In spite of vilifying George W. Bush over the post-9/11 surveillance practices of the National Security Agency, the Obama Administration has continued these practices, including the tracking of the emails of American citizens.
And this is my topic of discussion today at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
Give it a read and tell a friend?
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
'The Day America Lost the War on Terror'
The first phone call he made as President was to a Palestinian leader to say that America is now on the side of 'Palestinian interests.'
The first TV interview he granted as President was to an Arab network to say that he understands the feelings and goals of Muslim extremists.
During his first week in office he signed an order that will eventually close the Gitmo prison for terrorists, meaning that the most dangerous barbarians in the world will be brought to the U.S. mainland to be housed in a facility near you.
In short, the day America lost the war on terror is the day that terribly misguided voters elected Barack Hussein Obama to office. The man is quickly becoming the most dangerous human being in America today with regard to our safety and security.
Read this telling op-ed by Ben Shapiro at Townhall.com.
The first TV interview he granted as President was to an Arab network to say that he understands the feelings and goals of Muslim extremists.
During his first week in office he signed an order that will eventually close the Gitmo prison for terrorists, meaning that the most dangerous barbarians in the world will be brought to the U.S. mainland to be housed in a facility near you.
In short, the day America lost the war on terror is the day that terribly misguided voters elected Barack Hussein Obama to office. The man is quickly becoming the most dangerous human being in America today with regard to our safety and security.
Read this telling op-ed by Ben Shapiro at Townhall.com.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Raising the Stakes by a Few Notches
The potential for war, even nuclear war, looms large as Pakistan amasses its military forces along its border with India. The instability that such a war would create aside, the move raises the stakes by a few notches in the international war on terror.
Pakistan's Afghan border screams for military oversight as the potential for terrorist movement between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains very high. Washington in particular views the redeployment of Pakistani forces from its Afghan border to its Indian border as a move that vastly weakens the campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
In addition, the move is a blow to Barack Obama's proposed strategy to focus on Pakistan as ground zero in the attempt to cripple and eradicate terrorist activity flowing between Afghanistan and remote regions of Pakistan.
Tensions between India and Pakistan reached a fever pitch when India announced that it placed the blame for the terrorist massacre at Mumbai squarely on Islamic Pakistani militants.
India's outrage over the terrorist attack is justified and its desire for retaliation understandable. However, as one former general and military analyst put it:
At the same time it is entirely unrealistic to expect India to stand down if it has solid proof that Islamic Pakistani militants are responsible for the attack. It may mean, however, that the strategy to rely on Pakistan in the war to contain Afghan terrorism is misguided and may need to be revised.
Given Pakistan's history of being either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to sniff out and capture terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, I never viewed the Obama strategy as a realistic one to begin with.
If Pakistan cannot or will not control its own border with Afghanistan, then they are entirely unreliable as front-line allies in the war on terror.
For more on this continually-breaking story, click here.
Pakistan's Afghan border screams for military oversight as the potential for terrorist movement between Afghanistan and Pakistan remains very high. Washington in particular views the redeployment of Pakistani forces from its Afghan border to its Indian border as a move that vastly weakens the campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
In addition, the move is a blow to Barack Obama's proposed strategy to focus on Pakistan as ground zero in the attempt to cripple and eradicate terrorist activity flowing between Afghanistan and remote regions of Pakistan.
Tensions between India and Pakistan reached a fever pitch when India announced that it placed the blame for the terrorist massacre at Mumbai squarely on Islamic Pakistani militants.
India's outrage over the terrorist attack is justified and its desire for retaliation understandable. However, as one former general and military analyst put it:
"This is a serious blow to the war on terror in the sense that the whole focus is now shifting toward the eastern border," said Talat Masood, a former general and military analyst. "It will give more leeway to the militants and increased space to operate."
At the same time it is entirely unrealistic to expect India to stand down if it has solid proof that Islamic Pakistani militants are responsible for the attack. It may mean, however, that the strategy to rely on Pakistan in the war to contain Afghan terrorism is misguided and may need to be revised.
Given Pakistan's history of being either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to sniff out and capture terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, I never viewed the Obama strategy as a realistic one to begin with.
If Pakistan cannot or will not control its own border with Afghanistan, then they are entirely unreliable as front-line allies in the war on terror.
For more on this continually-breaking story, click here.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
McCain's Gamble
John McCain undertook a major shakeup of his campaign staff this week that many believe was long overdue. Since becoming the Republican standard-bearer McCain has raised a significant amount of money that is sorely needed, but his campaign seemed to lack focus.
That should change now that seasoned veterans are in charge.
But it is always a gamble to shift personnel in a campaign.
In order to connect with the voters at the two benchmarks at which McCain is strongest, he will have to begin to focus squarely on his maturity and experience in the realm of defence, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy. And he will need to zero-in on economic issues that impact Americans in their wallets, such as U.S. energy policy, the problem of ethanol driving up food prices, and bringing relief to the consumer at the gasoline pump.
McCain has already laid out a detailed plan for economic expansion and growth that focuses on extending the Bush tax cuts, providing relief to businesses by lowering their top tax rate from 35% to 25%, and by proposing a temporary moratorium on the federal gas tax.
A major hallmark of the McCain energy plan is to prepare for the future with alternatives but provide relief in the short term by drilling for more oil right here at home.
This is a sound policy, given that the country is not yet ready to sustain an economy based upon alternative fuels alone.
McCain's proposal for awarding a $300-million-dollar prize to an American entrepreneur who develops new technology to 'leap over' hybrid technology and develop an effective, viable all-electric vehicle is an interesting one.
The question is, just how prudent is this particular proposal when there are a few entrepreneurs who are working on new gasoline engines that will get 300-400 miles per gallon by doing nothing more than creating features that make the engines super-efficient?
It would seem that both of these proposals have merit, and thus, why should the government reward one and not the other?
McCain must begin to differentiate his energy proposals from those of Barack Obama, which the mainstream media has designated as 'similar to McCain's.' Nothing could be further from the truth.
Obama is against drilling here at home. He is against building more refineries or expanding refinery capacity. He is against nuclear energy, the cleanest form of energy available on earth. He is against expanding wind-based power. He is against curbing the production of ethanol which has wreaked havoc on the entire world economy, taking food out of the mouths of the hungry in impoverished nations.
McCain's proposals are diametrically opposite, yet you will never hear this from the talking heads on network TV.
McCain should make it clear that Obama's proposals are so similar to Jimmy Carter's in 1976-- proposals that led to long gas lines, skyrocketing gas prices, runaway inflation, and interest rates of 24%--that an Obama Presidency would be tantamount to Jimmy Carter's second term.
And as for the other benchmark issue, McCain's strength on defense, foreign policy, and the War on Terror, should be a no-brainer for his campaign. Obama is highly vulnerable here, and that is an understatement. His frightening lack of experience on the world stage and his entirely naive views of the world should give pause to any thinking American.
McCain should exploit these vulnerabilities every chance he gets.
If McCain's new campaign team is worth its salt, we should see these changes implemented at once. It is a gamble worth taking but not without solid principle to undergird and lessen the risks.
That should change now that seasoned veterans are in charge.
But it is always a gamble to shift personnel in a campaign.
In order to connect with the voters at the two benchmarks at which McCain is strongest, he will have to begin to focus squarely on his maturity and experience in the realm of defence, the War on Terror, and U.S. foreign policy. And he will need to zero-in on economic issues that impact Americans in their wallets, such as U.S. energy policy, the problem of ethanol driving up food prices, and bringing relief to the consumer at the gasoline pump.
McCain has already laid out a detailed plan for economic expansion and growth that focuses on extending the Bush tax cuts, providing relief to businesses by lowering their top tax rate from 35% to 25%, and by proposing a temporary moratorium on the federal gas tax.
A major hallmark of the McCain energy plan is to prepare for the future with alternatives but provide relief in the short term by drilling for more oil right here at home.
This is a sound policy, given that the country is not yet ready to sustain an economy based upon alternative fuels alone.
McCain's proposal for awarding a $300-million-dollar prize to an American entrepreneur who develops new technology to 'leap over' hybrid technology and develop an effective, viable all-electric vehicle is an interesting one.
The question is, just how prudent is this particular proposal when there are a few entrepreneurs who are working on new gasoline engines that will get 300-400 miles per gallon by doing nothing more than creating features that make the engines super-efficient?
It would seem that both of these proposals have merit, and thus, why should the government reward one and not the other?
McCain must begin to differentiate his energy proposals from those of Barack Obama, which the mainstream media has designated as 'similar to McCain's.' Nothing could be further from the truth.
Obama is against drilling here at home. He is against building more refineries or expanding refinery capacity. He is against nuclear energy, the cleanest form of energy available on earth. He is against expanding wind-based power. He is against curbing the production of ethanol which has wreaked havoc on the entire world economy, taking food out of the mouths of the hungry in impoverished nations.
McCain's proposals are diametrically opposite, yet you will never hear this from the talking heads on network TV.
McCain should make it clear that Obama's proposals are so similar to Jimmy Carter's in 1976-- proposals that led to long gas lines, skyrocketing gas prices, runaway inflation, and interest rates of 24%--that an Obama Presidency would be tantamount to Jimmy Carter's second term.
And as for the other benchmark issue, McCain's strength on defense, foreign policy, and the War on Terror, should be a no-brainer for his campaign. Obama is highly vulnerable here, and that is an understatement. His frightening lack of experience on the world stage and his entirely naive views of the world should give pause to any thinking American.
McCain should exploit these vulnerabilities every chance he gets.
If McCain's new campaign team is worth its salt, we should see these changes implemented at once. It is a gamble worth taking but not without solid principle to undergird and lessen the risks.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Taliban Gearing Up for Siege to Re-take Country
Intelligence reports from Afghanistan, including those of observers on the ground, indicate that the Taliban has regrouped and is gearing up for a massive siege, the goal of which is re-taking control of the country.
U.S. forces and NATO had forced the Taliban from power in the early days of the War on Terror, and many top Taliban operatives were either killed or jailed.
But those who remained jailed were freed from prison over this past weekend by a series of explosions planted by Taliban fugitives. The prison escapees were known Taliban operatives who had been trained as suicide bombers and head-choppers.
Since the prison-break, news reports from the region indicate that the Taliban has retaken areas in southern Afghanistan and is now gearing up for a massive, concerted effort to seize control of the country.
The State Department is denying these reports. Yet sources outside the U.S. and within NATO indicate that the U.S. and its allies are monitoring these developments with a wary eye.
Deposing the Taliban was a vital and important first step in fighting the War on Terror. And if this dangerous, extremist group comes back to power in Afghanistan, it would be a significant setback in the West's attempts to keep the lid on terrorism around the world.
U.S. forces and NATO had forced the Taliban from power in the early days of the War on Terror, and many top Taliban operatives were either killed or jailed.
But those who remained jailed were freed from prison over this past weekend by a series of explosions planted by Taliban fugitives. The prison escapees were known Taliban operatives who had been trained as suicide bombers and head-choppers.
Since the prison-break, news reports from the region indicate that the Taliban has retaken areas in southern Afghanistan and is now gearing up for a massive, concerted effort to seize control of the country.
The State Department is denying these reports. Yet sources outside the U.S. and within NATO indicate that the U.S. and its allies are monitoring these developments with a wary eye.
Deposing the Taliban was a vital and important first step in fighting the War on Terror. And if this dangerous, extremist group comes back to power in Afghanistan, it would be a significant setback in the West's attempts to keep the lid on terrorism around the world.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
LIBERTY ALERT! Terrorist Threat on Two Fronts
Washington, DC (TLS). The Liberty Sphere has reason to believe that the U.S. is at a heightened risk for a major terrorist strike, perhaps more so than at any other time since 9/11.
As we reported to you in the aftermath of the foiled JFK Airport attack, the Saudis have warned that suspicious activity has been occurring at the nation's major airports since January of 2006, including strange persons who have been observed watching restricted areas at those airports.
In addition, the FBI is offering a 5 million dollar reward for information leading to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who is suspected to have smuggled nuclear material into the Unites States in order to conduct a massive, simultaneous terrorist attack on major U.S. cities using nuclear explosives.
Read The Liberty Sphere's special reports here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/06/foiled-jfk-terror-plot-may-be-tip-of.html
It is interesting that this information comes to the forefront just as the Democratic Presidential candidates get set to debate this evening on CNN. Not only have most of the Dems downplayed the significance of the terrorist threat to the nation, but one in particular, John Edwards, has stated that there should be NO 'global war on terror.'
It will be interesting to see if the Democratic lapdogs at CNN dare ask the Dems about whether or not their views have changed in the wake of the foiled terror plot in New York City.
As we reported to you in the aftermath of the foiled JFK Airport attack, the Saudis have warned that suspicious activity has been occurring at the nation's major airports since January of 2006, including strange persons who have been observed watching restricted areas at those airports.
In addition, the FBI is offering a 5 million dollar reward for information leading to the capture of Al Qaeda operative Adnan el-Shukrijumah, who is suspected to have smuggled nuclear material into the Unites States in order to conduct a massive, simultaneous terrorist attack on major U.S. cities using nuclear explosives.
Read The Liberty Sphere's special reports here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/06/foiled-jfk-terror-plot-may-be-tip-of.html
It is interesting that this information comes to the forefront just as the Democratic Presidential candidates get set to debate this evening on CNN. Not only have most of the Dems downplayed the significance of the terrorist threat to the nation, but one in particular, John Edwards, has stated that there should be NO 'global war on terror.'
It will be interesting to see if the Democratic lapdogs at CNN dare ask the Dems about whether or not their views have changed in the wake of the foiled terror plot in New York City.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Losing Our Resolve
Washington, DC (TLS). The West is in mortal danger of losing its resolve to fight global terrorism, much to our peril. Western Europe finds itself in the throws of a nonchalance towards Islamic extremists and therefore finds itself in danger of being totally dominated by barbarians within a decade or less.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Presidential candidates provide a sobering microcosm of the nonchalance of the electorate. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards says there is no global war on terror. Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama both voted against funding our troops.
Americans, by and large, have turned against the War in Iraq, not because they did not think the cause was noble but that it did not go as expected. We have come to think that military campaigns should be swift, short, and clean.
Perhaps this is due to the fairy-tale world that the television generation has created.
Nonetheless, we stand on the brink of not only losing our resolve to fight what is a most dangerous fight to the death against extremist barbarians emboldened by their religion, but we are in grave danger of losing our very civilization, our values, our way of life to those who will throw the world into another era like the Dark Ages.
These people aren't playing. They WILL take advantage of our weakness, and they WILL dominate the West if we continue on the present course.
Our favorite intellectual, Dr. Walter Williams, warns that America's fate could well be that of the great Roman Empire, which fell to barbarians who then ushered in the Dark Ages. If the West falls to the present barbarians, you can be assured that a thousand years of darkness will follow in a world ruled by ruthless terrorist warlords who believe women should be kept enslaved, children should be used as suicide bombers, and all must convert to Islam or be killed.
Read Williams' gripping article here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams052207.php3
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Presidential candidates provide a sobering microcosm of the nonchalance of the electorate. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards says there is no global war on terror. Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama both voted against funding our troops.
Americans, by and large, have turned against the War in Iraq, not because they did not think the cause was noble but that it did not go as expected. We have come to think that military campaigns should be swift, short, and clean.
Perhaps this is due to the fairy-tale world that the television generation has created.
Nonetheless, we stand on the brink of not only losing our resolve to fight what is a most dangerous fight to the death against extremist barbarians emboldened by their religion, but we are in grave danger of losing our very civilization, our values, our way of life to those who will throw the world into another era like the Dark Ages.
These people aren't playing. They WILL take advantage of our weakness, and they WILL dominate the West if we continue on the present course.
Our favorite intellectual, Dr. Walter Williams, warns that America's fate could well be that of the great Roman Empire, which fell to barbarians who then ushered in the Dark Ages. If the West falls to the present barbarians, you can be assured that a thousand years of darkness will follow in a world ruled by ruthless terrorist warlords who believe women should be kept enslaved, children should be used as suicide bombers, and all must convert to Islam or be killed.
Read Williams' gripping article here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams052207.php3
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Giuliani: 'Never Again'
Washington, DC (TLS). The quote of the day comes from Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
During a major campaign speech the former New York City Mayor stated, 'Never again will we be caught on the defensive in the fight against terrorism. We must stay on the offensive against those who are seeking to kill us.'
Regardless of what one might think about some of Rudy's views, there is no doubt that he is a natural-born leader. He has proved this time and again in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Giuliani inspires confidence in troubled times. For that we can give him truckloads of credit.
During a major campaign speech the former New York City Mayor stated, 'Never again will we be caught on the defensive in the fight against terrorism. We must stay on the offensive against those who are seeking to kill us.'
Regardless of what one might think about some of Rudy's views, there is no doubt that he is a natural-born leader. He has proved this time and again in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Giuliani inspires confidence in troubled times. For that we can give him truckloads of credit.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
What If Bush Gave the Dems What They Want?
Washington, DC (TLS). For just a brief moment in time, cast aside all of your statesmanship in order to play with me a little game of political strategist...not that all political strategists are bereft of statesmanship, but after all, it is not their job to tell candidates what's best for America. Their job is to tell their clients how to get elected.
Regardless of what you or I might think of the grave danger the situation in Iraq poses for the world and for the United States, for a few moments let's consider some harsh political realities.
Americans are increasingly getting very tired of the war, so much so that all of the latest indicators point to a massive Republican blood-fest in 2008. Internal polling numbers suggest that if we stay on the present course, not only will Democrats pick up even more seats in Congress than they did in 2006, but they will gain the White House as well.
The single issue that is driving voters away from the GOP is the war.
Thus, as political strategists our job is to devise a method for our clients, in this case the Republicans, to regain control of Congress and to keep the White House.
How can we best go about this?
Remember, the end game is to win. We must, at least for a season, put our best sensitivities as Americans on the back burner.
Winning in 2008 involves a straightforward two-pronged strategy. First, we cater to the electorate. We tell them that we did, indeed, succeed in Iraq by deposing an evil dictator and providing the means for a totalitarian state to hold its first democratic elections...with a democratically-crafted Constitution to boot. We then admit that we blew it after that. We miscalculated the strength of the insurgency, and we simply did not have the troop strength on the ground to do the rest of the job.
We tell them, 'We heard your voices. You are weary of our continued presence in Iraq, and you want the boys to come home now.'
And then we bring them home. Just like that.
Second, we send a message to Democrats. We are giving you what you said you wanted. The American people obviously agreed with you that our mission in Iraq is finished. So, whatever consequences arise as a result of our withdrawal will be entirely on your shoulders.
If the entirety of the fledgling Iraqi government falls apart, so be it.
If Iran seizes the government in Iraq, so be it.
If there is mass genocide, murder, and carnage, so be it.
If terrorists find a new safe haven, not only in Iran but also in Iraq, so be it.
If terrorists are emboldened around the world, so be it.
If they go on the offensive again, against our embassies, our aircraft carriers, etc, so be it.
If they send a nuclear bomb to Israel, so be it.
If they decide to attack America on our own soil....
A wise man from the past said, 'In a democracy, the people usually get the government they deserve.'
The question is, are the Democrats prepared to accept full responsibility for whatever calamity befalls the region, our nation, and the world as a result of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, there will be nobody left to blame when the chickens come home to roost.
Are Americans willing to accept whatever consequences occur in the wake of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, in a dangerous world full of terrorists and Islamo-fascists who are intent on either converting the whole world to Islam or killing the infidels who refuse to convert, there are no second chances. If we get this wrong, it may be the very last mistake we make as a free society before the oppressive heavy hand of Muslim extremists make the nation over in the image of Allah.
My friends, every ounce of political shrewdness in my body wants to urge the President to pull out and give the Dems what they want. That way, if calamity befalls the world, there will be no one to blame but them. Yet every ounce of common decency and concern for the future of the world in my body wants to urge the President not only to stay in Iraq but drastically increase the military fire power, including air and sea (i.e., bombs...the big ones).
I suppose it all boils down to this: is this war worth losing the Presidency and more seats in Congress? If not, then it is time to bring 'em home and let the chips fall where they may. But if what we are doing is worth that kind of loss, then it is time to fight this war like the super-power we are. We need to stop playing footsies with the enemy like a bunch of wussies. Fighting to win is not a place for the politically correct.
Regardless of what you or I might think of the grave danger the situation in Iraq poses for the world and for the United States, for a few moments let's consider some harsh political realities.
Americans are increasingly getting very tired of the war, so much so that all of the latest indicators point to a massive Republican blood-fest in 2008. Internal polling numbers suggest that if we stay on the present course, not only will Democrats pick up even more seats in Congress than they did in 2006, but they will gain the White House as well.
The single issue that is driving voters away from the GOP is the war.
Thus, as political strategists our job is to devise a method for our clients, in this case the Republicans, to regain control of Congress and to keep the White House.
How can we best go about this?
Remember, the end game is to win. We must, at least for a season, put our best sensitivities as Americans on the back burner.
Winning in 2008 involves a straightforward two-pronged strategy. First, we cater to the electorate. We tell them that we did, indeed, succeed in Iraq by deposing an evil dictator and providing the means for a totalitarian state to hold its first democratic elections...with a democratically-crafted Constitution to boot. We then admit that we blew it after that. We miscalculated the strength of the insurgency, and we simply did not have the troop strength on the ground to do the rest of the job.
We tell them, 'We heard your voices. You are weary of our continued presence in Iraq, and you want the boys to come home now.'
And then we bring them home. Just like that.
Second, we send a message to Democrats. We are giving you what you said you wanted. The American people obviously agreed with you that our mission in Iraq is finished. So, whatever consequences arise as a result of our withdrawal will be entirely on your shoulders.
If the entirety of the fledgling Iraqi government falls apart, so be it.
If Iran seizes the government in Iraq, so be it.
If there is mass genocide, murder, and carnage, so be it.
If terrorists find a new safe haven, not only in Iran but also in Iraq, so be it.
If terrorists are emboldened around the world, so be it.
If they go on the offensive again, against our embassies, our aircraft carriers, etc, so be it.
If they send a nuclear bomb to Israel, so be it.
If they decide to attack America on our own soil....
A wise man from the past said, 'In a democracy, the people usually get the government they deserve.'
The question is, are the Democrats prepared to accept full responsibility for whatever calamity befalls the region, our nation, and the world as a result of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, there will be nobody left to blame when the chickens come home to roost.
Are Americans willing to accept whatever consequences occur in the wake of our departure from Iraq?
Remember, in a dangerous world full of terrorists and Islamo-fascists who are intent on either converting the whole world to Islam or killing the infidels who refuse to convert, there are no second chances. If we get this wrong, it may be the very last mistake we make as a free society before the oppressive heavy hand of Muslim extremists make the nation over in the image of Allah.
My friends, every ounce of political shrewdness in my body wants to urge the President to pull out and give the Dems what they want. That way, if calamity befalls the world, there will be no one to blame but them. Yet every ounce of common decency and concern for the future of the world in my body wants to urge the President not only to stay in Iraq but drastically increase the military fire power, including air and sea (i.e., bombs...the big ones).
I suppose it all boils down to this: is this war worth losing the Presidency and more seats in Congress? If not, then it is time to bring 'em home and let the chips fall where they may. But if what we are doing is worth that kind of loss, then it is time to fight this war like the super-power we are. We need to stop playing footsies with the enemy like a bunch of wussies. Fighting to win is not a place for the politically correct.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Buckley Warns Iraq May Bury Republicans
Washington, DC (TLS). The quintessential conservative intellectual, the venerable William F. Buckley, is warning today in a special article in National Review that the War in Iraq has the potential of burying the Republican Party.
All of the signs point to a Republican free-fall of historical proportions over one single issue--the war. The Rasmussen organization, in its latest poll, indicates that the number of people who call themselves Republicans is at its lowest point in 6 years. The only issue that is precipitating the exodus is the War in Iraq.
Public sentiment has turned against the war and against the President. It wasn't so much that they did not see the need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but they simply do not believe the Bush administration has conducted the war in an effective and efficient manner. They wanted us in and out in timely fashion.
Buckley indicates that Bush may well be the demise of the Republican Party, not because people do not like him personally but because of the stubbornness exhibited in the face of a growing catastrophe in Iraq, which seems to have no end in sight.
Admittedly, I have been one of the President's most ardent supporters in the War on Terror. I believed that Saddam Hussein had to go. But, I also trust the wisdom of William F. Buckley, who for 50 years has been a steady voice of reason, reliability, and resilience on the conservative side of politics.
In short, I take Buckley's latest warning very seriously. His voice must be heard and heeded in the highest levels of the Republican Party.
Read Buckley's article here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOTc=
All of the signs point to a Republican free-fall of historical proportions over one single issue--the war. The Rasmussen organization, in its latest poll, indicates that the number of people who call themselves Republicans is at its lowest point in 6 years. The only issue that is precipitating the exodus is the War in Iraq.
Public sentiment has turned against the war and against the President. It wasn't so much that they did not see the need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, but they simply do not believe the Bush administration has conducted the war in an effective and efficient manner. They wanted us in and out in timely fashion.
Buckley indicates that Bush may well be the demise of the Republican Party, not because people do not like him personally but because of the stubbornness exhibited in the face of a growing catastrophe in Iraq, which seems to have no end in sight.
Admittedly, I have been one of the President's most ardent supporters in the War on Terror. I believed that Saddam Hussein had to go. But, I also trust the wisdom of William F. Buckley, who for 50 years has been a steady voice of reason, reliability, and resilience on the conservative side of politics.
In short, I take Buckley's latest warning very seriously. His voice must be heard and heeded in the highest levels of the Republican Party.
Read Buckley's article here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOTc=
Monday, April 09, 2007
Destined for Defeat?
Washington, DC (TLS). The defeatist mentality of many in Congress and some within the general electorate is cause for a creeping malaise of negativism concerning the War in Iraq and the War on Terror. It seems that many are resigned to an American humiliation. Some even hope for such a humiliation.
The offenders are not far to find.
However, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post writes in an excellent article in the Jewish World Review that America's defeat need not be a foregone conclusion. Despite Pelosi's felonious forays into conducting U.S. foreign policy (which is not her job) with terrorist regimes, there is a clear path to victory for the U.S. in the region if we will but put aside our trepidity and get the job done with resolve.
Read Glick's latest article here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/0407/glick040507.php3
The offenders are not far to find.
However, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post writes in an excellent article in the Jewish World Review that America's defeat need not be a foregone conclusion. Despite Pelosi's felonious forays into conducting U.S. foreign policy (which is not her job) with terrorist regimes, there is a clear path to victory for the U.S. in the region if we will but put aside our trepidity and get the job done with resolve.
Read Glick's latest article here:
http://jewishworldreview.com/0407/glick040507.php3
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Pelosi, Chertoff Meet with Terrorist Supporters
Washington, DC (TLS). In this latest expose' by the experts at the Counterterrorism network, American officials are increasingly engaging in the dubious practice of meeting with supporters of terrorists, such as Syria.
Two of the main culprits of late are Nancy Pelosi and Department of Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff.
Pelosi is clearly undercutting our nation's policies toward terrorism. Chertoff is engaging in behavior that clearly places him in the ranks of promoting homeland INsecurity.
Read this explosive expose' of the actions of these two American officials, and others, who are undermining our ability to effectively thwart the worldwide march of terrorism:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/04/why_are_american_officials_mee.php
Two of the main culprits of late are Nancy Pelosi and Department of Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff.
Pelosi is clearly undercutting our nation's policies toward terrorism. Chertoff is engaging in behavior that clearly places him in the ranks of promoting homeland INsecurity.
Read this explosive expose' of the actions of these two American officials, and others, who are undermining our ability to effectively thwart the worldwide march of terrorism:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/04/why_are_american_officials_mee.php
The Terrorists Win Again
Washington, DC (TLS). As the world breaths a sigh of relief that the 15 British hostages are being released by the Iranian government, there is without question a much darker side to this entire scenario. The terrorists have won again. The Iranian government accomplished its purpose by utterly humiliating Great Britain by taking their soldiers hostage, parading them on TV, the female in Muslim head-gear and the men apologizing for supposedly entering Iranian waters, while singing the praises of their captors.
And then Iranian President/terrorist/madman/Holocaust Denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes forth to 'save the day,' claiming he has given Britain an 'Easter gift,' and coming across looking like a benevolent statesmen in the Muslim propaganda machine.
But make no mistake about it, this was a calculated scheme from the very start.
Iran is under great pressure from Europe, the United States, and the United Nations concerning its rogue status and its program of building nuclear weapons. It needed a public relations boost, and unfortunately, it got one handed to them by Great Britain.
The terrorists win by appearing benevolent and open to diplomacy and negotiation, Leftists win by being enabled to claim that talking to Iran rather than waging war against them is the thing that gets positive results, and the world is once again duped into believing that such displays by a dangerous nation that has vowed to annihilate Israel and the West is some indication that they are really not that bad after all.
Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain thought the same thing when he signed a treaty with a very benevolent Adolf Hitler prior to WWII.
While Britain cheered Chamberlain as a hero for keeping them from war, a lone voice, that of Winston Churchill, warned Parliament that they had been duped, that Chamberlain had just been made the fool, and that Hitler would only continue his deadly march through Europe.
In just a few short days following the supposed triumph of Chamberlain, Hitler proceeded to break the treaty. He then invaded Poland, dragging Great Britain into the middle of war with Germany because of its treaty obligations to Poland.
While it is always good news that hostages are released unharmed, the world must not lose its focus or its bearings. Iran is still one of the most dangerous nations on earth. They are clearly not benevolent. Neither is Ahmadinejad. They are murderers. They sponsor terrorism. The fact that they allowed 15 British hostages to go free in order to play to the court of public opinion in no way minimizes or negates the fact that they wish to kill innocent people because they do not embrace Islam.
Ahmadinejad hopes that his little charade will buy him some more time as Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and as it continues to funnel terrorists into Iraq and work for the destruction of Israel.
Informed people know that the entire display is a ruse. And it is our task to keep this fact flowing along the information highway for the less informed. Iran is still a dangerous enemy that must be stopped.
And then Iranian President/terrorist/madman/Holocaust Denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes forth to 'save the day,' claiming he has given Britain an 'Easter gift,' and coming across looking like a benevolent statesmen in the Muslim propaganda machine.
But make no mistake about it, this was a calculated scheme from the very start.
Iran is under great pressure from Europe, the United States, and the United Nations concerning its rogue status and its program of building nuclear weapons. It needed a public relations boost, and unfortunately, it got one handed to them by Great Britain.
The terrorists win by appearing benevolent and open to diplomacy and negotiation, Leftists win by being enabled to claim that talking to Iran rather than waging war against them is the thing that gets positive results, and the world is once again duped into believing that such displays by a dangerous nation that has vowed to annihilate Israel and the West is some indication that they are really not that bad after all.
Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain thought the same thing when he signed a treaty with a very benevolent Adolf Hitler prior to WWII.
While Britain cheered Chamberlain as a hero for keeping them from war, a lone voice, that of Winston Churchill, warned Parliament that they had been duped, that Chamberlain had just been made the fool, and that Hitler would only continue his deadly march through Europe.
In just a few short days following the supposed triumph of Chamberlain, Hitler proceeded to break the treaty. He then invaded Poland, dragging Great Britain into the middle of war with Germany because of its treaty obligations to Poland.
While it is always good news that hostages are released unharmed, the world must not lose its focus or its bearings. Iran is still one of the most dangerous nations on earth. They are clearly not benevolent. Neither is Ahmadinejad. They are murderers. They sponsor terrorism. The fact that they allowed 15 British hostages to go free in order to play to the court of public opinion in no way minimizes or negates the fact that they wish to kill innocent people because they do not embrace Islam.
Ahmadinejad hopes that his little charade will buy him some more time as Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons and as it continues to funnel terrorists into Iraq and work for the destruction of Israel.
Informed people know that the entire display is a ruse. And it is our task to keep this fact flowing along the information highway for the less informed. Iran is still a dangerous enemy that must be stopped.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The Fallacy of Failing to Kill the Enemy
Washington, DC (TLS). Although the work we are doing in Iraq is absolutely necessary in fighting the War on Terror, there is no doubt that the Bush Administration made some tactical errors.
Rule Number One in waging war is that we are fighting our enemy because they have sworn to kill us. Therefore, we must kill them first.
This is a basic tenet in any scenario involving self-defense on any level, both personally and corporately as a society.
The Bush Administration made the mistake in thinking it could bring democracy to a region that is overrun by dangerous extremists who don't believe in it. The Koran specifically forbids it and states that the rule of Allah must be implemented within all societies, thus making them theocratic rather than democratic.
Thus, the nations of the Middle East who have embraced the notion of 'free elections' have proceeded to elect themselves right back into tyranny under the rule of extremist factions of Islam. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as 'elective despotism,' which he viewed as a constant danger to liberty. The objective, therefore, is not simply free elections or 'democracy' with no set guidelines to prevent majority rule from running roughshod over basic individual rights.
This is why the United States has a Constitution with a Bill of Rights to prevent the mob rule of a pure democracy from electing to take away individual rights.
Instead of working for free elections in a highly volatile area of the world that is populated with millions of persons who wish to annihilate the West, we should have first killed them.
Yes, that sounds harsh, but it is a basic, irreversible rule of war and self-defense.
To keep your enemy from killing you, which he has sworn to do, you MUST kill him first. Kill or be killed.
The War on Terror should have commenced with a massive, swift, and violent campaign to stop the terrorists in the Middle East by reigning the power from America's mighty arsenal upon them relentlessly. Then, once they were dazed and weakened, and lying in massive piles of rubble, we start the rebuilding process, just as we did in Japan after WWII.
Read more about this concept of conducting the war here, from Front Page Magazine:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27639
Rule Number One in waging war is that we are fighting our enemy because they have sworn to kill us. Therefore, we must kill them first.
This is a basic tenet in any scenario involving self-defense on any level, both personally and corporately as a society.
The Bush Administration made the mistake in thinking it could bring democracy to a region that is overrun by dangerous extremists who don't believe in it. The Koran specifically forbids it and states that the rule of Allah must be implemented within all societies, thus making them theocratic rather than democratic.
Thus, the nations of the Middle East who have embraced the notion of 'free elections' have proceeded to elect themselves right back into tyranny under the rule of extremist factions of Islam. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as 'elective despotism,' which he viewed as a constant danger to liberty. The objective, therefore, is not simply free elections or 'democracy' with no set guidelines to prevent majority rule from running roughshod over basic individual rights.
This is why the United States has a Constitution with a Bill of Rights to prevent the mob rule of a pure democracy from electing to take away individual rights.
Instead of working for free elections in a highly volatile area of the world that is populated with millions of persons who wish to annihilate the West, we should have first killed them.
Yes, that sounds harsh, but it is a basic, irreversible rule of war and self-defense.
To keep your enemy from killing you, which he has sworn to do, you MUST kill him first. Kill or be killed.
The War on Terror should have commenced with a massive, swift, and violent campaign to stop the terrorists in the Middle East by reigning the power from America's mighty arsenal upon them relentlessly. Then, once they were dazed and weakened, and lying in massive piles of rubble, we start the rebuilding process, just as we did in Japan after WWII.
Read more about this concept of conducting the war here, from Front Page Magazine:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27639
Monday, February 26, 2007
America's Ever-Lasting Threat
Washington, DC (TLS). In a striking assessment of the danger the U.S. faces in the War on Terror, Kyle Dabruzzi of 'Threats Watch' states that the West is doing less than a satisfactory job of understanding the nature of the enemy we face. While a precious few in government and in the public at large truly understand the gravity of the situation at hand, most politicians and citizens are dangerously and woefully ignorant of the life-and-death prospects of the conflict in which we are engaged.
The first two paragraphs of Dabruzzi's article are found below. Be sure to read the rest by clicking on the link. This is vital information.
America's Ever-Lasting Threat
If America Halts Its War Against Terrorism, Our Enemies Won't Return the Favor
By Kyle Dabruzzi
'In the battle against al-Qaeda and like-minded jihadists, the West is doing a less than satisfactory job of understanding its enemy. There is a line in Sun Tzu’s famous work The Art of War that states: “If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” Although The Art of War was written in the 6th century BC, its message applies to the battle facing us all today. If the West truly knew its enemy, it might reconsider some of proposed actions relating to the war in Iraq.
'Congress, for example, has begun to make its intentions for the Iraq war, and by association the war on terror, abundantly clear. The war in Iraq is seen as futile and the Senate has introduced legislation indicating that it is not in the best interest of the United States to deepen its military presence in Iraq. Proposed legislation includes Senator Obama’s call for the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin no later than May 1, 2007; with a similar bill introduced in the House. Senator Clinton has gone a step further, calling for troops to start withdrawing from Iraq in 90 days. And we now expect a bill to prevent US forces from engaging in activities other than fighting al-Qaeda, training Iraqi forces and securing the borders of Iraq.'
To get the rest of this MUST-read, click here:
http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2007/02/americas-everlasting-threat/
The first two paragraphs of Dabruzzi's article are found below. Be sure to read the rest by clicking on the link. This is vital information.
America's Ever-Lasting Threat
If America Halts Its War Against Terrorism, Our Enemies Won't Return the Favor
By Kyle Dabruzzi
'In the battle against al-Qaeda and like-minded jihadists, the West is doing a less than satisfactory job of understanding its enemy. There is a line in Sun Tzu’s famous work The Art of War that states: “If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.” Although The Art of War was written in the 6th century BC, its message applies to the battle facing us all today. If the West truly knew its enemy, it might reconsider some of proposed actions relating to the war in Iraq.
'Congress, for example, has begun to make its intentions for the Iraq war, and by association the war on terror, abundantly clear. The war in Iraq is seen as futile and the Senate has introduced legislation indicating that it is not in the best interest of the United States to deepen its military presence in Iraq. Proposed legislation includes Senator Obama’s call for the phased redeployment of our forces from Iraq to begin no later than May 1, 2007; with a similar bill introduced in the House. Senator Clinton has gone a step further, calling for troops to start withdrawing from Iraq in 90 days. And we now expect a bill to prevent US forces from engaging in activities other than fighting al-Qaeda, training Iraqi forces and securing the borders of Iraq.'
To get the rest of this MUST-read, click here:
http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2007/02/americas-everlasting-threat/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)