If not global, there's definitely a regional war that needs fighting

Great article from Michael Ledeen here that tries to address the bigger picture of the war on terror. I would hope that there are some things in the works that ordinary citizens like myself and Mr. Ledeen aren't privy to, that are working toward that end.

Finally, a little backbone...

Politics is somewhat of a sport after all. Lets see how this latest game played out:

• Democrats continually beating the "Bush lied, people died" drum in advance of the mid-term elections, with the help of the major (in no way mainstream anymore) media.

• The Administration and other GOPers calling out the Democrats on their previous Clinton era comments on Saddam, WMDs, imminent threats, and so on, their vote to approve military action against him, and exposing the hyprocrisy, with the help of conservative media such as talk radio and the blogosphere.

• Democrats bring up a war hero, Murtha, to act as the mouthpiece to hide behind. He's been wanting to pull out of Iraq for some 18 months now, so at least he's consistent. How can you beat up a genuine war hero saying he wants an 'immediate' withdrawal from Iraq? War hero or no, you certainly can beat up the idea, not the man.

• Republicans call the bluff and request a vote...'Cut and run, or stay 'til we're done'. Dems tried their best to vote down the vote, and failed. Final numbers 403 to 3 to vote down an immediate pullout. Nothing was heard on the voice vote, but 3 Democrats recorded their support for immediate pullout. Six Dems voted 'present'.

• In the aftermath, Dems are now saying there's a world of difference between a withdrawal and immediate pullout. GOPers made it too black-and-white a question. Go look at what representative Murtha said. He said 'immediate'. You guys might want to be careful about which mouthpiece you hide behind next time.

• Score? Well, considering the endless posturing of our elected officials on both sides, I'll grudgingly give points to conservatives for backbone. The real winners? Our military. They finally got a vote of confidence to stay the course.

Ooops, sorry!

The Washington Post just published a story about Bob Woodward and the Valerie Plame blame game. These are excerpts, but I just wanted to paste in some parts of the article. They speak for themselves...OK maybe a little highlighting on my part.

Bob Woodward apologized today to The Washington Post's executive editor for failing to tell him for more than two years that a senior Bush administration official had told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame, even as an investigation of those leaks mushroomed into a national scandal.

"I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

Woodward said the unnamed official told him about Plame "in an offhand, casual manner . . . almost gossip" and that "I didn't attach any great significance to it."

Woodward said he had passed along a tip about Plame to Post reporter Walter Pincus, who was writing about Wilson in June 2003, but Pincus has said he does not recall any such conversation.

Woodward said he could not discuss why he decided to notify Downie about his role in the Plame matter last month. He said Downie had told him that there was "a breakdown in communications, but not a breakdown in trust." Downie said he has told Woodward he must be more communicative about sensitive matters in the future.

In past interviews, Woodward has repeatedly minimized the Fitzgerald probe, telling National Public Radio, for example, that when "all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great." Downie said Woodward had violated the paper's guidelines in some instances by expressing his "personal views."

(sigh)

And then, when you call them on it...

This is part of an exchange between Chris Wallace and Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday...

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."

WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

Now in all fairness, this isn't the totality of his response. Essentially, he argued that he wasn't getting the same level of intelligence that Bush was.

Soooo, how does that explain that he, not Bush, was the one saying the threat was imminent?

WALLACE…and yet you, not the President, said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: Chris, there's always the same conversation. You know it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops.

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren't you responsible for your vote?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

WALLACE: You're not?

You have to love this. ' I'm a senator, and I vote, but I'm not responsible for the votes I cast, especially if it goes against the lie I'm telling you now...'

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect....

OK, so he at least acknowledges that he voted for military action against Saddam, but wants Chris Wallace to get serious about it. I guess there's something more serious than voting to authorize troops in harm's way, or just flat-out disavowing what you yourself said about Saddam as an imminent threat leading up to the war.

Holy moly...

More liars and no one to call them on it

MICHAEL SCHEUER, the first head of the CIA's bin Laden unit in the Clinton Administration made this comment during an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Snowball”(Hardball, it aint…) on 9 November

MATTHEWS: Michael, just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running tyrannically that country of Iraq, right next door to Jordan? Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?

SCHEUER: No doubt about it, sir.

MATTHEWS: No doubt?

SCHEUER: There'd be many more dead--many fewer dead Americans, and we would have many more resources available annihilate al Qaeda, which is what we have to do. Without a doubt, in the war against al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.

Now, it wouldn’t be quite as insane a comment except that Mr. Scheuer actually outlined a number of instances where Saddam was ca-hooting with Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi back in 2002.

Hehehe...just something I found.

COWS
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it amazing that our government can track a cow born in Canada almost three years ago, right to the stall where she sleeps in the state of Washington. And they tracked her calves to their stalls. But they are unable to locate 11 million illegal aliens wandering around our country. Maybe we should give them each a cow.

CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart Guys, it's worked for over 200 years and we're not using it anymore.

COMMANDMENTS
Want to know the real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse? You cannot post "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" and "Thou Shall Not Lie" in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians! It creates a hostile working environment.

Lies and the liars who tell them..

Norman Podhoretz puts the whole 'Bush lied, people died' argument to rest here. Mr. Podhoretz pretty much pulls it all together in one place.

As has been talked up elsewhere, most notably by Bill Bennett, are the most recent revelations about the CIA and secret prisons in Europe. So, where is the outrage about the media revealing classified information? Why aren't we going after the CIA 'leakers'? Maybe its because the liberal media and certain CIA operatives are anti-administration. I guess that doesn't count

We need to stop criminalizing politics and politicizing criminality.

French Riots, Immigration, Mark Steyn, and Teddy Roosevelt

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Steyn has some analysis of what's happening in France that is not only a history lesson, but spot on. Had the French imposed the Teddy Roosevelt model (see below) of assimilation into their society, they wouldn't be having these problems now. Its no wonder now why France couldn't support an invasion of Iraq. But, here's the real problem. It wouldn't have mattered. What matters is showing weakness to these Islamic thugs. If there's no strong, head busting, "you're outta here!" reaction to this kind of behavior, they'll do this again, and worse. It won't be for the sake of freedom that they continue to torch, pillage, and murder. It will be for control of France. We need to also turn attention to our own situation here. If we continue to allow huge numbers of people to come into this country that refuse to assimilate fully to an "American" way of life, including language and culture, the blessings we enjoy as Americans will go up in flames as well.

Teddy Roosevelt was right...

Another Teddy Roosevelt quote:

Hat tip to my B-I-L, Pastor Ed

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Theodore Roosevelt 1907