As we previously discussed the three nations seem to be working against the U.S. in the region.

The operational claims made by the Iranian military are most likely exaggerated. The United States said on Monday after the second torpedo test that while Iran may have made "some strides" in its military, it is likely to be exaggerating its capabilities. However, at least part of the Iranian battle plan should the U.S. attack is starting to become clear. At sea, Iran intends to attack oil shipping to drive up the price of crude oil and disrupt worldwide shipments. Iran may also be bold enough to attack U.S. Naval assets should conflict arise over their nuclear program. The timing of the war games were also intended to coincide with the upcoming negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. If true, the new weapon systems would allow Iran to negotiate from a position of greater strength.

Even if the Iranian claims are true, the United States Navy is more than capable of dealing with them. However, an operation against Iran would certainly be more difficult than the invasion of Iraq for the simple fact that Iran may actually shoot back. Iran could pose a threat to the battle fleet if a shooting war were to break out. Nevertheless it is clear that we must deal with Iran before they do gain more effective military capabilities and nuclear weapons. A messy war now is better that a large war down the road. Imagine if the Nazi would have been stopped before they re-armed? We must also somehow diplomatically prevent Russia and China from helping them do so. The U.S. has much more to offer them than just oil. Americans need to wake up to the Iranian threat and act before it is too late.

A No Confidence Vote for Zarqawi?

2006-04-04T04:21:00.000-07:00

“On January 21st 2006 the Bully Pulpit ran a story titled “Hey Zarqawi Your Fired” reporting essentiall the same information. The story has just now reached the mainstream press and still has not been featured by reporters."Bully Pulpit!

MSNBC reported this morning on their scrolling news bar on Tuesday that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been removed as the “political” leader of the so called Iraqi insurrgency. According to the report, Zarqawi will be strickly in charge of military operations only. MSNBC reports that the terrorist leadership shuffle occurred at a recent insurgent meeting.

The significance of this story could be huge. It is obvious that the so called “insurrgents” are now split between Al Qaeda types and the former regime “deadenders.” This provides the Coalition and the new Iraqi government an opportunity to isolate the foreign fighters and expell them, the old divide and conquer. It is also interesting that to spite his best efforts and the American media Zarqawi has failed in his attempt to start a civil war in Iraq. Al Qaeda number two man Zawahiri also expressed doubts months ago about Zarqawi’s political leadership and brutal beheadings.

Politically, Zarqawi has failed at stopping the elections, the formation of the new Iraqi government, sending the Americans home, and the start of a civil war. While Zarqawi was the media’s best hope for an American defeat in Iraq he is now becoming increasingly marginalized. This story continues to be good news for the War in Iraq and the wider War on Terror.

Bully Pulpit From 1/24/06
Hey Zarqawi . . . "Your Fired!"

“BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a further sign of the rifts emerging within Iraq's insurgency, Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has stepped aside as the head of a new council of radical groups in favor of an Iraqi, according to a posting on a Web site used by al-Qaida and other insurgent groups."Bully Pulpit!

There was more encouraging news out of Iraq today; which proves that victory there will soon be at hand if the U.S. “stay the course” and does not give in to liberal pressure. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraq’s most wanted man, has apparently been stripped of his leadership role within the terror groups which make up the so called “insurgency”. To this point the so called “insurgency” has been made up of a loose alliance of former Saddam Sunni Bathists and Al Qaeda jihadists. Several weeks ago, a Zarqawi spokesmen issued a statement declaring that Zarqawi was chosen as the head of the “Mujahedeen Council” a conglomerate of these dueling terror organizations. It seems that his reign was short lived however, as insurgent groups staged what could be loosely characterized as a coup forcing Al-Zarqawi aside.

This turn of events should have very positive ramifications for the War in Iraq and the overall war on terror. Just weeks after liberals cried “We can’t have elections in Iraq!” and that “Elections will do nothing to change things on the ground” it is clear that once again they were wrong. The recent successful Iraqi elections, coupled with Al-Zarqawi’s own atrocious actions, especially the Jordanian Hotel bombings, have created a major fracture within the insurgency. The Saddam Sunni Bathists have grown weary of Zarqawi’s brutal tactics and even more uncomfortable with his radical brand of Taliban style Islam. They do not want a radical Islamist state, but feared losing political power after 30 years of ruling Iraq. Many Bathist insurgences now realize that they may be better off following a political track and participating in the new Iraqi government as opposed to continuing with Zarqawi’s random violence which has only Al Qaeda’s political end in mind.

As a matter of policy, U.S. and Iraqi forces should do everything within their power to exploit the rift within the insurgency. In Afghanistan, many hostile war lords were secretly paid off to play nice and cooperate with American military action. Many were also granted local political power. Something like this could be done in Iraq. Perhaps the new government could promise Sunnis some oil revenue and a local home rule style government. Now I do not like to negotiate with terrorists; however something like this could widen the split within the insurgency and could significantly reduce the violence in Iraq. This would then allow us to turn our full attention to Iran.

It is clear that tension is high and that the local Sunni insurgences might be willing to eventually give up Zarqawi and their foreign fighters if they have something to gain. Remember the Sunni Bathist insurgence fight for political power and oil money not for a Taliban ideology. The end to the conflict in Iraq is nearing an end, and it is clear that we are winning to spite the “cut and run crowd”.

Iran Cozy in U.N. Bed With Russia & China!

2006-03-30T04:16:00.000-08:00

“UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.” FOX News!

On Wednesday the U.N. Security Council finally agreed on language to a joint statement demanding that Iran stop its enrichment activities and come clean on its suspected nuclear weapons program. The resolution requires Iran to stop the enrichment of uranium within thirty days under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Just two weeks ago the Russian and Chinese ambassadors indicated that their countries would not support such a statement on Iran. However, United States ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton reworded the statement and pressured those nations to support the measure in principle. "For the time being we have suspicions . . . so from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap." Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. Analysts portray the statement as not legally binding but a first step to economic sanctions. Russia and China however have already said that they would not support economic sanctions against Iran in any event.

Shortly after the resolution was unanimously passed in the Security Council; Iran remand clearly defiant on the nuclear issue. "Pressure and threats do not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation . . . Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right." Iranian U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said.

Putin & the Mullahs!

While U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" it is not even a hollow threat. This statement and thirty day examination by the IAEA will amount to nothing substantive. What it will do however is give Iran more time to develop and protect its terrorist nuclear arsenal from the inevitable U.S. or Israeli attack.

Once again the United Nations is proving to be a corrupt and inept body incapable of abiding by its own charter. Iran is playing the same game that both North Korea and Saddam played so successfully for years. A memo from inside the Iranian regime indicated that Iran knows exactly how to manipulate the U.N. based on these historical precedents. The Iranians know that as long as it looks like they are negotiating with the world that the U.N. will not act to secure the peace. North Korea played the same game for years and now has the bomb. If it were up to the U.N. Saddam would still be in power.

Beyond the appeasement trait in the U.N. is the fact that the Russians and Chinese are in bed financially and probably militarily with the Mullahs. Just like Saddam paid for their services so to do the Iranians. Oil and weapons flow freely between these nations. The Russians are even selling Iran sophisticated antiaircraft systems to protect their nuclear facilities. Their relationship with Iran also makes them important again on the world’s stage something that Putin desires. Evidence is now coming forward that the Russians help Saddam with tactical planning and WMD disposal prior to the U.S. invasion. With that in mind they cannot be trusted with Iran.

Iran must be stopped and fast. The U.S. needs to forget about the United Nations and form another “Coalition of the Willing.” As Rumsfield has said in the post 9-11 world the mission must define the coalition, the coalition should not define the mission. Otherwise with U.N. inaction Iran will go nuclear and the world will be a more dangerous place.

Israelis Elect Appeasement

2006-03-28T17:31:00.000-08:00

“JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel's interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was ready to give up some occupied land to set a final border with the Palestinians as he claimed victory on Wednesday in a general election.” Reuters

Israelis went to the polls today to choose a new parliamentary government. Exit polls indicated that moderate Israel interim Prime Minister Ehud Olm and his Kadima Party have won enough seats to form the new Israel government. Following in the spirit of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Olmert stated that he and his party now have a clear mandate to unilaterally withdraw Israeli settlers from much of the West Bank and to set Israel's borders by 2010 making way for “peace” and a Palestinian state. "We are ready to compromise, to give up parts of the beloved Land of Israel ... and evacuate, under great pain, Jews living there, in order to create the conditions that will enable you to fulfil your dream and live alongside us." The election represented the lowest turnout in Israel’s long democratic history with only sixty percent of Israeli voters going to the polls.

Negotiate with these guys?

More shocking than the Kadima victory was the poor fourth place showing of the more hard line conservative Likud party led by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a time when the Palestinians have recently elected the “suicide bombing Hamas Terrorist Party” to led there efforts at statehood and Iran has openly called for the extermination of Israel, it is shocking that Israelis did not choose leadership with a tougher stance on defense. Like all other Islamo-Fascist groups, Israel will never be able to establish peace and security with Hamas, an extension of Iran dedicated to their destruction. Giving up land for peace will never work, because the enemies of freedom want Israel to cease to exist. No matter what borders they establish the bombers will never stop killing innocent Israelis. Withdraw signals to the Islamo-Fascist that the West is weak and will appease for a false peace. Netanyahu understand this and would fight terror with vigor along side the U.S. The only way to peace is through more crushing military action, it is a fact in history (See N. Chamberlain). Evil can never be appeased. Appeasement only brings about more war. The Israeli votes have let the free world down today.

Bush's Poll Numbers Back Up

2006-03-27T16:38:00.000-08:00

As we predicted on this week's podcast President Bush's poll numbers have improve by several points over the past week. Whereas Bush was below 40% last week, after his speech offesive Rasmussen now has his approval rating back around 45% with 14% only 'somewhat unhappy' with his job performance.

Bush needs to keep talking about Iraq every day until the midterms. Thngs are slowly getting better and he needs to tell people to counter the media bias. He needs to keep explaining how Iraq is part of the War on Terror. Bush also needs to solve immigration with a plan tough on border security to win back the Republican base, but compassionate on those already here to win over the hispanic votes. Finally, he needs to get in front of the 'China Port' mess about to explode and not allow a Hong Kong fiirm to screen shipping for radioactive materials.

The following is from Rasmussen; Monday March 27, 2006--Forty-five percent (45%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President.
It is not clear whether the recent uptick in the President's Approval Rating is a lasting improvement or statistical noise. However, the change reflects a rebound among Republicans, 80% of whom now give the President their approval. That's a lower level of support than the President enjoyed from the GOP faithful during his first five years in office. However, it is an improvement from the last couple of weeks.

Liberals Love Taxes - Ruin the Economy!

2006-03-26T14:53:00.000-08:00

“PORTLAND, Ore., March 25 (UPI) -- Oregon is testing the idea of collecting highway funds through a tax on miles driven, rather than gasoline consumed.” UPI

The States of Oregon and California have begun seriously discussing that possibility of legislation that would levy taxes on individuals per mile driven within state lines. Supporters of the idea site that the State of Oregon collects nearly eighty percent of their highway funding through a twenty-four cent a gallon gasoline tax. State lawmakers fear however that with the introduction of more fuel efficient vehicles in this environmentally conscious state over the coming years, that the Oregon’s tax base could take a huge loss. This could make repairing roads and paying for other social programs difficult.

To offset this eventuality, both Oregon and California lawmakers propose to place a global positioning system (GPS) within each automobile throughout their states. All vehicles could then be tracked by state tax officials and their mileage calculated within state lines. A tax would then be assessed per mile driven.

The liberal left coast desires to not only be “eco-friendly” but also to maintain a more socialist society filled with a plethora of government entitlements. As usual liberal law makers fail to understand the basic principles of both liberty and a prosperous economy. On the surface the most obvious problem with such a scheme would be the government intrusion into the private affairs of individuals. They should be reminded that the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution which limited the powers of government and provided for the rights and freedoms of citizens. A government agency tracking people as they go about their daily lives surely would not pass any Constitutional test. It is most amusing that liberals who claim “the right to privacy” on abortion do not support the idea when it gets in the way of their designs for wealth redistribution.

Additionally, such a tax on mileage would be devastating to a state’s economy. Car owners would be forced by statute to purchase the GPS tracking systems. That is disposable income that could no longer be spent on consumable or durable goods. The per mile driven also would limit leisure travel activities extra trips to local businesses. The tax would produce an economic slowdown of consumer activity. Rather than spending disposable income on items and dinning, citizens would be paying the government.

The real damage from the mileage tax however would be felt by businesses in these states. The effect of a mileage tax would limit the movement and distribution of goods throughout the state. Businesses would cut down on distribution because of the extra tax dollars and would result in less availability of products for consumers. This of course would further raise prices. The most devastation result of a mileage tax would come from businesses being forced to raise prices to make up for the increasing price of doing business under the arduous tax structure. Citizens after paying for their own driving would then be charged once again every time they bought something. These higher prices would therefore limit sales and further weaken the state’s economy.

Ideas such as this demonstrate that liberals have no good ideas about creating a strong economy. Many liberals still believe that socialism is a preferable to that of the free market even though history and economic results of the past argue to the contrary. Liberals are decidedly wrong as always. The “Peoples Republic of Kalifornia” is the perfect example of a liberal economic experiment gone bad. With a huge economy and no military to pay for, “Kalifornia” has created a state filled with large social entitlements and high taxes. Business has therefore fled to surrounding states leaving the “Peoples Republic of Kalifornia” with huge social programs to fund and little or no tax base. This is just more proof of the failure of the socialist state.

Love of the environment and fear of junk science such as Global Warming also caused “Peoples Republic of Kalifornia”to legislation cleaner fossile fuels and gas mixtures. This forces citizens there to pay more for gasoline during the summer, the highest in the nation. This emission policy also effects the rest of the country by limiting the supply of gasoline to other states. The rest of the country would be better served if folks in Kalifornia went to work via bicycle. Nature I am sure would also prefer this method of travel. Maybe this could also be legislated.

It is ironic that liberals on the left coast may have to choose between saving spotted owls and their beloved socialist system. It is a good thing for the rest of us that these people do not run the rest of the country. I support less tax and more drilling. That is the way to growing the economy!

Russians Helping Saddam Kill Americans!

2006-03-24T11:48:00.000-08:00

“Iraq Archive Document Alleges Russian Official Described Locations, Troops, Tanks and Other Forces Before Operation Iraqi Freedom Began"ABC

ABC News has released translations of several documents from the former Iraqi regime captured after the U.S. led invasion of in 2003. Perhaps not surprisingly the documents seem to discuss Saddam’s connections with Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, and planned attacks on the United States at an official level. Even more shockingly, two of the documents indicate that Saddam had advanced knowledge of the U.S. invasion plan which was provided to him by the Russian ambassador.

The first document is a handwritten account of a meeting between regime members and the Russian ambassador before the war. The document apparently described in great detail the number of U.S. troops, tanks, and aircraft positioned to strike Iraq. It also contained information about the position of U.S. troops and the location of Special Forces. The second document contained a typed account, signed by Deputy Foreign Minister Hammam Abdel Khaleq stating that the Russian ambassador had provided information to the regime about the U.S. invasion plan. It detailed how the United States was planning to deploy its force into Iraq from Basra in the South and up the Euphrates, and would avoid entering major cities on the way to Baghdad. The documents also state quote "Americans are also planning on taking control of the oil fields in Kirkuk.” Both of these events occurred. It is unclear if the Russian ambassador, who was involved in the oil for food scandal, was working alone or with the consent of Moscow.

Other documents suggest that Iraqi officials met with Al Qaeda leaders in the Sudan in 1995. Both parties discussed "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" as well as the "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open in the future based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." Additional later documents also state that if attacks were carried out on the United States that it was likely that Afghanistan and Iraq would be targets of American retaliation. Still other documents suggest that Saddam had used campaign donations to influence French elections, hid documents from the U.N. inspection teams, and had a cozy relationship with the Taliban.

These documents may be just the tip of the iceberg in confirming everything that Bush accused Iraq of before the invasion and much more. Saddam had much to hide concerning WMD’s and ties to terrorists to spite what liberals are no claiming. The documents also seem to coincide with the “Secret Saddam tapes” previously discussed on this blog as well as General G. Sada’s account of Saddam’s nefarious activities.

The Russian involvement is even more problematic. Not since the “Zimmerman Note”, a message from the German ambassador to the Mexican government asking for support in WWI if the U.S. entered the war, was intercepted has there been such underhanded diplomatic backstabbing. While it is not clear that the Russian government was involved, Soviet era assets much have been used to gather intelligence including Russian spies within U.S. Central Command. Not only did the Russians gather the information but they also passed it along to our enemies putting our troops in danger. This is not the behavior of a friend. Perhaps the reason that the Bush administration has silenced much of this information is because they do not want to start another international incident during the War on Terror. The matter must be investigated for our safety. Where is the mainstream media on this?

Russian and China have also indicated their intent to stand behind Iran. Who knows what they have passed onto the Mullahs. Clearly, the U.S. can never trust Russia to help with Iran; they must be considered not an enemy, but certainly not a friend.

Albright Had "Fun" Failing Her Country!

2006-03-22T17:45:00.000-08:00

“ Madeleine Albright says she knows how to have fun!”

Yale

Former Clintonista Secretary of State Madeleine Albright spoke on Tuesday in front of a packed auditorium at the prestigious and left wing Yale University. The very same ivy league institution which Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former deputy foreign secretary of the Taliban now attends. In a speech titled "Public Service in the Age of Globalization" Albright told the gathering made up of Yale students and faculty that her definition of “fun” has “has more to do with service [in the government] than revelry.” Albright stoked the cheering elite crowd that "I am somebody who finds a lot of fun in the possibility of being able to make decisions that have an effect on Americans, on our foreign policies and in trying to solve problems." She went onto encourage Yalies to serve in government upon graduation. “I urge you to see public service as a means of self-fulfillment and not self-denial."

Big Fun with Kim!
Not being able to contain her liberal ideology in a sea of leftism she then went onto like all liberals attack the Bush administration for Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and poor weather across the Plains over the weekend. Albright also took a swipe at the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and “Club Gitmo” by saying "How do we reconcile the need to protect ourselves from terror with a need to safeguard our civil liberties from abuse? . . . Where's the line between torture, which cannot be justified, and rigorous interrogation, which could save thousands of lives?" Then for a finally she said “the Clinton administration was more willing to admit its foreign policy mistakes.”

While the Bully Pulpit admires her encouragement of young people to enter public service, Albright’s political remarks had no place in the speech. It is interesting that she would suggest that the “Clinton administration was more willing to admit its foreign policy mistakes” yet she failed to mention her stellar performance in preventing North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. You all may recall her standing along side Kim Jong Ill reviewing a communist May Day style parade complete with soldiers and missiles. Judging by the smile on her face she must have been having “fun.” You may also remember the deal she brokered, with the help of Jimmy Carter, which prevented North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. That’s right it was a complete failure and Kim Jong Ill now can threaten the world with the nuclear arsenal he developed under her watch. Funny she did not admit that mistake at Yale.

Albright is also the Clintonista who tried to solve the Middle East conflict by engaging and trusting the terrorist Yasser Arafat as a partner in peace. She had “fun” as she literally chased him down the hall at the U.N begging him to come back to the table. Her efforts resulted in no peace and more violence yet she did not admit this mistake at Yale.

Don’t be Rude to Yasser
Albright could have also on several occasions had “fun” at the diplomatic table with the Sudan, Saudis, and Afghans by securing a deal to bring down Osama bin Laden before 9-11. She did not apparently see the value or need at the time. On her watch Al Qaeda planned the murder of our friends and neighbors on 9-11. Yet she did not admit this was a mistake in her Yale speech.

While Albright’s service was noble, it was also an extreme failure. The enemies who now seek to destroy us grew stronger under her watch as she and her boss attempted to appease them. I also question if she is suggesting working for the United States government or her dream of an “International Government.” American diplomats do not watch communist parades while chasing and terrorist leaders begging them to negotiate. If she wants to have “fun” I would suggest writing alternate endings and plots to the West Wing and staying out of public affairs. I would also suggest to her to look in the mirror before throwing her copy of the U.N. Charter at it.

Bush & Manifest Destiny!

2006-03-20T17:18:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON — Describing some of the most vicious images of violence in Iraq, President Bush said Monday that all the news is not bad and enumerated several highlights that have accompanied the commitment of U.S. forces in the country.” FOX News

On Monday I had the great honor of attending President Bush’s impressive speech in Cleveland, Ohio as part of the volunteer White House Press office. At one point I was within three feet of President Bush who spoke for nearly an hour and a half at the Cleveland City Club. The President expressed great optimism about the future of democracy in Iraq and how it is vital to success in the overall War on Terror.

Guess who?

While the mainstream media will place their liberal spin on the story, speaking as someone who witnessed the speech live, the President was simply magnificent! Bush gave a good speech, but was even more impressive during the question and answer session that followed. Free from his usual gaffs and stuttering, a humble but confident President masterfully worked the crowd and won them over. His frank Texas style and sense of humor made the event seem as though you were having a conversation with an old friend. His performance made me wonder why liberals dislike him so much.

More importantly, Bush’s remarks and responses today clearly stated that he understands the War on Terror. One would think that he has been reading many of our conservative blogs in his description. Bush discussed how the Islamo-Fascists are “driven by a hateful ideology.” The President commented that Iraq is a “front” in the War against the terrorist killers. In fact, Iraq is the central front. He reiterated the fact that we were attacked on 9-11 and that we are at war to spite what some liberals believe. Bush pointed to victory in Iraq as essential for our safety at home. He pointed out how the enemies of freedom are using images of violence to weaken our resolve much like the Vietnamese did thirty years ago. President Bush reminded Americans that if we leave Iraq it will become a terrorist base from which to attack the United States and its allies. Therefore, the fight for Iraq is linked to the War on Terror and a crucial for victory. Bush’s only real bravado came during the speech came and he forcefully commented that “Americans have never bent to thugs and assassins and will not start now.”

From the speech it is also clear to me that the Bush Doctrine 1.0 of preemption, has now clearly merged with Bush Doctrine 2.0 the spread of democracy. Refreshingly, the President stated that he believes in our founding values of “natural rights” for all. He believes that man was intended by their creator to live in freedom as a natural condition and that free people do not “war” against each other. Bush used a century of European warfare due to different types of government, to the EU today living in peaceful freedom. He also pointed out how his father once fought the Japanese and now the Japanese are allies in liberty and peaceful relations. Therefore the U.S. must act to defend itself by not only attacking enemies but by spreading freedom to the Middle East as the long term solution to terror. In other words, Bush is promoting 21st century “Manifest Destiny.” While liberal bash Bush each day and use the war for political gains, history 50 years from now will prove Bush's vision of freedom.

As for Iran, which has been a hot topic on the blogs of late, Bush spoke passionately and seemed forceful about preventing the Iranian nuclear program. He mentioned the issue during the Q&A even before he was asked. While he did not seem to commit to military preemption he made it clear that they will not be permitted to get the bomb. He also pledged to defend Israel. He did seem to prefer the diplomatic track, for now.

Bush in Cleveland!

During his remarks, Bush touted the success of a northern Iraqi city called Tal Afar as a model for the future of a democratic and stable Iraq. Tal Afar was a city once in the dark grip of Al Qaeda. The city was then liberated by coalition forces only to have Al Qaeda return after U.S forces withdrew. Bush described the horrible atrocities committed by the terrorists in Tal Afar. The horrors included a story in which a young boy was killed by Al Qaeda terrorists and his booby trapped body was left on the side of the road. Later when his father came to retrieve his body, a bomb exploded killing the boy’s father.

As a result the President described a new coalition strategy of “clear, hold, and build.” This tactical adaptation involves American and Iraqi forces clearing the city of terrorists. This operation is then followed by Iraqi forces to hold and rebuild the city.

"Iraqi forces patrolling the cities are effective, because they know the people, they know the language and they know the culture. And by turning control of these cities over to capable Iraqi troops and police, we give Iraqis confidence that they can determine their own destiny, and that frees up coalition forces to hunt high-value targets like Zarqawi . . . I wish I could tell you that the progress made in Tal Afar is the same in every part of Iraq. It is not . . . yet the example of Tal Afar gives me confidence in our strategy.”

After his remarks Bush fielded questions on a variety of topics from the audience. He spoke about other hot button issues such as Iran, faulty intelligence, and the economy. He was even asked a bizarre question as to whether he believed that recent current events were a sign of the Biblical Apocalypse. Bush replied: “I never thought of it that way.”

Bush needs to do more of this every day if necessary to counter the liberal appeasers.

Bin Laden Dead in Iran?

2006-03-18T17:01:00.000-08:00

“Rep. Curt Weldon, who broke the Able Danger story last year revealing that military intelligence had identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist threat before the 9/11 attacks, now says that Osama bin Laden has died.” NewsMax

Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon has reportedly told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he has been briefed by intelligence services that Osama bin Laden has recently died in Iran. A follow up story will also appear in the upcoming issue of NewsMax magazine. Weldon sited information gathered from an Iranian defector named Ali. Weldon told the PI that quote: "Ali's told me that Osama bin Laden is dead. He died in Iran."

Weldon
Weldon, who brought attention to the “Able Danger” story, has long supported the theory that UBL has been given sanctuary in Iran since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. "I'm confident that I know for sure that [bin Laden] has been in and out of Iran ... Two years ago, he was in the southern town of Ladis, 10 kilometers inside the Pakistan border. I also know that earlier this year, he had a meeting with al-Zarqawi in Tehran . . . If you look at the recent comments coming out of both the CIA and some of our military generals in theater, they're now acknowledging the same thing that I've been saying - that in fact, he's been in and out of Iran . . no one can prove it exactly until we capture him."

As can be expected this story has not been reported by the mainstream media. While the Bully Pulpit is reluctant to trust defectors (see Ahmed Chalabi) the story should be properly vetted and discussed in case it does contain some validity. Kenneth R. Timmerman, an Iranian expert discussed in his book Countdown to Crisis that Iran maintains a sanctuary or “guesthouse” for top Al Qaeda leaders just north of Tehran. Timmerman also sites a meeting between Al Qaeda #2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri with top Iranian regime leaders and military attachés. It is unclear if UBL was there or if in fact he has died. The last time proof of life was heard from UBL was on an audio tape released in December 2005. Reports that UBL’s son has been living in and moving freely about Iran has also been reported.

Many elite media types theorize that Iran and Al Qaeda would not work together because of their religious differences. This does not however take into account the old Muslim saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Al Qaeda needs a place to hide from Hellfire missiles and Daisy Cutters, while Iran needs more terrorist capability to retaliate against the West if attacked over its nuclear program. Both seek the destruction of the West. It is a match made in heaven. Lately we have been beating the war drum against Iran nearly every day. Stories like these are just one more reason why. “If you harbor a terrorist . . .”

U.S. Iranian Talks!

2006-03-16T18:06:00.000-08:00

“TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran said Thursday it was prepared to talk directly with the United States about Iraq, a major shift for a country that has long avoided negotiations with what it calls the "Great Satan.” AP

U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad on Thursday was given authorization by the Bush administration to meet with Iranian leaders to discuss Iranian interference in Iraq. In a speech given at the George Washington University on Monday, President Bush accused the Iranian regime of supporting the insurgency and even supplying them with IDU’s. Khalilizad’s official meeting would be a departure from the more than twenty-five year break in diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran following the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Zalmay Khalilzad

While Iran hopes to relieve pressure on their nuclear program in exchange for limiting their support for the insurgency in Iraq, White House spokesman Scott McClellan stated bluntly that “this is a very narrow mandate dealing specifically with issues relating to Iraq . . . it does not include U.S. concerns about Iran's nuclear program. That's a separate issue."

Liberals and the Iranians are celebrating the talks as the first step in solving the nuclear issue diplomatically. "This could be the beginning of a major breakthrough, ending more than two and a half decades of estrangement between Tehran and Washington" Analyst Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a professor of international relations at Tehran's Imam Sadeq University said. "Iran needs America to calm the growing tension over its nuclear program . . . at the same time, Washington wants to restore stability to Iraq . . . and Iran has sufficient weight and influence to help it out."

For weeks now, The Bully Pulpit has stated that Iraq can not be only be stabilized by first dealing with nations who support the terrorist insurgents such as Syria and Iran. In that respect, news of the U.S. Iranian talks is a welcome prospect. The talks however must not be negotiations and diplomatic horse trading. Iran must realize like Libya did two years ago that they are the ones at risk from not meeting our demands. There must be ultimatums given to the Iranians in a fashion that Generals Grant and Patton would recognize. Iran must be told: 1) no nuclear weapons or fuel 2) get out of Iraq 3) stop harboring and funding terrorists. In the absence of these items Iran will feel the wrath of the U.S. military. “The U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists and you are either with us or against us.” Finally, I would ask nations like Jordan, who is concerned about a wider Middle East conflict to also appeal to the mullahs. Iran is the single greatest threat to U.S. security today and they must be neutered.

Bush Back on Preemption - Only Way to Fight WWIII!

2006-03-16T04:34:00.000-08:00

On Thursday the Bush administration released its forty-nine page updated national security strategy document. National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley unveiled the new plan to the U.S. Institute of Peace. Within the National Security Strategy are stated goals and policies for meeting any potential threat to the United States from terrorism, to China, to the spread of infectious diseases. The new updated policy contained an affirmation of Bushs controversial pre-emption doctrine. The policy states that pre-emptive force would be used against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack . . . When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize" the document states.

The updated strategic plan also states a preference to working with allies and the international community whenever possible, but not as a prerequisite for the use of unilateral American military power. This policy of course has drawn criticism from the left who site problems with Iraq as the failure of a preemption policy. "We have to understand preemption -- it's not going to be simply a preemptive strike . . . That's not the en

New York Times Appeasers on Iran

2006-03-15T04:38:00.000-08:00

“TEHRAN, March 14 — Just weeks ago, the Iranian government's combative approach toward building a nuclear program produced rare public displays of unity here. Now, while the top leaders remain resolute in their course, cracks are opening both inside and outside the circles of power over the issue.” New York Times

The New York Times reported on Tuesday (take that for what it is worth) that some high ranking Iranian leaders are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s handling of the escalating nuclear crisis. Some leaders in the Iranian inner circle apparently are fearful that Ahmadinejad’s brash statements about wiping Israel off the map and on Iran’s nuclear program will increase international pressure on that country. The article sights an anonymous source within the Iranian hierarchy as saying “For 27 years after the revolution, America wanted to get Iran to the Security Council and America failed. In less than six months, Ahmadinejad did that."

The Times article points to the so called “reformers” within the Iranian government such as former president, Mohammad Khatami who has gone on record of criticizing Iran’s current nuclear path. The article goes on to claim that average Iranian citizens are not content with the idea of tough U.N. sanctions being imposed in exchange for nuclear energy. In fact many Iranians comment sarcastically “Nuclear energy is our irrefutable right."

If true, the Times story would be a dose of good news in an increasingly escalating crisis over Iran’s nuclear weapons program and links to terrorism. It would suggest that Ahmadinejad could be removed from within perhaps even ending the standoff. However, the Bully Pulpit feels that the New York Times’ analysis on these developments is in error. They of course do not wish to see military action and our trying to suggest that sanctions and appeasement will work. Based on the U.N.’s inaction yesterday I doubt that possibility. History is not on their side.

The reason that some of the Iranian leadership may be dissatisfied with Ahmadinejad is because they too seek to develop nuclear weapons for conflict with Israel and the West. By agitating world peace and issuing threats Ahmadinejad has brought attention to Iran’s dastardly intentions. The leaders that the Times’ article sites, are not Jeffersonian reformers, they are Islamo-Fascists with more savvy diplomatic skills than the current president. Their fear is that Iran will be stopped before it can go nuclear, not that it might someday use those weapons to attack the west.

For example, after the tide began to turn in the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980’s, the Iranian leadership planned to continue their offensive through Iraq and into Israel stopping only at the Mediterranean. The only thing that prevented them from trying this were Saddam’s chemical weapons liberals like the Times claim he never had. The intention to wage war on the West has been within Iran’s inner circle since the 1979 Revolution (see Beirut, the Kobar Towers, etc.) Ahmadinejad is really just a figurehead. The country is run by faceless radical clerics or Mullahs who seek to dominate the Middle East and wage war on Israel and the West.

As for the “reformers” within the Iranian government, do not count on them. They were pushed aside by the Mullahs years ago. They were promptly removed by the Mullahs for not being as adamant about Iran’s aggressive ambitions. The Iranian people also live in fear of the regime. When democratic revolutionaries sparked up years ago they were crushed, imprisoned, and executed. The Mullahs then followed the Chinese example after Tienamen square and gave a little more freedom to the people. This ended any kind of popular uprising. In fact, to spite what the Times claims, most Iranians see the bomb as a “patriotic cause.” They wish to revive their nation’s once Persian greatness and feel that they should be allow to play a larger role on the world stage with the bomb.

While an uprising in the Iranian government or by the people would be ideal for the safety of the United States, I do not see that happening anytime soon. In the end, I fear that military action is the only solution. It should be done soon, before Iran grows stronger. Such a conflict would be far less catastrophic than if Iran is allowed to get a bomb.

Iran Must First Be Dealt With - to Fix Iraq!

2006-03-14T04:19:00.000-08:00

“US President George W. Bush directly linked Tehran to roadside bombings against US forces in Iraq, stepping up his criticisms of Iran amid a tense standoff over its nuclear program.” AP

Bush spoke on Monday at the George Washington University in Washington D.C. about the continuing conflict in Iraq. Monday’s speech was the first in a planned series of speeches designed to help regain public for support for the war as the conflict nears its three year anniversary since the initial invasion. Bush remarked that success in Iraq is critical to success in the overall War on Terror. The president also commented on the insurgency’s Vietnam style strategy and warned that since the terrorists cannot win on the battlefield, they are trying to win the war through television images and public opinion.

Perhaps most surprisingly in the speech for the first time President Bush held Iran responsible for fueling the insurgency. The President accused Tehran of providing material support and assistance in the construction of road side bombs or IDUs. The vast majority of American casualties have been a result of these primitive weapons systems. "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq . . . some of the most powerful IEDs we are seeing in Iraq today include components that came from Iran . . . Coalition forces have seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran. Such actions, along with Iran's support for terrorism and its pursuit of nuclear weapons, are increasingly isolating Iran" Bush said. In fact, new more powerful IDU’s with deadly shaped armor piercing charges and advanced triggering devices have been traced back to elements of Iran’s Hezbulla terrorist proxies.

As stated on “The Bully Pulpit” back on February 24th:

“As Americans we must understand the big picture in the war on terror and recognize the forces gathered against us. To fix Iraq, we must work from the outside in because the problem inside cannot be solved until outside agitators like Iran and Syria are stopped. Until then all efforts to rebuild Iraq are pointless. We must take immediate action to prevent outside forces from scuttling Iraq. The success of Iraqi democracy and our own future safety depends on that.”

In light of the President Bush’s speech yesterday, I hope that people will start to realize this. The United Stated must also put regime change in Iran at the top of its strategy for stabilizing Iraq and winning the War on Terror. Just recently, reports out of Iran indicate that the middle class is not pleased with the current economic downturn in Iran since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president. Historically, most revolutions have been started by this “middle class” seeking economic liberties.

The U.S. needs to apply immediate pressure and assistance to this group. Middle class Iranians could provide a tipping point to remove the Mullahs. If this cannot be achieved covertly than strong sanctions and or a blockade could do so. The Iranian economy would grind to a halt if oil and gasoline shipments could not come in or out of the country. This could convince the Iranian middle class to remove the mullahs or suffer greater economic problems. If instead they chose to rally around the Mullahs because of our pressure, then they too would have to feel the wrath of the United States military which is not broken to spite what the Murtha Democrats say. The United States can no longer militarily or politically afford to play games in the Middle East.

Liberals Seek to Release Terrorists at "Club GITMO!"

2006-03-12T13:32:00.000-08:00

“LONDON (Reuters) - The United States is in discussions about how to send terrorism suspects held in Guantanamo Bay back to their home countries and close the detention camp, a senior U.S. official said on Sunday.” Reuters

According to Reuters, plans are currently in the works to close down the U.S. terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. An unnamed “U.S. senior official” suggested that the almost five hundred terrorist prisoners held Guantanamo Bay could soon be repatriated to their country of origin. U.S. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Colleen Graffy corroborated this report in a recent interview with the BBC. "There's continuous discussion about that . . . Hopefully, over the years, we will find a way to either release them to their country of origin or they will declare that they no longer want to kill us," she said.

Internationalist organizations such as the U.N. have criticized the detention facility. They object to what they call “indefinite detentions” of prisoners and sight that of the four hundred ninety inmates only ten have been charged with a crime. Liberal organizations in the U.S. have also sued the Bush administration in federal court in an attempt to secure legal representation for detainees. On March 3rd, the Pentagon was forced to release the names of the detainees being held at GITMO after the Associated Press won a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. In Great Britain, Prime Minster Tony Blair has come under intense pressure at home to persuade the Bush administration to close Guantanamo Bay.

In light of this it is time for a reality check. Just who is the United States detaining at “Club GITMO?” Let us not forget that the people who are being held in Cuba seek the destruction of the United States and the ideals that we fight to secure. They are driven by a fanatical Islamo-Fascist ideology and do not value life, even their own.

Some of the detainees have been returned to their country of origin. Many of those who have been released have returned to the battlefield to attack U.S. troops. It is reasonable to assume that still others who have been released are now planning future terrorist attacks against the West. Release all of the detainees would threaten the security of the United States.

For our liberal friends who seek to defend the actions and so called rights of these cold blooded kills, let me remind you all of a few legal points. First of all the detainees are not bank robbers. They are in fact sworn enemies of freedom. They seek to destroy our way of life and the freedoms liberals claim they are defending. Terrorists have NO LEGAL RIGHTS under the Constitution. The Constitution’s due process clauses do not apply to those who would destroy them in a suicide attack. In most cases these people are not American citizens. They were not arrested in the United States. The detainees were picked up on an international battlefield as part of the War on Terror. They have been detained to protect the rights of freedom loving Americans and to defend the Constitution. Therefore, detainees cannot be subject to the criminal justice system and legal rights. They can only be subject to military justice and detention.

The detainees are also not subject to the rights of Prisoners of War. The Geneva Convention does not apply to GITMO detainees. Terrorists do not fight for a nation nor wear a distinguished and recognized uniform. Therefore under the terms of the most recent convention POW status and rights do not apply.

Stories like these highlight why liberals cannot be trusted on national security. Why do the International Community and the liberal elite in this country not condemn those who hold Western hostages indefinitely? Why do they not condemn the beheading of hostages by Muslim extremists? Why do these people defend evil and attack righteousness? They are anti-American and to spite what they think anti-freedom

The GITMO detainees are actually treated far too well. For our safety they can never be permitted to leave sunny Cuba.

Ding Dong the Port Deal is Dead!

2006-03-09T17:47:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON (AP) - Bowing to ferocious opposition in Congress, a Dubai-owned company signaled surrender Thursday in its quest to take over operations at U.S. ports.” AP

After weeks of political agony for Republicans, the United Arab Emirates port deal is finally dead. Dubai Ports World officials withdrew their bid to operate twenty-one American ports on Thursday. The leases will now instead be turned over to American corporations. "DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations ... to a United States entity." H. Edward Bilkey of DP said as the controls concluded.

The past several weeks have seen a rare inter-party conflict between the GOP controlled Congress and the Bush administration. In the largest misstep of his presidency, President Bush insisted on a deal that would have allowed a state run UAE company to acquire operational leases for many key American ports. Bush sited numerous reasons to defend that decision. Ultimately however, the public categorically reject the administration’s argument. Over 70% of American polled strongly disagreed with turning the ports over the UAE. This prompted Congress to threaten to stop the deal via legislation. Bush further dug himself into a hole by threatening his first veto. In a last ditch effort to save the deal Dubai Ports World ask for another 45 day review of the sale, but the die had already been cast. The House Appropriations Committee passed a bill on Wednesday that would have stopped the deal by an astounding margin of 62-2. The Senate would have followed a similar path by the end of the week. In light of this, Dubai Ports World withdrew their bid.

It is too early to calculate all the political damage done by this port mess. Republicans have a real fight on their hands next November and this debacle will only make things worst. For the first time ever the party that has no ideas for the War on Terror and that has been weak on defense has been able to move to the President’s right. While the GOP once led by thirteen points in the polls on national security, those numbers have dwindled to just five after the port deal. They have sunk in the ports.

Republicans need to move on to other security issues such as stopping Iran as quickly as possible. They need to talk about progress in Iraq and the lack of civil war the big lib pundits predicted. Where has the media been on that?

However the Democrats having found some traction will not give the port deal up that easily. Harry Reid, still wants to have a vote on the port deal only to embarrass the president. This may be good for conservatives. It will expose Reid and the others of only caring about security for political gains if they continue to beat the drum for too long.

It is also my opinion that the Democrats are going to use “Ensuring Homeland Security” as their first original policy in the War on Terror. This plan is sort of like “Martha-Style” taken to the extreme. They will insist that we sure up homeland security rather than fighting an offensive war abroad. They will promote “isolationism.” They will site the port deal as “Why is Bush in Iraq, but not protecting your neighborhood?” I can just see the add now with a bombing in Iraq dissolving into a seaside shot with a man in a turban standing on a dock. This tactic will pick up a limited amount of steam as Americans traditionally do not like prolonged war. Iraq has become a long term commitment. However, most Americans are smart enough to realize that protecting every corner of the USA is impossible. The port deal’s death is great news. It is an unfortunate chapter in what has been a disappointing few months for conservatives.

GOP Trying Save Face on Ports!

2006-03-09T05:08:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON - In a congressional election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of some U.S port operations. Democrats clamored for a vote in the Senate, too.” MSNBC

By an overwhelming vote of 62-2 the GOP led House Appropriations Committee moved swiftly on Wednesday to block the UEA port deal. The Bush Administration’s approval would allow the lease sale and control of twenty one American port facilities to transfer from a British owned company, the P&O, to Dubai Ports World a United Arab Emirates state owned conglomerate. The administration through a request by Dubai Ports World had asked for a forty-five day review of the sale to help calm an uneasy Congress. However, House members failed to see what such a review would accomplish and chose instead to initiate legislation to block the port deal as soon as possible. On Wednesday an amendment was attached to a $91 billion House appropriations bill which also contained funding for Hurricane Katrina relief and the war in Iraq.

The port deal has met with stiff opposition on both sides of the isle and recent polling indicates that over 70% of the American public is against the sale. GOP house members initiated the legislation to keep the Democrats from further capitalizing on the issue. “This is a national security issue,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chairman of the House panel, adding that the legislation would “keep America’s ports in American hands.”

In the Senate, long time liberal Democrat Chucky Schumer of New York has introduced a similar bill which is likely to be voted on by the end of the week. “We believe an overwhelming majority will vote to end the deal,” said Schumer. Some GOP senators such as Majority Leader Bill Frist hope to stall such a vote. The Republican leader would have to pull a lobby reform bill off the floor in order to stop the port deal by the end of the week. The White House responded to these events by stating that the President’s position remains unchanged.

Politically, the port deal continues to be a huge mess for Republicans. It needs to be stopped as quickly as possible in order for the GOP to recover before the midterm elections. It needs to be stopped by the GOP however. Democrats like Schumer cannot be seen as the champions of Homeland Security. The port deal has given Democrats an ’06 campaign strategy may resonate with many Americans. They will argue that will be safer by spending money on Homeland Security rather than on “reckless foreign adventures” i.e. Iraq. Because of the port deal, this “isolationist” argument may start to seem more appealing to the average voter already conditioned by the media to see the war as a failure.

Republicans must regain the high ground on the security issue and stopping the port deal is the only way to do so at this point. The House bill is a good start. The Republican Congress will be seen as being tough on security by standing up to, but not away from, the President’s foreign policy. The Senate must also act quickly by first stopping the Schumer bill and creating its own GOP version. They cannot allow the Democrats who has been weak on national security to get the spotlight before the midterms. This may be what Frist is attempting to do. By attaching the deal stopper to appropriation bills they also allow the President to back away from his “veto” pledge and save face. The longer this is an issue however, the worst things will become for Republicans.

Hillary to use Rove's Plan for Victory in '08

2006-03-08T04:32:00.000-08:00

“A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage." Washington Post

While Democrats cheer the possibility of civil war in Iraq, they need only to look within their own party to find it these days. A major battle is brewing within the Democratic Party over how best to focus efforts and monies to win future elections. This debate threatens to cause a fissure within the Democratic leadership.

After being soundly defeated once again in ’04, some Democrats are trying to play catch up in the fast paced high tech world of modern political campaigning. Backed by George Soros’ bank vault and the charismatic talents of Bill Clinton, Harold Ickes, an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is attempting to piece together a complex voter data base. The goal of the data base is to dramatically improve the Democratic “get out the vote” (GOTV) apparatus in certain targeted areas of the country and in races the Democrats feel they are competitive. The data collected could be used by campaign workers to identify Democratic support before the Election Day. On Election Day, the list of supporters would then be “flushed” or checked to make sure that their supporters cast a ballot.

Does this plan sound familiar to anyone? It should, because this was Karl Rove’s blueprint for victory in ’04. Republicans spent months in key battle ground states such as Ohio identifying voters. In the spring and summer of ’04 a list of thousands of registered voters were contacted. Throughout the summer the list was divided into three parts 1. “strongly Pro-Bush” 2. “likely to vote for Bush maybe because of one issue, life, guns, etc.” 3. “anti-Bush voters.” Those who fell into the first two categories were tagged and placed on additional lists. Obviously, the anti-Bush voters were tossed out, Rove knew there really were no swing voters left. Today’s election game is all about turnout something that Democrats used to be good at.

The strongly pro-Bush voter’s addresses and phone numbers were cataloged for Election Day. Another round of phone calls were targeted at the “likely voter” to further feel them out as the election grew closer. Finally 72 hours before the campaign a huge army of volunteers contacted each potential supporter of the president multiple times. As funny as it sounds, the more a voter was bothered, the more likely they were to get out and vote. Three times on Election Day the polling locations published a list of those who had already voted. The Bush campaign compared that list to their “ideal voter list.” Supporters who had not yet voted were contacted to get out and vote via phone and by "strike teams” sent to their homes. This went on until the polls closed. As the day progressed, the Bush team essentially knew just how many votes they had received in the battle ground states as well as certain areas of these states. Even though the exit polls looked bleak, Rove was able to call Ohio by 10:30 and the election was essentially over. Bush was reelected because of this machine.

Democrats who used to be better at grassroots campaigning were in awe of the Republican execution in ‘04. Hillary is a shrewd politician. She knows that she is polarizing and that in order to win she will have to turn out the vote much as Bush did. The Rove model is tried and proven. Standing in her way however is Howard Dean the Chairman of the DNC. Dean would prefer to use Democratic energy and funding for an across the country campaign rather than a micro effort in certain areas. Rove once described a presidential campaign as fifty local elections. Hillary understands this concept and is in full gear for ‘08, Dean however does not and is stuck in the past. The bad news for Republicans is that the Democrats seem to becoming more adept at Rove’s tactics. If Hillary wins this battle within the party, not only will she have a machine in place for ’08 but it could also signal the end of Howard Dean, a huge conservative asset.

Please Support a Brave Soldier

2006-03-07T18:11:00.000-08:00

Sean Hannity and our good friends at The Liberal Lie, the Conservative Truth have recently shed light on a compelling story of a true American hero PFC Joshua Sparling. PFC Sparling served bravely and was wounded in Iraq. While at Walter Reed Army Hospital on Tuesday, he received devastating news that his leg would have to be amputated. For the past several months Sparling had been optimist that his leg might be saved.

Listening to him today with Sean Hannity I was just amazed at his positive outlook and humility in the face of his overwhelming news. Our brave soldiers are just simply amazing individuals. They are completely selfless, determined, and gallant. It makes me thankful for all I have. It makes any problem that I might have seem petty. I encourage everyone to send this brave man a card and continue to support all of our troops.

PFC Joshua Sparling
c/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC
20307-5001

Askariya Shrine Bombing more like Saratoga than Tet?

2006-03-07T05:00:00.000-08:00

“Tribal chiefs in Iraq's western Anbar province and in an area near the northern city of Kirkuk, two regions teeming with insurgents, are vowing to strike back at al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni Arab-led group that is waging war against Sunni tribal leaders who are cooperating with the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. Anbar tribes have formed a militia that has killed 20 insurgents from al-Qaeda in Iraq, leaders said.” Washington Post

While polls in the United States indicate that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, this is partly due to the media coverage. In fact, signs that Iraqis have back away from the abyss of civil war are evident across Iraq. The new Iraqi government continues to negotiate a power sharing deal while the Iraqi parliament is set to officially convene. The Iraqi army has also increasingly begun to handle security operations across the country. Military analysts site how much more competent Iraqi forces have become over the past few months. In their first real test, Iraqi forces were largely responsible for quelling the violence that followed the suicide bombing attack on the Askariya Shrine. It seems that most of the violence which influenced the polling and many feared would spark an Iraqi civil war, has subsided.

In fact, in an amazing turn of events some Iraqi groups are actually uniting together to fight Zarqawi. More than 300 tribal chiefs, politicians, clerics, security officials and other community leaders met last week in Hawijah, about 35 miles southwest of Kirkuk, and "declared war" on al-Qaeda in Iraq.

In a communique, the participants vowed "the shedding of blood" of anyone involved in "sabotage, killings, kidnappings, targeting police and army, attacking the oil and gas pipelines and their transporters, assassinating the religious and tribal figures, technicians, and doctors. . . Anyone who provides refuge to terrorists will be considered and dealt with like a criminal and terrorist."

Maj. Gen Rick Lynch, a U.S. military spokesman, said "What we're finding is indeed the people of al-Anbar -- Fallujah and Ramadi, specifically -- have decided to turn against terrorists and foreign fighters. . . . The tribal leaders, if you will, said, 'Okay, that's enough, let's take out Zarqawi and his network and get them out of our cities."

This is excellent news in the fight for Iraq. According to Iraqi sources more than 80% of the population is behind the new government and against Zarqawi. As we discussed before, the Askariya Shrine bombing will go down as a turning point in the conflict. If the Washington Post story is true, things are starting to appear more like Saratoga than Tet. To spite the media coverage and poll numbers, America must continue to help the Iraqis rid themselves of the Islamo-Fascists finish their mission of freedom for the safety of our own.

A Perfect Republican Storm Brewing?

2006-03-06T17:36:00.000-08:00

“SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.” FOX News 1/20/06!

In a clear challenge to the Roe V. Wade which made abortion legal across the United States over thirty years ago, Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota signed a bill into law which would ban nearly all abortions in that state. Mississippi is expected to follow suit within the next few months.

While the South Dakota law will not take effect immediately, it is most assuredly to be litigated through the federal court system in the coming years. Proponents are banking that the fact that the South Dakota law will ultimately force the Supreme Court to reexamine the Roe decision. With the addition of two Bush appointments to the court, Chief Justice Roberts and Sam Alito, pro-life forces feel that the decision that made abortion legal could be overturned and sent back to the states to be decided by popular sovereignty.

"I think the stars are aligned," said House South Dakota Speaker Matthew Michels. Pro-life donations in the sum of over one million dollars have also poured into South Dakota to aid in the legal defense of the abortion ban. Not surprisingly, pro-choice armies including Planned Parenthood have already begun to file suit.

"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them" - Governor Mike Rounds.

While news of the South Dakota law is positive for the pro-life movement, conservatives must remain cautious and steady in their fight. They must not get discouraged if the South Dakota law does not result in overturning Roe. At this point the current Supreme Court may not yet be ready yield the desired decision; however it may soon.

During the Roberts hearings, Roberts referred to Roe v. Wade as “stari decisis” or established law. While Roberts leans to the conservative side of the isle, there is a high probability that he would not vote to overturn long established precedent. Even if Roberts did vote to overturn Roe, the pro-life movement is still one vote short as Justice Kennedy would continue to support choice. The odds greatly improve however if either Justice Stevens who is 85 or Ruth Bater Ginsburg who is sick retire before the end of President Bush’s term. This would definitely tip the balance of the court. President Bush has stated that one of his most important presidential goals is to reshape the court for decades to come. He began this process with Roberts and Alito and if the “stars align” he may get another choice.

There are also some interesting political angles associated with this test case for Roe v. Wade. First of all, the case will bring the issue to the forefront of the American political landscape. Like no other issue, it will serve to ignite the Christian conservative base and to get out their vote. As Reagan, Bush, and Rove all proved, when Christian conservative indomitably head to the polls, Republicans win elections! Republican candidates across the country need to take the initiative and seize this issue immediately. It is powerful and could make a difference not only in ’06 but in other future elections if framed and debated correctly. The pro-life issue could create a strong reliable block of conservative votes for years to come.

On the other side of the coin, Paul Begala and James Carville, two powerful Democratic consultants, actually agree with conservatives and favor overturning Roe v. Wade, but for much different reasons. They believe that if the issue went to the states, abortion would actually help Democratic candidates win seats. They site polls which indicate 56% of Americans favor legal abortion. While brilliant, Begala and Carville overestimate the power of pro-choice groups who already come out to vote in droves. At the same time they underestimate the fact that the abortion issue decided at the ballot box would create a perfect Republican storm across the nation. Joining the traditional Republican base would be millions of evangelicals and a majority of Hispanics voting for life. The battle has defiantly begun.

Bush Returns from Masterful Trip to Asia

2006-03-05T16:08:00.000-08:00

“ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — President Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf recommitted their nations Saturday to the difficult task of hunting down terrorists still hiding here and across the globe. Before departing for home, Bush praised Musharraf as a "man of courage and vision.”FOX News

Lost by the mainstream press this weekend with all the talk of the faulty AP hurricane response story and the endless self adulating gay cowboy Oscars, was any meaningful analysis of the President’s successful trip to South Asia. To spite the media’s habit of “misundereastimating” Bush’s political savvy and conventional political thinking, the trip to Asia was a good political move for a President with sinking poll numbers. It was also a clear example of how Bush plans to use “Bush Doctrine 2.0” as a weapon in the War on Terror.

The President’s first stop was a surprise visit to Afghanistan. Last Wednesday, Bush toured the land were the 9-11 attacks were planned and the Taliban once ruled. He officially opened the new U.S. embassy and visited with many brave American soldiers in country. Politically, his visit was designed to remind people that to spite the UAE port deal, he is still the “Commander-in-Chief” in the War on Terror. The photo-op worked to some extend at least to subconsciously remind voters he is the “terror warrior.”

The stop in Afghanistan also illuminated the next phase of the “Bush Doctrine.” As the President indicated during his Second Inaugural Address and the State of the Union, “democratization” has seemingly replaced “pre-emption” as the dominant weapon in the War on Terror. Afghanistan’s success with its fledgling democracy is a model of this and an example of how the infectious power of freedom can be harnessed and spread to combat the influence of Islamo-Fascism.

After leaving Afghanistan, the President arrived in India. Bush’s trip to India was a diplomatic “triple play.” India is a nation of great strategic importance in the region. It has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and its GDP even surpassed China in 2004. Historically however, U.S.-Indian relations have not always been cordial.

The President’s trip sought to remedy years of uneasy relations. He offered the Indians a deal which would help expand their civilian nuclear power program. While some on Capital Hill object to giving nuclear technology away, India is the world’s largest democracy and already has nuclear weapons.

The nuclear fuel deal will lessen India’s demand for oil in the long term and will therefore serve to lower U.S. energy prices, out #1. While the deal makes India smile and U.S. gas prices cheaper, it will also serve to tie Indian interests to those of the United States, out #2. With that in mind, India can now be used by the United States as a counterweight to the growing Red Chinese menace both militarily and economically, out #3! This is similar to what the Chinese have been doing in Latin America for years now. In light of Negroponte’s report on the growing Chinese threat in the coming years Bush forged a huge strategic relationship for decades to come.

Bush’s last stop on the trip was in Pakistan. Bush has called Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf a great ally in the War on Terror. However, Musharraf never really had a choice. Years ago Bush had made him an offer he could not refuse. According to George Friedman’s book titled “America’s Secret War”, shortly after 9-11 Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was given an ultimatum by the Bush administration under “Bush Doctrine 1.0.” Either they would help the U.S. destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda or they would meet the same fate. Musharraf knowing the lion was at the gate capitulated and became a coerced ally in the War on Terror. This alienated him from the support of his people and unwillingly tied him forever to the United States. On this recent trip, Bush reminded Musharraf of his situation. He was able to pressure him into continuing to pursue Osama bin Laden, a risky task in an extremist Pakistan. He also further boxed in Musharraf by cozying up to India their long time rivals leaving Pakistan at our behest.

All and all President Bush’s trip to Asia was highly successful. It accomplished scoring political points, touted the Bush Doctrine 2.0, help to possible lower energy prices, help to counter Red China, and continuing the War on Terror. While gay cowboys may seem more important to many, my award this week goes to the President and his successful trip to Asia.

Zarqawi’s Plan to Plunge Iraq into Civil War!

2006-03-03T04:44:00.000-08:00

“intelligence has picked up reports that al Qaeda in Iraq is planning what one source calls the "Big Bang," a spectacular terrorist attack in Iraq against either a single high-profile target or multiple targets simultaneously.” CBS News

U.S. intelligence sources have learned that Al Qaeda in Iraq may be planning a quote “spectacular attack” somewhere that country. Since the bombing of the sacred Shiite Askariya Shrine in Sumarra nearly two weeks ago, violence along religious lines has flared up especially around Baghdad. A government enforced curfew stopped much of the civil unrest last week, but the bloodshed returned after the curfew was lifted. U.S. intelligence sources believe that the recent carnage in Iraq is in large part the effort of Musab al-Zarqawi’s plan to plunge Iraq into civil war along religious lines. He is believed to have been responsible for the Askariya bombing and much of the violence which has followed. "The day the vehicle ban was lifted, all these VBIEDS (vehicle born improvised explosive devices) that he had staged he deployed in Iraq and detonated over the last three days," said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, a U.S. military spokesman. The Pentagon fears that continues violence or another spectacular attack could start a widespread civil war within Iraq. Military officials also believe that spectacular attacks could undermine U.S. public opinion about the war.

What is occurring today in Iraq is not random and is not really a popular uprising. For many months now Al Qaeda has realized that they cannot defeat the U.S. military directly. In fact, they have lost every engagement. Instead then, the Islamo-Fascists have turned to history for a battle plan to defeat the Americans and what they found was Vietnam. The terrorists understand that Vietnam was not lost on the battlefield but instead at home. They have turned to the use of IED’s to bleed the Americans out and reduce our their overall will to fight. There goal is to kill as many American soldiers as possible, for as long as possible until the American public demands a pullout. This is what happened in Vietnam.

Al Qaeda realizes that Iraq is the central theater in their war against the west. In a letter months ago between Zawahri and Zarqawi the two terror leaders discuss this possibility:

”I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam . . . . The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. . . . . over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void . . . If we look at the two short-term goals, which are removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible.”

Now Al Qaeda has taken this strategy a step further. Understanding the uneasy religious make up of Iraq they have sought to start a civil war within that nation. The thrust for civil war is also shared by their rivals in the Muslim world Iran’s Shiite Mullahs. Remember these are people who do not value life. Bloody civil War means nothing to them if it helps them achieve their sinister objective of driving the U.S. and democracy out of the Middle East. Al Qaeda as well as Iranian agents have carried out and instigated most of the violence in Iraq over the past few weeks and depicted it as spontaneous rage. Their hope is that Americans will see the carnage on TV, feel that Iraq is a lost cause, and call for retreat leaving them to fill the void. With the Americans humiliated and vanquished, Iraq could then be parceled to the victors. Southern Iraq could become another Iranian proxy state serving the needs of its master, while “Sunni-Stan” could serve as an Al Qaeda state for training terrorists and launching attacks against the west.

At this point normal Iraqis must understand what is at play in their nation. They must not be swayed by the agents of these evil forces. Americans must do everything to support them and to stop outside interference. Iraqi’s braved intimidation and terror attacks three times to elect the first real democracy in the Muslim world. Now they must once again band together and stand up to those who would sacrifice them and their families and destroy their nation for their own political goals. Iraqi’s have come far in the past three years. It is hard to believe that they are foolish enough to throw that all away after being manipulated.

Non-Story - the Bush Katrina Briefing!

2006-03-02T04:37:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- On the eve of Hurricane Katrina's fateful landfall, President Bush was confident. His homeland security chief appeared relaxed. And warnings of the coming destruction - breached or overrun levees, deaths at the New Orleans Superdome and overwhelming needs for post-storm rescues - were delivered in dramatic terms to all involved. All of it was captured on videotape.” AP

After suing the Bush administration under the “Freedom of Information Act”, the AP has obtained a confidential video recording of the President’s secure teleconferenced briefing just one before hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. The AP also was able to attain the seven days worth of corresponding transcripts of meetings concerning Katrina.

The President seen from his Crawford ranch sitting next to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff were apparently warned by various FEMA officials and hurricane experts that day that Katrina had the potential for severe damage and voiced “grave concerns.” "My gut tells me ... this is a bad one and a big one," former head of FEMA Michael Brown commented. The President was warned that the counterclockwise rotation of the storm over Lake Pontchartrain had the potential to “top the levees” and possibly flood New Orleans. President Bush assured FEMA and local officials at the briefing that the federal government was “fully prepared" to assist them. As Katrina made landfall the next day Brown reportedly told the President that quote "I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe" implying that state and local officials might become overwhelmed by the storm.

While the White House has downplayed the tape claiming that it shows that the president was fully engaged in storm preparation, the liberal mainstream media and Democrats have created a non-story and are using the tape out of context for political motives. They are implying that the President did not do his part to prevent the disaster. Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans was the first to comment and said "I have kind a sinking feeling in my gut right now," Nagin said. "I was listening to what people were saying - they didn't know, so therefore it was an issue of a learning curve. You know, from this tape it looks like everybody was fully aware."

Blaming the President for the disaster from one of many briefings taken out of context is grossly unfair. Based on previous storms and disasters, the president had every reason to believe that those under him in FEMA could handle the job. He was fully aware of the danger and believed that his people like Brown were capable of handling the storm. The president also was told that the levees could be “topped” not “breached” which would have limited the extent of the damage. The fact is that this act of God caught the nation by surprise.

The day after the storm, Bush visited the disaster area and took Governor Kathlene Blanco aboard Air Force One. He asked he to “federalize” the National Guard under his command to help with rescue efforts, she refused the offer. An irate Bush shook his head and told Mayor Nagin that she had not accepted federal help. Under the law, the governor of a state must turn command of the guard over to the federal government for the President to have any authority.

The fact is that the deadly storm was an act of God. Such things happen. Let’s not forget that the people of New Orleans had five days warning of the impending doom. Many of the “victims” choose to ignore the warnings and stay in the city. Let’s also not forget that Mayor Nagin did not organize the school busses to ferry people out of the city and away from the storm. He too had five days warning. In fact the corrupt New Orleans government had 30 years warning on their levee issues and failed to act. Should Bush have fixed the levees the day before Katrina struck? President Bush declared a “disaster area” days before the storm even hit.

This story is just another attempt by the left to blame Bush for everything. The White House should counter this story with transcripts of their own detailing the President’s actions before and after the storm. The American people will see through this non-story and hopefully this might help the president by taking the port deal and Iraq off the front page.

Bush Doctrine 2.0 on Tour in Afghanistan!

2006-03-01T04:30:00.000-08:00

“KABUL, Afghanistan - President Bush, on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan, said Wednesday he remains confident Osama bin Laden “will be brought to justice” despite a so-far futile five-year hunt.” MSNBC

President Bush made a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Wednesday while on his way to visit leaders in both Indian and Pakistan. The President secretly arrived on Air Force One under clear blue skies at Bagram Air Force Base. He was surrounded by Secret Service agents brandishing automatic weapons and then helicopter to the presidential palace in Kabul.

At a televised press conference standing next to the first democratically elected leader of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, President Bush praised Afghanistan’s progress toward democracy and told the Afghan that they are a model of freedom for the world. “People all over the world are watching the experience here in Afghanistan.” Karzai also personally thanked the President Bush and all Americans for their sacrifice in building a free Afghanistan.

Seemingly unmoved by the gravity of the moment, a moment when an American President was standing in a free Afghanistan just four years after it had been ruled by Islamo-Fascists, the press seemed unimpressed with the spread of democracy to Southern Asia. Instead, reporters asked the President sarcastic questions concerning the whereabouts of UBL. In response President Bush said “It’s not a matter of if they’re brought to justice, it’s when they’re brought to justice.” Later the president will participate in a ribbon cutting ceremony at the new U.S. embassy and visit with American troops.

The President’s audacious trip to Afghanistan should service to boost the moral of the 13,000 American soldiers in the country fighting Al Qaeda. It should also remind people of the seriousness of the struggle the US is now engaged in around the world. While the “Bush Doctrine” of “preemption” characterized his first term, the President is now banking on an even more powerful weapon to fight terror. “Democratization” has become “Bush Doctrine 2.0” during his second term. As the President tours a liberated land where the oppressive Taliban once ruled and Al Qaeda planned the 9-11 attacks, all Americans concerned with our safety should hope that Afghanistan will serve as a model of democracy for Iraq and the Islamic world.

Chaos or Unity? Bush says Iraqis Must Choose

2006-02-28T17:34:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday decried the latest surge in sectarian violence in Iraq and declared that for Iraqis "the choice is chaos or unity.” FOX News

On Tuesday violence in Iraq flared back up as the apparent calm in sectarian violence ended abruptly with the bang of multiple mortar attacks. Just a day after the new Iraqi government lifted its imposed curfew, both Sunni and Shiite forces traded brutal attacks throughout the day leaving at least 68 people dead. The day ended with a spectacular car bomb explosion near the sacred Shiite Abdel Hadi Chalabi mosque in the Hurriyah. Shootings of clergy on both sides were also rampant. The violence began on February 22 after the suicide bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra and has threatened to push Iraq into the abyss of civil war.

During a meeting with Italian Prime Minster Silvio Berlusconi, President Bush echoed the position of the “Bully Pulpit” and said:

"Obviously there are some who are trying to sow the seeds of sectarian violence . . . They destroy in order to create chaos. . . and now, the people of Iraq and their leaders must make a choice. The choice is chaos or unity, the choice is a free society, or a society dictated by evil people who would kill innocents . . . 11 million Iraqis made their choice ... and said we want to be free by going to the polls in December's elections in defiance of the terrorists and the killers."

Yesterday the Bully Pulpit stated that Iraqis must now “decide whether to descend into the dark depths of a civil war reminiscent of Yugoslavia or to fight back against the terrorists and unify their nation. Iraqis must choose between a 12th century religious feud; or bask in the glory of a prosperous 21st century oil rich democracy.”

Today’s events in Iraq were terribly discouraging. It had appeared that Iraqi might have chosen unity over civil war after the brief pause in the violence. The verdict is still out on which way they will go. One must still be optimistic that cooler heads will prevail.

For the United States however, the events in Iraq are critical to our own success in the overall War on Terror and for our standing in the world. If civil war does break out, the U.S. position will be impossible to maintain. There would be no viable military option to stop the outbreak of such a conflict. The American public will call for immediate withdraw after three years of futility. Iraq will turn into a terrorist haven. The U.S. after having failed in Iraq will be seen by the rest of the world as a “paper tiger.” If the U.S. was forced to withdraw from Iraq, terrorists and other aggressors would strike at American targets and interests around the world almost at will.

In other words, the U.S. cannot fail in Iraq. Iraq cannot be allowed to plunge into civil war. The U.S. must first stop outside interference from Iran and Syria if Iraq mission is to succeed. Military pressure must be brought to bear on these nations before Iraq can be stabilized. Although prospects for success look gloomy at this point, let’s not overreact to the violence and the media ecstasy. Like President Bush, we must be steady, firm, and steely. Regardless of what one might think of the war at this point, all Americans have a vested interest in seeing Iraq become successful.

Ohio GOP Primary Update -by W.T. Dixon III

2006-02-28T17:29:00.000-08:00

"As Ohio Attorney General, Jim Petro has aggressively defended Ohio's laws limiting abortion rights." - Petro email entitled CINCINNATI RIGHT TO LIFE GROUP ENDORSES PETRO

These are the words of a candidate with no understanding of this fundamental issue as it applies to public policy and the makings of a winning political campaign, let alone a GOP primary.

To tout one's pro-life accomplishments by referring to them as "limiting abortion rights" shows a total lack of understanding of the conservative GOP primary voter, and a total disregard for political common sense.

Pro-life activists do not take to the streets to "limit abortion rights," rather they take to the street to eliminate abortion rights, and more preferably, from a semantics standpoint, to uphold the right to life of the unborn.

Ohio's pro-life laws are not "laws limiting abortion rights," rather, these are laws that protect unborn life, or better yet, "laws that protect women's health, and the lives of their unborn children." What a great general election banner for Petro: "I've supported and defended laws limiting [abortion] rights."

This Johnny-come-lately to the conservative wing of the GOP can't even talk the talk, much less walk the walk.

Askariya Shrine Attack - a Turning Point in the Iraq War!

2006-02-27T20:21:00.000-08:00

“BAGHDAD, Iraq — Sunni Arabs are willing to end a boycott of talks to form a unity government if Shiites meet certain conditions, a top Sunni said on Monday amid reports that a kidnapped U.S. reporter is alive and that a top Al Qaeda terror leader was captured.” FOX News!

Wait! Wait! Hold the liberal press! Much to the dismay of many on those on the lonely left, the jury appears to still be out on whether or not Iraq will descend into a bloody civil war. Last week’s violence erupted along religious lines after the destruction of the 1,200 year old golden domed Askariya Shrine in Sumarra. The Shiite sacred mosque was destroyed by Sunni suicide bombers dressed as policemen. The bombers were linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Surprisingly, there is also circumstantial evidence that the attack was actually encouraged if not planned in Tehran in order to create civil war.

Both Sunni insurgents and the Iranians now realize that the only way to defeat U.S. policy in Iraq is to incite a civil conflict between the competing religious sects. The bombing did at first achieve this sinister objective by spawning Shiite reprisals against Iraqi Sunnis. Immediately following the attack on the shrine, Shiite militias retaliated by attacking, burning, and capturing Sunni mosques. Shiite death squads also combed the streets in search of Sunnis to take hostage and even murder. An Unnamed Muslim source told the Bully Pulpit that the roots of this conflict go back thousands of years and that each side is “taught” as young children to hate the other. He predicted that civil war was unavoidable.

In light of these horrific and deadly events liberals everywhere rejoiced! Finally they thought they were vindicated, Iraq was lost. Liberal pundits crowed on the talk shows all weekend about how the Bush policy had failed!

However, their celebration is at least for now premature. In the first real test of the new Iraqi government, an Iraqi enforced curfew quelled much of the sectarian fighting. Iraqi officials, with little help from the United States, apparently were able to restore calm throughout the country. Rather than more violence, numerous peaceful protests were held throughout Iraq condemning the attacks. Several combined Sunni-Shiite prayer rallies were also held around the nation condemning the violence. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, a revered Shiite cleric, also appealed to all Iraqis for calm. Perhaps the most positive sign that the path to civil war will be avoided came on Monday when Sunni’s agrees to rejoin the fledgling Iraqi government which is still struggling to take shape. Sunni officials had been holding out to protest the attacks. While the situation on the ground is still very tenuous, and danger has yet to pass, it appears at least for now that civil war has been avoided.

Ironically, the bombing of the mosque and the fighting that followed might actually be a good thing for the long term future of Iraq. The violence seems to have given the Iraqis a glimpse of what a civil war would be like for their nation and for their families. The violence of the past few days has given Iraqis the chance to stair over the edge of the cliff. Iraqis now have a choice to make. They must decide whether to descend into the dark depths of a civil war reminiscent of Yugoslavia or to fight back against the terrorists and unify their nation. Iraqis must choose between a 12th century religious feud; or bask in the glory of a prosperous 21st century oil rich democracy. First indications are that Iraqis are choosing the later.

The ability to stop the fighting gave the Iraqi government a new legitimacy, authority, and power. It also gave the Iraqis the confidence that they are able to handle their own affairs without the help of the Americans. The bombing of the mosque might just be enough to unite the three Iraqi factions under one flag and one government. The next few weeks will be critical to the future of their nation. Either way the bombing of the Askariya Shrine is a turning point in this conflict. The question remains will it be Antietam or will it be Tet? The future of the Bush presidency, the international reputation of the United States, and the future of the Iraqi people will be decided in the days to follow. Much to the liberal’s consternation however an optimist analysis of recent events suggests that Sumarra might be Iraq’s Saratoga, a turning point to ultimate victory.

Bush & Rove on '08 in New Book!

2006-02-26T18:06:00.000-08:00

“ President Bush and his top strategist, Karl Rove, say Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will be tough to beat in the Democratic presidential primaries of 2008 -- but not in the general election!”
Drudge Exclusive!

President Bush and his top political genius Carl Rove candidly speak on the record for the first time about the upcoming 2008 presidential election in Bill Sammon’s new book entitled "Strategery.” In a rare interview, Rove answered questions about how he sees the political landscape shaping up in 2008. He analyzes the ’08 Democratic contenders’ chances most notably the former occupant of his West Wing office Hillary Clinton. Rove has kept Hillary’s closet door mirror to amuse his guests.

Rove predicts that Hillary “Rotten” Clinton will easily win the Democratic primary in ’08. He also claims that while Democrats will be “hungry for victory” in order to get back into the White House, Hillary will be defeated in the ’08 general election despite her past campaign experience running behind her husband and for the Senate. Rove should be taken seriously. He is the “architect” of both Bush victories.

Rove on the ’08 Democratic Primary:

“She is the dominant player on their side of the slate . . . Anybody who thinks that she’s not going to be the candidate is kidding themselves.”

“The “hard-driving” Clinton will easily vanquish Democratic primary rivals like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, who are merely “preening for the vice presidential slot.”

Rove on Presidents “Americans desire a bold president – Hillary is not.”

“For somebody who is philosophically very liberal, she’ll be a very cautious candidate at times . . . That cautiousness will serve her well a lot of times — not always, but a lot of times.”

“For example, her cautiousness had her vote for the Iraq war . . . Her cautiousness has led her to do things to sort of try to position herself as a centrist.”

Rove on Hillary’s ’08 chances to win the White House:

“The question people will ask is, do we want to have her as president? And the answer to that will be determined in part by how she conducts herself. But it will also be settled in part by who the Republican nominee is and how he or she conducts themselves.”

There is a “brittleness about her” that could prove a weakness in November 2008.

Speaking down the hall in the Oval Office, President Bush marveled at the fact that the ’08 race will be “wide open” the first time in 52 years with neither an incumbent President nor Vice President will be running. That of course is true unless Dick Cheney decides to take a “shot” at it which is highly unlikely at this point. Bush offers advice to his successors and warns them to avoid making their campaigns about the past. I doubt Democrats can do that. He also speaks openly about his own campaign trials and credits the 2000 recount for helping keep his campaign focused, effective, and victorious in 2004.

He too comments on what he sees taking shape in the ’08 horserace. The President agreed in his Texas twang that Hillary will be a formidable candidate. Bush also maked a point to say that he will not aid in selection of the ‘08 GOP nominee, but spoke highly of both his brother Governor Jeb Bush of Florida and Secretary of State Condi Rice neither of which claim to be interested in the office.

Bush on Hillary in ‘08

“I think Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate, and I don’t know the inner workings of the Democrat primary that much, but she will be a formidable candidate in the Democrat primary, is what I meant.”

Bush on the GOP in ‘08

“I won’t be involved in picking. . .

“He’s (Jeb Bush) a wonderful person who has got a great record as governor . . . and most of the presidents have come from the governor’s ranks because they have shown the capacity to set agendas and get results and administer.

“Should he say that ‘I’m interested,’ I think he would be a formidable candidate . . . but he has said he’s not interested, and I think he means that.”

“She’s a remarkable woman(Rice) . . . but, again, I think you’ve got to take her for her word.”

Bush rehashes his own election trials:

“Let me tell you the best thing that ever happened to us -- the recount in 2000 . . . It steeled everybody. It put the fear of God in us.”

“One of the things that I firmly believe in life is that success is more dangerous than near failure . . . because when you fear failure, you’re hungrier, you’re tougher, you’re smarter, you make more strategic decisions, and you never take a moment for granted.”

For conservative political junkies, the book is a must read – "Strategery.” by Bill Sammon

Rove's Deal - Best Outcome for Port Mess!

2006-02-26T05:42:00.000-08:00

“GOP officials are apparently mulling over a deal that would allow for a new review of the Dubai Ports World contentious acquisition.” TIME

As the debate rages over the UAE port takeover, a deal has apparently been struck to allow both the administration and the GOP led congress to save face. Evidently the deal would have Dubai Ports World, the UAE state owned company in question, ask the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS-plus), a Treasury Department-run interagency panel, to review its acquisition of the British company P&O which operates several key U.S. ports. By having Dubai Ports World ask for the review, both the President and GOP leaders on capital hill can avoid a messy confrontation. Presumably the 45-day pause would cool down the temperature of the controversy consuming both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue over the port acquisition. The compromise would allow the matter to be decided in a less destructive inter-party GOP political battle of checks and balances.

On Friday, the Bully Pulpit speculated that Rove and the administration were suggesting a pause in the port transaction in order to find a politically expedient way out of the mess. This deal appears to be just that.

I know that I disagree with many of my conservative friends when I lament over how politically damaging this port issue has been for the GOP. Even though the deal is the best the GOP could hope at this point, the political damage is already done.

On Saturday, I attended a debate between Sean Hannity and liberal icon Jerry Springer. The crowd at the debate was defiantly conservative. Throughout the debate the crowd “peppered” Springer with insults as he went through the liberal talking points on Iraq and Katrina. However, when he said about the port deal “Why would we give such an important aspect of our national security to the people who attacked us on 9-11?” the largely conservative crowd went quiet. Even if you agree with it, there is no way to defend the president’s position to the average voter because this one is real simple. I am glad that there is a deal, however this was an unnecessary self inflicted wound to the party.

Rove at Work Cleaning Up Port Mess!

2006-02-24T04:44:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON — Nearly a week after sparking a political firestorm, the United Arab Emirates-owned management company bidding to take over operations of six U.S. ports offered to delay part of its $6.8 billion deal, The Associated Press reports.” FOX News

After being seemingly caught off guard by a political storm of angry congressional leaders and a very leery public, the Bush administration now appears to have taken a step back in the fight over who should control American ports. The controversy surrounds the purchase of a British Company, P&O, which runs several important American ports by a state owned United Arab Emirates company, Dubai Ports World. After Bush boldly threatened to use his first ever veto to counteract any act of Congress intended to halt the deal earlier this week, on Thursday White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove seemed to ever so slightly back off that position.

In a rare interview, Rove told FOX News Radio’s Tony Snow that the administration would allow more time before the close of the deal for Congress and the American public to examine it more closely. Rove indicated that Congressional outrage was based on limited information about the deal and that a pause in the sale could give Congress time to thoroughly vet the UAE owned company and examine port of entry security concerns. "There are some hurdles, regulatory hurdles, that this still needs to go through on the British side as well that are going to be concluded next week. There's no requirement that it close, you know, immediately after that," Rove said.

The pause in the sale is the best that Bush can hope for in this avoidable and unfortunate controversy. Rove, who is often referred to as “Bush’s Political Brain”, must have seen the fatal political fallout stemming from the sale and advised this course of action. Unfortunately it came two weeks two late.

Conservatives really seem to be split on this subject. Many conservatives such as our good friends at the Conservative Intelligence Report believe that the deal is not as bad as it sounds. Other conservative friends argue that it is just another way for Bush to make Democrats look bad, by forcing them in their argument against the UAE port deal into supporting other Bush policies such as Iraq and tougher profiling. They content that by forcing the Democrats to take the anti-UAE position the will in turn undermine their traditional positions and appear to be even weaker on defense by vacillating in their convictions. Sean Hannity, an ardent support of the president believes that perhaps a side deal was cut allowing the U.S. to use key airfields in the UAE to attack Iran if necessary although he admits there is no evidence to support that possibility.

Beyond the strategic and practical problems, lies a field of political quicksand. Even the most ignorant voter can understand why it would be a bad idea to turn over such a vital national security interest to the people who attacked us on 9-11. The average person will not see the sophisticated nuances required to defend the deal. After overcoming all the other Democratic attacks like DUI, draft dodging, Scooter Libby, the Cheney shooting, this one could be the big political loser for the administration. At the very least it divides the GOP and weakens the party going into the ’06 midterm elections. However, if anyone can get out of this, it is the Bush team. It will be interesting to see what Rove's next move will be and what he will do during the pause. I am still somewhat hopeful that the pause will allow them to find a way out.

Iranians Jumpstarting Iraqi Civil War

2006-02-23T04:42:00.000-08:00

“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed the United States and Israel on Thursday for the destruction of a Shiite shrine's golden dome in Iraq, saying it was the work of "defeated Zionists and occupiers.” AP!

Analysts fear that Iraq may be on the verge of civil war along religious lines following Wednesday’s suicide bombing attack on the Askariya Shrine in Baghdad. The famous shrine was known for its golden dome and is considered to be sacred by Shiite Muslims. Wednesday’s attack was carried out by Sunni suicide bombers dressed like Iraqi policemen who entered the sacred mosque and detonated their bombs. The 1,200-year-old shine was completely destroyed and its gold dome was ripped to shreds. In response, Shiite Muslims attacked over ninety Sunni mosques throughout Iraq, while death squads combed the streets looking for Sunni insurgences said to be responsible.

While liberals have been dreaming of Iraqi civil war to undermine the Bush administration’s policy, there is much more behind this attack then simple religious differences. The attacks were most likely planned in Tehran and carried out by Iranian terrorist proxies. The Iranians, feeling some pressure over their nuclear program, are hoping to keep the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq as long as possible in order to buy themselves time. They see the formation of the new Iraqi government as a serious threat to their own national interests. If Iraq does form a functioning democracy, their citizens might want one too and force the ruling Mullahs out. A successful Iraq would also free up the might of the U.S. military to come after the Mullahs of Iran.

As we have stated before the enemies of freedom are aligning themselves against us and operating under the surface. The media refuses to report on this and the Bush administration never seems to emphasize the big picture in the war against Islamo-Fascism. Like the Shiite Iranian Mullahs, Sunni Al Qaeda terrorists like Zarqawi’s network also desire civil war in order to bleed the Americans out of Iraq, through violence and political pressure. Although not ideologically congruent, both the Shiite Iranian Mullahs and Sunni Al Qaeda types share the same goal and are aggressively working against us.

Evidence of this came on Thursday, as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to a large crowd along the Iranian Iraqi boarder and on Iranian television. He blamed the U.S. for the attack saying it was the work of "defeated Zionists and occupiers." "They invade the shrine and bomb there because they oppose God and justice." Ahmadinejad pronounced. "These passive activities are the acts of a group of defeated Zionists and occupiers who intended to hit our emotions . . . You have to know that such an act will not save you from the anger of Muslim nations."

Members of the new Iraqi government also see the threat of outside instigation of civil war. President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd said "We are facing a major conspiracy that is targeting Iraq's unity . . . We should all stand hand in hand to prevent the danger of a civil war." The top American commander in Iraq Gen. George Casey, called the attack a deliberate attempt to foment sectarian strife and warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq." As world leaders from Bush to Blair condemned the violence.

As Americans we must understand the big picture in the war on terror and recognize the forces gathered against us. To fix Iraq, we must work from the outside in because the problem inside cannot be solved until outside agitators like Iran and Syria are stopped. Until then all efforts to rebuild Iraq are pointless. We must take immediate action to prevent outside forces from scuttling Iraq. The success of Iraqi democracy and our own future safety depends on that.

Bush Wrong on Ports - UPDATE

2006-02-22T09:21:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday.” AP

New information has come to light over the past few hours concerning the UEA port deal. According to White House spokesman Scott McClellen, President Bush only became aware of the deal after it had been completed.

"He became aware of it over the last several days.” McClellan was then asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, to which McClellan said, "That's correct." He said the matter did not rise to the “presidential level”, but went through a congressionally-mandated review process and was determined not to pose a national security threat.”

The President may be trying to distance himself from the sharp criticism over the UEA port deal. This may help the President mend fences with some Republicans on Capital Hill; however politically this distancing is just a smaller mistake. While the opposition cannot hit him with the deal itself, the Democrats can now accuse the President of not knowing about important national security issues. I can just see the political ads now. Even the most novice political observer can understand why it would be a bad idea for our enemies to control our ports. The average voter can understand why it would be a bad idea to have a President unaware of such important matters.

Bush can only recover now if he kills the deal. Even then however he will look weak after threatening a veto. He has painted himself and Republicans into a corner. It pains me to see the man so resolute on terror, make such a gaff. No good can come of this for conservatives going into the midterm elections.

Bush is Wrong on Port Deal

2006-02-22T05:55:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON (AP) - Brushing aside objections from Republicans and Democrats alike, President Bush endorsed the takeover of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports by a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement." AP

Yesterday President Bush strongly defended his administration's approval of a deal which would in the coming weeks turn over administrative control of at least six key U.S. port facilities including New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia to a state owned United Arab Emirates (UEA) company called Dubai Ports World. That decision sparked bipartisan outrage on Capital Hill prompting the President to threaten a “veto” if congress attempted to block the sale through legislation. This dispute erupted last week in Washington when news broke that the current ports administrator, an English based company called the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., was selling its entire worldwide operations to Dubai Ports World including its American port operations.

In a well orchestrated defense of the sale, the Bush administration used its own Bully Pulpit to launch a chorus of rationales for the sale. Speaking to the press aboard Air Force One and then later at the White House, President Bush vehemently defended the UEA deal. Bush tried to quell questions about national security issues over the sale of port operations to a Middle Eastern country by saying that "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward.” The President also pointed to the fact that the UEA has been an ally in the War on Terror and that by blocking the deal the wrong message would be sent to our friends abroad. "It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world.” This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield also chimed in by saying about the UEA that "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us . . . have very close military-to-miltary relations, as well as political and economic relations." Popular talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly also backed the deal. Finally, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace reiterated the President’s statements and assured the public that port security would be handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs. The deal is expected to be worth around seven billion dollars to the U.S. economy and to be closed sometime during March.

Many members of Congress as well as several important governors however strongly oppose the President’s decision to go ahead with the deal. In a rare bipartisan effort, many lawmakers argue that the UEA cannot be trusted with such as vital national security issue. They point to the fact that two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the UEA and that Al Qaeda funneled money through UEA banks for the attacks. They argue that a port operator with financial or ideological incentives could help terrorists smuggle in WMD. At the very least a rogue employee could manipulate manifests and other records to deceive Homeland Security's efforts.

This president can be trusted nearly one hundred percent of the time in fighting the War on Terror and on Homeland Security. On this matter however the President is dead wrong. His decision to go ahead with this sale is his worst decision since the nomination of Harriet Miers, and this one is far more dangerous. There are far too many strategic and political issues associated with this sale that far out weigh the economic benefits.

The strategic issues are apparent seemingly even to Democrats who have been weak on defense. How can we allow a potentially hostile nation, which may soon fall under the influence of Iran to control such a vital part of U.S. national security. How can we share our security secrets with such a nebulous state? The UEA might be helpful in the War on Terror so far, however governments and cooperation can change quickly. Does anyone remember the Shah? We are at war with people from that part of the world, we cannot risk letting a “Trojan Horse” into our nation. Thousands of lives may depend on it.

Like war, today’s politics are also a zero sum game. By going ahead with the sale, the President concedes his strongest political advantage as the “Terror Warrior” to his advisories. The hard left, which has been completely weak and reckless on defense, can now criticize the president for being weak and tear down any advantage he once held on the issue making him vulnerable to attacks on other issues. The left could skillfully use this to make the president a lamb duck sooner or later if they can get public support for this issue on their side. That would not be difficult to do. Mind you, they would only be doing so for political gain. Finally, and God forbid, that there is a terrorist attack that originates through one of these ports. The Bush administration would be finished and scorned throughout history.

Inside the Minds of our Ememies!

2006-02-21T04:43:00.000-08:00

“ANTALYA, Turkey -- Right up to the hot August night his apartment exploded, Louai Sakka's neighbors took him for a newlywed. The lanky Syrian was not seen much in the corridors of the high-rise residential complex where he lived in this sunny resort city, but he spent time nuzzling an attractive young brunette and sipping beer beside the pool.” Washingtonpost

Experienced military commanders would agree that an important step in prevailing over an enemy during a conflict is to have a greater understanding of one’s foe. With that being said, this story out of Turkey yesterday offers a fascinating look at the mindset of our terrorist enemies.

To the outside world, Louai Sakka's looked like any other well to do thirty-two year old Syrian man. He lived in a plush apartment located in a resort town. His neighbors passed by and said “hello” each day as Sakka sipped a cold beer by the pool under a warm Turkish sun and cuddled with his attractive young wife. That perception of Sakka was suddenly shattered however when in the early morning hours of August 4th, 2005, a missive explosion rocked his swanky residence sending a shower of glass and the contents of his kitchen down onto the parking lot below.

Sakka, was a terrorist and long time associate of Abu Musab Zarqawi. With the explosion his neighbor soon discovered his real sinister identity; Sakka was completely devoted to Al Qaeda. He had undergone thousands of dollars of appearance altering plastic surgery before moving to Turkey to carry out a deadly plot. Sakka was building a massive bomb in his kitchen when it accidentally detonated. His deadly terrorist mission was to use this bomb on board his posh yacht to attack a cruise ship laden with U.S. military personnel. The attack would have taken place just two days after the explosion. Sakka was thrilled at the chance to become a martyr.

Sakka escaped the explosion in his apartment only to be apprehended two days later. Investigators linked Sakka to numerous Abu Musab Zarqawi operations throughout the Middle East and beyond. Sakka proudly told interrogators of past attacks he had been involved in and even discussed plans for future operations. While traveling on a phony passport, Sakka earned thousands of frequent traveler miles jaunting to terrorists hotspots around the world for the past fifteen years.

What can a story like this tell us about the terrorist enemy we are facing? The fact is that we are facing a very well organized and sophisticated enemy. We are fighting an enemy who patently plans operations and has the resources to carry them out with deadly efficiency. While some on the left like Jimmy Carter would have you believe that terrorists attack only because they are impoverished, nothing could be further from the truth. In this example, and in countless others including the 9-11 hijackers, you have educated, wealthy, sometimes married men living comfortable lives who willing to give it all up at the drop of a hat in a martyrdom operation. Our enemies have a fanaticism about them that cannot be overlooked. Their cause, their one desire, their one love is our destruction. These people do not seem to care about anything other than the murder of innocent people in their quest to meet Allah. No amount of reasoning or negotiating with these people will work because they are completely blinded by their deadly cause. They must be hunted down and killed.

Ohio’s GOP Gubernatorial Race - by W.T. Dixon III

2006-02-21T04:38:00.000-08:00

“Ohio Republican Establishment Unhinged after Blackwell Tells the Truth about his GOP Primary Opponent.” - W.T. Dixon III

Today, Ohio GOP Chairman Robert T. Bennett condemned an ad from gubernatorial front-runner Ken Blackwell saying "If we can't win with substantive ideas for leading Ohio, we don't belong in the race." Bennett apparently thinks it necessary to defend Jim Petro, a "Johnny come Lately" wanna-be "conservative" who is under an FBI investigation for allegedly taking campaign kickbacks.

The sad truth is that Bennett and his Columbus cronies would rather have a Democrat in power than Ken Blackwell. The RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) care only about their own power centers. Blackwell's strategy is obvious: distance himself from Taft and the scandals of Republican arrogance that have dominated headlines for the last four years. It's called triangulation, and it's straight out of the Dick Morris playbook for William Jefferson Clinton, circa 1996. It works. It's called running to win. Blackwell is clearly focused beyond the pesky 2006 GOP Primary. But if Blackwell wins the general, the fat-cat GOP establishment in Columbus loses.

UBL Vowes to Never be Taken Alive!

2006-02-20T04:34:00.000-08:00

“I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find bitter the taste of death, I don't want to die humiliated or deceived," - bin Laden AP!

According to an audio tape posted on an al Qaeda web site, Osama bin Laden has vowed to never be captured alive. The tape is apparently part of a previously released video from January 19th in which bin Laden offered the USA a “truce.” "I have sworn to only live free. Even if I find bitter the taste of death, I don't want to die humiliated or deceived" UBL boasts.

Bin Laden also accused the United States of employing the same “repressive” tactics used by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. "The jihad is continuing with strength, for Allah be all the credit, despite all the barbarity, the repressive steps taken by the American Army and its agents, to the extent that there is no longer any mentionable difference between this criminality and the criminality of Saddam" UBL stated. Some translations, the liberal ones, even claim that UBL is trying to distance himself from the caged dictator and prove that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and the former regime.

On the tape, bin Laden seems to be following the Democratic talking points. He can be seen mocking President Bush for the aircraft carrier landing of April of 2003. He also speaks to the American people about withdrawing from Iraq by saying “You can rescue whatever you can from this hell. The solution is in your hands, if their (U.S. troops') situation matters to you at all." The tape does not mention the U.S. hellfire missile attack in Pakistan which recently killed several Al Qaeda leaders.

Much like his other Al Qaeda cronies such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the over five hundred guests at “Club Gitmo”, bin Laden has sworn never to be taken alive. Time will tell. The fact that bin Laden is now talking about being captured, could be a sign that U.S. forces are closing in around him.

For the past four years there has been a great debate within U.S. intelligence about what to do with UBL. The U.S. Army strongly advocated the idea of U.S. troops hunting him down in force over the Pakistani border. On the other hand, the CIA preferred to keep bin Laden alive and trapped in order to gather further intelligence about Al Qaeda. They feared that if bin Laden was killed, the known structure of the Al Qeada organization would collapse and the U.S. would become even more blinded to the threat.

In which direction to go is a difficult decision, however the threat and the war continues.

Saddam's Secret Tapes - Story Continues to Unfold!

2006-02-19T05:54:00.000-08:00

“The Russians helped Saddam hide, move, and dispose of WMD’s prior to the war." - General Paul E. Vallely

General Paul E. Vallely, a FOX News military analyst, revealed more shocking information about the secret Saddam Tapes on this week’s edition of FOX and Friends Sunday. Vallely and his team, who have also been analyzing the Saddam recordings, claim that the Russians were heavily involved in helping Saddam move, hide, and dispose of his WMD program before the U.S. invasion.

Vallely claims that Russian special forces or “Spetz” teams helped move materials out of U.N. inspection sites in the run up to the conflict. Russian’s at the U.N. would tip off the Spetz units as to where inspectors would be looking and WMD materials would be taken out the back door and hidden. What is even more concerning is that Vallely claims that the tape also suggest Russian involvement in removing WMD’s from Iraq just prior to the U.S. invasion. Ukrainian intelligence also confirms this and points to evidence of a Russian ship which left from Umm Qasr, Iraq’s only port facility, full of WMD’s that were later disposed of in the Indian Ocean. Valleley also claims that the tapes provide evidence that Russian Spetz teams moved other stockpiles of WMD’s to two locations in Syria and to the Becca Valley in Lebanon.

As we have stated before on the Bully Pulpit we do not like to deal with “conspiracy” theories, however we believe that if any of what is claimed to be on these tapes is true, it must be full vetted. We call on the mainstream media and the administration to do so.

It is possible that the Russians would have used very small spetz teams and their position in the U.N. to help Saddam if they were highly paid to do so. We know that Russia has economic difficulties and that Saddam was willing to pay anyone off if it benefited his regime. Remember, the Russians were also selling Iraq night vision goggles just prior to the war which could point to a relationship. They were also engaged in diplomatic efforts to stop us from invading. I shutter to think the deal they must now have with Iran is any of this is true. If these allegations are true than Russian democracy is dead and we are dealing with a qusi-USSR.

For the Bush administration this could present a huge problem. This may be why they have not been talking about the tapes. If it is true that not only Syria but that the Russians helped Saddam hide WMD’s than we are looking at a major international incident. At this point, neither side can afford that. The Bush administration knows that we need the Russian help in the War on Terror and in Afghanistan. The Russian have no money for another Cold War, but Putin desires some international muscle. He wants to remind the United States that Russia is still relevant in global affairs. These tapes, if true, could spark a major international incident.

Saddam's Secret Tapes - Update!

2006-02-17T05:08:00.000-08:00

“ABC News translation not entirely accurate about Saddam's intent to attack the United States - Tierney

More shocking information about the Saddam Hussein Secret recordings!

Bill Tierney, the former U.N. weapons inspector who translated the twelve hours of secret Saddam tapes, appeared yesterday on the Sean Hannity Show to further discuss the contents of the recordings. Tierney told Sean Hannity that some of what ABC had reported was not an accurate translation of the tapes and that much of the report was taken out of context. Tierney, who originally translated the secret tapes, stated that ABC’s translation of Saddam saying “This is coming, this story is coming, but not from Iraq" in reference to the prediction of WMD attacks on the United States was not in fact an accurate translation.

Tierney uses the contents of the secret Saddam tapes to construct a much more sinister scheme by Saddam to attack the United States. On the recordings, Tierney claims that Saddam said to his henchmen that the “Mother of all Battles” had not ended with Iraq’s defeat in 1991. Saddam had every intention of continuing his campaign against the United States and England. “Too bad the war ended . . . or our missiles would be landing on Israel’s head” Saddam bolstered.

Saddam also apparently realizing that he could not defeat the United States militarily discusses how “proxies” or terrorists might be used to deliver WMD’s to American cities. As the U.N. inspections continued during the 1990’s, the recording also revealed how Iraq might end the inspections and still be capable of striking at the U.S. According to Tierney, T. Aziz can be heard on the tapes discussing how the U.N. had completed its inspections of Iraq’s chemical and missile programs. He went onto lament however that biological weapons inspections were quote “still a problem” for Iraq. On the tapes, Aziz suggests to Saddam that with the help of the French, Russians, and Brazilians they could get the USA to back off and the U.N. to conclude biological weapons inspections. According to Aziz, Iraq could then restart their biological program for terror attacks against the United States.

Perhaps the most alarming part of the tape makes reference to Fort Detrick in Maryland the U.S. headquarters for biological warfare. During the 2001 anthrax attacks, much of the investigation focused on a former scientist employed by the US Army's Fort Detrick germ warfare laboratories Steven Hatfield. Hatfield was later found to be innocent, but who had pointed the figure at him during the attacks remains a mystery. Tierney theorizes that both the attacks and the cover-up could have been the work of Iraqi intelligence.

The Bully Pulpit does not like to report on “conspiracy theories”. If these things were in fact true, why haven’t other former regime members come forward during post war interrogations? Why haven’t the U.S. government and the Bush administration been more forceful about investigating these possibilities? Why does ABC have these tapes and not the CIA? Why hasn’t the U.S. government forcefully interrogated Saddam and Aziz on these matters? Why hasn’t there been “waterboarding?” I sure hope that it is not due to the pressure of anti-American liberal groups.

However along with former Iraqi general G. Sada’s claims of WMD’s being moved to Syria, this story must be more seriously scrutinized. Why has the mainstream media not picked up on this intriguing story considering the debate over the Iraq War? The answer is simple, if people like Tierney and Sada are correct, then the liberal media’s demonization of the war and President Bush will be shattered.

Saddam's Secret Tapes - Connecting the Dots!

2006-02-16T05:10:00.000-08:00

“Saddam predicts — during a meeting in the mid 1990s — a terrorist attack on the United States. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before August 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.” ABC News

With all the hubbub surrounding the Vice President’s shooting accident and the liberal media bias this is a story that has been nearly completely missed. It is important however to analysis its possible implications.

Twelve hours of audio recordings containing Saddam Hussein meeting with his inter sanctum during the mid 1990’s were released yesterday by ABC News. The contents of the recordings may shed new light on Saddam’s evil intentions and the WMD mystery. The recording, which was authenticated by U.S. officials, captures Saddam and his henchmen discussing weapons of mass destruction and future attacks on the United States. This revelation is bound to spark more inquiries as to what became of Saddam’s deadly arsenal prior to the Iraq invasion and an even more explosive political debate as the ’06 midterm elections near.

On the recordings, Saddam discusses with his aids how easy it would be to attack the United States with a weapon of destruction and even seemed to predict that such an attack was imminent.

"Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans . . . and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. . . . In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?"

Also on the tape Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz discusses how easy it would be to produce weapons of mass destruction saying quote:

"Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it."

Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law who was in charge of Iraq’s WMD’s, can also be heard on the taps discussing how Iraq could hide weapons from U.N. inspectors. Kamel was later killed by Saddam after briefly defeating to Jordan.

"We did not reveal all that we have . . . Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use . . . None of this was correct."

What the tapes reveal about Saddam’s terror connections and WDM arsenal is up for interpretation and analysis. It is likely however that while conservatives seek to connect the dots for the sake of national security, liberals will attempt to use the contents of the tape to attack the president politically.

The liberal analysis of these recording is likely to be that while Saddam was a bad guy, he posed no threat to the United States. They will site a portion of the tape where Saddam predicts terrorist attacks on the U.S. but says quote: "This is coming, this story is coming, but not from Iraq." Liberals are then likely to return to the “the president took his eye off the ball” talking points and claim that “Iraq was a distraction” in the War on Terror. “Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one” Teddy Kennedy will say with glee. If this story is ever reported by the mainstream media, these are the types of things liberals are bound to say. However, in their myopic hatred of President Bush, they fail to really examine the true contents of the recordings and the importance of Iraq in the wider War on Terror.

The reality is that while Saddam may not have played an active role in the 9-11 attacks, he did foster, aid, and support international terrorists for years in their “jihad.” This then indicts Saddam as an accomplice and a threat to U.S. national security.

The fact that Saddam during the mid 1990’s seems to know that "Terrorism is coming”, suggests that he had knowledge of possible Al Qeada and other terror groups plots against the United States. While liberals claim that Saddam had no ties to terror, there is a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that he had numerous terrorist links. In fact, Saddam’s Iraq was a “Comfort Inn for killers” and haven for a vast network of international terrorists. For starters, it was well known that Saddam paid "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. That is hardly compassionate charity work for the impoverished Palestinian people. “President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office . . . his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” (T Aziz, March 11, 2002). Saddam also allowed known internationalist terrorists such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal to use Iraq as a safe haven for their activities. Saddam helped to train thousands of terrorists within Iraq at terrorist training camps such as “Salman Pak” just outside of Baghdad which housed a passenger jet to train terrorists to become hijackers.

There is also some evidence to support Iraqi Al Qeada ties. Prior to the U.S. invasion Abu Musab al Zarqawi was allowed to seek medical care in Iraq after being injured in Afghanistan. After assassinating a U.S. diplomat in Jordan, he then was permitted to stay and set up an Al Qeada training camp in northern Iraq. The camp was to specialize in chemical weapons, possible to be used in Jordan or against the UK. While it cannot be confirmed, Czech intelligence claims that M. Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent met in Prague prior to 9-11. There were also reports of meeting between Iraqi intelligence agents and Al Qeada operatives throughout the 1990’s. Some even claim that Al Zawhiri, bin Laden’s number two man, personally visited Baghdad sometime around when the recording was made.

At the very least then, Saddam was part of or associated with a world wide terror network plotting to attack the United States. With all of this evidence it is very conceivable that Saddam was well aware of the 9-11 attacks years before they took place. This makes him an accomplice and a guilty party.

It is very possible that a WMD armed Saddam could have and would have given his deadly weapons to these terror connections for attacks against the U.S. By way of proxy, he could have attacked the U.S. without getting his figure prints on the assault.

What is also evident by listening to the tapes is that Saddam not only had WMD’s, but also made a concerted effort to conceal them from the U.N. inspectors.

"We did not reveal all that we have . . . Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

This explains why after twelve years of sanctions and inspections, Saddam still would not comply with the U.N. resolutions and inspectors. Saddam played a shell game of sorts with the U.N., always staying one step ahead of their feeble efforts.

Here is another place were some of the dots might be connected. A few weeks ago we reported on a former Iraqi General named G. Sada. Sada , who was one of Saddam’s top lieutenants, claimed that before the U.S. invasion Saddam had Iraq’s WMD’s moved to Syria by 737’s disguised as commercial flights. The evidence on the tape seems to support that such a theory on the missing WMD’s could be possible.

“Sir, the biological is very easy to make. It's so simple that any biologist can make a bottle of germs and drop it into a water tower and kill 100,000. This is not done by a state. No need to accuse a state. An individual can do it."

The comments on the recording made by T. Aziz also suggest that a chemical and biological program could be resumed and continued very easily, perhaps after the U.N. U.S. pressure had moved on to something else.

Saddam may have thought prior to the war that if he moved the weapons to Syria, eventually the U.N. would support the fact that he had no weapons and prevent the U.S. from taking military action. He then could have reestablished his program. One should also remember that Saddam was paying European nations like Russia and France, through the Oil for Food Scandal, to look favorably on Iraq and to buy him time for such a scheme. This might have worked with another president, but Bush chose to act and end the games.

The fact is that the invasion of Iraq was an important step in winning the overall War on Terror. Not only did we remove a sworn enemy of the United States from power and liberate his people, we also broke up Saddam’s evil network of support for terrorists. Iraq has become a beachhead of sorts for the broader War on Terror, much like Normandy during WWII. It is a place to engage our enemies and protect the homeland. It has allowed the United States to move its big stick into the region and like a giant bug lamp has drawn our enemies in to be squashed. Even bin Laden concedes that Iraq has become the central front in their jihad. If only liberals would.

How many American lives the invasion of Iraq has saved will never be known. However, it is certain that the sacrifice of our brave soldiers has saved the homeland from attacks by Saddam supported terror networks. At the very least, the invasion has kept evil on the run and has taken away its sanctuary and support.

Dean’s “Strategery” for ’08!

2006-02-15T05:16:00.000-08:00

“One Republican strategist who had seen the opposition research packets said: 'We should expect nothing less than name-calling and referring to one’s political opponents as ‘fat’ from Howard Dean’s Democrat Party..” Drudge!

Conservatives everywhere should be seriously concerned about the potential Democratic strategy for ’08. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has seemingly come up with a brilliant campaign strategy for the next presidential race. This new and potent strategy was sent by the Democratic National Committee via email on Monday to their research director Devorah Adler. The message contained a large amount of research on the top ten potential Republican presidential candidates. Sen. George Allen, Sen. Sam Brownback, Sen. Bill Frist , Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain, Gov. George Pataki, and Gov. Mitt Romney all made the list.

The research based strategy included a great deal of background information on each of the potential candidates. It also contained detailed analysis as to how best the Democrats might defeat them. Dean has apparently prepared a specific strategy to undermine each potential Republican challenger with a succinct and devastating message.

The email suggested a revolutionary political strategy for attacking former House Speaker Newt Gingrich should he decide to run. Gingrich once told the AP that the answer to obsess and overweight children was to have them “Turn off the TV, cut the fatty diet and get exercise.” Dean’s brilliance points out, that Democrats might be able claim that even in light of that comment Gingrich himself is also heavy! The attack even includes a photo of Gingrich at a dinner with two plates full of food. Dean’s “Don’t Vote for Gingrich because he is Fat!” campaign slogan, ranks up therr with some of the best greatest historical slogans of all time like “Tippecanoe and Tyler too” or maybe even “54 40 or Fight!” And people think that Rove is a political genius?

Conservatives need to get down on bended knee and thank God every day for Howard Dean and the Democratic leadership. The fact that this is actually what Democrats think about when they are strategizing for the next election and it is just a blessing for Republicans. The few smart Democratic operatives out their like James Carville and Paul Begala are just mortified by the direction their party is moving. Both of them were able to prop up a philandering Clinton for eight years with no achievements and endless peccadilloes. They do know something about politics even if they are big libs. In their new book, “Take it Back” they too criticize the DNC for ridiculous ideas like this email. Dean mades the "scream!" The best news for Republicans however, is that no one in the Democratic leadership listens to them anymore. They have been ostracized by the hard left who sees them as “centrist third way types.” Why else do you think Carville is so bald?

Conservatives everywhere need to support Dean and the other loony lefties for the good of the country. While Rove plans his next great architectural marvel in ’06, Dean is planning to call his opposition “fat” and maybe if things get real ugly “four eyes!” That I’m sure is a message voters will respond to, in favor of the Republicans.

Press Corps "Peppers" Own Foot Over Cheney!

2006-02-13T19:50:00.000-08:00

“NEW YORK — An incredulous press corps on Monday peppered White House spokesman Scott McClellan with question after question about a weekend hunting incident in which Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot Austin attorney and hunting partner Harry Whittington.” FOX News

On Monday a hysterical feeding frenzy over Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident gripped the White House press corps during their daily briefing. Smelling “blood in the brush” they circled around Press Secretary Scott McClellan like hungry sharks and cried “fowl.” On Saturday, Vice President Cheney accidentally shot his hunting companion Harry Whittington while hunting “quail” in Texas. No, not the former vice president during 41’s administration. Whittington is recovering in a Texas hospital and expected to be fine. The county sheriff was called after the shooting and has ruled the matter an accident. While the press surprisingly conceded that the shooting was an accident, at least for now, they were furious that the White House did not inform the press corps for nearly 24 hours after the shooting had occurred.

Angry White House correspondents rudely shouted at McClellan and made ludicrous comments. Several journalists implied that a great cover-up had taken place in order to avoid coverage of the incident on the Sunday morning talk shows. Another compared the incident to the Katrina disaster and the response to the breached levees. Perhaps the best question posed by the journalist elite was inquiring if the Vice President had offered his resignation over the matter. McClellen sarcastically refused to entertain the question. All Democratic talking points were covered.

“Why is it that it took so long for the president, for you, for anybody else to know that the vice president accidentally shot somebody?"

"Scott, when you consider the chronology that you've tried to go through here and all of the various wrinkles of how long it took for the primary information that the vice president was the person who shot this fellow, to get through to the president himself, is there any notion here of reviewing your own communications apparatus? I mean, this is sort of reminiscent of the levee story, frankly,"

"The bottom line is this was probably a dumb call. You pick up the phone, you say, 'Let's get a statement out and get this behind us.' You avoid the kind of feeding frenzy we're seeing here today. I think the press smells a little blood in the water"

“Would it have been more serious if Whittington had died?”

“Has the Vice President offered his resignation?”

On a day when Iran began to enrich uranium, it was revealed that millions of tax payers dollars spent on Katrina relief were used for adult entertainment by victims, and former Vice President Al Gore made anti-American comments in Saudi Arabia these are the questions the press corps choose to ask the administration. During this “peppering” McClellan calmly answered and smartly defended the decision not to release the information to the press by saying that Cheney’s primary concern was getting Whittington prompt medical care.

What the press conference revealed to all Americans is that the liberal mainstream media is fixated on attacking the Bush administration. Like a wild horse with blinders on, to them little else matters. Just think back to the stories they have focused on over past few months. Think of all the endless negative reporting about Iraq. When that fizzled out after the successful elections it was onto blaming Bush for Katrina. Still searching for something, anything really, there was Scooter Libby and the NSA. We could go on and on but you get the point. The media jumps on anything they think might hurt Bush without even considering the ramifications. Like the world of moral relativism they live in, they just cannot control themselves. They continue to engage in this destructive behavior. In doing so, like the Democrats, the media has completely lost site of reality. They are so desperate at this point to injure the president that they will swing at a pitch in the dirt without really considering how ridiculous they look. The American people chuckle at their attempts. Their feeble attempt to create a cover-up is transparent.

Politically, this story can only help Republicans. In fact the more the media reports the story the more liberals will be “blown away” in ’06. Americans understand that it was an accident. Cheney is not Aaron Burr who shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Hunting accidents happen all the time and this type of accident is common to many sportsmen across the nation.

It is also only a matter of time until the liberals start talking about “gun control.” That is a huge loser for the Dems as sportsmen across the nation strongly supported Bush in ’04. I am sure that the NRA is already preparing the literature to counter the inevitable liberal assault on the Second Amendment. Average Americans identify with true hunters like Cheney and reject phony sportsmen like Howard Dean. Remember when Kerry went hunting? That stunt cost him several points and this story will once again widen the gap between Democrats and Republicans in that constituency. All Republicans have to do is joke around about the incident, hold up a rifle, and the NRA will happily follow them to fundraisers and the ballot box. Hunting is within the American red state character and while lefties on the coasts may want to ban guns, mainstream Americans do not. They will flock to the polls in droves to protect them.

On this once again, the Dem’s cannot stop “shooting” themselves in the foot.

Gore Chooses Sides in the War on Terror!

2006-02-13T04:45:00.000-08:00

“Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

"Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications."
AP!

All patriotic Americans should in the near future plan a trip to the “Sunshine State” or at the very least buy a bag of Florida oranges. It is clear now six years later that nation owes the 200+ Florida voters who kept Al Gore out of the White House a great deal of gratitude. Since his defeat, Gore has become increasing volatile and unhinged. This of course has endeared him to the hard left. He has also joined the anti-American crowd who not only criticizes the president at home, but also abroad even in enemy nations. Other charter members of this exclusive club include Jane Fonda, Jimmy Carter, and Field Marshall Sheehan.

In a speech given in Saudi Arabia at the Jiddah Economic Forum over the weekend, Gore blasted Bush for quote “abuses against Arabs.” He described the Bush administration post 9-11 visa policies for people from the Middle East as "terrible abuses." "The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States." Gore went on to announce to the world that Arabs have been "indiscriminately rounded up" and detained in “unforgivable conditions.”

It seems that the former vice president has departed from reality on this issue as well some others. First of all, have any of you seen the “Arab internment camps” Gore is talking about? Unless he is referring to a DC cab stand I have not. Therefore, we must conclude then that Gore went into a hostile nation and made up propaganda to be used against the United States during a time of war.

As for “visa policy”, many of you may remember that 15 of the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudis. Could that be the reason for the tighter visa policy? One might also recall that Saudi Arabia is the nation were bin Laden once lived. Does the former VP want to give him a visa too? Saudi Arabia is also the nation that promotes the radical and violent brand of Islam known as “Wahabism.” It builds madrassas or Wahabi schools all over the world to preach anti-American hatred and train young people to become terrorists. Upon graduation should we let these folks in the USA Mr. VP?

The truth is that the only Arabs locked away are the evil-doers who want to kill Americans and destroy our country. And where are these folks? They are locked away at sunny “Club Gitmo” enjoying good food consistent with Muslim law, sun filled afternoons, and soccer games.

For eight gloomy years, the Clinton administration of which Gore was apart looked the other way when it came to terrorism. Even after Somalia, the Kobar Towers attacks, the first World Trade Center attack, the African embassies bombings, and even the USS Cole they simply refused to deal with the threat. Even with bin Laden in the crosshairs they refused to pull the trigger for fear of political ramifications. They saw the threat as a law enforcement issue and preferred not to touch it for fear of upsetting the false “Pax Americana” consumed with “feeling our pain.” Now because of their inaction the United States and the world feel the pain of the terrorist threat.

After September 11th one who assume that Gore would have seen the errors made in the 1990’s and changed his perspective on how to deal with terrorists. Well he has, he has taken their side.

Unlike Cheney, Dems are missing the mark on "Culture of Corruption!"

2006-02-12T18:03:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON - The White House on Sunday acknowledged the authenticity of the first photograph made public that shows President Bush and embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, while stressing it does not mean the two had a personal relationship.” MSNBC

Unlike Vice President Cheney on his recent hunting trip, liberals hoping to take a political shot at the president and the GOP in the ’06 midterm elections seem to be missing the mark with their “Culture of Corruption” campaign. The hard left media machine has finally released the first pictures of President Bush and embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The 2001 photo shows the president in a room shaking hands with numerous supporters of Bush’s tax cut policies. A bearded Abramoff is seen in the distance away from the President. The White confirmed that Abramoff attended this meeting and others; however the President did not recall meeting him or posing for a photo with Abramoff. White House spokesmen Allen Abney reminded the hungry press that “The president has taken tens of thousands of pictures. This does not mean he has a personal relationship with each individual that is in those pictures.”

A few weeks ago on FOX News Sunday DNC Chairman Howard Dean told Chris Wallace that the “Abramoff scandal was only a Republican scandal.” When Wallace challenged that assertion Dean sputtered a little and said that “any Democrat involved will be in big trouble.” Last week evidence came out indicating that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada had at least two dozen contacts with Abramoff over three years and had collected nearly $68,000 from Abramoff clients. The evidence suggested that Reid wrote a series of letters intended to influence the Department of the Interior on behalf of Abramoff client’s (Native American Casino owners) in return for campaign kickbacks. Dean has yet to comment on how Reid will be punished.

So what does all this mean politically in ‘06? Little if anything. . .

For months now, lefties have been salivating over the idea of linking President Bush with the lobbyist scandal. Democrats hope to use the Abramoff scandal as the cornerstone of their 2006 midterm election campaign by depicting Republicans as participating in a “Culture of Corruption.” Politically however, as their socialist hero LBJ used to say “that dog won’t hunt.”

Even though two thirds of the Abramoff money went to Republicans, the American public sees graft as a part of both political parties. Outside of the beltway, voters care little about such scandals and focus on national security and the economy. The GOP far out polls the Democrats on national security issues like the War on Terror and Homeland Security (+14% FOX News). Surprisingly, the GOP does trail on several economic issues even though all economic indicators have continued to grow over the past several years.
While Democrats see an opening, the economic numbers merely suggest that the leftist media has been able to convince Americans that the economy is poor, even though most Americans acknowledge that they are doing well personally. Besides that, national security traditionally trumps even the economy. Furthermore, congressional campaigns like politics are “local affairs.” Why else would Democratic icon and former Klansmen Senator Bird have voted for Alito? He is facing a strong challenge next fall.

The GOP does have much work to be done in order not to lose congressional seats in ’06. Congressional Republicans have been running for cover over the past year with the president’s slumping poll numbers. That is mainly why they have accomplished little. Congressional GOP leaders need to reinvigorate the Republican controlled Congress over the next 6 months so they appear to be doing the work of the nation. Bush did give them the tool to do this with his budget proposal. With many of the cuts, the GOP can be seen as being fiscally responsible by cutting some programs, while compassionate by saving others. Any heat can be deflected onto Bush.

The fact is GOP has to get tough in ‘06. However, the GOP does have one strong advantage and that is that their opponents are Democrats.

Psych Ops

2006-02-12T05:39:00.000-08:00

“Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb.” News Telegraph

In an address to a large “Nuremberg” like mob, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that Islamic nations will eventually quote “remove Israel from the region.” At the same rally he went on to say that the Holocaust was a “fairytale.” "How come that insulting the prophet of Muslims worldwide is justified within the framework of press freedom, but investigating about the fairy tale Holocaust is not?" Ahmadinejad said. "The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless . . .”

Ahmadinejad also commented that the controversial Danish cartoons were really created by Israel and that the Western world was being “held hostage by the Zionists.” We all know that he is an expert on “hostage taking.” In response to his remarks the crowd yelled "Death to Denmark" "Death to Israel" and "Death to the Great Satan!" The speech was just an example of how Islmo-Fascists are duping their people thought the use of Nazi like propaganda in order to turn them against the West and to accomplish their evil goals of Islamic domination in their clash of cultures.

Interestingly enough, the Pentagon apparently “leaked” that it has been planning quote “devastating” attacks on Iran if they become necessary. This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment," said a senior Pentagon adviser. "This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months." Both Central and Strategic Commands have been developing an extensive target lists and the necessary logistic to facilitate such an assault. The planning apparently goes all the way up to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield’s desk. Such a plan would most likely include massive B-52 and B-2 bomber raids on Iran’s nuclear and military facilities using “bunker busting” bombs. There are also plans to retrofit submarine launched Trident missiles with conventional warheads. Although the Europeans still seem a little leery of military action, weeks ago Senator John McCain summed up the growing crisis by saying "There is only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

President Bush under no circumstances can permit the Iranians to get nuclear weapons. We are at a very critical juncture in the war against Islmo-Fascism. Please refer to some of our other articles on Iran for more information.

"Peaceful" Muslims Respond in Kind!

2006-02-11T11:24:00.000-08:00

“LONDON - The organizers of the protest said they hoped to stage a peaceful rally. They want to show that law-abiding, moderate Muslims who are enraged about the cartoons also shun the violence that has greeted the drawings.” CNN

On our recent podcast, the “Bully Pulpit” called upon moderate members of the so called “religion of peace” Islam, to step forward and condemn the escalating rioting and violence that have occurred around the world in response to the Danish cartoon. The cartoon image of the prophet Mohamed with a bomb in his turban was satire meant portray Islam as a violent religion. Therefore, the Bully Pulpit challenged the so called “peaceful” Muslims of the world to prove that the message of the cartoon was in error. Today, the so called “peaceful” side of Islam responded.

In London and Paris today, thousands of Muslims protested not the violence associated with the cartoons, but the cartoons themselves. Granted these protests were not violent. There were no firebombs, threats, or chants of ‘Death to Demark” like the other rallies held around the world this past week. Instead they carried signs which read "Mohammed Equals Mercy to Mankind" and "United Against Islamaphobia." through Trafalgar Square and other locations. Even some local non-Muslim public officials joined the march as a show of goodwill. Does anyone remember such a march after the London subway bombings? Does anyone remember the British Muslim community turning the radical murders over to the bobbies?

The fact that these Muslim protests today were peaceful is really quiet irrelevant but it was telling about the true face of Islam. The protests today did not condemn the violent acts of their Muslim brothers. Furthermore, they did nothing to answer for the destruction that has been caused. Therefore we must surmise that their lack of condemnation was derived from either indifference or fear of violent reprisal. Regardless, this proves the point of the Danish cartoon once again.

Radical Islamist extremists are using these cartoons as propaganda to prepare their people for conflict with the West. In Islam, the Koran teachers that even if it takes 2,000 years they will either convert or kill the infidels. They are not really outraged by a cartoon. They are outraged by our liberties, our diversity, and our freedom. They are outraged by our existence. This should be a lesson to all infidels like me.

The Politics of War!

2006-02-10T05:47:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly after 9/11, al Qaeda began planning to use shoe bombers to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, California, President Bush said Thursday."CNN

Bush’s speech this week was both a victory in the War on Terror as well as a finely crafted political winner!

President Bush reveled this week that in early 2002 the administration had interdicted a terrorist plot by Al Qaeda to once again attack the United States using hijacked civilian aircraft. Bush stated that shortly after 9-11, a senior Al Qaeda operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed began to formulate another deadly plan to attack civilian targets on the west coast of the United States. You may recall that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks and is currently in U.S custody after being captured in Pakistan. Originally, the planned West coast attack was supposed to take place on 9-11 but was not carried out due to Al Qaeda’s inability to get enough hijackers into the country. Therefore the west coast assault was postponed by bin Laden and refined for a future attack.
The west coast attacks were to be carried out by members of Jemaah Islamiyah, the South East Asian branch of Al Qaeda in order to avoid detection. It was thought that after 9-11 Arab hijackers would have more difficulty breaking though airport security. Once in flight, the terrorists would have used “shoe bombs” to blow open the reinforced cockpit door and take control of the aircraft. As on 9-11, the planes would then be crashed into civilian targets most notable the Library Tower or U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles.

Fortunately for all of us, the plan was foiled through the efforts of the Bush administration and our “allies” in Southeast Asia, most likely Indonesia. After being arrest in 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed provided information that helped net another high ranking operative known as Hambali the leader of Jemaah Islamiyah. His arrest then led to the uncovering of several cells with the United States such as the Lackawanna cell and a plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

So what does this revelation mean politically? For starters it means that the Bush administration’s policy on how to fight international terrorism is working. Prior to 9-11 terror leaders were able to safely plot our destruction outside the United States without any fear of being captured or killed. Today because of the Bush policy, terror leaders are on the run fearing capture and hellfire missiles making it more difficult for them to operate. While liberals mocked Bush’s statements about “hunting them down” and “smoking them out of their holes” he has done just that. In fact, the west coast plot may be just one of at least ten plots the administration has foiled since 9-11. The Bush Doctrine has also been robust and muscular in getting unsympathetic nations to become “allies” in the war on terror. This has allowed us to extend our reach into the Muslim world and can be considered a force multiplier.

The Bush speech was also carefully orchestrated to subtly demonstrate to the American people that with Bush on the job their families are safe. A simple yet highly effective political message used by Rove in ’04 and to be repeated by the GOP in ’06. Democrats over the past several months have been walking the “national security plank” with their incessant attacks on the president for such things like “wiretapping”, “the Patriot Act”, “the Iraq Conflict,” “’Scooter’ Libby,” and “the harsh interrogation methods of Al Qaeda prisoners” like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Bush is now starting to push them off the edge into the abyss.

Every day on TV Americans see the imagines of enraged Muslims chanting “Death to America” over a cartoon. They see the mad mullahs of Iran pursing nuclear weapons. The American public is keen to the fact that a grave threat to our nation still exists. Whether they admit it or not, a majority of Americans trust Bush to keep them and their families’ safe because of his proven record since 9-11. The west coast plot speech only reinforces this image.

On the other hand, the speech reminds people that the Democrats are the party weak on defense and the party that is constantly attempting to impede Bush’s security efforts. It sends the message that Democrats cannot be trusted to protect their families. That clear message trumps all other issues and is largely responsible for Bush’s re-election. Politically Bush has once again corned the Democrats. Now they must stop obstructing and pass the Patriot Act as well as backing off the wiretap issue if they have any hope of saving face with the public on national security. This powerful message resonates with the American people and should help the GOP next fall.

“Kristallnacht” 2006? – Historical Warning!

2006-02-09T05:01:00.000-08:00

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that Iran and Syria "have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes. And the world ought to call them on it."FOX News

With the Muslim world increasingly becoming more anti-Western over a Danish cartoon, history provides us with a stark warning. The recent past has proven that this type of propaganda driven violence may only be the beginning of something much more sinister.

Muslin outrage over a Danish cartoon depicting Mohamed with a bomb in his turban has intensified over the past week. Muslim fury has seemingly grown while dozens of enraged Islamist mobs have ruthlessly attacked embassies across the Middle East. In Beirut last Sunday, radical Islamists stormed into the Danish embassy and set each floor ablaze with cheers of “Death to Demark!” The same type of assault was also seen last week in Damascus. In Tehran, fanatical extremists shouted “Death to Britain” as they assaulted both the Danish and British embassies with stones and fire bombs. Americans know all to well the Iranian track record of attacking embassies. Violence also sparked up in the Gaza Strip and even in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. These attacks were joined by several other incidents including another band of Islamic thugs attempting to overpower the U.S. Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and another NATO facility. None of the cartoons in question however have been widely published within either the United States or Britain. In fact, President Bush has taken a much more sympathetic stand than is advisable considering what is at stake.

The fact that the cartoon violence has increased this week rather than dying down is curious. In fact it suggests that the violent assemblies are not just rash expressions of spontaneous outrage. Rather they are part of a much wider and more menacing campaign by Islmo-Fascists to turn the Islamic world more radical and anti-western.

Evidence has recently come out that a Danish imam was actually responsible for stirring up the Muslim violence last week. Hoping to incite an anti-western movement, the imam took not only the published Danish cartoon, but also several other drawings that did not appear in the paper. These phony illustrations were far more insulting to Muslims by depicting Muhammad as a “pig-man.” This week, Secretary of State Condi Rice also indicated on Tuesday that both Syria and Iran have been responsible for inciting the violence.

With that being said, one must surmise that a radical Islamic anti-western conspiracy is taking place here. History provides us with a chain of similar events and a warning that must be considered. Shortly after assuming power in Nazi German in the early 1930’s, Adolph Hitler slowly set in motion a plan to harden the German public opinion against the Jewish population in order to engage in his “final solution.” He began by launching a massive yet subtle propaganda campaign that accused German Jews of being responsible for Germany’s defeats during World War I. The misinformation also blamed German Jews for the nation’s poor economic conditions during the Great Depression. Jews were even blamed for the destruction of the German Reichstag in Berlin. The fire was actually set by the Nazis themselves. The propaganda was well received by a German public upset by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and by the withering economic situation that followed. Soon anti-Semitic sentiment bloomed in German and Jews found themselves unwelcome in society. This tension exploded in 1938 during what became known as “Kristallnacht” or "the Night of Broken Glass." Bands of Nazi gangs roamed wild destroying Jewish businesses, homes, and even synagogues. Afterwards the German propaganda machine claimed that the destruction was caused by a “spontaneous outburst” of anti-Jewish sentiments. In reality it had been carefully orchestrated by the Nazi Party and J. Goebbels. Many historians site “Kristallnacht” and the events leading up to it as the beginning of the Holocaust and the systematic extermination of six million people.

One cannot help but see that there are striking similarities in the events throughout the Middle East today and in the events that led to the “Kristallnacht” during the 1930’s. For years now, Islmo-Fascists have used propaganda to blame the Western world for the shortfalls found in Middle Eastern society. The toils of economic despair and the lack of freedom are the seeds of rage and anger; and like in 1930’s German the people are looking for a scapegoat. With a largely uneducated population, it is easy for the Islamo-Fascists to shift the blame for the miserable conditions onto the west by skillfully crafting this type of propaganda. By doing so they not only divert attention away their despotic regimes, but it also allow them to continue to subjugation their people. Most importantly as the Nazi example proves, such propaganda efforts in that type of atmosphere allow the Islamo-Fascists to radicalize and harden public opinion against the West. Coupled with a religion that celebrates martyrdom this can become a very potent weapon. With such a weapon “Jihad” can commence!

The question now becomes will the Danish cartoons become the tipping point for an anti-Western “Kristallnacht” in the Muslim world? Will the West act to stop it before it is too late?

Carter & Dems Attack Bush at King Funeral!

2006-02-07T17:49:00.000-08:00

“Americans knew her husband only as a young man. We knew Mrs. King in all the seasons of her life -- and there was grace and beauty in every season. As a great movement of history took shape, her dignity was a daily rebuke to the pettiness and cruelty of segregation." – President George W. Bush

"It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." – 444 Days of Captivity Carter. Drudge Report

On Monday, a funeral service was held outside of Atlanta in honor of the noble Coretta Scott King. Mrs. King was not only the wife of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King; but after his untimely death took up her own civil rights crusade with the same type of passion, zeal, and dignity her husband embodied. Numerous dignitaries attended the service including President Bush and three former presidents. They were also joined by several other notable civil rights activists of the past inside of a huge suburban Atlanta mega-church. Flags were flown across the United States at half mast. The nation paused to remember the sacrifices made by many including Mrs. King to help ensure that both Jefferson’s and MLK’s dream that “all men are created equal” would finally be realized. The ceremony was intended to honor Mrs. King and her life of great works.

As usually however, Democrats used the event to attack the Bush administration. In a display of sheer classlessness former president “444 days in captivity” Carter used the occasion to criticize Bush’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” As many in the crowd “cheered” and President Bush sat at his side Carter said:

“It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."

Okay stop for a quick history lesson. First of all it was Bobby Kennedy that authorized the MLK wiretaps, a Democrat and brother of Ted "Hickup" Kennedy who was also on stage. That was an example of true "domestic spying." As for Carter, does everyone remember his steller administration? Hmm, let’s see, humiliated by the Iran Hostage Crisis, failed rescue attempt, Russians invade Afghanistan, energy crisis, please were your sweater, humiliating election defeat in 1980, shall we go further? Carter was and has become even more of a disgrace to this country.

Carter’s sordid comments were soon followed by Rev. Joseph Lowery who also blasted Bush at the funeral ceremony in full view of the President’s pew. A tactful Bush sat graciously and listened while the ambush continued. Lowery managed to change to another Democratic talking point the War in Iraq by saying:

“She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there .

. . But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here, For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!"

Can anyone explain how the discussion of “smart bombs”, “wiretaps”, and “WMD’s” in any way honors Mrs. King? Can anyone explain to the country how comments like these are consistent with the ideas promoted by Mrs. King? No, comments like these are exactly what Dr. and Mrs. King fought so hard to end. Comments like these are divisive.

The fact is once again the Democrats are playing politics. It is just amazing that anyone would turn an event to honor the death of an outstanding American like Mrs. King into a political rally. It just shows that the Democrats will do anything for their own perceived political gain. It is amazing that anyone could be so boorish as to criticize the President of the United States while he is sitting next to you at such an event. There is a time and a place for politics and dissent, a funeral for an American hero is not the place. Only the modern Democratic Party could be so ill-mannered. Two years ago when Democrats turned a ceremony for Paul Wellstone into a similar political rally the American people rallied to defeat them at the polls. Thankfully for us, they will never learn.

Nagin wants French "Chocolate!"

2006-02-07T05:08:00.000-08:00

“I know we had a little disappointment earlier with some signals we're getting from Washington but the international community may be able to fill the gap," Nagin said when a delegation of French government and business officials passed through on Friday to explore potential business partnerships.” Reuters

Yesterday, Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans once again criticized the Bush administration for not providing enough funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Therefore, Nagin stated that he will turn to the “international community” for funding recovery since in his opinion Washington has failed to act. Nagin has recently invited delegates from France and Jordan to help pick up the clean up tab. You may remember that several weeks ago, Nagin remarked that New Orleans should be a so called “chocolate city” and even claimed to have spoken directly with MLK. He not only blamed Bush for Katrina, but also suggested that God was punishing the United States for the War in Iraq. I guess the “buck” does not stop on his desk. Nagin’s comments come after Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco also blasted Washington for not providing enough assistance for hurricane recovery by stating that “its time to play hard ball.” I suppose that baseball is becoming a more “international” game.

Flooded buses Nagin failed to use to get people out of New Orleans before Katrina struck! Bush's Fault? God's Fault?

Now back to reality. Let’s set the record straight on hurricane relief once and for all. The Bush administration and the Congress, they are both in Washington Mr. Nagin, have already committed more than $85 billion, that’s billion with a “B”, for Katrina recovery. They have also recently requested an additional $18 billion for Katrina clean up efforts. Not only have the American donated their tax dollars to the effort, but they have also reached deep into their pockets and donated countless millions of dollars to aid the suffering across the gulf coast. They have done this largely by donating to the Red Cross. Countless other grass roots donation drives at schools and storefronts have also taken place across the country. This is hardly loose change, and the American people should be offended by Nagin’s comments.

So Mr. Mayor, if you would rather get the money for your international friends go right ahead. Let’s take a look at all the money and relief they have donated so far. France has donated: 600 tents, 1,000 cots, some kitchen kits, 60 generators and 12 “experts” to advise the American Red Cross. Anyone for French “chocolate” or maybe a “Bon Bon?” Jordan is still thinking about how much to donate. Hmmmm, I see why you are so upset with the American taxpayer Mr. Mayor.

The truth is that unfortunately for the people of New Orleans and Louisiana their local elected officials did not and are still not helping them. Instead they are blaming others for their failures. Nagin and Blanco dropped the ball both before and after the hurricane struck. They are both incapable of handling the situation. The voters of Louisiana need to replace these people as soon as possible with leaders like Haley Barbour of Mississippi, who has helped get his state back on its feet with even less federal assistance.

The American people understand that residences of Louisiana still need help and are willing to do so, but they also expect the citizens and local leaders of that region to appreciate that aid and eventually begin to care for themselves once again. Go ahead Mr. Mayor, ask around international circles for the money, but you will never find a more generous people that here in the United States.

Dems Weak on Wire Taps!

2006-02-06T12:05:00.000-08:00

“it may make the difference between success and failure in stopping the next terrorist attack.” Attorney General A. Gonzalez

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez was on Capital Hill today to defend what what the Bush administration refers to as its “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” As we have previously discussed on this blog History Proves Bush is Right on Terrorist Wire Taps!

The Democrats while still testy seemed to be a little more open to the idea of listening in on terrorist phone calls which might prevent another 9-11. Even liberals like P. Leahy of the Judiciary Committee seem to be coming around to the will of the American people. Leahy said today “We should have the tools necessary to protect America's security."

Could it be that Democrats finally care about national security? Of course not. Democrats know that the American people support the president's actions (58%) in the War on Terror including the wire tapping of terrorists. They know that the American people expect the President to do everything in his power to protect them from terrorists. In other words, Democrats have learned that opposing the wire tapping program will hurt them politically. Mind you, they still do not care about national security. Wow! I am impressed with their political savvy.

They and some RINO's like A. Spector are content therefore with trying to force the President to ask them permission to continue the program and the approval of a warrant like a teenager asking dad for the car. That way the Democrats would still appear to have at least some relevance in the debate over national security. The reality is that at this point they have none. When you do not win elections you have a minority amount of power. Why don’t Democrats win elections? Because, the American people do not trust them on national security because they are smart enough to see through the political pandering. The "of course we want to listen to Al Qaeda, but with warrants" is just another Democratic political stunt that voters will see through. In this type of war and with modern technology there is no time to fool around with court games. We need real time information and actions in order to save lives. Once again for all the libs out there, Al Qaeda does not get civil rights! Why can’t the Dems understand that simple principle? They will raise another stink at the hearings, but once again end up looking even more pathetic and foolish.

The irony is that in doing so the hard left, the ACLU, New York Times, and the big liberal donors will actually be offended by their apparent two faced capitulation to another Bush victory. By pandering to the polls, Democrats alienate their base who want to undermine the war. All the "news that's fit for liberals to propogate" even tried to compare fighting terrorism to Watergate today. That dog will not hunt. It is going to be fun to sit back and watch another Democratic meltdown isn’t it?

Is Europe Finally Waking up to the Threat?

2006-02-05T15:04:00.000-08:00

Munich-"Looking back to German history in the early 1930s when National Socialism (Nazism) was on the rise, there were many outside Germany who said 'It's only rhetoric -- don't get excited" - German Chancellor Angela Merkel Rueters

It seems that the new conservative chancellor of German has been reading the “Bully Pulpit.” In a speech given this weekend near the site where Hitler once gave his infamous "Beer Hall Putsch" in 1923, German Chancellor Angela Merkel likened the current crisis with Iran’s nuclear program to the events prior to World War II in Germany that led to the rise of the Nazis and Adolph Hitler. She pointed out that other nations failed to stop the rising tide of Nazism and failed to take the threat seriously. The result was the costliest war in human history. Merkel’s comments were refreshing and in stark contrast to her anti-American predecessor Gerhart Schroder.

The Bully Pulpit recently did a feature article titled The Lessons of 1935 for the Dangers of 2006 - What Can We Learn From History? which compared the events of the 1930’s to the Iranian crisis today.

This weekend the IAEA voted to refer the Iranians to the U.N Security Council. What we might chuckle at was actually a very big step for Europeans. They have traditionally sought appeasement such as in the 1930’s and more recently with Saddam rather then stopping evil if it means engaging in any kind of armed conflict. This weekend we also saw the Muslim outrage and rioting over a Danish cartoon depicting Mohamed with a bomb in his turban. In the face of these riots however the Danes have not backed down and have defended the right to freedom of the press. Even in the face of the Iranian threat so far the Europeans seem to be behind our efforts to keep the Western world safe for democracy.

Is it possible that the Europeans are finally starting to grow a spine and take the dangerous world we live in seriously? Could recent events such as the car fires and riots in France and the Danish cartoon troubles finally be the reawakening of a muscular Europe? A Europe that once again stands with the United States and that actively confronts evil after nearly 60 years of passivity? For the sake of the free world I hope so. We need more leaders like Merkel and the Danish press. It will take more than worlds however to conquer the evil which threatens us, but this is a good start.

Cartoon Outrage!

2006-02-03T06:11:00.000-08:00

“GAZA CITY — Outrage over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad escalated in the Arab and Islamic world Thursday, with Palestinian gunmen briefly kidnapping a German citizen and protesters in Pakistan chanting "death to France" and "death to Denmark.” FOX News 2/3/06!

“The cartoon is outrageous and those individuals responsible must pay!” “Such a depiction of the honored is deplorable and reprehensible!” “Death to those responsible for this shame!” These were just some of the many angry cries during a display of civil dissent. Flags and effigies of the perpetrators were also set ablaze. An irate mob of thousands took to the streets in a vehement protest yesterday of a recently published cartoon. Could this finally be a response to the liberal mainstream media by free loving people who truly support our soldiers and want to actually win the War on Terror? Did the angry mob arise in response to Tom Toles’ editorial cartoon published Monday in the Washington Post portraying a brave American soldier with no arms and legs and a smirking Rumsfield at his bedside? No this only received a classy statement by the joint chiefs.

The “riot” was actually held by angry Muslims in several nations in response to another editorial cartoon printed in a Danish newspaper that depicted Mohamed with a bomb in his turban. Islamic law prohibits any images of Mohamed setting off a fire storm of Danish protest around the Islamic world especially in the poorer Islamic countries. While the Bully Pulpit does have respect for all religions, is it not time for reasonable Muslims to speak out against the radical elements? Otherwise the world must assume that all Muslims agree with the radical image of Islam. Just stop and think about that image which has been proudly displayed by the extremists.

Let’s not forget that the same people who are outraged by the Mohamed cartoon say nothing when a bus explodes in Israel or even a car bomb in Baghdad. There is no outcry by Muslims when innocent hostages are beheaded on TV. These are the same people who celebrate death and martyrdom and who call for the destruction of all “infidels.” These are the same people who trample each other during “holy” pilgrimages in Mecca. These are the same people who deny the Holocaust. The people who are the most outraged by the cartoon are the same people who cheered and passed out candy when the Twin Towers fell and 3,000 of our friends and neighbors were slaughter in the streets. This is the image the world sees of the so called ‘religion of peace” because no one in the Muslim community speaks out against these radicals. That is the point of the Danish cartoon and if Muslims are upset by this portrayal it is time for them to root out the radicals and put on a new face on an old faith. Until then however, the World must assume that all Muslims are radical.

The Liberal Lion with Hypocrisy in his Paw!

2006-02-02T06:20:00.000-08:00

“In my view (as a Democrat and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee), Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has disgraced himself and our party by misusing his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to achieve self-serving partisan ends.” NewsMax

It seems that even some Democrats have grown tiered of the senior senator from Massachusetts and his appalling congressional and hypocritical antics. Some Democrats are finally starting to realize that the once “liberal lion” Ted “hick-up” Kennedy has lost his bite. They also are resentful of Kennedy’s hypocrisy and the fact that he often uses his prominence and position on the Judiciary Committee for his own self-serving political gains. Kennedy has lead the liberal obstructionist charge over the past five years by rallying the hard liberal left, most of which are big Democratic donors, behind his crusade for filibustering President Bush’s judicial nominations. During that time he has successfully held up ten highly qualified nominees for district court and appeals court appointments and even caused several such as Miguel Estrada to bow out after putting their lives on hold for years waiting for confirmation. The real irony of this is that during the Clinton Administration Kennedy called for the filibuster to be outlawed saying: “The president and the Senate do not always agree [on judicial nominations]. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting 'yes' or 'no.'". How times have changed.

Teddy exposed his true character during the Alito hearings. He tried toothlessly to roar once again by painting Justice Alito as a racist and a bigot even causing his wife to cry. The American people did not buy it as a man with true character sat patently though the slander with a smile. Kennedy slurred on and on about Judge “Olioto” belonging to a so called exclusionary ROTC club at Princeton. Alito did not recall being a member. Then Kennedy rambled some more about how “Judge Olioto had never decided a case for a minority.” When this statement was examined by others it turned out that Alito had ruled in favor of minorities in more than 50 decisions. Kennedy along with Kerry tried unsuccessfully to filibuster Alito but only gained the support of 28 Democrats in the Senate and faced stiff opposition from Senator Ben Nelson a Democrat, the “Benator” as Bush calls him. Perhaps the crowing embarrassment during the hearings came when the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committee A. Spector verbally de-fanged the dazed Senator and reminded him that he was not in charge.

In trying to play the role of the champion of the poor and the defender of minorities and equal rights, Kennedy’s thin cloak of deception has worn thin these days. Let’s not forget the checkered character and career of this man. Kennedy, a Catholic who would never think of missing Sunday Mass from his front pew has been one of the staunchest supports of abortion in the Senate. That is hypocrisy at is best. Kennedy has also stayed from the convictions of his brothers on national security and has become a leading anti-war dove. While his brother was ready to use nuclear weapons in defense of this great land, little brother Teddy has voted to undermine the armed forces at almost every turn for his shameless vision of an internationally neutered America. Kennedy deplores tax cuts and claims to be a man of the people. Well, if he likes to support others with his hard inherited money, why has he established tax shelters and off shore accounts. Why does he not pay even more than the required tax rate? Once again hypocrisy at its best. Then at the Alito hearings it was reveled that Kennedy belonged to the exclusive Harvard “Owl Club” which did not allow female members. “I am going to get out of it as fast as I can." He murmured after being caught and after having paid dues in the club every year since he was expelled from Harvard. Pro equal rights you say? Kennedy claims to be “for the environment” but used all of his influence to squash a plan to set up a wind farm along the Nantucket Sound in view of the Kennedy Compound.

Kennedy’s character flaws are also legendary. He was expelled from Harvard after paying another student to take his Spanish final for him. He is also known to be a heavy drinker and has an abusive way with the women. Most tragically in 1969 after a night of drinking Teddy drove one of his young “boiler room” girls Mary Jo Kopechne off the side of a bridge in Chappaquiddick Mass. on Cape Cod. Kennedy allegedly did nothing to save her for fear of the political ramifications. Kennedy fled from the scene while Kopechne drowned inside his car. Teddy did not even call for help until the next morning. The incident allegedly also caused his wife to become an alcoholic herself.

Kennedy’s true character is far different from the picture big libs try to paint of the liberal lion. After years of hypocrisy and skating away from scandal, the Senator’s robes are finally starting to unravel.

Bush Boldly Fans the “Winds of Freedom” at the “State of the Union!” - by the Red Wrath!

2006-02-01T04:28:00.000-08:00

“In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will – by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself – we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.

Fellow citizens, we have been called to leadership in a period of consequence. We have entered a great ideological conflict we did nothing to invite. We see great changes in science and commerce that will influence all our lives. And sometimes it can seem that history is turning in a wide arc, toward an unknown shore.
Yet the destination of history is determined by human action, and every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing.
President Bush State of the Union Address 1/31/06!

*Programming Note! Our special “State of the Union PodCast” will be up shortly! Please join us!

Last night President Bush kicked off his “3rd term” if you will with grand ideas for what he seeks to accomplish over the next three years proving that to spite a rocky year he is no lamb duck. Bush can best be described as a leader. It is clear that unlike the Democrats the president understands that in order to be safe the USA must use all of its power to spread freedom around the world and crush the evildoers who seek to destroy freedom. Bush’s vision for the world is ostentatious. He believes that America is a force of good in the world and that democracy and freedom are our strongest weapons to combat evil. He evoked the principles of our Founding Fathers that freedom is God’s gift to all man kind and that liberty is infectious. He very subtly pointed out however that sometimes it takes America to fan those winds of freedom. Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people saying that we are with them in their pursuit of freedom while scorning the mad mullahs who seek nuclear weapons. Bush also tackled many domestic items such as the economy, energy, and health care. At times during the speech the Democrats acted like children especially the shrill Hillary who cheered as Bush said that “we did not save Social Security.” Is that something to cheer about? I can’t wait for her daughter to pay for 2 retired folks although socialists do like that I suppose. While the politics of today might undermine the president’s vision, he will be successful, that is the kind of man he is. To spite the opposition someday history will look upon his courageous actions in the same light as Churchill and Reagan.

Below are some of the Red Wrath’s Favorite Quotes:

Quotes on Bush's Vision of “Manifest Destiny” Around the World

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies on Earth. Today, there are 122.

Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder – and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously.
But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will – by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself – we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.

Yet there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.

The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon – and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions – and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you, and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our Nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.

Domestic Quotes

We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million Baby Boomers turn 60, including two of my Dad’s favorite people – me, and President Bill Clinton.

By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone will be almost 60 percent of the entire Federal budget. And that will present future Congresses with impossible choices – staggering tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every category of spending.

Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security, yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away – and with every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse. So tonight, I ask you to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of Baby Boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This commission should include Members of Congress of both parties, and offer bipartisan answers. We need to put aside partisan politics, work together, and get this problem solved.

And because lawsuits are driving many good doctors out of practice – leaving women in nearly 1,500 American counties without a single OB-GYN – I ask the Congress to pass medical liability reform this year.

Human life is a gift from our Creator – and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale.

Al-Zawahri Talking Like a Democrat

2006-01-30T15:14:00.000-08:00

“CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri said in a videotape aired Monday that President Bush was a “butcher” and a “failure” because of a deadly U.S. airstrike in Pakistan targeting the bin Laden deputy, and he threatened a new attack on the United States.” MSNBC 1/30/06!

A new video tape from Al Qaeda’s #2 man, Ayman Al-Zawahri surfaced today on that bastion of fair and balanced free speech Al-Jazeera. On the tape, Zawahri seems to be gloating that President Bush failed to kill him in the recent hellfire missile attack near Damadola Pakistan. The successful attack launched by a Predator drone did kill several high ranking Al Qaeda leaders including their chemical weapons master. The attack however unfortunately did not kill Al-Zawahri who must not have been at that location. He most likely has been on the run however since the attack and we seem to be closing in on his location. Perhaps Zawahri is upset he missed out on martyrdom this time, however, the USA will certainly arrange that for him someday.

What is really most incredible about the new terror leader tape is that he seems to be reading the Democratic talking points. Is he in touch with Howard Dean, Field Marshal Sheehan, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry?

Zawahri: the air strikes killed “innocents”

Kerry: “American soldiers are terrorizing innocent Iraqis in the night”

Zawahri: “I tell you that Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in frustrated adventures”

Sheehan: “Bush has killed thousands . . .”

Dean: “the Iraq war was a mistake . . .”

Zawahri: “Bush is a failure and a liar”

Hillary: “This will go down as the worst administration . . . “

Other Big Anti-War Libs: “Bush lied and people died . . .”

Shall we go on? It is remarkable how in touch with Al Qaeda the Democrats really are. All kidding aside however, we must from a security standpoint be on guard. The recent bin Laden tape offered the U.S. a truce but promised more attacks. Al Qaeda offered the same kind of truce before attacking Madrid and London in tapped messages when those nations did not respond. In the Zawahri video today, he makes reference to the Bush policy of “we do not negotiate with terrorists.” This could mean an attack immanent. His appearance is also interesting. There is no AK-47 with the grenade launcher resting next to him as there usually is in his videos. This along with his white headdress could be a signal to launch an attack. Before the USS Cole bombing, bin Laden appeared with a Yemeni dagger under his belt to signal the attack.

With the State of the Union Address and the entire government in one building we need to be extra vigilant. Al Qaeda is weak and beaten; however like a wounded dog they are still dangerous.

What to do about “The Iranian Missile Crisis!”

2006-01-30T10:30:00.000-08:00

“We wont accept any new obligations, Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club” – Iranian Foreign Minster

"We have very little time to get it right. The stakes are high, and the price of failure is enormous." Kenneth Timmerman – Countdown to Crisis

Iran is the single greatest problem facing U.S. foreign policy makers today. Their unyielding development of nuclear weapons is a menace to not only the USA but the entire world. In tandem with their advancing nuclear weapons program, Iran has also recently been working to improve their warhead and long range missile technologies. They are actively forging alliances with other Islamo-Fascists such as Syria, Al Qaeda, Hezbolla, and Hamas. They are in pursuit of regional domination in the Persian Gulf and beyond. Their constant brazen calls for the destruction of Israel and the United States place Iran at the top of the threat board. Something must be done before Iran can achieve these lethal goals and time is running out.

Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. If they do so they will use it to dominate the region, blackmail the emirates to fall under their influence and away for ours, give the weapons to terror groups, and “wipe Israel off the map.”

But what can be done about the increasing Persian menace?
As Kenneth Pollack stated in his book the “Persian Puzzle” “How to handle Iran is a problem from Hell. There is no simple school solution.” Pollack’s ideas on how to handle the Iranian problem however are liberal and idealistic. The diplomatic and appeasement efforts over the past 15 years have been completely ineffective. The EU-3 “Triple Track” has by all accounts failed. The Iranians have even turned down Russian offers to enrich their uranium down. There is no way that the USA can negotiate a “Grand Bargain” directly with Iran. Even if this were possible, Iran would renege on the terms of any agreement in the face of our weakness as Hitler did at Munich.

So what to do with Iran since diplomacy surely will not work?
Many analysts had hoped that the youthful Iranian population would rise up in revolt to remove the mad mullahs. Even President Bush had in mind another Iranian Revolution after the citizens of Iran saw Iraqis voting next door. This solution to the problem would be ideal, however at this point it is unlikely to happen. The Iranian leadership has loosened many restrictions on it people much as the Chinese did after Tiananmen Square. They have also followed the Chinese model by brutally imprisoning and executing the leaders of the pro-democracy leadership within Iran. Even if it were possible to inspire a new revolution in Iran, realistically time has run out. The Iranian Mullahs are building their bomb much faster than Iranian pro-democracy groups could act to remove them. The Persian bomb has even united Iran’s population in a great patriot cause. Even pro-democracy Iranians now want the bomb. In other words, while it would be ideal, diplomacy and or revolution will not solve this problem.

Does that mean then that war is the only option?
Well no, not yet anyway. A war with Iran would unleash “total war” throughout the Middle East and beyond. If we, or the Israelis, began to bomb Iran today the region would explode into general war. The Iranians would retaliate by attacking Israel with “Shahab” and “Kosar” missiles containing chemical weapons. There are also reports that Iran purchased several small nuclear tipped artillery shells on the Russian black market. These missile attacks could also be directed at U.S. bases in the region and the Baghdad “Green Zone.” The Iranians would also turn their terrorist allies loose on the entire region. Iraq would completely fall apart. Many of the Shite militias in the south would come to Iran’s aid and U.S. operations in Iraq would be impossible. The new Iraqi government would fail. In response to this the United States would then be forced to level Iranian cities and we would lose any hope of a civilian uprising as soon as the first bombs fell. War however cannot be counted out, but in light of these problems it must be a last resort.

So what do we do?
If diplomacy has failed, time has run out for a pro-democracy revolution, and general war is a less desirable option there seems to be no apparent answer. As we often do on this blog however, history can provide us with a possible solution to the Persian puzzle. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis is strikingly similar to the current situation in Iran and can endow modern policymakers with a treasure trove of advice.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis the Soviet Union sought to place SS-4 medium and long range nuclear tipped ICBM’s in Cuba. President Kennedy and the United States faced a similar predicament to what President Bush and the world faces today 44 years later in Iran. The threat of Soviet nuclear missiles just 90 miles off the coast of Florida was something that the USA could simply not allow. The military option on the table however, which included air strikes and an amphibious invasion suggested by advisors such as General Curtis E. LeMay, would have led to all out nuclear war with the Soviets. To further the problem was the unknown. The Soviets had also moved tactic nuclear weapons into the theater which would have been used on the invasion force. The USA would have then responded with a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and the world would have ended in 1962. In this historical catch 22 there seemed to be no solution. If the USA allowed the missiles the appearance of weakness would have lead to future war with Soviet aggression most likely in Berlin. However if they used military force to deny the Soviets their missile bases war was also inevitable.

Kennedy, was not fickle on defense like a modern Democrat. He struggled with how to handle the situation and decided that the USA could never allow Soviet missiles in Cuba. However he did not want to risk general war. Between those two prospects JFK came up with a brilliant solution. He told the Soviets that the missiles must go and ordered a naval blockade or a “quarantine” around Cuba. This allowed him to appear tough in the face of evil without going to war. It also kept the military option on the table if the blockade did not work. Furthermore, it put the decision or the trigger to go to war in the hands of the Soviets and not on the USA. Not that it would matter, but war would be perceived as self defense and not initiated by the USA. While at times events during the quarantine could have spiraled out of control and into war, eventually the Soviets knew that Kennedy was serious and they backed down. The Cuban Missile Crisis was averted. The United States got what was in their national interested and avoided war in the process. It was a major bloodless victory (with the exception of a U2 pilot).

How would such a plan work in Iran?
First the U.N. (yes I know, I hate the U.N. too) could be used to gather international support and participation in the blockade. If the U.N. refused to act, and they most likely would, the US and allied partners could do it anyway making the U.N. completely irrelevant once and for all. We should however at least invite others to help or convince them not get in our way.

With the mighty power of the U.S. Navy and the dominance of U.S. air power in the region Iran could be completely sealed off and “quarantined”. Iran’s navy is a “misquito fleet” and can do little but lay mines. Iran does have some old Chinese “Silk Worn” anti-ship missiles that could threaten ships in the area but they do not pose a huge threat. Iran’s air force would be totally ineffective with aging Mig’s and ancient inoperable F-15’s. In other words, Iran could not break the blockade.

The blockade would not end until Iran agreed to give up and destroy their nuclear weapons program. The blockade would focus on two main items that could paralyze the mullahs. The blockade would first stop all gasoline imports into Iran. As ridiculous as it sounds with all their oil reserves, Iran must import more than 40% of its gasoline due to high demand and limited refining capacity. Iranians use more gasoline per capita than nations such as India. They would soon feel the pinch of their own high gas prices. Second, the blockade would stop all oil exports out of Iran, which is their only major source of income. The denial of oil exports and high gas prices would in quick time destroy the Iranian economy and bring them to their knees. There is even a slight chance that it could lead to revolution though unlikely. In fact, it may unify the country, but our goal would not be to cause a revolution at that point, but instead the destruction of their nuclear program.

What will Iran do in response?
Of course the Iranians will not be happy with the blockade, but the prospect of war however will be placed in their hands while they are still relatively weak. They will look to strike back in all the ways we previously discussed. However, the blockade does not come alone. It does not take the threat of military action off the table. The blockade conditions would include the threat of swift, decisive, and deadly military action. If a terrorist bomb goes off somewhere in the world, U.S. bombers could be right there to respond almost immediately. In fact, U.S. B-52’s could fly constant “failsafe” missions over Iranian targets. Tail smoke could even be jetted to remind the Iranians that they are there. A nuclear sub could also be parked off the coast with a stark warning. Launch a WMD attack and in the time it takes to order a pizza you will be completely destroyed.

War may be inevitable with the mullahs because we cannot let them get the bomb, however history can show us another option before having to push the button and unleash general war.

Dean's Latest Sunday Morning "Gaff!"

2006-01-29T11:57:00.000-08:00

“Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday that Democrats who took money from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff and who did something on behalf of those tribes have "a big problem."NewsMax 1/29/06!

Howard Dean finally managed to grace a Sunday morning talk show this weekend as he appeared on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace. You may remember that weeks ago, Dean had walked off the set of NBC’s “Meet the Press” after learning that he would be appearing with GOP chairman Ken Mehlman. Apparently Dean does not like to debate his counterpart.

While Dean did not delight conservatives with his usual brand of screams and wild antics, he did make several statements which may end up making Democrats scream just as loud. At one point during the interview, Dean blasted the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. He said that “Bush took his eye off the ball in the War on Terror by invading Iraq.” He went on to say that “we needed to finish the job in Afghanistan.”

This is the perfect example of the simple minded myopic liberal view of the threats facing our nation today. Democrats like Dean see the War on Terror as a minor police action. They believe that the only enemy to be concerned about is hiding somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan and that once they are captured and tried the threat will be over. Then they can finally get on to the important national interest of “Nationalized Healthcare.” This type of thought is the same failed argument Kerry droned on about during the campaign and the American people rejected. “We outsourced the war . . . I would have finished the job.”

Democrats do not understand the true nature of our enemies. Killing Bin Laden, while nice, will not make us safe because we are fighting more that just Al Qaeda. We are at war with “Islamo-Fascism” around the world. It is as big of a threat to our way of life as any threat that has come before. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbolla, Iran, Syria, and all other Islamic extremists are the same problem. They are the enemy. Even our enemies in their statements understand better than the Democrats why the conflict in Iraq is so important to the outcome of the overall struggle. Freedom must be allowed to conquer this evil around the world. It is an evil that is not confined to a single cave.

Later in the interview the real fun began, as Dean went on to discuss the Abramoff Scandal. He stated that the entire scandal was limited only to “Republicans” and their “culture of corruption.” "Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff" Dean explained. As Wallace began to prod him a little more, Dean went on to say that if any Democrat involved would be in “big trouble.” Then Wallace quickly pointed out to Dean that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had recently admitted to accepting nearly $66,000 from the Coushatta Indian tribe in return for his influence with the Department of the Interior in an “Indian War” over a casino dispute with another tribe. Dean looked puzzled and surprised.

DEAN: It is possible that some of Jack Abramoff's clients may have decided on their own to give Democrats some money. The key is . . .

WALLACE: I'm sorry. Did you say that you're sure that Abramoff didn't direct them to give that money?

DEAN: No, what I said was that it is possible that some Democrats got money from someone he [represented]. What I'm saying is that Abramoff may not have directed some of this money to Democrats.

WALLACE: In fact, he did. We have evidence of that.

DEAN: But the point is not one Democrat either knew it or acted on it. Nobody got anything out of the Democrats from Jack Abramoff. No Democrat delivered anything and there's no accusation and no investigation that any Democrat ever delivered anything to Jack Abramoff. And that's not true of the Republicans.

WALLACE: So if we find - and we have to wrap this up - so if we find that there were some Democrats who wrote letters on behalf of some of the Indian tribes that Abramoff represented, then what do you say, sir?

DEAN: That's a big problem. And those Democrats are in trouble. And they should be in trouble.

Does this mean that Harry Reid is in “big trouble?” Dean is a nightmare for the Democrats, but a dream come true for Republicans. I just hope he keeps talking!

Democratic Meltdown Over "Yodel-Altio!"

2006-01-28T08:47:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON - "Sen. Hillary Clinton yesterday backed a rebel band of Senate Dems seeking to filibuster a vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.” DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Eureka, the Democratic ’08 meltdown has already begun and it will be most amusing for conservatives! As the Senate moves forward to confirm Judge Alito before next week’s State of the Union Address, several prominent Democratic presidential contenders and party leaders have called for a desperate last gasp filibuster. Many have described this idea as a political “Picklett’s Charge” as 55 Republicans and at least 3 Democrats have already stated that they will vote to confirm Alito next week and use the “Constitutional or Nuclear Option” if necessary. Even Senator “KKK” Bird of West Virginia knows that he must vote for Alito to have any hope of being reelected next fall. However, the rest of the Democratic Senate leadership seems willing to charge into the face of defeat once again in order to avoid alienating themselves from the “hard left” organizations and their campaign contributions. As Senator George Allan (R) of Virginia said when asked about the possibility of a Democratic filibuster “Make my day!”

The liberal looney left asserts that Alito is out of the “mainstream.” One must ask then could it be because he wants to keep “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Perhaps they think he is out of the “mainstream” when he supports parental notification for minors seeking an abortion? I guess they would prefer a ”mainstream” nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg who supports abortion on demand, legalizing narcotics, unbridled eminent domain, and lowing the age of consent to 12.

Let's hold hands & jump!
Like small children who do not get what they want, leading Democrats in the face of defeat are still desperately exalting a pathetic chorus of liberal whining for their own political gain. “The man of the people”, former presidential candidate John Kerry yodeled from his exclusive ski resort in the Swiss Alps on Thursday for a filibuster and then droned on and on and on, on the Senate floor yesterday about how “Alito must be stopped” and that he must fight for "those people who count on us to stand up and protect them." I guess Kerry was referring to the hard liberal leftist organizations that bank role the Democratic Party. “Why should we be so quick to accept this nominee . . .” He continued to lament. Well Senator please let us help you understand why the President Bush nominated Sam Ailto and why you need to accept his decision. You lost the election. Your party lost the congressional elections. If you would have won these elections, you could have chosen your own Supreme Court nominee. It is a simple idea. People elect other to represent their wishes and ideals and you do not represent them.

Not to be outdone, other Democratic Senators followed Kerry over the filibuster cliff. “Minority” Senate leader, to spite what the media thinks, Harry Reid afraid to upset his friends on the radical hard left joined Kerry’s plunge and marched in lockstep into the abyss. Dianne Feinstein, even though she said she would not support the filibuster, took the dive behind Reid. Not surprisingly Ted “hick-up” Kennedy, also drove off the cliff, once again.

To keep pace for ’08, even Hillary was forced to take the political header and started shrieking for a filibuster. This should be the most encouraging development for conservatives who fear the prospects of Hillary as president. In order to win the general election in ‘08, Hillary has to play both sides of the political spectrum. She must secure her political base on the left, but then must also come off strong on national security and as a centrist on other key issues. This Houdini will not work.

Kerry’s actions outflanked her left, which she must have to have any chance of winning. However, by supporting the hard left she alienates the middle. For conservatives nothing would be better than to see Hillary torn apart in a Democratic Primary. If another hard left candidate like Kerry threatens her nomination she will have to move left and left and left in order to win the party’s nod. By having leftist competition in primary she will have to move so far left that she will expose herself for the liberal that she really is. I can’t wait for the ads. This will then cause her to lose the middle and ultimately the election!

It will be fun to watch!

Sada - Could He Be Right About Saddam's WMDs?

2006-01-27T11:58:00.000-08:00

“ Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people. It was used against Kurds in the north, against Arabs — marsh Arabs in the south..." – G. Sada
See the FOX News Interview with Hannity!

An intriguing story concerning the whereabouts of Iraq’s missing WMDs has begun to buzz about on conservative websites and most recently FOX News. A former Iraqi Air Force general and Saddam aid Georges Sada has written a new book in which he supposedly sheds new light on the inner workings or Saddam’s dark regime.

In his new book entitled Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied & Survived Saddam Hussein, Sada divulges previously undisclosed information about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. While becoming one of Saddam’s top military advisors, Sada never joined the Ba’ath Party and is a devoted Christian.

Sada asserts that Saddam once ordered him to launch an aerial assault with 96 attack aircraft on Israel. The goal of the mission was to drop chemical weapons on Jewish population centers. Sada claims that he was able to convince Saddam to scrub the mission by insisting that it would not be successful. We would be “flying blind" Sada reportedly told Saddam. The Israelis have "eyes.” As Iraq’s most accomplished “top gun” Sada was well aware at how superior the Israeli air force with their F-16’s and was to that of Iraq’s aging Mig’s.

Sada claims he was jailed shortly after the Gulf War in 1991 after he defied Saddam’s orders once again. The brutal dictator directed Sada to have several downed coalition pilots who had been taken prisoner executed. Sada boldly refused. He suffered greatly in one of Saddam’s prisons; however the pilots were saved.

Sada also claims in his book the he knows the whereabouts of Iraq’s missing WMDs. Sada insists that Iraq did posses WMD and that while some of them were destroyed the remaining weapons were moved to Syria in 2002 prior to the American invasion. In a recent interview with Sean Hannity Sada said:

SADA: Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people. It was used against Kurds in the north, against Arabs — marsh Arabs in the south...

HANNITY: Some people say they were destroyed. Did we still have them leading up to the invasion?

SADA: No, he had a very good organization that Saddam was created to show some of them but to continue to hide.

HANNITY: So he had them.

SADA: Yes.

HANNITY: Where were they? And were they moved and where?

SADA: Well, up to the year 2002, 2002, in summer, they were in Iraq. And after that, when Saddam realized that the inspectors are coming on the first of November and the Americans are coming, so he took the advantage of a natural disaster happened in Syria, a dam was broken. So he — he announced to the world that he is going to make an air bridge...

HANNITY: You know for a fact he moved these weapons to Syria?

SADA: Yes.

HANNITY: How do you know that?

SADA: I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria.

BECKEL: How did he move them, general? How were they moved?

SADA: They were moved by air and by ground, 56 sorties by jumbo, 747, and 27 were moved, after they were converted to cargo aircraft, they were moved to Syria.

BECKEL: So I assume this would not have happened without the permission of Damascus. Is that correct?

SADA: Well, of course, you know, when the aircraft would land in Syria, they must have some sort of agreement between the two.

BECKEL: So the Syrian government knows exactly where these weapons are today?

SADA: I think so. Because I am sure that these weapons have landed in Damascus. Where could they have gone?

One should approach Sada’s remarks with a degree of skepticism. He is trying to sell a book and did not come forward until recently. He is also the only former regime member to admit to knowledge about Saddam’s WMD program which is interesting. That being said, his claims must examined by the United States and the media. We all knew that Saddam had and used WMD in the past. No nation, especially the dead Kurds can dispute that fact. Prior to the invasion Saddam acted as though he had something to hide. Why would he of done so to his peril if he didn’t have WMD? It is worth and investigation. If he indeed hid them in Syria and they too have some explaining to do.

The Lessons of 1935 for the Dangers of 2006 - What Can We Learn From History?

2006-01-26T17:59:00.000-08:00

“If we don’t have a very serious systematic program to replace the government of Iran, we’re going to live in an unbelievably dangerous world. This is 1935 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we’ve seen. We now know who they are; the question is who we are -- are we Baldwin or Churchill?" N. Gingrich's” Human Events 1/25/06! The world is rapidly traveling down a road toward a dangerous impasse from which there is no return. It is a road that the world has traveled down before. Sadly, history has proven this road to be a grave and fatal wrong turn. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently suggested that the geopolitics of 2006, are starting to look stirringly similar to those of 1935. It is easy to dismiss such warnings, which is why the mistakes of history tend to become the mistakes of today. This blog agrees with Gingrich that if the world does not soon learn the lessons of its past travels down this road to disaster and swerve in another direction to avoid its potholes, it is destined to arrive at another major global conflict in the near future.

Prior to World War II the Axis Powers moved slowly but determinedly toward their fascist alliance and quest for world domination. In the chess match of a world divided between freedom and evil, the Axis Powers patiently positioned their pieces and gathered strength before evoking dastardly plans. To spite the conditions under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany built up its military war machine into one of the finest the world had ever seen. The world’s democracies did nothing to stop them. Its maniacal Nazi leader Adolph Hitler publicly stated his intentions to dominate Europe and to destroy the Jewish people.

"Either the world will be ruled according to the ideas of our modern democracy, or the world will be dominated according to the natural law of force; in the latter case the people of brute force will be victorious."
Adolf Hitler

"If I can send the flower of the German nation into the hell of war without the smallest pity for the spilling of precious German blood, then surely I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin." - Adolf Hitler

"It must be thoroughly understood that the lost land will never be won back by solemn appeals to the God, nor by hopes in any League of Nations, but only by the force of arms." - Adolf Hitler

"A single blow must destroy the enemy... without regard of losses... a gigantic all-destroying blow."- Adolf Hitler

The world’s democracies paid no attention and did nothing to stop him.

Meanwhile in Italy “El Duce” Benito Mussolini openly predicted the coming conflict between democracy and fascism by saying:

"The struggle between the two worlds [Fascism and Democracy] can permit no compromises. It's either Us or Them!"

On the other side of the globe, the Japanese ”rising sun” violently rose untouched over much of the Pacific. The Imperial Forces of Nippon conquered, raped, and pillaged Manchuria, China, and Indonesia. The world’s democracies did nothing. Like a chess master, these three nations throughout the 1930’s prepared for battle and even formed an alliance of malevolence known as the “Axis Powers” (1936). The world’s democracies still did nothing. While the German “Blitzkrieg” took Austria and Czechoslovakia, the European democracies tried to negotiate and appease Hitler. This show of trust in the evil-doer resulted in the fall of Poland and soon after France.

The fact is that while the Axis Powers were preparing to spread the greatest evil the world had ever known, the world’s democracies refused to understand what was occurring. They refused to confront evil and even tried to appease it. Like a blind men walking around without a cane, they were blinded to the growing threat because they were unwilling to take the necessary steps to avoid the most horrible episode in human history. The democracies were dragged into conflict kicking, screaming, and ultimately crying. It was a conflict that Winston Churchill once said could have been easily avoided if free nations would have acted to stop evil before it had a chance to grow strong. This failure to act cost the world 40,000,000 people.

Do any of these events sound familiar? They should because they are starting to take shape once again in 2006. The forces of evil are slowly growing stronger, uniting, positioning their pieces, and preparing to unleash a storm the world has not seen in over 60 years. Once again, with the exception of the United States, the world’s democracies are idle.

An even more dangerous “Axis of Evil” Islamo-Fascism, is currently aligning itself against the free world and must be taken seriously. Like the evils of the past they too preach hatred of the Jews and are not shy about declaring their wishes to dominate the free world. The free world must confront this rising threat before it is too late.

The primary agent in this new “Axis of Evil” is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has made no secret of its intent to build a nuclear arsenal and the missiles to deliver them. The Iranian regime desires to spread its influence and ideology across the Middle East and beyond. Its new leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently has boldly declared these intentions to the world with statements eerily similar to those made by the evil powers of the 1930’s.

“The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“The United States is the Great Satan”

“Israel should be wiped of the map” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“The Holocaust is a myth”.

“Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Iran has continually thumbed it nose at the world and, like the fascists of the past, know that the democracies will do nothing to stop them.

“Our enemies can deal a blow to us any time they wish. They did not wait for permission to do this. They do not deal a blow with prior notice. They do not take action because they can't.” - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Strategically, Iran is closely aligned to Syria even if they are not ideologically compatible. In fact, just last week the leaders of both countries met to announce their alliance in a similar fashion to the Berlin-Tokyo-Rome Axis. It could be called the Tehran-Damascus-Rumali Axis. This pact seeks the destruction of Israel and the USA. So far the free world has done little.

The Iranians use Damascus to funnel money and weapons to the Iranian proxy terror group “Hamas.” Hamas then exports terror and death to innocent Israelis. Iran can therefore strike at Israel with complete deniability. With the exception of Israel, the world’s democracies have done nothing. Years ago a ship filled with weapons from Iran was discovered heading for Palestine.

The Iranian-Syrian alliance is also most likely responsible for the assassination of the Lebanese President last year. Syria also uses the Becca Valley in Lebanon as an arms depot for Hamas, Arms which are paid for by Iran. This area of the world may also hide Saddam’s missing WMD’s. Are we starting to see a pattern here? All the while, the democracies have done liitle.

Now consider this. If Iran gets the bomb it will be able to use its nuclear weapons to protect Hamas from Israeli retaliation. Hamas will be able to launch attacks on Israel at will knowing that they are under the umbrella of Iran’s nukes. With the victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections Iran has now moved from a threat 2,000 kilometers away to a threat just 2,000 kilometers away.

Time is running out to stop what is taking place. If the world’s democracies fail to act once again, another devastating war world war is inevitable. This time however it will be far more deadly. Just like in the 1930’s the forces of evil are growing strong and forming alliances around the world to achieve their deadly ends. Add North Korea, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, and several other anti-American nations around the world to the axis and you will soon have a global conflict that will make WWII look like a picnic. There is still time, but time is running out.

Palestinians Choose Hamas & Elect War

2006-01-26T04:43:00.000-08:00

“GRAMALLAH, West Bank — Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and his Cabinet ministers submitted their resignations Thursday as the Islamic militant group Hamas appeared to have captured a large majority of seats in the Palestinian elections — a shocking upset sure to throw Mideast peacemaking into turmoil..” CNN 1/26/06!

The Palestinian people surprised the world yesterday as they went to the polls to elect a new government and choose a majority of candidates from the terrorist group “Hamas.” Yes, that Hamas. The same Hamas who is famous for strapping explosive to themselves and their children in order to kill innocent women and children in restaurants and on busses is now the ruling party in the Palestinian parliament.

While on the surface the Hamas victory seems improvable, after careful politically analysis one can easily unravel the mystery of triumph. First of all, just consider how the ideology and principles of the Hamas “party” must appeal to all the nice young Palestinian men who exercised their suffrage wearing ski masks and brandishing AK-47’s. One can also see how a majority of Palestinians could vote for Hamas given their progressive political platform. Their ideas for peace in the Middle East are simple and include popular Palestinian positions such as:

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Palestinian Charter

Did you get all that? I wonder if CNN covered these Hamas convention speeches? All political satire aside now, the Palestinians yesterday voted not for a government but instead to continue the murder of innocent Israelis and for the continued the Middle Eastern conflict. All the progress made toward peace over the past few years has now been vanquished with sounds of cheers and gunfire. Neither the Israelis nor the USA will deal with Hamas and they should not. Freedom loving rational people do not negotiate with terrorists. The so called “peaceful” Palestinian people chose war yesterday and elected never to have their own state. They will live to regret their poor choices.

Dems are Still Wrong on Wire Taps!

2006-01-25T15:37:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON -- A Democratic congressman, a prominent legal scholar and a self-described target of government surveillance urged Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee on Friday to consider impeaching President George W. Bush for his domestic surveillance program.” Free Press News 1/25/06!

Well it didn’t take long for the Democrats to continue to sing that the same old out of tune anti-Bush song, and this time they are calling for impeachment! The Dems really need to check with this blog more often as a few days ago we offered both legal defense and historical evidence that Bush’s program of ease dropping on killer terrorists is completely legal and is necessary to protect the country.

In light of another magnificent defense of his “Terrorist Surveillance program” today at the NSA headquarters in Maryland some Democrats such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York are calling for the Impeachment. This would be funny if it were not such a serious issue. Here is just a reminder to the Democrats since they seem to have forgotten some key aspects of the modern world stage. 1. There are people (animals really) in the world who want to kill you and your family. 2. These people killed 3,000 of our friends and neighbors on 9-11. 3. These evildoers do not qualify for civil liberties under the Constitution. 4. We could have stopped at least parts of 9-11 had we been ease dropping years ago as we are today. 5. You people actually help the enemy by trying to undermine the President and the war.

That is okay libs we understand that you do not care about national security and you only care about bashing Bush and regaining political power. As conservatives we invite this debate over wire tapping because it just proves how out of touch your party and your candidates really are in the post 9-11 world. That is why you do not win elections.

So, since you missed it a few days ago, here is some free information that might be helpful to you if you really are interested in winning the War on Terror.

Article Two Section Two Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the president the power to lead the nation’s armed forces as the “Commander-in-Chief”.

“Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Therefore, legally under article two the president has the authority to do what is necessary to defend the American people on daily basis. He is given the authority in the Constitution to order the nation’s armed forces to protect the United States. In deed, it is his solemn duty. To further this claim is the fact that congress gave the president legislation containing the authority to fight terrorists after 9-11.

Bush’s actions are also support by the long march of past wartime history. Presidents have often curved civil liberties for national security issues.
In the late 1790’s, the young United States was on the verge of war with France. President Adams and the Federalist congress passed what were known as the “Alien and Sedition Acts.” These laws not only made it more difficult to become an American citizen, but they also limited free speech and critics of the government. Many including Jefferson and Madison cried fowl, however the laws were enacting in light of an impending war. Imagine is Bush did this today? Stopping critical press accounts would end the old media in this country once and for all.

Years later the nation was embroiled in our bloodiest conflict the Civil War. President Lincoln, our nations greatest hero, claimed that sometimes the “Constitution must be broken in order to save it.” Soon after Lincoln suspended the “writ of habeas corpus” in part of the United States in order to bring down "Confederate spies or those who aided the rebel cause, interfered with military enlistments, resisted the draft, or were guilty of disloyal practice." Hmm, sounds like “terrorism” doesn’t it? Can you say “enemy combatant?” Lincoln even had thoughts of arresting Chief Justice Tanney who opposed his measures. Lincoln’s efforts while controversial saved the Constitution, future civil liberties, and the Union.

In the twentieth century presidents have also curved civil liberties to protect national security. During WWI President Wilson endorsed the “Espionage Act” which limited anti-war speech and protest. “Palmer Raids”, or domestic spies, were also launched in order to stamp out dissent and communist sympathizers between the world wars. During WWII Roosevelt locked thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps and denied their freedoms because of the fear of Japanese spies and saboteurs on the west coasts. In 1949, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that the “Constitution is not a suicide pact” He concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Today Bush is right, conservatives who want to defend American from terrorists are right; history and the law our on our side.

The "Red Wrath"on Iran!

2006-01-25T11:22:00.000-08:00

Special Guest Author - She's not afraid to speak her mind – “The Red Wrath” Talks tough on Iran!

Recently, 20 of the hostages held in Iran for more than a year during the Carter administration reunited to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of their release and muse on the U.S.’s foreign policy towards Iran.

Joe Hall, now 56, of Lenox, Ga., was an Army operations coordinator at the embassy who was interrogated and beaten. He said that a show of force by the U.S. early in the crisis could have prevented atrocities in recent years by sending a message of intolerance for terrorism.
No hostages were killed. But, Hall said: "That part of the world was led to believe it could get away with murder, literally and figuratively. Had there been adequate response initially, I don't think we'd be in the situation we are today. We've all been saying for 25 years this is going to happen."
Seattle PI (See article here)

Now we've got a real problem with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and doesn't particularly mind a conflict with the West or fear economic sanctions. Besides, trade sanctions on Iran's main export - oil - could hurt Iran's people, causing them to rally around their government. They also might push world oil prices well above their current level of more than $65 per barrel. The United States has long had sanctions against Cuba and Iran in the past, and it didn’t do much to solve any problems.

Even France, with the support of the United States, rejected Iran's request for more negotiations on the Islamic republic's nuclear program, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating "there's not much to talk about" after Iran resumed atomic activities.

A military strike on Natanz and a uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan is feasible and would set Iran's nuclear program back. I say it’s time to shock and awe again.

Iran Fueling the Nuclear Fire!

2006-01-25T10:31:00.000-08:00

“MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- An Iranian official said Wednesday Tehran supports a proposal under which Russia would enrich uranium for Iran, but believes the plan still needs some work, according to a report from the Russian news agency Interfax.” CNN 1/25/06!

It came as a shock today when Iran apparently changed its stance on its nuclear program once again and responded favorably to a plan which would allow Russia to enrich uranium for their alleged “Nuclear Power Program”. Well, maybe it’s not so shocking when you consider the mischief that the Mullahs have been up to lately. This comes just twenty five days after Iran refused to accept a similar offer from Russia.

““Iran on Saturday insisted upon its right to enrich its own uranium, rebuffing a proposal that Russia should perform the sensitive atomic fuel work to allay fears Tehran is seeking atomic arms.”
BBC News 1/2/06!

The move comes after Iran also boldly threatened to enrich its own uranium if it was referred to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. “Iran will immediately retaliate if referred to the U.N. Security Council next week by forging ahead with developing a full-scale uranium enrichment program” said an Iranian official.

So one must ask then why the Mullahs in Tehran are all of the suddenly willing to accept the Russian deal on enrichment? Could it be the terrifying threat of U.N. sanctions? Could it be that the Iranians are afraid of those same threats that brought Saddam to his knees nearly three years ago? Maybe it is the recent French threat to use nuclear weapons of their own; this time before they surrender. The fact is that Iran is dead set on obtaining a nuclear weapon and is playing the so called “world community” like a grand piano. The Iranian yo yo is buying time and actively working to divide world resolve to stop their nuclear ambition. Unfortunately, this is not difficult to do and their efforts are working. It is only a matter of time until you will hear the same bellicose arguments on the floor of the U.N. It is only a matter of time until you see the U.N.’s same inability to keep the world safe from tyrants.

This blog plans many more articles on Iran in the near future and even a feature on what can be done in Iran. Stay tuned.

The Sheehan "Anti-American" Tour Begins!

2006-01-24T17:52:00.000-08:00

“CARACAS (AFP) - Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq, joined more than 10,000 anti-globalization activists in Caracas, where she hailed Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez.” Yahoo News 1/24/06!

Yes! Get your tickets now. The Cindy Sheehan “Anti-American World Tour” has officially begun. After wondering aimlessly around her empty “Camp Casey” and across the Texas prairie in a fruitless search for her lost army of liberal media support, “Field Marshall” Cindy Sheehan has decided to take her one woman anti-American protest to friendlier shores. Sheehan recently did an undermining “Fonda-Salsa” south of the border and found comfort and shelter for her leftist, anti-Semitic, anti-American political platform in Caracus, Venezuela. Yes, that Venezuela the home of another famous anti-American activist, friend of Fidel Castro, and brutal dictator Hugo Chavez. For the past several months Chavez has made numerous anti-American comments such as “The grand destroyer of the world, and the greatest threat ... is represented by U.S. imperialism." And has even publicly called President Bush and “A**hole.”

Sheehan and Chavez must have been whispering anti-American sweet nothings in each others ears during the visit. At an anti-globalization rally, Sheehan praised her pal Chavez by saying that quote "I admire him for his resolve against MY government and its meddling!” Unbelievable! If saying such things in a hostile country is not treason, it is certainly sedition. No word on if the two were joined by Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Harry Bellafonte, and or Hillary Clinton who also enjoy undermining the USA overseas during time of war.

The truth is that Sheehan has found no support in this country for her facile foreign policy once the glitz and glamour of CNN left her side. Much to her chagrin, Americans have not come out in droves to massive anti-war protests al la the 1960’s “Vietcong Woodstock Offensive”. In fact, I spent the weekend roaming around Washington D.C. in the hope of finding likeminded liberals to berate and found only two pathetic anti-war socialists actively protesting near the White House. It seemed that the only support they received were from foreigners and not American citizens. Sheehan’s treasonous statements aside, Americans simply do not like to lose. As General Patton once said “Americans love a winner and cannot stand a loser.” If Cindy likes it so much in a repressive nation like Venezuela, perhaps she should stay there. Her world tour could also include Iran, Syria, North Korea, and a finally a grand finale in “Al-Qaeda-Fun-Land!” We all mourn for the loss of her brave son; however that is no excuse for her to undermine his sacrifice. I am sure that her son and the others who have died defending her freedom to speak out would be saddened.

Hey Zarqawi . . . "Your Fired!"

2006-01-24T05:29:00.000-08:00

“BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a further sign of the rifts emerging within Iraq's insurgency, Jordanian-born militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has stepped aside as the head of a new council of radical groups in favor of an Iraqi, according to a posting on a Web site used by al-Qaida and other insurgent groups. .” KC 1/24/06!

There was more encouraging news out of Iraq today; which proves that victory there will soon be at hand if the U.S. “stay the course” and does not give in to liberal pressure. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraq’s most wanted man, has apparently been stripped of his leadership role within the terror groups which make up the so called “insurgency”. To this point the so called “insurgency” has been made up of a loose alliance of former Saddam Sunni Bathists and Al Qaeda jihadists. Several weeks ago, a Zarqawi spokesmen issued a statement declaring that Zarqawi was chosen as the head of the “Mujahedeen Council” a conglomerate of these dueling terror organizations. It seems that his reign was short lived however, as insurgent groups staged what could be loosely characterized as a coup forcing Al-Zarqawi aside.

This turn of events should have very positive ramifications for the War in Iraq and the overall war on terror. Just weeks after liberals cried “We can’t have elections in Iraq!” and that “Elections will do nothing to change things on the ground” it is clear that once again they were wrong. The recent successful Iraqi elections, coupled with Al-Zarqawi’s own atrocious actions, especially the Jordanian Hotel bombings, have created a major fracture within the insurgency. The Saddam Sunni Bathists have grown weary of Zarqawi’s brutal tactics and even more uncomfortable with his radical brand of Taliban style Islam. They do not want a radical Islamist state, but feared losing political power after 30 years of ruling Iraq. Many Bathist insurgences now realize that they may be better off following a political track and participating in the new Iraqi government as opposed to continuing with Zarqawi’s random violence which has only Al Qaeda’s political end in mind.

As a matter of policy, U.S. and Iraqi forces should do everything within their power to exploit the rift within the insurgency. In Afghanistan, many hostile war lords were secretly paid off to play nice and cooperate with American military action. Many were also granted local political power. Something like this could be done in Iraq. Perhaps the new government could promise Sunnis some oil revenue and a local home rule style government. Now I do not like to negotiate with terrorists; however something like this could widen the split within the insurgency and could significantly reduce the violence in Iraq. This would then allow us to turn our full attention to Iran.

It is clear that tension is high and that the local Sunni insurgences might be willing to eventually give up Zarqawi and their foreign fighters if they have something to gain. Remember the Sunni Bathist insurgence fight for political power and oil money not for a Taliban ideology. The end to the conflict in Iraq is nearing an end, and it is clear that we are winning to spite the “cut and run crowd”.

History Proves Bush is Right on Terrorist Wire Taps!

2006-01-23T16:33:00.000-08:00

“WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday went on the offensive in making his case for continuing the hard fight in the War on Terror and using every tool available to protect the American people..” FOX News 1/23/06!

Today President Bush used the proverbial “Bully Pulpit” like a pro to blast critics of his “Terrorist Surveillance Program” in a speech given at Kansas State University. The Commander-in-Chief confidently stated that the program is necessary in wartime in order to protect the American people from terrorist enemies. "If terrorists are making a call to the United States, we need to know why, to protect you." Bush asserted.

Bush was at his best today as he talked frankly and even answered questions from the audience about the wire tapping program. Democrats such as John “Franken”Kerry have accused President Bush of “breaking the law.” The President forcefully responded to this by saying: “It's amazing when people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" He then smirked, slouched, and laughed in that confident tone liberals despise and supporters have grown to love.
The Bush administration has briefed Congress on numerous occasions in the past about the program.

The real wire tapping issue centers on the idea of “probable cause”. It is difficult to prove before a call is made by an Al Qaeda member what the nature of the conversation will be if they are calling a previously unknown suspect. This prohibits going to the FISA court due to the risk of the warrant being denied and valuable information that could prevent a terrorist attack from being lost due to a legal technicality.

Another leading Democrat Ted “Hick-up” Kennedy, had the audacity to suggest this weekend that all Bush had to do was ask for permission to wire tap and Congress would have given it to him. As if Bush was a teenager asking permission to use the car, and we all know Teddy Kennedy should not be behind the wheel. Kennedy made these statements with the full knowledge that almost 60% of American feel that the President has or should have the ability to listen in on terrorist phone calls. Politically the Democrats know that they have lost on the wire tapping issue. However they are trying to make a “checks and balance” argument of the program in order to save face for the ’06 elections. Carl Rove said it best when he stated last week that “Democrats still have a pre 9-11 view of the world.”

It seems that today Democrats are not only wrong on national security. They also do not understand the Constitution or the history of the American President at War. So for senators from Massachusetts here is a crash course in History in which one can see how President Bush is continuing a long tradition of presidents defending America even if it means bending the Constitution.

Article Two Section Two Clause 1 of the Constitution gives the president the power to lead the nation’s armed forces as the “Commander-in-Chief”.

“Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Therefore, legally under article two the president has the authority to do what is necessary to defend the American people on daily basis. He is given the authority in the Constitution to order the nation’s armed forces to protect the United States. In deed, it is his solemn duty. To further this claim is the fact that congress gave the president legislation containing the authority to fight terrorists after 9-11.

Bush’s actions are also support by the long march of past wartime history. Presidents have often curved civil liberties for national security issues.
In the late 1790’s, the young United States was on the verge of war with France. President Adams and the Federalist congress passed what were known as the “Alien and Sedition Acts.” These laws not only made it more difficult to become an American citizen, but they also limited free speech and critics of the government. Many including Jefferson and Madison cried fowl, however the laws were enacting in light of an impending war. Imagine is Bush did this today? Stopping critical press accounts would end the old media in this country once and for all.

Years later the nation was embroiled in our bloodiest conflict the Civil War. President Lincoln, our nations greatest hero, claimed that sometimes the “Constitution must be broken in order to save it.” Soon after Lincoln suspended the “writ of habeas corpus” in part of the United States in order to bring down "Confederate spies or those who aided the rebel cause, interfered with military enlistments, resisted the draft, or were guilty of disloyal practice." Hmm, sounds like “terrorism” doesn’t it? Can you say “enemy combatant?” Lincoln even had thoughts of arresting Chief Justice Tanney who opposed his measures. Lincoln’s efforts while controversial saved the Constitution, future civil liberties, and the Union.

In the twentieth century presidents have also curved civil liberties to protect national security. During WWI President Wilson endorsed the “Espionage Act” which limited anti-war speech and protest. “Palmer Raids”, or domestic spies, were also launched in order to stamp out dissent and communist sympathizers between the world wars. During WWII Roosevelt locked thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps and denied their freedoms because of the fear of Japanese spies and saboteurs on the west coasts. In 1949, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote that the “Constitution is not a suicide pact” He concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Today Bush is right, conservatives who want to defend American from terrorists are right; history and the law our on our side.

Hillary the "Unilateral Warlord?"

2006-01-20T04:24:00.000-08:00

“A tough-talking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Wednesday suggested she would back a military strike on Iran if that country's radical Islamic government attempts to build nuclear weapons

She also blasted the Bush administration for allowing European countries to lead negotiations with the hard-line regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"I believe that we lost critical time with ... Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," she said. "I don't believe ... in standing on the sidelines."
.” Newsday 1/18/06!

What? Excuse me. Can you repeat that again Senator Clinton? Did you just suggest that the U.S. should act militarily “unilaterally” against Iran? Apparently she did in a recent speech given at Princeton. These types of statements from Hillary are just laughable. For years while she and her neutered (politically that is) husband were running the country, they did everything they could not to us military force. In fact after running from Somolia and ignoring Al Qaeda, even after the USS Cole attack, the Clinton(s) Administration actually used the so called “peace divided” to draw down the size of U.S. forces. They were more worried about “Don’t ask, don’t tell” than the ability to project military power in defense of America.

Then we have the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to their poster child, their only real hope for ’08 Mz. Rodham Clinton. For months the Dems and their stooges in the media have screamed and yelled at Bush for his Iraq policy. They spout off about how the so called “international community” was not behind the war. They cried and moan about how we were alone in Iraq and belittle the “Coalition of Willing.” Who could forget FrankenKerry droning on and on for months with statements like:

““Instead, the president rushed to war, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went purposefully, by choice, without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted by choice, without making sure that our troops even had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead by choice, without understanding or preparing for the consequences of postwar. None of which I would have done”."
.” Washington Post

After all that, Hillary now has the audacity to talk like a warlord. What happened to liberal “diplomacy?” Would Hillary’s comments count as bravado or even a New York “swagger?” I wonder if the media will criticize her in the same way that they are so disgusted by Bush’s Texas trot. Bush did in Iran and North Korea exactly what the liberals wanted “diplomacy.” However, everyone, no even Hillary knows that you cannot negotiate with these people.

The reality is the Hillary is playing a dangerous political game. In order to win in ’08 she needs to appear tough even tougher than Bush on national security. “Appear” is the key word. She is really a “sheep in wolf’s clothing”. She is also trying to pander to the radical lefties by saying that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq ASAP as a bone to the Murtha brigade. She also suggests using “small quick strike forces” in Iran. Hey what happened to “we didn’t have enough troops?” Hillary's comments are clearly playing politics with national defense and our security. Remember liberals do not really care about defense, the US is the real bad guy in the world.

I agree that something needs to be done with Iran and soon. This blog will address what should and can be done in the near future. This is why I am such a staunch supporter of the real terror warrior George W. Bush. Hillary can talk that terror talk, but there is a big difference in a Texas swagger and a New York “bunny-hop”.

Al Qaeda Cries Uncle!

2006-01-19T11:33:00.000-08:00

“CAIRO — Al Qaeda is preparing for attacks in the United States but the terror group is offering a conditional truce to help rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, according to excerpts of an audiotape aired Thursday on Al-Jazeera, purporting to be the voice of Usama bin Laden.” FOX News 1/20/06!

Just days after the CIA blasted several of his top lieutenants in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden today is offering the USA a “truce”. The top “evil-doer” also stated that the only reason that Al Qaeda has not struck again at the USA is because they are “planning operations” and that our “heightened security” is not the real reason we have not been hit since 9/11. The tape is still being authenticated.

After reading the text of this new message one must come to the following conclusions:

1. A “truce”? The fact that Al Qaeda is now asking for a “truce” is clear evidence that Bush’s plan for winning the War on Terror is working brilliantly. We are systematically hunting down and destroying the Al Qaeda threat one terrorist at a time just a Bush boasted years ago. The Pakistan bombing recently killed at least three high ranking terrorists and maybe even Ayman al Zawahiri bin Laden’s number two man. He has not been heard from lately. With these efforts, the Al Qaeda leadership structure has been decimated over the past five years. There is not much job security these days for top Al Qaeda executives. They have no golden parachutes. The Bush strategy is working and we must continue to apply deadly pressure. We cannot afford the “Clintonian” fear of collateral damage to stifle our efforts. We can also not afford the “Woodstock crowd” crying about expanding the conflict into neighboring countries were terrorists reside.

2. “We do not fear your heightened security . . . ” What is that old psych theory called where sometimes we say the opposite of what we really believe? Yes, strap Bin Laden down to a psychiatrist’s couch and you will find that he is extremely frustrated by his inability to strike at the USA. Dig deeper, is it because of his mother? No, it’s because of Bush. Since 9/11 he has been on the run from Hellfire missiles raining down from the sky. He and his people can never spend two nights in the same cave for fear of being sucked out by a Daisy Cutter.

The Bush war plan has also greatly enhanced Homeland Security efforts. To spite what the liberals think, the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps have foiled several planned Al Qaeda operations. Even cells that have not been discovered yet cannot operate for fear of being nabbed. NewsMax Magazine also reported last month about precautions being taken at port facilities in order to avoid a nuclear attack.

3. What will the Lib’s Say? Bin Laden may also be counting on the weak liberals here in the U.S. for help. He is banking on the fact that the Democrats might use this and the collateral bombing damage in Pakistan to try and force the Bush administration to “lay off” their aggressive and deadly strategy. We have already seen the ACLU suing the administration over the wire taps and bag searches in the NYC subways. They are Al Qaeda’s legal team. By continuing to harp onf the administration, Bin Laden is counting on liberals to give him time to catch his breath before the next drone attack. Therefore the war on Islamo-Fascism must be fought both on the battlefield and here at home by strong conservatives. We must support the President.

Over all this Bin Laden Tape is good news for Americans who actually want to win the War on Terror. I am sorry ACLU and the rest of the anti-war crowd. Between taking the war to the enemy and defending the homeland, Bush has limited Al Qaeda’s operational ability and has largely degraded and destroyed its leadership. Al Qaeda has largely become an ideology rather than an organization. Even the London bombings were done by homegrown terrorists and not Al Qaeda Saudi types like M. Atta. I call on conservatives to keep up the fight against the liberals so that our brave soldiers and President Bush can keep blasting the evil-doers.

MLK's Tears from Heaven

2006-01-18T07:51:00.000-08:00

“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood . . . I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character . . . I have a dream today!” MLK August 28, 1963

More than forty three years ago those powerful words rang out across the mall in Washington and throughout this great land of liberty. It was an appeal to all citizens white and black to let “Freedom Ring . . .” in every corner of America. Dr. Martin Luther King stirring an emotional plea to Americans of every color and race help put an end to nearly one hundred years of the shameful practice of segregation here in the land of the free. King’s commanding oratory called Americans to task and challenged us to live up to our founding creed which says that in this nation “all men are created equal”. King’s dream was to fulfill this promise for all Americans and to create a nation where people of both races lived side by side in harmony for the betterment of all. Today as MLK looks down upon the fruited plain, upon this great land for which he sacrificed so much, he does so with tears in his eyes.

The modern Democratic liberal party, while appearing to be for civil rights actually seeks to further divide America for its own political gains. Their modern message is in stark contrast to Dr. King’s dream. While paying lip service to “working for the African American community” in reality what they are saying is that “African Americans cannot be successful on their own merit.” They insist that without the help of Democrats and their social programs they cannot succeed. “Voting for us is your only hope” should be a Democratic campaign slogan. The reality is however that when African Americas finally do see through the fog of Democratic political spin they do become successful. They also vote Republican. There has been a steady increase in African American Republican votes, see Ken Blackwell of Ohio. Therefore; the Dems find themselves in a dangerous dance of manipulation. They cannot afford to see the black community realize their full potential, because that would risk losing their political base. Therefore they do not judge people on “character” as MLK suggested, but instead divide Americans in their own selfish pursuit of power.

If you do not believe me just look at what two recent comments by Democratic politicians:

Let’s start with the easy one. Mayor Ray Nagin of a battered New Orleans said recently that New Orleans would soon be a “chocolate city again.” Does this sound like MLK’s ideals? “The sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood” I think not. Now Nagin did back peddle later on and gave an explanation for mixing chocolate milk rather than building a diverse society, but is this not just blatant racism and division? I believe that comments like this are shameful and I also believe that Dr. King would be ashamed of Mr. Nagin. Nagin knows where his power base lies, within the Black community. However, hopefully the fine citizens of New Orleans have learned that they are simply pawns of the Democratic spin machine. Just think about it. Who was it that did not supply busses for citizens to escape Katrina? Bush? No that was the mayor’s call. Who was it that waited to declare a mandatory evacuation? Bush? No once again the mayor’s call. Then when his people are let down and stuck on roof tops who does he blame, himself? No first Bush, the war in Iraq, and then even God was to blame according to Nagan. Does anyone have a mirror for the mayor? My point is that there is a pattern here for Dems. Keep the black community down and blame Republicans in order to get votes and achieve power. Divide and conquer is the Democratic political social mantra. MLK’s dream is somehow lost in their equation.

Now the fun really begins with everyone’s favorite liberal doll Hillary Rodham or Clinton or just plain “Hillary” or what ever she happens to be calling herself today. This past MLK Day Hillary shrieked in front of the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem that quote “When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about." No Hillary, what exactly are you talking about? Are you trying to equate a Republican Party that has brought lower taxes and opportunity zones to urban communities to the horrors of slavery on an antebellum plantation? I think you are. Let me try and translate this liberal double talk for the good of all. What Hillary is really saying is the “blacks cannot be successful unless they elect her and her liberal cronies”. She is talking down to the black community under the guise of lifting them up. In essence, what Hillary is implying to African Americans is that they cannot be successful without her help. Is this accurate? Of course it is not. Is that the American dream? Of course it is not. Is this what MLK wanted on his birthday? Of course it is not again. This is all part of the same shameless Democratic scheme to divide voters by race for their own political gains.

Yes, MLK weeps today as he looks down upon the shameful political partisan politics that the Democrats use to divide Americans for their own political gains. King would be please however in that most Americans support his dream even if the modern Democrats dishonor his work.

**Just as a side note and a personal pet peeve, why does Ted "hickup" Kennedy and other Dems have to refer to Judge Alito as "Oliiiiattoo"? Is that also a coded slur? It is an easy Italian name "A Le Toe" Maybe it is the scotch.

What does the future hold for the USA if the Liberals force us to surrender in Iraq?

2005-11-23T14:37:00.000-08:00

The latest liberal movement to quote “bring home the troops” immediately championed by Congressman Martha and Dennis K is one of the most short sited foreign policy schemes ever devised. Liberals of course argue that our invasion of Iraq has isolated us from the so called international community and has caused more terrorism. Therefore they fear for what the future may hold for the United States if we do not pull out immediately.

However conservatives know that the ramifications of following such a path would be disastrous. While the debate about how we got into the war still rages for some reason (we can get into that again later if the liberals insist), the United States has always been a forward looking nation. The fact is that we must create a foreign policy for today as opposed to three years ago. Therefore let’s consider the consequences of an immediate pullout of Iraq based on real facts rather than liberal emotion.

Liberal Argument #1:
We need to get out of Iraq now and stop the war!

The Facts:
By pulling out of Iraq today we would hand our enemies, most notably Al Qaeda, a giant victory from which they could continue to keep us on the run. Al Qaeda sees the war in Iraq as the main front in their war against the west. This was recently sited in a letter sent by Bin Laden’s top lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri to the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi in which he praises Zarqawi for being able to fight in the most important portion of their jihad.

“God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era, and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God @ about the epic battles between Islam and atheism. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world”

Leaving Iraq now would hand Al-Qaeda exactly what they desire. Another victory over the infidels. Obviously here the liberals are just wrong.

Liberal Argument #2:
There have been too many American casualties . . . Bush lied and people die

The facts:
The fact is that while every American death in Iraq is tragic, the conflict has had relatively few casualties compared to other US wars of far less consequence to our national survival. For example:

Vietnam 58,000 dead that is 29 times higher for a far lesser cause.

Korea: 38,000 dead that is 19 times higher for a far lesser cause.

WWII: 405,000 dead that is more than 200 times higher for a somewhat lesser cause.

WWI: 108,000 dead that is 54 times higher for a far lesser cause

Civil War: 640,000 dead is 320 times higher for the noblest cause
Philippines Insurrection (a little know savage war of piece at the turn of the century) 5,000 dead is 2.5 times higher than Iraq

War of 1812: 2,000 killed – and equal number for little

American Revolution: 4,000 twice the number as Iraq

And the list could go on and on. Wars are almost always historically unpopular in the middle of the conflict. Lincoln was hated by much of the nation and cast as a butcher. Should he have quit? Wilson lost the midterm elections during WWI, maybe he should have let the Kaiser win? Madison also lost New England to succession in 1814, perhaps that would have been best for the nation. The point is that liberals always want to wave the white flag cut and run before the job is done. Now how do our enemies look upon this history?

After Bin Laden and the mujahedeen drove the Soviet bear from Afghanistan they turned their rage toward the USA. Bin Laden described the United States as a quote “paper tiger”. He sited the fact that in recent history the United States withdraws after sustaining any sort of casualties. Bin Laden sited the Beirut Marine barracks bombing and Clinton’s pizza delivery to Somalia as an example of this. Our enemies feel that once again America will run if casualties are inflicted.

In the same letter from al-Zawahiri to Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri tells his Iraqi comrade that America will run just like they have in the past. The terrorists therefore must wait the Americans out, wear them down, and soon the Americans will bend to liberal pressure and run. Then Al Qaeda will be able to step into the void.

“Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy . . . we must fill the void behind them”.

If the USA were to leave Iraq today Al-Qaeda and people like Zarqawi will take control control over at least parts of the country and use it to launch attacks on other Middle Eastern government and the United States.

Liberal Argument #3:
The USA is the reason for the violence in Iraq. If we get out it will stop.

The facts:
If the American troops were to leave Iraq today, Iraq would explode into civil war and a bloodbath would ensue. How quickly liberals have forgotten what happened after the pullout for Vietnam. As soon as it became apparent that the Americans were leaving several things would happen in Iraq.

First of all the Kurds in the north would declare independence and further arm their militia. Both Turkey and Iran fear an independent Kurdistan because of their own Kurdish populations. Both nations would likely attack directly or by proxy.

Second, without U.S. troops the Shia in the south would have to begin to arm with help from Iran in order to face the Sunni Al- Qaeda/Bathist types around Baghdad who would surely attack. The southern part of Iraq including the oil fields would be under the control of an Iranian puppet such as Al Sadr.

Third, Zarqawi would take control of the central part of the country. There he and his henchmen would instill a Taliban style government. He will kill and slaughter anyone who was even somewhat friendly to the Americans. The bloodbath would continue as he would then turn to consolidate his power by attacking the Shia south.

Overall, Iraq would be split in three and engulfed in far more violence and war that it is today. How quickly Americans forget the aftermath of our withdraw from Vietnam. After the GI’s were gone and Congress cut off the funding for our allies in the south, the communists began to fill the killing fields.

Liberal Argument #4:
We are too unpopular in the world. The world will like us better if we leave.

The Facts:
If we were to pull out of Iraq today we would lose all credibility with foreign nations. Our enemies would be emboldened and our friends would feel betrayed. A growing perception around the world already seems to agree with Bin Laden’s theory that the US is a “paper tiger” unwilling to accept casualties. This fact is seen clearly in Asia today. Most of our Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have all begun to bolster their military. Why a liberal might ask? Because our friends in the region fear that if push comes to shove with China the USA could not win such a conflict. They fear that the Chinese would be willing to accept large numbers of causalities while the USA would run after only 2,000.

Now let’s translate this to the Middle East. Today most of the small gulf states are willing to play ball with us because they think we will keep the peace and keep other large nations from dominating the regions and conquering them. Just ask Kuwait if this is true. They sell us oil and we protect them from people like Saddam and the crazy mullahs in Iran. They trust us because we did liberate Kuwait and have protected the shipping lanes. Now imagine if we are driven out of the region by Al Qaeda. The small oil rich states will be forced to cozy up with a nuclear armed Iran for their own survival. Former friends/partners such as Kuwait, Qutar, UEA, Saudi, etc. will come under an Iranian influence. They will drive up the price of oil sold to us to possibly $200 a barrel. We will have no choice but to pay due to demand in Asia and our own green liberals who refuse to drill here. That means your children might pay $10.00 for a gallon of gas. Iran would also have a free hand to develop nukes, sponsor terror, and attack Israel.

What you could end up with is a Middle East dominated by Al Qaeda on one side and the Iranian Mullahs on the other. Iran could then become allied with China, a great rising threat to the USA, and maybe even Russia. This leaves the USA as the odd man out. Our standard of living will fall as well. Lack of jobs, energy, and goods would be rampant. Europe is already lost and leaning in this direction.

Yes the world could be a scary place for our children if the liberals get there way. It is unfortunate that we must fight not only Al Qaeda and Ismo-fascists around the world but also the liberals in our own nation.

Drill, Drill there Today, Where Big Libs and the Caribou Play!

2005-03-11T06:22:00.000-08:00

"The first big environmental showdown of the new Congress is expected to come within weeks as the Senate plans to use a budget measure to try to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil development, hoping to sidestep strong Democratic opposition"
– AP “Oil Battle Looms” - March 2005

This morning on my way to work, unlike entitlement bound Democrats, I was appalled by the recent and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. For years now, we have heard the liberal cries for “energy conservation.” Such statements and their ineffectiveness date back to the Carter era. Americans do not and should not have to conserve. We are a people who enjoy fast high performance cars, large SUV’s, one hundred watt bulbs and having the available energy to run our technologically advanced society. America was built on the freedom to pursue our own happiness and opportunity which in the modern world is tied to the use of energy. Conserving energy will only slow the nation’s progress and stand in the way of individual opportunity and liberty. Therefore the answer to the energy crisis is not conservation but exploration.

Once again on this issue, liberals fail to connect with the average American citizen and stand in the way of our nation’s prosperity. Today’s modern liberal energy banter continues with oxymoronic statements about how we must “become less dependent on foreign sources of energy,” but then refuse to allow drilling in Alaska’s ANWAR region. Kerry even stood in front of a banner which read “Energy Independence” during the campaign to spite his strong opposition to Bush’s energy plan. Liberals go on to complain that Bush had cut deals with the Saudis to keep the price of oil down and then grumble when prices began to rise. Some left wing activists even cry out “no war for oil” as if the invasion of Iraq was simply to pump oil for Halliburton. Most well read people understand the real reason for the invasion, which was the spread of democracy and freedom across the greater Middle East as part of the War on Terror.

The liberal hypocrisy in energy policy is simply shameful. Environmental extremists and their Democratic allies in Congress are completely out of touch with reality. These environmentalists see the United States as the “Great Polluter” fowling up the rest of the world and solely responsible for so called “global warming.” This is laughable when you consider how clean U.S. skies have become over the past few years compared to the third world. Liberals today also refuse to accept that drilling can be done in a clean and responsible way with modern technology. President Bush realizes the value in drilling in ANWAR in a clean fashion.

“U.S. Interior Department's conclusion that no environmental impact would result from the extension of 37 leases for drilling off the coasts of Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. Those leases have not been used to produce oil or natural gas.”

Eco-Libs would prefer to bring the nation’s economic opulence to a halt as to not disturbing the mating habits of a few caribou.

The good news for reasonable thinking people however, is that the environmental extremists and the Democrats are not in power. President Bush’s energy plan is responsible, respectful of the environment; and key to giving the United States the horsepower it needs in the twenty first century. Although the plan has been stalled by the Democrats in Congress over the past four years, the days of obstruction are coming to an end. Republicans are posed to politically maneuver to end liberal filibustering on energy in the Senate. Bush’s energy plan is expected to also find support in the House. Bush’s plan calls for research into alternative sources of energy, clean coal technology, and drilling in both ANWAR and along the California coastline. Bush’s policy could provide vast new energy sources; lower fuel costs dramatically, make the United States less dependent on foreign oil, and keep the engine of our prosperity purring.

Are Liberals Finally Coming Around to the Bush Doctrine?

2005-03-06T13:37:00.000-08:00

Across New York, Los Angeles and Chicago—and probably Europe and Asia as well—people are nervously asking themselves a question: "Could he possibly have been right?" The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things. - Newsweek. "What Bush Got Right" by Zakaria March 14, 2005

. . . since Sept. 11, a source of violent enmity toward the U.S. But as Bush's second term opened, he was blessed with rare opportunities to throw U.S. weight and prestige behind signs of reform. So Washington turned up the rhetoric about democracy to lean on longtime Middle East recalcitrants. - Time "When History Turns A CornerPeople power is changing the face of the Middle East" by Duffy March 7, 2005

A powerful confluence of events in the Middle East in recent weeks has infused President Bush's drive to spread democracy - Washington Post "Mideast Strides Lift Bush . . . " - By Baker March 8, 2005; Page A01

Wow! With the successful elections in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and other democracy challenged regions, do liberals finally understand the real War on Terror? Let’s not jump to conclusions just yet. Since the opening salvos were fired liberals have time and time again failed to grasp the true nature of the Islamo-Fascist threat that faces the republic. Through both their actions and inactions, they have unwittingly attempted to aid our enemies and have placed the nation in even greater peril. Their weak and incompetent foreign policy agenda is a by product of their failure to truly understand the threat. Only now in the face of the presidents successful foreign policy are they starting to understand the power of freedom and liberty.

Most liberals still subscribe to the Clintonesque “cops and robbers” approach to fighting terror. Liberals intrinsically do not understand that evil must be confronted and ultimately destroyed. They believe in avoiding conflict in an unrealistic neo-appeasement. Liberals shrink in the face of adversity and would sooner sacrifice the principles of democracy to avoid offending a tyrant. Most disturbingly, they fail to see how their weakness only enables the evil doers and endangers the nation.

This is the reason why so many liberals opposed the war in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. They did not fully recognize how the invasion of Iraq impacted the overall war on terror. All throughout the presidential campaign, Kerry and other liberals accused the president of “not getting Bin Laden.” He even went as far as to refer to terrorism as merely a “nuisance”. These statements have been accompanied for months by other ludicrous ranting by Al Gore, Howard Dean, Edward Kennedy, KKK Bird, and countless other liberals. Such statements are the perfect examples of how liberals just don’t get the War on Terror. They see the conflict and the danger as only a minor law enforcement action against one man and his organization.

Liberals fail to see that we face a wider threat from Islamo-Fascism. Islamo-Fascists extend far beyond Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Islamo-Fascists are made up of many terrorists and state sponsored groups within the Muslim world who seek the destruction of what they perceive to be as the infidel West. These people are fanatical extremists who seek to replace the current regimes in the Muslim world with a radicalized reestablished Caliphate. This new Caliphate would unit the Muslim world under strict Taliban style “Sharia law” which is diametrically opposed to freedom and liberty. Islamo-Fascists see the United States and democratic principles as the major obstacle to their efforts.

Fortunately for the nation and freedom loving people around the world, President George W. Bush fully understands the threat posed by these monsters. For all the liberal mocking of his speech patterns, his “strategery” in the War on Terror seems to be working. Bush understands that terrorism must be defeated from within the Middle East itself. He understands that just “getting Bin Laden” will not end the threat to the United States or the radicals dream of tyrannically Muslim rule. Bush’s war is more than tactical firefights in the mountains of Afghanistan. His overall “strategery” is to change the direction of the region by harnessing mankind’s instinct to be free. Bush understands that once freedom takes hold, once people have a taste of liberty, the power to change and reform the Muslim world will be irresistible. The invasion of Iraq was the first step in this plan to democratize the region and win the War on Terror. It provided a beachhead from which liberty could spread the winds of change across the Middle East. While tough times surely lie ahead, his policy seems to be working as we have seen in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Ukraine, and even Saudi Arabia.

Just imagine the irony of the events which have occurred over the past several months. The goal of the Islamo-Fascists is regime change in the Muslim world. That goal is being achieved today, only not by Bin Laden. President Bush and the United States have unleashed the power of freedom which is sweeping across the would be Caliphate. The people of the Middle East have begun to rise up to reject the message and the goals of the terrorists and we have seen a great turning point in the War on Terror. Consider this; with all his video taped blustering, Bin Laden knows the momentum has shifted in our favor. This is evident by his apparent encouragement of Zarqawi to attack the USA since he was obviously was unable to stop democracy in Iraq which the terrorists considered to be the new front line. Hopefully, liberals in the coming months will come to see the error of their ways and stand firmly behind our founding principles and President Bush as the Muslim world experiences a new birth of freedom. The United States is winning the War on terror and liberals if they want to be taken seriously must stand on the right side of history.