A legacy lurks in the shadows

by Wesley Pruden

Friday, August 15, 2008 History disabuses every president of the notion that he has a legacy to leave. What he leaves is a record, sometimes written in fire and blood, and history assigns the legacy.

George W. Bush leaves a record of trying to housebreak the Islamic radicals, to teach them to behave themselves in this world and wait until the next to collect their virgins. Since his critics think such a reclamation project can't be done, if civilization survives, George W. can enjoy the pleasure of proving everybody else wrong.

But presidents, even presidents looking for the exit, are men in a hurry, and they invariably start trying to shape how they'll be measured and remembered in the shade and shadows of the dying light. They don't want to start new arguments or pick new fights. Suddenly the legacy of the peacemaker, even the maker of the cheap peace bought with rhetoric and a promissory note, is tempting.

George W. went off to Beijing as a tourist, and had the bad luck of arriving just as Russia, struggling to be reborn as a Soviet Union without the burden of a discredited economic system, marched into Georgia to loot and lay waste to democratic dreams of live and let live. George W. sat in the stands, entranced like the rest of us by the aquatic magic of Michael Phelps, and pointed with pride, waving an American flag, and viewed with alarm the Russian blitzkrieg racing through the heart of an ally thousands of miles away.

Viewing with alarm, which is always fun, irritates Vladimir Putin but it won't seriously upset anyone in Moscow. The Russians are taking the long view, brushing off ineffectual criticism. They figure to add to their own history, having invaded with impunity before: Poland in 1939, Finland in 1940, the several Baltic states in 1941, Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979. And of course Georgia, in 1921, 1991 and only last week. Practice can make perfect.

When the Bush administration finally bestirred itself to take the situation seriously, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was sent out to deliver more gruel, this time gruel with a hint of jalapeno. "This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it," she said. "Things have changed." Even this much makes the Europeans of 2008, who quail at the sight of a squadron of butterflies, nervous. The Russians, on the other hand, are taking glee at the restoration of the harsh word games of the Cold War.

The Moscow media, picking up vibes emanating from the blog swamps of the American left, calls the Georgian response to the Russian invasion a plot hatched by Dick Cheney to start a war to elect John McCain. Ranking Russian voices pick up the refrain. Vasily Likhachev, a former Russian ambassador to the European Union, thinks he has Washington's number: "The West - [i.e., the United States] - has spent a lot of time, energy and money to teach Georgia the tricks of the trade ... to make the country look like a democracy. We see through this deceit. We understand that the seditious tactics of the so-called color revolutions are a real threat to international law and the source of global nihilism." (This doesn't quite capture of the flavor of Red China's Cold War rhetoric, with its denunciations of Americans as "poisonous weeds" and "ravenous running dogs," but it could get closer to world class stuff as the melancholy chorus of crickets and katydids signal the waning of summer.)

What the situation needs is a few more "tricks of the trade." When the Soviets blockaded Berlin in 1948, Gen. Lucius Clay sent an appeal to President Truman: "We are convinced that our remaining in Berlin is essential to our prestige in Germany and in Europe. Whether for good or bad, it has become a symbol of the American intent." The Berlin Airlift followed shortly after.

John McCain has suggested several things the West, meaning of course the United States, can do to show American intent, in addition to an airlift to Tbilisi if one is needed, including expelling Russia from the Group of Eight. The West could bar coveted Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, even eliminate the prospect of hosting the Winter Olympics in 2014. Vladimir Putin is carefully calculating Western resolve, as well as measuring the bones of Barack Obama, whose first reaction was the usual moral equivalence of limp liberalism. "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint," he said. He was right on the message from the West.

Click Here to Comment

Congress Overrides Bush Veto

An interesting turn of events in Washington: the President vetoed a bill (which is a noteworthy event, as Mr. Bush has vetoed only a handful in his seven years in the White House), and the Congress overturned it.

The Senate voted 79-14 to overturn the veto of a bill authorizing spending on water projects, after the House of Representatives voted 361-54, well over the two-thirds majority required.

The bill includes funding for coastal restoration in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, and improving the Florida Everglades and fisheries in the Great Lakes. Why would the President want to veto such seemingly worthwhile projects? Well, he wouldn't. What he objected to were billions of dollars of local projects that are important to senators and representatives, but which Mr. Bush believes are unnecessary. No doubt the President will be roundly criticized for the veto, even though it was overridden, because whatever he does or does not do will garner criticism from his enemies. But this is precisely what a president ought to do, and something that Mr. Bush should have done more of.

It is important to note that although Democrats have held a majority in both houses since the mid-term elections of November 2006, they could not have overturned the presidential veto without the support of Republicans. And it's not as simple as saying that Mr. Bush can't even depend upon his own party for support. Many of the Republicans in Congress are up for re-election in 2008, and while they saw fit to sustain his previous vetoes, they deserted him on the water bill because their political future was on the line.

Political expedience will trump principle most of the time.

Technorati Tags: Politics, Congress, George Bush

The Straight Face Test

[Editor's Note: My friend Kenna Amos has a blog titled "The Straight Face Test," now inactive due to Kenna's work demands. I invited him many months ago to submit columns to me for publication on Observations whenever he had something he wanted to say and the time to say it.

This is Kenna's first opportunity; I hope there will be many more.]

_______________________________________________

Theologian-in-chief—maybe even Christian?—Bush’s Not

Few Christians will ever get the chance to witness for Jesus the Christ as Methodist George W. Bush has had and still has.

Unfortunately, he hasn’t capitalized on those opportunities.

I’ve always given the president the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his professed Christianity. In mid-December 1999, during the first presidential campaign, he said, “When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me.”

OK.

That’s what you’d expect a believer in the Christ to profess.

But in that same interview, he named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher. Come again? I’ve heard Jesus called many things, honorific and respectful as well as degrading and insulting, but never that. Perhaps a reading of the Holy Bible, especially the Gospels and New Testament, as political theory might be enlightening?

Regardless, that’s when I first suspected Bush would equivocate later, perhaps significantly, about his faith. And the more I’ve heard him call Islam a “religion of peace,” the more I knew Bush’s big, false declaration about God was coming.

Well, as they’d say in France, “Il est arrivé.”

He did that when he told Al Arabiya in an Oct. 4, 2007, interview at the White House that, essentially, everyone prays to the same god. “I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace,” he declared.

His statement about all of us praying to the same God wasn’t just mistaken, as someone has said—it was flat-out ignorant and wrong for a Christian to say.

How so? Because God’s declared He’s the only one. Him. The I Am That I Am. Yahweh. The Lord Jehovah declares His divine singularity in the Old Testament, for example, in the Book of Isaiah at Chapter 44, verse 6; d Chapter 45, verse 6 and verse 22; and Chapter 46, verse 9. And since the Word of God says He cannot lie, then it’s true, if you’re a Christian.

Sure, Bush can be forgiven. Of course, he’ll need to consider what he did and his motivation for doing it.

But those printed words traveling speedily around the world, especially Islamic countries, will haunt not just America, but Israel and the rest of the non-Islamic—especially, Christian—world for a long time.

Thanks be to God, that’s nothing that He, the Almighty—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—can’t handle. But it could make the sledding a tad rougher for some of us earthly mortals.

As for the president saying once again that Islam is “a religion of peace”? That continues to empower the Islamofascist terrorists.

For him to continue to spout that deceitful theological ignorance and political propaganda, something he’s done since 9/11—especially to an Arab Muslim newspaper—makes the president at least either a dupe or one of the biggest unpaid propaganda mouthpieces the Islamofascists have, or both.

If he were less politician and perhaps a real believer in Christ, he would never have uttered what he did to Al Arabiya, either about God or Islam.

That, too, though, is something the Lord Jehovah can handle. But, again, Bush only makes it tougher, more potentially violent for us mortals when he speaks with spiritual ignorance and deception.

These days, to stand one’s spiritual ground, particularly if you’re a Christian in a post-if-not-anti-Christian America and the anti-Christian world, it takes courage, it takes commitment and it takes clarity—and knowledge.

Sadly, the president seems to have exhibited none of these recently, when he had to opportunity to stand for the one he’s called Savior. Perhaps he hasn’t figured out how to “render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Or that it’s impossible for someone to serve two masters, say politics and God?

Technorati Tags: Religion, America, George Bush

Friday Rant

There is no political leader that I totally agree with, I’ve found, but there are some that I either agree with most of the time, or agree with generally and therefore support. George Bush is one in the latter category; I generally agree with him and support his presidency.

However, if things keep going the way they are, by the time his term ends I may not support him at all.

To start with, I support Mr. Bush on the war on terror, even on the warrant-less surveillance program, and I support going into Iraq, despite the valiant efforts of the history rewriters who try to make us believe that it really wasn’t the case that nearly everyone believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, and that widely held position was underscored by SH’s continual defiance of UN resolutions and inspections.

And, I support the President for commuting Lewis Libby’s jail sentence, as Libby most likely did nothing wrong at all, and if he did, it had no effect on anything. But this is where my support for Mr. Bush begins to slide. He should just pardon Libby, and let it be known that he won’t stand for politicizing the legal process and for witch hunting. Attention Mr. Bush: The next target is Alberto Gonzalez.

I have never bought into the “big government conservatism” concept, so here is one large area of disagreement. Conservatives believe that the smaller the government, and the less intrusive the government, the better. Far too much money is being spent on government, and it isn’t any more acceptable because a Republican/conservative is.

And I’m thoroughly disgusted with Bush administration’s idiotic position on illegal aliens and failing to strengthen border security, which is the second major area of disagreement, and right now is the most important one. That he hasn’t pardoned the two Border Patrol agents is only fuels an already smoldering fire.

Technorati Tags: Government, George Bush, Conservatism

Republican's Behavior Embarrassing

I am quick to tell people who assume that because I am conservative that I am a Republican. Not so. I claim allegiance to no political party; none of them make the grade in my book. I will qualify the foregoing by saying that I am strongly, undeniably, definitely, adamantly and uncompromisingly not a Democrat.

I do, however, align myself with Republicans when they are right, or when they are more right than the Democrats, which is nearly all the time. To do otherwise would be stupid.

But today is not one of those times. The Republicans—the GOP, the party that took control of Congress back from the Democrats after 40 years of exile in the wilderness of minority status, the party of Ronald Reagan, the party that held both the White House and the Congress during George Bush’s first six years—have evolved into Wusses of the first order (Yes, that’s a capital “W”). And the Wus in Chief is none other than George Bush.

Mr. Bush, imperfect as he (and the rest of us) is, gained my admiration for his ability to not be swayed from what he thought was the right course. GW doesn’t put his finger in the wind to figure which way to go. He sticks to his belief that the war against terror is important, despite the liberals and Democrats apparent failure to notice that terrorism is our greatest threat. He sticks to his belief that Iraq is the primary battlefield in that war, despite tremendous public opinion to the contrary, and a gaggle of Democrats in Congress determined to undermine the administration's policy, notwithstanding the horrible negative consequences of doing so. And while I dramatically disagree with his position, he has stuck to his guns on the border issue. But more recent developments show Mr. Bush to be weak-kneed and cowering against the Democrat’s political assaults.

He allowed the Democrats to carry the day in their manic drive to drive out Donald Rumsfeld, barely putting up any resistance after the election. That was bad for two reasons. If he was going to shove Mr. Rumsfeld overboard, why didn’t he do it before the election when it might have made a difference? And second, now that the Democrats have smelled blood in the water, they are after another scalp.

And now, he’s allowing the Democrats to create a tempest in a teapot over the firing of eight federal prosecutors, something he is constitutionally authorized to do at any time for any reason. He doesn’t need to explain anything to anyone. He doesn’t need to send his aides to testify before Congressional committees. He doesn’t need to scapegoat Alberto Gonzales. He needs to quit waving the white flag, stand up and behave like the President of the United States, and tell Congress to quit wasting everyone’s time on this non-issue and get back to work on important things.

The Republicans in Congress are little better. Where’s the support for their president? Some of them have even gone over to the other side on this issue, either not realizing that there is no “there” there, or being more concerned for their own sorry hide than for what’s right.

The Republicans are often their own worst enemy, losing battles not because they are wrong, but because they are afraid to be right.

Technorati Tags: Republicans, Politics, Congress, George Bush

Seeing Clearly from Across the Pond

If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source. It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe. Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, wrote a blistering attack on November 20, 2004 in Die Welt, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. History may well certify its correctness.

Europe: Thy Name is Cowardice
Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace in our time."

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation," but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans," as the World Champions of "tolerance," which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive."

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Thanks to The Windjammer for bringing this to my attention.

Words of Wisdom and Insight

Regular readers and other friends will remember my high opinion of the writings of Wesley Pruden. He has both a gift with words and strong insight.

I strongly recommend that everyone read the following piece. I don't mean run your eyes across the lines, half paying attention, half day dreaming or thinking about something else. I mean read the piece and think about what you've read.

Does anyone here want to survive?

By Wesley Pruden
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published January 16, 2007

---

The rap on George W. Bush is that he can't make a rousing speech like Winston Churchill, and indeed he can't. But who can? Not Hillary, not "the husband of," not John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, or even Barack Obama, worthies all.

Churchill marshaled the language and sent it off to World War II. He was sui generis, one of a kind, an orator who played rhetoric like Babe Ruth hit home runs and Brooks Robinson played third base. But Churchill, the electrifier of frightened audiences on both sides of the Atlantic, had an advantage that neither George W. nor the pretenders do. He had an audience wired to be electrified.

The earlier generations were more serious, more grown-up, more willing to look threats of death and doom squarely in the eye. They took Hitler at his word. Churchill's challenge, to resist Nazi evil no matter how dear the price or heavy the burden, was eagerly assumed even though the prime minister had "nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." When Herr Hitler boasted that he would wring England's neck like a chicken, Churchill mocked him: "Some neck, some chicken." An exchange like that between George W. and Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would invite hoots and catcalls from defiant Democrats and fearful Republicans, and probably a derisive skit on "Saturday Night Live." Being a real chicken is less demanding than resisting evil.

Churchill used metaphors like weapons of mass destruction. Death by metaphor was often the fate of a parliamentary nemesis in the black years leading inexorably toward World War II. In one memorable exchange with Ramsay MacDonald, a Labor Party prime minister, Churchill, then a mere member of Parliament, recalled his disappointment as a boy at the circus not being allowed to see a sideshow freak born with arms, legs and spine like spaghetti, called "the Boneless Wonder."

"My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralizing and revolting for my youthful eye," he recalled, fixing a contemptuous gaze on his rival. "I have waited 50 years to see the Boneless Wonder."

He was born only too soon. If he were in Washington now we could show him lots of boneless wonders, as Bill Kristol observes in the Weekly Standard. "Today, Boneless Wonders sit on the benches of both parties in Congress. More are to be found on the Democratic side of the aisle than the Republican. But the herd of Boneless Wonders is a bipartisan ."

The Boneless Wonders and their cousins, the Bone Heads proudly liken their opposition to war in Iraq to opposition to the war in Vietnam a generation ago. But the '60's anti-war crowd opposed the war because they reckoned America had no stake in what happened in Southeast Asia. The anti-war crowd now recognizes that something's at stake in Iraq, but demands an alternative to how George W. Bush is dealing with it. Just what this might be, no one offers a clue. "I'm not the president," says Harry Reid, the leader of the fragile Democratic majority in the Senate. "It is the president's obligation to set policy."

And so it is. No one, not even the president, is certain sure that his "new way forward" is a guarantee of success. But no one has come up with anything better, or in fact with anything at all. "I think going into Iraq was a mistake," a friendly Muslim ambassador said to me this week. "But an American withdrawal now would be a disaster."

There's obvious glee among the president's critics that his war has gone sour. Joe Biden wants to codify glee with a Senate resolution to "demonstrate to the president that he's on his own." On his own? If events since September 11 have taught anything it's that we all, even Joe Biden, have a stake in the war against violent Islam.

"You ask what is our aim?" Winston Churchill told his critics in the spring of 1940, when civilization teetered in the balance. "I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror, however long or hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival."

Travesty (Amended)

The illegal immigration problem along our southern border has been replaced in the news lately by insignificancies like Miss USA being forgiven for being a naughty girl, and irrelevancies like the Iraq Study Group report, and other equally unimportant topics, but at some point the issue is going to have to get serious attention from Washington.

Nothing thus far has succeeded in waking George Bush to one of the greatest threats to the U.S. In terms of the economic strain of taking care of illegals’ health problems and sending children to school puts on states; the fact that some illegals are thugs and drug dealers; the very real possibility that terrorists can use the neglected border to enter the country, and other serious ramifications, all that has fallen on deaf ears at the White House.

A recent incident puts a sharp point on just how stupid the United States is being with regard to illegal immigration:

The criminal had 750 pounds of drugs in his van, and was ILLEGALLY in the US. Two Border Patrolmen stopped the van and the illegal ran, at which time the agents opened fire, striking the criminal in the butt.

According to a criminal complaint that led to an indictment, on or about February 17, 2005, a Mexican criminal attempting to flee back into Mexico near Fabens, Texas, was shot at by Agent Jose Alonso Compean , who fired approximately 12 rounds from his service pistol, and Agent Ignacio Ramos fired approximately two times from his service pistol striking the victim in the butt. The two agents have been tried and convicted, and face jail time beginning next month.

For doing their job trying to protect their country, trying to arrest a criminal who entered the US illegally with drugs, these two devoted men are being punished by their own government.

That is outrageous.

I suggest that everyone call one of the numbers below, or fax a letter, or email a letter, or write a letter, and overwhelm the White House switchboards and personnel with demands that these two agents have their convictions overturned, and be awarded a commendation by their country in apology for the absurd circus that their own government has put them through for doing their job.

Comments: 202-456-1111

Switchboard: 202-456-1414

FAX: 202-456-2461

comments@whitehouse.gov

Or write to:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

[[[New material]]] Also, go to www.grassfire.org and sign the petition, which already has more than 160,000 signatures.

This travesty cannot be allowed to stand.

Iraq: Winning; Losing; or, We Don’t Know?

Almost all Democrats and Liberals believe it. Many Republicans and conservatives believe it. The Iraq Study Group (ISG) believes it: The strategy in Iraq is not working; we are losing the war. Specifically, the Iraq Study Group report says any hope for a strong and peaceful Iraq will require securing peace in the larger Middle East and entails dialogue and political engagement between Israel and Iraq's moderate Arab neighbors. While it is certainly true that the situation in Iraq is far, far from what we would like to see, and while the ISG’s conclusion that we need peace in the Middle East to achieve any satisfactory result in Iraq may be true, perhaps another conclusion is better.

We call the current activity in Iraq a “war,” but the war was over a while back and now the focus is stabilizing the country following the sacking of the Hussein regime and the brutal leader plucked from his underground hideout near Tikrit. After a couple of years of difficulty achieving stability Monday morning quarterbacks the world over blame the evil trio of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld with “failure” and wonder how they could have so badly misjudged what is so obvious to the quarterbacks: the way the Iraqis were bound to react. And to be fair to the quarterbacks, it seems that the Bush administration badly underestimated some things: the determination of the Sunnis to try to maintain power; the degree of enmity between the two major Islamic factions, and the degree to which practitioners of the religion of peace would indulge in killing each other; and the abject fear of democracy of so many Muslims who are mired in a 700 year-old religion-dictated culture.

But the quarterbacks forget to mention some very positive things that have occurred in Iraq, not the least of which is that most Iraqis are not involved in the Sunni/Shiite conflict, and also that millions of Iraqis are glad that the U.S. sacked Saddam Hussein and gave them a chance to develop a democratic nation. Twelve million Iraqis risked their safety to vote in the last election. There were two elections before that one, and in each successive election, there were more voters than the previous one. Schools are open; businesses are operating, most of the 15 provinces are peaceful. For the first time in more than a generation, the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. More than 600 Iraqi judges preside over more than 500 courts that operate independently from the Iraqi Governing Council and from the Coalition Provisional Authority. More than 170 independent newspapers are in print. Al Iraqia (formerly the Iraqi Media Network) is broadcasting 20 hours per day.

Maybe the quarterbacks don’t mention these things because they don’t know about them, and we can thank the media for being able to keep at least some secrets off of Page One. With the American people so skillfully misled by the media, the bandwagoneering is moving forward apace, and thousands jump aboard with every new negative piece of news. Therefore, the commonly accepted opinion is that Iraq is a disaster and we should just get out while we can.

But make no mistake: George Bush is correct when he says that to pull out of Iraq now would be a catastrophe. Yes, the Iraqi government, the military and the police need to step up to the plate and take charge. However, to have invested the lives and safety of our military and the money and then take some action that will leave Iraq to the radical Muslims to fight over would be a travesty.

On talk radio yesterday an interviewee, who was unidentified while I listened, suggested that the ISG is all wet, and that its recommendations are 180 degrees out of phase with what we need to do. He further suggested that what the U.S. needs to do in Iraq is to pour many thousands more troops in there and wipe out the 20-odd militias that have been allowed to wreak havoc with impunity.

I agree that the ISG is all wet, and its report is a prescription for surrender wrapped in a respectable-looking cover. Proof of this is the reaction of the Arab press, one member of which called it "the end of America."

Good job, Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton. Everyone would do well to ignore this report, most especially the Bush administration.

Looking Back From the Future

Here’s a comment with which I agree completely:

"If the Middle East is ever the home of moderate, democratic politics, Mr. Bush will be remembered for seeing that possibility and seeking to act on it, however difficult it was. And if not, your grandchildren are going to have too much else on their hands to worry over much about Mr. Bush." — Tod Lindberg.

Live Free or Die!

Many people recoil at the measures the Bush administration has taken and proposes to take to protect the country from terrorist attacks. They regard the administration’s efforts at increased national security as “abusive to freedom,” and the less graceful among us make comparisons to “Hitler” and complain of “police state” tactics, as if those things are real.

They feel threatened by their government. They believe they are losing their freedoms. They strongly disagree with the premise that in times of serious threats to our well-being the government should react and intervene to preempt attacks, and that in doing so if the government believes it needs to monitor overseas phone calls and to check up on people accessing information on how to make a chemical or biological weapon, and other such things, it should be allowed to do so.

They believe that these invasions of privacy are not warranted, and that it means absolutely that those freedoms are forever lost.

Fine.

Let’s roll back intelligence operations to pre-2001 levels. Let’s stop monitoring overseas phone calls to and from suspected terrorists. Let’s repeal The USA PATRIOT Act. Let’s be nice to all the of the captured al-Qaeda and other Muslims combatants in Guantanamo Bay and other facilities, or maybe release them and deport them back home. Let’s stop the silly measures at airports that are such a pain.

Let’s stop all this freedom-robbing activity that upsets so many people and inconveniences so many more, and just take our chances with terrorists. We’re all going to die sometime, right? And a bolt of lightening, an errant beer truck, a car wreck, a mugger, or any number of other threats can always kill us at any moment. Is a terrorist attack really any worse than any of the other things that can kill and harm us? Besides, there are no guarantees that these freedom-robbing measures are going to stop an attack anyway. And the chances of another attack of the proportion of 9-11 are really remote.

This is America, the land of the free. Lot’s of brave men and women gave their lives so that we could be the freest people on Earth, and we have an obligation to protect that freedom. Life is just not worth living if we aren’t 100 percent free. So forget all this national security crap, go out there and eat, drink and be merry.

Don’t worry; be happy!

Technorati Tags: War On Terror, Terrorism, Freedom, U.S. Constitution, George Bush, National Security

How Stupid Are We?

It’s bad enough that miscreants like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez have to set foot in the United States in order to appear at the United Nations, but what in the world were we thinking when we allowed the tin horn Marxist Hugo Chavez to roam around New York City bribing the locals with shallow sentiments and appealing goodies?

Not only that, but during one public appearance Senor Chavez slipped in the subtle comment that he had been told that he might be killed because of his juvenile rant against George Bush before the General Assembly.

Appearing Thursday at a Harlem Church for an oil-for-poor event, Senor Chavez repeated his reference to President Bush as “the devil” originally made during a speech at the U. N. and told the audience packed into the Mount Olive Baptist Church in Harlem, "They told me that I should be careful after I called him the devil — and I think he is the devil — because he might kill me,” as if W. was going to come after him with a gun. Senor Chavez was introduced at the podium by that great American Danny Glover, the actor-turned-traitor who was visiting the church as part of ceremonies to announce the sale of discounted home heating oil to qualified low-income families. "But, I place myself in the hands of God," the tin horn said. Somehow, I doubt that Senor Chavez will be headed in that direction when he gets his just desserts.

What a perfect jackass.

Yeah, I know nobody’s perfect, but Chavez is close. A perfect ass, that is, but he’s not too smart. Yeah, I know, he’s smarter than the doofus that allowed him free reign in NYC, but that’s still not very smart.

No doubt he feels really special because the nincompoops in the General Assembly laughed at his inanities and applauded his insults of the President of the United States. But Senor Chavez didn’t think this through in advance, and he probably still hasn’t figured out that he has revealed himself to be a second- or third-rate dope before the whole world.

You can tell that someone has really screwed the pooch when prominent Democrats object to criticisms of George Bush. "I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president - don't come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and … offend our Chief of State," Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) said. “George Bush is the president of the United States and represents the entire country,” declared Mr. Rangel. “Any demeaning or public attacks against him are viewed by Republicans, Democrats, and all Americans as an attack on all of us.” Good on you, Charlie!

Even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D- Cal.), a constant critic of Mr. Bush, criticized Senor Chavez. "The manner in which he characterized the president demeaned himself and demeaned Venezuela. He fancies himself a modern day Simone Bolivar [the Venezuelan statesman known as "the Liberator" for leading his country’s revolt against Spain in the early 19th century] ... But he is an everyday thug," said Ms. Pelosi. Calling a spade, a spade.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa also called Chavez's statements "incendiary and unworthy of a nation’s leader."

Wow!

Having established that Hugo Chavez is a third-rate tinhorn ass, the question then arises whether the United Nations ought to be allowed to remain headquartered on U.S. soil. An agency so feckless, so incompetent, so corrupt, so clawless, so clueless does the United States a disservice by its very presence within our borders. But perhaps it’s better to have the U.N. here, where we can keep an eye on it, than somewhere else, like Venezuela or Iran, for example.

That’s a subject for another day.

Technorati Tags: Arrogance, Thugs, Diplomacy, Hugo Chavez, United States, United Nations