The Right State

Spike Lee has a new film coming out, this time a documentary called, “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts.”  Since exploding on the scene 20 years ago, Lee has directed forty different movies all sporting an African-American focus.  But now Mr. Lee has turned his attention and his conspiracy ideas onto the catastrophe when Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans.

Using current and historical footage, music and more than 100 interviews, the film reminds viewers that although Katrina shattered the entire Gulf Coast, New Orleans and its mostly black residents got hit especially hard. Thousands fought to survive deadly floodwaters for days while federal help was slow in coming. Many are left today with a nearly ruined city and broken hearts.

Lee conducted each of the interviews, and viewers occasionally hear him asking questions, but he never steps in front of the camera. There is no narrator telling viewers that New Orleans was abandoned, or that this may have happened because most residents are black. There is no need.  (emphasis added by TRS)

You have got to be kidding me?!  The hurricane did not just pick on one race of people.  There were a whole host of people hurt by this storm including Whites, Hispanics and Blacks.  Nobody seems to remember that one of the first areas flooded was the mostly white area of St. Bernard.  For anyone to even suggest that the federal response was slow because mostly blacks were affected is indeed delusional.

The reasons for the devastation are many.  Nobody was ready for a storm of this magnitude.  Coupled with that was incompetence at all levels of government, with most of the accusations of incompetence has been rightly directed at the city and state levels.  Right Wing Nut House has a comprehensive timeline of the hurricane and its aftermath.

There is nothing wrong with Spike Lee making a documentary on the disaster and devastation in New Orleans, but if he is going to make a documentary, he needs to start with some semblance of the truth.  It is near to the point where you can not trust a documentary anymore.  Michael Moore had his fake story and now Spike has his.

Lee claims he lets the people he interviews tell the story of New Orleans, but only a complete idiot would believe the film maker did not lead the hatred in the movie.  Some talk about how the levees were bombed to kill blacks and others say the feds did nothing to kill many more.  The end result is the same, Spike Lee has directed a fictional movie under the guise of a documentary.

For now, he’s spending little time pondering his 20-year milestone. “What I’m trying to do is just get better,” he said. “Become a better storyteller. That’s what I do.”

Maybe Spike Lee should keep to the storytelling and leave the documentaries to those who can tell the story without bias, who can tell the truth without stretching the truth, who can tell of the remarkable heroism of the people of New Orleans without demeaning their sacrifice.  All in all, it’s the same old Spike, full of hate for white people.

Tags: Movies, Culture by Chuck
1 Comment »

Ouch!  That is just about all anyone can say after Bryan Cunningham of National Review took U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s to task for writing her opinion overturning the warrantless wiretapping case.  How is Bryan Cunningham qualified to question the judge’s decision you may ask?  Cunningham has been in a senior position in the CIA and has served as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush.  Today he is a privacy lawyer in Denver, Colorado.

Cunningham starts by giving Judge Taylor the benefit of the doubt for giving such a stupid ruling by saying she ‘hears the footsteps’ of the evil Bush administration.  But then, he takes her to task for her sloppy legal work.

We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.

Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. I’ll start with this: I wouldn’t accept this utterly unsupported, constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of what’s wrong with Judge Taylor’s opinion.

Cunningham goes on to show that the Judge did not do her homework, failed to look at any evidence, did not understand the wiretapping law, and did not show with any constitutional reason why the warrantless wiretapping program is illegal.

More worrisome still are the judge’s breathtaking mistakes in analyzing the Fourth and First Amendments—errors that would earn our first-year law student an “F.” Here’s one of several examples: The judge asserts that the Fourth Amendment, in all cases, “requires prior warrants for any reasonable search, based upon prior-existing probable cause.” She cites no legal authority whatsoever for this colossal misstatement of the law, because none exists. Instead, there are numerous situations where our courts have found no prior warrant is required, so long as a search is “reasonable.”

And the hits just keep on coming.

Amateur hour? Judge Taylor, a law professor, has been on the bench since 1979. She is decidedly not an amateur. So, how to explain her first-year failing-grade opinion? Regrettably, the only plausible explanation is that she wanted the result she wanted and was willing to ignore and misread vast portions of constitutional law to get there, gambling the lives and security of her fellow Americans in the bargain. (emphasis by TRS)

As I said earlier, ouch!  Many people in America still hold judges in high opinion.  Unfortunately, this view does not take into account Jimmy Carter appointees like Taylor who seem to be able to ruin the whole batch.  Judges are supposed to uphold the law and the Constitution.  When a conflict between the two arises, the Constitution has precedent.  In the case of the warrantless wiretapping program, this Judge Taylor obviously did not need any evidence; she had already made up her mind how she was going to rule, thereby breaking one of the major commandments on the bench.

What is really disturbing is that this judge wants to end a powerful tool used to combat terrorism during wartime.  President Bush has used this tool effectively to keep America safe for the last five years.  And warrantless wiretapping program was instrumental in catching the British airline bombers. Wanting to end such an effective program at keeping America safe defies comprehension….unless you are one of these liberal moonbats who think President Bush is trying to curb all rights.

I can not see any circuit judge letting this ruling stand.  And I particularly don’t see the US Supreme Court letting the ruling stand.  America is at war, these judges need to make sure they are on our side.

Hat tip: BlackFive

Tags: Terrorism, President Bush, Moonbats, Judges, War by Chuck
No Comments »

How is this country ever to survive with these moonbat liberal judges ‘looking out for us?’  They claim to be protecting the Constitution, yet these liberal judges are not adverse to citing European law.  After the New York Times disclosure of the secret warrantless wiretapping, lawyers have been searching for a liberal judge who would go after the evil Bush administration.  The ACLU filled a lawsuit against the government to end the warrantless wiretapping came to an end when Judge Diggs ruled against the government.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

“Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution,” Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

Typical liberal moonbat crap.  BlackFive has a post detailing why this ruling is wrong.  I will not go into that aspect of it since I would essentially be saying the same thing.  But there is one part of this article that I find particularly disturbing.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves secretly listening to conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.

Why do journalists, scholars, and lawyers need to talk to terrorists?  The ACLU who is SUPPOSED to be protecting the Constitution is protecting terrorists from the United States government.  If anything, this ruling lets everyone know just whose side these people are on.  And guess what, its on our side.

There is another thing this article shows: the Democrats are weak….weak…weak on terrorism.  A Democratic judge rules against the President (and the people) on warrantless wiretapping designed to protect the American people from another attack.  The very liberal ACLU (Democrat) sues the United States government on behalf of journalists, scholars, and lawyers to end the very thing which helped find the British bombers.  The journalists (90% Democrats) sued because they ‘have to show impartiality,’ which is nonsense.  These journalists should be Americans first.  And the lawyers (think John Edwards) ….who knows.  They must have sued to make more money.  All of these Democrats want to end one of the most important tools against terrorism the US government has at its disposal.

What is their purpose in ending this important tool?  Power.  It is all about bringing down this President and gaining power for themselves.  They are sacrificing long term security for short term gain.

As I said, the Democrats can NOT be trusted with the security of this country, ever!

Tags: Democrats, Moonbats, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Aren’t the Democrats clever!?  Susan Estrich is one of those who are brilliant at prestidigitation, slight of hand.  Democrats love to attack the President in Congressional elections, Senate elections, and even local elections.  They seem to forget that George W. Bush is the President of the United States and is not running for any other office.  But then when Republicans fight back by targeting the possible future Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, the Dems cry foul.   Estrich’s comments come during the Congressional election between incumbent Republican Charles Taylor and Democrat Heath Shuler of North Carolina.

What Charles Taylor wants to talk about is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

“Rookie Heath Shuler is following the playbook of San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi,” says the announcer in the Taylor ad, as the band plays in the background. “The Pelosi game plan: Elect Heath Shuler and others like him, and take over Congress with the votes of illegal immigrants.”  (snip)

Talking about Pelosi may move the Republican base to contribute, in the same way rants about Ted Kennedy and Hillary do. But that’s not how elections are ultimately won. It’s certainly not what you advertise about for the general public.

If the President is fair game in Congressional, Senate, and local elections, then so is Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and Hillary (I want to be President) Clinton.  If Susan does not believe Pelosi is an issue, then maybe the Minority Leader should go south into North Carolina and campaign for Heath Shuler.  Doing so would be a death sentence for Shuler’s political aspirations and for good reasons.  North Carolina is a very conservative southern state whose people do not like to be lectured by a ‘California liberal.’  This is a state where even the Democrats are fairly conservative.  The very fact that Nancy Pelosi could win the position of House Majority Leader should give many in North Carolina some pause.

Tags: Democrats, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

The Jerusalem Post has not lost hope in Israel’s ability to win their war against Hezbollah, saying Israel needs to win the peace.

President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Syrian President Bashar Assad and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah are all declaring victory. They can’t all be right. Many Israelis and outside observers seem to agree with Assad and Nasrallah that Israel lost.

Yet whether the war was a defeat for Israel depends not just on the war itself, but on who wins the peace. If we - the US, Europe and Israel - give up on the aftermath, defeat is a certainty. But why should we give up?

There is a saying in history, “those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.”  That saying definitely applies to Israel in the aftermath of its war with Hezbollah.  When World War I ended Germany had control of much of Europe as the battle lines had become stagnant.  President Woodrow Wilson promised Germany a fair shake if they stopped fighting.  Not only did the Germans stop fighting, they pulled out of Europe in the belief they would be treated fairly.  Unfortunately the other leaders of Europe did share Wilson’s sentiment.  In fact they wanted to punish Germany for the war.  In the ensuing treaty negotiations, Germany accepted blame for the war and agreed to pay crippling reparations.  It is a widely accepted fact that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the main factors why Adolph Hitler gained power leading up to World War II.  Germany lost the peace in World War I.

If Israel is not careful, they may well lose the peace in Lebanon.  The Jerusalem Post has a good analysis of how Israel is poised on the edge, why pulling out of Lebanon now with no assurances of keeping the peace is wrong.  Why disarming Hezbollah is a must to assuring a lasting peace.  Israel may still win the peace even though the war was lost.

Tags: War by Chuck
No Comments »

Wal-Mart has been the center of much discussion of late, particularly in the Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont as both sides tried to out-Wal-Mart each other.  Lamont accused Lieberman’s of acceptance of a $1000 donation as a good reason not to vote for the incumbent Senator.  Lieberman on the other hand denounced Lamont’s ownership Wal-Mart stock as a reason not to vote for the challenger.  Since when has Wal-Mart become the whipping boy?  Maybe the retail giant attracted the attention of the left by supporting so many issues relating to the right side of politics.

First, WalMart is a ‘Right to Work’ company, an open shop. WalMart sees little need for unions, but neither do employees.

Second, WalMart’s political donations favor the Grand Old Party.

Third, Corporate WalMart is Pro-life.

Fourth, WalMart makes money, lots of money. WalMart sales are the largest in the world at $220 billion, with $7 billion in profits. And liberals and governments want a say in how all this loot is distributed.

Fifth, WalMart is heartless to competitors. It is the All-American retail marketing-machine: big, patriotic, delivering goods to families faster, better, cheaper. And . . .crushing little mom and pop boutiques. Survival of the cheapest, so to say, isn’t pretty. (This is the only Darwinism the Left doesn’t like.)

WalMart has whipped up the perfect storm for the Liberal worldview: generous, pro-life, pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-American.

The left has been relentless in their attacks on the retail giant and with the Presidential Primaries just around the corner, Wal-Mart has decided to go on the offensive.

Wal-Mart Stores is hitting back at some leading Democratic presidential hopefuls who have joined with the company’s critics recently.

The world’s largest retailer announced it is sending out what it terms a “voter education guide” to its 18,000 Iowa employees, criticizing politicians who have recently joined with the union-backed group “Wake Up Wal-Mart” for a series of rallies. Iowa holds the nation’s first presidential caucus, and potential candidates are already visiting the state.

“We believe it’s wrong for these political candidates to attack Wal-Mart and the transformation under way at our company,” the letter said. “We would never suggest to you how to vote, but we have an obligation to tell you when politicians are saying something about your company that isn’t true.”

In Wal-Mart’s letter to its employees, it notes that Presidential wantabes Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Iowa Governor Vilsack of are taking part in some of these anti-Wal-Mart rallies.  Don’t they know that Wal-Mart’s success of is reflection of the American dream and its ideals?  If they were truly honest, very businessman or woman who opens up their very first store would say they dream of one day expanding their business across the world like Wal-Mart.  Most people seem to understand this fact, so why don’t the left wing liberals?

Liberals hate Wal-Mart because of its success.  The company under the tutelage of owner Sam Walton, grew from one store into 6,556 stores with over 2 million employees worldwide as of May 4, 2006.  He succeeded where many failed by offering lower prices and by focusing on the consumer.

There is something these politicians (Democrats) and liberals do not seem to realize, people like Wal-Mart.  Consumers like the variety goods offered by the discount stores, the friendly associates, and even like the low prices.  By attacking everyone’s favorite retail store, these politicians may invoke the wrath of the electorate.  Since the ones attacking are Democrats, the current battle against Wal-Mart will only help Republicans.

Tags: Democrats, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

There was something I learned a long time ago about history, do not start down the path of ‘what if.” Engaging in ‘what if’ is like sitting on a tree limb and sawing off the very same limb. No matter how much speculation is involved, the limb is still missing and the one who sawed off the limb is still in pain and is on the ground. Such speculation is a waste of time, unless you are an ‘off the deep end’ liberal. Then such conjecture is more wishful thinking than true speculation.

John Heilemann is one such individual whose constant daydreaming about what could have been somehow makes it way onto the cluttered pages of New York Magazine. He writes how 9/11 was such a watershed event for this country, how Osama bin Laden was at war with us for ten years before the momentous terrorist attacks, how President Bush was changed by the attacks, and then raises the issue of Iraq, deficit spending, blah, blah, blah. Andrew Sullivan is next and is just a delusional.

As with Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam, history is sure to designate Iraq as the defining feature of Bush’s presidency. But unlike with LBJ—who, if it weren’t for the conflict in Southeast Asia, would be remembered for civil rights and the Great Society—it’s difficult to conceive of what Bush’s legacy would be in the absence of 9/11 and its fallout. Rampant profligacy? Record deficits? Slavish fealty to the rich? Quite possibly, all three. Or perhaps, as historian Douglas Brinkley offers, Bush would have defined his administration by taking up the challenge presented by another disaster, Hurricane Katrina: “Rather than standing on the rubble at ground zero with his bullhorn,” Brinkley says, “Bush would best be known for standing on some waterlogged roof in the Ninth Ward.” Or perhaps he would have gone down to defeat in 2004, a 9/11-free election centering on domestic affairs, in which the Democratic candidate, therefore, wouldn’t have been John Kerry but John Edwards or Dick Gephardt—or Al Gore.

I can feel the spit and venom from here. Down, boy. Good doggy. Come on, John, get a grip. Rampant spending, record deficits, catering to the rich and the disaster during Katrina; where do I start? Just remember two things. First, the President is not the only one who spends the taxpayers money. There are such things as earmarks in which Congress loads all kinds of pork onto spending bills. In fact as we speak, there is spending bill before Congress which is loaded with pork. Wizbang has the scoop.

Congress is considering a bill — the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations measure — that presently contains 1,867 earmarks worth more than a half-billion tax dollars and averaging nearly $268,000 each. This happens to many bill which come before Congress. So the President is not the only one spending the money.

Second, is the problem of the record deficits. John, we are at war! This country was going through a recession. President Bush’s tax cut alleviated much of the sting. Then 9/11 occurred bringing the economy of the US down even further into a recession. And once again, we are at war. Of course there is a deficit, but record deficit? Don’t think so.

Third, is the problem of catering to the rich. Spoken like a true liberal. I am not rich, but even I know that taking money from people who earn it and giving it to the poor encourages both the rich and the poor to work less. If we worked more on giving the poor a hand up instead of a handout, the economy would grow even faster. So who pays the taxes in this country? According to the Tax Foundation, in 2003 the top 50% of wage earners paid 96.54 % of all taxes paid into government coffers. The top 5% paid over 54% of the taxes. And the bottom 50% paid less than 3.5% of the taxes. How can giving tax breaks cater to the rich when they are the ones who are funding the government in the first place? It seems to me that almost 50% of the population pay nothing for government services. Who is catering to whom?

And lastly is catastrophe at New Orleans. When the flooding at New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina was a failure at all levels of government, the largest failures were at the state and city levels. Governor Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin were truly inept at leading during a crisis. Remember the flooded school buses, Mayor Nagin?

The only one who brings up the deficits, spending, New Orleans, and such nonsense are the Bush hating liberals. And they don’t just hate President Bush. They hate Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and the military. These are people who love to hate. Just because they think ill of the President does not mean history will remember him this way.

All in all, the idea of saying ‘what if’ is problematic at best. 9/11 did happen and it changed America. The attacks were a wakeup call for the United States who had been under siege since the early 90s. The problem, we did not recognize the fact that we were already at war. George Bush did not have the best of starts as a President, but he rose to the occasion. And because of his leadership, America rose to the challenge. Engaging in such discussions of ‘what if’ only distracts America from what is really important, winning the war on terror.

Hat tip: Karol Sheinin blogging for Michelle Malkin

Tags: Terrorism, Democrats, President Bush, Moonbats, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

E.J. Dionne has written an article lamenting the self image problem of the Democratic Party, but self-image is only part of a larger problem.

The Democratic Party has a self-image problem.

Talk to Democrats at every level about the strong position the party is in for this fall’s elections and the conversation inevitably ends with a variation of: “Yeah, if we don’t blow it.” Karl Rove’s greatest victory is how much he has spooked Democrats about themselves.

Many Democrats do not like to be identified as Democrats because of all the baggage the moniker carries.  My own US Representative Chet Edwards of Waco does not even mention the word “Democrat” on his official website.  With the latest terror plot involving airlines was thwarted, Democrats have been backtracking on their ‘President Bush is not protecting us’ message.  There is one thing the Democrats can not argue with, the US has not been attacked in five years. Obviously President Bush is doing something right.

Captain Ed  at Captain’s Quarters also notes the problem is of self-image is only a part of the problem.

Karl Rove is not their problem. Their problem is the lack of a Karl Rove.

The Democrats have an image problem, as Dionne writes, but the image problem springs from divisiveness and the lack of any coherent ideological message or policy platform. That divisiveness springs from one main source: Howard Dean. He has spent far too much time railing on about his hatred of “Republicans, and everything they stand for” and not enough time building the kind of relationships with elected party leaders and donors to create a consensus direction for the Democrats. People pointed out this probable result at the time of Dean’s appointment as chairman of the DNC, and apparently no one but the DNC is surprised by the result.

Dean offers voters the same, tired Bush hatred that lost the Democrats three successive national elections, elections they arguably could have won. The DNC hired him to harness the energy of the radical Left that swooned over Dean early in the 2004 electoral cycle and produced $40 million in small-ticket donations. Unfortunately, that segment of the party is the only one that responds to Dean’s hate-ins, and the larger donors have started to turn their backs on the party. Nor has Dean played well in the Democratic sandbox, alienating key elected officials such as Rahm Emanuel, who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The problem with the Democratic Party does not just start at the top with Howard Dean, it is pervasive throughout the Democratic Party structure.  Take the Texas Democratic Party Platform as an example.  President Bush is mentioned twice and the Republican Party is mentioned eighty-seven times.  In the National Democratic Party Platform the Republican Party is mentioned seven times while George Bush is mentioned a whopping thirty-nine times.  This is not a party that stands for something; they are a party who is against.  They are against Republicans, they are against conservatives, and they are against George Bush.  Howard Dean is just the tip of the iceberg merely reiterating the message of the liberal base.

The problem of Democrats is not just an image problem.  And their problem is not just a leadership problem.  Their predicament is more fundamental than that.  The trouble with the Democratic Party is that no one knows what they stand for other than being weak militarily, abortion on demand, high taxes, and governmental intrusion.  But ask any Democrat what they support and they will invariably mention George W. Bush.  They are against, period.

If the Democrats want to win elections, they need to have more than their single issue of George Bush.   Winning elections means standing for something, not just being against everything Republicans stand for.

Tags: Democrats, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

A fragile cease-fire holds over the Middle East following the Israeli-Hezbollah war.  This conflict was different from any of the other conflicts the IDF has been involved in.  From the beginning the IDF and Israeli leadership conducted this war as if they believed it would be as easy as the last time.  There is an old military axiom which states that the losers of the last war learn from it and change tactics; for the winners, it worked last time so it should work again this time.  World War II was conducted in this same fashion.  Germany whom lost WWI changed tactics for WWII.  Trench warfare did not serve them very well so they came up with the ‘Blitzkrieg,’ a fast way of attacking.  The French for their part were content with trench warfare since it worked last time.  As a result the French were quickly overrun by the German war machine.  This war between Israel and Hezbollah is no different.  The terrorists obviously learned from the mistakes of the past as did the rulers of Iran and Syria who supplied them with arms.  As a result the IDF was surprised by the resistance of Hezbollah.  The terrorists have consistently been one step ahead in this conflict.  Israel has not only been one step behind, but have shown an unwillingness to change tactics until the very end.  By then it was too late, Hezbollah had already achieved a moral victory in the Middle East by standing up to the vaunted IDF.

In discussing the war between the two sides, the issue of who won will always creep into the debate.  While not relevant to the discussion of who won, there should be some talk of how each side conducted the war.  Hezbollah for their part were fighting all out in a total war.  They launched rocket barrages on both military and civilian targets indiscriminately.  They wanted to win.  The IDF was fighting a handicap match with one fighting arm and one running leg tied behind them.  The attacks by the Israeli forces were conducted to minimize civilian casualties shown by the dropping of leaflets into the target areas, by calling for civilians on the phone to leave, by stopping a bombing campaign when news of a high number of civilian deaths occurred.  At the same time the Israeli leadership for firm hand on the reins of the IDF, not allowing them to conduct the same type of total war the Hezbollah was conducting.

When discussing who won, it is interesting to see if we are comparing oranges to oranges or apples to oranges, but not necessary.  Whether or not Israeli was in a handicap match is unimportant, whether each side achieved their objectives is.  In comparison this war was much like the American Civil War where the North needed to defeat the South to win while the South only had to not lose.  In Israel’s case they did not achieve their objectives, they did not defeat Hezbollah.  They are weakened but not defeated.  Hezbollah for their part has managed to fight back and remain a force in Southern Lebanon.  So Hezbollah won this latest battle with Israel.  Hopefully Israel has learned their lesson.  The next time, I expect the IDF to go into Lebanon, Iran, Syria or whoever full bore.  I would imagine the next time there will be no debate as to who won.

One of the questions remaining in the aftermath of this war is what has been accomplished?  The short answer is, not much.  Hezbollah is still in southern Lebanon to renew their pursuit of the extinction of Israel.  The Lebanese government has steadfastly denied that they will disarm Hezbollah.  UNIFIL has never kept the peace, nor will they succeed now.  Iran and Syria are still consistently arming their proxies.  All Israel has accomplished is to merely postpone the inevitable.  Eventually Israel will have to take on Iran who has admitted to supplying the terrorists with all their weaponry.  So not much has been accomplished in this war.

Knowing that Iran is the one country who is instigating terror around the world, hopefully the US will have a President who will side with their friends and seek an end to the GWOT by siding with Israel against this terrorist regime.

Tags: Terrorism, Iran, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Saul Singer writing for the Jerusalem Post has an excellent post regarding the democracies and in particular America’s war on terror.  He describes this cycle democracies go through in confronting any evil or dictator bent on world domination.  It is a cycle which has gone through many, many loops over the years.

·  democracies show weakness;

·  dictators are emboldened and attack;

·  democracies respond slowly, insufficiently, or appease;

·  dictators are further emboldened and attack harder;

·  war;

·  democracies win;

·  start over again… 

This trend can be seen in almost every war in which the west has confronted evil: World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and lately the Global War on Terror.  Somehow the west has managed to come together at the last minute to defeat these threats.  One of the problems with fighting this new war is that the United States is not the same country which fought and won both world wars.  We have become divided with the Republicans on one side who are intent on fighting evil and the Democrats on the other who are intent on ‘understanding’ evil.  The Dems were content to ‘understand’ and gave in to communism at every chance from the ‘80s onward.  They felt that if we took the time to reflect on how we were scaring the communists into building stronger and stronger militaries, then both sides would draw down, take their collective fingers off the nuclear triggers and the world would be a safer place.  The Cold War came to an abrupt end because Ronald Reagan went on a military spending spree which the Soviets could not afford.  The Soviet Union ended without a shot being fired between the major powers.  If the Democrats had their way, America would have embarked on reckless disarmament agreements without reciprocation.  This would have made the Cold War last much, much longer.  Republicans confronted evil, the Democrats did not.

The GWOT is no different.  After the 9/11 attacks, the US came together in mutual anger towards those who killed so many of our own people.  Of course the cohesiveness was short lived.  Republicans looked outward while the Democrats engaged in collective navel gazing.  George Bush saw the world for what it was, teetering on the edge of an abyss.  For far too long this country had ignored radical Islam and now we were paying for that oversight with American lives.  President Bush not only went after the terrorists in Afghanistan, but he found other enemies of America who were helping terrorists.  The Democrats on the other hand, were asking themselves what we as a nation had done to engender this hatred towards us.  This self absorption would cost even more American lives.

What President Bush needs to do is to continue fighting against terrorism.  There are those in this country, Democrats, who do not want us to fight, who want us to withdraw inward, to make ourselves safe by not doing things which make others not like us.  The problem is there will always be those who do not like us because we are a rich country. President Bush is fighting and pursuing terrorists even though other countries are trying to hender our advancement.

As the security situation deteriorated, Iraqis made impressive strides toward democracy, for which Americans also deserve credit. If Iran and its vassal, Syria, have failed to derail Iraq’s political progress, they have succeeded in something no less important: derailing America’s prosecution of the global war.

Since 9/11, America had always had an offensive objective. First it was Afghanistan, then it was Iraq. When Saddam was captured, Libya also fell into line, which was a nice bonus for toppling the regime in Iraq. But despite what Bush said on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 - “Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world - and will be confronted” - Iraq became the end, not a step, in a war that had not yet been won.

The US and the entire western world is at war with terrorism.  We were not the only ones attacked by terrorists.  These Islamic radicals are out to destroy the entire western world and place it under an Islamic regime.  The war against global terror is just beginning, not ending.  There are still those like Iran and Syria who are intent on spreading their hate around the world. 

The choice is between Bush returning to lead America and the world now, or waiting for a drumbeat of terror, or a mega-9/11, to restart the American-led campaign to confront jihadist regimes. We cannot avoid the war phase of the grand historic pattern, because the war has already begun, but we can win it before it becomes much more costly.

They must be stopped if the world is going to be a safer place.  At this point we can either continue the assault on terror and the nations who support terror or we can return to our self-absorption.  Navel gazing at this point only makes our necks more exposed to terrorists.  

Tags: Democrats, Terrorism, Iran, History, Politics, War by Chuck
No Comments »