Just what the title says... random ruminations on life, the universe, and everything by a Christian Conservative Geek (that's me). Could be religion, politics, or the state of the Star Trek franchise.
Military historian Victor Davis Hanson takes on several of the more common canards about Iraq and the broader war on terror, and tears them to shreds.
Washington is an echo chamber. One pundit, one senator, one reporter proclaim a snazzy “truth” and almost immediately it reverberates as gospel. Conventional wisdom about Iraq is rarely questioned. A notion seems to find validity not on its logic or through empirical evidence, but simply by the degree to which it is repeated and felt to resonate.
Read the whole thing--link is in the title, as usual--and bookmark it for quick reference when debating a lefty.
I am thankful that people like Chris Hedges are writing for The Nation, and not running it (the USA as a nation, not the magazine):
I will not pay my income tax if we go to war with Iran. I realize this is a desperate and perhaps futile gesture. But an attack on Iran—which appears increasingly likely before the coming presidential election—will unleash a regional conflict of catastrophic proportions. This war, and especially Iranian retaliatory strikes on American targets, will be used to silence domestic dissent and abolish what is left of our civil liberties. It will solidify the slow-motion coup d'etat that has been under way since the 9/11 attacks. It could mean the death of the Republic. ... I will put the taxes I owe in an escrow account. I will go to court to challenge the legality of the war. Maybe a courageous judge will rule that the Constitution has been usurped and the government is guilty of what the postwar Nuremberg tribunal defined as a criminal war of aggression. Maybe not. I do not know. But I do know this: I have friends in Tehran, Gaza, Beirut, Baghdad, Jerusalem and Cairo. They will endure far greater suffering and deprivation. I want to be able, once the slaughter is over, to at least earn the right to ask for their forgiveness.
And thank God they have the arrogance to write things like that for public consumption, so that we can see what kind of internal enemies we face.
God bless you all... even the lefties... even you, Mr. Troll, and you know who you are (if you write a kind response to this, it might actually get approved).
Looks like the NY Times wants the Democrats to continue looking like total idiots, pushing forward Iraq withdrawal bills that it admits are fruitless.
Courtesy NRO's The Corner (since I refuse to link directly to the NY Times):
News section (Pg. 15): Iraq votes were ‘repeated and fruitless’
… House and Senate Democrats have made some rookie management mistakes in their first year of combined Congressional control. They have angered Republicans with occasional heavy-handed treatment, as well as repeated and fruitless votes on the war.
(“Off for Break, Congress May Still Face Stalemate,” November 17, 2007)
Editorial (Pg. 18): Democrats ‘must keep at it’
Democrats say they will continue to push the president and his Republican allies to concede their failed war policy and change course. They must keep at it.
(“Democrats Find Their Voice,” editorial, November 17, 2007)
So there ya go. The NY Times wants Democrats to "keep at" their "repeated and fruitless votes on the war."
Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) today on the floor of the House:
“I yield myself two minutes. Madam speaker, I, first of all, I’m just amazed that they can't figure out -- the Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war on children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if he can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement.”
Do I need comment further?
Anyway, several GOP Congressmen have responded... visit the link in the title to read some of their comments.
Finally, a chink in the wall of silence from the leftymedia:
NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month -- whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq -- have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.
A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004.
They summarize with:
This doesn't necessarily mean the war is being won. U.S. military commanders have said that no reduction in violence will be sustainable unless Iraqis reach political solutions -- and there has been little progress on that front. Nevertheless, it's looking more and more as though those in and outside of Congress who last month were assailing Gen. Petraeus's credibility and insisting that there was no letup in Iraq's bloodshed were -- to put it simply -- wrong.
The Party of the Donkey is trying once again to kill the the War on Terror in Iraq while at the same time desperately attempting to avoid looking like they're doing so. They're returning to an old method they used in Vietnam--cutting off funding.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's request for nearly $200 billion more to fund the Iraq war will not be approved unless it is linked to a plan to bring home U.S. combat troops by January 2009, the head of the House appropriations committee said on Tuesday.
Rep. David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, told a news conference his panel would not even consider the war funding request until early 2008, by which time he estimates funding for military operations will have run out. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently outlined the request to Congress.
[snip]
In proposing the new timetable for withdrawing troops, Obey said, "As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have no intention of reporting out of committee any time in this session of Congress any such (war funding) request that simply serves to continue the status quo."
Of course, the "status quo" in Iraq is that we are winning. Both military and civilian deaths are down, fears of a civil war are fading, Al-Qaeda is on the run... and Obey admits he doesn't want to continue that?
Can he really be that blatant about wanting to lose? Or is he so stupid that he believes the anti-war propaganda rather than the reports from the Pentagon?
Commenter Mark emailed me this, submitting it for the blog as it was too long for the comments. I reprint it here with but one minor editorial change (in capitalization of one word). The rest is as he wrote it -CCG
Oakland is part of the San Francisco bay area. San Francisco is where many of the 60’s and 70’s peace-nick ‘hippie’ radicals gathered once they ‘found their way’. Flowers replaced rifles. Drugs replaced discipline. “Freedom” meant being free to do anything they wished. “Make peace, not war” became their religion. And God was no longer welcome in the city by the bay. Apparently, Oakland followed suit and there is no distinguishing between the two now.
I read the story about a plane load of soldiers and marines posted at http://christianconservativegeek.blogspot.com/ on September 30th shortly after it was up. I was incensed by the actions of the Oakland International Airport authorities. Incensed to the point of blind, white-hot rage. I bit my tongue and tried to contain the anger. I posted a quick comment to the story expressing that anger and the fact that I would not write more until I could get it under control. Then I thought.
Imagine you are a member of the US military and have been at war for about a year. You return via a chartered airliner to US soil and a US airport on your route refuses to let you into the terminal due to what can only be assumed to be (drum roll, please) ‘security issues’. Apparently, TSA has not screened you. Yes, you, a soldier who has been fighting a war. All you may want to do is buy a Coke, stretch your legs, or maybe even make a quick call home. And the airport will not let you inside the terminal.
Another day, another time and these young souls would have been spit upon. They would have been called ‘baby killer’ and ‘murderer’.
Excuse me, but I thought the Viet Nam anti-troop mentality was done. I thought calling soldiers, sailors, air-men, and marines “baby killer” was out of vogue. I thought freezing military personnel out of society was decided to be ‘beyond the pale’. I thought the citizenry of the US had finally put to rest this ‘hate the troops mentality’ of the 60’s and 70’s peace movement. I thought ‘We the People’ had decided it was noble and generous for a young man or woman to take the oath to serve in this country’s military. I thought…“Oh”, I said to myself with dawning realization.
We had.
It’s back.
This is the way cancer works.
We have a choice. Succumb to the disease or fight it. I know which side I’ve chosen, how about you?
Full disclosure: I have not independently researched the validity of this email yet. Like Scott Thomas Beauchamp, this could turn out to be a lot of nothing.
However, with that said, it certainly seems par for the course for Oakland, which is right across the bay from ultra-left San Francisco, and if it's less well-known, it's certainly not that much less left-leaning.
On September 27th 204 Marines and soldiers who were returning from Iraq were not allowed into the passenger terminal at Oakland International Airport. Instead they had to deplane about 400 yards away from the terminal where the extra baggage trailers were located.
This was the last scheduled stop for fuel and food prior to flying to Hawaii where both were based. The trip started in Kuwait on September 26th with a rigorous search of checked and carry on baggage by US Customs. All baggage was x-rayed with a "backscatter" machine AND each bag was completely emptied and hand searched. After being searched, checked bags were marked and immediately placed in a secure container.
Carry on bags were then x rayed again to ensure no contraband items were taken on the plane. While waiting for the bus to the airport, all personnel were in quarantined in a fenced area and were not allowed to leave.
The first stop for fuel/food and crew change was in Leipzig Germany. Troops exited the aircraft and took a bus to a reception area in the terminal, where there was a convenience store, phones, Internet and restrooms. As we excited the bus we were given a re-boarding pass. Three troops remained on the plane with the rifles and pistols. There was no ammunition on the plane and the bolts of the rifles had been removed. After about 2 hours troops re-boarded the plane and flew to JFK in NY.
At JFK the procedure was similar to Germany, 3 troops stayed on the plane to guard weapons while the rest deplaned. At the gate we were each given a re-boarding pass and spent about 1.5 hours in the terminal, at which time we re-boarded and flew to Oakland.
As we came in for the final approach to Oakland a Lieutenant who served in Afghanistan with the same unit in 2006 mentioned how when they landed in Oakland they were not allowed in the terminal. He said, "they made us get out by the FED EX building and we had to sit out there for 3 hours". He also indicated he was almost arrested by the TSA for getting belligerent about them not letting the Marines into the terminal.
Well the same thing happened again. This time we did not park by the FED EX building, instead we were offloaded near the grass that separates the active runway from the taxi ramp, about 400 yards from the terminal. When we inquired why they wouldn't allow us in the airport they gave us some lame excuse that we hadn't been screened by TSA. While true, the screening which we did have was much more thorough than any TSA search and was done by US Customs.
Additionally, JFK didn't seem to have a problem with our entering their terminal, nor did security in Germany.
It felt like being spit on. Every Marine and soldier felt the message loud and clear, "YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN OAKLAND!"
(Name and unit removed - see update below.)
Given that this purports to be written by a chaplain, and both a full name and unit are given, I am inclined to trust its veracity until and unless credible evidence to the contrary is uncovered.
So, this is how they support the troops in Oakland.
UPDATE: A person claiming to be the brother of the chaplain who wrote the above email has written me, asking that I remove the author's name and unit. My initial reaction was to leave it in pending confirmation, which I left to National Review, where I originally found the email, citing their vastly superior ability to verify the person's identity. However, upon reconsideration, I am removing them at this time.
UPDATE II: Upon emailing with Michael Ledeen, who posted the original story, I have received confirmation--to my personal satisfaction, at least--of the brother's identity.
Also, in speaking to friends who are from the San Francisco area, I've not found any who found the idea of Oakland not permitting soldiers in the airport terminal outlandish. Of course, most of my friends are conservative, like me, so that may not be worth much, but I offer it for what it's worth. As one friend pointed out, Oakland is not that far from Berkley, and most people know how far left Berkley is.
UPDATE III (and bump): I have decided I owe Michael Ledeen a steak. He just pointed me to Michelle Malkin, who has completely confirmed the above story, even to receiving a response from the Port of Oakland, which runs the airport. Of course, as could be expected, they are trying to blame the charter airline and the Armed Forces, but it was still their final decision on how to treat our troops, and that speaks volumes.
Also worth noting is that while Oakland blames the Armed Forces for not receiving "clear communication" from the airline, there was apparently no such problem at JFK in New York. There are three possible explanations that I can see:
The airline did communicate clearly with all airports along the planned route of the flight. This would be the most logical, as it can be assumed that the people doing the communicating are experienced at this sort of thing and know what is necessary.
The airline did not communicate clearly with all airports along the flight route. As noted above, this is not very likely, as it can probably be safely assumed that the airline knows what it is doing.
The airline communicated clearly with JFK but not Oakland. This is even less likely than #2 above. If they communicate clearly with one airport, why not all of them?
Of the three, I am sure that the Oakland people prefer #2 or #3. However, the most likely is still #1, which points to a problem at Oakland... either the Oakland airport staff did not properly handle the information from the airline--which I deem as unlikely as the airline not properly communicating; these are all professionals, after all--or they're desperately trying to cover their posteriors.
A Hollywood writer using a pen name--conservatives in Hollywood have to, ya know--lets loose in grand snarky style about this season's anti-war films. Read it. Really. (Link is, as usual, in the title.)
It's really hard to believe, but the college student who penned the essay linked above was apparently unaware that the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis is (gasp) part of the United States Navy!
I suppose, given the woeful state of education in this nation, I should be glad that she figured it out at all. However, she apparently feels that she needs to warn other people of this fact, which she has just recently grasped herself, and you can almost hear the outrage in her voice as you read her screed.
I wonder if she realizes that the United States Military Academy, Air Force Academy, and Coast Guard Academy are also part of the Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard, respectively. Perhaps that will be the subject of future essays by this political science major.
By now, many of you have probably heard about the MoveOn.org ad that ran in the 10 Sept edition of the NY Times, which cost them $65,000--far below the rate quoted on their card. If you haven't, Bob Owens over at Confederate Yankee has been all over it.
The full page MoveOn.org ran on September 10, 2007 attacked General David Patreus’ credibility and patriotism. Freedom’s Watch’s full page on September 11, 2007 honored the memory of the victims of 9-11 and reminded your readers that America is engaged in a global war on terror.
According to the published reports, MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page ad. This rate was not offered to Freedom’s Watch to run the same size ad with the same placement on September 11, 2007. The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a “standby rate” ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad. At a minimum, it’s clear that MoveOn.org was able to pick the date of their ad or was given preferential treatment on the timing of the ad because it was reported before it was published.
We are at a loss to explain this discriminatory pricing. The only difference between the ads appears to be that Freedom's Watch disagrees with your paper’s editorial policy while MoveOn.org basically agrees with it. Surely it is not the policy of the Times to give discounts to certain advertisers based on this. And surely you do not wish to convey that your newspaper has suspended any patina of objectivity and fairness and is now actively promoting the MoveOn.org worldview in your news pages.
In short, either MoveOn got preferential treatment for their "standby" ad, or they got a heck of a discount. I can't wait to see if the NY Times permits Freedom's Watch to rerun their ad at the same rate that MoveOn paid.
I am betting they won't, to be quite honest with you. Lefties like those in charge of the NY Times are nothing if not shameless.
I know that many people don't hold monuments to our fallen soldiers and war dead in as high of regard as others do. Some people think those fallen heroes are just fodder for bad foreign policy; they are dupes and as culpable as those who send them to fight. Those people probably believe that memorializing them and erecting monuments to those who gave their lives is profane. I understand that.
There are those among us who believe not only is it necessary to memorialize our war dead and heroes, it is entirely necessary. It is necessary to remind us as a Nation that our liberties and freedoms did not come without sacrifice.
We are a Nation that gained our independence through the will and sacrifice of thousands in the Revolutionary War. We kept our relatively young Nation from splintering during the Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died establishing our great Nation, keeping it whole and then fighting to keep peril from our shores and helping other freedom loving people establish and keep their own.
We, the United States of America, memorialize and erect monuments because it is the right thing to do - and the very least we can do.
When I read something like this, it makes my blood boil. And it makes me very sad. Robert Bluey at RedState reports.
I got word this morning from Gathering of Eagles that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial had been vandalized, so I headed over to check it out for myself. Sure enough, I found several stones covered with an oily substance.
In the above photo (and others available on Flickr), you'll noticed that the memorial has been sprayed toward the bottom of the wall with some kind of black substance. Free Republic has also posted photos.
[...]
The most tragic part of the vandalism is that the damage appears to be permanent. The Park Service employee who talked to me said that the initial diagnosis was that the oily substance had stained the stone. He said another analysis would take place tomorrow.
At a time when America is particularly sentimental about the men and women who have given their lives for our country, this is a sad and unfortunate act. The coward who did it should be ashamed.
With the testimony this week by General Petraeus before Congress and the sixth anniversary of 9-11 tomorrow, one would have to believe this act of vandalism and desecration had to be motivated by a political view point.
The Park Service says they are reviewing video tape. I hope they can identify the perpetrators of this desecration. If they are part of an organized group, I would wish that the media make them infamous. I won't hold my breath.
If the monument cannot be repaired, I think it would be fully justified for the Park Service to install a placard near the site pointing out the effects of the vandalism and noting the name(s) of the vandals and any group associated with the act.
No matter what your viewpoint on an issue, no matter how volatle, no matter how passionately you believe in your cause, it is never appropriate or acceptable to vandalize, deface or destroy someone's property. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is the property of the people of the United States.
There was a somber sight in the city of Beeville Tuesday night, as a war memorial honoring veterans killed in four wars was completely destroyed.
That memorial once stood as five granite panels, with the names of 45 veterans who lost their lives, paying the ultimate sacrifice. But Tuesday, the memorial lies in pieces at the city's maintenance yard.
Local veterans said they're not sure when the memorial was vandalized. They say it looks like someone took their car and just rammed into it. The memorial was erected in 1989 and residents there said they're devastated by it's vandalism, because it's more than just rock - it's a symbol of freedom.
I would rather the anti-war, anti-military protesters spit on me and hurl invective at me. Just please, don't destroy the monuments. The names on those walls can no longer defend themselves.
Coming right on the heels of my blog post earlier today on Bill's offensive to make Hillary into a hawk, MSNBCcontinued the offensive.
Wednesday night's Hardball with Chrissy Spittle Boy Matthews had Jon Soltz and Buzz Patterson to answer the question of whether Hillary is a hawk or a dove. Fireworks ensued. Soltz is the anti-Iraq War activist, founder of Vote Vets and recently gained notoriety at the Yearly KosKonvention. Buzz Patterson is Vice Chairman of Move America Forward and author of Dereliction of Duty.
Notable in this exchange, watch who started interrupting first. Also, Soltz seems to feel that because he is an Iraq war vet, he has some higher moral authority than Buzz.
Soltz makes his case that Hillary is the best choice for Commander in Chief, based on his private conversations with her and her understanding and grasp of the military and it's organization. He feels that she has the most sensible foreign policy and would draw down forces in Iraq to fight our real enemy, alQaeda.
Soltz had first shot, answering this question from Matthews: "John, is Hillary the kind of candidate who we can trust to get us out of Iraq and not go to war with Iran?"
Who is Matthews speaking for? Himself, the Congressional democrats, Vote Vet, MoveOn, Code Pink, alQaeda, Iran? Anyway, Soltz answered
I think Hillary is someone who has all of the strengths of a strong commander-in-chief. She understands how we fight. I mean, when you talk to her privately, she can tell you the difference between an old brigade combat team and a new unit of action and how we have, you know, combined our mechanized infantry and armor. It is absolutely fascinating to speak with her behind the scenes.
Her last eight years in the Armed Services Committee she has learned from. And she understands why we fight. You know, I was at a large event with her several months ago and she pulled me aside and she asked me about staying in the Army or not staying in the Army. And I said, well, ma‘am, I do not know.
You know, I love the Army, and my greatest hour was ever—I ever had in my life was leading soldiers into war. And she says to me, you know, you are right, Jon. There is no greater honor than being in charge of our troops in a combat zone. And for her to understand that, like I said, she understands how we fight and why we fight. And she is somebody that.
First, Hillary has been in the Senate for six and a half years, not eight. Second, all that Soltz related means she's paying attention while she's in committee and is well briefed. Which is good, but that doesn't mean she should be Commander in Chief. And if Stolz actually thinks Hillary cares one fart about him having lead troops in combat, then he's a sucker. Hillary doesn't care.
Here, Matthews goes to Patterson and asks: "How do you see Hillary, hawk or dove?"
Hey, Chris. She is a dove in hawk‘s clothing. I mean, I know her personally, worked for her for two years, with her husband from 1996 to 1998, and she is anything but a hawk. I mean, she wants to pull us out of a Iraq. She voted for the war before she voted against the war, to coin a phrase from a previous candidate.
She will say anything she has to say, Chris, to get elected president. See, she is a pathological liar. She does not understand the military. I can speak first and foremost personally, knowing her intimately. She is not a hawk. She is anything but. She is a Wellesley College, socialist, anti-military, anti-American.
And there is where Soltz starts interrupting, after Patterson had sat there and let Soltz have his say. Guess when you're the absolute moral authority you get to interrupt. After that, it was on.
The only thing Buzz might be wrong about is saying she does not understand the military. His interaction with her was almost ten years ago. She might not have known much then but she's had her years in the Senate to pick up a few things. If he means she doesn't understand what being in the military is all about, that I'll believe, despite Soltz's position to the contrary.
Soltz goes on defending Hillary as being a credible Commander in Chief. Patterson defends his position against Hillary based on his first hand experience with the Clintons.
SOLTZ: He is wrong. He‘s making the argument for us.
PATTERSON: John, I was there, pal. You were not.
SOLTZ: I was there.
PATTERSON: You weren‘t in the White House. By the way, let me tell you—
SOLTZ: Let me tell you something, you weren‘t in Kosovo when I was in Kosovo under Bill Clinton.
PATTERSON: I was in Bosnia.
Soltz continues, criticizing Bush and missile defense, which he claims has alienated our allies, and talking about how when he was in Kosovo he had up armored Humvees, but not when he went to Iraq.
They have dedication of super duper missile defense systems in the sky that have alienated our allies. And the Democrats have a position where we can take the fight to alQaeda in Afghanistan. I was in Kosovo when we had—
Why did we have armor equipment under Bill Clinton in Kosovo, but when I was in Iraq, we didn‘t have it?
Bill Clinton was a better commander-in-chief than George W. Bush.
Oh no; lions and tigers and bears. How many troops did we have in Kosovo? A few thousand, peak maybe 8500. That's a far cry from having 150,000 in Iraq. I'd suspect it was much easier to scrape together enough up armored Humvees for a few thousand troops than it is to equip an invasion force of 150,000 troops.
In March 2003, we were operating on the second budget of the Bush administration. If there were not enough up armored Humvees when we went into Iraq, then that was a material short fall from the Clinton administration. Unless, of course, one can convince oneself that all the short comings of the Clinton military could be fixed in the first budget. Or that we should not have done anything until we had everything our military needed - even if it would take several years to get to that point.
Note also that Soltz seems to be against missile defense systems, which puts him right smack dab in the same camp as most Congressional democrats.
It went on from there. You can read the whole transcript here.
As I said, this seems to be an offensive to sell Hillary as a pro-military, foreign policy hawk. I suspect we'll hear more on this in the coming weeks.
Okay, I've been ruminating again, so it's time to see if my thoughts make any sense to anyone else.
A wise man (and I can't seem to track down who, sorry) once said, "A mistake is evidence that someone tried to do something." In short, in this world, at least, those who attempt things will sometimes slip up.
Apply this to the Iraq war debates currently going on, and an interesting viewpoint emerges: Yes, we have made mistakes; but imagine if we had sat upon our hands and done nothing?
Saddam Hussein, as pointed out by many reports, probably would have been a good deal closer to developing nukes of his own, if he didn't have them by now. As of 2003 the Oil-for-Food program was riddled with holes and Saddam was doing everything he could to push his nuclear program forward.
Iraqis would have continued to die at Saddam's hands. Although many on the left like to point to the supposed body counts (none of which can be proven to be anywhere near scientifically accurate), yet they are strangely silent on the mass graves that Saddam himself filled up. There is absolutely no evidence that the situation would have been better had we left Saddam in power; he had shown the capability and willingness to use poison gas on his own people.
Also, it is worth considering that if we had gone into Afghanistan but not Iraq, many of the terrorists fleeing our troops in Afghanistan would quite possibly found a safe haven in Iraq. It's well known that Saddam financed terrorists himself (in fact, he himself was a terrorist of a kind), and he hated the United States of America with a passion (a passion apparently shared by at least some on the left, given their loud and very Saddam-like denunciations of America). It's quite plausible that terrorists could have found a new home in Saddam's Iraq.
Yes, we have made mistakes; we've learned from them. Edison was once asked how it felt to have failed over 100 times in his quest for the light bulb. His response was, "I have not failed once. I have discovered over 100 things that don't work." General Petraeus' plan has taken what we know won't work and turned it into something that is working.
A wise person does not give up when he fails; he learns from that and tries again. Edison did. Petraeus has. It appears the anti-war folks, however, would rather we tried, failed, and then gave up.
A pity, really. They stifle their own learning with that attitude.
Once again, we have a link between people trying to get into the US and a terror plot. Thank God, this time they were not successful in getting in, so they did the next best thing. They tried their terror where they were, in Britain.
Two of the seven doctors arrested in Britain after last week's failed bomb attacks had explored the possibility of coming to the United States, making inquiries to a Philadelphia-based organization, sources said.
The two took preliminary steps to apply for graduate medical-education programs in this country, sources familiar with the FBI investigation told The Inquirer.
This is the first indication that members of the alleged terror cell in Britain expressed any interest in coming to the United States.
Now, imagine for a moment if the amnesty bill had passed. It's not that far-fetched to believe that these people might actually have been allowed to enter the country.
Lefties and other amnesty supporters will be quick to spin this with, "well, their bombs didn't detonate in Britain, why assume they would have detonated here?" The correct question is, why assume they would not have detonated here?
This story is also bad news for John "The War On Terror Is A Bumpersticker" Edwards and the rest of the Party of the Donkey Presidential hopefuls. It's another reminder that we're not immune to terror attacks, like the attempted Fort Dix or JFK Airport attacks.
So watch for the Dhimmicrats, their willing accomplices at ABCCBSCNNNBCNPRPBS, and those Republicans who supported amnesty to downplay this one.
The Prime Minister of Iraq has penned a piece that runs on OpinionJournal.com today, and it's really worth reading. The money line, for me, is this one:
Today when I hear the continuous American debate about the struggle raging in Iraq, I can only recall with great sorrow the silence which attended the former dictator's wars.
Jeffery Lord, a former Reagan White House Political Director, has penned a great article:
John Edwards may be dubbed the "Breck Girl" by Rush Limbaugh, but his real problem -- the problem Democrats should be thinking about even if they can't bring themselves to just say it -- is the real world political legacy of Edwards' brisk sail towards abject surrender in the War on Terror. Even more terrifying for the dwindling ban of FDR, Truman, and JFK followers should be the enthusiasm of all the other Democratic candidates as they elbow each other aside in their frantic quest to climb aboard the Democratic ship as the leading anti-war candidate for 2008.
One has to wonder whether these candidates and their bevy of expensive consultants read history, in this case the history of their own party and the history of anti-war movements in America. The Democratic Party has been here before, in both the 19th and 20th century, and in each instance the perception of a clear majority of the American people that Democrats had turned their back on even an unpopular war proved to have deadly political consequences.
Read the whole thing (link, as usual, is in the title); it is well researched and builds a damning case against the Party of the Donkey's chances to win the Oval Office.
Victor Davis Hanson, one of my all-time favorite authors on history and the War on Terror, writes yet another excellent article. The crux is this:
When both congressional Democrats and Republicans cast their votes to go along with President Bush, they even crafted 23 formal causes for war. So far only the writ concerning the fear of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction has in hindsight proven false.
But we no longer hear much about these various reasons why the Democrats understandably supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. Instead, they now most often plead that they were hoodwinked by sneaky, warmongering neocons or sexed-up, partisan intelligence reports.
There is nothing wrong with changing your mind — especially in matters as serious as war. But the public at least deserves a sincere explanation for this radical about-face.
So why not come clean about their changes of heart?
Why not indeed? Probably because they're stuck between the frothing-at-the-mouth MoveOn/DailyKos types that control most of the money they need, and the rubes in what they call "fly-over country" who control most of the votes, they need. To come clean would be to lose one of those, and thus, lose power.
So they keep dancing on that tightrope. And it's quite entertaining to watch.
