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

THE FOX AND THE HEN HOUSE

In searching for a solution to the ongoing hostilities in Iraq, we've had our friends on the Left squawking for "a new direction". Of course, they offer little in the way of actual suggestions. Among the most laughable was Jack Murtha saying he didn't want to cut and run, but to redeploy the troops somewhere in the region, somewhere like Okinawa.

Recently, we've had the Iraq Study Group, led by known multi-lateralist James Baker. True to form in Washington DC, the ostensibly secret meetings leaked like a sieve. One suggestion leaked was that the US seek the aid of Iran and Syria in quelling the violence in Iraq.

Probably to derail such a US effort, Iran and Syria made overtures to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to work on ways to secure Iraq's security.

Question: Why isn't this like Adolph Hitler making overtures to the Polish government to help them from their attempted rescue by the Allies?

If there is any doubt that Iran and Syria are the last countries to ask for help in Iraq, let's just look at how they are helping Lebanon. Hezbollah has rearmed and is stronger than ever, thanks to the Bush Administration pressuring Israel to a ceasefire before the irregular wing of the Iranian Army was destroyed. One after one, each and every politician in Lebanon who is opposed to Syrian influence is assassinated, most recently Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel yesterday.

Oh, and let's not forget a moment that Iran runs Syria which has been funding, manning, and arming the Sunni insurgency. And while we're at it, let's not forget that Iran also runs the Shiite militias that have been running roughshod over the Iraqi body politic.

Iran, it seems, has been playing both sides against the middle in Iraq ever since the fall of Saddam. Iran is the source of almost all the IED's that have been plaguing our troops. They have been helping to ship in foreign fighters for the cause of jihad.

So why would the Iraq Study Group want to invest so much hope in Iran? Recall, James Baker was the same guy who helped shape Bush the Elder's policy vis a vis Iraq back in 1991. Those guys thought it would be best for all involved to leave Saddam Hussein in power. They had as much faith in America's ability to lead the world as, well... as Democrats.

As for al Maliki, can we question his decision? Intellectually, I suppose we can. But in actual practice? He was duly elected by his people to lead his nation and who he talks to is really up to him. Personally, I wish he wouldn't. But I am not an Iraqi, so I don't have a say.

However, here in America, we have to look at these multilateralists and ask: What's wrong with you?

In 2004, we had John Kerry talking about "passing the global test" and embracing France, a country that wouldn't help us get Hitler out of Paris, let alone Saddam out of Baghdad. Now we have folks urging us to pull out of Iraq so that the terrorrists will like us like they did before we elected George Bush the Younger. We have American radical groups founded by noted Marxists and staffed by the grandchildren of convicted and executed Soviet spies suing in Germany to have our Secretary of Defense charged with war crimes. And Charlie Rangel wants the draft to stop war and get cheap labor for the Nanny State.

And still, the limp spined cry out for an international consensus before America does anything. We are now to be "citizens of the world", and forsake loyalty to the country that the rest of humanity wishes it could live in or be like.

At the risk of repeating my essay on First Principals, let me remind you, Faithful Readers, that America is the one country that does, and has done, more than all other nations combined throughout the entire history of the world to better the lot of all mankind. We feed more people. We have allowed more folks to achieve a degree of Liberty heretofore unheard of. We have deposed more tyrants than any other nation in history.

In short, America is the one force for good in this world that can be relied upon to actually succeed. And where we have failed? It was merely a loss of will. We gave up, plain and simple, in Viet Nam.

And the Democrats want us to give up again in Iraq. They want to relive their glory days, when the attended protest marches, unbathed, and "stuck it to the man, man!"

They simply do not believe that America is, in fact, a force for good. When Liberals are asked

if it is good that Saddam Hussein is no longer torturing, raping and executing his people, many actually say "No! Iraq was better off under Saddam". Those are the rare brutally honest Liberals. Most hem and haw and try to change the subject.

If Iraq wants to have Iranian/Syrian help with the insurgency, then there is little the US can do about it. We went there to give the people of Iraq control of their country and this is a decision of their own elected officials.

But I will say that this is a terrible idea. It is putting the fox in charge of the hen house, nothing less.

Copyright November 22nd, 2006