Our Friends, the Saudis

Whomever the next President is needs to start re-evaluating our relationship with Saudi Arabia--we know darned good and well that Bush won't in his remaining time in office, even in light of things like this:

But, hey, this is just another day in Saudi Arabia, where religious police trap teenage girls in burning school buildings for shedding the head-to-toe Islamic garments they must wear in the presence of men. Where it's a crime for adult women to drive, vote or hold office. And where polygamy is encouraged, and men in their 60s take 14-year-old brides.

Now this. The 19-year-old rape victim, a Shiite woman, originally received a sentence of 90 lashes from the Islamic court after she was kidnapped, beaten and repeatedly raped. Her crime? Being in the same car with an unrelated male companion.

She only agreed to meet the man after he threatened to tell her father they were having an affair if she didn't join him alone. She subsequently was abducted and raped by seven other men. Then her brother beat her for good measure because the rapes brought shame to the family.

Last week, the Supreme Judicial Council convicted her of unchaperoned car-sitting and hiked the sentence to 200 lashes and six months in prison.

After the West got wind of the barbarous ruling, the Saudi Ministry of Justice defended it by saying that "charges were proven" against the woman. So what's the problem?

Yep, just Saudi justice at work.

And Dubya, for all his good work in Iraq, is cozying up to these folks.

He'd Rather Reopen an Old Wound than Let it Heal

I almost couldn't believe my ears when I first heard this story on the radio today:

NEW YORK - Dan Rather filed a $70 million lawsuit against CBS and his former bosses Wednesday, claiming they made him a "scapegoat" for a discredited story about President Bush's military service during the Vietnam War.

The 75-year-old Rather, whose final months were clouded by controversy over the story, said the actions of the defendants damaged his reputation and cost him significant financial loss.

But wait, there's more!

In his lawsuit, Rather maintains that the story was true, but that if any aspect of the broadcast wasn't accurate, he was not responsible for the errors.

The story relied on four documents, supposedly written by Bush's commander in the Texas Air National Guard, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. Critics questioned the documents' authenticity and suggested they were forged.

A CBS review determined the story was neither fair nor accurate. CBS fired the story's producer and asked for the resignation of three executives because it could not authenticate documents used in the story, and Rather was forced out of the anchor chair he had occupied for 24 years.

Rather's lawsuit says he was forced to apologize, although "as defendants well knew, even if any aspect of the broadcast had not been accurate, which has never been established, Mr. Rather was not responsible for any such errors."

Now, I am not trying to claim that Rather was responsible, although I suspect he had a hand in it somewhere. Whether or not he did will probably come out at the trial... if there is one (more on that in a moment).

The big question is, why bring this up now, three years after the story, and two and a half years after he was fired?

The only thing I can come up with is that, with the Iraq news turning positive, the lefties are looking for any excuse they can to bash President Bush again. The question of why they chose this particular story is still open, and I could be wrong about the motive for the timing.

It's entirely possible that this could never make it to trial, as well... as soon as conservatives (such as your humble author) get hold of this and bring up all the evidence for it being a total fabrication, not to mention what CBS's lawyers dig up through discovery (which then gets released to the public), the lawsuit could be quietly withdrawn or thrown out of court. Heck, it could be withdrawn before it ever gets to the discovery phase, rather (no pun intended) than let all that embarrassing stuff on the bias in the media gets dug up and displayed before John Q. Voter.

It'll be interesting to watch this.

Anbar Government Dedicates Success to 9-11

President Bush made an unannounced visit to Anbar Province on Labor Day. We all heard about that. The visit and his remarks were analyzed in depth. His intentions and message were either hailed or criticized - depending on from what quarter the critique was coming.

Amidst all that hullabaloo, something happened that you likely didn't hear about. The Anbar Province Government presented a letter to President Bush.

RAMADI, Iraq - When members of the government of Anbar Province met with President Bush last week, they presented him with a letter dedicating their success in wiping out Al Qaeda here to the victims of Sept. 11

The letter, which was obtained by the Daily News, was signed by Anbar Governor Mamoun Sami Rashid, Provincial Council Chairman Abdul-Salam Abdullah, and Sheik Sattar abu Risha, the sheik credited with beginning the Anbar Awakening.

"In the month when the terrorists attacked the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, we dedicate the victory of Anbar Province to the families of the victims who suffred that criminal act," the letter said, which was addressed directly to Bush.

"With the help of the president of the United States, we pledge to continue to cooperate and communicate with you to continue to get good results," the letter said.

Yes gentle reader. From the Anbar Province Government to George Bush, dedicate to the victims of 9-11.

The above quoted article was in the New York Daily News on Monday, September 10, 2007. A quick search indicates this seems to be the only place it's appeared in the media, but has been posted on a few blogs.

Today, the Anbar Awakening leader, Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, was assassinated. Obviously his sin was working with MNF-Iraq and against al Qaeda.

[T]en days later, and a year after the young clan leader first rallied other Sunni tribes to challenge the terror movement, Abu Risha was assassinated Thursday.

American and Iraqi officials hoped the slaying would not stall the campaign to drive al-Qaida from the vast province spreading west of Baghdad and reconcile Sunnis with the Shiite-led national government.

[...]

All I want to know is why the letter from the Anbar Province Government isn't news. If the American people knew about that, how would they feel about our mission in Iraq?

h/t: Mark Levin Show

The World Speaks, I Yawn

A BBC World Services survey of twenty two countries indicates they believe the United States should withdraw from Iraq within a year. How thoughtful of the BBC to provide this revealing sentiment of the world just as Congress begins to grapple with the burgeoning success in Iraq.

Most people across the world think American troops should withdraw from Iraq within a year, according to a BBC poll published today.

The BBC World Service survey, released just before Congress receives a landmark report on George Bush's "surge", underlined the unpopularity of the president's Iraq policy.

In the poll, 39% of people in 22 countries said troops should leave now, and 28% backed a gradual withdrawal. Only 23% wanted them to stay until Iraq is safe.

[...]

That's 67% of the world wants the United States out of Iraq, sooner the better. That settles it for me. We should just get out. Or, maybe not.

However, that's more favorable than the (just my SWAG) 90% of elected democratics who want us out of Iraq immediately or within one year. We're not listening to those fools either.

The leaders of the US, Australia and Britain have all in recent days said troops must stay until the country is safe. All three countries say they have a commitment to the Iraqi people to remain there until local forces can ensure security. But Doug Miller of Globescan, which carried out the research for the BBC, said the results showed "the weight of global public opinion" was against them.

The weight of public opinion being against our continued presence in Iraq is not surprising. Our media has been telling us since March 2003 the world was against our presence in Iraq. This isn't news.

But just where does the bulk of this opposition come from?

Muslim countries including Indonesia (65%), Turkey (64%) and Egypt (58%) were among those most in favour of immediate withdrawal.

Curious, three heavily Muslim countries want our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Three countries doing the fighting, training and rebuilding in Iraq have a slightly less strong opinion on immediate withdrawal.

But this was much less popular in Australia (22%), the US (24%) and the UK (27%), the countries with the most troops in Iraq.

The world speaks. I jeer.

C-C-G Adds: Just imagine the howling we'd hear if we pulled out of Iraq and the predicted bloodbath occurred. The US is in the unenviable position of being damned if we do and damned if we don't.

President Bush's Labor Day in Iraq

While most of the country was grilling (I had Bratwurst with cheese--yum!), President Bush was having a meeting with several top officials of both the US Armed Forces and the new government of Iraq... in, of all places, Anbar. Frederick W. Kagan explains why that is significant:

Anbar, as everyone knows, has been one of the hotbeds and the most important base for both the Sunni rejectionist insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq since 2003. It has been one of the most violent provinces in Iraq, and one of the most dangerous for American soldiers and Marines, until recently. Now it is one of the safest — safe enough for the war cabinet of the United States of America to meet there with the senior leadership of the government of Iraq to discuss strategy. Instead of talking about how to convince the Anbaris that the Sunni will not retake power in Iraq any time soon, Bush, [Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al] Maliki, [General David] Petraeus, [Iraqi President Jalal] Talabani, and [Ambassador Ryan] Crocker talked about how to get American and Iraqi aid and reconstruction money flowing more rapidly to the province as a reward for its dramatic and decisive turn against AQI and against the Sunni rejectionist insurgency. In any other war, with any other president, this event would be recognized for what it is: the sign of a crucial victory over two challenges that had seemed both unconquerable and fatal. It should be recognized as at least the Gettysburg of this war, to the extent that counterinsurgencies can have such turning points. Less than a year ago, it was common wisdom and the conclusion of the Marine intelligence community in Anbar that the province and its people were hopelessly lost. Now the Anbaris are looking to the Americans and the government of Iraq for legitimacy, for protection, and for inclusion in a political process they have spurned for years. What is that if not a major victory in this war?

But you won't hear the Party of the Donkey proclaiming it a victory. Instead, they have already come up with their own talking points about why this isn't very important. Kagan's article (linked in the title) tears down these talking points one by one.

In short, it's well worth a read.

Paranoia and the Left

As anyone who has attempted rational discourse with a lefty knows, they are full of paranoid nightmares about George W. Bush and the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans.

Weekly Standard contributing editor Noemie Emery shines a bright light on this tendency and pokes some fun at them at the same time:

At the same time that Conason is looking back to a fictional past in America, Naomi Wolf--last heard from in 2000 advising Al Gore to dress in earth tones--is looking back to a real past in Europe, and seeing troubling parallels. In 4,600 overwrought words, she explained to the readers of the Guardian that there are ten steps to "Fascist America" and Bush is taking them all. He has whipped up a menace (the war on terror); created "a prison system outside the rule of law" (Guantánamo, to which public dissidents, including "clergy and journalists" will be sent "soon enough"); developed "a thug caste .  .  . groups of scary young men out to terrorize citizens" (young Republican staffers who supposedly "menaced poll workers" during the 2000 recount in Florida); set up an "internal surveillance system" (NSA scanning for phone calls to and from terrorists). An airtight case, this, and leading to just one conclusion: "Beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable .  .  . that it can happen here."

Well, this explains many things. It explains why poor Cindy Sheehan is now sitting in prison; why Bush critics like CIA retiree Valerie Plame have been ostracized by the corporate media and are wasting away in anonymity; why no critic of Bush can get a hearing, why no book complaining about him can ever get published, and why our multiplexes are filled with one pro-Bush propaganda movie after another, glorifying the Iraq war and rallying the nation behind its leader.

You really must read the whole thing. Trust me on this one.

American Lefties: Spiritual Children of the KGB.

A former KGB agent lifts the curtain on some of the tactics adopted by the American Left, and it seems the Left has learned the lessons of the KGB all too well:

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.

[...]

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

Sounds like a former Presidential candidate from the Party of the Donkey, doesn't it?

Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held national elections during the war, but those running for office entertained no thought of damaging America's international prestige in their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt's war policy. At the end of that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years of unmatched prosperity for us all.

Now we are again at war. It is not the president's war. It is America's war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don't know either. But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West."

One has to wonder if the Left would listen to this man, the highest-ranking KGB officer ever to defect.

I suspect not. They're too deep in their Bush Derangement Syndrome. And they may find that they've done incalculable damage to the very nation they want to take over.

Conservative Talk Radio Hosts Summoned to White House, Receive Talking Points

Ten conservative talkers were invited to the White House on Wednesday for a sit-down with President Bush. The conversation was off the record and they can't quote the President. The talkers attending were Glenn Beck, Bill Bennett, Neal Boortz, Scott Hennon, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Janet Parshall and Hugh Hewitt.

Listening to a couple of the attendees shows since the meeting, the theme seemed to be primarily centered around the President reiterating his commitment to the war in Iraq and the war on global terrorism. They came away with the impression that he is totally engaged, aware and committed to this effort.

What I got from their remarks was how open, communicative, engaging and human the man is. Anytime I've heard or read anecdotal reports from anyone who has met President Bush in that kind of setting, the stories are always the same. George Bush is just a good guy. Contrast that with the popular characterization of him in the driveby media or the left wing blogosphere and you would not know they are talking about the same person.

Hugh Hewitt posts: Wartime President

I will say on today's show that I am confident about the course of the war and about the momentum in Iraq, as well of the president's absolute commitment to doing right by the troops and his concern for every lost and wounded soldier and their families. President Bush's command of the details and his broad view of the conflict is reassuring, and among my comments to him was the wish that he found more opportunities to engage in long interviews that would allow the American public to see that grasp and that commitment.

Neal Boortz reports: No....I Didn't Go Play Augusta

As many of you know, I made a similar visit last September. My principal impression this time mirrored what I told you last year. Anybody who thinks that this president is, somehow, ignorant or stupid is either sadly misinformed or delusional. Let the left think this man is unintelligent at their peril. I was particularly impressed by his grasp of the political and cultural interactions among the various Muslim sects and countries of the Middle East.

Another observation ... actually a reinforcement of what I felt after last September's visit. This man was completely transformed by the 9/11 Islamic attacks against our country. From the moment he heard of the attack in that classroom in Florida to this day he has been completely dedicated to the cause of protecting and defending our country from another such attack.

Of course, as Neal points out, many people are invited for these one-on-ones with the President, but when it happens to be conservative talkers, then it's scandalous. I suppose the White House could invite some liberal talkers for the same thing, but there's the whole problem of how to get the slug slime off the Oval Office rugs once they are gone.

After Amnesty After Action

Illegal Immigrant Amnesty (formally known as Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 {S. 1348}) died on June 28, 2007. Despite the best efforts of its advocates, it failed. The opponents of the legislation prevailed. The bigots, nativists, loud people, and right wing talk radio hosts, prevailed. Most of all this odious piece of legislation died because of the tens of thousands of citizens contacted their senators and told them it sucked big fat rotten eggs. Or something like that.

Since then there have been many articles and blog posts written, heralding it's demise, chronicling it's death; postmortems written detailing the maneuvering of both sides in the legislation battle and analysis's on the future of immigration reform and the current status of our illegal immigration problem.

We learned we could have an impact. I learned that any major legislation with the names Kennedy or McCain is probably bad legislation. Some GOP Senators stood strong on conservative principles, helping to defeat the bill. Some of them were old reliables like Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Some were less well known like Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA). There were others, including the MLB Hall of Fame pitcher, Jim Bunning (R-KY). And there were others.

If you are so inclined, take a minute or two and send an email to one, or all of those Senators that stood strong and helped defeat this legislation. Thank them for doing a great job.

We breathed a sigh of relief, believing we had dodged a bullet, and celebrated our victory. However, it's no time to rest. There is still work to be done on immigration. We still have a porous border, we still have millions of illegal immigrants in the United States.

It is time to demand that the administration enforce our current immigration laws. It's time to build the really big fence, time to enforce work place employment rules, time to find and deport visa over stays. Time do whatever is required to secure our border and let illegal immigrants know they can't blatantly violate our laws and sovereignty.

The President needs to hear that we want the border secured, existing laws enforced. Send the White House an email. I sent one the day after the bill was defeated. If the President receives as many emails or faxes as the Senate received during the debate, maybe he'll get the message.

Contact your Senators and tell them the same thing. You want the existing immigration laws enforced.

Some Senators are already trying to get some movement on this. Senator DeMint sent a letter to the President on this issue:

June 12th, 2007 - Today, nine U.S. Senators wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to fulfill the border security provisions listed in the Senate immigration bill whether the legislation passes or not. Each border security trigger in the bill can be implemented under current law without any need for new legislation from Congress. The text of the letter is below:

Dear Mr. President:

We respectfully ask that your Administration enforce the border security laws that have already been authorized by Congress regardless of whether the Senate passes the immigration reform bill. The bill assumes that several critical border security benchmarks can be achieved within 18 months. These security triggers are already authorized under current law and can be completed without the immigration bill. We believe these enforcement measures are vital and should not wait until Congress passes additional immigration reforms.

Securing the border is the best way to restore trust with the American people and facilitate future improvements of our immigration policy.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R – South Carolina), Tom Coburn (R – Oklahoma), Mike Enzi (R – Wyoming), David Vitter (R – Louisiana), Jim Inhofe (R – Oklahoma), Jim Bunning (R – Kentucky), Charles Grassley (R – Iowa), John Ensign (R – Nevada) and Jeff Sessions (R – Alabama).

USA Today op-ed piece:

We do not need the Senate immigration bill to secure the border.

Congress has already passed laws authorizing border security, but the Homeland Security Department has failed to fully implement them. The administration already has the authority to build hundreds of miles of border fencing, hire and train 6,000 border patrol agents (bringing the total number of agents to 18,000), end catch and release, and create a national employment verification database. Essentially, all of the security benchmarks in the current Senate bill are already law.

[...]

There are Congressmen who are working to get our borders secured. They need your support. This democrat Congress seems to want to investigate or have hearings on everything. This would be a legitimate subject for their inquisitiveness. Let them call Secretary Chertoff up to Capitol Hill and explain why our southern border isn't secure.

Whatever the administration does, it has to make the effort to enforce the immigration laws and secure the border.

There is about sixteen months until the 2008 elections. There is time to make great strides on border security, to make this a winning issue for the GOP, and time to make it a winning result for America.

It's Dubya's Fault - Hillary

The democrat presidential candidates had a pander fest June 30th at Walt Disney World, attended by 1,000 delegates of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, from across the United States.

Naturally, they took the opportunity to blame the lack of comprehensive immigration reform on President Bush, Republicans, talk radio hosts and conservatives who have called for the building of the really big fence. Apparently, they didn't charge anyone with being a racist, nativist, xenophobe, bigot or of being really loud.

Edwards used the forum to further his class warfare campaign plank of Two Americas:

...warned that without any legislation, the U.S. teeters on becoming a nation of "first-class citizens and second-class workers."

Obama, when he got called out, flip-flopped on the really big fence:

...who voted last year for a 700-mile border fence, seemed taken aback when asked about it during the candidate forum, quickly suggesting he no longer embraces the approach.

Not to worry. If the really big fence somehow gets built, Bill Richardson promised, if elected, to tear it down:

[...] He drew cheers when he vowed that, if elected, "the first thing that will come down is the wall that Congress wants to build."

Did you know Richardson is the only hispanic in the presidential race? And he speaks Spanish really well?

We're not done yet, oh, no.

The master panderer, Hillary, blamed George Bush for the continued poverty in Mexico that's driving the illegal immigrants into the United States:

... she said Bush has ignored the poverty in Mexico that is spawning the flood of immigrants.

I wonder what she thinks the President is supposed to do about the poverty in Mexico? Expect a proposal from the Clinton camp for a poverty abatement program in Mexico that will be paid for with profits taken from big agriculture.

Maybe Mexican voters should consider not electing corrupt politicians and endorsing corrupt government. Last fall they came close to electing a true socialist as el Presidente. I'm sure he would have solved all their problems, as he promised them everything they wanted.

What else will turn out to be George Bush's fault? Stay tuned.

Reaction to Scooter

Ya know, it's been illuminating to watch the reaction to Scooter Libby's sentence being commuted by President Bush. I've been doing some ruminating, and here's what I've come up with:

The main reason the left is soooooo exercised about this is because they can't do a thing about it, and they know it.

President Bush, as President, has the legal authority to issue pardons and commute sentences. That part of the Constitution did not end when Mr. Clinton vacated the Oval Office--though some on the left clearly think it should have. Therefore, they can't possibly impeach him on that.

The lefties are also unable to vote against Mr. Bush, because he's not running again. That also makes his approval rating (which is based on polls, which are notoriously easy to skew--which is why I don't ever post about polls) pretty much a moot point--it's not like he has to woo the voters any more.

So, they have two options. They can take it like adults, accept that something happened that they don't like, and move on (heh... irony of ironies there), or they can throw temper tantrums like 3-year-olds.

I think it's clear which they have chosen.

Bush Vetos Deadline Bill

Bush finally followed through. He vetoed the surrender bill the leftists sent him.

Maybe if he'd used his veto pen more than twice in his Presidency, he'd have more support from conservatives.

That's about all I have to say about that right now.