Selective Memories

Aparently the world must have begun in 2001, for the way the NYT and others are so breathlessly condemning Bush. Apparently they forget:

[T]he NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.

In February 2000, for instance, CBS "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on the Clinton-era spy program by noting:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

This is the real kicker:

One Echelon operator working in Britain told "60 Minutes" that the NSA had even monitored and tape recorded the conversations of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Bush had been monitoring Harry Reid? The media would be rioting for his head, and the Democrats would be tearing down the White House.

108 Democrats vote for Defeat

This is one of the more remarkable things I've seen.

Patriot Act Filibuster

Washington Times has an excellent editorial today:

"God forbid that there be a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the Patriot Act after it has expired," Sen. Jon Kyl said yesterday after the Senate failed to overcome a filibuster of legislation that would have reauthorized the Patriot Act. "If that happens, those who have supported the filibuster will have to answer for it, and the American people will have a very hard time understanding what their objections were."

Got that, Sens. Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Lisa Murkowski and John Sununu? As the four Republicans who voted to continue the filibuster, they now bear the unenviable task of defending their vote. Conveniently, none of them is up for re-election in 2006. Democrats predictably voted en masse in favor of the filibuster, with the exception of Sens. Tim Johnson and Ben Nelson, who we applaud for bucking their party's unfounded Patriot Act paranoia. So, unless Majority Leader Bill Frist -- who had to vote for the filibuster as a matter of Senate procedure -- can pull a Christmas miracle, valuable provisions in the Patriot Act will expire Dec. 31.

Along with the Feckless Four, we also have to throw in the New York Times, which ran a front-page article yesterday -- conveniently in time for the filibuster vote -- blaring the headline, "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Court Orders." Sen. Charles Schumer explained that the article "greatly" influenced his vote in favor of the filibuster. "[T]oday's revelation that the government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking," he said.

What that headline doesn't say -- and what Mr. Schumer obviously didn't read or care to mention -- is that the National Security Agency's program, started after September 11, monitors international communications only. And why? Paragraph 17 explains: "The program accelerated in early 2002 after the CIA started capturing top al Qaeda operatives overseas ... The CIA seized the terrorists' computers, cellphones and personal phone directories ... The NSA surveillance was intended to exploit those numbers and addresses as quickly as possible."

The program helped uncover al Qaeda operative Iyman Faris, an Osama bin Laden associate who in 2002 was ordered to research the possibility of destroying New York City bridges. He was caught and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Remember that when Messrs. Craig, Hagel, Sununu and Mrs. Murkowski righteously claim they're only protecting Americans.

How ironic is that? The Republican from Nebraska votes for the filibuster, and the Democrat against it. I only wish the Republican were in my district so I could vote against him.

Readings

Here are some good recent (and not so recent) stories:

Iraqi Beacon: Message to the Arab world: Democracy Works

Dems Determined to Ignore Progress in Iraq

The Panic Over Iraq

Stop to Think

Just in case there was any doubt...

UPDATE:
A couple more:

McCain-Bush Anti-Torture Deal Allows Use of C-SPAN

Hate Torture? Consider Boot Camp

UPDATE 12/17:

Patriot Act Folly

A Note on Comments

A while ago I turned off comments, for a couple of reasons. Mainly, I had intended for this blog to be almost private--I have never advertised it anywhere, and I was not interested in comments or discussion. Which is not to say that I really am now--if I want to get into a discussion, I'll go to a disscusion forum--but I am turning comments back on anyway, since apparently there are more than a few people who come here (to read what I don't know). I doubt I will even read them, much less respond (again, I discuss in forums) but feel free to post a comment.

Winning the People

They sure are winning hearts and minds:

Jordanians revile Zarqawi
By Paul Garwood
Thousands of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities, shouting "Burn in hell, Abu Musab Zarqawi" a day after three deadly hotel bombings that killed at least 59 persons.

Wait a minute here....I thought George Bush causes terrorism. We, the great Satan, are the cause of terrorism. Why is this Zarqawi attacking fellow Arabs, Jordanian arabs nonetheless, at hotels? "Well, they were 'frequented by westerners.'" Uh huh. The answer is that they really want is an islamist state. (They've said as much about Iraq) It's really quite irrelevant whether you're the USA or France. You are the Infidel. Death to the Infidel! (Note the rioting in France. And no, its not due to a headscarf law. Grow up.) Oh, and last time I checked, the Twin Towers were hit before the war in Iraq.

The Power of Freedom

Just some thoughts from some Iraqis and others

From BBC:
Saad:

Iraqis are feeling better. They are breathing the air of freedom. They
read, watch and say what they want.

They travel, work and receive a living wage. They use mobile phones, satellite dishes and the internet, which they did not even know before.

The negative side, which is transient, is that some here are trying to force others to accept their way and even using force to achieve that.

As for terrorism, we are now beginning to unite against it and to defeat it.

I say to you: Wait two or three years and you will be pleasantly surprised.

Noura:

While we lost security after Saddam's fall, we gained our freedom and a chance to build a new society.

Kaban:

The only thing that worries us is the security situation. However, those who say that security was better in the past are completely wrong.

It is true we did not have suicide car bombings in Saddam's era, but our homes did not feel safe from the intrusion of Saddam's security men, who came in the middle of the night to kidnap, kill or rape.

Our insecurity then was also not highlighted on the Arab satellite television channels as it is now. Things are now complicated but we, as Iraqis, understand that in the end everything will be OK for future generations.

Walid Jumblatt, big-time Lebanese Druze leader:

I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen.

Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed:

Bravo Iraq! For history, Jan. 30, 2005, is one magnificent day for Iraq and the Arab nation. Regardless of who won and who lost, the day should be a permanent fixture on the Arab calendar forever. I don’t want to talk politics; I simply want to celebrate history.

In spite of everything, the Iraqis voted. They did so with a passion and a seriousness that gives the lie to the cliché that Arabs are not ready for democracy. One myth down, a thousand to go.

About Those Lies

Its funny the tendancy to take an obscure statement and run with it. Anyhow...

Jack Kelly: About that Iraq 'deception'

Mr. Reid claimed his action was prompted by the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, for allegedly lying to a federal grand jury about from whom he learned that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, worked for the CIA.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq," Sen. Reid said.

But Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had made it clear that that was not what the Libby indictment was about. "This indictment is not about the war," he said. "This indictment will not seek to prove the war was justified or unjustified."

The Iraq Survey Group found no large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. This could be because no such weapons actually existed.

Or it could be because they were moved to another country between the time Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq and when the war actually began.

"We've had six or seven credible reports of Iraqi weapons being moved into Syria before the war," a senior administration official told reporter Kenneth Timmerman.

Or it could be the Iraq Survey Group had an unusually restrictive definition of what constitutes a WMD stockpile.

The 4th Infantry Division discovered in an ammo dump near the town of Baiji 55 gallon drums of chemicals which, when mixed together, form nerve gas. They were stored next to surface-to-surface missiles which had been configured to carry a liquid payload.

If prewar intelligence was faulty, the fault lies with the CIA which supplied the erroneous information, not with the political leaders, Democratic and Republican, who relied upon it.

But Democrats who had access to the same intelligence President Bush had, and who because of it voted to authorize war with Iraq, are charging now that the president deliberately deceived the nation into war.
[...]

The press' amnesia has convinced Democrats they can regain power by lying about prewar intelligence. But facts are stubborn things. "The committee did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments," said the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments," said the Robb-Silberman report on WMD intelligence, issued in March. Thanks to really lousy reporting, most Americans are unaware of how much evidence there is of Saddam's WMD programs and his ties to international terror groups. This is a debate Republicans should welcome.

Bush Lied!!!!!

Well, this one sure has been resurfacing lately. Not that it ever really went away, it is just increasing in furvor due to the recent indictments which don't actually say anything about pre-war. But oh well, they don't report the news, they make it.

It is rather difficult, for me anyway, to pinpoint what exactly they mean by "Bush Lied". Here are the points that I can seem to make out, even if they really are incoherent because they're also false:

Bush's "lies":

1. Iraq was an imminent threat
2. Iraq had WMDs
3. Iraq had ties to al-Qaeda

I would say those make up the meat of the argument, although no doubt when people say "Bush lied" I'm sure they're not altogether sure of specifics and are simply spouting it, probably believing that Bush has lied every time his mouth opens. Now to address the points:

First, some general background reading:
Why We Are In Iraq
The Right War for the Right Reasons

1. Iraq was an imminent threat.

This one is the most perplexing. I point to an article by Stephen F. Hayes, from 2004, called "The Imminence Myth". As he points out, Bush did not claim that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat, quite the opposite, in fact:

In fact, the case for war was built largely on the opposite assumption: that waiting until Iraq presented an imminent threat was too risky. The president himself made this argument in his 2003 State of the Union address:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans--this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

It didn't take long for the media to get it wrong. One day after Bush said we must not wait until the threat is imminent, the Los Angeles Times reported on its front page that Bush had promised "new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world." Also, "Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent." Exactly
backwards.

But don't trust just Hayes, look it up yourself. Here's the state of the Union address, just before the war.

Ok folks, here's the crux of the reason for the war. To prevent Saddam from becoming an imminent threat.

Consider also, as I have written before, this, by George Friedman:

If one country is afraid that another country has WMD and might use them, you don’t start threatening them with war months before you are ready and wage a very public countdown to a proposed attack date. If you really believe a country has WMD, you say nothing and make no threats until you are ready to strike. (268-269, America's Secret War)

That one really should not even be an issue, but for some reason it is.

Moving on to number two....

2. Iraq had WMDs.

First, some general reading:

No WMDs? Really?
Is this one of Saddam's labs?
Saddam and the Bomb
Not Missing: Moved
Democrats Say the Darndest Things!
Iraqi Terrorists Almost Snatched Chemical Warheads
Iraq's WMDs
About Those Iraqi Weapons . . .

Now, the funny thing about this one is that it is in many ways wed to the first. The only way Bush can be wrong, much less having lied, on this one, is if he claimed that Iraq had stockpiles of nuclear bombs, with their "death to america" logos flashing and pointing at the White House. Bizarre as it may seem, this seems to be what people think when they say "Bush lied about WMDs" The truth is not so simple.

For one, Bush did not contend that Saddam was loaded to the teeth with WMDs, rather the emphasis was on the prevention of his aquiring WMDs and also on the programs he had for the production of WMDs. This is, of course, still quite valid today, perhaps even more so. Consider David Kay:

"I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

Well...how is that possible anyway? Oh, I see.

After all, how could anyone doubt he was trying to aquire them? He had used them on his own people! And with sanctions about to fall apart.....its not something pleasant to think about.

At any rate, as for those non-existant WMDs, just look at the links I provided above. What we have found is quite revealing in the extreme. Including Russian corruption and likely help in hiding and moving them across the Syrian border, which seems more and more likely day by day. Trucks crossing the border right up to the war, Israeli intelligence reporting that they were WMDs, it goes on and on.

Also, strangely enough, the fact is that WMDs components and weapons have been found. Why does no one know this? Because the press does not report it.

Even the Duelfer Report, which was supposed to have debunked Iraq's WMD threat once and for all, did nothing of the sort:

The only reasonable conclusion anyone can draw from the Duelfer report -- even if we ignore the other mountains of evidence about Saddam's WMD -- is that Saddam had WMD and in the six months we spent trying to convince Kofi, Dominique, and their pals to act, Saddam's regime moved the WMD, cleaned out the evidence, and did their best to conceal what they had done. That they did so with the active participation of Assad's Syria is also terribly clear.

I could probably go on and on about his one, but for now, this should be enough to convince any sane person that Bush did not, in fact, "lie".

3. Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda

This one is probably the funniest of all, because it is something Bush has pointed out. But it is also true. Wow, can't be much lying here. Can there? Well, sadly, yes. In the press and on the left, it is still fashionable to assert that Saddam and al-Qaeda were completely seperate, in fact they could not work together because of religious differences.

The entire thing is patently absurd. Consider:

The Connection Continued
Saddam's Iraq Was Motel 6 for Terrorism
Inconvenient Facts
The Worst of Intentions: What Saddam's Iraq was up to
The Mother of All Connections
Jordan King: Iraq Refused to Deport Zarqawi
The Osama-Saddam connection: in Yemen
Another Link in the Chain
Saddam Sponsord Birth of al Qaeda in Iraq
Saddam and al Qaeda
The Al-Douri Factor
The Four Day War
An Evolving Assessment
Saddam and bin Laden
The Rise of ansar al islam
The Pope of Terrorism Pt. 1
The Pope of Terroism Pt.2
The Algerian connection

Bush did not claim that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. In fact, no one did. But somehow that is the favorite talking point. What Bush did say, however, has simply been strengthened. That Saddam collaborated with terrorists. What else is there to say? There was a connection. Saddam was supporting terrorism. End of story. The only way to believe otherwise is to lie yourself.


At the end of the day, none of this should really even matter. Why the angst and gnashing of teeth over the removal of a brutal dictator, who gased his own people and put them through paper shreders? Saddam was a threat not only to the US, but to the entire free world. He had shown no hesitancy in using weapons in the past, why should he just stop because we want him to? Why then would he not account for his weapons, and throw out inspectors? Those who really think Saddam was just peacefully siting in Bagdad, looking after his people when the US threw him out of power, are deluding themselves.

A Question

The Libby indictment has nothing to do with Iraq, but it seems as if reporters, democrats and anti-war kooks want it to be. They see as this entire investigation as an investigation into the rationale and reason for the war. An inqury into the 'lies that took us to war'. Nevermind that Fitzgerald said that it had nothing to do with the war. To those people, I have one question: So, should Saddam still be in power? Is that what you would prefer? Because if not, I see no reason to be so rabidly against the Iraq war. It comes to the point where many come off as Saddam supporters, even if they say they are not--and that impression is only boosted by some of the trial coverage.

It really makes one wonder. Bush didn't lie, for starters, and how could anyone really want Saddam back? How is it possible to be so angry at the removal of a brutal dictator?

UPDATE: David Horowitz is brilliant as usual:

Reid’s analysis has the other shoe on the wrong foot, too. It’s Democrats who have attempted to destroy to the character, reputation, and credibility of George W. Bush for more than two years and to criminalize their political differences with him over the war. Recall that the removal of Saddam Hussein was demanded by two presidents, one of them – Bill Clinton – a Democrat, and was authorized by a majority of Democrats in multiple Congresses. The last three Democratic presidential candidates have considered Saddam’s WMDs a major national security threat. Recall that the authorization for the use of force to remove Saddam was passed by Democratic majorities in both houses and that John Kerry – a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee with access to all the intelligence information that the Bush administration had – spoke eloquently on behalf of the authorization to remove Saddam by force. Recall that full membership of the Security Council voted on November 8, 2002, to give Saddam a 30 day ultimatum to report on what he had done with the tons – that’s thousands of pounds, Harry – of nerve gas and other WMDs that UN inspectors had already established he had manufactured; and that Saddam failed to do so. That’s why we went to war. Recall that even Russian and Jordanian intelligence said Saddam had WMDs, as did the intelligence agencies of a dozen other nations (and the Russians should know).

After his national temper tantrum, Harry Reid faced a crowd of reporters, where he thundered, “If the administration had all the information that they have now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote.” What would Sen. Reid have us do – reinstate Saddam as president of Iraq? Reopen the rape rooms and fire up the plastic shredders? The United States has toppled a monster, given a captive people their freedom, and sunk the dagger of democracy deep into the heart of the Muslim world. Millions of Iraqis – including members of the Sunni Triangle – voted for a pluralistic, democratic future, a major setback for the terrorists. Libya came to an unexpected arms agreement, thanks to the threat of force in Iraq. Lebanon demanded its right to self-determination. Syria initiated a pullout after 30 years of occupation, and Egypt began democratization of its own. In the face of these developments, the best foreign policy the Democratic Party’s Senate leadership can offer is: Ba’athists forever.

We know nothing about the cargo trucked by an ominous-looking Russian-led caravan across the Syrian border before the beginning of the war. Reams of intelligence ties Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda before the war, not least including the fact that its terrorist affiliate Ansar al-Islam conducted training in northern Iraq during his reign of terror. And the White House has consistently stated there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11.

What we know is that the Left’s military alternative would have ended in disaster. There is no way we could have maintained 200,000 troops on the Iraqi border in perpetuity, as Ted Kennedy proposed. The American people’s complacency after one of the most rapidly successful military campaigns in modern history is troubling enough. If terrorists pouring in from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia had begun sniping at U.S. soldiers stationed on the border – as we know now they would have – it would have made Nick DeGenova’s dream of a million Mogadishus come true. Popular support would have imploded, as it did in Beirut and Somalia, and the Left would have forced us to retreat yet again, emboldening the terrorists, and leaving Saddam Hussein further in their debt. How would he have rewarded their service when he finally acquired WMDs, as the Duefler Report confirms was his long-range plan?

And this was also posted in his blog:

As I have often said (and resaid) the inexcusable element in the Democrats' attacks on their President in the midst of a war is that they are betraying a war they authorized in the first place. In the wake of Harry Reid's unhinged accusations the Republican National Committee has posted a collection of statements by Democratic Party leaders reminding us why we went to war.

DEM OFFICIALS HAVE WARNED ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ FOR YEARS

Former President Bill Clinton:

President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)

President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

Former Vice President Al Gore:

Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Gore: "[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):

Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

Sen. Edwards: "Serving On The Intelligence Committee And Seeing Day After Day, Week After Week, Briefings On Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Plans On Using Those Weapons, He Cannot Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons, It's Just That Simple. The Whole World Changes If Saddam Ever Has Nuclear Weapons." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)

Sen. Edwards: "The Question Is Whether We're Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who's Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We're Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It'll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/6/03)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

Reid: "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):

Bayh: "In My Opinion - And I Do, As You Know, I'm Fairly Hawkish On Iraq. I'm Inclined To Support Going In There And Dealing With Saddam. But I Think That Case Needs To Be Made On A Separate Basis - His Possession Of Biological And Chemical Weapons, His Desire To Get Nuclear Weapons, His Proven Track Record Of Attacking His Neighbors And Others." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/4/02)

Bayh: "The Question Is, Do You Want Saddam Hussein Having Chemical Weapons, Having Biological Weapons, Possibly One Day Having A Nuclear Weapon? Do You Want To Have To Deal With That? And If The Answer Is No, Then What Do You Do About It And When Do You Do Something About It?" (CNN's "Live Event/Special," 12/1/01)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

Biden: "First Of All, We Don't Know Exactly What He Has. ... We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):

Richardson: "The Threat Of Nuclear Proliferation Is One Of The Big Challenges That We Have Now, Especially By States That Have Nuclear Weapons, Outlaw States Like Iraq." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 5/29/98)

Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):

Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):

Durbin: "One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):

Feingold: "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):

Nelson: "And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)

Nelson: "Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He's Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):

Sen. Byrd: "The Last U.N. Weapons Inspectors Left Iraq In October Of 1998. We Are Confident That Saddam Hussein Retains Some Stockpiles Of Chemical And Biological Weapons, And That He Has Since Embarked On A Crash Course To Build Up His Chemical And Biological Warfare Capabilities. Intelligence Reports Indicate That He Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons ..." ("Threats And Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA):

Harman: "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)

Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO):

"Gephardt Said He's Seen 'A Large Body Of Intelligence Information Over A Long Time That He Is Working On And Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Before 1991, He Was Close To Having A Nuclear Device. Now, You'll Get A Debate About Whether It's One Year Away Or Five Or Six." (Morton M. Kondracke, "Gephardt Pushes Consensus Action Against Iraq Threat," Roll Call, 9/23/02)

Former Secretary Of State Madeline Albright:

Madeline Albright: "Iraq Is A Long Way From [Here], But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk That The Leaders Of A Rogue State Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." ("Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of Defense William Cohen And National Security Adviser Sandy Berger Participate In Town Hall Meeting," Federal News Service, 2/18/98)

The Failing American Economy?

This was too flabergasting to pass up. In browsing some discussion forums, I came across this inexplicable statement:

The American dream has always been just that, a dream. Compared to other industrialized nations only very few Americans who are born poor end up rich. About the American economy: I predict it wil be over in about 15 years.It's simply not sustainable and wil collapse when people stop lending money to AmericaAbout 400 billion a year is needed from forreign investors, and they are rapidly becomming more reluctant.But what is most worrying is that American don't seem to worry at all, so they aren't interested in changing their way of lives.This I heared somewhere and found it a very good metaphore for the US economy:"We are racing towards a brick wall, but we are doing so in a luxery car"

Where does one start? Virtually every line in the paragraph is factually wrong. Talk about delusional.

For one, the poorest Americans are better off than Europeans. Not the poorest Europeans, Europeans in general:

The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

Plus, the supposed lack of income mobility in the US is simply false. Statistically those who start off in the lowest braket do not end their lives their. And overall being "poor" is hardly what would be considered poor in the past. Poor people today are rich by yesterday's standard.

Income mobility in the US is probably the greatest of any nation in history and yet the denial continues.

About that 400 billion in investors: Why, exactly, does he feel that the investors are going to stop? What that really indicates is how good our economy really is. People are investing more and more in our economy, and they are not becoming "reluctant". It is an indication of how far behind everyone else really is.

But, I guess none of this matters. The stagnant, death-sentance welfare state of Europe is king. Or better yet, Socialism!

Right. I'll take my American Dream, thank you very much, and you can have your welfare state.

Raise the Driving Age?

The American Thinker usually has some great articles, but somehow a particularly dreadful one got through to the website.

Nearly all of the arguments have inherent flaws. Perhaps he should have read Jeff Jacoby's recent article on the myth of saving gas. Besides the absurd "national security" it would (not) bring with reductions in oil usage, the author makes some rather amazing and rather obnoxious claims: "Fewer hours fritered away on the road means more hours studying." Right. This is a remarkable fantasy land claim. Kind of like socialism. Too bad it doesn't work. Cars plus teenagers does not mean worse grades. How can he even write that with a straight face?

Also, cars make girls pregnant! Of course, the more teenage boys with cars the more pregnant girls! So, let's just raise the driving age. Maybe this is true, but to raise the driving age because of this is just plain stupid. Let's get to the heart of the problem here: cars don't make girls pregnant.... I think we're looking in the wrong direction here.

Then of course there's drug and alcohol abuse. Raise the age? That doesn't solve much, because far more older persons than teenagers are going to drive drunk. So I guess that means....ban cars!

And finally, the one with the most concrete support, but probably the one that is the most flawed nonetheless. Teenagers represent a higher percent of accidents and damage than their percentage of drivers should suggest. Therefore, raise the age, right? Wrong. That will just make the next age group have the highest rates. Think about it. What is it that teenagers have in common? They're new drivers. There's a novel idea. Teens are more accident prone because they have no driving experience. That is the real probem: teens are new drivers. They have only a few miles under their belts. Experience is everything, age, I am willing to bet, really has little to do with it.

Raise the driving age? There really is no logical reason to do so.

The New Sociallism

There is in my area a new proposal on the table: One city one school.

The idea is that it is logical to have one school district in charge of one city. Currently, there are numerous, from former small towns and some that are just independent. One of the disctricts wants to anex all of the others. They want to take over, calling it "logical".

For starters, this is not logical, except in a socialist welfare state mentality. If you are a parent, and you want the highest quality school you can get, you don't want one school disctrict. what you want is choice. If one school disctrict is corrupt and not up to your standards, you can go somewhere else. This currently happens. And what will it force? It will force the others to reform. What is going to make the one school district reform or continue in excellence with no competition? Well, essentially nothing. It goes back to the old socialist problem. There are no penalties for inefficiency or poor production. And that is why it is such a poor proposal, to the point of being anti-capitalist.

Hands off UN

Nice article on the UN's attempt at taking over the internet:

The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats?) Keep your U.N. off my Internet. BY ADAM THIERER AND WAYNE CREWS Sunday, October 9, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Kofi Annan, Coming to a Computer Near You! The Internet's long run as a global cyberzone of freedom--where governments take a "hands off" approach--is in jeopardy. Preparing for next month's U.N.-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) in Tunisia, the European Union and others are moving aggressively to set the stage for an as-yet unspecified U.N. body to assert control over Internet operations and policies now largely under the purview of the U.S. In recent meetings, for an example, an EU spokesman asserted that no single country should have final authority over this "global resource."

To his credit, the U.S. State Department's David Gross bristled back: "We will not agree to the U.N. taking over management of the Internet." That stands to reason. The Internet was developed in the U.S. (as are upgrades like Internet 2) and is not a collective "global resource." It is an evolving technology, largely privately owned and operated, and it should stay that way.

Nevertheless the "U.N. for the Internet" crowd say they want to "resolve" who should have authority over Internet traffic and domain-name management; how to close the global "digital divide"; and how to "harness the potential of information" for the world's impoverished. Also on the table: how much protection free speech and expression should receive online.

While WSIS conferees have agreed to retain language enshrining free speech (despite the disapproval of countries that clearly oppose it) this is not a battle we've comfortably won. Some of the countries clamoring for regulation under the auspices of the U.N.--such as China and Iran--are among the most egregious violators of human rights.

Meanwhile, regulators across the globe have long lobbied for greater control over Internet commerce and content. A French court has attempted to force Yahoo! to block the sale of offensive Nazi materials to French citizens. An Australian court has ruled that the online edition of Barron's (published by Dow Jones, parent company of The Wall Street Journal and this Web site), could be subjected to Aussie libel laws--which, following the British example, is much more intolerant of free speech than our own law. Chinese officials--with examples too numerous for this space--continue to seek to censor Internet search engines.

The implications for online commerce are profound. The moment one puts up a Web site, one has "gone global"--perhaps even automatically subjected oneself to the laws of every country on the planet.

A global Internet regulatory state could mean that We Are the World--on speech and libel laws, sales taxes, privacy policies, antitrust statutes and intellectual property. How then would a Web site operator or even a blogger know how to act or do business? Compliance with some 190 legal codes would be confusing, costly and technically possible for all but the most well-heeled firms. The safest option would be to conform online speech or commercial activities to the most restrictive laws to ensure global compliance. If you like the idea of Robert Mugabe setting legal standards for everyone, then WSIS is for you.

The very confusion of laws makes some favor a "U.N. for the Internet" model. Others propose international treaties, or adjudication by the World Trade Organization, to stop retaliation and trade wars from erupting over privacy, gambling and pornography. Still others assert that the best answer is to do nothing, because the current unregulated Web environment has helped expand free speech and commerce globally for citizens, consumers and companies.

We favor the nonregulatory approach. But where laissez-faire is not an option, the second-best solution is that the legal standards governing Web content should be those of the "country of origin." Ideally, governments should assert authority only over citizens physically within its geographic borders. This would protect sovereignty and the principle of "consent of the governed" online. It would also give companies and consumers a "release valve" or escape mechanism to avoid jurisdictions that stifle online commerce or expression.

The Internet helps overcome artificial restrictions on trade and communications formerly imposed by oppressive or meddlesome governments. Allowing these governments to reassert control through a U.N. backdoor would be a disaster.

Mr. Thierer, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and Mr. Crews, vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are the editors of "Who Rules the Net?" (Cato, 2003).

Whining and Moaning

Well, some international commitee is trying to "break America's grip on the net." The question I want to know is why should they? Why should we give it up? We invented the internet. Does anyone think it would exist if not for us? Yes, lets give it up to third world nations and commitees, lets see what they do with it. Apparently they're mad that we have control of the internet. Well, I've got news for those representatives. We invented it, we pioneered it, and there is no reason we should give it up just because they want control of it. They can shove it for all I care.

On Gays, Pt. 1: "Marriage"

The most basic thing to understand about gay marriage is that it is not a civil rights issue. It's not surprising that many black Americans get pissed off with comparing the Gay movement to the Civil rights movement. Gays don't have to sit at the back of the bus, they don't have to use different drinking fountains, they have every right that you and I have. I cannot marry anyone I want either. No one can marry whoever they want. Men cannot take more than one wife; there cannot be any father-daughter marriages; there are restrictions on marriage, and those extend to everyone. There are reasons for certain things, and gay marriage is not something that has ever been the equivalent of heterosexual marriage: "In fact, until the last blink of an eye in human history, there has never been any civilization, any religion, or any culture that has treated homosexual relationships as the full equivalent of heterosexual marriage. Marriage is not simply a religious institution, nor is it merely a civil institution. Instead, marriage is a natural institution, whose definition as the union of a man and a woman is rooted in the order of nature itself." Gay marriage is simply not a right. It is not a civil rights issue. That's all there is to it. Let me say that again. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.

Gay marriage is also detrimental to society. We can all agree that domestic violence is not desirable. Homosexual relationships are often very violent and abusive. The fact is that homosexual relationships are not more tender and loving--they are more violent.

Such couples experience by far the most intimate partner violence, and this brings rise to another issue. That of adoption and effects of gay marriage on children. The gay community, which accounts for approximately 1 to 3 percent of the population (no, its not 10 percent) accounts for up to 1/3 of all sex crimes against children. Homosexual males are dissproportionately responsible for child abuse, and many males are pedophiles, finding themselves attracted to young boys. Despite claims of some, that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality, studies suggest there is significant overlap between the two. Such themes abound in gay literature, and gay men are often attracted to underage boys, pedophiles are often attracted to older men, and other studies even suggest that pedophiles exhibit wide ranges of sexual behavior, including with women. Pedophiles are not solely attracted to young boys. It is something that abounds in homosexual themes, and many homosexuals find themselves attracted to young boys. Homosexuality also brings with it negative health effects. AIDS may not be a singularly gay disease, but it is in fact rooted and primarily a disease considerably more prevalent among gay men. Even in Africa, despite whatever the PC institutions say, the epidemic is due not to heterosexual sex, but rather to homosexuality and contaminated medical supplies and needles.

The problem with Gay marriage is that it is simply a contradiction in terms. There is no such thing as gay marriage. Marriage is not something that the government created, it has always been around. It is very much a natural institution, with the purpose of uniting one man and one woman into one flesh. This is simply not possible with gay marriage. Which is why there are restrictions in marriage. Legalizing gay marriage for the satisfaction of a few activists is both dangerous and repulsive to most people--and why not? Most people know what marriage is supposed to mean, that it is an ancient institution that should not be altered to appease someone else's agenda.

Even if you don't agree that marriage is a natural institution, the fact is that gays do not see marriage in the same way as heterosexuals: "Data from Vermont, Sweden, and the Netherlands reveal that only a small percentage of homosexuals and lesbians identify themselves as being in a committed relationship, with even fewer taking advantage of civil unions or, in the case of the Netherlands, of same-sex "marriage." This indicates that even in the most "gay friendly" localities, the vast majority of homosexuals and lesbians display little inclination for the kind of lifelong, committed relationships that they purport to desire to enter."

They do not want to enter into lifelong relationships, and may have hundreds and even thousands of partners in a lifetime, and regard other partners outside of a relationship to be the norm, regarding monogamy as oppressive.

Homosexuals may or may not be "born that way", but it looks more and more like they are not. The gay gene has not turned up anywhere, despite looking very hard for it. As a matter of fact, one of the most recent studies "undermines gay gene theory" Add this to the fact that, hmm, the human race would become extinct if homosexuality were in fact correct and natural.

Another problem with allowing gay marriage is that it will normalize such behavior and lead to higher incidence of homosexuality and simply confuse children. Consider this example. Normalizing such destructive and unhealthy behavior is neither wise nor commendable.

Some myths abound concerning gay marriage, such as the following:

Gay marriage is centered on love, so they will be more committed and good for children to grow up in

Well, after reading what I wrote before, this one sounds ridiculous. Gay marriage is not about love at all--it is about sex, and gays have no illusions of having a relationship, with only one other person. Also remember, gay marriage is often quite violent, and anything but loving.

Another one compares it to the past racial problems and marriage, concerning inter-racial marriages and bans thereof. This simply does not get to the heart of the issue. Interracial marriages are still the union of a man and a woman. The reasons for the wanting to not allow such marriages was due to racism. They regarded blacks as sub-human. This is a purely racial matter, and does nothing to marriage--it changes it in no way, it is not even comparable to gay marriage activism, as these are attempting to redefine marriage, which is something such civil rights movements never sought to do.

Krazy Krugman

Paul Krugman has got to be one of the biggest liars in all of journalism. It's a full time job writing corrections for his collumns. Hopefully 4th time's the charm on this particular one. I think they're going to need to start devoting a column to corrections.

NEW YORK Just days after it ran an editors' note--under pressure from outside and within--that sort of admitted it had erred in a blast at Fox News' Gerald Rivera during the Katrina tragedy, The New York Times finally ran a full correction on Sunday, on its editorial page, for a miscue by columnist Paul Krugman, while announcing a new policy on noting errors on that page.

Krugman had three times previously admitted getting wrong part of his Aug. 19 column about media recounts of the 2000 Bush-Gore race, but critics kept claiming that he still hadn't gotten it quite right. Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins wrote on Sunday that it had turned into a "correction run amok."

After publishing his third correction on the Web, Krugman asked Collins, she wrote, "if he could refrain from revisiting the subject yet again in print. I agreed, feeling we had reached the point of cruelty to readers. But I was wrong. The correction should have run in the same newspaper where the original error and all its little offspring had appeared."

Collins also announced that the paper would henceforth be running regular corrections and "for the record" explanations under the Times' editorials. Today she published several in the "for the record" category. One notes that Krugman, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich all incorrectly stated that former FEMA director Michael Brown went to college with his predecessor Joe Allbaugh. Another corrects where Mick Jagger made a certain statement about economics.

And here is what one hopes is the final word on that Krugman column, in the Sunday correction:

"In describing the results of the ballot study by the group led by The Miami Herald in his column of Aug. 26, Paul Krugman relied on the Herald report, which listed only three hypothetical statewide recounts, two of which went to Al Gore. There was, however, a fourth recount, which would have gone to George W. Bush. In this case, the two stricter-standard recounts went to Mr. Bush. A later study, by a group that included The New York Times, used two methods to count ballots: relying on the judgment of a majority of those examining each ballot, or requiring unanimity. Mr. Gore lost one hypothetical recount on the unanimity basis."

The "Peace" Movement

Christopher Hitchens has absolutely nailed it on the so-called "peace movement."

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation—these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake—would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

The two preferred metaphors are, depending on the speaker, that the Bin-Ladenists are the fish that swim in the water of Muslim discontent or the mosquitoes that rise from the swamp of Muslim discontent. (Quite often, the same images are used in the same harangue.) The "fish in the water" is an old trope, borrowed from Mao's hoary theory of guerrilla warfare and possessing a certain appeal to comrades who used to pore over the Little Red Book. The mosquitoes are somehow new and hover above the water rather than slip through it. No matter. The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel. Thus, the existence of the Taliban regime cannot be swamplike, presumably because mosquitoes are born and not made. The huge swamp that was Saddam's Iraq has only become a swamp since 2003. The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism. While the attack on the World Trade Center—well, who needs reminding that chickens, or is it mosquitoes, come home to roost?

There are only two serious attempts at swamp-draining currently under way. In Afghanistan and Iraq, agonizingly difficult efforts are in train to build roads, repair hospitals, hand out ballot papers, frame constitutions, encourage newspapers and satellite dishes, and generally evolve some healthy water in which civil-society fish may swim. But in each case, from within the swamp and across the borders, the most poisonous snakes and roaches are being recruited and paid to wreck the process and plunge people back into the ooze. How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."

PC Gone Wild

If there was any lingering doubt in your mind about the state of the world currently in terms of "PC", political correctness, this latest issue leaves no doubt. Political correctness is reaching new extremes, extending its latest reach to new levels, namely, American sports teams.

The NCAA (National College Athletic Association) has banned the use of American Indian mascots by sports teams during the playoffs. Apparently the only reason it did not go further is that it did not have the authority. "The NCAA's executive committee decided . . . the organization did not have the authority to bar Indian mascots by individual schools, committee chairman Walter Harrison."

The reasoning behind this ban? The NCAA is concerned with mascots that are "hostile and abusive." This always seems to be the reason for taking politically correct action. If it could conceivably offend anyone on the planet, obviously it is wrong and needs to be changed.

Probably the most visible player in this game is Florida State University, with its Seminole mascot. Interestingly, groups calling for such changes, deeming such mascots as "racist", ignore the positions of the Indians themselves. The Seminole tribe in Florida passed a unanimous resolution in support of the Florida State mascot. Some, however, feel that such names are "demeaning".

Obviously, some American Indians are going to feel that the names are demeaning. But most don't. In a national poll (the only one to date), 83 percent of Indians are not offended by such mascots, even ones such as the Washington Redskins, which, in my view, is perhaps the only one that should even consider a name change. What it comes down to is that Indians are OK with such mascots in sports.

And if we are going to get rid of some Indian mascots, what about other offensive mascots? Perhaps the Minnesota Vikings is offensive to some Norse descendant. Or perhaps the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame is an offensive mascot to some Irish. So where does it end? What about the other groups who might be offended? Clearly something needs to be done to chastise the abusive behavior of these schools.

It is rather disturbing that political correctness has seeped into society to such levels as the NCAA, a sports organization. The NCAA needs to get over it, and allow the schools to keep their mascots. This latest ban is both stupid and misguided, yet another attempt to sanitize every aspect of our lives, and prevent anyone, anywhere, from being offended by any possible thing.

It's About Time

Well, it certainly does take the media long enough. This should be old news by now, but this is one of the first stories of its kind I've seen:

Insurgency 'hijacked' by terrorists
Washington Post

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The top U.S. military intelligence officer in Iraq says foreign terrorists, long an element of the insurgency, now have essentially commandeered it.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist who leads the al-Qaida in Iraq group, has become the driving force of the insurgency, taking over that leading role from Saddam Hussein's loyalists, said Army Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner.

"I think what you really have here is an insurgency that's been hijacked by a terrorist campaign," Zahner said.

U.S. intelligence, always keen to know the enemy, has long struggled to understand the inner workings of the insurgency, a constantly shifting mix of Iraqi and foreign elements. Zahner's remarks reflect a shift in view among U.S. military commanders since this spring, when violence - especially against civilians - began a dramatic rise.

Even though al-Zarqawi's role has grown, Zahner and other officers stressed that the insurgency remains a complex mixture of factions, not all of which have the same goals.

The "Saddamists," as military reports call them, are now considered less a military threat than a longer-term political danger, because of their desire to return to power and their potential to subvert democracy.

By contrast, al-Zarqawi's group, although its numbers are small in the insurgency, is said to orchestrate a large share of the violence. Its suicide bombings in particular have killed the most and done the most damage to American public support for the war, the U.S. officers say.

U.S. commanders see an opportunity to exploit a split they see between al-Zarqawi's approach of inciting Shiite-Sunni warfare and the main current of Sunni opinion, which appears to favor participation in the politcal process.

On the other hand, intelligence officers have noted such divisions before. So far, the insurgency has suppressed its differences enough to carry on.

President Bush, in recent speeches about the war, also has sought to capitalize on al-Zarqawi's rise within the insurgency by depicting the U.S. effort in Iraq as an essential war against international terrorists, not merely local guerrillas.

Say What?

My university is certainly not typical, meaning it is not this bastion of leftist anti-American preaching, but it does still have some of it. In the school paper, there was recently a story about some anti-war protests that I found rather revealing in terms of what it showed (unintentionaly) about the protesters. Two quotes in particular caught my attention.

The first was from an "international speaker", or something to that effect. And what did he say about the US in Iraq? He feels that the US is hindering democracy there. That's right, the US is hindering democracy. Hello? I believe Saddam was a fairly big democracy inhibitor. This is perhaps the most ludicris thing I have heard, maybe even worse than Cindy Sheehan's "Reich-wing" remark. (Plus all her other bone headed ones). In fact, I don't think I should even have to explain this one. Any rational person can see how blatently moronic the statement is.

The other was by a professor. In effect, he was upset that the anti-war movement wasn't getting enough press. They weren't covering it. This, too, shows considerable detatchment from reality (as does the professor's resume). The anti-war movement is getting press way out of proportion to its influence. Cindy's Sheehan's protest down in Crawford was essentially a media creation, and the AP chronicled her activities in Washington virtually minute by minute. Contrary to not covering the movement, they are in effect creating the movement. They crop pictures so that you don't see that its mostly reports at these protests. Here we have a professor illustrating the absurdity of the movement for all to see.

Democracy is the Key

The democracy in Iraq may not be coming along to the liking of some, but the fact that it is a democracy and it is coming along is in many ways more important.

Despite Bush’s initial insistence on finishing the Iraqi constitution by the deadline, such deadlines are not essential and in many ways may be detrimental. The United States constitution took much time to complete, and considering the situation in Iraq as compared to the situation faced by our founding fathers, a deadline seems rather unwise, if it is necessary. In the end what is really important is that Iraq has a constitution. Meeting the deadlines would be a bonus, and is certainly something to strive for, but an unsatisfactory completion of the document for the sake of the deadline is something no one should want. It will not be a perfect constitution, and may not be satisfactory to most United States observers. However, everything needs to be taken in context.

The role of Islam in the document is drawing some criticism from groups, most notably in terms of women’s rights and their role in society. Such criticism is certainly valid, and the best case scenario would be a secular constitution very liberal in nature, giving women rights similar to those found in the United States and elsewhere. But with these aspirations we must keep something in mind. In our own beloved democracies, women did not get the right to vote until after WWI, and in a few cases such rights did not come until much later. Now, under Islamic law the women would have more restrictions imposed on them than simply no voting rights, but it shows us something nonetheless. Democracies in their inception are rarely perfect. In the United States, the issue of slavery was not resolved, but rather a compromise was eked out in which slavery still existed. The key to democracy is time.

The thing about democracies is that they have a tendency to progress toward what is right. And by “right” I mean freedom, and freedom for everyone, not just a select few. To do as one pleases, to worship as one pleases, to pursue one’s own happiness. But in its initial stages, a perfect free democracy may and probably is too much to hope for. The region’s almost total lack of any kind of democracy throughout its history does not point to a quick and painless transition.

The promising note is that in a democracy, these things have a way of working themselves out. If women truly what rights and responsibilities, they are more likely to get those rights in the lowest form of democracy than in any of the alternatives. Was there any hope for women under Saddam? Is there any hope under any Islamic dictatorship for that matter? No, there is little to none. Under a democracy, however, there is that hope. That is also something we have to consider here. What are the alternatives? When one looks at the other possibilities, some form of democracy looks every bit superior, and in terms of these individual freedoms and rights, it is superior in every way.

When we look at the democratic progress in Iraq, we rightly encourage and hope for one similar to our own. We want women there to have all of the rights that our own women enjoy. We want it to be secular and free from Islamic law. But it may or may not be too much to ask all at once. What is important is that Iraq remains a democracy. More often than not, with a democracy such equality and freedom will come in the future. That is why it is most important to establish some stable democracy in Iraq. So that the Iraqis can look to the future.

Iraq as Vietnam?

From boortz today:

IRAQ NOTHING LIKE VIETNAM

Alleged "Republican" (in name only) Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is wringing his hands again. Never really a supporter of George Bush or the war in Iraq, Hagel has been preaching doom and gloom at every turn and to anyone who will listen. As a matter of fact, he sounds just like a Democrat. Let's take a look at his latest proclamations, shall we?

The good senator says the United States is getting bogged down in Iraq, and the more time that passes, the more the conflict starts to resemble the Vietnam war. Chuck also tells us that the whole effort is doomed to failure, complaining: "The longer we stay in Iraq, the more similarities will start to develop, meaning essentially that we are getting more and more bogged down, taking more and more casualties, more and more heated dissension and debate in the United States." Really...does he mean that everybody has to be on board with the war for it to be successful? There are always people protesting any war.

But we'll play along for a minute here and do the comparison with Vietnam. Here's a brief overview of what we know about the war in Iraq so far:

--The war has been going on for 2 1/2 years.
--The government was overthrown, Saddam Hussein is sitting in prison.
--Control was handed over to the new Iraqi government early, elections were held and a new Constitution is being drawn up.
--We won.
--In 2 1/2 years, there have been just under 2,000 casualties...1,861.
--The war is being fought with an all-volunteer force.

Now, for the sake of comparison, and for the benefit of people like Chuck Hagel whose memory is a bit rusty, here are some Vietnam War facts:

--The conflict lasted, depending on how you look at it, 10-20 years.
--The ultimate result was the fall of South Vietnam to the communists.
--We lost.
--There were some 58,000 casualties.
--The war was fought with the presence of a draft.

Yeah...Iraq is just like Vietnam...not. It's interesting how the pro-appeaser defeatists want to throw in the towel just because some Islamic terrorists don't like democracy and the rule of law.

Hagel as Pres? Don't Bet on It

Chuck Hagel, Senator in my homestate of Nebraska, has decided that troops need to be pulled out of Iraq starting in six months.

Living in Nebraksa, Hagel just makes me sicker and sicker. He seems more and more like a John McCain, wanting reporters and Democrats to love him. He is not in my district, but it is certain I will never vote for him, in any office. There have been rumors of him running for the presidency in 2008. Well, any chance he had of winning it have pretty much faded. I doubt he could even win the party nomination. He's just another John McCain. It looks like he might win, but that's only because of the positive media coverage, which is not reflective of the voters actual feelings. If he is serious about winning another election, he needs to stop the calls for cutting and running, and let things play out. Setting such deadlines is absurd.