Monday, December 31, 2007

2007: Year 7 of the long war on terror!

The Power Line blog has this to say about the future:

"The next American president, regardless of party and regardless of his or her views about the wisdom of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, will necessarily make the security of the Persian Gulf states one of America's very highest international priorities." (Why America's in the Gulf)

I'm sorry to break so many liberal (or anti-Bush) hearts. We will be in Iraq and the region for a very long time. The Democrat candidates are not leveling with their supporters about Iraq or the dangers that we face.

There will be a lot of disenchanted liberals when a Democrat tells them that the troops are staying in Iraq a lot longer than they are promising during the Iowa candidate meetings.

Dr Walid Phares is the Director of the Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a Visiting Scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of Future Jihad and TheWar of Ideas.

Over the last few years, we've enjoyed his articles and TV appearances. This weekend, Dr. Phares gave us a taste of reality about this war and what lies ahead:

"The conflict we call the War on Terror still continues at the end of 2007 and all indications are that its battlefields are expected to spread further, and escalate, in the upcoming year. " (2007: A Global Assessment of the Confrontation)

If a Republicans wins in 2008, say Romney or McCain or Guiliani, then they will continue and build on the Bush Doctrine.

If a Democrat wins, say Obama or Clinton, then they will massively disappoint their supporters like the Congressional Democrats have turned off the anti-war movement.

We will be in this global war on terror for some time. Every liberal should take a minute this holiday season and read Mr. Baker's Oh George, what will we do when you’re gone?!

Mexico does not want illegal immigrants, either!

Down in Mexico, the political class has zero tolerance for illegal immigration:

"Mexico detained more than 182,000 undocumented migrants in 2006, mostly from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador en route to the United States." (Mexico to track migrations over border)

Don't get me wrong. I am glad that Mexico is "detaining" people who cross illegally into its territory.

Let's hope that Mexico understands why some of us are also concerned about people walking into the US, too.

Let's agree that 99% of the 182,000 detained are probably good people just looking for a pathway to the land of "dolares".

What about the other 1%? What if they are terrorists or bad people?

Should we run that risk in a post 9-11 world?

What planet are Iowa Dems living in?

We have a bunch of last minute polls coming out of Iowa.

Who knows what will happen on Thursday? I guess that the last minute numbers are leaning toward Romney and the Dems are just too close to call.

My guess is as good as yours because a caucus is totally different than an election. How do you poll likely caucus voters? It must be a challenge. Also, it appears that a lot of people are still thinking about their vote. (Democratic, GOP Voters Still Undecided)

Here is a better question: What planet are Iowa Dems living in?

According to the MSNBC poll:

"Democrats still rank terrorism a very low priority. The survey found 5 percent of Iowa Democrats calling it their top concern, up from 1 percent earlier in the month, but with virtually no change during three nights of poll calls that started the evening before the assassination and continued the next two evenings when news of the murder dominated national media."

Are you kidding me? Iowa Dems will be very disappointed if one of their candidates wins the presidency. Our next president will spend a lot more time on terrorism than anything else.

The biggest story of 2007 was all of those new US babies!

Birth rates were never a factor until recently. In previous generations, young people got married and had 3-4 babies and the next generation did the same thing. It was assumed that everybody would have babies and keep the human race moving forward.

Today, most Western nations are losing their populations dramatically:

"With the exception of France, fertility rates in most industrialized countries have declined significantly, falling below the 2.1 replacement level mentioned above, despite the so called "family friendly" policies such as subsidized day care and government paid leave available in these nations." (Fenig)

So it was good to read that the US is having babies again.

It may turn out to be the most important event of the year! The West can not survive without babies and marriage. We can not sustain our welfare state without lots of babies!

Sunday, December 30, 2007

The 5-way tie for the Republicans!

We have a 5-way tie for the Republican nomination and I'm not surprised.

It won't last but it is interesting. One or two of these five will fizzle after New Hampshire. However, it is very interesting now.

According to Rasmussen's latest national poll:

McCain 17%

Romney 16%

Huckabee 16%

Giuliani 15%

Thompson 12%

Everybody is within the margin of error! Happy New Year!

Pres. Bush was the man of the year

For many people, Gen. Petraeus was the man of the year. I agree with National Review (Man of the Year) and (Gen. David Petraeus, Man of the Year ) by Weekly Standard. Bill O'Reilly was right, too!

Yes! The General and his courageous troops were great. Yet, let's not forget who gave the General the order and took the political heat for doing so.

2007 was a great year for Pres. Bush. He turned Iraq around because he did not read polls. (Barnes: An Astonishing Turnaround on Iraq)

He did it because some Democrats had the courage to change. (Another Convert On Iraq)

He also did it because Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid never got their act together. (Pelosi’s Omni-Defeat) Pelosi and Reid have to live in a reality between facts and the left. They can not win as long as the Dems are being funded by irrational groups like!

Congratulations to the President.

It was a bad year for those who bet against the president, the general and the young people serving in the battlefield:
"Some of George W. Bush's critics seem to have relished the prospect of American defeat and some refuse to acknowledge the success that has been achieved.

But it appears that they have "misunderestimated" him once again, and have "misunderestimated" the competence of the American military and of free peoples working from the bottom up to transform their societies for the better.

It's something to be thankful for as the new year begins." (Lessons From the Surge By Michael Barone)

Dumbest attack of the year: goes after the General!

Angry people often act irrationally. lived up to it when it ran the "Gen Betray us" ad last September. (Tom Bevan of RCP has a great analysis of the ad)

Thankfully, it blew up in their faces. Americans do not like to see military guys get humiliated in public! (23% Approve of Petraeus Ad, 58% Disapprove )

Politicians are one thing. Generals and soldiers are out of bounds! (DEMOCRATS SHOULD CONDEMN MOVEON)

Petraeus is getting very high ratings. The Pelosi-Reid Congress is not!

Today, The Telegraph from the UK wrote this:

"Iraq, whatever the current crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remains the West's biggest foreign policy challenge of this decade, and if he can halt its slide into all-out anarchy, Gen Petraeus may save more than Iraqi lives.

A failed Iraq would not just be a second Vietnam, nor would it just be America's problem.

It would be a symbolic victory for al-Qaeda, a safe haven for jihadists to plot future September 11s and July 7s, and a battleground for a Shia-Sunni struggle that could draw in the entire Middle East.

Our future peace and prosperity depend, in part, on fixing this mess. And, a year ago, few had much hope." (General Petraeus: man with a message of hope)

Saturday, December 29, 2007

The dumbest quote of 2007

And the winner is......Hillary Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton predicted Saturday that just electing her President will cut the price of oil.

When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America's incentive to develop alternative energy.

"I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil," Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA.

"They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede."

Clinton argued that former President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s actually started moving in the right direction toward energy independence, but his successor, Ronald Reagan, "dismantled" that work.

"Because costs were low, people didn't care, didn't complain," she said."

Vote for Hillary and gas prices will drop. What other magic can this lady do?

Does Hillary Clinton really want to get into a debate of the Reagan vs. Carter presidency?

I am not surprised that Hillary Clinton would make a statement like that. What amazes me is that she is going to get 46-48% of the popular vote no matter what!

Memo to Dems: Come to FOX News and you will like it!

For a couple years, and other left wing groups have warned liberals about avoiding FOX News.

It goes like this: FOX is right wing news. They hate liberals.

Actually, a new study destroys all of that. According to The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University:

"Fox News Channel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks."

Of course, this is not news to those who watch FOX. In fact, I have seen more debate on FOX than any other network. On weekends, it seems that there is always a Republican vs Democrat every 30 minutes.

Why won't Senator Obama or Senator Edwards or Senator Clinton go on The O'Reilly Factor? The answer is two fold:

1) O'Reilly will ask them questions, specially questions that they don't want to answer during the primary season;

2) The Dems' left wing base will turn on them. Hillary Clinton can not afford that!

Again, this study indicates that FOX is balanced. Of course, this is not about fair and balanced. This is about and other irrational groups invested in Bush Derangement Syndrome!

My comments on The National Review predictions!

National Review just published some of their predictions. Some of them are funny and good:

1) Mark Steyn will not spend one day in a Canadian jail.

This is good. However, we need to keep an eye on freedom in speech and political correctness in the West. (Islam vs. Free Speech by ) Most people in the West do not understand, or better yet, do not want to understand, the threat that our civilization faces.

2) Maureen Dowd will become readable again because she can write about what she knows, bitchy liberal gossip and backbiting.

How can this woman be readable?

3) Osama bin Laden will be killed. Some famous moron will proclaim that Bush “saved” Bin Laden’s death until the end to boost his “legacy.”

The moron will be Maureen Dowd.

4) The surge in Iraq will be declared a victory, and Republicans will campaign on it November.

Right on! The Democrats, and the media, have gone silent on Iraq. Wonder why?

5) Bush will call for a NATO-led, Iraq-style, surge in Afghanistan.

Very likely. However, will anybody send troops?

As we wrote before, the world loves to talk in terms of UN or multinational operations. Unfortunately, everybody leaves when the "troops sign up sheet" goes around the room.

To be fair, Canada and the UK are great partners in Afghanistan.

France and Germany do not allow their troops to fight.

6) John Edwards will sell his 30,000-square-foot house to an ascendant Al Gore.

It sounds good. It may be turned into an amusement park with rescued polar bears. Eventually, the public will get tired and look for another recreational facility in the Carolinas. Gore will send the bears back to the North Pole and claim that he never had legal jurisdction over the beasts. The house will be foreclosed by one of John Edwards' investment firms and sold at an auction. It will be bought by Karl Rove and renamed "The Park for Democrats who can not win their home states".

7) The Drudge Report will acquire the New York Times.

Very unlikely! However, call your stockbroker and tell him to keep an eye on The NY Times' stock.

8) In a desperate bid to appear warm and likable to prospective voters, Hillary Clinton will become godmother to John Edwards’s alleged love child.

Funny and within the realm of Clintonian strategy!

9) After Hillary's repeated attempts on the campaign trail to claim she was co-president during her husband’s two terms, Gennifer Flowers will run for office in Arkansas claiming to have been co-governor.

Didn't Flowers spend a lot of time in the governor's office and travel with him everywhere?

10) Hollywood writers continue to strike. No one outside Hollywood notices.

It sounds good to me.

11) Michael Yon gets some of the credit he deserves.

This is a very good one. Yon has done great work from Iraq.

12) Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal will sign into law a sweeping school choice program.

The Republicans should use school choice to connect with black and Hispanic parents sending their kids to failing inner city schools.

13) Our culture will continue its downward plunge. Behavior that seemed genuinely shocking when it was first presented on, say, Sex in the City, is now the subplot of everything else, including news specials and crime shows. (Swingers, internet S&M hook-ups leading to death, etc. are discussed in early prime time on major networks.) Nothing big will happen to disrupt the appalling early sexualization of young girls.

I guess that we will get more 16 year old pregnant girls! (How Our Sex-Obsessed Culture is Hurting Young Women By Carol Platt Liebau)

There you have it. The National Review and my comments! Go Cowboys!

My favorite articles of 2007

Over the past year, I kept some of my favorite articles in a special file. Let me share them with you.

1) Oh George, what will we do when you’re gone? by Gerard Baker from the UK.

Yes, Pres. Bush will be back in his Texas ranch in about 12 months but the young men burning cars in Paris are not going anywhere.

As Mr. Baker indicates, Bush-bashing has been a convenient punching bag for a continent in massive denial about the threats it faces.

Europe can not defend itself. Its churches are empty. Birth rates are so low that you won't recognize it in 25 years.

Last, but not least, European leaders have their heads in the sand regarding the threat of Islamic terrorism.

If you think that anti-Americanism is all about Bush and Iraq then read Mr. Kern.

4) The Pope finally got into the global warming debate. (Pope Benedict Calls Out Warming Fanatics)

The Pope had to get into the discussion because a judge in the UK found a lot of mistakes (Al Gore's Convenient Untruths) in the movie.

Year of global cooling did not help VP Gore's agenda either!

It was not a good year for Kyoto fanatics either! (How Effective is the Kyoto Protocol?)

5) It was another year of a corrupt dictatorship in Cuba. We salute Dr. Biscet (A hero in Castro's gulag).

We still do not understand the left's fascination with Che! (Che is the “Patron Saint” of Warfare)

What's next for Cuba in 2008? Is Fidel dead? Where is Raul? (The Cuban people will be the last to know)

6) Back here, the Dems were plain silly with their class warfare. Sometimes, it's hard to distinguish the modern Dem party from European socialists.

Thank God for Dr. Walter Williams (Class warfare chicanery) At least, he gives us the weekly ammunition to attack the latest class warfare chicanery!

7) Thank God for Bill Cosby, too! (Blacks must drop victimhood and reclaim dignity) He made us laugh in the past. Today, he is a voice of reason.

8) Watch for China. They have too many men and not enough women! They are also developing their navy and pushing their weight around! (China's surplus of sons: A geopolitical time bomb)

9) Our culture faces serious challenges. I found this one very interesting. (How Our Sex-Obsessed Culture is Hurting Young Women By Carol Platt Liebau)

10) Wealth and Nations By Alvaro Vargas Llosa reminds us that the US did not cause Latin America's poverty. Unfortunately, it is "home made" by a long line of irresponsible leaders who keep playing the nationalism card at the expense of prosperity.

11) The Dems and demagoguery were in every sentence. (SCHIP Charade) Thank God for the Republicans who stuck with Pres. Bush and killed this mindless entitlement! Pres. Bush increased the SCHIP money substantially. Yet, the DEms were looking to buy votes by offering SCHIP to middle class parents who should buy their own private insurance. I do!

12) The Dems were pathetic on free trade. Now, they hate NAFTA. They are simply pandering to the unions. It is sickening! It is also harmful because free trade has been good for the US! (THE TRUTH ON TRADE)

13) The Dems can not stop pandering to the unions, part two! Again, it is sad to see Dems stick with the teachers' unions at the expense of poor kids in inner city schools! (Teacher Unions' Gain Is Children's Loss By Michael Barone) Our school districts are in desperate need of competition (Schoolhouse Rock) but the Dems are in the pockets of the teachers' unions.

14) What can we learn from Spain and terrorism? Spanish troops are out of Iraq but terrorism is alive and well in the land of my grandparents. Also, it's tough to convict terrorists in civilian courts. (The Failed Madrid Verdicts--Why counterterrorism trials won't work in ordinary courts)

That's enough. It was a good year to post and to blog!

Senator Harry Reid was an embarrasment in 2007!

Senator Harry Reid is a weird guy. I can't believe that the Dems are very happy with him either!

In 2007, Harry Reid was the biggest embarassment in Washington. The Democrats hate him because he couldn't muster a vote against the war.

Here are two examples of foolish Reid:

Friday, December 28, 2007

Friday's show: A chat about GOOOH!

Today, we spoke with Bogdan Odulinski, one of the co-founders of GOOOH (pronounced “go”).

We discussed the future of politics. Enjoy it!

Pakistan's nuclear weapons

Pakistan has been unstable for a long time. What's the big deal now? Why should we worry about a nation far away? The answer is nuclear weapons.

Commentary has a great post today:

"The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a terrible tragedy. It is also a strategic nightmare for the United States and much of the world.

Estimates vary, but Pakistan is believed to possess an arsenal consisting of perhaps as many as 120 nuclear weapons.

Its population is riddled with Islamic fundamentalists and supporters of the Taliban and of al Qaeda, the very forces who are claiming credit for carrying out this brutal killing.

These radicals are said to have links to Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI." (Let’s Keep Our Eye on the (Nuclear) Ball)

Are these weapons under control? The answer is yes, although you are never 100% sure.

The world is a very nasty place. Don Surber has a great post on this point! (Taranto said it best)

Madame Bhutto's assassination has put seriousness back in our presidential campaign. Let's hope that it has the same impact on the West. As I have mentioned before, the West is in serious denial about the threats that we face.

A good one from Theo Caldwell in Canada!

Theo Caldwell just published this north of the border:

"While we do not yet know who the Democrat and Republican nominees will be, any combination of the leading candidates from either party will make for the most obvious choice put to American voters in a generation.

To wit, none of the Democrats has any business being president."

Thank you Mr. Caldwell.

Today's Democrats have so little in common with the faces on the wall, say FDR, Truman, Wilson, JFK, LBJ or even Humphrey. Sadly, today's Dems would not nominate any of these guys! Look at Liebermann. He has more in common with the old "liberal on domestic issues" and tough "national security" candidates that the Dems used to nominate. It must be sad for old Dems to watch what Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi have done to their party.

Hillary Clinton claims that she is prepared because she travelled around with Pres. Clinton. I'm sure that some of that is true. However, has Hillary Clinton actually run anything? a department? an agency? a business? Like the cartoon above, would you want the surgeon's wife to operate on you because she spent years with him?

John Edwards claims the compassionate mantle. Again, what executive experience does he have? Edwards could not even deliver his home state to the party in '04! He won't in '08 either!

Barrack Obama is the liberal fancy because he opposed the war in 2002 during some interview on Illinois public TV. Beyond that, what has this guy done? Is that what this is about? Go out and find someone who speaks pretty and opposed the war?

The Constitution does not require a specific resume. However, we face some serious challenges at home and abroad. It's hard to see how Clinton, Edwards or Obama have the preparation to walk into The Oval Office.

The US presidency is a serious business, as we have learned in Pakistan. Do you seriously want to "pass" the nuclear codes to one of these three? I don't think so!

Phil Rizzuto and some of the others we lost in 2007

In 2007, we lost our share of heroes and good people.

Let me start with Phil Rizzuto, the great Yankee shortstop who played with Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. He was one of 12 Yankees who played in 5 consecutive World Series titles, 1949-53. I never saw Rizzuto play but he was great on the field and later as TV announcer. For my dad's generation, he was a great star on the field. For my generation, he was a great TV announcer.

We closed the year with a shocker from Pakistan:

"Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a gun and bomb attack."

The Middle East is in desperate need of reform. Bhutto was a voice of reform. It's a shame to see this happen!

We lost E. Howard Hunt, who was one of the players in the Watergate drama;

Thomas F. Eagleton, who was selected and deselected for VP by Democrat nominee Sen. McGovern in 1972. In the end, Eagleton got a bum rap but life is not fair;

Bowie Kuhn, who led major league baseball during the chaotic early days of free agency. Unfortunately, free agency and the baseball union have killed the role of the commissioner;

Eddie Robinson, great coach and inspiration for a lot of young people;

Boris N. Yeltsin, the man who had the guts to get on top of a tank and challenge the Kremlin. He wasn't perfect but he had courage;

David Halberstam, great political author and baseball fan. I love 1964 a book about the end of the "Mantle-Berra-Ford" Yankee dynasty. He also wrote The summer of 1949, another book about the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry;

Clete Boyer, the least known player in the great Yankee teams of the early 1960's. His brother, Ken, was the 1964 NL MVP.

Ruth Bell Graham, the wonderful Mrs. Graham. She played a vital role in Billy Graham's ministry;

Lady Bird Johnson, a wonderful First Lady;

Bill Walsh, great 49ers coach and one of the nicest guys in NFL history. He clearly ranks with Lombardi, Landry and some of the other great coaches;

Michael Deaver, the great strategist. He was one of Pres. Reagan's best advisers;

Luciano Pavarotti, the great tenor. What else can you say?

Paul W. Tibbets Jr., military pilot. This is the man who flew the B-29 that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima;

Henry J. Hyde, one of my all-time favorite Republicans!

Hank Bauer, another Yankee from the Casey Stengel teams that won so many pennants in the 1950s. In 1966, he managed the young Orioles to a shocking sweep of the veteran Dodgers in the World Series.

Time passes and good people move on. We will miss most of them. I do think that Butto's assassination will have a drastic impact in Pakistan and the region.

We live in a post 9-11 world and Bhutto's killing reminds us once again! The brutal suicide bomber is not going away anytime soon! Unfortunately, the suicide bomber will be back for 2008!

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Arizona is an interesting immigration case study!

For years, some of us have been saying "enforce the law"! There is no need to deport millions. Just enforce the law and make it very unprofitable to hire an illegal immigrant.

Oklahoma and Arizona have done it. Their state legislatures have passed very strict laws to end illegal immigration.

The results are very interesting, specially because Arizona has a border with Mexico:

"There is no tally of the number of illegal immigrants who have already left the United States, many of whom simply head south over the border with their belongings packed into a car during the annual Christmas exodus, or board scheduled flights for other destinations.

Mexican consular sources in Phoenix say they are seeing a spike in the number of immigrants applying for Mexican citizenship for their U.S.-born children, which will allow them to enroll in schools in Mexico.

They are also seeing a rise in requests for papers enabling families to carry household belongings back to Mexico, free of import duties." (Illegal immigrants "self deport" as woes mount)

For years, we have said that illegal immigrants are rational people. They come because they can find work at $6 an hour and send "remesas" to their families.

Therefore, they will leave when no one hires them! They are not going to sit around unemployed in the US!

By the way, Allan Wall wrote a couple of years ago that most of them left jobs in Mexico to come here! See his article!

They come here to look for a better life not necessarily a job!

Wouldn't it make more sense to demand that "better life" from Mexico's politicians? Wouldn't it better for Mexico to be a more attractive place for Mexicans?

Arizona and Oklahoma are showing us that we don't need buses or policemen dragging people out of their homes. All we have to do is to enforce the law and the illegals will go home. (No Buses Necessary)

What happens next? The employers should go through the legal process of bringing workers into the US, or a work visa of some type. You can read more about these options here.

I would support increasing the number of "guest worker" visas in selected industries, such as agriculture or low skilled manufacturing.

I love immigrants. I want to give them the opportunity to come here legally. I just don't want the chaotic consequences of illegal immigration. Also, sending people north has become an easy excuse for Mexico's politicians to avoid the tough and very difficult structural changes (i.e. energy) that Mexico must make to attract foreign investment (i.e. jobs).

Of course, a work visa costs money and most employers won't do it as long as they have the option of "hiring" someone illegally and keep them "off books".

What happens to those employers who don't want to pay the money and bring workers legally into the US? There are three options:

1) Close their businesses operating on "illegal cheap labor" and do something else. We have the world's largest economy (US$ 15 trillion GDP) so there are lots of other legal opportunities available;

2) Increase wages and attract legal US workers. We have a 4.7% unemployment rate, or the lowest in the industrialized world. Workers are in full demand but they can be found if you are willing to respect them with a competitive wage; or

3) Move manufacturing operations to Mexico and hire Mexicans legally south of the border. I'm sure that there are lots of firms in Mexico willing to show how you can do that!

All 3 options are better than having 10-12 million, and employers, violating US laws.

The world needs a strong US president!

It's interesting to hear what Romney, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani said about today's unfortunate news from Pakistan. These statements reflect the seriousness and depth of the Republican candidates.

The world is a nasty place. This is not the time for a poll reader named Hillary Clinton, an empty suit named John Edwards and a cute guest on Oprah named Barrack Obama.

We need a strong leader who understands the world! (Pakistan Nuclear Weapons at Play) Also, we need a president who will defend US interests!

The suicide bomber brings reality back to Iowa and NH!

For several weeks, the Dems have been living in the false nostalgia of the 1990s, the so called decade of "peace and prosperity".

To be fair, the 1997-99 boom was good but it ended with the stock market crash of March 2000. In other words, Gore or Bush would have inherited the Clinton recession!

The "peace" argument is a joke. We lived in peace in the 1990s because we chose to overlook the rats that were living in the house. Clinton looked the other way hoping that the rats would go to another house. Unfortunately, they didn't! Just read the 9-11 report!

Today, a suicide bomber in Pakistan reminded us that the world is a very nasty place:

"The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire.

It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists.

This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on.

This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.

American politics would dearly love to take a holiday from history, just as it did in the 1990s. But our enemies are not going to allow us to do so.

The murder of Bhutto moves foreign policy, the war on terror, and the threat of Islamofascism back into the center of the 2008 campaign.

How candidates respond to it, and issues like it that will come up in the next 10 months, will determine whether they are fit for the presidency." (John Podhoretz)

My guess is that our next president is going to be spending a lot more time fighting terrorism than providing us with universal health care or some other fantasy from the liberal mind.

This is why experience matters in presidential elections. (Bhutto killing rocks '08 trail) In the end, the US public will walk into the booth with a question:

Who is going to protect me, and my family, from these fanatics who blow up rallies and buildings?

The answer, as it has been for much of the last 40 years, will be the guy with an (R) next to his name. The Republicans have won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections and national security is the biggest reason.

Iraq, the charts and a little historical perspective!

The guys at Power Line have lots of charts about Progress In Iraq:

"You'd almost think the guy who devised and implemented the strategy should be the Man of the Year."

Of course, Iraq is more than charts or putting the general's face on TIME magazine.

It is about the Iraqi people who are clearly moving over to our side and coming together.

Bruce Gilley is an assistant professor of political studies at Queen's University. He wrote In Iraq's success, Bush's vindication:

"Iraq's democracy may be failing some congressional benchmarks, but it is succeeding beyond appropriate expectations that account for Iraq's cruel legacies, its income level, and its short lifespan."

In previous posts, we have supported the Iraq War because it was in the national interest of the US. Iraq is a battle in the war on terror.

Like any other war, this conflict had its tough moments, i.e. the winter of 1863 for Lincoln or the spring of '44 for FDR.

For Bush, it was 2006 when sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq. 2007 was a turnaround year, as the charts and graphs clearly show.

However, there is no magic bullet to fix Iraq anymore than there was to fix the nations of Europe after WW2.

Christmas Eve, 1947 by Donald F. Burton recalls a winter 60 years ago when Germany was recovering from WW2.

In 1946, LIFE Magazine ran a cover entitled Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe! Pres. Truman lost the House and Senate in the 1946 mid-term elections because the post-war brought serious challenges abroad and at home!

Like Lincoln or FDR-Truman, Bush did not quit and kept looking for victory. Bush deserves a lot of credit for keeping his eye on the goal. (The Resolute President)

We are not quite finished in Iraq. Yet, we are headed in the right direction and a little more patience, and historical perspective, is needed.

It would help if some Dems would stop playing politics, too! (Heads in the Sand on Iraq Progress)

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

The media and the truth about Iraq

For some time, many of us have complained about the negative coverage of the Iraq War.

Let me be clear. I am not afraid of bad news or hearing about mistakes. What bothers me is that the media was grossly unfair on its coverage of this war.

Rick is right:

"This is why bloggers and independent embeds must continue to do the reporting the MSM refuses to do. At least, the full story of what is going on in Iraq will be available somewhere."

"Will the American media report this? It occurred five days ago; the military put out a press release on it yesterday.

A Google search on Rawaniyah shows only a few hits from blogs.

It's not too late for journalists in Iraq or their editors here in the US to report on a hopeful sign of ground-up reconciliation in the Iraqi capital.

That is, if they have any interest in providing the same level of reporting for success and peace as they did for sectarian violence."

This is why we read blogs and check for alternative news sources. Unfortunately, we can not rely on the media to tell us what's going on over there!

P.S. Here is some good news! O'Reilly is killing anti-Bush wacko Obermann nightly! This is good news because O'Reilly has been a lot more honest about his war coverage than Obermann.

McCain's character is shining through

The latest poll has McCain leading Clinton, 49-43.

Polls are polls and you don't want to get too excited about them so far in advance.

However, this is the part of the poll that is most important:

"The Senator from Arizona is currently viewed favorably by 55% of the nation’s voters.

That’s the most positive rating of any Presidential candidate in either party (see ratings and other key stats for all Republican and Democratic candidates).

McCain also has the lowest level of core opposition among the leading candidates—just 33% of voters say they will definitely vote against him if he is on the ballot."

How can this be? Doesn't Senator McCain support the war? Isn't he Pres. Bush's biggest ally in this war?

The answer is that McCain is a strong leader who does not read polls.

Aren't those wonderful presidential traits? I think so!




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog