CAN'T TAKE THE LEFT SERIOUSLY ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Well, we once again have General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Although the Democrats have toned down their rhetoric somewhat -- telling MoveOn.org not to run any "General Betray-us" ads and not stating outright that they think the good General is a liar -- they left little doubt on this, the first day of hearings, that the Left simply cannot be taken seriously on matters of national security.

The New York Times piece on the matter provides the quotes from the various Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination. Clearly, neither of them is ready for prime time.

Hillary, the lovely and talented wife of the priapic Bill, cited what The Times calls "sluggish political progress and a questionable recent Iraqi military campaign in Basra" to make the dubious point that the surge, ably led by Gen. Petraeus, wasn't working. Said the would-be Madame President, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Right! We aren't getting any results. Check your sources, Hillary. Violence all over Iraq has gone down. The Iraqi government has come up with oil revenue sharing plans. Sunnis, once given the cold shoulder in the Shiite majority government, are now taking their places in the government and the military with outstanding results. Oh, and that mission in Basra? Much has been made about the 1000 Iraqi deserters, but no mention of the 96% or more who stayed and fought bravely.

Just a little historical reminder: the Iraqis are trying to do what our Founding Fathers did when they formed our government. They are doing it under fire from outsiders (al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria) and they are doing it in a part of the world that hasn't seen anything like representative government in its entire history, until the founding of Israel in 1948. More importantly, they are doing it faster than our Founding Fathers. If this is failure, than we need far more of it in the world.

Speaking of Iran, none of the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee seemed at all interested in Gen. Petraeus' account of Iranian interference in Iraq, principally among the Shiite militias, but also through their puppet, Syria, which is arming and aiding al Qaeda and other Sunni fighters. It's not as if Iran doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the Democrats get their way, Iran will be left in control of Iraq, whether the Sunnis or the Shiites win out. Either way, they'll be dancing to Tehran's tune.

Which, of course, brings us to the Saintly One, Barak Obama, who spent his time in the limelight on the Committee to restate his view that the Iraq war was a “massive strategic blunder.” OK, so what do we do now, other than turn tail and run?

Elsewhere, Saint Obama has called for direct talks, a "diplomatic surge" he called it, with Iran, saying that "I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that." He also wants to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to self governance by pulling American troops out. Said His Holiness: "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

Did someone say, "Neville Chamberlain"? Saint Obama seems to think that if we just sit down with the mullah-tocracy of Iran and send our troops home from Iraq, all will be suddenly right in the world! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? We are talking about Islamo-fascists. Iran has made countless deals with the West. They've gotten concession after concession. And every one of those deals they have violated. So Saint Obama wants to talk some more? Let me know how that one works out!

While Saint Obama is making his pitch for a "diplomatic surge", it seems that Iran has been honoring past agreements about their nuclear program by announcing the completion of 6,000 new centrifuges to make even more fuel for a power program and, more likely, weapons use. This thanks to the outstanding (well, maybe not) efforts of the UN and the European Community, which has been trying to get Iran to stop.

Clearly, Saint Obama is not at all mature enough, nor knowledgeable enough, to take the helm of this great nation. Negotiating with Islamo-fascists is every bit as futile as negotiating with Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. It's worse than futile. It lets our leaders slap themselves on the back for a job well done, while the real enemy laughs at our naivete and goes about the business of fascists everywhere: total global domination.

Which, by the way, is also the ultimate goal of Islam itself. On this matter, I don't think that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats. It annoys me to no end when President Bush says that the Islamic terrorists have hijacked a "great religion of peace". Even a casual perusal of the Qu'ran will show you how uninformed that is.

That being said, at least the Bush administration has taken this fight back to the enemy in their lands, rather than here in the United States. Whatever their weaknesses, the Republicans, especially the Conservatives, are far and beyond superior to the Democrats and the Left when it comes to national security.

Let's not forget that, until 9/11/2001, we were getting hit by Islamo-fascists at least once every other year. The Clinton years are especially illustrative. The absolute most that the Clintonistas did against al Qaeda was to fire a few cruise missiles. Even then, they tipped them off by warning Pakistan. Worse, they picked the day the priapic Bill Clinton was waiting to see if he had truly suborned Monica Lewinski's perjury before the grand jury. Other than those less than useless pinpricks, he did nothing!

On the other hand, the case can be made, based upon the afore mentioned statistics, that the Bush policies have actually made Americans safer. After all, how many attacks have we experienced since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

Let me count... Oh! We haven't had any! Yet the Democrats still insist that President Bush has made us less safe than we were in the 1990's.

This is why the Left and the Democrats cannot be taken seriously on national security.

They really don't get it!

Copyright April 8th, 2008

WE'RE WINNING! WE'RE LOSING! I'M SO CONFUSED!

If you're confused also, you're not alone. Trolling through the Internet for newsworthy items to comment upon, I found two headlines on The Drudge Report right next to each other. The first, from The Politico said "Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure' ". The second, from the British Times Online said just the opposite: "Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'".

So which is the truth and which is the lie? Well, according to Montag's Immutable Law of Nature No. 6 ("What's good for America is bad for the Democrats and vice versa") it would have to be Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker of the House.

Oh, to be sure, Ms. Pelosi made a point of praising out troops in Iraq. “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.” After all, the Democrats' canards have always included "But we support the troops!"

So, if the troops have succeeded, where is the failure? The Politico tells us that Ms. Pelosi explains: “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq. They have not done that.”

Don't worry, folks! I'm as confused as you are! The troops have succeeded, but they have failed? That's sort of like John Kerry: "I actually voted for the $87 billion -- before I voted against it." Will the Legacy Media rush to Pelosi's defense and say that she, like Kerry, are too nuanced and intelligent for us mere mortals to understand?

The simple fact is, today's Democratic Party is owned -- lock, stock and barrel -- by the Kook Fringe. These are the lunatics who are still fighting over the 2000 election and how it was "stolen" from Al Gore. Many of them even think the 2004 election was stolen from Kerry. These are the guys who tell us it was all a war for oil, while the price keeps shooting through the roof. They are also those freaks who frequent web sites like 9/11 Truth and such. And if a Democrat dares to be sane? Well, look what happened to Joe Leiberman. The Kook Fringe Base will try to destroy him.

Pelosi goes on at length, denigrating the achievements we have made in Iraq. When asked by Wolf Blitzer (the report was about a CNN interview) if she wasn't worried about losing any ground gained by the surge, she replied:

“There haven't been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well."

People, you can't make this stuff up! The troops have succeeded, but Iraq hasn't had the reconcilliation that Ms. Pelosi wants. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has no provision for the Speaker of the House to handle foreign policy, right? I mean, that's an Executive Branch responsibility, isn't it? I thought so.

And hasn't General David Petraeus reported, in an interview with Reuters, that the influx of foreign jihadists entering Iraq is down some 50%? And this is a failure how?

Could Iraq be doing better in the political sphere? I'm sure they could. But they just elected their own government, and they've got an awful lot on their plate. After all, the Founding Fathers didn't just conjur up a government immediately after the Revolutionary War. It takes time to build the institutions that make up a government.

And wasn't it only a couple of years ago that the Left was accusing the United States of creating a puppet government in Iraq? If it's a puppet government, then why can't the President just order the reconcilliation expected by Nancy Pelosi?

No, the Iraqis are governing themselves, and any reconcilliation or political reforms will be on their terms, not Nancy Pelosi's. But then when haven't the Democrats want things both ways?

Meanwhile, we have to go to Britain's Time Online to find out that captured documents and letters from Al Qaeda in Iraq show that the terrorist organization is crumbling and in disarray, thanks to the surge in American troops and the wholesale defection of Sunni tribal leaders who have decided to join the Americans and the Iraqi government in fighting the insurgents.

Correct me once again, but, if the Sunni tribal leaders are joining the Iraqi government, isn't that reconcilliation? What in the world is Nancy Pelosi talking about?

Well, don't expect Ms. Pelosi or Hillary or Barak to get any tough questions about American successes in Iraq. After all, we had to go to a British paper to find out about them. Haven't you noticed how Iraq has dropped from the Legay Media's coverage of the news? Sure! I know that "if it bleeds it leads" and all that. But let's not forget the political ripples good news such as this can create.

The Legacy Media is -- let's face it -- in the tank with the Democratic Party. L. Brent Bozzell and others have long ago documented their Liberal bias. It is an established fact. And since the Legacy Media is in bed with the Democrats, then you just know that any news that's good for America will be buried and/or ignored. So you can guarantee that the leaders of the Democratic Party won't get any serious questions about out successes in Iraq.

But then, that's what the New Media is all about. I'm talking about talk radio, places like the Drudge Report and Montag's World, the little blog that could!

Don't think that we'll let this happy nonsense slide by unremarked!

Copyright Feb. 11th, 2008