Iraq in Review: Is there anything left of the antiwar Left’s criticisms of the Iraq war?

Not to beat a dead horse here, but, well, what the hell! VDH devastates the remnants of the antiwar left and shows, that for all who care to see the results clearly, the war has been a spectacular success, and George Bush a great, not just good, president...T

Many commentators on Iraq had no strong ideas about the wisdom of removing Saddam Hussein, but often predicated their evolving views on the basis of whether we were perceived as winning or losing — and later made the necessary and often fluid adjustments. So in light of the changing pulse of the battlefield, it is time once again to examine carefully a few of the now commonplace critiques of the Iraq war.

1. We took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan by going into Iraq, thereby allowing the Taliban to regain the advantage.

Any two-theater war can result in less resources allotted to one of the two fronts. But such multiple-front wars, whether in World War II or the Cold War, have never stymied the United States military. More importantly, if we are truly in a global war against Islamic extremists — as al Qaeda itself reminded us when it announced that Iraq was the key front in their jihad against infidel crusaders — then the problem is not necessarily fighting the insurgents in Iraq, but whether it is a theater conducive to our aims and resources — and can be won.

In other words, Iraq simply upped the ante of a larger war, promising disaster if we lost, and enormous advantages if we won. Progress in Iraq is already having positive effects in Afghanistan, where an experienced American counterinsurgency force is fighting extremists who know that their kindred are on the verge of losing militarily and politically in Iraq, and are afraid that the same bitter calculus now applies to them.

In the first years, the odds were with the terrorists — given indigenous Muslim local populations, the hostile neighborhood of a Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and anti-war fervor at home and abroad. But once the U.S. military defeated al Qaeda in Anbar, the population turned on Islamic terrorists, and the elected Iraqi government gained stature, then Islamists in and out of Iraq suffered a terrible defeat.

We learned to fight a war of counterinsurgency and win hearts and minds far from home; they lost an insurgency — and with it the support of the local and once naturally sympathetic Muslim population. Note that suddenly journalists, intelligence analysts, and politicians are struck by al Qaeda’s implosion, as the Muslim street turns on radical Islamists, who themselves are torn apart by internal ideological schisms.

While many critics remain too heavily invested in antiwar positions staked out between 2003–7 to cite the war as a contributory cause, the obvious catalyst for al Qaeda’s fiasco is its terrible performance in Iraq. Remember, if Americans adjusted their own support for the war on their perceptions of the success or failure of the U.S. military, why wouldn’t millions in the Middle East do the same with radical Islamists like al Qaeda, whose fortunes on the battlefield have only gone from bad to worse?

2. Bush lied about the war and entered it under the false circumstances of fears of WMD and Iraqi ties to al Qaeda.

Bush erred in focusing on WMDs when the Senate and House approved over 20 writs for war, all of them as valid now as they were in October 2002. That said, it is hard to find a single prominent congressional critic of the war who has made the case that the administration itself altered intelligence information, doctored reports, or had substantially different assessments than those provided to Congress or offered up by foreign governments. The reason recent critics of the war such as Sen. Rockefeller are utterly unconvincing in their allegations of administration malfeasance is that the record shows that they themselves had access to the same information, and often outdid the President in their prewar rhetoric and saber-rattling about Saddam.

But again, the battlefield, rightly or wrongly, colors these controversies. In a world in which there is no longer a Saddam Hussein (who would now have had his hands on trillions of dollars in oil revenue), a Libyan WMD program, and Dr. Khan’s nuclear export business, the proliferation issue is becoming less contentious. (If one were to believe the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran ceased its weapons-grade nuclear track opportunely right after Saddam’s capture). Since 2003, thousands of Islamic extremists and al Qaeda’s notables have been killed, and the organization routed and discredited; it is hard to see how Iraq has not had positive effects in curbing proliferation and damaging the organization that was responsible for 9/11. Moreover, disputes about Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s post-Afghanistan odyssey, assorted terrorists in Saddam’s Baghdad in 2003, or al Qaeda in Kurdistan during Saddam’s rule become less contentious with the knowledge that al Qaeda, between 2003–7, tried to win, and then lost, Iraq.

3. Mistakes in Iraq were legion and irreversible.It is better to see such controversies in terms of long- and short-term consequences.

Examine the two most discussed — the Iraqi army and troop levels. Disbanding the Iraqi army without providing temporary financial support for young males with military skills was disastrous. Yet in the long-term, building a new army without tens of thousands of hard-core Baathists — as was true of the de-Nazification program with German army in 1946–7 — offered a greater chance for eventual success.

Did we send too few troops? Apparently we had enough manpower to take out Saddam, which we did brilliantly in three weeks — a force determined partly in reaction to the first Gulf War, when current critics then alleged that we had needlessly sent over far too many troops, both our own and those of the unwieldy coalition.

Evaluating the surge is more complex, since in a vast theater the size of Iraq, an increase of a little more than 20 percent in troop strength probably does not per se win wars. We forget now that many supporters of the surge were calling for 80,000-100,000 more troops in 2004–7. The 30,000 troops was a compromise figure, given our commitments elsewhere.

As important as the 30,000 reinforcements were, just as critical were three other factors associated with it: a signal to both Iraqi friends and enemies that we were staying on and fighting to win; a radical change in tactics from counterterrorism based in compounds to counterinsurgency intended to protect the local populations from terrorist reprisals; and the appointment of Gen. Petraeus as senior commander in Iraq who won the confidence of the Iraqis; silenced critics at home; and energized his officers on the ground with a new commitment to victory.

Again, there were tragic mistakes — focusing on WMDs as a sole casus belli, the pullback from the first siege of Fallujah, and bellicose Presidential rhetoric coupled with operational tentativeness — all of them regrettable, none of them fatal or comparable to the disastrous foul-ups of World War II, Korea, or Vietnam.

4. Democratization was naïve and bound to fail, given the realities of the tribal Middle East.

In fact, the promotion of constitutional government, however clumsy our efforts in 2003–4, was the only chance the U.S. had after the fall of Saddam Hussein to stabilize the country and hurt our terrorist enemies. No development infuriated al Qaeda more than U.S. support for elections and a constitutional Iraq that undercut the slander of a 21st-century crusade to annex the ancient caliphate, and invested the Iraqi people themselves in the fight against terrorism for their own future. Iraq is not comparable to the Hamas plebiscite, in that its elections were in concert with a ratified constitution and a result of an American-led effort to depose Saddam Hussein.

One of the most surreal developments of the war has been the Left’s caricature of American idealism and our support for a democratic Iraqi government — a brave group of reformers who have been more tarred and demonized by American politicians than have been their al Qaeda enemies.

Should we see a President Obama, and he realizes that Iraq is working, expect the Left to cease its criticisms of neocon democracy fantasies, and instead adopt Iraq’s democracy as yet more proof of Obama’s hope-and-change idealism in foreign policy.

5. The real winner of the war was Iran.

In the short-term, yes — Iran benefited from the removal of its traditional enemy, Baathist Iraq, and from the initial pan-Islamist rallying against the U.S. presence in Iraq. But in the long-term, should Iraq succeed, nothing will be more destabilizing to Iran than to have a free society next door, where Shiites say, write, and read what they wish, and do so in pluralistic fashion. Again, the ante has been raised. Should Iranian-backed militias lose in Iraq, the theocracy will have suffered a terrible defeat, at a time it diverts precious oil dollars to failed military adventures while its silenced population rations gas. Iran’s theocratic government must either incite a U.S. preemptive strike, or destroy Iraqi democracy — or it is doomed.

6. President Bush’s presidency was ruined in Iraq.

If we were to lose the war, then yes. But should we win, should a constitutional government stabilize, should al Qaeda keep unraveling, and should the hiatus of terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad continue, then historians will rank Bush in Trumanesque terms: a similarly orphaned presidency that ended disliked — even as it crafted a strategy to defeat global Islamic terror by taking the fight to the heart of the Middle East, while establishing proof of America’s good intentions by fostering constitutional government that offered Iraqis an alternative other than the usual Middle East non-choice of theocracy or autocracy.

Bush was terribly damaged by a series of poor spokesmen, his own bellicose soundbites of 2002–3, a series of tell-all defections of former intimates and officials, and an inability to cut U.S. consumption of imported petroleum. But that said, years from now, historians will look at the record and the results, not the present rhetoric, and his legacy could well be — “He kept us safe.”

7. Our military is nearly ruined and the war was never worth the cost.

We have paid a high price for our efforts with thousands of dead and wounded, and billions spent. But if the deterioration of al Qaeda continues, America is kept safe, and the Middle East at last has some alternative to the dismal autocratic norm — one that curbs future oil-fed extremism — then Iraq will be the most important American achievement since the end of the Cold War. If we lose or quit, and Iraq devolves along the lines of the badlands of Pakistan, then, yes, the losses were not worth it.

For all the wear and tear on our military, recruitments are up, we have developed the most sophisticated and experienced anti-insurgent force in the world, and we are just beginning to shake-up the entire military by promoting a new generation of brilliant officers who came of age in the cauldron of Iraq.

In the end, the U.S. military has achieved the near impossible by removing the worst government in the Middle East and fostering what has a real chance to become by far the best. In some sense, whether Iraq was worth the high cost depends on whether one thinks the present-day liberal and humane democracies in Europe, Japan, and Korea were likewise worth the past, and far more terrible, price that America paid in blood and treasure to secure their enduring freedom.
Full article in new window

Make the Election About Iraq

Right on! Krauthammer nails it. Iraq isn't a quagmire, it never has been. Now, though, it's a spectacular success! We have won a stunning and total victory. It only remains for the truth to out. The biggest victory, with the fewest casualties, in the history of warfare...T

Friday, June 13, 2008; In his St. Paul victory speech, Barack Obama pledged again to pull out of Iraq. Rather than "continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians, . . . [i]t's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future."

We know Obama hasn't been to Iraq in more than two years, but does he not read the papers? Does he not know anything about developments on the ground? Here is the "nothing" that Iraqis have been doing in the past few months:

1. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sent the Iraqi army into Basra. It achieved in a few weeks what the British had failed to do in four years: take the city, drive out the Mahdi Army and seize the ports from Iranian-backed militias.

2. When Mahdi fighters rose up in support of their Basra brethren, the Iraqi army at Maliki's direction confronted them and prevailed in every town — Najaf, Karbala, Hilla, Kut, Nasiriyah and Diwaniyah — from Basra to Baghdad.

3. Without any American ground forces, the Iraqi army entered and occupied Sadr City, the Mahdi Army stronghold.

4. Maliki flew to Mosul, directing a joint Iraqi-U.S. offensive against the last redoubt of al-Qaeda, which had already been driven out of Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala provinces.

5. The Iraqi parliament enacted a de-Baathification law, a major Democratic benchmark for political reconciliation.

6. Parliament also passed the other reconciliation benchmarks — a pension law, an amnesty law, and a provincial elections and powers law. Oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces through the annual budget.

7. With Maliki having demonstrated that he would fight not just Sunni insurgents (e.g., in Mosul) but Shiite militias (e.g., the Mahdi Army), the Sunni parliamentary bloc began negotiations to join the Shiite-led government. (The final sticking point is a squabble over a sixth cabinet position.)

The disconnect between what Democrats are saying about Iraq and what is actually happening there has reached grotesque proportions. Democrats won an exhilarating electoral victory in 2006 pledging withdrawal at a time when conditions in Iraq were dire and we were indeed losing the war. Two years later, when everything is changed, they continue to reflexively repeat their "narrative of defeat and retreat" (as Joe Lieberman so memorably called it) as if nothing has changed.

It is a position so utterly untenable that John McCain must seize the opportunity and, contrary to conventional wisdom, make the Iraq war the central winning plank of his campaign. Yes, Americans are war-weary. Yes, most think we should not have engaged in the first place. Yes, Obama will keep pulling out his 2002 speech opposing the war.

But McCain's case is simple. Is not Obama's central mantra that this election is about the future, not the past? It is about 2009, not 2002. Obama promises that upon his inauguration, he will order the Joint Chiefs to bring him a plan for withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months. McCain says that upon his inauguration, he'll ask the Joint Chiefs for a plan for continued and ultimate success.

The choice could not be more clearly drawn. The Democrats' one objective in Iraq is withdrawal. McCain's one objective is victory.
McCain's case is not hard to make. Iraq is a three-front war — against Sunni al-Qaeda, against Shiite militias and against Iranian hegemony — and we are winning on every front:

- We did not go into Iraq to fight al-Qaeda. The war had other purposes. But al-Qaeda chose to turn it into the central front in its war against America. That choice turned into an al-Qaeda fiasco: Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now on the run and in the midst of stunning and humiliating defeat.

- As for the Shiite extremists, the Mahdi Army is isolated and at its weakest point in years.

- Its sponsor, Iran, has suffered major setbacks, not just in Basra, but in Iraqi public opinion, which has rallied to the Maliki government and against Iranian interference through its Sadrist proxy.

Even the most expansive American objective — establishing a representative government that is an ally against jihadists, both Sunni and Shiite — is within sight.

Obama and the Democrats would forfeit every one of these successes to a declared policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that policy, he will not be president. Nor should he be.

Give the speech, senator. Give it now.
Full article in new window

All About Me

And finally, the irreplaceable VDH sums it all up for us. Give poor W a break, and his due:

- he really did try to fix social security (he was filibustered in the Senate)

- he really did try to pass a comprehensive energy bill for 7 years now, that would have provided for refining, exploration, and development (filibuster again)

- he really did try to prevent a depression in the post 9/11 days, lack of anti-terrorism insurance brought our economy to a standstill. On this, he succeeded

- he really did try to cut taxes on all working Americans. On this he succeeded

- he really did try to eradicate Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth. None before him even tried

- he really did try to save New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. He was turned down in his offer to invoke the insurrection act, which was the only way to allow federal oversight, and was turned down by the democrat governor of Louisiana, and by New Orleans mayor, who were more interested in reaping the political bonanza then in saving their city.

- he really did try to do something about the sad history of the middle east, and about Saddam Hussein, about which none had done anything for decades. I still say that he is succeeding in this.

Yes, you can count me among the %30, and among the last %1 if it came to that. He will go down in history as a great, not good, president...T

Here is how our baby-boom generation solves problems:

-- Recently, George Bush went to Saudi Arabia to ask the ruling House of Saud to pump more oil. That request had about as much chance of success as the Democratic-led congressional effort to "sue" the Saudis in American courts for their selfish "price-gouging."

The current debate about energy in the United States has devolved into doing the same old thing -- consume, don't produce and complain -- while somehow expecting different results. Congress talks endlessly about the bright future of wind, solar and new fuels, while it stops us from getting through the messy present by utilizing abundant coal, shale and tar sands; nuclear power; and oil still untapped in Alaska and off our coasts.

-- For the past five years, we fretted over a "housing boom" that had priced an entire generation out of the market. In response, government and lending agencies got "creative" by relaxing standards to allow shaky "first-time" buyers into the red-hot market of high-priced homes. Home-improvement TV shows proliferated on how to "flip" houses and buy "no-down-payment" properties.

When the bubble inevitably burst, cries of outrage followed about how "they" (never "we") caused a "depression" in housing. Our leaders shrieked about greedy lenders and incompetent regulators who foreclosed on us -- never that the American people themselves caused much of the speculation problem, or that housing prices are finally becoming affordable again for new couples.

-- Over 70 percent of the American people, and a majority of Democratic senators, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein -- overwhelming support for the administration's war that rose even higher as a brilliant campaign finished off the Baathists in three weeks.

But when a messy insurgency erupted, suddenly we heard that our victory was ruined by "their stupid occupation."

-- The current Social Security system is unsustainable. But the baby boomers who gave us Botox aren't about to up the retirement age and freeze their own cost-of-living hikes to allow the cash-strapped next generation a little help in paying for our out-of-control benefits.

There is a pattern in all these dilemmas. And it is not conservative-versus-liberal politics, but generational chaos. Those who came of age in the 1960s now hold the reins of power and influence -- and we are starting to see why their values have worried almost everyone for nearly a half-century.

History has seen something like them before in the "blame them" years of Demosthenes' Athens, the self-indulgence of Julio-Claudian Rome, the "after me, the deluge" generation of late 18th-century France, the Gilded Age, and the Roaring Twenties.

What are the baby boomers' collective traits? Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don't drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers.

There are never bad and worse choices, but only a Never Never Land of good and even-better alternatives. Housing not only has to stay affordable for buyers, but also must appreciate in value to give instant equity to those who have just become owners.

When things don't go well, we always blame someone else. Why drill off Santa Barbara or Alaska when we can sue those terrible Saudis for not putting more oil platforms in their Persian Gulf?

And why accept that the conduct of all wars is flawed and victory goes usually to those who persevere in making the needed adjustments when we can just keep pointing fingers at the official who disbanded the Iraqi army or sent too few troops after the invasion?

The sense of self-importance is never far away. We "earned" our generous unsustainable Social Security benefits, so why should we have to suffer by cutting them?

Sociologists have correctly diagnosed the perfect storm that created the "me" generation -- sudden postwar affluence, sacrificing parents who did not wish us to suffer as they had in the Great Depression and World War II, and the rise of therapeutic education that encouraged self-indulgence.

Perhaps the greatest trademark of the 1960s cohort was self-congratulation. Baby boomers alone claimed to have brought about changes in civil rights, women's liberation and environmental awareness -- as if these were not prior concerns of earlier generations.

We apparently created all of our wealth rather than having inherited our roads, schools and bountiful infrastructure from someone else. And in our self-absorption, no one accepted that our notorious appetites created more problems than our supposed "caring" solved.

Our present problems were not really caused by an unpopular president, a spendthrift Congress, the neocon bogeymen, the greedy Saudis, shifty bankers or corporate oilmen in black hats and handlebar moustaches -- much less the anonymous "they."

The fault of this age, dear baby boomers, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.
Click here - Full article

GOP strategists mull McCain ‘blowout’

Ok, don't take my word for it...here is the Politico's take, excerpted ...T

It sounds crazy at first. Amid dire reports about the toxic political environment for Republican candidates and the challenges facing John McCain, many top GOP strategists believe he can defeat Barack Obama — and by a margin exceeding President Bush’s Electoral College victory in 2004...

...the contours of the electoral map, combined with McCain’s unique strengths and the nature of Obama’s possible vulnerabilities, have led to a cautious and muted optimism that McCain could actually surpass Bush’s 35-electoral-vote victory in 2004. Though they expect he would finish far closer to Obama in the popular vote, the thinking is that he could win by as many 50 electoral votes...

...“A win by 40 or 50 electoral votes would be an astonishing upset, just a watershed event with all the issues that were stacked against him from the very beginning,” said David Woodard, a Republican pollster and Clemson University political science professor. “But it could happen. I know this seems like wishful thinking by Republicans. I’m thinking that Republicans could win by 40 electoral votes. But I dare not say it,” he added. “Certainly what is possible could come to pass.”

A top strategist with the Republican National Committee, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, explained that by his own examination, “we’re actually sitting pretty well in most states.”

“There are a lot of scenarios that look good for McCain, and I almost would go so far to say that there are a lot more scenarios [than for Obama],” the strategist added. “I don’t think anybody over here wants to let themselves get too excited about it. It is an eternity between now and November. But McCain looks a lot stronger than our prospects as a party.”

It is virtually impossible to find an established GOP strategist who believes McCain will win in a landslide. But in light of the circumstances, more than a few Republicans are pleasantly surprised to find that McCain is at all situated to defeat Obama.

“The broader environment clearly favors the Democrat,” said Whit Ayers, another veteran GOP pollster. But Ayers argued that “a state-by-state analysis actually makes McCain a narrow favorite to win the Electoral College majority.”

“That would certainly run against the grain of history, if he pulled that off,” Ayers added. “But it’s also clearly plausible and a manageable outcome partly because of John McCain’s strength among independents and partly because of Obama’s weakness in culture, ideology and association.”

...Among the 10 strategists interviewed by Politico for this story, there was near-uniform belief that had any other Republican been nominated, the party’s prospects in November would be nil.

“No disrespect to the other candidates,” said GOP pollster Glen Bolger, “but if anyone else had been nominated we’d be toast.”

...“McCain is in a remarkably strong position for how poor the political environment is right now,” said Brian Nienaber, a GOP pollster. “McCain could win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado and Nevada with a high Hispanic population. It really does scramble the map of where Obama does find those electoral votes.”

Naturally, Democrats do not concede the point. But conversations with several Democratic strategists reveal that many acknowledge that the Republican scenarios are at least reasonable, (with) McCain’s ability to compete in some big industrial states offers a ray of hope in an otherwise dismal election cycle.

“We have to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania. McCain wins one of those states, we are in trouble. They have to hold Florida and Ohio or they are trouble,” Democratic pollster Paul Maslin said. “The truth about this race [is], this is the year that we shouldn’t lose, and we could lose.”

The GOP scenarios do not rely on some game-changing event but rather the possibility of Obama failing to overcome his own and his party’s weaknesses. Obama has long been thought by analysts to have a higher electoral vote ceiling as well as a lower floor than Hillary Clinton.

It is that potential Obama floor that increasingly occupies the minds of Republicans studying the map. Even the potentially dramatic rise in turnout of African-Americans may only gain Obama 1 percentage point in many swing states, according to Maslin. Yet Obama’s weaknesses may end up neutralizing some of those relatively modest gains.

Since 1968, Democrats have had a deficit with whites, particularly men. Some Republicans believe that Obama may exacerbate those Democratic challenges, especially in key rural regions like Appalachia, struggle to win back Hispanics or some women, and dash Democratic prospects during their most favorable landscape in at least three decades.

“There is a one in four shot that McCain can win an electoral majority in excess of 50 electoral votes, which by most recent standards would be a blowout,” Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said. “Considering where the Republican brand is right now, that’s pretty phenomenal.”
Full Article - New window

A Democratic year?

Excellent analysis from the American Thinker today. This reflects nicely my own thinking, which has not changed in months now.

Of the Senate seats up for election in 2008, 23 are held by Republicans, 12 are held by Democrats. 5 Republicans are retiring and two Republican seats are held by appointees. Given these numbers, it would be impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate, even in a good year. I expect Democrats to make gains in the Senate. Remember, taking advantage of open seats and appointees was how the Republicans took the Senate in 1994.

Democrats will probably also gain in the House because Democrats have been much better at recruiting strong local candidates. That's why the Democrats won the three special elections. They recruited strong, moderate, candidates, who could win the districts.

The conventional wisdom is wrong about the Presidential race. McCain wins and wins big. Here's why:

1. November is a long way away, and Republicans have nowhere to go but up in the polls. Bush is a lame duck and the Republicans are out of power in Congress. They will have a hard time making any more mistakes.

2. McCain leads his party by 15-20 points. He is easily the most popular man in the GOP. If the Republicans can merely crawl out of the electoral basement, McCain wins easily.

3. The electoral college map favors McCain. (Hillary's case against Obama) Obama can run up the score in cities and college towns, but that won't win him the states he needs to win.4.

McCain has the support of 15-20% of Democrats. Obama has the support of 5% of Republicans. In contrast, Bush and Kerry each had the support of about 10% of members of the opposite party.

5. Too many Democrats, especially those associated with the Obama campaign, are betting against US Military success. George B. McClellan had Lincoln beat in the summer of 1864 on a platform of ending the war. A few Union victories later, Lincoln won in a landslide. 6. Democrats are not good at winning Presidential elections. Since the Civil War, only four Democrats have won a majority of the popular vote: Samuel Tilden, who won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college in 1876; FDR, who did it four times; LBJ in 1964; and Carter, who managed slightly over 50% against Ford in 1976. All other Democratic Presidents were elected on pluralities.

I predict a substantial victory for McCain...T

I have been following politics for a while. Since 1952. I have never seen the conventional wisdom about an election more baseless.

Why Obama? Charisma, ideas, hope? None of these or any other reasons that have been bandied about. It's Obama because he is not Hillary.
The Clintons embarrassed the Democratic Party. Many, many Democrats were ashamed of their President. They do not want to see Billary in the White House ever again, even as visitors. Note that Obama won in the caucus states where the politically active determine the outcome.

A Democratic year? How do you figure? Because the New York Times says so? Look at 2006! Yes, let's look at it. In the preceding 6 midterm elections where the incumbent President's party lost seats the average loss in the Senate was 6.1, in the House 29.33. In 2006 the Republicans lost 7 in the Senate and 30 in the House. Pretty ho-hum.

Let's look at the Democratic Presidents.

JFK and Nixon tied in the popular vote, even though Nixon was extremely unlikeable.

LBJ beat Goldwater in 1964. Kennedy had been assassinated, we were in the middle of a war and Goldwater was a radical.

Carter beat Ford in 1976. Nixon had resigned because of Watergate and Ford was an appointed Vice President.

Clinton beat GHWB in 1992 with only 43% of the vote. Ross Perot got 19% which, arguably, was 60-70% Republicans.

It seems that Democrats only win in extreme circumstances.

In our history we have seen stretches where one party controlled Congress that average about 30 years with occasional one-term reversals. I'll go with history every time.

From where I'm sitting it doesn't look at all like a Democratic year.
Full article - New window

Jimmy Carter's Second term?

There it is, in black and white (no pun intended). The guy IS Jimmy Carter; even the "Malaise" is there. If that doesn't send shivers up the spine of every voter over 40, then nothing will...T


It was a cold and rainy October night when my mother and I stood outside a Skokie, Illinois Synagogue to hear and hopefully meet Georgia Governor James Earl "Jimmy" Carter. My parents and most Americans were still sickened over Watergate, President Gerald Ford's unconditional pardon of Richard Nixon and the disaster of the Vietnam War. They hungered for "change" and "new hope". Many Americans believed they found what they desperately yearned for in a peanut farmer turned politician from Georgia.

Four years later Jimmy Carter's name couldn't be uttered by my father without being proceeded by four-letter expletives. My mother cried herself to sleep believing that Carter's school-busing program was going to take me from my elementary school down the block to a school and hour away on the southside of Chicago. Supporters of Israel began to distrust him as he began showing signs of an anti-Israel bias. The economy was devastating families with double-digit inflation and the Iran hostage crisis made Americans ashamed of their President.

Today there is an eerie similarity to the election that led up to the disastrous Carter administration. All the Presidential candidates are speaking the rhetoric of "change" and "trust" in government. However, assumed Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has based his entire bid for the White House with Carter-style ideas and campaign policy advisers stemming directly from the administration and school of thought of the Carter Presidency.

Obama has already begun running against GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (AZ). He is playing on the fears of Democrats, Independents and some Republicans that the Arizona Senator will be a third term for George W. Bush. While McCain has shown significant policy and philosophical differences then our current President, Barack Obama is a Democrat from the same far-left mold of Carter. I contend that Obama if elected, will be the second term of Jimmy Carter.

The first signs of an Obama/Carter similarity began early on the primary race when the Illinois Senator began hiring former Carter aides and cabinet members to be policy advisers. The biggest name that surfaced was former national security advisor under Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brezinski.

Why Obama would want to be in the same room with Brezinski is mind-boggling. He was the first prominent politician to deny that Islamic extremism was or would become a danger to the world. In a February 2, 1979 memo to President Carter he claimed Islamic fundamentalism is not an imminent threat and will not gain prominence in the Middle East.

Like his former boss, Brezinski has the same "blame the Jews" mentality. The former national security advisor has publicly endorsed the views published in the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," which has provided endless ammunition for anti-Israel activists, Zionist conspiracy buffs and Holocaust deniers.

Continuing the Carter tradition of employing "blame Israel" advocates, Obama hired former special assistant to President Clinton, Robert Malley. Recently the British newspaper, The Times interviewed Malley in which he admitted that he had visited Syria and held discussions with the terrorist organization Hamas. Last month President Carter also met with the terrorist organization in Egypt and Syria.

As news began to surface about Malley and his meetings with Hamas, he resigned his position with the Obama campaign. Unfortunately the public will never know to what extent Sen. Obama was influenced by Malley. Obama has called for direct talks with Iran, a country that continously calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Malley and Carter are also vocal advocates for direct talks with Iran, without any stipulations such as denouncing terrorism or their desire to murder millions of Jews.

One of the criticisms facing Obama is his lack of foreign policy experience. Carter was under the same scrutiny during his 1976 Presidential campaign. He relied on Brezinski, Anthony Lake and his eventual Secreatary of State Cyrus Vance. Today Obama also utlizes Brezinski and Lake as well as similar minded foreign policy advisors such as Susan Rice and until recently Malley and Samantha Power, who resigned from the campaign for referring to Hillary Clinton as a Monster. The fact that she was hired by the campaign in the first place shows a dangerous lack of judgement. A judgement that is comparable to President Carter.

Obama's trust of the above mentioned policy advisors has been well documented by the "alternative/new media," so most likely I'm not telling you something you haven't heard before. However it can never be stressed enough that Carter's foreign policy was a disaster for the United States, so it must be asked until properly answered, "why would Obama want advisors who have already demonstrated incompetence under a previous administration?" Maybe Obama doesn't believe Carter's policies were detremental to the America. Does he want to once again go in that direction? America must know before election day.

If Obama's choice of advisers isn't an indication that his Presidency would be Jimmy Carter's second term, than his speech this past Saturday in Roseburg, Oregon undoubtedly was.

In July of 1979 President Carter gave a nationally televised address in which he told America that he believed the nation was facing a "crisis of confidence." His speech would later be known as his "malaise" speech.

During his Oval office conversation with America, Carter did something no President before him has done. He gave a speech that was critical of the attitude and way of life of the American people. Many accurately perceived his speech to be about a defeated America. Carter dwelled on a what he believed was a lack of faith and confidence that had overwhelmed the American people, placing more blame on them instead of the failures of his Presidency as well as the Democrat controlled House and Senate.

"I know, of course, being president, that government actions and legislation can be very important. That's why I've worked hard to put my campaign promises into law -- and I have to admit, with just mixed success," Carter said. "But after listening to the American people I have been reminded again that all the legislation in the world can't fix what's wrong with America."

Carter would go on to literally chide Americans for their lack of confidence in the country. After campaigning to restore America from the toll taken after Vietnam, Watergate and the energy crisis, he had failed and the blame was going to be placed on the people not his lack of leadership.

Obama's speech this past Saturday had a frighteningly similar "blame the people" tone as Carter's speech. While Obama still emphasizes the failures of Washington he also blames Americans for how they live their lives.

"We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine," Obama said.

Obama later added fear tactics in making his case that Americans have to change their lifestyle. "We are also going to have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy and pretty soon, if their carbon footprint even approaches ours, we're goners."

Brian Fitzpatrick senior editor at Culture and Media Institute also believes that Obama's Oregon address is comparable to Carter's "Malaise" speech. He recently wrote about the media covering up his comments blaming Americans and their way of life. Carter had also become a media darling during his 1976 Presidential campaign. The media pass Obama received in Oregon is a blatant attempt to not add credence to the argument that Obama is the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter.

When you take an honest look at the advisors Obama has selected, his desire to meet with leaders who promote genocide and rule their nations with an iron-fist, the comparison to Carter is undeniable. When you add the fact that both men are media favorites, place much blame on the way Americans live and support increased government regulation and big government programs instead of the free-market ideas to solve America's ills, the fear that people have that an Obama Presidency would by Carter's second term, is not just a concern, but a harsh reality.
Full article - New window

Ted's World Famous Smoky Hot, Zesty & Juicy Burgers W/Chipotle Mayo, Onion, Garlic, & Smoked Gouda

A little thing I whipped up for Memorial Day. Click the link to see it on Epicurious.com. Enjoy...T

Ingredients: Ground Sirloin; Fresh Garlic; Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning; Tabasco Chipotle Pepper Sauce; Heinz 57 Sauce; Worcestershire sauce; Hellman's Mayonnaise; 1 Large Onion (not a Red Onion); 2 eggs; Mesquite wood chips soaked in water; high quality hamburger buns w/meal or sesame etc; Smoked Gouda Cheese slices

1- Prepare 12-16 ounces marinade using equal 1/3 parts Heinz 57 sauce, Worcestershire sauce, and Tabasco Chipotle pepper sauce. Chop several cloves of Garlic and roast or sauté them lightly, until they soften a bit, and set aside

2- Add a generous amount of "Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning" to the marinade

3- Prepare appropriate amount (4 pounds or so) of Ground Sirloin, loosely, in a bowl

4- Season the meat in the bowl using "Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning" and add chopped and slightly roasted fresh garlic

5- Add the marinade to the ground sirloin, mix, and let stand in a covered bowl for 2 1/2 hours

6- Prepare grill using Mesquite wood chips soaked in water for 20 minutes, on top of grill ready coals

7- Prepare a small bowl of Chipotle mayo, using Hellman's mayonnaise and Tabasco Chipotle pepper sauce

8- Grill the burgers quickly, adding more "Weber Gourmet Burger Seasoning" on the grill

9- Add "Kings Choice" Smoked Gouda cheese slices for the last 2 minutes of grilling time (available at Meijer’s)

10- Butter the buns on both halves, and lightly brown them in the broiler

11- Add the chipotle mayo sauce to both halves of the buns

12- Add a sliced fresh onion wheel to each burger

13- Crack a Heineken

14- Eat

Optional - If you find the sirloin doesn't hold together on the grill then add an egg or two to the mix prior to cooking, but after marinating
Open in new window

Presidential Pariah

I concur. This is why I love VDH - he always takes the long view. I would, though, say this: Bush has been a great president, buffeted as he has been by forces beyond his control. Remember also, what Milton Friedman used to say about energy prices - "What goes up, must come down: The higher they rise, the faster and steeper they will fall"...T

We are in one of the longest presidential campaigns in modern memory -- and haven't even started focusing on the general election.

It's been enough to drive most of us mad, but if there's one person in particular suffering the most, it may be President Bush.

It's been noted here before that we have not had an election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or vice president was not running in at least partial defense of an existing administration's record.
That means Bush is not just a lame duck but an easy target for all three current candidates -- none of whom have any investment in the president's legacy.

Consider that the last president in a similar position was Harry Truman. He left office with an approval rating in the 20s, and it took years before historians revised the standard negative and mostly unfair view of him.

When there is no incumbent in a long race, almost everything of the last four years becomes fair and uncontested game. In 2004, Bush defended his record for months on the stump; now it has become almost second nature for all three candidates to denounce it daily.

John McCain has distanced himself from Bush as much as he can, even as his Democratic opponents dub him John McBush -- when they are not outdoing each other in their denunciation of the president.
Last week, I asked a fierce Bush critic what he thought were the current unemployment rate, the mortgage default rate, the latest economic growth figures, interest rates and the status of the stock market.

He blurted out the common campaign pessimism: "Recession! Worst since the Depression!"
Then he scoffed when I suggested that the answer was really a 5 percent joblessness rate in April that was lower than the March figure; 95 to 96 percent of mortgages not entering foreclosure in this year's first quarter; .6 percent growth during the quarter (weak, but not recession level); historically low interest rates; and sky-high stock market prices.

There are serious problems -- high fuel costs, rising food prices, staggering foreign debt, unfunded entitlements and annual deficits. Yet a president or vice president running for office (and covered incessantly by the media) would at least make the argument that there is a lot of good news, and that the bad that offsets it could be shared by a lot of culpable parties, from the Congress to the way we, the public, have been doing business for the last 20 years.

Bush, like Truman, will have to leave his final assessment for posterity. But for a variety of historic reasons as well as his own self-interest, Bush should at least take his now-unpopular case to the people, with more press conferences, public addresses, stump speeches and one-on-one interviews.

Bush's own legacy will be affected by who succeeds him. Ronald Reagan received great press after leaving office in part because a Republican followed him for four years -- quite the opposite from the senior George Bush who was thrown out of office in 1992 and blamed for assorted sins the next eight years. Likewise, compare the image of Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton when a president from the opposite party followed each into office.

Second, public perceptions, such as ongoing consumer confidence or support for the war, can dramatically affect policy success or failure. Defending past decisions can sometimes improve their outcomes.

Third, it would elevate the arguments of all three candidates if someone could remind them that energy and food problems, foreign policy crises and economic woes usually involve bad and worse choices.

The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing "Bush did it" into the public conscious won't resolve our energy, economic or foreign policy challenges.

The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.

And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants -- if the Congress would only approve -- could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.

George Bush could learn from "Give 'em Hell, Harry." A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end -- and was ultimately rewarded for it.
Full article - New Window

Voters Skeptical of Obama's Outrage With Wright

This from Michael Barone today. Ladies and gentleman, Obama is a dead man walking. Hitlery Robem can't catch him. This is looking like McGovern/Dukakis redux. How sweet it is!...T

Will Barack Obama's longtime connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright continue to hurt him? Evidence that it will comes from pollster Scott Rasmussen, who finds that only 30 percent of likely voters say Obama denounced Wright because he was outraged, while 58 percent believe he denounced him for political convenience. Only 33 percent believe Obama was surprised by Wright's statements at the National Press Club, while 52 percent say he was not surprised. Some 26 percent say it's very likely that Obama "shares some of Pastor Wright's controversial views about the United States" and 56 percent say it's somewhat likely he does. Only 7 percent of voters and 12 percent of black voters say they share those views. Ouch! These results are more adverse than I would have expected.
Full article - New window

The Moment of Truth for the Left has Arrived

I couldn't agree more. As the author states - "Seven years after September 11, 2001, this is the moment of truth, when the Left must finally decide what side it's on."

I'll tell you what side they're on. The side of our enemies. "Hate mongers collect injustices" is a simple, elegant description of the American left. Of the Drive-by media. Of the University academic culture we have allowed to fester. What delicious irony that in the very moment of it's political triumph via it's vessel in Barack Obama, that the fanatical left is being unmasked by that very success, and shown to all to be the nasty, small, viciously anti American group that they are...T

If you haven't listened to Jeremiah Wright's hate sermons at Hugh Hewitt's website, you must do so. Every American with open eyes and ears has to listen to the voice of racial hatred, coming not from the Klan but from a clergyman of the Christian Left. Reading his words isn't enough, because you won't hear the unmistakable meaning of his vocal intonations. If you are a person of good will you will feel upset. But it's of the utmost importance to understand this moment of truth.

Because Jeremiah Wright -- the respectful word "Reverend" seems grotesquely out of place now -- is shouting out the slander catechism of the Left. His sermons say exactly what other Leftists say in calm voices, over and over again. Mr. Wright just does it with real, raw hatred, and every new slam is cheered on by his jubilant congregation. His is not a lone voice. He just sings the music to fit the words.

We have been nursing a viper in our national bosom. Seven years after September 11, 2001, this is the moment of truth, when the Left must finally decide what side it's on. Wright's sermons may signal the end of the Obama campaign, and they may mean the breakup of the Democratic Party as we know it. I don't see how any centrist Democrat can still belong to this party if Obama is its nominee. Jeremiah Wright may mean the historical end of the Civil Rights Era, because fifty years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Left's presumption of Victimhood and innocence is now gone.

The Rev is only the visible bulge of this lethal political tumor. This is Saul Alinsky's sociopathic teachings on display, and this is what Hillary Clinton learned back at Wellesley College. It is the voice of feminists who hate all men, and of radicalized blacks who hate all whites.

Hate mongers collect injustices. If you and I did that, we could collect an endless laundry list about all the bad things somebody did to us. Maybe we have been hurt by men, or by women. Maybe we have been hurt by rich people, or by the angry poor. Maybe we have been hurt by Jews or blacks or whites, and we can put all our built-up rage on their heads. It's been done many times in the human past; that's exactly the psychology we see at work in Africa, the former Yugoslavia, Sri Lanka, and various Muslim nations (among others), when explosive massacres take place. Mob psychology has been manipulated by demagogues throughout history. This is simply the another version of the Kluxers and Jim Crow lynch mobs. Today I see that psychology clearly enough on the Left, but outside of the ranting rooms of verifiable paranoids I don't see it many other places in this country.

Selectively collected injustices can keep us on the boil for a lifetime, because we ruminate on and on in all our waking hours about all the terrible things people have done to us. That is what the Left feeds itself in an endless stream; it is not a healthy thing to do. But it's what Jeremiah Wright has done to himself and to his congregation -- and who knows to how many thousands of other people? -- for almost all of his adult life. This is the Grand Inquisitor's view of America, the enraged prosecution case, without even imagining the possibility of innocence. This is what demagogues and witch hunters have always done, but I had never thought I'd see it in my lifetime.

Most of us take a more balanced view on our lives; we've had undeserved good fortune some of the time, and we've suffered undeserved pain at other times. That's life. If you look at the facts of Jeremiah Wright's life, he has been a child of good fortune -- excellent schooling well into graduate school, privilege and money, the support of a community of believers, vast political clout in Chicago. But hate mongers don't think that way. They just collect more and more injustices as they go through life, and load it all onto some enemy. They are constantly reading the minds of the enemy -- whites and especially Jews, in the case of Mr. Wright -- and all they see there is malevolence. Evil is what evil sees.

For Jeremiah Wright, the enemy comes with a white skin. He has taken historical injustices and turned them into a lifelong call for vengeance. This is the official doctrine of Black Liberation Theology, and it is freely supported by powerful institutions on the religious Left. BLT's founder, Dr. Jim Cone, is a professor of systematic theology at the Union Theological Seminary. It's utterly bizarre but true.

So it's not just Senator Obama who is stuck with Mr. Wright today. We are all stuck with a rageful Left, which really wants to destroy rather than to build. They mentally rehearse perceived injustices over and over again, and they blame this country for all the evil in the world, including AIDS in the black community. They never look at another side. Many have no honest conception of other countries, other cultures, or other points of view. They are not balanced people.

So the entire American body politic has a festering sore on its hands. This will not go away by itself. It will not be bought off by more money. It must be repudiated by the sensible Left, if it is still there. Just as William F. Buckley denounced the anti-Semites on the right, and sensible Americans rejected segregation and the Klan, just as American unions expelled Stalinist unions from the AFL-CIO, the time has come for the decent Left to draw a bright line in the sand, and keep the hate mongers out.
Full article - New window

Carterus Democraticus Liberalis

Well, now I don't have to say it...T

View in new window

Jimmy Carter: Terrorist and Anti Semite

This guy really did get elected president once, really, he did....now can I wake up please?...T

View in new window

Deepening Democratic Dilemma

How sweet it is! Thank you Rush - "Operation Chaos" continues. Oh, and the next time you hear the Drive-by media or some sandal wearing liberal call you a racist because you are a republican, remember to point out to them that it's the white democrats, just like in the days of Jim Crow, that won't tolerate a black man in their party! ...T

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When exit polls for the Pennsylvania primary came out late Tuesday afternoon showing a puny lead of 3.6 points for Hillary Clinton against Barack Obama, Democratic leaders who desperately wanted her to end her candidacy were not cheered. They were sure that this overstated Sen. Obama's strength, as exit polls nearly always have in urban, diverse states. How was it possible, then, that Sen. Clinton, given up for dead by her party's establishment, won Pennsylvania in a 10-point landslide? The answer is the dreaded Bradley Effect.

Prominent Democrats only whisper when they compare Obama, the first African-American with a serious chance to be president, with what happened to Los Angeles' black Mayor Tom Bradley a quarter of a century ago. Exit polls in 1982 showed Bradley ahead for governor of California, but he actually lost to Republican George Deukmejian. Pollster John Zogby (who correctly predicted Clinton's double-digit win Tuesday) said what practicing Democrats would not. "I think voters face-to-face are not willing to say they would oppose an African-American candidate," Zogby told me.

If there really is a Bradley Effect in 2008, Zogby sees November peril ahead for Obama in blue states. John McCain is a potential winner not only in Pennsylvania but also Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and can retain Ohio. But there seems no way Clinton can overtake Obama's lead in delegates and the popular vote. For unelected super-delegates to deprive Obama of the nomination would so depress African-American general election votes that the nomination would be worthless. In a year when all normal political indicators point to Republican defeat on all fronts, the Democratic Party faces a deepening dilemma.

The escape route from this dilemma only a few months ago seemingly was indicated by the sudden emergence of Obama as an extraordinary candidate who could transcend race and ideology. But as Bill Clinton sought to label Obama as his wife's black opponent, he increasingly also has been identified as bearing the same ideological burdens that brought down Democratic nominees George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. It has gotten worse for Obama, losing every high-population state to Clinton except his own Illinois.

Obama hit a low in Pennsylvania, despite clouds over Clinton's credibility and her husband's dysfunctional campaigning. Popular freshman Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, a pro-life and pro-gun Catholic, was Obama's faithful surrogate but proved no help. Exit polls showed Obama losing 70 percent of Catholics, 58 percent of white Protestants and 62 percent of gun owners. Clinton carried union members, wage-earners between $15,000 and $75,000 annually, and people with less than a college degree. Obama was saved from total disaster in Pennsylvania by 92 percent of the African-American vote, but the reverse of the racial divide was Clinton's support from whites, especially white working women.

For the first time, Democratic loyalists not necessarily committed to Clinton are wondering whether the party's system for picking a nominee is the problem. If all caucuses were eliminated and only primaries used in picking nominees, Obama's lead of 130 in delegates would become an advantage for Clinton of 45 delegates. The bigger problem is proportional representation replacing the winner-take-all system that enabled Republicans to get their nominee on Feb. 5 Super Tuesday. Without the "reforms" enacted by Democrats during the decade following the party's 1968 fiasco, Clinton might have clinched the nomination by now.

Such regret does not affect the 2008 election, and no significant procedural changes are likely for the future. Democratic politicians today see no viable alternative to Barack Obama as their nominee. Their hard assessment is that Hillary Clinton clawing her way to the nomination could mean 25 percent McCain support from a radically depleted African-American turnout -- a prescription for disaster.

On the other hand, Pennsylvania exit polls project a massive defection by Clinton voters (with 32 percent of them "satisfied" only if she is the nominee). Many of these disaffected Democrats surely will be reconciled to Obama. Indeed, McCain privately warns key supporters to be prepared for a massive if temporary falloff in the polls once these unhappy Democrats return after Obama is nominated. But not all will return, and that is Pennsylvania's warning to the Democratic Party.
Full Article - New Window

Rest in Peace, Ronald Reagan

It was four years ago, during another presidential campaign, and I believe it was in July of that year, that the greatest president of the 20th century passed away. The ceremonial rites were 10 days long, and even the candidates suspended their campaigns out of respect. Only 2 presidents have earned this respect, and the other was a man named Abraham Lincoln. I cried all day and night for all of these 10 days, and still do, every time I see this video, and remember that this man redeemed us all. God bless Ronald Reagan...T

View in new window

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein's new documentary takes on the educational and scientific elites who have "ethnically cleansed" our universities and schools of all mention of the origins and meaning of life itself. Sounds like the same old Global Warming crowd to me. Opens April 18th at theaters everywhere. Here is the trailer. Watch it, and see the movie!...T

View in new window

Progress, Actually

It's over. We win, Iraq wins. Al-Queda has suffered an irreversible defeat. Iran will soon realise that a new power is rising in the west - far more powerful than Saddam's Iraq ever dreamt of being. 5 years from now Iraq will be the most powerful nation in the Mideast - economically (largest oil reserves), and militarily (large well equipped, US trained and supplied). Inside Iraq today, Al-Queda has been so decimated that they cannot even find anymore poor souls to blow themselves up. They now recruit brain damaged and retarded old women, and then blow them up via remote control.

Yes, again, the most successful war, with the fewest casualties, in the history of warfare...T

The last time General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker reported to Congress on the state of the Iraq war, "benchmarks" were all the rage. Congress had established 18 criteria in early 2007 both to pressure the Iraqis and to keep score on their progress. And in September, Congress faulted the Iraqi government for failing to meet many of those measures. Concocting a checklist of laws and actions that would lead to national reconciliation in Iraq was always a fool's errand and misunderstood the complexity of the situation. But having laid down this marker, Congress would want to hear an update, surely. Not so. The word "benchmarks" was scarcely heard last week when Petraeus and Crocker reappeared before Congress. Crocker testified that the Iraqis have actually met about two-thirds of the benchmarks, including four or five of the six key legislative benchmarks and all of the benchmarks measuring their contribution to their own security. In reply, the congressmen who insisted on legislating these benchmarks now say benchmarks are a poor way to measure progress in Iraq.

Their disingenuousness is monumental--but they are right. So by all means, let's look beyond the benchmarks. Let's look instead at the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Sunni Arab community turned against al Qaeda and the Baathist insurgents in 2006 and 2007 and opted for political engagement instead of armed struggle. The Sunni militias who were previously fighting against us and the Iraqi government have been reconstituted as the Sons of Iraq (SOI) and have enlisted in the fight against al Qaeda. Polls show that about 90 percent of them mean to vote in upcoming provincial elections. One of the most overlooked developments of 2007 was the flood of volunteers from Anbar province into the Iraqi Security Forces themselves, not just into the SOIs, or "concerned local citizens," as they were previously called. The behavior of the SOIs in Baghdad during the recent violence has also been instructive: They did not leave their posts, they did not seize the opportunity to kill Shia; they behaved professionally, and helped maintain order at a very fraught moment. The Shia Iraqi government, as a result, has a new sense of the value the Sunni SOIs add in Baghdad and that sense is likely to lead to even greater integration and cooperation.

Now let's look at the Shia side. Since the seating of the Maliki government in May 2006, a constant criticism has been that it is eager to send money to Shia areas and send troops against Sunni fighters, but not the other way round. Well, the Sunni leadership in Anbar province has succeeded in drawing $100 million from the central government while Shia provincial governors in Karbala, Qadisiyah, and Babil complain that they're not getting what they need from Baghdad. Similarly, the Iraqi Security Forces are now fighting with Anbaris against common enemies, and an Iraqi army unit was just deployed from Anbar to Basra to fight against Shia militias. General Petraeus testified that about 20 percent of the Sons of Iraq are Shia, and Maliki has announced new plans to develop SOIs in Shia areas. So much for the notion that SOIs are a militia-in-waiting for the next Sunni takeover. Taking a step back, we can identify an even more important dynamic. In late 2006 and 2007, Shia, Kurds, and the majority of Sunni Arabs formed a political and military bloc to defeat al Qaeda and the Baathist insurgents and negotiate their differences peacefully. In early 2008, Shia, Kurds, and Sunni Arabs strengthened this political bloc while using it to strike against illegal, Iranian-supported Shia militias and terrorists. That is the most important and positive sign of reconciliation of all.

At the same time, Ambassador Crocker testified (and almost everyone who has been watching politics in Baghdad concurs) that there is a new fluidity and willingness to compromise and act politically rather than in a sectarian way, even within the badly flawed Council of Representatives. Last year, the council could not even debate, let alone pass, laws. In February it passed three at once as part of an omnibus logrolling package that would have made any American congressman proud.

So we have significant progress within the Iraqi government. We have significant grassroots political development. We have Sunni and Shia Arabs fighting together against both Sunni and Shia enemies that they now see as common foes. We have the central government distributing its funds both to Sunni and to Shia areas. Despite the supposed flaws in the de-Baathification reform law, excellent Sunni commanders who could theoretically have been purged remain in key positions in the Iraqi military and police forces. The only groups that remain outside of the political process are al Qaeda, the Baathist insurgents, and the Iranian-backed Special Groups. If this isn't dramatic progress toward reconciliation, what would such progress look like? One congressman last week had the gall to complain about Iraq's "intransigent political leaders." The more intransigent political class is here in Washington.
Full article - New window

The Shape of the Race to Come

Interesting take on the campaign to come. I tend to agree...T

I’ve spent a fair amount of time the last couple of weeks with conservatives of all ages and leanings. Call it my very own listening tour.

It began with a series of conversations with a group of Weekly Standard subscribers. Then, last week, I had lunch with the only three conservatives in Cambridge, Mass.; participated in an event in New York with the leadership of Vets for Freedom; mixed and mingled with Republicans before a speech in Michigan; and, on Friday, attended a reception for friends of Bill Buckley after his memorial service at St. Patrick’s, then discussed politics that evening with conservative college students at Georgetown University.

Apart from accumulating a few frequent flier miles, what do I have to show for my travels? I can report that lots of conservatives and Republicans expect Barack Obama to be our next president.

Some Republicans are grasping at the idea that a long, bitter fight for the Democratic nomination will weaken Obama. Their hopes are about to be dashed. After the results are in from Pennsylvania on April 22, or from Indiana and North Carolina on May 6, it should become clear that Hillary Clinton won’t be able to catch Obama in the overall popular vote. Without that possibility, Clinton won’t have a shot at persuading superdelegates to break her way.

So Clinton will probably concede by mid-May. She’ll be a gracious loser (they’ll hide Bill away somewhere). The weeks that follow will be a Democratic lovefest. And the money will keep pouring in to the Obama campaign, ensuring Democratic dominance of the airwaves in the summer.

The Democratic convention is the last week in August. Shortly before, Obama will pick his running mate. He’ll have good choices available to him: experienced figures like Sam Nunn, Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, a senator with military service like Rhode Island’s Jack Reed — or, of course, Hillary Clinton. Then the Hollywood-produced and directed Democratic convention will be all uplifting Change and inspiring Hope, and it will work.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign will be slow taking off. Fund-raising will continue to be anemic. And his team will need to manage a G.O.P. convention at which Bush and Cheney will have to be loyally hailed for their achievements, even as John McCain tries to turn the page.

It’s going to be a summer of love for Obama, and a tough few months for McCain.

McCain’s comeback should begin just after Labor Day, on Sept. 4, with a strong acceptance speech at the Republican convention. The presidential debates will also provide an opportunity. Expectations for Obama will be too high, people will forget he isn’t as good a debater as he is a speaker — and McCain could well rise to the occasion.

More fundamental will be the question of the discrepancy between the image of Obama the uniter and the reality of Obama the liberal. That hasn’t been much of a problem for Obama in the Democratic contest, since Clinton hasn’t attacked from the right or even the center.

But Republicans will. Last week, over drinks, one Republican strategist not affiliated with the McCain campaign mused about how an independent advertising effort against Obama might work. “Barack Obama: He’s not who you think he is” would be the theme. The supporting evidence would come from his left-wing voting record in Illinois and Washington, spiced up with fun video clips of Reverend Wright.
Who ultimately wins? In politics, as in life, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Many Republicans I know see the weaknesses of their party and of the McCain campaign all too clearly, and assume Obama will prevail.

But a surprising number of Democrats with whom I’ve spoken expect a McCain victory. One told me he was struck by the current polls showing a dead-even race, suggesting both a surprising openness to McCain among Americans who disapprove of Bush and a striking hesitation among the same voters about Obama.

Then there’s the fact that we’re at war. As a Congressional staffer put it, “Here’s something to consider: Although Hillary will be out in May, she may determine the outcome in November. McCain’s secret weapon — among Clinton supporters — may be Hillary’s 3 a.m. national security ad.”

And an experienced Democratic operative e-mailed: “Finally, I think [McCain’s] going to win. Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”

In a close race, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference.
Full Article - New Window

The BOSCO Uganda Relief Project

The Bosco Uganda Relief Project

From: Navitor69, 1 year ago

SlideShare src="http://static.slideshare.net/swf/logo_embd.png"> View Upload your own

Here, below at "slideshare link" is the page at which you can download the full power point raw data file. To visit the BOSCO homepage just click the title link above, or see the URL described below. Thanks for your support - now back to politics!...T



Here is our presentation for technical, financial, and logistical solutions to areas of the world in crisis: No power, poverty, civil war, these issues are addressed in part by our network, consisting of Wi-Fi long range Internet, VoIP phone service, solar powered batteries and lighting, video camcorders and upload capability 24/7
contact: Ted Pethick @:
tpethick@bosco-uganda.org
or:
http://www.bosco-uganda.org


SlideShare Link

Islamist Ideology Exposed

Radical Islam exposed. No different than Nazism in my mind, except for one frightening realisation: The Nazi's had no fear of God in them, no religious conviction. This is a truly a more dangerous threat than either Fascism or Communism, because they haven't believed it for a few decades, no, but for over one thousand years - and they number in hundreds of millions...T

CBS Exposes Hillary Clinton Bosnia Trip

Clintonism at it's best - er, worst...T

The Long Defeat

Withering attack, and an interesting take coming from the NT Times David Brooks. Let's hope it's finally true: ding, dong, the Bitch is dead...T

Hillary Clinton may not realize it yet, but she’s just endured one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

First, Barack Obama weathered the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair without serious damage to his nomination prospects. Obama still holds a tiny lead among Democrats nationally in the Gallup tracking poll, just as he did before this whole affair blew up.

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.
Third, as Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has reported, most superdelegates have accepted Nancy Pelosi’s judgment that the winner of the elected delegates should get the nomination. Instead of lining up behind Clinton, they’re drifting away. Her lead among them has shrunk by about 60 in the past month, according to Avi Zenilman of Politico.com.

In short, Hillary Clinton’s presidential prospects continue to dim. The door is closing. Night is coming. The end, however, is not near.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance.

Five percent.

Let’s take a look at what she’s going to put her party through for the sake of that 5 percent chance: The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping. For another three months, we’ll have the Carvilles likening the Obamaites to Judas and former generals accusing Clintonites of McCarthyism. For three months, we’ll have the daily round of résumé padding and sulfurous conference calls. We’ll have campaign aides blurting “blue dress” and only-because-he’s-black references as they let slip their private contempt.

For three more months (maybe more!) the campaign will proceed along in its Verdun-like pattern. There will be a steady rifle fire of character assassination from the underlings, interrupted by the occasional firestorm of artillery when the contest touches upon race, gender or patriotism. The policy debates between the two have been long exhausted, so the only way to get the public really engaged is by poking some raw national wound.

For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. Now McCain has a lead among this group.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It’s like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears.

If she does the former, she would surprise everybody with a display of self-sacrifice. Her campaign would cruise along at a lower register until North Carolina, then use that as an occasion to withdraw. If she does not, she would soldier on doggedly, taking down as many allies as necessary.
Full Article - New Window

The Real Hillary

Now I recognise her!...wait till you see who created this - very Orwellian (hah!)...T

View in new window

Hillary's Inner Monster

The bride of Chucky? Naw, the real deal!...T

Staggering Numbers

Keeping in mind that Hillary – in her own "two for the price of one" pronouncement – told the nation that she would be sharing the presidency with her husband, it would beg the imaginations of even her most fervent acolytes that the tsunami of scandals that inundated the Clinton tenure somehow escaped either the notice or personal involvement of Hillary herself.

To see the shocking Scandal Index of the Clinton years, as compiled by the liberal Progressive Review (http://prorev.com) is to appreciate the Clinton's 24/7/365 belief that any progress in their leftist domestic and foreign affairs agenda could only be realized through the most nefarious activity – much of which fit neatly into the criminal category. Under the listing of "Records Set'" by the Clinton administration (read: co-presidency), Progressive Review cites the following, of which I will only list a sampling:

▪ Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates.

▪ Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation.

▪ Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify.

▪ Most number of witnesses to die suddenly.

▪ First president sued for sexual harassment.

▪ First president accused of rape.

▪ First president to be held in contempt of court.

▪ First president to be impeached for personal malfeasance.

▪ First first lady to come under criminal investigation.

▪ Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign-contribution case.

▪ Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions.

▪ Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas to date: one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners: 14.

▪ Number of Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5.

▪ Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine that were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47.

▪ Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33.

▪ Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61.

▪ Number of congressional witnesses who pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122.

▪ Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15; acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6.

▪ Clinton machine crimes for which convictions were obtained: drug trafficking, 3; racketeering, extortion, bribery, 4; tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement, 2; fraud, 12; conspiracy, 5; fraudulent loans, illegal gifts, 1; illegal campaign contributions, 5; money laundering, 6; perjury, et al.

▪ Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar: Bill Kennedy, 116; Harold Ickes, 148; Ricki Seidman, 160; Bruce Lindsey, 161; Bill Burton, 191; Mark Gearan, 221; Mack McLarty, 233; Neil Egglseston, 250; John Podesta, 264; Jennifer O'Connor, 343; Dwight Holton 348; Patsy Thomasson, 420; Jeff Eller, 697; and Hillary Clinton, 250.

Believe it or not, this exhaustive list omits even lengthier lists – on public record – of crimes investigated, public officials and reporters intimidated, threatened and muzzled, and the raft of dead people associated with the Clintons who died by guns, knives, alleged suicides, etc. See http://members.tripod.com/~rcjustice/pres.html and http://prorev.com/legacy.htm.

“The amazing thing about [Hillary],” Goldberg says, “is that she's so unappealing. Even liberals don't like what they see…at every turn, [her] Zelig-like public persona has been a fabrication – either by her fans, her enemies or herself…”

All of which may explain a recent CNN-Gallup poll in which 51 percent of respondents said they definitely would “not vote” for Hillary in a presidential race.
Full article - new window

The Great Global Warming Swindle

In case any of you had trouble with the DivX version, this one is for you. Sorry for the redundant posting, but it fits in tandem with the most recent post, below, which is a must read. Enjoy, on this day at the (hopefully) tail end of the coldest winter, worldwide, in 100 years! To download this video and/or get a different embed code and player, click here - Veoh view and download - or click here - Brightcove view and embed - to access the embed code for this video...T


As suggested by the apt title, this program — essential viewing for politicians, teachers, motorists and the entire transport sector, grass roots environmentalists and all 'True Believers' in man-made climate change — will reveal and confirm:
- How the Sun is an overwhelming influence on continuous climate change over decades and centuries (there is no way for taxation or lifestyle fascism to alter the Sun's eruptivity and irradiance)
- How carbon dioxide levels are predominantly an effect and not a cause of climate change (a very inconvenient truth)
- Why politicians have been so enthusiastic about embracing the fallacy of human impact on global climate (trojan horses aren't a protected species)
- What lies behind the green industry (courtesy of a founding member and former leader of Greenpeace)
- How forecasts of warming and its impacts are grossly exaggerated, with stasis and cooling ahead, and therefore why the UN IPCC needs urgent fundamental reform - or abolishing completely
View in new window

Climate dissent grows hotter as chill deepens

Further evidence of what the global warming alarmists really are: global socialists - they seek to impose upon us all what the liberals, the greens, the euro-socialists, and most importantly, the communists, could not: the death of capitalism (necessary to achieve the proposed reductions in CO2 emissions), which could not be forcibly imposed on us by the Red Army, nor at the ballot box. The statistics cannot be denied - 2007-2008 was the coldest winter worldwide in 100 years..T

Last week, virtually unreported in Britain, the extraordinary winter weather of 2008 elsewhere in the world continued. In the USA, there were blizzards as far south as Texas and Arkansas, while in northern states and Canada what they are calling "the winter from hell" has continued to break records going back in some cases to 1873. Meanwhile in Asia more details emerged of the catastrophe caused by the northern hemisphere's greatest snow cover since 1966.

In Afghanistan, where they have lost 300,000 cattle, the human death toll has risen above 1,500. In China, the havoc created by what its media call "the Winter Snow Disaster" has continued, not least in Tibet, where six months of snow and record low temperatures have killed 500,000 animals, leaving 3 million people on the edge of starvation.

It might have seemed timely that in New York an array of leading climatologists and other experts should have gathered for the most high-powered international conference yet to question the "consensus" on global warming. After three days of what the chairman called "the kind of free-spirited debate that is virtually absent from the global warming alarmist camp", the 500 delegates issued the Manhattan Declaration, stating that attempts by governments to reduce CO2 emissions would "markedly diminish further prosperity" while having "no appreciable impact" on the Earth's warming.

This inevitably attracted the kind of hysterical abuse that has become so familiar from warmist fanatics, tellingly contrasting with the measured arguments put forward by the scientists present. One was Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who last year famously forced Nasa's Goddard Institute to correct a fundamental error in its data on US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.
Full article - New window

Doc Severinsen

Man he could really play that thing - what a volume of sound, with such finesse and range...T
View in new window

Wicked Bitch

The true Hillary...come on, Obama, you can't take the Clinton's out with a stake through the heart! No, you may want to consider a tall hill, two large wooden crosses, lots of straw, gasoline, and a few lit matches...T
View in new window